Dying with Dignity Bill

1990sman

new ireland demon-reich coming along nicely, the blind rush towards "social progress" has produced the most inhumane, unirish, antilife, hate-riddled agenda-bots.

ye ask for the door to be opened a little and dont even know what waiting behind. do your own research, this things have already been tried in other places and nope didnt make any benefit.

life is a tough gift, like an itchy jumper from your granny!

have some respect for yourselves

Mules

John Hutton wrote: »

A disappointing aspect of society today is that the points of an argument can never, seemingly, be engaged with and debated. Instead, it comes down to an attack on the person or organisation making the argument. Debates today seem to hinge entirely on this point. You opponent raises a good issue? No problem, simply ignore it and attack them. Accuse them of bias, as if that is some sort of "gotcha" that someone on one side of a debate would be biased towards the position they are advocating. The implication is of course that you are not biased, because in your hubris your own position must certainly be the default objectively correct "unbiased" position.

This is no way to govern or run a society - serious issues dont get teased out because if you come down on the eventual "wrong" side you are cancelled or otherwise destroyed.

100% agree. It's very childish and intolerant and no way to make any decision, let alone more serious ones. Tolerance seems to be a vanishing value for some reason. It seems whoever shouts the loudest is listened to.

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you posting that like it's a bad thing, or a good thing?

Sounds like a perfect candidate to me. I'm 32 and I'm physically fine, but deal with chronic depression. I'd think I'd like to avail of such a service as assisted suicide/"dying with dignity". Should I be prevented from such because "shure his legs work, doctor"?

In 3 years time they may have a cure for your illness.
And why would you burden another person with your death?


Please don't kill yourself, there is always hope things will work out.

lucalux

John Hutton wrote: »

No, you should not be encouraged or assisted in committing suicide. You should receive all possible medical, psychiatric and other supports.

If they have availed of all possible medical, psychiatric and other supports, which do not resolve the issues, and still wish to end their own life, you would like to deny that person a medically supervised, dignified and 'clean' death?

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

You've just linked to a diocese report and then a quick Google of the doctor leads to the Catholic Medical Association..... I'm sure he's unbiased though. Honestly the fact you expect a person to arrange a suicide that may or may not work is pretty barbaric tbh. You seem to lack any compassion and want to rave about slippery slopes instead.

http://www.cathmed.org/programs-resources/programs/speakers-bureau/william-toffler/

It was pointed out before you. You could just have thanked that post instead of repeating it.

On topic. You seem to have a problem with Catholic people. Tbh they are just like you and me, but they care more for life than you appear to do.

1990sman

biko wrote: »

Next steps?


"I don't want to be a burden for my family, may as well get assisted suicided".

and wait until they marry it to some form of Power of Attorney/Diminished Responsibility where all your online posts will form a declaration of insanity and off u go to the compost heap.

Mules

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you posting that like it's a bad thing, or a good thing?

Sounds like a perfect candidate to me. I'm 32 and I'm physically fine, but deal with chronic depression. I'd think I'd like to avail of such a service as assisted suicide/"dying with dignity". Should I be prevented from such because "shure his legs work, doctor"?

I was in your position for many many years. Eventually I got treatment that worked. Hopefully it will happen for you too.

o1s1n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you posting that like it's a bad thing, or a good thing?

Sounds like a perfect candidate to me. I'm 32 and I'm physically fine, but deal with chronic depression. I'd think I'd like to avail of such a service as assisted suicide/"dying with dignity". Should I be prevented from such because "shure his legs work, doctor"?

Might sound like a bit of a cliche, but suicide for depression is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Not wanting to downplay your depression as I know how crippling it can be, but at 32 you've a lot of years left to live with a problem which can be worked on.

That is not the same as having terminal cancer.

John Hutton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't say anything about encouragement, I said if I choose it, why should I not be allowed it?


Surely a better option than being found hanging from a tree or dragged from the river..?

Your last sentence is a snappy advertising phrase for "Dying with Dignity".

Because you would be mentally unwell and can be treated. I do not think that suicide for depressed people should be something that is legitimized. A novel way to "help" someone on a bridge alright, or ringing a helpline. "Dont jump! Its messy and no one makes money off of it, die with dignity instead!"

I can understand, although disagree, with the arguments of those who are thinking about assisted suicide for people with late stage cancer, or motor neuron etc were they are suffering terribly, but I think the argument that suicide for mentally unwell people is a valid option is extremely dangerous and undermines work to help people and prevent suicide. Today is world mental health day!

lucalux

o1s1n wrote: »

Might sound like a bit of a cliche, but suicide for depression is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Not wanting to downplay your depression as I know how crippling it can be, but at 32 you've a lot of years left to live with a problem which can be worked on.

That is not the same as having terminal cancer.

Not the same as having terminal cancer diagnosis at all, I agree, but the cliche of "suicide being a permanent solution to a temporary problem" belies the reality for some.
The reality that lifelong, treatment-resistant depression is something that many people have to live with. For life.

Mules

o1s1n wrote: »

Might sound like a bit of a cliche, but suicide for depression is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Not wanting to downplay your depression as I know how crippling it can be, but at 32 you've a lot of years left to live with a problem which can be worked on.

That is not the same as having terminal cancer.

Agreed. It took me years to see that. However when the depression was successfully treated my whole perspective
changed. Which I believe goes to show that someone who is mentally ill isn't always capable of making rational decisions. When your decisions you make are dependent on your mood its not a great sign.

Vic_08

biko wrote: »

It was pointed out before you. You could just have thanked that post instead of repeating it.

On topic. You seem to have a problem with Catholic people. Tbh they are just like you and me, but they care more for life than you appear to do.

Care for life, lol.

Where is that care for life when victims of institutional and sexual abuse at the hands of their beloved church look for recognition, justice and restitution for their trauma? It was conspicuously absent from supporters of the catholic church and their hierarchy.

Refusing to allow people choose their own destiny is the exact opposite of care, it is a callous uncaring adherence to dogma without any compassion for the strangers they are insisting be subject to their brand of morality.

John Hutton

KKV it is unclear to me (now) if you were being hypothetical (I thought you were)or are actually seriously depressed to the extent you would like to avail of assisted suicide as an alternative to inevitably hanging yourself or throwing yourself in a river, I.e thisnis the only option you see.

If it is the latter I urge you to reach out for help and contact the appropriate services and people as a matter of priority.

biko

You know, that suicide booth posting may not have been that far off the mark

Canada’s government has proposed broadening a 2016 law on medically assisted death to include for the first time people who were not at immediate risk of dying.

The proposed changes would “remove the requirement for a person’s natural death to be reasonably foreseeable in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying”, the justice minister, David Lametti, said in a statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/canada-government-access-assisted-dying

biko

biko wrote: »

It was pointed out before you. You could just have thanked that post instead of repeating it.

On topic. You seem to have a problem with Catholic people. Tbh they are just like you and me, but they care more for life than you appear to do.

Nope, I have a problem with any religion trying to impact any individual's medical decisions. I care for life plenty, I also respect a person's choice during terminal illness and the likes. The reason being is that I have plenty of experience with chronic illness that also puts me at far greater risk of certain terminal illnesses.

Meanwhile your respect for human life included you being entirely oblivious to how incapacitated terminally ill people can be.

Mules

lucalux wrote: »

Not the same as having terminal cancer diagnosis at all, I agree, but the cliche of "suicide being a permanent solution to a temporary problem" belies the reality for some.
The reality that lifelong, treatment-resistant depression is something that many people have to live with. For life.

I had a decade of treatment not working and being suicidal, but the combination of the right medicine and therapy (as important as the drugs) finally worked. So it can happen. Although I wouldn't have been impressed by people saying that to me back then, as i can imagine you aren't either.

biko

Today is World Mental Health Day.
Take care everyone out there with emotional health issues.

1990sman

1990sman wrote: »

this things have already been tried in other places and nope didnt make any benefit.

really?
according to who?

mvl

the moment you bring in financial reasons this would be abused: by insurers, by tourism drivers and so on ... so how can this be legislated to protect the disadvantaged from abuse, may I ask ?
also - why should this be allowed to non-citizens ?
i am thinking ... there must be a reason today that gets the perfectly sane adults that have terminal illnesses avoiding to commit suicide, be it insurance, religion, stigma from society ... why shouldn't we change these reasons instead ?
so I don't like this type of legislation because appears to be enabling a morbid/greedy industry for something that may be fixed by a cultural change.

lucalux

Mules wrote: »

I had a decade of treatment not working and being suicidal, but the combination of the right medicine and therapy (as important as the drugs) finally worked. So it can happen. Although I wouldn't have been impressed by people saying that to me back then, as i can imagine you aren't either.

I am really glad it worked out eventually for you. That is not an easy road to have to travel, I am sure.

I think the phrase gets my goat a bit, because it sounds belittling of what are usually really big problems to the person experiencing them. I know it's not said to be intentionally hurtful, but it sure can come across that way! It's not always wrong either, but it can sound oh so wrong to those hearing it at the time, I agree.

I wish to end my life. I have availed of all treatments and therapies available to me, and I will be signing up as soon as I can, if mental health issues are finalised into the bill. I have a myriad of reasons for doing so, and that view has been solid for a long time. Many doctors agree there isn't anything else to be done for me, so at the moment, I exist. I hold off on suicide for a myriad of reasons also.

To those saying suicide is legal, nothing stopping anyone..Thanks for the reminder.
If I can point out some things stopping me:

Overdose: Where do I do it, who finds me, will the dose work, will I be left incapacitated if something goes wrong?

Hanging: Where do I do it, who finds me, what if I am cut down by someone who finds me, leaving me injured but alive?

Cutting wrists: Where do I do it, in this house, (not nice for those who live here after me, or the owners - blood doesn't clean well)
OK, outside? who finds me? Children? Someone struggling with their own mental health? Leaving people with PTSD as a side effect of my actions doesn't appeal to me. What if I survive, and am kept alive?

Jumping in front of a train: Where do I do it? Why make a train driver experience that? Wholly unfair, to put it mildly. Do I make Iarnród Éireann staff walk the line picking up my body parts as already happens? I don't want to do that at all.

Crash my car into a wall/the sea/off a cliff: Who has to go searching for my body? Sub aqua divers and coast guard, plus Gardaí and search volunteers? Not fair on them. Calling out the fire brigade and paramedics to take their time away from life-saving? Bit ignorant really.

Carbon monoxide poisoning, don't have a gas oven so that's out. Car and garden hose so? Where do I do that? Who finds me? What if I survive, but with brain damage?

All of these options drag other people in to my suicide, so asking a medical professional who is comfortable with the assisted suicide thing would seem to me to be the considered and more civic-minded option.

There are more, but I'd need another strong coffee to get them all down here. The gist is - it's not simple to end your life, even if you are physically able to.
I'm happy that the ones who need assistance to die in the manner of their choosing will be able to choose that for themselves down the line.

Trouser Snake

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's called 'marketing', dear.

Apt username.

Sephiroth_dude

JustAThought wrote: »

Seven thousand healthy aborted babies so far this year probably would disagree with you. But everyone who was shouting loudest insisted it would only be for rare extraordinary medical cases in extreme need. Not unwanted disposable babies and their costs and inconveniences. & expenses. Just like what they’re saying now too it seems. Only now its the old, the infirm and the disabled and less mentally abled. And they want somebody else to do this dirty work too.

Mod

Leave the abortion talk out of here and stick to the topic at hand, thanks.

suicide_circus

Will some people be pressured into ending their lives by unscrupulous family members if assisted suicide is allowed? Yes.

Are some women be pressured into terminations by unscrupulous men now that it's allowed? Probably.

The question is, does the potential for these awful outlier scenarios trump the potential benefits?

It's an interesting question.

One of the main objections to the death penalty is the possibility of an innocent person being wrongfully convicted and killed.

SmilingLurker

suicide_circus wrote: »

Will some people be pressured into ending their lives by unscrupulous family members if assisted suicide is allowed? Yes.

Are some women be pressured into terminations by unscrupulous men now that it's allowed? Probably.

The question is, does the potential for these awful outlier scenarios trump the potential benefits?

It's an interesting question.

One of the main objections to the death penalty is the possibility of an innocent person being wrongfully convicted and killed.

It will require the person to be terminally ill and in sound mind and the decision freely made when making the decision. If you cannot consent the proposed bill is useless. Being unduly pressured would negate the consent.

This is a separate issue to abortion. Do not conflate separate issues. (I believe in free safe and legal access in broader circumstances than stated under current legislation)

Allowing people to chose if they do wish the manner of their passing given the circumstances is reasonable. If you do not want this, do not consent.

If properly managed, it will ease the pain of some, and reduce the costs on our healthcare system which is under untold pressure.

Pherekydes

JustAThought wrote: »

Don’t worry - you’ve moved on from fighting for the right to kill healthy babies - you want to
kill adults and grown children now - the sick, the disabled, the intellectually challenged, the unimportant - the inconvenient. Just like Hitler did.

Hitler and the Nazis were anti-abortion. Vehemently anti-choice, like the Catholic church.

sabat

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hitler and the Nazis were anti-abortion. Vehemently anti-choice, like the Catholic church.

How many countries had legalised abortion back then?

Conor Bourke

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, your anecdotes mean the square root of nothing.

As do yours I’m still entitled to post my opinions though. Mine are from a place of not insignificant experience, however.

Loafing Oaf

Mules wrote: »

I doubt the government would want to legislate for it without a public vote. It seems too important a decision not to give people a say.

I'd say the opposite, I reckon the government would be glad to put the issue to bed with as little fuss as possible and would only put the issue to a referendum if the bill was believed to be repugnant to the Constitution in some way

marklazarcovic

i wonder what the insurance implications are etc

Mules

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'd say the opposite, I reckon the government would be glad to put the issue to bed with as little fuss as possible and would only put the issue to a referendum if the bill was believed to be repugnant to the Constitution in some way

Maybe.