Euthanasia - Suicide in Ireland

osarusan

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Oh right, well I suppose that means they're much the same thing, legally and ethically. Anyone who supports the right to one would almost certainly be in favour of the other too.

Pretty similar, although people with total paralysis from the neck down can struggle to administer the drugs themselves.


I think some kind of rig has been developed which they can control with their eye movement or head movement, but I might be wrong on that.

I don't know if you have heard of Dignitas, which is a Swiss assisted-suicide organisation, but there are videos on youtube you can watch - the whole thing is recorded, with the person stating that they are of sound mind and that they want to die, and then them taking the drugs, and drifting into sleep and then death. The death needs to be reported to the police, and the video helps with the investigation.

Very moving videos actually.

seamus

osarusan wrote: »

No, euthanasia is also a decision you make yourself. The difference will be that a doctor is directly involved in the delivery of the euthanising drugs, whereas with assisted suicide, they 'set up' the drug delivery system, but the person must administer the drugs to themselves, making it a suicide.

Switching off life support already happens here, and will be done by medical staff, but with consent of family members.

Just to clarify that euthansia may not expressly be a decision made by the individual, but could be made by someone with the authority to act as you, when you are indefinitely incapable of providing consent.

In practice this would rarely be a single individual, but an empowered individual along with the assent of qualified individuals. That is, the consent of a next-of-kin, so long as the doctors concur with the request, and potential a legal professional too.

Fearmongers catastrophise this as "death panels" choosing to kill old people when there are no beds, but such things don't exist.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

Just to clarify that euthansia may not expressly be a decision made by the individual, but could be made by someone with the authority to act as you, when you are indefinitely incapable of providing consent.

In practice this would rarely be a single individual, but an empowered individual along with the assent of qualified individuals. That is, the consent of a next-of-kin, so long as the doctors concur with the request, and potential a legal professional too.

I vaguely thought this; you'd hear talk of 'euthanising' a sick pet. I assume this is currently happening when people are in a coma and the like. Are people generally satisfied with the current arrangements for this form of euthanasia, or is there a desire to have the grounds for it broadened, alongside the legalisation of the form where the individual concerned directly asks as doctor to be 'put to sleep'?

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I vaguely thought this; you'd hear talk of 'euthanising' a sick pet. I assume this is currently happening when people are in a coma and the like. Are people generally satisfied with the current arrangements for this form of euthanasia, or is there a desire to have the grounds for it broadened, alongside the legalisation of the form where the individual concerned directly asks as doctor to be 'put to sleep'?

From what I can gather, there is little to no public resistance to legalising assisted suicide.

If it is legal for people to facilitate it that the patient can push the button and end it for themselves, then my impression is that the vast, vast majority of people have no problem with this. Provided that such measures are only in place for terminally ill patients.

At present if someone is physically incapable of ending their own life, it is a crime for another to help them in any way, even if the person ultimately is the one who pushes the button.
This extends to helping the patient to leave the country so they can go where it's legal. Which is an insane law. Strictly speaking if you know someone is planning on committing suicide, it may be a crime for you to do nothing about it. We're really screwed up on this whole thing.

Euthanasia is another step again, and I think people are less comfortable with this, because it is undeniably fraught.

"Passive" euthanasia (i.e. pulling the plug) is legal because strictly speaking you're not taking a deliberate action to end someone's life. Their body shuts down because it's incapable of sustaining itself. You're withdrawing artificial sustenance rather than introducing anything new to the body which causes it to die.

Active euthanasia on the other hand is where you get into all the grey areas, and where everyone struggles to say yea or nay; If someone is in a coma but their body is functioning normally with the exception that they have to be tube fed; If someone has dementia or another degenerative brain disease which has progressed to the point where they're completely non-communicative and can't even control their bowels. And so on.

This gets difficult because the general rule for consent is that it must be ongoing. Someone can express their desire to be euthanised if they're ever in a coma. But once they're in a coma, you have no way to verify that consent. Same for dementia.

So logically we would say that this competency should move to the next-of-kin, who can decide what they think you would want if you were able to communicate.

But then you have the edge cases;

- People who's NOK is a distant relative who doesn't know them at all
- People who's NOK would happily euthanise them to get their inheritance faster
- People with no NOK whose fate would have to be decided by a court-appointed guardian

These are all valid concerns, but they can be accounted for to minimise abuses and errors. But a perfect system can't be guaranteed.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

This gets difficult because the general rule for consent is that it must be ongoing. Someone can express their desire to be euthanised if they're ever in a coma. But once they're in a coma, you have no way to verify that consent. Same for dementia.

Advance healthcare directives, or 'living wills' have legal status in some countries, and allow people to lay out their wishes in the event of future debilitating conditions.

Kidchameleon

seamus wrote: »

"People should only be allowed to end their suffering if they can afford to pay for it."
.

Thats not what I said

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Dem b*tches should pay for it if they want an abortion", not in so many words, but that sentiment was frequently expressed.
:

If you cant afford the cost of an abortion you shouldnt be having sex. Babies are much more expensive

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you cant afford the cost of an abortion you shouldnt be having sex. Babies are much more expensive

You stay classy lad.

Hotblack Desiato

osarusan wrote: »

Advance healthcare directives, or 'living wills' have legal status in some countries, and allow people to lay out their wishes in the event of future debilitating conditions.

Could a "catholic ethos" healthcare institution be trusted to carry out these wishes?

I wouldn't trust them, that's for sure.

I'm 100% in favour of euthanasia.

Hotblack Desiato

Discodog wrote: »

I will end my life when it's no longer enjoyable & when I can't do the things that give me pleasure.

Yes but what if you're too physically infirm or mentally demented to be able to carry it out yourself?

Also as others have pointed out, the violent methods are the most effective but are really only open to able-bodied people. In any case I'd never want to traumatise a train driver or require a team of ten people to pick up my splattered bits. It's not fair on them. But when I fail cogntive tests I want someone to administer me something to make me slip away, I don't want to replicate the family illness. Physically strong but brain dead.

osarusan wrote: »

I don't know if you have heard of Dignitas, which is a Swiss assisted-suicide organisation, but there are videos on youtube you can watch - the whole thing is recorded, with the person stating that they are of sound mind

Well my problem is that I want to die when I'm no longer of sound mind. Somewhat more tricky but not insoluble.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you cant afford the cost of an abortion you shouldnt be having sex. Babies are much more expensive

So are you going to demand that smokers pay for their lung cancer surgery, or fat people pay for their type 2 diabetes treatment?

Or is it just women you have a problem with?

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So are you going to demand that smokers pay for their lung cancer surgery, or fat people pay for their type 2 diabetes treatment?

Or is it just women you have a problem with?

Its off topic but yes of course, people should pay for their choices.

Wanderer78

Kidchameleon wrote:

Its off topic but yes of course, people should pay for their choices.

So addiction is a choice?

seamus

osarusan wrote: »

Advance healthcare directives, or 'living wills' have legal status in some countries, and allow people to lay out their wishes in the event of future debilitating conditions.

Absolutely, but again can be fraught. Someone has a living will, but the next of kin says, "actually just last week she begged me not to euthanise her if she falls unconscious".
So do we go with the living will, or with the next of kin?

But ultimately this is not a reason to not legalise euthanasia, they're reasons to have a safety net and an arbitration process. 99% of the time a living will be perfectly adequate. In the 1% of cases, a court can rule on what is the most appropriate course of action in the best interests of the patient and based on their most likely known wishes.

Kidchameleon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So addiction is a choice?

Did you seriously ask that?

Wanderer78

Kidchameleon wrote:

Did you seriously ask that?

No

titan18

I'd support it. I think if someone is in enough pain, physical, emotional or mental and want to end it, they should have that choice and for it be done in a safe and legal manner.

Kidchameleon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

No

Forgive me, a question like that would be par for the course here

Wanderer78

Kidchameleon wrote:

Forgive me, a question like that would be par for the course here

Addiction is far from straightforward, the rules of logic do not exist in its world

mr_fegelien

Can I ask why so many are against euthanasia/suicide for mental issues?

Millicently

I support Euthanasia and I supported Abortion. All said and done, people don't necessarily have to choose either for themselves if they disagree with it but it shouldn't prevent someone else who does want to make the choice. Too many people have inhumane protracted deaths people with incurable terminal diseases should be allowed to decide when they want to end their lives. When you cut away all the arguments what it comes down to is someone who is dying being allowed the right to call time when they are ready to leave.

seamus

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Can I ask why so many are against euthanasia/suicide for mental issues?

"A permanent solution to a temporary problem" as my old man used to say.

There would be a minority who think that it's not "suffering" if it's not physical pain, but I think the majority at this stage accept that depression and other mental illnesses fall into the category of suffering, even if they themselves don't understand it.

The main issue here really would be the idea that all mental illness is transient. That eventually, one way or another, a person can be restored to a stable, healthy and happy position, given the right time and the right treatment.

And that the suicide (legal or otherwise) of such a person is a waste of potential. It is. But there is the fact that not all mental illness is treatable.

There's also the obvious, "It could happen to me" fear. It could literally be a member of any of our families. The idea that one of our loved ones could legally end their life despite not being physically ill, scares the bejeebus out of us.

Hotblack Desiato

But if they're sufficiently able-bodied, they can do that at any time anyway.