Euthanasia

jerry2623

Following a case in Waterford I wonder would it be possible to have a rational conversation about Euthanasia and so called mercy killings I know at the end of my days I would like to go in a manner of my choosing. I would be proud to have a son like the man here but I do feel we should have legislation to cover this instead of people having to go to Switzerland etc

seamus

Well to be fair, it's hard to say about the above case. For some reason, suffocation doesn't seem like a dignified and painless way for your life to end, to me.

There needs to be a national debate on it as the public attitude seems to me to be swinging strongly in favour of it and there are a lot of terminally ill people making themselves high-profile to highlight this.

I always hear comments that "the consent issue is a the hard bit", but I really don't think so.

For a start obviously you'd limit it to those with terminal illness. I know that's kind of broad strokes, but you could word it in such a way that an terminal illness is:
- any illness which will directly or by consequence result in the death of the person, and
- causes a reduced quality of life for an extended period of time below an acceptable level, and
- for which there is no reasonable course of treatment available or likely to become available in a reasonable timeframe which has a better than 50% chance of curing the disease or improving the quality of life for the patient.

This must be certified by two doctors, at least one of whom is a specialist in the area of illness. The aim here is tha doctor's will sign off on "no-brainer" diseases like ALS, but will be more hesitant if someone has a treatable form of cancer.

The patient themselves must make a declaration on video and on paper, both of which are provided to the GRO and held for 30 years. The declaration must be made in the presence of a GRO registrar, a doctor and at least two witnesses who do not have any financial interest in the patient's estate.

I really don't see the big problem that people have with it. We euthanise sick animals, and when a sick person eventually dies, we breathe a sigh of relief, but the thought of allowing them to end it when they choose for some reason causes some people to panic.

jerry2623

I agree with your comments 100% but as the person in Waterford did not have a terminal Illness I wounder how you could cover people who have had massive strokes or Brain injuries from accidents etc who have no hope of recovery or a quality of life and are just left lying there in a vegetative state. I know in my own case I would like to be givien some for of injection to end it all and take my chances in the next one

seamus

jerry2623 wrote: »

I know in my own case I would like to be givien some for of injection to end it all and take my chances in the next one

I think that's hard to say tbh - do people Alzheimer's, for example, have a poor quality of life? Since quality of life is subjective, it needs to be based on what the person themselves perceives rather than how we perceive it to be for them.

So in some cases it may appear that the person is in a terrible way, but they may not actually be suffering because they're unaware of their illness.

jerry2623

I suppose the only way to go is living wills but I am not sure how far they would be followed in this country.
I would hate to end my days in some nursing home without a proper quality of life.
I am at present visiting somebody on a regular basis in a nursing home and while the quality of the care and the home is fantastic The majority of the people there have no quality of life and are they are there through the wonderful intervention of modern medicine and practices.

Cardinal Richelieu

I fully support the idea of free Euthanasia service for anyone above a certain age that wants it, we are just fooling ourselves if we think we can have a health system that can support a decent quality of living through are difficult last days before death for all the people not just the wealthy few.

jerry2623

At the end of ones life Health and nor wealth is what is important . All the wealth in the world will not help you especiallyi if you have certain conditions

cocaholic

If one is *terminally* ill, in pain and is unable to live a quality of like, the option for a dignified death should suffice and be an option. While there is the possibility that it could be abused but in Switzerland there is strict regulations regarding it (like the person has to be video recorded or met in person with the doctor to say they approve). I think a number of people who take out forms for it don't go through with it. I'm not aware or know any details of the Waterford case so I can't comment. Every situation is different.

On a side note, in a conversation with a number of peers, just over half said they are completely against abortion and more of them agreed with euthanasia than abortion.

aloyisious

Right-to-die campaigner takes case to the Supreme Court today

This is with the Supreme Court now, following the High Court ruling against Marie Fleming and her desire to die.

I'm probably splitting hairs here now with what the High Court said in it's judgement, so I would like some-one with legal expertise to tell me if the ruling left a loophole for Marie and her partner to use, while also giving the DPP room to manoeuvre.

The Judges at the High Court in Dublin ruled last month that they could not support allowing a third party to bring about the death of another.

If her partner was the one responsible for causing Marie to pass away, instead of going down the death-path her illness is ensuring her, then as he is NOT a third-party, but (as her partner) second-party - so to speak, would he be acting in defiance of that particular ruling?

I know he would/could be actioned-against by mean's of other laws, not least of which might be one directly related to gain, but my question is related solely to the High Court ruling.