Assisted Suicide.

strobe

Shooter suggested a poll in the Ian O Doherty thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056021567 so here it is.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

I voted yes, but to pre-empt any absurd arguments, I attach the addendum that the patient must be suffering a from an irreversible degenerative/chronic or fatal condition, that causes unbearable suffering.

mehfesto

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

I voted yes, but to pre-empt any absurd arguments, I attach the addendum that the patient must be suffering a from an irreversible degenerative/chronic or fatal condition, that causes unbearable suffering.

I totally agree.

It would be a service for those who have rationally highlighted that they no longer wish to live (and who are in full mental health).

ShooterSF

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

I'd echo Sink's statements. Also, while it's still extremely early in this poll it looks as if there is some support for such a cause..

Gregor Samsa

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

My life is my life and mine alone. It's not a gift from god or anything like that. While I recognise that I have a responsibility not to put family or friends through unnecessary trauma or hardship, I regard myself as having the right to end my life, or to arrange for someone else to do so for me, in a situation where my physical condition has become unbearable to me. I'd like to see that right recognised in law, with whatever safeguards are necessary to prevent abuse.

robindch

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Here's how it works in Oregon (AFAIR) -- There's a legal procedure whereby somebody who is terminally ill requests permission to die, and this request is sent to and debated by a board made up of medical doctors each off whom who individually assesses the person's quality of life, level of pain, possibility of remission, life expectancy and so on.

If the board approves the request, then the person is provided with the means to exercise that right, and left get on with it (or not) as the case may be. There are other terms and conditions here of course, but the core of it is that somebody must ask for it, it must be approved, and if so, it's provided so that it can happen in a humane manner.

This seems as good a solution as possible to a terrible problem.

krudler

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

mehfesto wrote: »

I totally agree.

It would be a service for those who have rationally highlighted that they no longer wish to live (and who are in full mental health).

About the full mental health thing, what if someone was in a car crash and was basically turned into a vegetable, if they cant communicate how they feel but will never have a decent quality of life, would that be a reason for assisted suicide? would any family member want someone to lie in a vegetative state for a few decades until "nature takes it course" or would it be beyond reason to kill someone when they cant vocalise their own point of view?

The Mad Hatter

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD NOT be legal.

Balls! Pressed the wrong one…

Anyways, I think it certainly should be legal, provided of course that the patient is of sound mind and free from coercion when they make the decision.

Improbable

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

krudler wrote: »

About the full mental health thing, what if someone was in a car crash and was basically turned into a vegetable, if they cant communicate how they feel but will never have a decent quality of life, would that be a reason for assisted suicide? would any family member want someone to lie in a vegetative state for a few decades until "nature takes it course" or would it be beyond reason to kill someone when they cant vocalise their own point of view?

Firstly, I think sink really hit the nail on the head. I for one certainly wouldn't want to be kept alive in a vegetative state and if living wills allowed for it, I would set one up to that effect.

strobe

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

It seems the religious wouldn't touch this poll with a..... well, with a ten foot poll, unfortunately. My intitial thought was that it would be an obvious no from religious people but thinking back now I know that wouldn't be the case as I have seen 2 posters, at least, in "the other forum" voice support for the idea of assisted suicide in certain circumstances before. I am curious though. Could someone maybe start a similar thread/poll in After Hours? There is more of a mix there obviously. I'd prefer not to start the same thread again myself on a second forum.

Zombrex

I think it is very important that the condition of the person is assessed by independent medical professional. A person who may have say suffered a stroke or have some sort of brain disease may not be in a position to rationally considered things like longer term effects. You don't want someone with a brain damage but who doctors think will recover crying out to be killed

Turtwig

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Balls! Pressed the wrong one…

Anyways, I think it certainly should be legal, provided of course that the patient is of sound mind and free from coercion when they make the decision.

LOL!

When I was looking at the who voted what I was thinking "Mad Hatter...WTF!!!"

WIZE

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

I think the patient would need to be assessed by around three different Medical professionals .

I would agree with it

Sam Vimes

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Balls! Pressed the wrong one…

Anyways, I think it certainly should be legal, provided of course that the patient is of sound mind and free from coercion when they make the decision.

Looks like four others missed the should be legal option too. It's the only explanation since they can't possibly want people to be legally forced to endure long drawn out painful deaths.

liamw

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

I voted yes, but to pre-empt any absurd arguments, I attach the addendum that the patient must be suffering a from an irreversible degenerative/chronic or fatal condition, that causes unbearable suffering.

Are you including non-voluntary euthanasia with that statement?

Also, can anyone who thinks it should not be legal care to share the arguments for your decision?

zenno

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

I voted yes, but to pre-empt any absurd arguments, I attach the addendum that the patient must be suffering a from an irreversible degenerative/chronic or fatal condition, that causes unbearable suffering.

would that include total body paralyzation. because if i ever had an accident and was totally paralyzed i would want to leave this planet.

and for someone to stop me from getting assisted suicide help would be an evil act as of the suffering you would have to go through.

what is your opinion on this...?

zenno

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

phutyle wrote: »

My life is my life and mine alone. It's not a gift from god or anything like that. While I recognise that I have a responsibility not to put family or friends through unnecessary trauma or hardship, I regard myself as having the right to end my life, or to arrange for someone else to do so for me, in a situation where my physical condition has become unbearable to me. I'd like to see that right recognised in law, with whatever safeguards are necessary to prevent abuse.

I totally agree with this person.


9.38% believe that further suffering of a human being is ok.. quote: I'm Non-Religious and believe it SHOULD NOT be legal...but that would prolong the suffering of such person in serious pain?. which is an evil act in my personal opinion.

the individual person has the right to choose if they want to go or not that is not up to anyone on this planet except the responsable human being in question.

Galvasean

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

zenno wrote: »

would that include total body paralyzation. because if i ever had an accident and was totally paralyzed i would want to leave this planet.

and for someone to stop me from getting assisted suicide help would be an evil act as of the suffering you would have to go through.

what is your opinion on this...?

Personally I have told my friends and family that if I ever end up in a persistant vegetive state or total body paralyzation scenario I want them to 'pull the plug'. Of course I can't legally put that in my will. :rolleyes:

Mrmoe

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Assisted suicide should definitely be available if it is wanted. I can not fathom why a third party would want to decide over what some one else wants to do with their life. I don't think a person even has to be in pain or a vegetative state to take this action. Our lives are ultimately the only element that we will ever have full control over.

The Mad Hatter

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD NOT be legal.

Malty_T wrote: »

LOL!

When I was looking at the who voted what I was thinking "Mad Hatter...WTF!!!"

Hey, neat, I have a reputation.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

liamw wrote: »

Are you including non-voluntary euthanasia with that statement?

Also, can anyone who thinks it should not be legal care to share the arguments for your decision?

Absolutely not. The question specifically asks about assisted suicide, which is very different to involuntary euthanasia. Only oneself can make the decision to end ones own life.

I would allow for euthanasia were a person requests to be euthanised in the event that they loose mental faculties and only if that person is deemed to have very poor quality of life. What I mean by that is, some people when they go senile, they may not have clue what's going on around them but are happy laughing and smiling and still derive some enjoyment out of living, while others may be depressed, sad and angry all the time with no enjoyment and nothing to live for. I would allow euthanasia in the latter circumstance if the patient requested it prior to loosing their mental faculties.

zenno wrote: »

would that include total body paralyzation. because if i ever had an accident and was totally paralyzed i would want to leave this planet.

and for someone to stop me from getting assisted suicide help would be an evil act as of the suffering you would have to go through.

what is your opinion on this...?

Yes I would, but first every attempt should be made to council the patient in order to ensure that they're making the right decision for themselves and their loved ones. It' only unbearable if the patient is of that frame of mind, for others they learn to cope with their situation and continue to want to live. I recommend the book and film "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", a true story written by a man with locked in syndrome who can only move his left eye.

Zillah

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Ah, public polls. I'm judging you.

liamw

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

Absolutely not. The question specifically asks about assisted suicide, which is very different to involuntary euthanasia. Only oneself can make the decision to end ones own life.
...
I would allow euthanasia in the latter circumstance if the patient requested it prior to loosing their mental faculties.

...
Yes I would, but first every attempt should be made to council the patient in order to ensure that they're making the right decision for themselves and their loved ones.

There's a difference between involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia.

So you say you would allow euthanasia if the patient had requested it prior to losing their mental faculties, but then go on to agree with zenno ("would that include total body paralyzation?").

So I'm seeing a contradiction or am I misunderstanding you?

Do you only support non-volunantary euthanasia in the situation where the patient has made prior consent?

Personally I support non-voluntary euthanasia provided it is based on a strict set of conditions.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

liamw wrote: »

There's a difference between involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia.

So you say you would allow euthanasia if the patient had requested it prior to losing their mental faculties, but then go on to agree with zenno ("would that include total body paralyzation?").

So I'm seeing a contradiction or am I misunderstanding you?

Do you only support non-volunantary euthanasia in the situation where the patient has made prior consent?

Personally I support non-voluntary euthanasia provided it is based on a strict set of conditions.

Sorry, I was unaware of the distinction between non-voluntary and involuntary. I would be against involuntary euthanasia in all circumstances, I would be against non-voluntary euthanasia without prior consent. I would permit non-voluntary euthanasia with prior consent under certain conditions.

In the case of newborns and children I would give the parents power of consent.

liamw

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

I would be against non-voluntary euthanasia without prior consent. I would permit non-voluntary euthanasia with prior consent under certain conditions.

So, in zenna's example of someone who was involved in an accident that resulted in full body paralysis, you wouldn't allow assisted suicide under any circumstance (assuming there was no prior consent)?

Non-voluntary euthanasia is really where the debate is at.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

liamw wrote: »

So, in zenna's example of someone who was involved in an accident that resulted in full body paralysis, you wouldn't allow assisted suicide under any circumstance (assuming there was no prior consent)?

Non-voluntary euthanasia is really where the debate is at.

Assisted suicide implies consent, for it is simply providing a person with the means to commit suicide and so is the incorrect description in circumstance of total body paralysis.

If euthanasia (ie, a doctor intentionally killing someone) is legalized people should prepare by writing letters of consent, if they did not then they're responsible for their own fate. A person should not be subjected to euthanasia without their prior consent for it may go against their beliefs and what they would want.

liamw

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

Assisted suicide implies consent, for it is simply providing a person with the means to commit suicide and so is the incorrect description in circumstance of total body paralysis.

I guess your right in the case of assisted suicide but I am slightly changing the topic becuase I think voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicided is more clear cut than non-voluntary.

sink wrote: »

If euthanasia (ie, a doctor intentionally killing someone) is legalized people should prepare by writing letters of consent, if they did not then they're responsible for their own fate. A person should not be subjected to euthanasia without their prior consent for it may go against their beliefs and what they would want.

I'm not sure I totally agree. I think there may be certain circumstances where exceptions can be made. I think there are certain conditions that a patient can be in where they are incapable of giving consent but that any human would not want to live.

Rev Hellfire

liamw wrote: »

I think there are certain conditions that a patient can be in where they are incapable of giving consent but that any human would not want to live.

I'd be interested in hearing what these situations are in which you can say with total certainty someone would not want to live.

drkpower

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing what these situations are in which you can say with total certainty someone would not want to live.

+1000000

Non-voluntary euthanasia is a very very dangerous area. To terminate someone'e life without them ever expressing any indication of their own view is such a significant over-riding of an individual's rights that it would require evidence approaching full certainty that the person was in intractable pain or other similar suffering.

This is an area which must be 'opt-in' until and unless medical science allows us to make judgments approaching certainty in respect of the subjective experiences of each patient.

Galvasean

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing what these situations are in which you can say with total certainty someone would not want to live.

Indeed. You can't be certain unless they've said so. Some people will want to cling on to their lives no matter how much pain they are in.

robindch

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

drkpower wrote: »

Non-voluntary euthanasia is a very very dangerous area.

Which is why nobody is proposing it.

The context of this thread is one in which people clearly express the wish to end their lives, they have their quality of life assessed by a medical board who (for things to proceed) must conclude that the chances of remission of the disease and the remission of pain, is negligible. And who, in the case that the medics agree with the requester, that the requester is provided with the means to end their lives themselves. In all respects, it's an "opt-in" thing.

The only people who are taking this opt-in scheme and turning it into some nightmarish plot in which teams of murderous medics roam the land, pulling the plugs on the nation's beloved grandmas, denying food and care to sick babies etc, are those with a political motivation for doing so (or those who, credulously, believe them). This was, most famously, implied by Sarah Palin in August last year when the person who looks after her Facebook page for her created the notion of a "death panel" and implied that if Obama's Health Care bill went through, that Palin's most recent baby (who suffers from Downs' Syndrome) would be denied medical care and therefore, in effect, would be killed.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/

drkpower

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

robindch wrote: »

Which is why nobody is proposing it.

Apart from Liamw on the previous page..... Is he mixed up with Palin and her teabaggers?;)

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

Which is why nobody is proposing it.

Nobody bar liamw, which is what his response was in relation too.

liamw wrote: »

I think there are certain conditions that a patient can be in where they are incapable of giving consent but that any human would not want to live.

liamw

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing what these situations are in which you can say with total certainty someone would not want to live.

Total body paralysis with full consciousness? I guess it's impossible to say with absolute certainty but friends and family may indirectly know the person would not want to live. If I was in a persistent vegetative state I would not want to live and people very close to me would know that.

But your right, it's dangerous ground.

Rev Hellfire

liamw wrote: »

people very close to me would know that.

I agree ultimately the wishes of the individual don't always come into it and other informed people must make the best decisions they can.
Even if that is contradictory to the individuals expressed wishes, and that applies to both keeping them alive as well as letting them go.

the_syco

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD NOT be legal.

sink wrote: »

I voted yes, but to pre-empt any absurd arguments, I attach the addendum that the patient must be suffering a from an irreversible degenerative/chronic or fatal condition, that causes unbearable suffering.

Agreed, and I'd like to add that the patient must be of sound mind, and can tell an independant witness that they want to die.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

liamw wrote: »

Total body paralysis with full consciousness? I guess it's impossible to say with absolute certainty but friends and family may indirectly know the person would not want to live. If I was in a persistent vegetative state I would not want to live and people very close to me would know that.

But your right, it's dangerous ground.

Which is why I think a letter of consent should be standard practice, take the burden off the family. Many of us already carry organ donor cards, maybe they could incorporate it.

Darlughda

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Rev Hellfire. Your avatar is very scary:eek:

Rev Hellfire

Darlughda wrote: »

Rev Hellfire. Your avatar is very scary:eek:

Ohh noez !

I've changed it just for you, you can come out from behind the sofa now.

Darlughda

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Ohh noez !

I've changed it just for you, you can come out from behind the sofa now.

Thank you.
(gingerly moves from behind couch)

I love bunnies. They rock.

The Mad Hatter

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD NOT be legal.

Darlughda wrote: »

Thank you.
(gingerly moves from behind couch)

I love bunnies. They rock.

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes:
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

mikhail

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes:
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

There are techniques now for communicating with someone with total paralysis but full consciousness, based I think on fMRI. Sadly, there are also con artists who offer families the hope of communication with their stricken relative.

I see little reason to refuse someone with the capacity to make a rational decision from ending their lives, even in full health, save perhaps if they have dependent children. If they're in enormous pain, terminal, etc, I see no reason at all.

Darlughda

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes:
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

You suspicious thing you.

bunnies are defenceless. Only sound they can make is the death cry.
They rely on the communication of the thumping of the back paws.
This is why they have such big ears.
They can hear danger and hide before danger approaches.

Anyway, back on topic, animals like rabbits really give huge benefits to terminally ill people. The are soft, cute, fluffy and all that, but more than that they give a link to a living life that is not often found in hospitals.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

mikhail wrote: »

I see little reason to refuse someone with the capacity to make a rational decision from ending their lives, even in full health, save perhaps if they have dependent children. If they're in enormous pain, terminal, etc, I see no reason at all.

Really? Are you referring to just physical health or do you include mental health? Because I fail to see how anyone in full physical and mental condition could rationally choose to end their life. I also don't think it's a good idea to offer people suffering from mental health issues the option to commit suicide. After all the majority of mental health issues can be treated.

mikhail

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

sink wrote: »

Really? Are you referring to just physical health or do you include mental health?

By "in full health", I meant physical health. But note that I referred to the mental capacity to make the decision.

Because I fail to see how anyone in full physical and mental condition could rationally choose to end their life.

I agree. However, if someone were to offer an example of such a person, I can't think of any reason to stand in their way.

I also don't think it's a good idea to offer people suffering from mental health issues the option to commit suicide. After all the majority of mental health issues can be treated.

And the minority which can't? But again, I pretty much agree with you. I'm just not really informed enough to discuss a possible subset of people who have an incurable mental health problem but could be considered rationally capable of choosing to end their lives, e.g. someone who suffers from bouts of serious depression and doesn't respond well to treatment but wishes to end their life between bouts of depression. Maybe depression never works like that - hence I don't think I can discuss it. I think we'd need a doctor or a psychiatrist to weigh in on that one.

sink

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

mikhail wrote: »

And the minority which can't? But again, I pretty much agree with you. I'm just not really informed enough to discuss a possible subset of people who have an incurable mental health problem but could be considered rationally capable of choosing to end their lives, e.g. someone who suffers from bouts of serious depression and doesn't respond well to treatment but wishes to end their life between bouts of depression. Maybe depression never works like that - hence I don't think I can discuss it. I think we'd need a doctor or a psychiatrist to weigh in on that one.

Speaking hypothetically I think I agree, but it would be a very rare case if it can exist at all.

Risteard

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

This reminds me of a very good article written by Brian Moore for the telegraph about a Rugby Player who had a serious injury and was left paralyzed. He chose to end his life in Switzerland and his parents who accompanied him were facing charges when they returned to the UK before they were eventually dropped.

As for me, I firmly believe that it's a person's right to choose to end their life, especially if it's in circumstances such as the above or where they are in extreme suffering. Of course, it is vital that this isn't abused and that they of course go under some sort of psychological examination beforehand.

Zillah

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

Risteard wrote: »

This reminds me of a very good article written by Brian Moore for the telegraph about a Rugby Player who had a serious injury and was left paralyzed. He chose to end his life in Switzerland and his parents who accompanied him were facing charges when they returned to the UK before they were eventually dropped.

Well that triggered what was possibly one of the most saddening wikipedia tangents I've gone on.

alex73

I am religous believer.. But I don't pretend to know what suffering would really mean.. I think somebody faced with their last days should be treated with upmost respect and provided with every means possible... But I don't know I could help them die with an injection. If I really wanted to die I would prefer to do it alone without involving anyone else. I suppose only a person who is suffering can give an real opinion on this issue.

mikhail

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

alex73 wrote: »

...I suppose only a person who is suffering can give an real opinion on this issue.

Speaking of which,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE3pBIuAGk

Context: The above is the Dimbleby Lecture of Terry Pratchett, a much loved author who is beginning to lose his mind to a form of Alzheimer's Disease.

ShooterSF

I'm Religious and believe it SHOULD be legal

First I hope you don't take this post in an aggressive way. I'm sure you will get many replies as is the "joy" of being the only person brave enough to offer an opposite view. I just want to make some points..

alex73 wrote: »

I am religous believer.. But I don't pretend to know what suffering would really mean..

Do you mean what it means or how it would feel?

I think somebody faced with their last days should be treated with upmost respect and provided with every means possible...

Unless they want to die quickly?

But I don't know I could help them die with an injection.

I don't know if I could either but if someone was in real pain I think I could. Thankfully though there are tougher people out there than us wusses to do it

If I really wanted to die I would prefer to do it alone without involving anyone else.

A perfectly acceptable choice. All that's asked is others are given the option.

I suppose only a person who is suffering can give an real opinion on this issue.

I strongly disagree here. I know what I want done with my body before I die and I don't need to be dead to have an opinion on that...

Again I hope you don't get lambasted for being brave enough to offer an alternate opinion. There are plenty who share them but wouldn't "touch this with a 10 foot barge pole". Most responses will be at the opinion!