Assisted suicide for the terminally ill

by **bill** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:16 pm

"A CONTROVERSIAL doctor who gives tips on how people can end their own lives is to host a workshop in Glasgow on euthanasia next weekend.

As many as 20 people have signed up to the event hosted by Dr Philip Nitschke to be held in the Unitarian Church on Sauchiehall Street.

It is understood the Australian medic will show a video on using a gas-filled bag to die and will give advice on buying illegal barbiturates from Mexico."

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/MSP-3 ... 5230968.jp

by **£3.73** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:24 pm

daftdog wrote: I would even want to see an independent body to witness the whole procedure, to ensure that the system isn't abused.

Daftdog, more buerocracy ?

Just for arguments sake, what is classed as abuse ?

If you are literally being asset stripped of your home, savings & worldly goods to pay for "care", then surely the state has an interest in keeping you alive.
If on the other hand you have no assets or worldly goods, and the state is footing the bill, then presumably there would be less of an interest.

Similarly, the pharmacutical industry doesn't want you dead (or cured) ... as long as you are on courses of medication, you are a valued customer.

Would any "judgement" really be impartial ?

Surely this isn't about regulation. It's about dying with dignity. (prosecution free)

by **Coxy** » Tue May 05, 2009 11:27 pm

A very touchy subject and i do agree with having your own choice.

I have told my wife i want it to end if i get to the stage of being unable to do anything for myself. (im saying this at 42 years old) I dont know how i'll feel at "god willing", 82.

But I have to say, Probably the most uncomfortable thought for me, is my family having to make this decision if i am unable :!:

Even if i have given it in wrighting

by **daftdog** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:57 pm

£3.73 wrote:
daftdog wrote: I would even want to see an independent body to witness the whole procedure, to ensure that the system isn't abused.

Daftdog, more buerocracy ?

Just for arguments sake, what is classed as abuse ?

If you are literally being asset stripped of your home, savings & worldly goods to pay for "care", then surely the state has an interest in keeping you alive.
If on the other hand you have no assets or worldly goods, and the state is footing the bill, then presumably there would be less of an interest.

Similarly, the pharmacutical industry doesn't want you dead (or cured) ... as long as you are on courses of medication, you are a valued customer.

Would any "judgement" really be impartial ?

Surely this isn't about regulation. It's about dying with dignity. (prosecution free)

Its not bureaucracy to have some sort of body to make sure that the person who "wishes" to end their life, does in fact want that. Lets face it, people try and bump off relatives when they are not terminally ill, so what's to stop them doing it to someone who is terminally ill and can't tell anyone they wish to die naturally. Without regulation it would be murder with dignity.

The terminally ill person needs protection, and an independent body is the best option to protect them.

by **bill** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:23 pm

Coxy wrote:A very touchy subject and i do agree with having your own choice.

I have told my wife i want it to end if i get to the stage of being unable to do anything for myself. (im saying this at 42 years old) I dont know how i'll feel at "god willing", 82.

But I have to say, Probably the most uncomfortable thought for me, is my family having to make this decision if i am unable

Even if i have given it in wrighting

A Living Will (legally referred to as an Advance Decision in England and an Advance Directive in Scotland)is already freely available.

by **£3.73** » Wed May 06, 2009 8:07 pm

see, that makes more sense to me Bill. Much along the lines of organ donor cards or pre-nuptial agreements.

My arguments above were solely for the purpose of questioning if there really is such a thing as an "impartial" way of doing things. It really isn't all that cut & dried, there must be hundreds of argument for & against.

Also, back in the real world it would doubtless be a red tape nightmare, surely the last thing that anyone's looking for given those circumstances.

by **daftdog** » Fri May 08, 2009 11:26 am

£3.73 wrote:see, that makes more sense to me Bill. Much along the lines of organ donor cards or pre-nuptial agreements.

My arguments above were solely for the purpose of questioning if there really is such a thing as an "impartial" way of doing things. It really isn't all that cut & dried, there must be hundreds of argument for & against.

Also, back in the real world it would doubtless be a red tape nightmare, surely the last thing that anyone's looking for given those circumstances.

Some sort of system would make it more clear.
1. Is the person terminally ill?
2. Do THEY wish to end their own life?
3. Is there a written or visual record of the patient stating they with to terminate their life, with counter signatures of witnesses to the declaration of intent to terminate their life etc?

In my opinion, if all three of the above are answered YES, and its legal to have an assisted suicide in the country that the procedure takes place, then that's all it should take. No one except the person who wishes to die makes the decision.

Of course there will be red tape. Everything we do has some sort of bureaucracy attached to it, ie. bank accounts, driving licence, benefits, etc. Someone has to keep a record and say whether it is allowed.

Without some sort of written or video record of the decision, it could be viewed as murder and not suicide. Its not just the terminally ill person who needs protection in assisted suicide cases. What happens if one brother says that his parent didn't want to end their life, but the other brother who was there with the parent when the procedure took place knew they did, but could not prove it? Would it not be less stressful all round if there was some department that could verify the suicide was lawful or not BEFORE the procedure took place. Maybe some sort of "health service" official, as that would mean they could read the persons health records and reports and make sure the person is in fact terminally ill.

I wasn't arguing the for and against point, i was stating how i think it should be done, if assisted suicide was legal.

Why should someone be able to take their life without some sort of written procedure, but can't put a bloody advertising sign on private land. Rules have to be followed or there would be chaos.

by **katya** » Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 pm

There is a lady who took her case to court to ensure that her husband will not be prosecuted when he returns to Britain after going to the Dinitas clinic. She lost the case, but so far no-one in this country has been charged with assisting people who have visited this clinic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7898816.stm

by **£3.73** » Fri May 08, 2009 2:45 pm

daftdog wrote:Why should someone be able to take their life without some sort of written procedure, but can't put a bloody advertising sign on private land. Rules have to be followed or there would be chaos.

Between 1939 & 1945, tens of millions of people gave their lives or had their lives taken
... to preserve freedom and "quality of life".

Yet here we are 70 years later, living in the biggest (and arguably bigger) buerocractic, regulated society since Nazi Germany. Have a think about that. Is it any wonder suicide is on the up ?

Europe has finally been conquered.

We are rapidly approaching the point where you won't be able to go for a dump unless your paperwork is in order. :twisted:

by **gizmo** » Fri May 08, 2009 6:19 pm

£3.73 wrote:We are rapidly approaching the point where you won't be able to go for a dump unless your paperwork is in order.

When going for a dump it is more important you get your paperwork correct afterwards... :roll:

by **£3.73** » Fri May 08, 2009 7:50 pm

aye Gizmo, that is a universal truth ! :lol:

but we aren't too far away from having Government appointed erse inspectors, to check whether you

a) have the correct licence to wipe the aforementioned erse
b) if you are adhering to the regulation amount of wipes

failure to comply makes you a terrorist :evil:

and just wait till they get speed cameras into the bathroom.
>1 kilo per minute = 3 points and a £30 fine.
12 points and you're banned !!! :evil:

by **daftdog** » Sat May 09, 2009 3:03 pm

£3.73 wrote:
daftdog wrote:Why should someone be able to take their life without some sort of written procedure, but can't put a bloody advertising sign on private land. Rules have to be followed or there would be chaos.

Between 1939 & 1945, tens of millions of people gave their lives or had their lives taken
... to preserve freedom and "quality of life".

Yet here we are 70 years later, living in the biggest (and arguably bigger) buerocractic, regulated society since Nazi Germany. Have a think about that. Is it any wonder suicide is on the up ?

Europe has finally been conquered.

We are rapidly approaching the point where you won't be able to go for a dump unless your paperwork is in order.

Seriously.. comparing today's society and all its rules and paperwork to Nazi germany :roll:

SERIOUSLY.. WOW :shock:

by **daftdog** » Sat May 09, 2009 3:15 pm

£3.73 wrote:aye Gizmo, that is a universal truth !

but we aren't too far away from having Government appointed erse inspectors,

£3.73.. personally i won't worry to much about this, as i'm not an erse :lol:

£3.73 wrote:failure to comply makes you a terrorist

Yeah, well dirty bombs will have that effect

sorry.. Couldn't resist :oops:

by **ionnsaigh** » Sat May 09, 2009 3:18 pm

daftdog wrote:Seriously.. comparing today's society and all its rules and paperwork to Nazi germany SERIOUSLY.. WOW

Would the Nazi Germany of today have CCTV surveillance ? - introduce a national identity card ? - have secret police ? - speed cameras ? - internet controls ? - propaganda ? - media control ? If the question is yes to any of these things - then you could seriously draw a comparison with Fascism. :<>

by **daftdog** » Sat May 09, 2009 4:54 pm

ionnsaigh wrote:
daftdog wrote:Seriously.. comparing today's society and all its rules and paperwork to Nazi germany SERIOUSLY.. WOW

Would the Nazi Germany of today have CCTV surveillance ? - introduce a national identity card ? - have secret police ? - speed cameras ? - internet controls ? - propaganda ? - media control ? If the question is yes to any of these things - then you could seriously draw a comparison with Fascism.