Assisted suicide

Fanny Cradock

I'm wondering what Christians think of the recent assisted suicide events given by Dr Philip Nitschke.

In the past I worked in a charity for people who suffered with a degenerative neurological disease. From my experience there - and admittedly my contact with the "clients" was fairly minimal; I was a pen pusher by trade - I can see there being room at least for debate. In certain respects the idea of legally assisted suicide horrifies me - but then again death sickens me. I believe it to be, in some way, a corruption of God's plan. But I've also never been surround by someone in dreadful pain who is wasting away. In certain respects I don't see the difference between somebody being allowed to indirectly die in a hospital - switching off the ventilation machine, withdrawing medical care or whatever - and what this Dr is talking about.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm wondering what Christians think of the recent assisted suicide events given by Dr Philip Nitschke.

In the past I worked in a charity for people who suffered with a degenerative neurological disease. From my experience there - and admittedly my contact with the "clients" was fairly minimal; I was a pen pusher by trade - I can see there being room at least for debate. In certain respects the idea of legally assisted suicide horrifies me - but then again death sickens me. I believe it to be, in some way, a corruption of God's plan. But I've also never been surround by someone in dreadful pain who is wasting away. In certain respects I don't see the difference between somebody being allowed to indirectly die in a hospital - switching off the ventilation machine, withdrawing medical care or whatever - and what this Dr is talking about.

I hope you don't mind comments from an ex-christian (though likely a very poor one.)This is a topic I am very interested in from a social and legal point of view as well as religious. I have always supported assisted suicide, even before becoming an atheist.

I always found it strange that we could put suffering animals to sleep, as it was humane, but for some reason we had to allow our fellow humans to suffer to the end.

At the same time, I have to say it is something that would have to be highly controlled and monitored for abuse. But I sincerely hope it becomes accepted.

What would be the religious concerns regarding assisted suicide? Is it the violation of the sanctity of life? I know the RCC has an issue with suicide and presumably, by extension those that might assist, what do other religious group feel about the subject?

EDIT: I thik there is actually a huge difference, in some cases, between simply turning off a ventilator or withholding sustenance or treatment and actively assisting. Actively assisting is considerably more humane.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

I always found it strange that we could put suffering animals to sleep, as it was humane, but for some reason we had to allow our fellow humans to suffer to the end.

We also eat animals. They aren't afforded the same rights as us.

On a personal note, my trouble with assisted suicide does indeed centre around the sanctity of life. In general terms I don't necessarily think that suicide is a sin, I don't like to think about it in such terms. Like abortion, which I am increasingly against, it isn't strictly a theist/ atheist divide.

I'm torn on this one. While I firmly believe that life is a gift from God and it should be honoured, I don't expect others to share this view. Therefore I'm not sure that it would be right to demand of someone in terrible pain - who is close to death and who doesn't share my opinion- that they hang in to the bitter end. On the other hand, there must be certain issues that a Christian (or anybody, for that matter) can't simply say, "Well, I don't agree with it, but it is your life". Surely there are some actions that can not be allowed? I really don't know if this is one of them.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We also eat animals. They aren't afforded the same rights as us.

Exactly, I would argue that in this particular area they have better rights.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On a personal note, my trouble with assisted suicide does indeed centre around the sanctity of life. In general terms I don't necessarily think that suicide is a sin, I don't like to think about it in such terms. Like abortion, which I am increasingly against, it isn't strictly a theist/ atheist divide.

I'm torn on this one. While I firmly believe that life is a gift from God and it should be honoured, I don't expect others to share this view. Therefore I'm not sure that it would be right to demand of someone in terrible pain - who is close to death and who doesn't share my opinion- that they hang in to the bitter end. On the other hand, there must be certain issues that a Christian (or anybody, for that matter) can't simply say, "Well, I don't agree with it, but it is your life". Surely there are some actions that can not be allowed? I really don't know if this is one of them.

I suppose it boils down to what you, or more particularly the person looking for assistance, considers to be life.

It is very easy to say that being healthy, and happy is life and is something worth protecting and nurturing. It gets more difficult when we start looking at life in terms of its quality, life with a capital L. For example, I love life, I love my family, my work and my study. If I were in an accident or contracted a disease that meant I could not enjoy these things I would probably not consider it to be Life. I have no desire to hang on. I don't want to suffer the indignity and pain of a prolonged illness followed by inevitable death. I would much prefer to have it end peacefully.

I think it is an affront to the sanctity of life that people much endure horrific pain and suffering, even with drugs, as well as the loss of dignity that some diseases or accidents can bring about.

MrP

mardybumbum

Im not an advocate of euthanasia, abortion, or the death penalty.
Theres something special about a human life, which cant be compared to other animals in fairness fanny.
Putting a dog down is nowhere near the same.
I dont think anybody has the right to decide whether a life is worth living or not, including their own life.
Saying that, I have never met somebody in such a harrowing position, that they have felt it better to give up than live.
I hope that advances in medicine may one day give these people dignity in death, so that there is no need to contemplate this most dismal of decisions.

Fanny Cradock

mardybumbum wrote: »

Theres something special about a human life, which cant be compared to other animals in fairness fanny.
Putting a dog down is nowhere near the same.

I never said it was. Perhaps you need to reread my posts.

PDN

My grandmother watched her husband of 50 years reduced to a shell of his former self by Alzheimers disease. She often used to say that she hoped someone would put her out of her misery if she got in the same state. The problem was she thought one son was so nice that it wouldn't be fair to ask him to do it, whereas the other one was so mean that she wouldn't trust him not to do it too soon!

Sadly she also died of Alzheimers and couldn't recognise any of us for the last few years of her life.

I've instructed my wife that if I ever start getting the same way then she should inadvertantly leave a giant tub of sleeping pills beside my plate at breakfast.

mardybumbum

Well, I must have interpreted "We also eat animals. They aren't afforded the same rights as us." in a way which you didnt intend.

Edit: Ah my mistake, Just read through again. I thought you posted the "putting a dog down" reference as well. My apologies.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

My grandmother watched her husband of 50 years reduced to a shell of his former self by Alzheimers disease. She often used to say that she hoped someone would put her out of her misery if she got in the same state. The problem was she thought one son was so nice that it wouldn't be fair to ask him to do it, whereas the other one was so mean that she wouldn't trust him not to do it too soon!

Sadly she also died of Alzheimers and couldn't recognise any of us for the last few years of her life.

My grandmother went the same way, it was horrible to watch the regression. My mother made me promise that she would never have to suffer the same fate.

MrP

MrPudding

mardybumbum wrote: »

Im not an advocate of euthanasia, abortion, or the death penalty.
Theres something special about a human life, which cant be compared to other animals in fairness fanny.
Putting a dog down is nowhere near the same.
I dont think anybody has the right to decide whether a life is worth living or not, including their own life.
Saying that, I have never met somebody in such a harrowing position, that they have felt it better to give up than live.
I hope that advances in medicine may one day give these people dignity in death, so that there is no need to contemplate this most dismal of decisions.

As I said, sometimes what people have cannot be reasonably described as life.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Touching stories. Thanks, guys.

krudler

It definitely shouldnt be illegal, nobody, repeat nobody should have to live in pain and suffering, wasting away until they die.
I saw it happen to a relative and its horrific, anyone who is against assisted suicide, lets hope you never get to the stage where you have so little coherence you dont know how to wipe your own arse and have to rely on people to feed, clothe and bathe you every day for the remainder of your life, and start forgetting your family one by one until its a bunch of strangers standing in your hospital room.

Life is meant to be lived, not endured.

mardybumbum

MrPudding wrote: »

As I said, sometimes what people have cannot be reasonably described as life.

MrP

How do you define whether someones life is worth living or not?
I think the focus should be on supporting people who are terminally ill. Help them to cope with the situation they find themselves in.
I just find the whole idea unnerving.

The Mad Hatter

mardybumbum wrote: »

How do you define whether someones life is worth living or not?

It's their call; not yours, mine or Mr P's.

I think it's important to live well, rather than to live long and, when it comes down to it, I'd rather leave the world on my own terms.

Fanny Cradock

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's their call; not yours, mine or Mr P's.

Actually, it isn't. Not according to the law.

mardybumbum

It's their call; not yours, mine or Mr P's.

I think it's important to live well, rather than to live long and, when it comes down to it, I'd rather leave the world on my own terms.

But it wont be their call.
Assisted suicide would have to be authorised by a doctor (more than one I presume).
How can anyone decide whether a life is worth living or not?
Nobody is qualified to make a decision like that.
Its all very well to post on the internet "If their in so much pain they should be allowed to die", but in reality it's a lot more complicated than that.
If a patient asked you to assist them in suicide, what criteria do you use to determine whether they should be allowed to?

Im well aware that there are a multitude of diseases that leave people in a very sorry state. God certainly left the body open to a lot of problems when he designed it.
There are many diseases, which If I were unfortunate enough to have, would hope to die sooner rather than later.
But to allow somebody else to make that decision, in my opinion, is a step in the wrong direction.

MrPudding

mardybumbum wrote: »

How do you define whether someones life is worth living or not?

I wouldn't, they would.

mardybumbum wrote: »

I think the focus should be on supporting people who are terminally ill. Help them to cope with the situation they find themselves in.
I just find the whole idea unnerving.

If I am in that position I don't want to cope with it. I will want help to end it, if I can't myself.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's their call; not yours, mine or Mr P's.

Exactly

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think it's important to live well, rather than to live long and, when it comes down to it, I'd rather leave the world on my own terms.

Agreed.

mardybumbum wrote: »

But it wont be their call.
Assisted suicide would have to be authorised by a doctor (more than one I presume).

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about assisted suicide. That is where a person decides they no longer want to live and someone helps them. You seem to be talking about euthanasia where someone else decides that a person should no longer live...

mardybumbum wrote: »

How can anyone decide whether a life is worth living or not?

I think that a person who is of sound mind is in an excellent position to decide if their life is worth living.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Nobody is qualified to make a decision like that.

The person living it is eminently qualified.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Its all very well to post on the internet "If their in so much pain they should be allowed to die", but in reality it's a lot more complicated than that.

No it really isn't more complicated than that. At it stands at the moment it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw medical intervention and even sustenance and let a person simply fade away. I don't know about you but I think it is considerably more humane to give someone drugs to allow them to pass away peacefully rather than remove a feeding tube to allow then to starve to death or to switch off their ventilator and allow them to suffocate.

mardybumbum wrote: »

If a patient asked you to assist them in suicide, what criteria do you use to determine whether they should be allowed to?

I don't know, I am not a doctor. I don't know what the criteria should be. I expect if we look at somewhere like the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland I am sure they have criteria in place.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Im well aware that there are a multitude of diseases that leave people in a very sorry state. God certainly left the body open to a lot of problems when he designed it.

Hmmm, quite.

mardybumbum wrote: »

There are many diseases, which If I were unfortunate enough to have, would hope to die sooner rather than later.
But to allow somebody else to make that decision, in my opinion, is a step in the wrong direction.

Again, perhaps I am picking this thread up wrong, but I am not talking about euthanasia. Why would someone else make the decision? If I am sick I will make the decision to commit suicide, not anyone else. If I do not have the ability to do it myself I would like someone to be able to assist me. I do not want someone wondering round the hospitals deciding that people should die.

MrP

hinault

I don't believe that there is any discussion necessary.

Assisted suicide (assisted murder) is not acceptable in any civilised society.

No exceptions.
That's my view.

hinault

mardybumbum wrote: »

How do you define whether someones life is worth living or not?
I think the focus should be on supporting people who are terminally ill. Help them to cope with the situation they find themselves in.
I just find the whole idea unnerving.

Not just unnerving.

This sort of stuff would only be start :
what next, eugenics?
Or how about we use the Nazi's rational for valuing a life?
Because that is the road we go down when things like assisted suicide (assisted murder) is legalised.

People trying to play God under the guise of "helping the patient".

mardybumbum

MrPudding wrote: »

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about assisted suicide. That is where a person decides they no longer want to live and someone helps them. You seem to be talking about euthanasia where someone else decides that a person should no longer live...

Please, there is very little difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide.

I wouldn't, they would.

But the person who assists in the suicide has to make that decision as well.

I don't know about you but I think it is considerably more humane to give someone drugs to allow them to pass away peacefully rather than remove a feeding tube to allow then to starve to death or to switch off their ventilator and allow them to suffocate.

I think both are despicable.

I expect if we look at somewhere like the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland I am sure they have criteria in place.

Nobody is in a position to compose a checklist which dictates if someone should be allowed to end their life.
Anywhoo, Im not interested in Dignitas' criteria at the moment. I'd like to know what your own cut off point would be?
I would be very interested in knowing what points a person uses to justify assisting another in taking their life.

Hmmm, quite.

I should probably point out that my comment regarding God's design was tongue in cheek.

mardybumbum

Well I have just looked up this Dignitas organisation you have mentioned, and what interesting reading it makes.

Not only do Mr. Minelli think it is acceptable to help the terminally ill to take their lives, but 20% of his clients have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.
I dont know If you would class them as being sound of mind Mr P?
He is also trying to change the legislation so that those who are depressed may take their own lives.

He even helped the British Composer Sir Edward Downes take his life. The man was merely blind.

They have also been accused of dumping the remains of bodies in Lake Zurich, after a number of bone fragments were washed ashore.

And one of his ex-assistants told the police that Mr. Minelli was making a profit from those whose suicides he assisted.
They claim they are a non profit organisation but will not disclose information about their finances. Very peculiar indeed.

Stomach churning stuff.

Soul Winner

What it all boils down to is a person's right/or not to end their life in whatever way they believe is right for them. If we were not born with this right then who is it that is able to give it to us? And if we are born with this right then who is that is able to take that right from us? That is the bottom line, we either have the right or we don't. Do we have that right? Depends on how you view ultimate reality doesn't it?

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In certain respects I don't see the difference between somebody being allowed to indirectly die in a hospital - switching off the ventilation machine, withdrawing medical care or whatever - and what this Dr is talking about.

As someone who's recently had to face to the ultimate consequence of a DNR policy I'd have to say to think there is a marked difference between assisted suicide and withdrawing/withholding particular types of medical care.

The most fundamental is in my view is that there is a single intend in the former ie. termination of life. Most (because I can't speak for all) people who decide on limitations of intervention do so for very different reasons, the hope is that the point will not be reached but if it does happen the outcome is still not necessarily assured.

Personally I get worried when I hear talk of 'quality of life', which people here speak of in absolute terms. But it is clear even from the examples given here ranging from blindness to the profoundly disabled that it is a sliding scale with no real limitations. And while many may argue that an individual has the right to make decisions regarding their own life, its commonly the case that others will make determinations for those demeaned unable to do so.

And that's my other issue with it, sometimes the carers get tired. And may seek to make decisions for their own good rather than their charges.
Worse still it can be a lottery when it comes to medical opinion as to how far you should go, most will be agreement at the extremes but as you move back to the centre you find situations where one specialist will be pro a given treatment while another will be against. The outcome can rely purely on who you get on the day.

As for euthanasia and assisted suicide been different, I personally think the later is the former dressed up in prettier clothes.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

I should probably point out that my comment regarding God's design was tongue in cheek.
I dont believe in any of that rubbish.

And I should probably remind you of the Forum Charter.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any discussion necessary.

Luckily for everyone you are not the ultimate authority on whether or not discussion is necessary.

hinault wrote: »

Assisted suicide (assisted murder) is not acceptable in any civilised society.

So suicide is murder?

hinault wrote: »

Not just unnerving.

This sort of stuff would only be start :
what next, eugenics?

Ah yes, the good old slippery slope argument...

hinault wrote: »

Or how about we use the Nazi's rational for valuing a life?

First of all, I am not trying to justify anything the nazis did, butit is not accurate to say they did not value life. It was only some life they did not value. Personally I think they were despicable and comparing assisted suicide to the nazi's attempt to exterminate an entire race is offensive.

hinault wrote: »

Because that is the road we go down when things like assisted suicide (assisted murder) is legalised.

Can you show this?

hinault wrote: »

People trying to play God under the guise of "helping the patient".

They are not trying to play god. Your god chose to give them a condition that has out them in a position where suicide seems like a good idea. Assisted suicide is not play god, god seems to want people to suffer.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Please, there is very little difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Actually, I will have to concede this point. It was a misunderstanding on my part, I took the meaning of euthanasia to be mercy killing not necessarily with the patients consent. Not sure where I got that idea from. Apologies.

mardybumbum wrote: »

But the person who assists in the suicide has to make that decision as well.

I would expect that only the decision they make is whether or not to assist.

mardybumbum wrote: »

I think both are despicable.

This si what I don't understand. You would prefer to see a person suffer unbearable pain?

mardybumbum wrote: »

Nobody is in a position to compose a checklist which dictates if someone should be allowed to end their life.

Why does a person not have the right to decide whether or not they should end their life? They have a right to life, by extension they should have a right to decide when that ends, if they choose to.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Anywhoo, Im not interested in Dignitas' criteria at the moment. I'd like to know what your own cut off point would be?

My cut off point? Not sure not you mean exactly. Personally I would want the person themselves deciding if they were going to end it, rather than someone else making the decision for them. The exception to this would be a person disorder that possibly prevented them form making rational decisions. Assuming, of course, they had made a living will, when of sound mind, and given the power to decide to a third party.

I don't really have all the answers here. I have never really thought about the mechanics of it in any great details.

mardybumbum wrote: »

I would be very interested in knowing what points a person uses to justify assisting another in taking their life.

Watching my mother watch her mother go from a healthy vital woman to an empty husk that could not move or do anything, having gone through stages where she lost the ability to feed, bath or go to the toilet by herself and all her dignity. Not forgetting the nice experience of her being unable to recognise her own children and grandchildren, and then having my mother ask me to promise that it never happened to her.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Well I have just looked up this Dignitas organisation you have mentioned, and what interesting reading it makes.

I gave the name simply as it is the only one I know. I thought there may be some useful information. If assisted suicide was made legal, or decriminalised, there would be no requirement to make the implementation of it follow their model.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Not only do Mr. Minelli think it is acceptable to help the terminally ill to take their lives, but 20% of his clients have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. I dont know If you would class them as being sound of mind Mr P?

Personally? No. That said, as I mentioned a bit earlier, it might be acceptable if the person made a living will when they were of sound mind which gave a third party the authority to make the decision on their behalf.

mardybumbum wrote: »

He is also trying to change the legislation so that those who are depressed may take their own lives.

Sorry, is there currently a law that prevents depressed people taking their own lives?

mardybumbum wrote: »

He even helped the British Composer Sir Edward Downes take his life. The man was merely blind.

It might be merely blind to you, but it was obviously more than merely to him.

Personally the saddest one I have heard was the 21 year old rugby player that went to this particular clinic. He was a very good rugby player that would likely have ended up playing for England. Unfortunately he was paralysed from the neck down when a scrum collapsed. He could not face life in a wheelchair and went to the clinic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7677706.stm

mardybumbum wrote: »

They have also been accused of dumping the remains of bodies in Lake Zurich, after a number of bone fragments were washed ashore.

And one of his ex-assistants told the police that Mr. Minelli was making a profit from those whose suicides he assisted.
They claim they are a non profit organisation but will not disclose information about their finances. Very peculiar indeed.

Stomach churning stuff.

I did not present them as a place to neccesarily model procedures on, simply as the only polace I was aware of.

People have the right to take their own lives, should they choose to. I see no reason why they should not get help and support. If it was allowed I would like to think that counciling would be a requirement before it was allowed to go ahead.

I am not advocating Futurama style suicide booths but a well thought out, highly monitored, humane and safe method of allowing people to end their own lives with dignity.

MrP

mehfesto

hinault wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any discussion necessary.

Assisted suicide (assisted murder) is not acceptable in any civilised society.

No exceptions.
That's my view.

You've never worked in a hospital then, I take it.
I had a chap, no more than 20, quadriplegic after an accident. His parents changed his nappy and his friends and girlfriend left him. He crie almost 24 hours a day. He was mentally impaired to an extent afterwards (in that he had trouble with speech and neck control) but would still beg to be killed.

Similarly I never saw the difference between keeping someone alive and lettig them die with respect. Why drag an 80 yr old through colostomy operations etc when she has alzheimers? Are we that afriad of death that we would rather shame our family than see them die???

I support assisted suicide, I have seen those who would be put out of a long life of misery, but I will agree that it would have to be stringently observed. Those who block peoples paths to Switzerland though baffle me - they do motlive through such pain daily.

cranog

Killing is killing no matter what term you use. Abortion, murder, putting an animal down, butchering meat for the table.

BUT

It is the womans right to choose, it is the right of any human to end their own life, aided or otherwise.

In our hospitals, doctors increase the dosage of morphine, result, weakened breathing and slowed pulse followed quickly by death.

I nursed my father in the last few months of his life, the day before he died I crushed 5 morphine tablets into a powder and mixed the in a small quantity of orange juice. I had no intentions of letting him suffer any further. Thankfully for me, my father passed away that night without my help.

A number of years later, my beautiful dog became very ill. She meant more to me than 99.9% of the humans on this planet. Legally I was allowed to call the vet and have her put down. Her suffering ended, she was at peace.

If you love someone, should you not be allowed to help end their terminal suffering.

What is Christian about prolonging suffering.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As someone who's recently had to face to the ultimate consequence of a DNR policy I'd have to say to think there is a marked difference between assisted suicide and withdrawing/withholding particular types of medical care.

The most fundamental is in my view is that there is a single intend in the former ie. termination of life. Most (because I can't speak for all) people who decide on limitations of intervention do so for very different reasons, the hope is that the point will not be reached but if it does happen the outcome is still not necessarily assured.

Personally I get worried when I hear talk of 'quality of life', which people here speak of in absolute terms. But it is clear even from the examples given here ranging from blindness to the profoundly disabled that it is a sliding scale with no real limitations. And while many may argue that an individual has the right to make decisions regarding their own life, its commonly the case that others will make determinations for those demeaned unable to do so.

And that's my other issue with it, sometimes the carers get tired. And may seek to make decisions for their own good rather than their charges.
Worse still it can be a lottery when it comes to medical opinion as to how far you should go, most will be agreement at the extremes but as you move back to the centre you find situations where one specialist will be pro a given treatment while another will be against. The outcome can rely purely on who you get on the day.

As for euthanasia and assisted suicide been different, I personally think the later is the former dressed up in prettier clothes.

Cheers, Rev!

mardybumbum

MrPudding wrote: »

Actually, I will have to concede this point. It was a misunderstanding on my part, I took the meaning of euthanasia to be mercy killing not necessarily with the patients consent. Not sure where I got that idea from. Apologies.

No need to apologise.

This si what I don't understand. You would prefer to see a person suffer unbearable pain?

But with the use of analgesics and tractotomy in the more extreme cases, there arent very many people who suffer "unbearable pain".
Most people who avail of the services provided by dignitas are just fed up with life.

My cut off point? Not sure not you mean exactly.

Should someone with a level of pain at 8 be given the opportunity to take their lives but tough luck for those who are only at 7.
Should MS patients who relapse every 2 months be allowed to, but those who relpase every two years be denied.
These are not important questions for me as i dont support assisted suicide, but I am interested in how you, as an advocate for assisted suicide would decide whether someone is worthy or not?
Its not enough to say " Well they decide themselves ". People have good days, and they have bad days.
Someone who decides to take their life one day may be totally opposed to it another.
Indeed many people who went to dignitas, made a U - turn at the last moment.
This is why I think the living will argument is irrelevant.
The mechanics of it cant be ignored. its an integral part of the argument.

Sorry, is there currently a law that prevents depressed people taking their own lives?

At the moment, those who are clinically depressed cannot avail of the services provided by dignitas.

Thanks for sharing your story. My own Grandmother has parkinsons and often comments how she wished she were in heaven with grandad.
Its not the same as alzheimers but I do understand where you are coming from.

Anyway, I dont think either of us is going to convince the other.
Its something I cant envisage myself changing views on anytime soon, but maybe in a few years, with more life experience behind me who knows?

krudler

hinault wrote: »

Not just unnerving.

This sort of stuff would only be start :
what next, eugenics?
Or how about we use the Nazi's rational for valuing a life?
Because that is the road we go down when things like assisted suicide (assisted murder) is legalised.

People trying to play God under the guise of "helping the patient".

Well by that rationale isnt using medicine to keep someone alive "playing god"? if someone has a fatal disease and thats gods plan for them, taking care of them and keeping them alive for years longer is going against that plan, yes? so how is ending someone suffering any different?

this thread has also been officially Godwinned, brilliant.

Its utterly ludicrous that if a horse breaks its legs its put down to ease it suffering but we'll keep a cancer victim dosed up on a cocktail of drugs and therapy for years to keep them alive and only prolong the inevitable.

My housemates uncle died of colon cancer only a few months ago, he was in hospital for months then decided he had enough, he stopped taking his meds, wouldnt attend his chemo and lived his life as best he could, the way he put it was if he was going he as going on his terms.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

this thread has also been officially Godwinned, brilliant.

Godwin's 'law' isn't recognised in this forum. The idea that you can discuss ethics or morals while tiptoeing around and whispering "Don't mention the war" makes little sense.

hinault

krudler wrote: »

Well by that rationale isnt using medicine to keep someone alive "playing god"? .

No.

krudler wrote: »

Well by that rationale isnt using medicine to keep someone alive "playing god"? if someone has a fatal disease and thats gods plan for them, taking care of them and keeping them alive for years longer is going against that plan, yes? so how is ending someone suffering any different?

If someone has a fatal disease they are treated for that disease until medically there is nothing more than can be done for that patient.
But the patient is treated until that point of no return is reached.
That is the way all patients should be treated.

And you speak of suffering.
Who is suffering ? The patient? Or the loved ones seeing the patient?
Ever witness someone holding on for dear life.
Where literally every second is precious to that person?
Have you?

By your rationale, that person should have been "assisted" to their death long before then.

krudler wrote: »

My housemates uncle died of colon cancer only a few months ago, he was in hospital for months then decided he had enough, he stopped taking his meds, wouldnt attend his chemo and lived his life as best he could, the way he put it was if he was going he as going on his terms.

I'm sorry for you loss.

What your housemates uncle chose to do was not assisted suicide : many people do decide not to take medical assistance after they reach a certain point in fighting a disease/condition.

This is diametrically different to deciding to take a proactive course of action to end ones life (ie ingesting a solution to end ones life)

krudler wrote: »

Its utterly ludicrous that if a horse breaks its legs its put down to ease it suffering but we'll keep a cancer victim dosed up on a cocktail of drugs and therapy for years to keep them alive and only prolong the inevitable.

We're not dealing in the equine world.

This discussion is about human life and the sanctity of human life.

krudler

We're not dealing in the equine world.

This discussion is about human life and the sanctity of human life.

Exactly, animals are afforded a more humane death than people in most cases

If someone has a fatal disease they are treated for that disease until medically there is nothing more than can be done for that patient.
But the patient is treated until that point of no return is reached.
That is the way all patients should be treated.

And you speak of suffering.
Who is suffering ? The patient? Or the loved ones seeing the patient?
Ever witness someone holding on for dear life.
Where literally every second is precious to that person?
Have you?

Yes I have

By your rationale, that person should have been "assisted" to their death long before then.

If thats their wish then yes.

MrPudding

mardybumbum wrote: »

No need to apologise.

Why thank you.

mardybumbum wrote: »

But with the use of analgesics and tractotomy in the more extreme cases, there arent very many people who suffer "unbearable pain".

I am going to go ahead an presume you have not had much experience with anyone with end stage cancer. For some the levels of pain they experience are such that the level of pain killers they would need would be potentially fatal. There are limits to what analgesics can do. I have had two people close to me die of cancer and toward the end the drugs were not even "taking the edge off" the pain.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Most people who avail of the services provided by dignitas are just fed up with life.

Lets forget about dignitas for a moment. I really did not hold them up as the model anyone should follow. Any person has the right to kill themselves. Personally I would like them to get some support to make sure they are making the correct decision.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Should someone with a level of pain at 8 be given the opportunity to take their lives but tough luck for those who are only at 7.

Anyone has the right to take their own life.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Should MS patients who relapse every 2 months be allowed to, but those who relpase every two years be denied.

Again, anyone can take their own life. Who should be assisted? I don't know.

mardybumbum wrote: »

These are not important questions for me as i dont support assisted suicide, but I am interested in how you, as an advocate for assisted suicide would decide whether someone is worthy or not?
Its not enough to say " Well they decide themselves ". People have good days, and they have bad days.

I will be honest with you, I don't know. I don't know if there can be hard and fast rules, I don't think there can be. I think that even if you had two people with exactly the same condition they could be completely different people. This is not a cop out, but I don't see how you could make hard rules like frequency of episodes. Someone only having one episode per year might be less able to cope than someone that has 4. It depends on the individual.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Someone who decides to take their life one day may be totally opposed to it another.
Indeed many people who went to dignitas, made a U - turn at the last moment.

Great! As long as dignitas don't kill them anyway. They don't do they?

mardybumbum wrote: »

This is why I think the living will argument is irrelevant.
The mechanics of it cant be ignored. its an integral part of the argument.

No, the mechanics can't be ignored, they are the most important part of it, however I am not qualified to make recommendations about what those mechanics should be.

mardybumbum wrote: »

At the moment, those who are clinically depressed cannot avail of the services provided by dignitas.

And I presume there is a good reason for that, but the fact remains, there is nothing to stop a clinically depressed person from taking there own life. Personally I would prefer that they attempted to go down the assisted suicide route, go refused and maybe get the help they need to get over their problem.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your story. My own Grandmother has parkinsons and often comments how she wished she were in heaven with grandad.
Its not the same as alzheimers but I do understand where you are coming from.

Anyway, I dont think either of us is going to convince the other.
Its something I cant envisage myself changing views on anytime soon, but maybe in a few years, with more life experience behind me who knows?

Likely not, but that does not take away from the conversation.

MrP

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

If someone has a fatal disease they are treated for that disease until medically there is nothing more than can be done for that patient.
But the patient is treated until that point of no return is reached.
That is the way all patients should be treated.

But what if they don't want to be?

hinault wrote: »

And you speak of suffering.
Who is suffering ? The patient? Or the loved ones seeing the patient?

Both of them. But the one that matters most is the patient.

hinault wrote: »

Ever witness someone holding on for dear life.
Where literally every second is precious to that person?
Have you?

Yes I have thanks. I have also had the misfortune of witnessing someone that everytime they were able gather enough breath to speak begged for it to end.

hinault wrote: »

By your rationale, that person should have been "assisted" to their death long before then.

It is one thing to be clinging to life enjoying what little time you have left with you loved ones. It is quite another to be in unspeakable pain that the drugs can't touch.

hinault wrote: »

What your housemates uncle chose to do was not assisted suicide : many people do decide not to take medical assistance after they reach a certain point in fighting a disease/condition.

Exactly, what he got was much worse, simply being left to die.

hinault wrote: »

This is diametrically different to deciding to take a proactive course of action to end ones life (ie ingesting a solution to end ones life)

Absolutely, it is much less humane.

hinault wrote: »

We're not dealing in the equine world.

This discussion is about human life and the sanctity of human life.

No we aren't, but the parrallel is interesting. How come it is ok to treat animal humanely and end their suffering but we can't do the same for a person that actually wants their suffering to end?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

I was watching the news and it appears that Ian Huntley (Soham murderer) has been attacked today, and not for the first time. Apparently his throat was slashed open by another prisoner. (Despite his horrendous crime, I find this attack to be quite horrific.) He has also attempted to take his own life on 3 occasions.

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

krudler

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

No, this isnt someone who contracted a fatal disease, he murdered people, him being killed is just getting the easy way out

Fanny Cradock

krudler wrote: »

No, this isnt someone who contracted a fatal disease, he murdered people, him being killed is just getting the easy way out

Possibly. But I believe that some of the people who have availed of the services (wrong word maybe) of Dignitas haven't been terminally ill either.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

It's a very complex situation obviously. I have known people that attepted suicide, one while in prison and he was put on suicide watch. He managed to attempt suicide a couple of times after that awsell but survived. If there was an option for someone to seek a compasionate death rather than imprisonment then it's pretty clear he would have chosen it. But he was eventually released, and it took time but he got his life back on track and he is now married with two kids and a more content person I don't know of. It is one thing to assist the suicide of someone that is terminally ill or have no hope of recovery. But lots of people attempt suicide for many reasons and then come to view thier failure to finish the job as a lucky escape, and view the people that prevented them from doing it with extreme gratitude.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm wondering what Christians think of the recent assisted suicide events given by Dr Philip Nitschke.

There is a thread about the event in Dublin. It may be of any interest to those reading this thread. I hope it is not too off topic as it is about the event itself and not the content, but given the quote above I think it should be on topic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055858681

strobe

Just to clarify something for myself, is suicide considered a mortal sin to Christians? Is it your belief that anyone that takes thier own life goes to hell?

PDN

strobe wrote: »

Just to clarify something for myself, is suicide considered a mortal sin to Christians? Is it your belief that anyone that takes thier own life goes to hell?

Most Christian denominations do not recognise the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal sin and venial sin.

Within Roman Catholicism suicide is a mortal sin, but it does not follow that anyone who takes their own life goes to hell. The official stance of the Church is that a number of mitigating circumstances (eg mental instability, mental illness, or a simple lack of understanding) would mean that a suicidal person does not necessarily go to hell.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was watching the news and it appears that Ian Huntley (Soham murderer) has been attacked today, and not for the first time. Apparently his throat was slashed open by another prisoner. (Despite his horrendous crime, I find this attack to be quite horrific.) He has also attempted to take his own life on 3 occasions.

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

Hmmm, as if the topic wasn't complicated enough...

I am not sure how I feel about this. I am all for ending suffering, but possibly not this kind of suffering. I am against capital punishment, but never thought of voluntary capital punishment. I suppose it is close to assisted suicide, but my gut feeling is it should not be allowed when it is being used to dodge punishment.

This might be somewhat controversial but Ian Huntley, like anyone else convicted of a crime, should be able to serve his sentence in relative safety. The punishment of prison is about being in prison, it is the removal of freedom, it does not need to be cruel or vicious.

But punishment is punishment and he should serve his sentence and not get out of it early by ending his life.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, as if the topic wasn't complicated enough...

It's an odd one, I'll grant that.

MrPudding wrote: »

This might be somewhat controversial but Ian Huntley, like anyone else convicted of a crime, should be able to serve his sentence in relative safety. The punishment of prison is about being in prison, it is the removal of freedom, it does not need to be cruel or vicious.

MrP

I completely agree. But we should be realistic when we look at someone like Huntley. I gather that there are certain taboos even amongst criminals, and Huntley (and those of his bent) will never be safe or accepted, either in prison or outside of it.

I wonder what then is a prison sentence supposed to achieve. Is the punishment simply the removal of freedom? Or is it to inflict suffering? Is it both?

It seems to me a person in Huntley's position ticks at least some of the same boxes that an organisation like Dignitas requires. And if assisted suicide was enshrined as a right - a prospect that I still find disturbing despite my indecision on the rights and wrongs of it - what then? How does one quantify if a life is or is not of sufficient quality to keep going? That this might open door to unforeseen possibilities is my greatest concern.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I completely agree. But we should be realistic when we look at someone like Huntley. I gather that there are certain taboos even amongst criminals, and Huntley (and those of his bent) will never be safe or accepted, either in prison or outside of it.

It is difficult alright, but it is the job of the prison service to do it. A thankless and almost impossible task to be sure.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder what then is a prison sentence supposed to achieve. Is the punishment simply the removal of freedom? Or is it to inflict suffering? Is it both?

There are a number of reasons for a prison sentence. Rehabilitation or treatment, punishment and the safety of society. I suppose there is also the deterrence factor, but that really only seems to work on people less likely to commit crime in the first place. Criminal don't expect to get caught, therefore don't expect to have to do the time, so the deterrence is limited in effect.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated, keeping them in prison is, IMHO, a mixture of punishment and keeping them off the streets.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me a person in Huntley's position ticks at least some of the same boxes that an organisation like Dignitas requires. And if assisted suicide was enshrined as a right - a prospect that I still find disturbing despite my indecision on the rights and wrongs of it - what then? How does one quantify if a life is or is not of sufficient quality to keep going? That this might open door to unforeseen possibilities is my greatest concern.

It is a tricky one, ethically, alright. My initial thought is if assisted suicide did become legal allowing a prisoner to avail of it to avoid an unpleasant life in prison is not really in keeping with the spirit of it, if you know what I mean.

That said, perhaps it is not ethical to remove this right form them? I suppose it is win win. The prisoner get off with a horrible life and society does not have to pay for him to live or run the risk of him being released and re-offending. I am not really a fan of financial reasons for things like this, so I am not convinced of this.

If assisted suicide did become legal, and I think it will in the UK anyway within our lifetimes, I would want it to be very tightly controlled. I would expect that people would not be getting killed willy nilly, and certain classes of people simply would not be eligible. I think that perhaps prisoners, for me right now, should be one of those classes.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

It is a tricky one, ethically, alright. My initial thought is if assisted suicide did become legal allowing a prisoner to avail of it to avoid an unpleasant life in prison is not really in keeping with the spirit of it, if you know what I mean.

I certainly do.

MrPudding wrote: »

That said, perhaps it is not ethical to remove this right form them? I suppose it is win win. The prisoner get off with a horrible life and society does not have to pay for him to live or run the risk of him being released and re-offending. I am not really a fan of financial reasons for things like this, so I am not convinced of this.

If the option is on the table for free citizens, then I think, yes, in principle it would be unfair to deny them the same right. My fear is that beyond somebody dying of motor neurone disease or whatever choosing to end their life in the final stretch, it is conceivable - to me at least - that a challenge could arise from someone who is not terminally ill that it would be better if they were dead. And how tragic would it be if the right people agreed? And what would it say about us as a society?

MrPudding wrote: »

If assisted suicide did become legal, and I think it will in the UK anyway within our lifetimes, I would want it to be very tightly controlled. I would expect that people would not be getting killed willy nilly, and certain classes of people simply would not be eligible. I think that perhaps prisoners, for me right now, should be one of those classes.

MrP

I don't mean to scare monger, but do you remember this case. Again, given that this case caused so much controversy - they got the sentence right but only on the second attempt - I wonder are we in some small way devaluing life? This is my fear.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the option is on the table for free citizens, then I think, yes, in principle it would be unfair to deny them the same right.

But then, we currently remove several rights from prisoners that free citizens enjoy. Freedom being the obvious one, but also voting. This could be just another one.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My fear is that beyond somebody dying of motor neurone disease or whatever choosing to end their life in the final stretch, it is conceivable - to me at least - that a challenge could arise from someone who is not terminally ill that it would be better if they were dead. And how tragic would it be if the right people agreed? And what would it say about us as a society?

The short answer about what it would say about our society is that we are a society that give people control over their own lives, including when it should end.

Personally I am not sure it would be a good idea. For me a big part of any assisted suicide scheme would be counselling. I would expect anyone that is looking for assistance in ending their life to interviewed and counselled. I would hope that this would mean that many people would get help they might not otherwise have received and actually choose not to end their lives. This would be particularly true where people simply wanted to end their lives for physiological only reasons, and there was no underlying illness impacting quality of life.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't mean to scare monger, but do you remember this case. Again, given that this case caused so much controversy - they got the sentence right but only on the second attempt - I wonder are we in some small way devaluing life? This is my fear.

The law is run by humans, as such it does not always get things right first time, sometimes it simply does not get them right at all. I am sure there are many people that would argue they got it right here the first time. Without reading the case reports I could not really give an opinion on it.

Are we devaluing life? Perhaps in a way. I think it is more like we are coming to terms with the fact that some people don’t value their lives as much as others, and as it is their life, perhaps they should have the right to do whatever they want with it…

MrP