What would you vote in a referendum on euthanasia?

blanch152

I voted no in the poll as the question is not clear.

There is a huge difference between voluntary euthanasia and compulsory euthanasia. There are also huge issues around the circumstances that would see voluntary euthanasia allowed.

Without being clear on both of those, you can only vote no.

FutureGuy

100% vote in favour of it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

freshpopcorn

This thread popped up on my news feed because somebody shared a pro-life page post!

seamus

blanch152 wrote: »

I voted no in the poll as the question is not clear.

There is a huge difference between voluntary euthanasia and compulsory euthanasia.

Yeah, but it's a poll on boards.ie, not a referendum in Nazi Germany.

It can be taken for granted that unless stated otherwise, nobody is discussing compulsory euthanasia.

dr.fuzzenstein

blanch152 wrote: »

I voted no in the poll as the question is not clear.

There is a huge difference between voluntary euthanasia and compulsory euthanasia. There are also huge issues around the circumstances that would see voluntary euthanasia allowed.

Without being clear on both of those, you can only vote no.

OK, to clear up any confusion.
It is actually about compulsory euthanasia at age 30 to facilitate a heavenly utopia for us all with wild parties and hedonistic sex.
To this end a small indicator will be implanted in the palm of your hand that goes from silver to green, yellow and.finally red.
You will then have to report for Carousel where the renewal ritual will take place.
The Gardai will have special units called Sandmen to hunt down and kill any runners who attempt to flee this.
Hope that cleared up the issue for you.

wexie

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, to clear up any confusion.
It is actually about compulsory euthanasia at age 30 to facilitate a heavenly utopia for us all with wild parties and hedonistic sex.
To this end a small indicator will be implanted in the palm of your hand that goes from silver to green, yellow and.finally red.
You will then have to report for Carousel where the renewal ritual will take place.
The Gardai will have special units called Sandmen to hunt down and kill any runners who attempt to flee this.
Hope that cleared up the issue for you.

you should watch this : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/

If you haven't already that is

wexie

seamus wrote: »

It can be taken for granted that unless stated otherwise, nobody is discussing compulsory euthanasia.

Geez Seamus, I used to think so, these days though...

Between 'all bangladeshis are dodgy as f*ck' and 'the UK should go to war with the EU' maybe it's best not to take too much for granted

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

Geez Seamus, I used to think so, these days though...

Between 'all bangladeshis are dodgy as f*ck' and 'the UK should go to war with the EU' maybe it's best not to take too much for granted

I think that's part of what causes us to avoid conversations about our end of life care and making sure our wishes are known to the people who will be expected to advocate on our behalf when we find ourselves at that point in our lives. I find that many people actually do take certain things for granted, and are unfortunately all too often surprised when they discover that either the person they expected would help them has no intention of doing so, or that there are legal barriers to their last wishes being carried out. It was a good thing I think that blanch clarified exactly what we're talking about here, not because anyone might be sent to the gulag, but because clarity in how one wishes to depart, and the means by which they mean to depart, should be made as clear as possible, as early as possible to the people they expect to carry out their wishes. These conversations can also clarify what may or may not be legally possible or permissible in any given circumstances regarding their medical treatment and end of life care and how they wish for their remains to be disposed of.

(to be honest with regards to polls in AH and whether or not they are factually representative of Irish society, I did have to laugh at the 40% approval rating for cyclists :pac:)

BarryD2

Can't vote for your poll as you've included a qualifier in the first part.

From a strictly ethical POV, why shouldn't people be able to choose what to do with their life? Is is not the most fundamental human right of all? The decision as to whether you live or die? Indeed it's a natural and inalienable right and one that no amount of legislation can prevent or punish for.

Of course, thankfully the vast majority of people are happy to live and that's great. But for those that don't, for whatever reason, I don't believe that you or I have any right to prevent them ending their existence on this earth.

So your poll should be a simple Yes or No.

One eyed Jack

BarryD2 wrote: »

Can't vote for your poll as you've included a qualifier in the first part.

From a strictly ethical POV, why shouldn't people be able to choose what to do with their life? Is is not the most fundamental human right of all? The decision as to whether you live or die? Indeed it's a natural and inalienable right and one that no amount of legislation can prevent or punish for.

Of course, thankfully the vast majority of people are happy to live and that's great. But for those that don't, for whatever reason, I don't believe that you or I have any right to prevent them ending their existence on this earth.

So your poll should be a simple Yes or No.

The question is accurate enough in terms of determining people's opinions with regard to the provision of legislating for euthanasia in this country, but what you appear to be talking about is more related to an individual taking measures to end their own life themselves, as opposed to being assisted (or "aided and abetted" as Irish law states) in ending their life, or expediting their death.

The right to die is not a corollary of the right to life. The right to life is a legal right which means it is recognised by a Court of Law, whereas there is no such right recognised in Irish law as the right to die. In other jurisdictions where they have legislated to allow for euthanasia, it's still not seen as a right to die (the term euthanasia isn't even used in Dutch law), and any laws regarding assistance with dying are subject to certain caveats where there are provisions which allow for a person to be assisted in dying. It's usually carried out by medically qualified physicians after lengthy examination and consultation with a multi-disciplinary team, and the persons family involved. It's strictly regulated.

It's not a question of being able to prevent anyone from ending their own existence on this earth (not in Ireland at least - you want to pop your clogs, off you go. Irish law would have impeded you from doing so previously, and likely punished you if you hadn't been successful), it's a question of whether or not Irish law should allow for another person to assist you in dying by suicide, and whether that person should either be impeded from doing so, or punished for attempting to do so, or succeeding in doing so. That's why after the death of Marie Fleming, the Gardaí carried out an investigation into her death -


Garda probe launched into death of right-to-die campaigner Marie Fleming


They tend to do that when someone dies under suspicious circumstances or foul play is suspected, which is not a bad thing IMO. It's their job to investigate these things, as it means that if you happen to be bumped off under suspicious circumstances, some randomer laying claim to your estate can't use a justification for their actions by saying it's what you would have wanted.

byhookorbycrook

One of the medications I take may cause an extremely serious side effect called PML. If I were to contract it, I'd want to die with some dignity.
https://www.healthline.com/health/plm-virus#outlook

veronymus

diomed wrote: »

My mother died last summer in a nursing home.
She lived there for seven years.
I would not want my mother killed, and she would not want that either.
That home had about fifty residents, some without living relatives.
Under a euthanasia law many would want those people killed.

I worked in a residential care home once in the office and from some distance, I could hear some of the residents moan in misery. One of them repeatedly asking to be allowed to die. This was no shabby institution either, the residents were well taken care of.

Quite simply put, I don't believe in life at any cost. I find it utterly devastating to watch people, once so vital, lose their vitality, independence and ultimately their dignity. Most devastating of all is watching a loved one die in utter unholy agony. Who benefits from this at all??

gctest50

veronymus wrote: »

Who benefits from this at all??

How much did the nursing home charge per week ?

One eyed Jack

veronymus wrote: »

I worked in a residential care home once in the office and from some distance, I could hear some of the residents moan in misery. One of them repeatedly asking to be allowed to die. This was no shabby institution either, the residents were well taken care of.

Quite simply put, I don't believe in life at any cost. I find it utterly devastating to watch people, once so vital, lose their vitality, independence and ultimately their dignity. Most devastating of all is watching a loved one die in utter unholy agony. Who benefits from this at all??

Your former employers for the most part:


The goals of the "purpose" of the Patient Self-Determination Act are/were (1) to prevent cruel over treatment of elderly/disabled Medicare/Medicaid patients for the profit motive and (2) to save money for Medicare and the private insurers in the form of the reduction of end-of-life costs for Medicare and the private insurers when elderly Medicare/Medicaid patients would ELECT/CHOOSE to refuse expensive ICU/CCU life-extending or life-saving treatments in the hospital in order to shorten their suffering unto a certain death. It was envisioned by the framers of the 1991 PSDA that the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid would die less expensively and more comfortably (out of pain) on the palliative care/Hospice Medicare Entitlement in their own personal residence or in the setting of a residential nursing home when the treating physicians consulted with them about their terminal diagnoses.


Source: Patient Self-Determination Act


Social care is quite a lucrative enterprise.

veronymus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your former employers for the most part:


The goals of the "purpose" of the Patient Self-Determination Act are/were (1) to prevent cruel over treatment of elderly/disabled Medicare/Medicaid patients for the profit motive and (2) to save money for Medicare and the private insurers in the form of the reduction of end-of-life costs for Medicare and the private insurers when elderly Medicare/Medicaid patients would ELECT/CHOOSE to refuse expensive ICU/CCU life-extending or life-saving treatments in the hospital in order to shorten their suffering unto a certain death. It was envisioned by the framers of the 1991 PSDA that the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid would die less expensively and more comfortably (out of pain) on the palliative care/Hospice Medicare Entitlement in their own personal residence or in the setting of a residential nursing home when the treating physicians consulted with them about their terminal diagnoses.


Source: Patient Self-Determination Act


Senior care is quite a lucrative enterprise.

That is very true, I'm not disputing that but I meant it in a rather different context. I was responding to a poster who discussed their elderly mother's wish to continue living while in a care setting. She may well have had a desire to continue on. What of the many people who have no such wish and are just begging for death to take them? Outside of those financially enriched from their continued misery, who is benefitting?

AudreyHepburn

Without question I would in favor. Everyone has a right to die with dignity and in peace.

blanch152

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The poll does not make that clear.

dr.fuzzenstein

blanch152 wrote: »

The poll does not make that clear.

Because so far only one person got this bizarre idea into their head and despite clarification just will not let it go.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

I voted no in the poll as the question is not clear.

There is a huge difference between voluntary euthanasia and compulsory euthanasia. .

Is compulsory euthanasia another way of saying Murder, that is most definitely not what is being discussed here.

One eyed Jack

veronymus wrote: »

That is very true, I'm not disputing that but I meant it in a rather different context. I was responding to a poster who discussed their elderly mother's wish to continue living while in a care setting. She may well have had a desire to continue on. What of the many people who have no such wish and are just begging for death to take them? Outside of those financially enriched from their continued misery, who is benefitting?

It's one of the conundrums of providing care for vulnerable people in our modern society that we no longer expect a persons immediate family to provide care for someone in those circumstances, as was the tradition in the past. This also has led to the perception of those people as 'an inconvenience' in society (I could probably have put that more euphemistically, but in certain circumstances it's better to be direct), and of course if they are regarded as an inconvenience by society - at some point those people themselves become an inconvenience to society. I don't expect anyone would regard such an existence as being dignified, which is where the conundrum presents itself - at what point are people generally perceived as an inconvenience to society, and at what point do people become an inconvenience to society where we have to make the decision as to whether it would be of greater benefit to society to allow them to die. The problem is that nobody generally wants the particularly unpleasant task, or the responsibility of ending peoples lives, and so those people are left in a perpetual state of "living limbo" as it were because nobody wants to take responsibility for what happens to them, they prefer to outsource that responsibility to anyone but themselves, and so when you ask the question who benefits from condemning people to that miserable existence, well, the answer is - the rest of us do.

It's an uncomfortable fact to reconcile with our conscience, but it's easier reconcile the fact that at least they're still alive, as opposed to reconciling our conscience with the fact that some day we will cause the death of someone we profess to care about. Can't remember where I read it before but it struck a chord with me that human beings really are the most inefficient at killing themselves or other human beings, because it's generally not something we're socialised to do, and something which in many cultures and societies across the world is considered socially unacceptable.

At some point as dr. f said earlier - we as a society are going to have to get comfortable with the idea of our own mortality, and acknowledge that we have an increasing aging population (it's not just an issue in this country, it's an issue in many countries across the globe), because it's going to come to a cost/benefit analysis of whether or not to continue to expend resources on maintaining vulnerable people in our society, and indeed leaving the question of morals and ethics aside - at what cost to society is it no longer viable to continue to provide care for those people, and at what point do the current benefits outweigh the foreseeable costs?

Unfortunately it really does come down to a question of financial viability as to whether or not it is better for society to condemn people to an existence of perpetual misery, or whether to expend resources providing them with a quality of life which we consider appropriate, or to allow them to die at the appropriate moment and what methods should be employed to do so, or simply do we go all Logans Run and convert them to soylent green.

(You'll have to excuse a very dark sense of humour, I think part of the problem some people have with discussing issues like these is that they are deeply unpleasant for most people and so understandably they tend to avoid having such discussions as they aren't really topics that lend themselves to light hearted conversation and humour that is something most people tend to enjoy)

feargale

Vojera wrote: »

This. I believe euthanasia should be available for those who want it, but it would need to be extremely tightly regulated to ensure elderly people aren't pressurised/guilted into it by money-grabbing family members, etc., and that only people of sound mind can avail of it.

Anyone who has had a family member or friend go through a terminal illness can surely understand why people agree with it, even if they personally don't.

I agree that it should be carefully regulated, and yes, it could be exploited for monetary gain, but wait and see, as soon as it becomes a live issue here, as it surely will, we will never hear the end of the exploitation objection from the naysayers. Is there anything on earth that's not open to commercial exploitation?

I waver a bit on the abortion issue, and when I hear protagonists on one side referring to the human rights aspect of that question I don't see either side as having a human rights monopoly. I see that most difficult issue as involving a conflict of rights and a need to achieve some kind of balance between the conflicting rights. Having said that some bishop ( Kildare, I think) lost me last week when he said that abortion will lead to euthanasia. Euthanasia is nobody's business but the person contemplating it.

A priest acquaintance recently emailed me some anti-euthanasia stuff. I told him to feck off, it's my life.

veronymus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...
Unfortunately it really does come down to a question of financial viability as to whether or not it is better for society to condemn people to an existence of perpetual misery, or whether to expend resources providing them with a quality of life which we consider appropriate, or to allow them to die at the appropriate moment and what methods should be employed to do so, or simply do we go all Logans Run and convert them to soylent green.

(You'll have to excuse a very dark sense of humour, I think part of the problem some people have with discussing issues like these is that they are deeply unpleasant for most people and so understandably they tend to avoid having such discussions as they aren't really topics that lend themselves to light hearted conversation and humour that is something most people tend to enjoy)

Well that was sobering :eek: Future societies may well need to consider how they approach the dilemma of geriatric majorities. What deeply philosophical questions. I have to admit, I truly hope that I don't live to see such a time. I like the idea that decisions around life and death are (or could be) a decision for the individual and are not simply reduced to a consideration of economic efficiency.

I suppose, I am more concerned with people existing in the here and now where we do have the capacity to care for our sick and dying. Care, to me, should include the capacity to opt out of life when that life has become unliveable. But ultimately, for me, that decision would rest firmly with the individual.

One eyed Jack

veronymus wrote: »

Well that was sobering :eek: Future societies may well need to consider how they approach the dilemma of geriatric majorities. What deeply philosophical questions. I have to admit, I truly hope that I don't live to see such a time. I like the idea that decisions around life and death are (or could be) a decision for the individual and are not simply reduced to a consideration of economic efficiency.

I suppose, I am more concerned with people existing in the here and now where we do have the capacity to care for our sick and dying. Care, to me, should include the capacity to opt out of life when that life has become unliveable. But ultimately, for me, that decision would rest firmly with the individual.

When you said earlier you don't believe in 'life at any cost', at what cost would you consider it no longer viable to maintain life?

The point being that the cost of maintaining vulnerable people is at some point going to outweigh the benefits to society of maintaining those people. With constant improvements in healthcare, social care and human rights law, you're going to find that more and more people actually don't want to die, and most people do anything to avoid it.

Does this mean we are obliged as a society to maintain people's life spans for as long as they as individuals wish to be maintained? As we generally become wealthier, what's going to happen is that wealthy individuals will be able to afford a better standard of healthcare and therefore live much longer, while less wealthy individuals will have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford private healthcare (happening already), and will have to be provided for by the State. Then the question arises as to how much the State is willing to provide to maintain those individuals? It may well come to the point where for some individuals, due to their circumstances, they perceive themselves to be existing in an undignifying state and perceives themselves to be a burden on society, and may want to avail of State assistance to assist them to die, which doesn't come cheap itself.

The point is that there's an inherent social inequality there.

This is the issue I have with people who say euthanasia "is nobody else's business" (not you that said it but another poster), or that the decision should rest firmly with the individual. I don't think it should, because there are numerous other factors to consider from a medical, financial, legal and social perspective than just the wishes of the individual themselves to want to die. I think it's only appropriate that there should be stringent criteria to be met and regulation around the area of assisted suicide because I think there's a bigger picture for society than just adhering to the will of the individual who has expressed their wish either to be assisted in dying, or to be assisted in living, in those circumstances.

JupiterKid

Yes, Ive been in support of euthanasia since my 20s as long as it's very tightly regulated, all options of saving the suffering person's life have been exhausted, they are of sound mind, receive extensive counselling and that they are in terrible terminal pain and suffering.

Thats certainly the option I would want for myself. It will happen here sooner or later, just like abortion. Ireland tends not to lead the way on these issues due to political cowardice.

It should be available to all, but with a long time period between application and approval for non-terminally ill people.

A good example is that woman with extreme tinnitus who got it granted in Europe. Her life is agony, but it isn't killing her. People like that should be covered.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unfortunately it really does come down to a question of financial viability as to whether or not it is better for society to condemn people to an existence of perpetual misery, or whether to expend resources providing them with a quality of life which we consider appropriate, or to allow them to die at the appropriate moment and what methods should be employed to do so, or simply do we go all Logans Run and convert them to soylent green.

If I had to guess from the way things are going at the moment then reality TV is going to have a part in this*

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(You'll have to excuse a very dark sense of humour, I think part of the problem some people have with discussing issues like these is that they are deeply unpleasant for most people and so understandably they tend to avoid having such discussions as they aren't really topics that lend themselves to light hearted conversation and humour that is something most people tend to enjoy)

No such problems here :pac:


* after thinking this over with a cup of coffee I have to say I think I actually wouldn't be that surprised if it did come to that.

dr.fuzzenstein

wexie wrote: »

If I had to guess from the way things are going at the moment then reality TV is going to have a part in this*



No such problems here :pac:


* after thinking this over with a cup of coffee I have to say I think I actually wouldn't be that surprised if it did come to that.

I can imagine the format.
Every reality show where the aim is to find one winner, put everyone who doesn't win down.
Then when they found the winner, put him down.
And everyone who watches.
It's possible that average IQs start going up again.

Mutant z

Its up to people to decide what to for themselves i know i would want that option if it was available.

AllForIt

https://news.sky.com/story/scientist-dr-david-goodall-104-ends-his-life-at-swiss-clinic-11366221

104 year old man, yes 104, ends his own life in Switzerland yesterday. Of perfectly sound mind but not body. I was going to say something along the lines of 'sad news' but, no, it's not sad news in what we normally call sad news.
Well done him for taking a stand on this issue when I'm sure he would have preferred not to have to put with all the media attention at this time.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Read about that. Don't think I'd be traipsing halfway across the world and putting my family through such an ordeal at 104 though.

Would be easier and less costly to procure sleeping medication and a bottle of whiskey. At that age you could knock yourself off fairly easily.

AllForIt

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Read about that. Don't think I'd be traipsing halfway across the world and putting my family through such an ordeal at 104 though.

Would be easier and less costly to procure sleeping medication and a bottle of whiskey. At that age you could knock yourself off fairly easily.

But that's the point isn't it? If euthanasia were permitted then one wouldn't have to travel across the world.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jobbridge4life

AllForIt wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/scientist-dr-david-goodall-104-ends-his-life-at-swiss-clinic-11366221

104 year old man, yes 104, ends his own life in Switzerland yesterday. Of perfectly sound mind but not body. I was going to say something along the lines of 'sad news' but, no, it's not sad news in what we normally call sad news.
Well done him for taking a stand on this issue when I'm sure he would have preferred not to have to put with all the media attention at this time.

First of all RIP.

If he preferred not to have all the media attention, why did he participate in the publicity around this trip? Why make the trip at all?

He was fully able-bodied. He was not in a situation where he required assistance. He could have ended his life on his terms in any number of ways without outside assistance.

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote: »

First of all RIP.

If he preferred not to have all the media attention, why did he participate in the publicity around this trip? Why make the trip at all?

He was fully able-bodied. He was not in a situation where he required assistance. He could have ended his life on his terms in any number of ways without outside assistance.

Perhaps he wanted a bit of dignity in dying, not to be found with his head in the gas oven or similar.

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps he wanted a bit of dignity in dying, not to be found with his head in the gas oven or similar.

That's a pretty prejudicial and histrionic vision of suicide. People commit suicide on a regular basis without having to resort to An Triail approaches.

I do like how dignity is being defined down from, everyone regardless of illness has dignity to unless you commit suicide in a pre-designated clinic you are undignified.

I'm glad those I knew who died by suicide don't have to read such bile.

wexie

jobbridge4life wrote: »

First of all RIP.

If he preferred not to have all the media attention, why did he participate in the publicity around this trip? Why make the trip at all?

He was fully able-bodied. He was not in a situation where he required assistance. He could have ended his life on his terms in any number of ways without outside assistance.

Maybe because that's how he wanted it? I don't think it's any less of a valid option than the proverbial gas oven or the pain killers and the bottle of scotch.
As a matter of fact I'd imagine it's probably a lot less traumatic for the relatives as well.

With regards to the media attention I'm not sure that is so much the case. Or at least I'd imagine if he didn't want the attention he wouldn't have called a press conference :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-10/david-goodall-ends-life-in-a-powerful-statement-on-euthanasia/9742528

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'm glad those I knew who died by suicide don't have to read such bile.

There is a difference between suicide, and euthanasia, suicide is the premature ending of your life when there is hope for the future, while euthanasia is ending a life that has no hope and brings an end to suffering.

wexie

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a difference between suicide, and euthanasia, suicide is the premature ending of your life when there is hope for the future, while euthanasia is ending a life that has no hope and brings an end to suffering.

While I wouldn't altogether disagree with the sentiment, I don't think very many people commit suicide when they have much in the way of hope for the future.

Meaning it's a distinction made by an outside observer.

So who gets the job of deciding whether or not there's hope?

wexie

wexie wrote: »

While I wouldn't altogether disagree with the sentiment, I don't think very many people commit suicide when they have much in the way of hope for the future.

Meaning it's a distinction made by an outside observer.

So who gets the job of deciding whether or not there's hope?

That's a question that is impossible to answer, but generally with euthanasia the only alternative is prolonging suffering and some people would rather end it than suffer all the way to the eventual conclusion.

Sofiztikated

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a question that is impossible to answer, but generally with euthanasia the only alternative is prolonging suffering and some people would rather end it than suffer all the way to the eventual conclusion.

That could be said for suicide as well.

wexie

Sofiztikated wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a question that is impossible to answer, but generally with euthanasia the only alternative is prolonging suffering and some people would rather end it than suffer all the way to the eventual conclusion.

That could be said for suicide as well.

I guess it very much depend on the individual situation really. Its a pretty tough and sensitive subject and to be honest I've no idea how to even begin to define or delineate the difference between suicide and euthanasia or even if it can be done in a consistent way.

(From a motivation point of view that is. I wouldn't consider blowing your brains out with a shotgun to be euthanasia, regardless of the reasons)

_Dara_

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Read about that. Don't think I'd be traipsing halfway across the world and putting my family through such an ordeal at 104 though.

Would be easier and less costly to procure sleeping medication and a bottle of whiskey. At that age you could knock yourself off fairly easily.

It’s actually pretty hard to procure the medication that allows a painless, easy death. There are a lot of scammers online pretending to sell the stuff. And with tablets at the average person’s disposable, it’s a lot more difficult to overdose than you think and is often a drawn out painful death. Most attempted overdoses fail and you can be left with lasting health problems from brain damage to liver damage.

AllForIt

jobbridge4life wrote: »

First of all RIP.

If he preferred not to have all the media attention, why did he participate in the publicity around this trip? Why make the trip at all?

He was fully able-bodied. He was not in a situation where he required assistance. He could have ended his life on his terms in any number of ways without outside assistance.

He was making a stand on the issue for the sake of others who are in his situation or will be! And to say he was fully able-bodied when he was doing himself in because the exact opposite is true - is just a ridiculous thing to say. Did you not notice he was confined to a wheelchair with tubes coming out his nose? Jeeze.

jobbridge4life

AllForIt wrote: »

He was making a stand on the issue for the sake of others who are in his situation or will be! And to say he was fully able-bodied when he was doing himself in because the exact opposite is true - is just a ridiculous thing to say. Did you not notice he was confined to a wheelchair with tubes coming out his nose? Jeeze.

You are entirely right, and I was entirely wrong. Not sure how I managed to get it quite so wrong, but I did. I think I was going on a radio report. In any case apologies.

AllForIt

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You are entirely right, and I was entirely wrong. Not sure how I managed to get it quite so wrong, but I did. I think I was going on a radio report. In any case apologies.

No worries mate.

howamidifferent

I have no intention of hanging around in suffering if I ever get diagnosed with something like Alzheimers or MND or MS or early dementia. I've seen too many whove gone down that road and ended up as zombies.

I will go out at a time and place of my own choosing with a method already selected that's as peaceful and dignified as can be aquired legally.

Hopefully never needed but prepared if it is.

I wouldnt dream of asking anyone else to help as it would only bring them nothing but grief.

garancafan

I reckon I'm in my thirtieth year of early dementia. Care to disclose your selected method?

notsoyoungwan

howamidifferent wrote: »

I have no intention of hanging around in suffering if I ever get diagnosed with something like Alzheimers or MND or MS or early dementia. I've seen too many whove gone down that road and ended up as zombies.

I will go out at a time and place of my own choosing with a method already selected that's as peaceful and dignified as can be aquired legally.

Hopefully never needed but prepared if it is.

I wouldnt dream of asking anyone else to help as it would only bring them nothing but grief.

What terrifies and horrifies me is that by the time people are actually diagnosed with dementia they are often at a stage where they are blithely unconcerned/unaware of the significance of the diagnosis. I see it a lot in my job, and the family are left telling me that “if he understood what was happening, he’d do away with himself” etc. it strikes such fear into me that I might meet with the same fate one day.

I haven’t fully thought it out but I wonder if an advanced directive re euthanasia may be practical in such cases.

TheValeyard

Euthanasia legislation will or would pass a lot more easily that abortion debate.