Should the law make it easier for us to help the terminally ill die?

Fink Goddie

I think it should!
What does everyone else think?

Nodin

Fink Goddie wrote: »

I think it should!
What does everyone else think?

Yep.

Professey Chin

Only if I get to use a hammer.........

What?

Mr Benevolent

I don't get this. Why can't they kill themselves like normal people at the end of their tether? Why do they have to have extra legislation?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Fink Goddie

Confab wrote: »

I don't get this. Why can't they kill themselves like normal people at the end of their tether? Why do they have to have extra legislation?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Some of them are probably so sick they couldnt even manage to kill themselves, they'd need help, and then that person would get in trouble for it.

genericguy

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Some of them are probably so sick they couldnt even manage to kill themselves, they'd need help, and then that person would get in trouble for it.

I'm with confab.
in the cases of the extremely sick, just refuse treatment, we'll never get that legislation in ireland, although I think we should have it.

you could just bite your tongue off like yer wan out of 'million dollar baby' though.

Nodin

Confab wrote: »

I don't get this. Why can't they kill themselves like normal people at the end of their tether? Why do they have to have extra legislation?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Because they are usually rendered dependent on others by the nature of whats slowly killing them. Thus theres no way they can get to Sweden or the like without assistance. Its a worry that the helper(s) may face prosecution as theres been no clear guidelines.

Rabies

Confab wrote: »

I don't get this. Why can't they kill themselves like normal people at the end of their tether? Why do they have to have extra legislation?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Because it suicide is probably painfull and if not, then it does serious damage to the well being of the people around you when it happens.

If done properly, it would be done under medication and would be a peaceful death. So much better than a messy one.

Fink Goddie

genericguy wrote: »

I'm with confab.
in the cases of the extremely sick, just refuse treatment, we'll never get that legislation in ireland, although I think we should have it.

you could just bite your tongue off like yer wan out of 'million dollar baby' though.

Did Clint not assist her suicide in million dollar baby??

irish_bob

no , people should only die when thier finished having all the sufferng god intended for them

Dr Strange

Fink Goddie wrote: »

I think it should!
What does everyone else think?

I agree with you, and it would also offer palliative care which "normal" suicides don't get. The control of the immense pain some terminally ill suffer is very important.

However, you may be better off posting this in Humanities because I don't think you'll get a serious debate on this here in AH (just my thoughts on this).

You Suck!

Only if it involves a reality TV show, one preferably not produced by rte......

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

no , people should only die when thier finished having all the sufferng god intended for them

...yes, they can 'offer up their suffering'. Not that anyone will take it off them of course, but its supposed to be good for the soul, leaving one 'at peace'. Personally I've found that a beer, a full belly, a decent ride or all three in some combination leave me perfectly 'at peace', without the need for a long drawn out death.

AnonoBoy

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Did Clint not assist her suicide in million dollar baby??

Ah way to ruin the movie on me Fink. :mad:

Fugly

Yes, absolutely.

Fink Goddie

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah way to ruin the movie on me Fink. :mad:

Its your own fault for leaving it so long to watch it :pac:

Hagar

No need to change the law, the so called Irish Health System makes it easy for anyone to die of even simple curable ailments.

brummytom

Did anyone see the BBC tv-film 'A Short Stay In Switzerland' with Julie Walters?
It was a bio-pic thing about the doctor Anne Turner, who took the choice to take her own life over in a clinic in Switzerland.

An excellent film, gave a realistic, unglamourised portrayal of Dr Turners last few months and the reactions of those around her. - it was eyeopening, if you can find it online anywhere, watch it (made me cry )

With regard to the question, though I would class myself as a Catholic, and as such, respect the sanctity of life; since my nan died (she was diagnosed with terminal cancer 2 years ago, died 6 weeks later), I think I would support euthanasia. She said in her last week "I just feel like taking a load of pills.. I'm ready". Seeing her in complete agony, I would have considered helping her, had she asked... I don't think it's fair to force someone with so much suffering to pain their way right to their natural end.
Two days before she died, the doctors refused to give her morphine to relieve her pain (after a stroke) because it could kill her. My mom's reaction was "So?! Look at her, she's in agony"; I can only hope I'm lucky enough to die quickly.


/rambling

Sulmac

I'd support bringing in a law similar to that in the Netherlands:

The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
  the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
• the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

It's amazing that we'd quickly "put down" a suffering animal but the current law forces those in severe pain to suffer a slow, horrible and undignified death.

Fink Goddie

Yeh you'd put an animal down if it was in really bad pain but humans are left to suffer, doesnt make sense!

Aidric

Rabies wrote: »

If done properly, it would be done under medication and would be a peaceful death. So much better than a messy one.

I'd agree with you completely. If anything I would consider it dignified and representative of a mature society.

Sharik

Quite obviously anybody of sound mind has the natural right to take her own life at any time, anywhere and by any means her heart desires. Therefore anybody assisting a suicide acts ethically as long as he takes the necessary steps to determine that the person committing suicide is in fact of sound mind, aware of the consequences and takes this step voluntarily.

Any law prohibiting this is just as obviously and infringement on one of the most basic rights of any living being. And the fact that the majority fails to recognize it is the best indicator that our society is sick and our laws unfair.

IvyTheTerrible

I agree that terminally ill people should be allowed the option of euthanasia.

However, I worry about cohersion....old alzheimers ridden Jimmy down the road has 100 acres of fine land which I would like get my hands...now lets convince him that he can die with dignity (by leaving all his land to me...)

Fink Goddie

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I agree that terminally ill people should be allowed the option of euthanasia.

However, I worry about cohersion....old alzheimers ridden Jimmy down the road has 100 acres of fine land which I would like get my hands...now lets convince him that he can die with dignity (by leaving all his land to me...)

He'd be better off dead if he had Alzheimers anyway.

Tigger

my real answer: yes

my ah answer : fap

Captain Darling

I was mis diagnosed with motor neuron disease earlier this year. For approximately seven weeks i was led to believe that i was facing into a serious deterioration of my health in the imminent future.

I assessed all options and frankly i deduced that if there is still some part of life living, no matter how sh1te left to live, i wanted to live it, rather then an eternity of nothingness.

Thats my view on it. I'd rather live then die.

Fink Goddie

Captain Darling wrote: »

I was mis diagnosed with motor neuron disease earlier this year. For approximately seven weeks i was led to believe that i was facing into a serious deterioration of my health in the imminent future.

I assessed all options and frankly i deduced that if there is still some part of life living, no matter how sh1te left to live, i wanted to live it, rather then an eternity of nothingness.

Thats my view on it. I'd rather live then die.

Yeh but you didnt actually experience the deterioration in the end though did you, maybe your view might have changed if you actually had gone through it.

genericguy

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Did Clint not assist her suicide in million dollar baby??

he did, but that's what she tried first, no?

Captain Darling

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Yeh but you didnt actually experience the deterioration in the end though did you, maybe your view might have changed if you actually had gone through it.

You're dead right, i'm only giving you my take on it.

The sense of hopelessness and dread will probably kill you quicker then the actual condition though. I wasnt going to let that happen to me. Fcuked up frame of mind to be in, but its small odds to me now.

genericguy

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Its your own fault for leaving it so long to watch it :pac:

it's sh1te anyway, if you really wanna watch a film like that watch 'the champ'.

genericguy

Captain Darling wrote: »

I was mis diagnosed with motor neuron disease earlier this year. For approximately seven weeks i was led to believe that i was facing into a serious deterioration of my health in the imminent future.

I assessed all options and frankly i deduced that if there is still some part of life living, no matter how sh1te left to live, i wanted to live it, rather then an eternity of nothingness.

Thats my view on it. I'd rather live then die.

not everyone would have shared your view. I would prefer to have the option. If I ever got aids, I'd wanna sort myself out. That said though, I'm not a ghey, so I won't get aids. :pac:

Sulmac

Captain Darling wrote: »

Thats my view on it. I'd rather live then die.

Yes, that's your choice and your perfectly entitled to it - but what about those who don't share your views and would like to end their life if it became unbearable, surely they have a choice too?

Fink Goddie

Captain Darling wrote: »

You're dead right, i'm only giving you my take on it.

The sense of hopelessness and dread will probably kill you quicker then the actual condition though. I wasnt going to let that happen to me. Fcuked up frame of mind to be in, but its small odds to me now.

Good to hear

truecrippler

Rabies wrote: »

Because it suicide is probably painfull and if not, then it does serious damage to the well being of the people around you when it happens.

If done properly, it would be done under medication and would be a peaceful death. So much better than a messy one.

That's where loads of Horse Tranquilisers come in.

Fink Goddie

genericguy wrote: »

it's sh1te anyway, if you really wanna watch a film like that watch 'the champ'.

Just because it made you cry

Fink Goddie

truecrippler wrote: »

That's where loads of Horse Tranquilisers come in.

Them, a load of vodka and a few jager bombs. what a way to go

genericguy

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Just because it made you cry

I only cried because hillary swank didn't die earlier, her face is too ugly even for the radio. teeth like f'kin tombstones.

happy friday btw fink

Fink Goddie

genericguy wrote: »

I only cried because hillary swank didn't die earlier, her face is too ugly even for the radio. teeth like f'kin tombstones.

happy friday btw fink

Harsh :pac:
Clint Eastwood is a legend though.

Happy Friday to you too genericdude:D

Nodin

It's all about the choice, really. If you could live with whatever it was - ie have some quality of life (until it killed you), you would.

philologos

I'm absolutely opposed to euthanasia, there are other means by which one can alleviate the pain of the terminally ill so that they get to live their last moments in life out in relative peace without killing them.

Euthanasia has too many holes to be legalised, it could result in people dying because they feel guilt tripped into it as they were a "burden onto their family". Modern medical technology allows us to be able to alleviate pain and suffering without killing another human being.

I heard an interesting speaker talk about this a few months ago:
PDF and Audio

This guy made a very strong case against it's legalisation and has been involved in activism in the UK to stop any potential legalisation there.

JohnThomas09

i think people that are terminally ill should be let die.I have a neighbour that has Motor Nueron the last 12 years.he has lost all movement and cant talk.the last five years he has spoken once or doesnt respond to any sort of stimulous.His family go to see him everyday and want him to be put out of his misery but cant with the strick laws.I always tell my family if im ever left like this poison me and tell no one.

Kimia

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm absolutely opposed to euthanasia, there are other means by which one can alleviate the pain of the terminally ill so that they get to live their last moments in life out in relative peace without killing them.

Euthanasia has too many holes to be legalised, it could result in people dying because they feel guilt tripped into it as they were a "burden onto their family". Modern medical technology allows us to be able to alleviate pain and suffering without killing another human being.

I heard an interesting speaker talk about this a few months ago:
PDF and Audio

This guy made a very strong case against it's legalisation and has been involved in activism in the UK to stop any potential legalisation there.

I agree with you to a certain extent Jakkass - where you say that it has too many holes. There would definitely be some circumstances where (if it was legalised) it would be taken advantage of. It would have to be tightly regulated.

However I personally feel that if I did get terminally ill, or if I broke my neck and had no feeling from the legs down, I would imagine that I would want the option (if i so choose) to end my life with my family around me with no repercussions for them.

And I also feel that I shouldn't have the right to force someone to live if they don't want to.

philologos

Kimia wrote: »

And I also feel that I shouldn't have the right to force someone to live if they don't want to.

It's this part that's the dangerous part.

How can we tell genuine consent?

Could it be a depressive outburst, or related to a psychological issue that can be resolved with help.

Could it be from pressure from relatives?

Could it be because of financial reasons?

There are so many factors that could influence whether or not consent is genuine that it is almost impossible to legislate for it effectively.

Kimia

Jakkass wrote: »

It's this part that's the dangerous part.

How can we tell genuine consent?

Could it be a depressive outburst, or related to a psychological issue that can be resolved with help.

Could it be from pressure from relatives?

Could it be because of financial reasons?

There are so many factors that could influence whether or not consent is genuine that it is almost impossible to legislate for it effectively.

Very true, and therein lies my agreement to your argument. However, when these issues aren't present, and the person involved is fully mentally competent, there are no pressure from relatives, it's not because of financial reasons and they just want to end it all, then I think it is their right.

Again though how would this ever be regulated. Better to err on the side of caution? I don't know the answer to that. Right now I think I'd know what I'd want, but I'm not in that situation so not able to answer really.

philologos

Kimia wrote: »

Very true, and therein lies my agreement to your argument. However, when these issues aren't present, and the person involved is fully mentally competent, there are no pressure from relatives, it's not because of financial reasons and they just want to end it all, then I think it is their right.

This is practically impossible to detect without an entire investigation into discussions that the person seeking euthanasia has had with their family and other potential pressure holders. It's a legislative mess. One cannot ensure with confidence that it is genuine consent in relation to life or death.

Kimia wrote: »

Again though how would this ever be regulated. Better to err on the side of caution? I don't know the answer to that. Right now I think I'd know what I'd want, but I'm not in that situation so not able to answer really.

It's definitely the most pragmatic and fair option to stay cautious about this, and to alleviate the pain using proper medical procedure to ensure that the rest of the persons life is as comfortable as possible for them. I feel that is more a social responsibility than the so-called "right to die" which might seem a great idea before we get down to the practicalities.

Fink Goddie

Jakkass wrote: »

This is practically impossible to detect without an entire investigation into discussions that the person seeking euthanasia has had with their family and other potential pressure holders. It's a legislative mess. One cannot ensure with confidence that it is genuine consent in relation to life or death.



It's definitely the most pragmatic and fair option to stay cautious about this, and to alleviate the pain using proper medical procedure to ensure that the rest of the persons life is as comfortable as possible for them. I feel that is more a social responsibility than the so-called "right to die" which might seem a great idea before we get down to the practicalities.

It all depends on the quality of life the person is having, if someone is left like a vegetable after a crash, why make them live just for the sake of it, they're going to have no life.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

There are so many factors that could influence whether or not consent is genuine that it is almost impossible to legislate for it effectively.

Yet others have.

Kimia

Yes how have other countries legalised it? I agree with Jakkass - it's a legislative mess and these factors need to be considered. However, again I am all for giving everyone the right to their own bodies. It's just that these situations will crop up so how does the law deal with them?

Wertz

Yes, I support both the right to euthanasia and the right to abortion.

The right to self determination in the case of euthanasia is of particular importance...why should any human being go on to suffer intractable pain and discomfort and a lowered quality of life merely because they haven't the means nor the energy to actually commit suicide...why should family members and friends have to watch loved ones suffering onward in the face of the inevitable? Through some sort of misguided idea about the sanctity of life in any shape or form? Life should be defined as more than simply breathing and having a heartbeat...someone that is wracked with a terminal illness over a long period may not feel that they are even "alive" in the sense that they once were...so why continue with the charade for the sake of "law" and morals?

It should be up to the patient in question, in agreement with their close family...the law should play as little a part as possible, only existing in those cases to make sure that no wrongdoing is carried out or that things are not happening against the wishes of the patient.

[edit] In the case where a patient may not be able to make that self determination, then a decision between the family, medical staff and some sort of appointed legal intermediary should be sought, where it is the wishes of the fmaily in question.

bleg

We afford other animals the right to die with dignity in this country with a visit to a vet. There is no need to keep somebody alive who has given prior wish to die humanely in the event of terminal illness.

bleg

Fink Goddie wrote: »

It all depends on the quality of life the person is having, if someone is left like a vegetable after a crash, why make them live just for the sake of it.

We don't. If somebody is brainstem dead after such an event then the machines keeping the person alive are turned off in a timely manner giving due regard to the wishes of the family.