Where do you stand on legalising assisted death?

Odysseus

Prinz, you stilll have not answerd ny question about my arrogance.

prinz

Odysseus wrote: »

Prinz, you stilll have not answerd ny question about my arrogance.

Yes I responded.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79472104&postcount=75

hatrickpatrick

It's your life and the choice of what to do with it should be yours, even if that choice means ending it.

To criminalize someone else for helping you to fulfill your free will choice is absolute lunacy.

Odysseus

prinz wrote: »

Yes I responded.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79472104&postcount=75

Apologies.

However, I'm taking about informed consent, not just making the decision myself. If the person cannot make an informed decision their multi/dis team and their family should make it based upon quality of life and the wishes of the patient known to the family before they lost that ability.

Still see it as arrogance?

Edit: everybody close to me knows I would like an od of opiates if my quality of life get so bad that all I experience is pain of I loose the abilty to think clearly or move

Nothingbetter2d

prinz wrote: »

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..



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...



..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.

at no point do i see shopaholic making any decisions on behalf of others. she said having to wear nappies is losing ones dignity. that is her opinion which she is more than entitled to think, i too would find losing control of my bowels and having to wear nappies undignified... but then that is also my opinion... same as yours is wearing nappies is not losing ones dignity.

its just a case of ye both having to agree to differ and there is no need to be rude about it either as its not a very dignified way to end a debate.

mitosis

I'd approve of helping a loved one die if required to, but it'd have to be properly controlled. Perhaps a HSE panel could/would decide who was suitable candidate. I don't think it should be the decision of one person, medical professional or not.

prinz

Odysseus wrote: »

Still see it as arrogance?

My reference to arrogance was not to do with deciding for or against assisted death, but rather the presumption that everyone who is in pain/suffering/incontinent also surrenders their dignity. That was what I referred to as an arrogant position.

BlueSmoker

Odysseus wrote: »

Cheers, but it was in a way a pleasure to do it, I know a lot about meds and stuff so I was giving him daily injections, he reckoned the public health nurses hurt him ; whereas I didn't.

It was a big learning experience, I was giving him daily injections, he perfered that than the public health murses. TBF my whole family where involved. The hardest thing for me was to see a strong willed individual become helpless and afaird, that and watch him in pain knowing like me he had a very strong tolerance to pain.

Now my whole family help in other ways, it was a powerful experience taking his pluse as his heart pumped the last few times and the mixed emotions that followed. However, I'm really glad I got to be with him in his last few months/weeks/ days etc.

We had him home for the last 3 months, I really don't know how much more we could have gone on for. We worked well but the cracks where starting to show, it nearly turned into a physical fight between me and my brother two day before he died as he wanted him in hospital, and I know my dad was down to days.

I have seen a lot of death in my time, a large amount of my child hood mates are death, I lose client in work regularily, I'm sure this help a bit. Making sure he got good pain relife was a problem, I remember telling the hospice that if they don't sort I work get him some heroin and when they discover I was serious, would do and knew how to do, it moved things on quickly.

Anyway I may not be making sense now so I'll leave it there. Nothing special in my experience in that there are people out there today going through it. It was of course special to me.

Cheers

Edit: after the last night, I had a looked at the amiunt of meds put into I forget the name for that auto injection box, the hospice assisted my daeth on his way out. That is my beliefe and me a a hospice worker discussed it, and I thank her. I believe it happens but cannot be acknowledged.

I believe the same thing happened with my father, when people ask me about it, I consider and tell them I believe it was a good death. Thankfully he passed away very quickly, about 1 week, after he told my mother he couldn't go on, and he was surround by his family and friends, right to the end. It was an unsaid thing that the amount of morphine they where giving him, was going to be to much for his system, but it made him comfortable. I was so glad to be there for his last breath, as I said it was a good death.

So of course I agree with assisted death

I'm so upset and saddened by some of the experiences that other posters have had, and you are within my thoughts, I realise how lucky I was

Big virtual hugs to everyone.

kowloon

seamus wrote: »

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.

It seems seamus is my seamus.

If I ever had a terminal illness and knew I would degrade I would be forced into the unfair position of having to take my own life prematurely out of fear of being unable to do it later. Not having assisted suicide when I needed it would cost me months, or even years of life.

I'd prefer to enjoy as much time as I could and when the time came where my quality of life was poor enough someone would help me through the process.

Surprised by the huge support for this, but I expect a vote that wasn't restricted to those on Boards would be less one sided.

Nothingbetter2d

kowloon wrote: »

It seems seamus is my seamus.

awww a new boardsie couple.... aint that sweet

wolfpawnat

Abortion and Assisted Death are two entirely different things.

Abortion, more often than not, it is the choice to terminate a pregnancy with which there is f all wrong medically with the child, just that the mother does not WANT to continue the pregnancy.

Perhaps a better example is the situation that was highlighted not too long ago on the Late Late Show of women who are forced to either go to term or go abroad for abortions on babies that will not survive birth. That are dead no sooner than they are born.

Assisted Death, the person is already dying, though most of the time it is slowly and painfully, and the only thing you can do to assist them at the moment is to sign a Do Not Resuscitate order.

What I find sickening is if my dog and myself both were diagnosed with inoperable brain tumour, my dogs vet would be able to give him the option of being put out of his misery with a bit of dignity and we wouldn't have to see our beloved pet waste away to nothing, while I would be stuck becoming a shadow of my former self.

As long as the person is able to decide for themselves, let them. I don't want to wait around to die, I would like it to be as quick and painless as possible!

Odysseus

prinz wrote: »

My reference to arrogance was not to do with deciding for or against assisted death, but rather the presumption that everyone who is in pain/suffering/incontinent also surrenders their dignity. That was what I referred to as an arrogant position.

The is little if any dignity to be found in any of those conditions once they past a threshold. I have meet a lot of people in those positions and apart from my objective evulation, subjectively any one I have spoken to about it concur.


Edit: just to make it clear if a person wants to continue in that position, that should be respected. I don't see anyone here going against that.

At 19 a mate of mine died from a HIV related death, I remember him begging people to get him enough gear to OD. That was a horrible time, certain medic didn't want to treat, the funeral directors turned up like they where going into a radioactive site, coffin had to be closed. I know that if off topic, but excuse my rant.

GastroBoy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Abortion and Assisted Death are two entirely different things.

Abortion, more often than not, it is the choice to terminate a pregnancy with which there is f all wrong medically with the child, just that the mother does not WANT to continue the pregnancy.

Perhaps a better example is the situation that was highlighted not too long ago on the Late Late Show of women who are forced to either go to term or go abroad for abortions on babies that will not survive birth. That are dead no sooner than they are born.

Please, if you want to discuss abortion, start a new thread. OP

GastroBoy

interesting material on the subject

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003256/Anti-euthanasia-backlash-hits-BBC-Terry-Pratchett-shows-death-Dignitas.html

InReality

I'd be against it, for a few reasons.

I think it would mean that elderly people would begin to feel themselves a burden on their family and might consider do this (assisted death ) as it became more socially acceptable.

I can easily foresee cases where pressure would be placed on someone by other ( unpleasant ) members of their family who wanted their "inheritance" money.

I think at present hospice give excellent care to people who are dying , and will give ( in my experience ) as much pain relief as someone required , even if this shortens or ends their life. I think treatment should be in terms of pain relief needed by an individual.

GastroBoy

Just checked back on this after a few weeks, seems like on overwhelming vote in favor.

Lollipops23

I'm totally in favour of it- but only if managed properly. It is open to abuse, but if the relevant authorities are doing their jobs right, people will be screened correctly.

I'm going on the record here- if I'm told some day that I have a certain amount of time left and that I'll have wasted away to nothing, and no longer physically or figuratively resemble myself anymore, I'm getting the hell out of dodge. I can't stand the thoughts of such an ending, for myself or for my loved ones.

mattjack

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm totally in favour of it- but only if managed properly. It is open to abuse, but if the relevant authorities are doing their jobs right, people will be screened correctly.

I'm going on the record here- if I'm told some day that I have a certain amount of time left and that I'll have wasted away to nothing, and no longer physically or figuratively resemble myself anymore, I'm getting the hell out of dodge. I can't stand the thoughts of such an ending, for myself or for my loved ones.

In my family there's more than one degenerative disease on both my mothers side and fathers side, so its something myself,siblings , cousins etc live with very closely ... you could describe my family as being particularly unlucky with degenerative diseases.I'm at risk myself of one.

From time to time the conversation comes up, based around the option of assisted death'....but one common thread that appears is that the children and spouse of anyone of us who falls ill, is that they would n't want the ill person to avail of the option assisted death often saying that they wouldn't regard it as a burden.

Its a difficult one and you could argue that it's being selfish prolonging someone's life, though for me when I see my mother care for my father its very humbling to see her give so much of her time to him and when I see my sisters bring in their newborns to where my dad now lives ... well you got to see yourself.

You , yourself my see yourself as a burden, but your family my not.

Medusa22

I have a progressive lung disease (CF) and I know that one day I will be able to do very little for myself, I can't do everything I want to do now but I can do most of it, just at a slower pace. I definitely think that assisted death should be an option for people, I see little purpose in dying slowly and painfully.

GastroBoy

Sad to hear of Tony Nicklinson, a case which has strong links with the topic of this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/22/tony-nicklinson-dies-right-to-die?newsfeed=true

emschlem

I don' t know where I stand on this. I'm not Yes or No, but I'm certainly not 'don't care'.

Myrddin

All for it. Cats & dogs get better treatment in these cases. To sit & watch someone suffer & fade away in agony while they wait to die is ethics gone wrong.

pathtohome

In the case of a person suffering tremendously from biological pain due to an incurable illness, whether they should legally be allowed choose to die should be up for debate.

In the case of a paralyzed person (i.e. locked-in syndrome) waning to die by way of assisted suicide, allowing them to do so should absolutely not be permissible by law. Such a person is suffering due to psychological reasons. If they should be permitted to die via assisted suicide, why not individuals who suffer from other mental illnesses such as suicidal depression?

PieForPi

All for it.

Give people who are truly suffering the option to end their life on a positive, dignified note. It's a disgrace that terminally ill people are forced to live it out against their own wishes.

Myrddin

pathtohome wrote: »

In the case of a paralyzed person (i.e. locked-in syndrome) waning to die by way of assisted suicide, allowing them to do so should absolutely not be permissible by law. Such a person is suffering due to psychological reasons. If they should be permitted to die via assisted suicide, why not individuals who suffer from other mental illnesses such as suicidal depression?

So psychological suffering is less valid than biological suffering? Yeah, sit & watch your parents wait to die from 'locked in syndrome' & then come back and tell us it's more humane to keep them alive. People on death row have more freedom for god sake.

As I said, ethics gone wrong.

GastroBoy

pathtohome wrote: »

In the case of a person suffering tremendously from biological pain due to an incurable illness, whether they should legally be allowed choose to die should be up for debate.

In the case of a paralyzed person (i.e. locked-in syndrome) waning to die by way of assisted suicide, allowing them to do so should absolutely not be permissible by law. Such a person is suffering due to psychological reasons. If they should be permitted to die via assisted suicide, why not individuals who suffer from other mental illnesses such as suicidal depression?

What a complete contradiction. Please re-read your post and try to see just how ridiculous that sounds.
Whats the difference from any other mental illness you ask? A great bloody deal different actually. A person suffering from depression can make a cup of tea, go for a walk, pick up the phone, change a channel on the tv, TALK for crying out loud!
A person with locked in syndrome can not do anything, absolutely nothing.
I suggest you try to sit completely still in your chair for an hour and see just how blindingly frustrating it is, now try to imagine that for remaining years of your life.

hoochis

pathtohome wrote: »

In the case of a person suffering tremendously from biological pain due to an incurable illness, whether they should legally be allowed choose to die should be up for debate.

In the case of a paralyzed person (i.e. locked-in syndrome) waning to die by way of assisted suicide, allowing them to do so should absolutely not be permissible by law. Such a person is suffering due to psychological reasons. If they should be permitted to die via assisted suicide, why not individuals who suffer from other mental illnesses such as suicidal depression?

Locked in syndrome is not a psychological disease. It is a physiological disease and patients don't usually improve!

Stavro Mueller

The video footage of a heartbroken Tony Nicklinson being told that he had lost his case is one of the most harrowing things I have seen in quite a while. It genuinely rattled me and is still haunting me. I think any person who thinks that life should be sustained at all costs should be sat down in front of a screen and shown the utter desolation on that man's face.

tricky D

cymbaline wrote: »

The video footage of a heartbroken Tony Nicklinson being told that he had lost his case is one of the most harrowing things I have seen in quite a while. It genuinely rattled me and is still haunting me. I think any person who thinks that life should be sustained at all costs should be sat down in front of a screen and shown the utter desolation on that man's face.

Thankfully the option of Palliative Care sometimes does come into play at a certain point. The problem is that it comes into play too late, a while after death is assured despite the earlier suffering, lack of dignity and lack of hope. My own father (see post 13) was eventually given Palliative Care (medication, water and food withdrawn, and morphine administered in his case), but could have been given it earlier in my opinion, when it was obvious that there was no future. Even PC is a tricky area of medical ethics, but does ensure a more comfortable (for want of a better description) death, as opposed to the cruelty that precedes PC.

oppenheimer1

christmas2012 wrote: »

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

So a better alternative for her was to "put her down" like a dog?

krudler

pathtohome wrote: »

In the case of a person suffering tremendously from biological pain due to an incurable illness, whether they should legally be allowed choose to die should be up for debate.

In the case of a paralyzed person (i.e. locked-in syndrome) waning to die by way of assisted suicide, allowing them to do so should absolutely not be permissible by law. Such a person is suffering due to psychological reasons. If they should be permitted to die via assisted suicide, why not individuals who suffer from other mental illnesses such as suicidal depression?

locked in syndrome is horrific, would you want to live for years like that?

pathtohome

GastroBoy wrote: »

What a complete contradiction. Please re-read your post and try to see just how ridiculous that sounds.
Whats the difference from any other mental illness you ask? A great bloody deal different actually. A person suffering from depression can make a cup of tea, go for a walk, pick up the phone, change a channel on the tv, TALK for crying out loud!
A person with locked in syndrome can not do anything, absolutely nothing.
I suggest you try to sit completely still in your chair for an hour and see just how blindingly frustrating it is, now try to imagine that for remaining years of your life.

I never asked what's the fundamental difference between the two as it's obvious. I asked in principle what's the difference between granting a paralyzed person's wish to die and granting a non-paralyzed depressed person's wish to die. Within this context their scenarios aren't that different; they're both plagued with a negative mental interpretation of their life situation. A paralyzed person has the choice to either accept their situation or be tormented for the rest of their life about it. Life is not about the quality of experience, but the overall experience itself regardless of it's content.To think that death would be better is a false perception interpreted by the imagination of the individual. Many monks live similarly to paralytics and are the happiest people on earth. Also, many paralytics would choose to die rather than being a burden on their families/the state or it might heavily influence their decisions, this is a false perception also.

B.A._Baracus

I believe that, in certain cases, it should be absolutely legal to assist someone in their passing.

B.A._Baracus

cymbaline wrote: »

The video footage of a heartbroken Tony Nicklinson being told that he had lost his case is one of the most harrowing things I have seen in quite a while. It genuinely rattled me and is still haunting me. I think any person who thinks that life should be sustained at all costs should be sat down in front of a screen and shown the utter desolation on that man's face.

I just watched that video after you said cymbaline

my god

pathtohome

EnterNow wrote: »

So psychological suffering is less valid than biological suffering?

Yes because it is not real, it only exists within the subjective imagination of the individual. We have been conditioned to believe that what brings us happiness in life is to have a constant ever-changing flow of mental stimulation coming from the external world. Life's true purpose is to find stability within the inner dimension of awareness, everything else is a sensory illusion anyway.

Intensive Care Bear

I honestly believe that any person even if they are in perfect health should be abel to exercise their free will and decide how and when they want to die.

oppenheimer1

1210m5g wrote: »

I honestly believe that any person even if they are in perfect health should be abel to exercise their free will and decide how and when they want to die.

People in perfect physical health can (and do) kill themselves. The problems arise when they are unfit to kill themselves by themselves and need outside help.

raftni

There's too much grey area surrounding the topic.

If this was brought in it would completely change healthcare in Ireland.

By what accounts do you determine the merits/disadvantages of legalising this, by what arbiter do you measure the rights and wrongs? I would evaluate it under the ethical system of principlism. Let's just look briefly at this under the heading of justice, if I may.

In terms of justice, we look at the social benefits and burdens associated with euthanasia. This has become known as the ‘Slippery Slope’ argument. Although particular acts of active killing are sometimes morally justified, the social consequences of sanctioning practices of killing would involve serious risk of abuse, and on balance, would cause more harm than benefit. These negative consequences would not occur immediately, but would grow incrementally over time. Society might start by carefully restricting the patients who can qualify for assisted suicide, but these restrictions would be revised and expanded over time, with ever increasing possibilities in the system for unjustified killing. Unscrupulous persons would learn how to abuse the system, just as they do with methods of tax evasion that operate on the margins of the system of legitimate tax avoidance. Particular acts of assisted suicide may in particular circumstances be humane, compassionate and in everyone’s best interest, but a social policy that authorizes such acts would weaken moral restraints that we cannot easily replace, threatening practices that provide a basis of trust between patients and health care professionals.


Source: My thesis for undergraduate was on health law and ethics, and I had a chapter on this.

It wasn't me!

pathtohome wrote: »

Yes because it is not real, it only exists within the subjective imagination of the individual. We have been conditioned to believe that what brings us happiness in life is to have a constant ever-changing flow of mental stimulation coming from the external world. Life's true purpose is to find stability within the inner dimension of awareness, everything else is a sensory illusion anyway.

Eh, bullplop. Maybe that's your life's purpose, and you're welcome to it, and maybe you'd greet a diagnosis of locked-in syndrome with "Hmm, well this will be an excellent opportunity for me to further explore my personal universe and to find stability, now that I don't have all that pesky moving about, holding my wife/children and having personal freedoms to worry about anymore", but I think you'd be an edge case, to say the least.

ArtSmart

Where do you stand on legalising assisted death?

near the will reading

Stavro Mueller

pathtohome wrote: »

In the case of a person suffering tremendously from biological pain due to an incurable illness, whether they should legally be allowed choose to die should be up for debate.

In the case of a paralyzed person (i.e. locked-in syndrome) waning to die by way of assisted suicide, allowing them to do so should absolutely not be permissible by law. Such a person is suffering due to psychological reasons. If they should be permitted to die via assisted suicide, why not individuals who suffer from other mental illnesses such as suicidal depression?

Tell me. Have you watched that video of Tony Nicklinson?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlPopfwhTqg&sns=em

Do you really think that he should've been allowed to live on even though he was never going to recover and desperately wanted to die. Do you really believe that his suffering was less because it was psychological? This is a case that put a human face on something that can be very airy fairy and up in the clouds. This is human agony at its most visceral.

ArtSmart

raftni wrote: »

There's too much grey area surrounding the topic.

If this was brought in it would completely change healthcare in Ireland.

By what accounts do you determine the merits/disadvantages of legalising this, by what arbiter do you measure the rights and wrongs? I would evaluate it under the ethical system of principlism. Let's just look briefly at this under the heading of justice, if I may.

In terms of justice, we look at the social benefits and burdens associated with euthanasia. This has become known as the ‘Slippery Slope’ argument. Although particular acts of active killing are sometimes morally justified, the social consequences of sanctioning practices of killing would involve serious risk of abuse, and on balance, would cause more harm than benefit. These negative consequences would not occur immediately, but would grow incrementally over time. Society might start by carefully restricting the patients who can qualify for assisted suicide, but these restrictions would be revised and expanded over time, with ever increasing possibilities in the system for unjustified killing. Unscrupulous persons would learn how to abuse the system, just as they do with methods of tax evasion that operate on the margins of the system of legitimate tax avoidance. Particular acts of assisted suicide may in particular circumstances be humane, compassionate and in everyone’s best interest, but a social policy that authorizes such acts would weaken moral restraints that we cannot easily replace, threatening practices that provide a basis of trust between patients and health care professionals.


Source: My thesis for undergraduate was on health law and ethics, and I had a chapter on this.

the value of life argument has always been brought forwards, to issues from contraception use/ abortion to drug use.

to me, is assumes people become dumb/ powerless as new laws are introduced. yes, law is powerful, and it can inhibit action but humans eventually get it right.


for me it's this.

If I was in a situation which greatly limited my control over my life, I would like to be allowed the choice to die or not.

Being allowed to choose it what being human is all about.

ArtSmart

pathtohome wrote: »

Yes because it is not real, it only exists within the subjective imagination of the individual. We have been conditioned to believe that what brings us happiness in life is to have a constant ever-changing flow of mental stimulation coming from the external world. Life's true purpose is to find stability within the inner dimension of awareness, everything else is a sensory illusion anyway.

the statement is that there is a level of existence other than sensory - and indeed that sensory experience is 'an illusion'.

perhaps. But if that were true should one impose that perspective on others?

and secondly, have you stepped outside the sensory experience? and what's it like?

ps, someone mentioned 'psychological' by which they meant 'inability to perceive clearly'. but that's not what psychological means.

Stavro Mueller

There was a tragic case last year where a British woman with MS resorted to committing suicide in a canal because she felt it was her last chance at being able to do anything for herself. This is every bit as bad in its own way. Again, someone who couldn't help themselves died a sad lonely death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9101233/MS-sufferer-rode-wheelchair-for-two-hours-to-kill-herself.html

GastroBoy

pathtohome wrote: »

GastroBoy wrote: »

What a complete contradiction. Please re-read your post and try to see just how ridiculous that sounds.
Whats the difference from any other mental illness you ask? A great bloody deal different actually. A person suffering from depression can make a cup of tea, go for a walk, pick up the phone, change a channel on the tv, TALK for crying out loud!
A person with locked in syndrome can not do anything, absolutely nothing.
I suggest you try to sit completely still in your chair for an hour and see just how blindingly frustrating it is, now try to imagine that for remaining years of your life.

I never asked what's the fundamental difference between the two as it's obvious. I asked in principle what's the difference between granting a paralyzed person's wish to die and granting a non-paralyzed depressed person's wish to die. Within this context their scenarios aren't that different; they're both plagued with a negative mental interpretation of their life situation. A paralyzed person has the choice to either accept their situation or be tormented for the rest of their life about it. Life is not about the quality of experience, but the overall experience itself regardless of it's content.To think that death would be better is a false perception interpreted by the imagination of the individual. Many monks live similarly to paralytics and are the happiest people on earth. Also, many paralytics would choose to die rather than being a burden on their families/the state or it might heavily influence their decisions, this is a false perception also.

Again, re-read your quote. Completely contradicting yourself.

B.A._Baracus

I dont understand how anyone could be totally against assisted death
I can see the argument thats made about who 'qualifies' for assisted death (hate to use the word qualify but all I could think of)


A person who is physically incapable of ending their life would certainly 'qualify' in my opinion (There is no standard of life. No cure. Even constant pain. They want things to end. but physically cannot) I would also include a person terminally ill in this case too. They are going to die. Let them die peacefully around friends and family.

But on the flip side, I see the argument. What qualifies and what doesnt qualify? ... For example, some 39yo guy gets divorced, kids taken off him, loses his job and wants to end it all. A person who could over-come his problems. Just in a rut. A person who is also physically capable of ending his own life. Should he be allowed? ... but of course, the counter-argument to that is that your body is the only one thing you truly own.

Stavro Mueller

I know that it's a complex issue and I agree - someone who's miserable because their marriage has broken up etc. shouldn't be given the option. They should legislate for it in certain circumstances though. The cases which have gone to court seem to have all involved people who either have locked in syndrome or are headed that way. Because the courts are saying no, it's leading these people to either die horribly in the way they didn't want.

In the case of the woman in the UK who had MS (I linked to it earlier), she went in her electric wheelchair to a canal two days in a row to try and drown herself. She was just about to enter a phase of her life where she'd no longer have any control at all over her body. Her family couldn't/wouldn't take her to Dignitas in Switzerland. Day 1 her wheelchair stuck so she came home distraught. Day 2 she went again and this time managed to fling herself into the water.

Tony Nicklinson effectively committed suicide by refusing food. Luckily he didn't last too long. Thankfully too, he had family who respected his wish and didn't force feed him to keep him alive.

I'm sure there are other people who have resorted to ending their own lives because they are on the way to becoming locked in and having no more say in their own lives. It is deeply saddening that you've got people having sad lonely deaths in canals etc. rather than in controlled circumstances surrounded by their family.