What would you vote in a referendum on euthanasia?

wexie

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's not euthanasia you're describing, it's assisted suicide. You have confused the two.

No I haven't, for the purpose of this debate they are one and the same.

Nobody here (but you perhaps) is talking about a scenario where relatives show up at the hospital with granny in tow and say 'here listen doc, this aint working out for us, will you put her down please?'

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

No you miss the point. If you have a "right" to choose to have someone kill you, then it goes on hand that a representative of the State "must" kill you, even if they personally don't want to, which interferes with "their" choice.

Having the right to make a choice does not place a burden on the state to facilitate that choice.

You've become mixed up there.

Legalisation of euthanasia would only oblige the state to enact laws where someone, after following the appropriate processes, will not be subject to criminal sanction if they assist you in dying.

It does not mean that any HSE hospital or doctor will be required to euthanise a person on request.

Jimbob1977

It would have to be carefully thought out, with proper safeguards and checks. Thorough sign-off by doctors, not just a printed form that is given a cursory glance for a modest fee. No lip service.

We don't want a situation where pensioners and the elderly are pressurised because they are inconvenient, a burden on their family or a drain on the State.

These days, anything is possible.

wexie

seamus wrote: »

Having the right to make a choice does not place a burden on the state to facilitate that choice.

You've become mixed up there.

Legalisation of euthanasia would only oblige the state to enact laws where someone, after following the appropriate processes, will not be subject to criminal sanction if they assist you in dying.

It does not mean that any HSE hospital or doctor will be required to euthanise a person on request.

No no no, once the choice is made you have to go see the executioner. Talk through the details, do you want the chair, the sword or the guillotine.

The executioner will of course be randomly drawn from all the people eligible for jury duty, we all have to do our part

Ave Sodalis

seamus wrote:

But we also have to deal with the reality that for a small number of people, depression and similar mental illnesses are a black hole from which we can't save them for long enough to outweigh their suffering. For that tiny cohort, they will have tried everything that science can think of, and it hasn't helped for any appreciable amount of time.

While this is true, the Irish mental health service is really bad and there would have to be significant improvements to it before suicidal depression is considered a grounds for euthanasia.

professore

Let's follow the example of the 8th amendment.

Remove any articles in the constitution that grants any right to life for any living born citizens
and allow the government to legislate who has a right to life and who hasn't.

wexie

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

While this is true, the Irish mental health service is really bad

speaking from my experience only I still think you're giving it too much credit :mad:

Thanks be the private health insurance

seamus

professore wrote: »

Let's follow the example of the 8th amendment.

Remove any articles in the constitution that grants any right to life for any living born citizens
and allow the government to legislate who has a right to life and who hasn't.

Wow, what a nonsense attempt to turn this into an abortion debate.

FWIW, there is no conflict between euthanasia and the individual's right to life. There would be no constitutional change required to legalise euthanasia.

splinter65

_Dara_ wrote: »

It’s certainly a personal definition. My death will involve massive pain and likely ascites, either bloating or extreme gauntness, likely an inability to walk, possible jaundice, I won’t be able to shower myself, feed myself, toilet myself. I’m 34 years old and this to me is not going to be dignified. Even the pain alone is reason enough, IMO.

But anyone who doesn’t consider the above undignified can let nature take its course. Why should others have to live by their rules?

I think the problem people have Dara is that if euthanasia is legalized there will be too much of a risk of relatives bumping off older relatives who are inconvenient and costing too much money.
Levels of elder abuse are rising all the time.
Euthanasia can be used as the ultimate elder abuse

Amalgam

20 years or less politicians will be giving you/your family tax breaks for you to take a magic pill at a certain age. Give it time..

If you want to see what Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia looks like, search YouTube for Michèle Causse (Wikipedia). She ended her life at Dignitas in 2010.

Another person who went through assisted suicide without any visible ailments, was the business man Peter Smedley. (Wikipedia)

Both very quiet and uneventful deaths. Chatting, eating/drinking of liquids, unconsciousness, some snoring/labored breathing, death.

I've been with two people dying, both dehumanised by their (incurable) conditions. Give me the above deaths any day, if I find myself in the same situation.

RockDesk

splinter65 wrote: »

I think the problem people have Dara is that if euthanasia is legalized there will be too much of a risk of relatives bumping off older relatives who are inconvenient and costing too much money.
Levels of elder abuse are rising all the time.
Euthanasia can be used as the ultimate elder abuse

Not if the person can't give consent. It should always be a person's own decision.

dr.fuzzenstein

splinter65 wrote: »

I think the problem people have Dara is that if euthanasia is legalized there will be too much of a risk of relatives bumping off older relatives who are inconvenient and costing too much money.
Levels of elder abuse are rising all the time.
Euthanasia can be used as the ultimate elder abuse

I believe that this is the only argument against, people being pressured into it.
This raises a few questions.
How big an issue is it? Are there thousands of families willing to bully granny or grandad into offing themselves?
I have little faith in humanity, but I simply don't believe that. And I don't think there are many stats about this in the first place.

splinter65

RockDesk wrote: »

Not if the person can't give consent. It should always be a person's own decision.

There are “family” out there who will put serious pressure on an elderly person or vulnerable to consent. This is why euthanasia is rejected by most governments over and over. You had to have wondered why while abortion is available everywhere euthanasia is not?

splinter65

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I believe that this is the only argument against, people being pressured into it.
This raises a few questions.
How big an issue is it? Are there thousands of families willing to bully granny or grandad into offing themselves?
I have little faith in humanity, but I simply don't believe that. And I don't think there are many stats about this in the first place.

Surely you agree that if even 1 vulnerable person is coerced into consenting to be euthanised then it is one too many?? Families under financial pressure can get very pissed off with an elderly unwell parent needing a lot of attention. Ask Age Action what’s going on.

wexie

seamus wrote: »

Wow, what a nonsense attempt to turn this into an abortion debate.

FWIW, there is no conflict between euthanasia and the individual's right to life. There would be no constitutional change required to legalise euthanasia.

I think the question we need to be asking is why is there no constitutional right to death...

_Dara_

splinter65 wrote: »

I think the problem people have Dara is that if euthanasia is legalized there will be too much of a risk of relatives bumping off older relatives who are inconvenient and costing too much money.
Levels of elder abuse are rising all the time.
Euthanasia can be used as the ultimate elder abuse

In places where it is legal, this hasn’t materialised because the safeguards are in place.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

I think the question we need to be asking is why is there no constitutional right to death...

Because it isn't necessary. Death is an inevitability which will happen anyway at some point in all our lives. That's why the right to assisted suicide is how it should be argued. Marie Fleming lost her case in the Supreme Court arguing that she should have the right to die, but the Court noted (as seamus pointed out earlier) that there was no constitutional barrier to allow Government to legislate for euthanasia. We actually wouldn't even need a referendum on the issue.

dr.fuzzenstein

splinter65 wrote: »

There are “family” out there who will put serious pressure on an elderly person or vulnerable to consent. This is why euthanasia is rejected by most governments over and over. You had to have wondered why while abortion is available everywhere euthanasia is not?

I think euthanasia is the wrong term.
I prefer to think of it as right to die and assisted suicide.
Abortion is actually the very opposite, ending a life that cannot consent, but that is a different debate.
Anyway, the "one is too many" is not an argument.
What about driving a car, riding a bike, jogging, falling in the shower, eating a piece of bread or even suffering a heart attack whilst having a poop, one is too many, we should ban all the above?

One eyed Jack

Vojera wrote: »

I dunno, I suppose my personal experiences have led me to my opinion, as the experiences of others have led them to theirs. But my choice would be to let the person go, despite the hurt to me, if that's what they wanted. God knows I would have done it myself in the past if I had the ability. No one ever wants their loved one to die, but if the cost of them sticking around is their suffering, I think it's selfish to make them stay.

This is essentially the crux of the issue, and why I suggested that the decision to end a persons life should be as objective as possible, rather than subjective and solely based upon an individuals wish that they want to die. It's not the person themselves who will be carrying out the act, it's placing that responsibility on another person, and I believe that it shouldn't be a decision based on the authority of one individual alone, but rather it should be a decision taken in consultation with the persons family and the persons multi-disciplinary care team.

I think to make the argument that a person or persons are selfish because they do not want a person to end their life (I fully acknowledge the incredible suffering involved for the person who wants to die), but refuse to acknowledge the emotional and mental burden on the person tasked with the responsibility for making that decision, is displaying a lack of empathy towards that person for the position that they find themselves in. As Dara pointed out earlier - permitting the taking of the life of another human being, or taking the life of another human being, isn't something that comes naturally to anyone in society. It is for many people the ultimate conflict between all the values they have held throughout their own lives - the reduction or elimination of suffering, vs acknowledging that the only way to end that persons suffering is to allow them to die, let alone assist them in dying. I couldn't call a person selfish for their reluctance to allow that to happen, let alone for their unwillingness to be any party to it. If we're talking about peoples capacity for empathy, then we have to examine our own capacity for empathy with the people who are tasked with the responsibility of ultimately having to make that decision to allow a person to die, or to assist that person in ending their own life.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

I think the problem people have Dara is that if euthanasia is legalized there will be too much of a risk of relatives bumping off older relatives who are inconvenient and costing too much money.

Levels of elder abuse are rising all the time.

Euthanasia can be used as the ultimate elder abuse

The abuse carried out by care home workers is the worst :

We've all seen this :

jobbridge4life

AllForIt wrote: »

It is themselves that say they have lost their dignity. No one is saying 'your've got no dignity because your dying'.

I don't accept that. We have numerous examples in this thread, within the last few pages, of people referring, without qualification, to euthanasia as allowing patients to die with dignity. The logical conclusions of such statements is that individuals who do not chose such an option are dying undignified deaths.

wexie wrote: »

It's not about that though, it's not about 'we' think something is or isn't dignified. It's about whether or not the person whose life it is thinks it's dignified.

And I'd imagine that choice is intensely personal, making it for someone else is definitely not allowing them their dignity

The point of this legislation would be to allow people to make the choices they think are dignified, not the choices we as a society have dictated.

Actually it does matter what 'we' consider dignified, because what 'we' as a society think directly impacts what individuals feel about their own personal circumstances. I wasn't actually arguing against the idea of personal choice, what I was saying is that I think we ought to be careful about using the word 'dignity'. As someone who has carried the piss of a best friend to the bathroom when he couldn't make it himself, and shaved his head when it was time, it matters a lot to me that he not think he was 'undignified' for having let me do so for him when he needed it. It is also vitally important for me that he knows that society in general didn't think he was undignified for same.

_Dara_ wrote: »

It’s certainly a personal definition. My death will involve massive pain and likely ascites, either bloating or extreme gauntness, likely an inability to walk, possible jaundice, I won’t be able to shower myself, feed myself, toilet myself. I’m 34 years old and this to me is not going to be dignified. Even the pain alone is reason enough, IMO.

But anyone who doesn’t consider the above undignified can let nature take its course. Why should others have to live by their rules?

Dara, I approach this from a perspective of bodily integrity and personal autonomy. It goes against everything in me to deny an individual the right to choose their own destiny. My point was just around the language we use to discuss this. I acknowledge the personal, I just can't ignore the societal.

_Dara_

That I find how my death will play out undignified IS personal.

wexie

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Actually it does matter what 'we' consider dignified, because what 'we' as a society think directly impacts what individuals feel about their own personal circumstances. I wasn't actually arguing against the idea of personal choice, what I was saying is that I think we ought to be careful about using the word 'dignity'. As someone who has carried the piss of a best friend to the bathroom when he couldn't make it himself, and shaved his head when it was time, it matters a lot to me that he not think he was 'undignified' for having let me do so for him when he needed it. It is also vitally important for me that he knows that society in general didn't think he was undignified for same.

I for one would certainly not find it undignified if someone chooses to fight (or suffer) till the bitter and final end. But again I feel that the choice should be theirs to make and not everybody would feel the same way about no longer having control of their bodily functions for example.

I don't really see it the same way insofar I don't really see either as undignified but I guess I understand where you're coming from and perhaps you are right in saying that something like 'an ending on their terms' might be more appropriate than ' a dignified end'.

jobbridge4life

_Dara_ wrote: »

That I find how my death will play out undignified IS personal.

I certainly haven't disputed that. What I have said is that the use of such descriptors ought to be considered, and carefully used, especially in grand the scheme of things.

jobbridge4life

wexie wrote: »

I for one would certainly not find it undignified if someone chooses to fight (or suffer) till the bitter and final end. But again I feel that the choice should be theirs to make and not everybody would feel the same way about no longer having control of their bodily functions for example.

I don't really see it the same way insofar I don't really see either as undignified but I guess I understand where you're coming from and perhaps you are right in saying that something like 'an ending on their terms' might be more appropriate than ' a dignified end'.

Thanks, that is really all I was trying to say, and to be 100% clear I don't see it as either option as undignified.

wexie

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I think euthanasia is the wrong term.
I prefer to think of it as right to die and assisted suicide.

Mmmmaybe....

I grew up in Holland where it has been much less of an issue for a good while now and euthanasia has always been the term used.

But the technical interpretation of that would be mercy killing and you're right that would certainly leave a lot of room for debate and abuse.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

Mmmmaybe....

I grew up in Holland where it has been much less of an issue for a good while now and euthanasia has always been the term used.

But the technical interpretation of that would be mercy killing and you're right that would certainly leave a lot of room for debate and abuse.

I think that's the point so many people seem to miss, is that euthanasia isn't about declaring in law that a person has any legal right to end their own life. It's about declaring in law that a person has the right to end another persons life.

That's why this idea of "people should have the right to choose their own destiny" is completely missing the point. People can do that already in Ireland, suicide has been decriminalised in this country since 1993, and yet the term to 'commit' suicide as though it is still a criminal offence is commonly used.

Euthanasia isn't about giving people the right to end their own lives with dignity, it's about giving people the authority to end a person's life without fear of prosecution. I don't think that family members should be the sole bearers either of that responsibility or that authority, and I don't think that it should be the decision of the person who wants to end their own life to grant anyone else that authority.

I think the Dutch system works well because of the kind of society that exists there, but I don't see that translating in the same way in Irish society, and I think we're a long way off from the Groningen Protocol yet (which I would also be supportive of). I don't think Irish society is ready for euthanasia and to be honest I just don't see much of a demand for it being legislated for in this country.

dr.fuzzenstein

Is there not? Do people not die in Ireland?
The poll seems to suggest something different.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think that's the point so many people seem to miss, is that euthanasia isn't about declaring in law that a person has any legal right to end their own life. It's about declaring in law that a person has the right to end another persons life.

Well, mostly, but not all.

We still need to get past the "assisting" bit first. People will be wary, this thing will have to be done piecemeal. Remove criminal sanctions from people who assist - the people who dispense the drugs, the people who help set up the room, the people who provide counselling, etc. Provided that the individual performs the act themselves and of their own free will and volition, nobody else should be subject to charges.

That's a small footprint. A fraction of the actual cases, according to stats from the Netherlands. Because of course, if you're capable of doing it yourself, you don't need to ask much permission.

But an introduction will open the conversation and help break the stigma. Videos taken by people self-administering their doses, far from being morbid circuses, are actually very serene, very reassuring evidence of how it happens.

Once you've lifted the barriers to assisted suicide then it's easier to move to legalise physician-administered suicide.

decky1

like the up coming one i would vote yes , who are we or the government to tell people what to do everyone is entitled to their own choice, what someone else does will have no effect on me, Ireland is a great country for telling people what they can and can't do, let everyone make up their own mind their the one's that have to live with their decision.

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think Irish society is ready for euthanasia and to be honest I just don't see much of a demand for it being legislated for in this country.

I'm not too sure about that. That poll must be one of the most one sided Boards has ever had.

One eyed Jack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Is there not? Do people not die in Ireland?
The poll says something different.

You'll have to excuse me dr. f that I'm unwilling to regard a poll on AH as something worth entertaining. I would expect the results to be as skewed as they are when one doesn't have to give any serious thought to the issues involved and is only thinking of the issue from their own perspective - naturally people are going to want as much control over their own lives as possible, but that's really not what euthanasia actually is.

Of course people die every day in Ireland, but what doesn't happen every day in Ireland is people willing to help expedite another persons untimely demise, let alone any great demand to enshrine that authority in Irish legislation.

J Mysterio

Astounded at the results so far. 295 yes, 14 no.
That level of agreement is almost unheard of for a moral issue like this.

gctest50

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.. ......

naturally people are going to want as much control over their own lives as possible, but that's really not what euthanasia actually is.

If you are of sound mind, that is exactly what it is

Sam Quentin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me dr. f that I'm unwilling to regard a poll on AH as something worth entertaining. I would expect the results to be as skewed as they are when one doesn't have to give any serious thought to the issues involved and is only thinking of the issue from their own perspective - naturally people are going to want as much control over their own lives as possible, but that's really not what euthanasia actually is.

Of course people die every day in Ireland, but what doesn't happen every day in Ireland is people willing to help expedite another persons untimely demise, let alone any great demand to enshrine that authority in Irish legislation.

The reason I interact with Boards.ie is for the soul purpose of:.....
It is probably the best most mature audience I have ever interacted with on a 'social media platform' in all the years off social media/forums/websites etc etc between here, uk and us....
So with that said ,.. I would take any poll in AH(Boards.ie)as..... PRETTY MUCH ON THE BALL..

One eyed Jack

gctest50 wrote: »

If you are of sound mind, that is exactly what it is

No it's not. Euthanasia is the idea of the responsibility and the authority being granted to a person who is lawfully permitted to end your life at the appropriate moment when you are incapable of doing so for yourself. You're essentially relying on someone else to be of sound mind to be lawfully granted that authority and that responsibility for your death. As the law currently stands, if a person ends another persons life without permission from the State, they are liable to be prosecuted for their actions, you won't face either prosecution or condemnation for their actions if they're successful, they'll be the person or people who will actually have to live with the consequences of their actions.

It's an enormous expectation and responsibility to literally place your life in someone else's hands, and ask them to do ultimately what you can't do for yourself, something which goes against most peoples values or morals. That's exactly why more often than not, the decision is such a difficult one and not one that anyone wishes they will ever find themselves in the position of having to make for someone else that they're close to. This is why ultimately I believe the final action should be placed in the hands of people who are actually trained to carry out your wishes, in the hope that they're more likely to carry them out, and less likely to fcuk it up.

dr.fuzzenstein

I don't disagree with you there OEJ.
Personally I believe you can't discuss euthanasia without assisted suicide.
Both require the help of others in providing the support, the setting and the means.
There is, of course, a massive difference between handing someone poison and let them take it, and administering said poison yourself and ending their life that way.
Currently both are not possible and I believe they should be.
For years the approach to drugs, alcohol, teenage pregnancy and suicide (aside from assisted dying) in Ireland was to sweep them under the carpet, maybe if we ignore it, it'll go away, but as it has been shown with all these, the only way to deal with it is to acknowledge it, confront it and deal with it properly.
I am all for that.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. Euthanasia is the idea of the responsibility and the authority being granted to a person who is lawfully permitted to end your life at the appropriate moment when you are incapable of doing so for yourself. You're essentially relying on someone else to be of sound mind to be lawfully granted that authority and that responsibility for your death. As the law currently stands, if a person ends another persons life without permission from the State, they are liable to be prosecuted for their actions, you won't face either prosecution or condemnation for their actions if they're successful, they'll be the person or people who will actually have to live with the consequences of their actions.

It's an enormous expectation and responsibility to literally place your life in someone else's hands, and ask them to do ultimately what you can't do for yourself, something which goes against most peoples values or morals. That's exactly why more often than not, the decision is such a difficult one and not one that anyone wishes they will ever find themselves in the position of having to make for someone else that they're close to. This is why ultimately I believe the final action should be placed in the hands of people who are actually trained to carry out your wishes, in the hope that they're more likely to carry them out, and less likely to fcuk it up.

I've posted this before...but I watched a programme on euthanasia before. It was based on a clinic where it was all carried out. NO ONE give a you the drink. NO ONE does it for you. You must be of sound mind and you must be able to drink the drink yourself, if not, you done qualify. You go through a psychological analysis before hand to make sure you're of sound mind. NO ONE can assist you in taking the drink. One man had a debilitating disease I can't remember What, either motor neurons or Parkinson's or something and he had to do it now, long before the disease took hold. That is to ensure that he knows what he's doing and he's physically able to drink the drink. If he'd waited until the disease took hold he wouldn't be granted permission to do it.

It's such a sad thing that you are effectively doing it without knowing how many 'good' years you have left, but he got the dignified end he wanted.

gctest50

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.. ......

naturally people are going to want as much control over their own lives as possible, but that's really not what euthanasia actually is.

gctest50 wrote: »

If you are of sound mind, that is exactly what it is

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. Euthanasia is the idea of the responsibility and the authority

Euthanasia is taking control of your life

Whether you do it in good time ( assisted suicide - Dignitas videos etc )

or leave it until later - some HCP doses you up on your chosen day/condition

El_Duderino 09

Given the eve increasing lifespan and growing costs of end of life care, I think it’s high time we have a national discussion about this topic.

The healthcare system is under fierce financial pressure and if can’t continue to exist if costs keep escalating.

If someone says they want to live as long as possible, no matter how painful their end of life, then I think we should honour that wish. I’ll happily pay tax to help pay for that if that’s what they want. But I think people should have the choice to slip away before their quality of life deteriorates

It’s crazy that the choice doesn’t exist.

nozzferrahhtoo

My mind always goes to this testimony when the subject comes up. The author and his wife, following her cancer diagnosis, agreed that he would help her die if it ever came to that. Even if it meant a risk of imprisonment for him.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/best/my-tribute-to-my-late-wife-anne-holliday/

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I've posted this before...but I watched a programme on euthanasia before. It was based on a clinic where it was all carried out. NO ONE give a you the drink. NO ONE does it for you. You must be of sound mind and you must be able to drink the drink yourself, if not, you done qualify. You go through a psychological analysis before hand to make sure you're of sound mind. NO ONE can assist you in taking the drink. One man had a debilitating disease I can't remember What, either motor neurons or Parkinson's or something and he had to do it now, long before the disease took hold. That is to ensure that he knows what he's doing and he's physically able to drink the drink. If he'd waited until the disease took hold he wouldn't be granted permission to do it.

It's such a sad thing that you are effectively doing it without knowing how many 'good' years you have left, but he got the dignified end he wanted.

That's the difference between passive and active euthanasia. Some people dislike the passive/active distinction but what you're describing is exactly why the distinction is made - the means to die by suicide are provided, and a more 'hands off' approach is taken, as it were, as opposed to actively assisting a person to die by suicide.

I think your last sentence is important because it shows just how entirely subjective the idea of dignity in that context is, and how different individuals are going to perceive their death as either dignified or undignified, and the whole idea of palliative care is now aimed at treating patients with the care and respect necessary to allow them their dignity in death. Because everyone has their own views on what is or isn't the capacity to die with their dignity intact, I don't agree with the idea of generally ascribing value judgements about the methods in which someone chooses either to die by suicide, or seeks assistance in dying by suicide. I know that's not what you did, but your post just made me think of making the point.

gctest50 wrote: »

Euthanasia is taking control of your life

Whether you do it in good time ( assisted suicide - Dignitas videos etc )

or leave it until later - some HCP doses you up on your chosen day/condition

This isn't arguing semantics or anything. Euthanasia isn't really about the person who is planning how they will choose to die, it's not even about the person at the time of their death. That's entirely why the concept of 'the right to die' is a misleading misnomer. Euthanasia is entirely about the actions of the person or people who assist the person in dying, and ultimately are responsible for either providing that person with the means to expedite the process, or whom expedite the process themselves.

That's why I believe the poll is as skewed as it is, because you really won't find too many people on AH who would argue with the idea that everyone should ultimately have control of their own lives, that everyone should have the right to die, but that right simply isn't necessary, because everyone is going to die one way or the other anyway, so the poll is pretty much meaningless. I think it would be more interesting to examine the attitudes of the medical community in Ireland with regard to the issue of euthanasia, because I don't envision legislation would ever provide for ordinary citizens to be granted the right to assist another person to die by suicide.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

It's probably the most difficult of the "what if" cases. There's a (strong) argument that someone who is physically well wanting to end their own life, is by default not of sound mind.

But we also have to deal with the reality that for a small number of people, depression and similar mental illnesses are a black hole from which we can't save them for long enough to outweigh their suffering. For that tiny cohort, they will have tried everything that science can think of, and it hasn't helped for any appreciable amount of time.

They're the tough ones, because on one hand you have someone who is suffering intolerably and cannot be helped at our current level of technology. But on the other hand you have someone who is not physically unwell; i.e. who could live a long life.

There was a girl in her late 20's who was euthanized in the netherlands (or maybe Belgium) recently. She's had serious clinical depression from her teens. No therapy or medication worked. She'd attempted to commit suicide three times in the past. I think she had to see three separate psychiatrists to qualify. Each had to say it was severe, she was in pain and untreatable.

I agree it's a tough decision to make. I'd imagine the psychiatrists found it hard to make that decision.

RDM_83 again

RE the Belgium brothers link I posted earlier and how it's an example of why this should be restricted to terminal illnesses.

People are talking like mental health professionals are infallible god's, they aren't in the case I linked to they were rejected by the initial facility they approached and it took them two years to find a place they could convince, there is a divergence of opinion on these matters and I don't see how infallible safe guards can be put in place.

.......

This post has been deleted.

razorblunt

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I've posted this before...but I watched a programme on euthanasia before. It was based on a clinic where it was all carried out. NO ONE give a you the drink. NO ONE does it for you. You must be of sound mind and you must be able to drink the drink yourself, if not, you done qualify. You go through a psychological analysis before hand to make sure you're of sound mind. NO ONE can assist you in taking the drink. One man had a debilitating disease I can't remember What, either motor neurons or Parkinson's or something and he had to do it now, long before the disease took hold. That is to ensure that he knows what he's doing and he's physically able to drink the drink. If he'd waited until the disease took hold he wouldn't be granted permission to do it.

It's such a sad thing that you are effectively doing it without knowing how many 'good' years you have left, but he got the dignified end he wanted.

Yes that's the documentary I was referring to, it really was excellent. I felt more than overwhelmed at the "goodbye" party and the closing video of him dancing with his wife in their kitchen.

iamwhoiam

RDM_83 again wrote: »

RE the Belgium brothers link I posted earlier and how it's an example of why this should be restricted to terminal illnesses.

People are talking like mental health professionals are infallible god's, they aren't in the case I linked to they were rejected by the initial facility they approached and it took them two years to find a place they could convince, there is a divergence of opinion on these matters and I don't see how infallible safe guards can be put in place.

Who are we to judge why one illness is more deserving than another? .We dont walk in that mans shoes so maybe his mental torture was just as deserving as any other terminal illness . His life might be the most horrendous dark horror and I will not stand in judgement on his decisions

Amalgam

'Able bodied people' have been helped to die because of conditions such as tinnitus. Gaby Olthuis, 47, was a mother of two. Anti Euthanasia groups fought to prevent her from going about her business, they went bananas over it..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGcUJ2Dg3uo

Just to add, palliative care 'assists' in bringing a patient closer to death, the provision of pain management itself is toxic and becomes as much of a problem as a person's illness in the final few days, hours.

Why is it acceptable to have that situation, nudge nudge, wink, wink, hastening death in anything but name..?

Why not allow a person to exit early, in the lifecycle of their illness, with a proper legal framework, for those left behind. All this done under medical supervision.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the difference between passive and active euthanasia. Some people dislike the passive/active distinction but what you're describing is exactly why the distinction is made - the means to die by suicide are provided, and a more 'hands off' approach is taken, as it were, as opposed to actively assisting a person to die by suicide.

I think your last sentence is important because it shows just how entirely subjective the idea of dignity in that context is, and how different individuals are going to perceive their death as either dignified or undignified, and the whole idea of palliative care is now aimed at treating patients with the care and respect necessary to allow them their dignity in death. Because everyone has their own views on what is or isn't the capacity to die with their dignity intact, I don't agree with the idea of generally ascribing value judgements about the methods in which someone chooses either to die by suicide, or seeks assistance in dying by suicide. I know that's not what you did, but your post just made me think of making the point.

My point was to illustrate how euthanasia can be managed. If the person gives you the drink, that would qualify it as a murder so they can't do it. That's why you have to be able to life the glass and drink yourself.

Of course the subject is subjective. The man didn't want to die in the manner he was faced with. He thought it would be undignified for him. They went through the tests and it was dealt with like a celebration. He was given a drink and a sweet. The sweetwas to disguise the after taste of the drink. They told himself and his wife that he would struggle for water and they were to fight that part. So he drank the drink, reached out for water like they warned, but his wife held his hand. He fell asleep, snored quite loudly and then passed peacefully. It was lovely versus the life he faced with his body slowly degenerating and an end he didn't want.

As regards suicide, there was a man in the documentary who wasn't ill, but availed of the service because he was suicidal. He felt that he couldn't live any longer, but didn't want to die alone in secret, in pain and I think he described it as mutilating himself. So he applied, passed through the process and ended his life in the way he wanted.