Where do you stand on legalising assisted death?

Odysseus

prinz wrote: »

Just because someone may have died slower, or with more pain, does not mean they had any less dignity as a human being, or that their eventual demise was any less dignified. That nonsense is one thing that really pisses me off and I find it offensive tbh, that the only dignified death is quick, painless, and 'clean' so to speak. It isn't.



The question there would be is a patient suffering really compos mentis while they are in pain/suffering? Then if they make wishes known prior to becoming unable to communicate for example what if they change their mind?

Not being able to get to the jacks before you sh!t yourself, being lifted of the jacks by your son and collaping in pain crying on his shoulder is full of dignity yeah:rolleyes: Not being able to wipe your hole, because of the pain. Having your son change nappies for you again full of dignity that. Good quality pain relife can help a lot with dignity, which was my point.

Same with hiding you pain because you are afaird you will have to go hospital and be kept away from your family. Being in hospital, terminal but left in the hall, being restrained by your son because he could not let you leave hospital. All of that has dignity. Dignity in death is hard to come by, but we can do our best to try facilitate as much of it as possible.

shopaholic01

Prinz, there is nothing dignified about an adult having to wear nappies and depending on someone else to assist with basic functions.


Lying in bed terrified and in pain, knowing you are going to die and watching the grief on your loved one's faces while you are still alive.


It's hard to see someone like that and it haunts you after your death. Grieving is difficult enough without wishing someone had died sooner.


And yes, while it make seem selfish to some it confirms that you never, never want to be in that condition yourself. Why would you? If you're terminally ill what is the point in a slow, agonising death? It's not dignified and it serves no purpose.

xzanti

I absolutely think it should be legalised..

As I've said here before, it's a mercy which we afford to our pets when they are faced with a painful and undignified death, but yet we cannot do the same for our loved ones..

As long as it is properly regulated and done with medical supervision etc..

christmas2012

the quicker they legalise this the more money that could be saved,the less people in nursing homes rotting away living in nappies - it must be awful when they have moments of realisation which sometimes happens with dementia patients..

shopaholic01

christmas2012 wrote: »

the quicker they legalise this the more money that could be saved,the less people in nursing homes rotting away living in nappies - it must be awful when they have moments of realisation which sometimes happens with dementia patients..

Not to mention the terror many of them experience, particularly in the early stages. They don't know who they are, where there are or recognise anyone around them.

Must be the worst feeling imaginably.

christmas2012

Ive done work in nursing homes as a student,and recently as a paid staff member as a nurses aide,i have to say its one of the most depressing jobs to have,feeding people who dont remember their own name,sometimes lash out when you try to dress them,and sometimes spit their food out,not to mention changing their nappies..its not a way to live your final months/days/hours - its completely unnatural,and only prolongs the misery,not to mention the cost to family and the state.

i heard of one story off a nurse who told me there was one elderly lady who was chucked out after all the payment after selling her house was gone,when she couldnt pay anymore they chucked her out onto a hospital bed,then she eventually became homeless her family had to take her back in and look after her..
things like this still happen in ireland

shopaholic01

christmas2012 wrote: »

i heard of one story off a nurse who told me there was one elderly lady who was chucked out after all the payment after selling her house was gone,when she couldnt pay anymore they chucked her out onto a hospital bed,then she eventually became homeless her family had to take her back in and look after her..
things like this still happen in ireland

That's just barbaric, and unbelievably sad to think it's somehow considered 'normal' or 'acceptable'.

prinz

Odysseus wrote: »

Not being able to get to the jacks before you sh!t yourself, being lifted of the jacks by your son and collaping in pain crying on his shoulder is full of dignity yeah:rolleyes: ..

Maybe that's what you consider dignity, but it's the height of arrogance to take that away from other people.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Prinz, there is nothing dignified about an adult having to wear nappies and depending on someone else to assist with basic functions..

That's for them to decide. Having been in the position of assisting my own father with basic functions, including struggling to support him to the toilet etc a few years ago, and on occassion not getting there on time, never once, never, have I questioned his dignity. Ever, and for anyone who doesn't know the man to come along and say he's undignified, why simply because he's ill? I say f*ck them.

christmas2012 wrote: »

the quicker they legalise this the more money that could be saved.....

Sometimes I despair tbh, I really do. Why not just wipe out everyone in a hospice? Get a terminal diagnoses? Better bump you off asap, money to be saved and all that.

shopaholic01

Prinz, it wouldn't be a case of onlookers deciding to end a life. A person, while healthy, can make an informed decision of whether of not they would like to avail of euthanasia in the event of a terminal illness/unbearable pain/paralysis.

Nobody is suggesting a machine gun rampage in nursing homes and hospitals, or calling for mass extermination of terminally ill people.

Some people may chose to have a natural death, others may chose to end their life earlier.

It is simply a matter of free will and the belief that we should be allowed to make that decision.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Some people may chose to have a natural death, others may chose to end their life earlier..

When you have arguments like the "cost to the state and the family" of people choosing a natural death then what hope have you of people already feeling vulnerable and burdensome making a free choice?

Edit: Not to mention of course that people who choose a natural death in such circumstances are also choosing to relinquish any sense of dignity apparently, which I note was dropped from your reply.

GastroBoy

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Prinz, it wouldn't be a case of onlookers deciding to end a life. A person, while healthy, can make an informed decision of whether of not they would like to avail of euthanasia in the event of a terminal illness/unbearable pain/paralysis.

Nobody is suggesting a machine gun rampage in nursing homes and hospitals, or calling for mass extermination of terminally ill people.

Some people may chose to have a natural death, others may chose to end their life earlier.

It is simply a matter of free will and the belief that we should be allowed to make that decision.

Well said!

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

When you have arguments like the "cost to the state and the family" of people choosing a natural death then what hope have you of people already feeling vulnerable and burdensome making a free choice?

A living will would need to have been in place prior to a person becoming ill. This has been mentioned before, otherwise it would be extremely unethical eg families thinking of their inheritance as opposed to the wishes of the individual.

It should never be a case of doctors/families just making a spur of the moment decision to end a life.

Unfortunatley, money does factor - read christmas 2012's post about people being forced out of nursing homes etc, when they can no longer afford to pay. What does a family do if they can't physically or emotionally manage the care of a loved one? What if they need to work as well? Do they starve/risk losing their home.

Money should never be a motivating factor, but unfortunately it is.

Most people however will have the interests of the ill person at heart.


Another point - many people are choosing to go abroad to avail of this, many however won't because whoever travels with them may be prosecuted on their return.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

A living will would need to have been in place prior to a person becoming ill. This has been mentioned before, otherwise it would be extremely unethical eg families thinking of their inheritance as opposed to the wishes of the individual...

..and as I mentioned before, what happens if the ill person changes their mind but perhaps can't communicate that change of mind? Still ethical? I am sure many people's wishes and priorities would change between being healthy, and life-threateningly ill....

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Unfortunatley, money does factor - read christmas 2012's post about people being forced out of nursing homes etc, when they can no longer afford to pay. What does a family do if they can't physically or emotionally manage the care of a loved one? What if they need to work as well? Do they starve/risk losing their home..

What's your answer? If the person hasn't chosen their fate in advance? Is money still a factor then?

Sykk

If someone wishes to end their life, who is some bureaucrat sitting in an office to tell them otherwise? I'm completely in favor.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

Edit: Not to mention of course that people who choose a natural death in such circumstances are also choosing to relinquish any sense of dignity apparently, which I note was dropped from your reply.

I had covered that already.

By mentioning that some people may chose a natural death indicates that people can different ideas of 'dignity'. I have acknowledged that it is an individual decision.


I believe people should have the right to make the decision for themselves.

ruthloss

I intend (when i decide, in the distant future I hope) to take my leave of my loved ones in a dignified manner and go to sleep forever by my own hand.
I believe that is my right.
To those who would bring God into this equation, forget it, I'm not interested in your opinion.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

By mentioning that some people may chose a natural death indicates that people can different ideas of 'dignity'. I have acknowledged that it is an individual decision..

Make your mind up.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Prinz, there is nothing dignified about an adult having to wear nappies and depending on someone else to assist with basic functions.

Doesn't sound like you are respecting individual decisions when you say things like the above.

prinz

ruthloss wrote: »

To those who would bring God into this equation, forget it, I'm not interested in your opinion.

That would be a grand total of nobody on the thread so far. Good pre-emptive strike though.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

..and as I mentioned before, what happens if the ill person changes their mind but perhaps can't communicate that change of mind? Still ethical? I am sure many people's wishes and priorities would change between being healthy, and life-threateningly ill....



What's your answer? If the person hasn't chosen their fate in advance? Is money still a factor then?

An informed decision while healthy would stand. If wouldn't be a spur of the moment decision - the consequences would need to be fully explained, including the fact that may change their mind and be unable to express it.

If they haven't made the decision in advance, then assisted death would not be an option - money would not be a factor.

Odysseus

prinz wrote: »

Maybe that's what you consider dignity, but it's the height of arrogance to take that away from other people.



Sometimes I despair tbh, I really do. Why not just wipe out everyone in a hospice? Get a terminal diagnoses? Better bump you off asap, money to be saved and all that.

Could you please explain the first part to me, i.e arrogance.


I know I'm only taking about the last few days of a person's life, not just because they are terminal, I believe other are saying the same, but the need to voice that.

I strongly considered giving my dad a lethal overdose, thankfully the hospice did that to me, to suggest I was try to save a euro after having him home for the last 3 months. Arranging 24/7 care between 4 of us all working, well I don't want to finish that sentence here. I will add though we would have paid evrything we had to spend more time with him, without the chronic sufferring.

Its not just my dad, I have been with childhood friends when they died. Money did not come into it there either.

Odysseus

prinz wrote: »

Make your mind up.



Doesn't sound like you are respecting individual decisions when you say things like the above.

Do hou think people in that position find it full of dignity. I had no problem with it, it is after only sh!te, but it is often differnt for the person with the nappy.

Jelly2

christmas2012 wrote: »

the quicker they legalise this the more money that could be saved,the less people in nursing homes rotting away living in nappies - it must be awful when they have moments of realisation which sometimes happens with dementia patients..

Honestly, I can't believe you have brought the saving of money into this. I'm not in opposition to assisted death, but to argue that a good reason to allow it is to save money seems really callous.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

Doesn't sound like you are respecting individual decisions when you say things like the above.

I have seen people in this situation - they were embarassed and humiliated. I would be too.

Don't know how many times I need to say this it would be an individual decision, not a default option.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

An informed decision while healthy would stand. If wouldn't be a spur of the moment decision - the consequences would need to be fully explained, including the fact that may change their mind and be unable to express it..

So somebody not wanting to die could effectively be helped along against their wishes in certain circumstances. OK.

Odysseus wrote: »

Could you please explain the first part to me, i.e arrogance..

An attitude of superiority and presumption, i.e. in this case deciding for other people how dignified their are, or what sense of dignity they are allowed to consider about themselves.

There seems to be an attitude here of 'how dare we as a society decide if someone can end their life however they see fit yadda yadda'...... but there is no sense of irony apparently in turning around and stripping other people of their dignity as human beings without their consent because they need a certain level of palliative and other care.

seamus

No problem with it in principle. Once you realise that life is not a divine gift and it's the sole right of the person to make decisions for themselves, then there is no moral issue or moral hazard.

In principle I also have no issue with the suicide of someone who is physically fine but may be suffering mentally or may just want to end it. If they want to go, that's their perogative.

There are ethical issues of course in relation to people who may be incapable of making decisions for themselves, and in terms of depression there's always the argument that we shouldn't let someone go because they may not be saved.

Ending one's life also impacts more than just them of course, so that needs to be considered too.

But these are things that can be worked through and worked on to derive the best middle ground that works for most people.

christmas2012

Jelly2 wrote: »

Honestly, I can't believe you have brought the saving of money into this. I'm not in opposition to assisted death, but to argue that a good reason to allow it is to save money seems really callous.

its not callous,its common sense,and another thing it cost the public money,ie the governement exchequer,not to mention the families,if i was in a position where i was dying an agonising death(first off i would want to cut that agnonising death short with a cocktail of morphine etc)and,i would want to give whatever inheritance i had to my family,and not give the funds of my house to an uncaring nursing home where some elderly patients are neglected and abused...

why would i want to give to people who dont really know me or care about me on a personal level,i would want to give whatever i had left to my family or those who really cared about me

prinz

Odysseus wrote: »

Do hou think people in that position find it full of dignity. I had no problem with it, it is after only sh!te, but it is often differnt for the person with the nappy.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I have seen people in this situation - they were embarassed and humiliated. I would be too..

I think it should be left up to the people involved. Isn't that the essential thrust of this thread? Why is it any different when it comes to dignity. My old man has his dignity intact, he doesn't need anyone to come along and strip him of that as I said.

But apparently it's ok for perfect strangers to decide that for him. Odd.

So when you say things like 'there is nothing dignified' about being in need of x amount of assistance, or care then think twice. That might be how you would feel about yourself, but it doesn't fit for everybody.

christmas2012

Youre right it mightnt fit everybodys wants and needs and expectations of death,but i think the option of assisted death should be there for those who dont want to suffer on in pain,and want to leave some inheritance behind for loved ones..

Odysseus

shopaholic01 wrote: »

A living will would need to have been in place prior to a person becoming ill. This has been mentioned before, otherwise it would be extremely unethical eg families thinking of their inheritance as opposed to the wishes of the individual.

It should never be a case of doctors/families just making a spur of the moment decision to end a life.

Unfortunatley, money does factor - read christmas 2012's post about people being forced out of nursing homes etc, when they can no longer afford to pay. What does a family do if they can't physically or emotionally manage the care of a loved one? What if they need to work as well? Do they starve/risk losing their home.

Money should never be a motivating factor, but unfortunately it is.

Most people however will have the interests of the ill person at heart.


Another point - many people are choosing to go abroad to avail of this, many however won't because whoever travels with them may be prosecuted on their return.

Many won't because it makes their life insurance null and void.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

So somebody not wanting to die could effectively be helped along against their wishes in certain circumstances. OK.



An attitude of superiority and presumption, i.e. in this case deciding for other people how dignified their are, or what sense of dignity they are allowed to consider about themselves.

They would have already have made an informed decision knowing that they may change their mind and be unable to express it. They would have decided what they consider to be an unacceptable standard of life. They know the consequences etc. It would not be the case of someone else making the decision for them.

Families can already place a 'do not resuscitate' order, hospitals quietly administer large doses of morphine to enduce cardiac arrest - should this be stopped. Should a brain-dead person be kept on life support until their organs fail?

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

I think it should be left up to the people involved. Isn't that the essential thrust of this thread? Why is it any different when it comes to dignity. My old man has his dignity intact, he doesn't need anyone to come along and strip him of that as I said.

That's precisely what everyone is saying.

Odysseus

Sykk wrote: »

If someone wishes to end their life, who is some bureaucrat sitting in an office to tell them otherwise? I'm completely in favor.

It is not that, but the effects on their life insurance, family membeers being question by the police if they think someone help etc. The is a lot of stuff like that to be considered

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

That's precisely what everyone is saying.

No it isn't, when you decide for someone else how much dignity they maintain which was my point. So making statements like 'there is nothing dignified about.....' is not leaving it up to the individual. It's you deciding for other people about their own sense of dignity. So perhaps along with leaving the option of assisted death up to them, you would leave it up to them to determine what constitutes dignity and the loss of it.

shopaholic01

Odysseus wrote: »

It is not that, but the effects on their life insurance, family membeers being question by the police if they think someone help etc. The is a lot of stuff like that to be considered

True, I know insurance is null and void in suicide cases. However, I'm sure the assisted death of a terminally ill person could be considered acceptable - they are dying, so the policy would be availed of sooner or later (horrible way to put it, I know).

I would be willing to inform an insurance company and pay a slightly higher premium.

smash

shopaholic01 wrote: »

True, I know insurance is null and void in suicide cases.

No it's not. When I took out my life assurance policy I was told (and was in the t&c's) that it's only void if the suicide occurs within the first 3 years of the policy being taken out.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

No it isn't, when you decide for someone else how much dignity they maintain which was my point. So making statements like 'there is nothing dignified about.....' is not leaving it up to the individual. It's you deciding for other people about their own sense of dignity. So perhaps along with leaving the option of assisted death up to them, you would leave it up to them to determine what constitutes dignity and the loss of it.

That is my opinion.

AGAIN:
A person would make a living will based on an informed opinion - nobody else would make that decision on behalf of another.

They decide - no one else.

GastroBoy

Should anyone like some reading material on the subject;

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/

Though it's a UK website, I believe the topic is not limited to individual countries.

shopaholic01

smash wrote: »

No it's not. When I took out my life assurance policy I was told (and was in the t&c's) that it's only void if the suicide occurs within the first 3 years of the policy being taken out.

Really? I suppose that's to prevent someone taking out a policy to provide for loved ones when they intend to commit suicide. Must re-read mine.


I know your premium is loaded is you've ever been treated for depression etc.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

They decide - no one else.

You are confusing too issues. I don't care who decides assisted death I am talking about you in your opinion deciding for someone else how dignified they are and how much dignity they retain. So you should take your own advice, and let them decide how to arrive at their own sense of dignity.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

You are confusing too issues. I don't care who decides assisted death I am talking about you in your opinion deciding for someone else how dignified they are and how much dignity they retain. So you should take your own advice, and let them decide how to arrive at their own sense of dignity.

My opinion is based on what I would consider and the opinions of those I have watched die.

This agrument is about whether individuals should be allowed make the decision for themselves - not that I am appointed a consultant and brought in to hospices and hospitals and get to decide whether someone lives or dies.

The whole thread is about individual decision - you're seeing something the rest of us aren't.

Jelly2

christmas2012 wrote: »

its not callous,its common sense,and another thing it cost the public money,ie the governement exchequer,not to mention the families,if i was in a position where i was dying an agonising death(first off i would want to cut that agnonising death short with a cocktail of morphine etc)and,i would want to give whatever inheritance i had to my family,and not give the funds of my house to an uncaring nursing home where some elderly patients are neglected and abused...

why would i want to give to people who dont really know me or care about me on a personal level,i would want to give whatever i had left to my family or those who really cared about me

In that case, we may as well end the life of anyone who is costing the state or a family money, and is incapable of looking after themselves. If money enters the debate about the acceptability of assisted death, then it becomes an economic or material question. And I don't think that it should be about that. That in itself is undignified.
Anyway, we disagree on this, so let's just leave it. No hard feelings.

eviltwin

Touch wood it will never happen but if I ever find myself in a position where I can no longer live an independent life and I have to depend on someone for the most basic of functions ie eating, bathroom activities etc then I would like the choice to take my own life without the person or people who help me being prosecuted for it.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

The whole thread is about individual decision - you're seeing something the rest of us aren't.

Yes, I'm seeing you strip people of the right to make an individual decision about themselves.

prinz

Jelly2 wrote: »

If money enters the debate about the acceptability of assisted death, then it becomes an economic or material question. And I don't think that it should be about that. That in itself is undignified..

I have to agree. It's a poor reason to bring into a life and death topic. First you ascribe dignity to assisted death, and strip it from others. Then you tell them they'd be costing the society too much money if they don't choose assisted death. Pretty soon you'd be seeing anyone who didn't choose that option as a blight.

shopaholic01

prinz wrote: »

Yes, I'm seeing you strip people of the right to make an individual decision about themselves.

Actually, I'm condoning people having the right tto make an individual decision about themselves in the form of a living will.

I think you should re-read the thread.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Actually, I'm condoning people having the right tto make an individual decision about themselves in the form of a living will..

*Facepalm* forget the living will. I am not discussing that. What I am referring to is you deciding how much dignity a person has when that should also be the right of individual people to decide about themselves.

You made statements which in effect deny the dignity of people I know, and I am saying that should be up to them to decide, not you so take you own advice and leave it up to them to decide what dignity they enjoy.

GastroBoy

To make myself clear. I started this thread on the basis that an individual should have the right to terminate their own life if they are of sound mind to make that decison, if they're quality of life is crippled by a disease which has no cure and their future quality of life will increasingly deteriorate.

GB

shopaholic01

shopaholic01 wrote: »

That is my opinion.

AGAIN:
A person would make a living will based on an informed opinion - nobody else would make that decision on behalf of another.

They decide - no one else.

See above.

I'm getting dizzy now going around in circles, and you are making this a personal issue between you and I, so I'm going to bow out.

prinz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I'm getting dizzy now going around in circles....

No suprise there. I made numerous attempts to get you out of it but apparently they all went over your head. Well done.

This is what I am referring to, and have been for the last couple of pages..

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Prinz, there is nothing dignified about an adult having to wear nappies and depending on someone else to assist with basic functions.

That is you deciding on the dignity of another person, i.e. making a decision on behalf of another. For some reason you keep trying to bring this into it...

shopaholic01 wrote: »

A person would make a living will based on an informed opinion - nobody else would make that decision on behalf of another.

..when that's not what I have been discussing. So it's no wonder you are dizzy, you got into a circle of your own making. Now you don't want people making that decision for another, but above you have no problem making decisions for others.

mattjack

I really don't know.

My own father is at the latter stages of degenerative illness that has now robbed him of all his faculties,this alongside a series of strokes.

A few years ago when this illness manifested itself and he was still aware of himself though with very little movement he did say on more than one occasion that he wished he was dead and that he wanted to die.

Other than myself no one in my family knows that he said he wished/wanted to die, he himself knowing that had he no chance of recovery.

He now lives in a care home, looked after brilliantly and it's one of the most humbling experiences to see my mother attend to him every chance she gets..true love.

She gets great pleasure out of bringing grandchildren or grandnephew/nieces she gets in to visit him allowing them as they get older to have memories of him .

Would I have agreed to assisted suicide,even though he effectively asked for it , I really don't know.