Dying with Dignity Bill

nolivesmatter

Stihl waters wrote: »

You make it sound like we're doing wrong and everyone else is doing it right

If we're doing anything wrong it's that it's all over too quick. People have almost zero time in Ireland to process what's even happened and the person is already buried.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

So you think that families will force people into assisted suicide to claim their inheritance early? Good movie plot but not very realistic!

No, other European countries do not have wakes like we have them. Very few other countries have their dead laid out at home for the parish to come in and view them. Ireland is the only country, where when I have been at a wake or removal I have been forced into seeing the body, because they look 'lovely' or 'so peaceful'
Doesn't happen in other countries

Nobody is "forced" to see the body.. the wake is entirely optional.. and even then, it's a custom largely disappearing from Irish lives. The viewing of the person in the coffin is still around somewhat, but there too, it's in decline.

Oh, and this practice can still be found in many countries, both inside and outside of Europe. It's just not terribly common. I've seen it done both in Russia, and in France before (the full wake concept rather than simply the display of the coffin). I'm sure it still happens in plenty of places, especially poorer regions which tend to hold to more traditional practices.

gypsy79

I am a 40 year old with stage 4 cancer. I would like this bill to pass if I ever needed it

But I would also like cannibas to be medically available and psychedelics for my mental health but are just wishes

Stihl waters

Stihl waters wrote: »

You make it sound like we're doing wrong and everyone else is doing it right

Not at all!
Every society deals with death differently, nothing wrong with however people deal with it.
I was merely making the point that how people look after they die is important here.
So allowing people to die with dignity should also be important, no-one wants to see a body when the head is blown off with a shotgun

Guy:Incognito

Mules wrote: »

A bit of tolerance for people who have different opinions than you makes life a lot easier. The people who voted no on abortion did it because they thought it was the compassionate decision, just like those who voted yes also thought it was the compassionate decision. Life isn't black and white. Decisions on morality isn't a case of right or wrong thinking people, everyone had had different experiences in life and they colour our opinions and choices.

Wheres their tolerance for the people that want and need these services that they want to deny them?

Im not going to have any sympathy for people that want to restrict others healthcare on the basis of their own beliefs.

Dont like abortion? fine, dont involve yourself with it. But dont try dictate what others do.

Guy:Incognito

Mules wrote: »

I think it's that pro life people in abortion would also be pro life in euthanasia. It's the ending of a life they object to.

Maybe they should get a hobby and stop trying to dictate what everyone else does? Why do some people spend so much of their time and energy trying to limit the choices of other people, the vast majority of whom they dont and wont ever know?

Guy:Incognito

biko wrote: »

That is just a matter of definition.
Does life start at the splitting of the first cell? At the first heartbeat? At the first brainwave? Or when you exit the womb?
It's different definitions.

Why do pro life people only count their age from birth and not from when they say life begins?

Guy:Incognito

biko wrote: »

Legalisation of assisted suicide in Oregon was a big ‘mistake’, warns US doctor

Professor William L. Toffler, one of the most senior doctors in Oregon, has declared that the law has been a disaster in his home state.

He said that “assisted suicide has been detrimental to patients, degraded the quality of medical care, and compromised the integrity of the medical profession”.

“I have seen first-hand how the law has changed the relationship between doctors and patients, some of whom now fear that they are being steered toward assisted suicide,” he continued.

“In one case a patient with bladder cancer contacted me. She was concerned that an oncologist treating her might be one of the ‘death doctors’, and she questioned his motives. This was particularly worrying to her after she obtained a second opinion from another oncologist who was more positive about her prognosis and treatment options. Whichever of the consultants was correct, such fears were never an issue before.”


http://www.dioceseofshrewsbury.org/news/latest-news/legalisation-of-assisted-suicide-in-oregon-was-a-big-mistake-warns-us-doctor

"Dr. William Toffler

Family Physician at Holy Family Catholic Clinic"

Wonder does his religion affect his stance at all?

I also wouldn't equate the US healthcare system to here

buddabelly

buddabelly wrote: »

Just go and end your life if you want to , no one is stopping you, why do they want to make it legal, if your dead why would you care?
Why the big deal, if you want to end your life, have at it!

This has literally been explained in very simple terms ten times in this thread


If you wanted to know the answer to this, you would already know it.

So what purpose the rhetoric?

Guy:Incognito

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.

This issue is coming down to people who want to let others live and die as they want themselves and religious people trying to tell other how they have to live and die based on the religious persons beliefs and the person concerned can just lump it.

Sandor Clegane

The amount of people that are arrogant enough to believe they no what another person should or shouldn't do with his or her own body genuinely scares me at times.

Guy:Incognito

biko wrote: »

On topic. You seem to have a problem with Catholic people. .

I have no problem admitting I have a problem with Catholic people myself. Aswell as any other religious people trying to dictate how I live my life based on their religious beliefs.

Be as catholic or anything else as you like. Just have the decency to allow others the same choice and stop trying to force your choices on them.

Coillte_Bhoy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This issue is coming down to people who want to let others live and die as they want themselves and religious people trying to tell other how they have to live and die based on the religious persons beliefs and the person concerned can just lump it.

Brilliant.

buddabelly

buddabelly wrote: »

The woman who pushed this is from Wicklow, paralysed in a wheelchair , who is stopping her from driving off one of Wicklows harbours into the sea and ending her life?
Answer me that!

I'll give the "we control bodily integrity of others" crowd one thing, over the course of the few relevant public discussions now:

Their level of class and respect for people in difficult decisions remains constant

1990sman

let them eat kerb. why should rest of so called society suffer just to pander to another whining minority.

again with the changing everything for 0.01%

Guy:Incognito

buddabelly wrote: »

The woman who pushed this is from Wicklow, paralysed in a wheelchair , who is stopping her from driving off one of Wicklows harbours into the sea and ending her life?
Answer me that!

The horrible death that is drowning? Why would you want her to suffer like that?

1990sman

1990sman wrote: »

let them eat kerb. why should rest of so called society suffer just to pander to another whining minority.

again with the changing everything for 0.01%

What minority?

If it goes to a vote it'll be passed or not based on the majority vote.

Akrasia

biko wrote: »

Suicide was de-criminalised in 1993 so there isn't any need for this bill as it's just a suicide bill wrapped up in a fancy name.

What if you have been diagnosed with an incurable condition that guarantees a painful death but know you're going to progressively degenerate physically/mentally so that you will not be physically able to end your life at the point of your choosing.

Without the assisted dying bill, terminally ill people are left with the choice of either killing themselves prematurely when they may still have years/months of precious life left, or resigning themselves to years/months of degeneration where they are trapped in a dysfunctional body, possibly in consistent physical or emotional pain (or medicated to the point where there is nothing left of your personality or personhood)

Or to put it another way. I'm a father and husband who is currently lucky enough to be healthy. If I decide now that my worst fear is to end up as a patient with dementia, living in an institution who can't even remember any of the life or people I feel most connected to as a healthy person.

Tomorrow I get diagnosed with an aggressive form of early onset Dementia. I am given 3 years prognosis before I lose the ability to recognise my wife and children. I feel ok now, but I don't want to spend the next 3 years worrying about what my family will have to endure when I am incapacitated

Suicide is legal. but at the point I feel my life is not worth living, I will no longer be capable of ending it.

Should I just kill myself now? and lose those final years, or should I cling on and cause that anguish to my loved ones who will have to watch me decline

Or should I have a conversation with my family expressing my feelings and telling them that I would like to die with dignity at the moment of my own choosing rather at the end of a long drawn out ordeal that will fundamentally change how my family remember who I was as a person.

Coillte_Bhoy

1990sman wrote: »

let them eat kerb. why should rest of so called society suffer just to pander to another whining minority.

again with the changing everything for 0.01%

1990sman

1990sman wrote: »

let them eat kerb. why should rest of so called society suffer just to pander to another whining minority.

again with the changing everything for 0.01%

In fairness, you're the one whining

The interest the church takes in the oldest and most personal rites of passage that we might all pass through in our lives becomes an ever more sinister and malevolent prurience when you see how that organisation and in particular those who are fully signed-up online warriors for the faith react to a true extrication of a population from that involvement.

Catholics believe their organisation has rights over your birth, your induction into society as both child and adult, your reproductive decisions, your relationship choices, the options available to you as a medical patient and, finally, the decisions over the manner of your death.

This is fairly transparent stuff. The org has staked claim over very intimate and common experiences in order to control and coerce those inducted into the faith, and what we are seeing in this thread and have seen in rather disgusting measure throughout the last two relevant referenda is the dying kick of the unquestioning zealots.

It's all progress. The arguments thrown up against will turn to callous and ugly mockery of the people most affected, as shown already in this thread and throughout the last two referenda.

There's ****-all Christian about some Catholics

Akrasia

buddabelly wrote: »

The woman who pushed this is from Wicklow, paralysed in a wheelchair , who is stopping her from driving off one of Wicklows harbours into the sea and ending her life?
Answer me that!

She could kill herself today if she really wanted to. This isn't about her ability to kill herself now, it is about removing her fear of being trapped in a situation where she is physically dependent on others, and nobody can help her die if she decides that she cannot bear to live anymore

Its almost literally a nightmare, where you are doomed to suffer a fate you don't deserve but cannot prevent it because your are trapped, and everyone you ask for help, cannot help you because even if you explain to them how much pain you're in, and they feel your suffering and really want to help, but they are being prevented from helping you by a higher power that would punish them severely for carrying out your wishes

Akrasia

buddabelly wrote: »

Those who have died by drowning and been brought back have overwhelmingly said it was peaceful.
If you are worried take a fist full of pill and fall asleep, no need for a change in the law

The assisted suicide bill is for people who are unable to end their own lives. Your argument that 'they can just take a fistful of pills' completely misses the point of the bill.

By a huge margin. Have you thought about this at all?

Guy:Incognito

buddabelly wrote: »

Those who have died by drowning and been brought back have overwhelmingly said it was peaceful.
If you are worried take a fist full of pill and fall asleep, no need for a change in the law

And if the pills dont work and just tear up her insides instead?

You really arent very compassionate towards other peoples suffering at all, are you?

"you have to live your life the way I decide and you should have to suffer if you try to deviate" . Its very catholic alright, I'll give you that much.

Rubberchikken

It's a good start and I would definitely support a terminally ill persona right to end their life.

The hysteria that subjects like this bring out will only complicate what is a fairly simple law if some correctly.

Not every terminal ill person will choose to or even wish to end their life but the choice, at least, should be available.

dark crystal

buddabelly wrote: »

The woman who pushed this is from Wicklow, paralysed in a wheelchair , who is stopping her from driving off one of Wicklows harbours into the sea and ending her life?
Answer me that!

Have you any notion of the definition of dying with dignity?

nolivesmatter

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

The amount of people that are arrogant enough to believe they no what another person should or shouldn't do with his or her own body genuinely scares me at times.

I'd support the idea that someone should be allowed to make the decision if they so choose. My only worry would be that after it's done some information comes to light that reveals that the terminal diagnosis was incorrect or something.

SusieBlue

buddabelly wrote: »

Those who have died by drowning and been brought back have overwhelmingly said it was peaceful.
If you are worried take a fist full of pill and fall asleep, no need for a change in the law

Drowning is widely believed to be one of the most terrifying and traumatic ways to go.
Imagine spending your last few minutes of life violently suffocating as your body fights to live?
Because that instinct does kick in whether you intend to take your life or whether you’re having an unprecedented accident.

Read the survivor stories of the 2004 St. Stephens Day tsunami. Spoiler alert - not one of them described the feeling of drowning as ‘peaceful’.

buddabelly

buddabelly wrote: »

As soon as they approach the point of no return, take care of it
Why the big deal, you want to die, have at it, why drag others into your decision?

Why drag others into your aversion to it?

You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to engage with the issues.

So, given that absolutely nobody will force you or anybody else to participate in any relevant action under the legislation, shouldn't the question be:

What's the big deal? What's your argument against it?

NB the above question is rhetorical. You've already made clear that you don't care to even pretend to address what 'it' is so I can't pretend to treat your participation on the thread as good faith.

Akrasia

buddabelly wrote: »

As soon as they approach the point of no return, take care of it
Why the big deal, you want to die, have at it, why drag others into your decision?

They don't want to die, they want to prevent a painful death, long drawn out death full of suffering where they are no longer in control of anything.

And they, and their families, would much rather have this done in a dignified way than finding out that their mother has been hoarding pain meds for weeks so that they could overdose when nobody was looking.

Would you rather have your terminally ill relative die in a peaceful dignified way, or have a family member stumble on their suicide months or years before hey would have reached their natural end?

Do you have the capacity to put yourself in the position of someone who is facing such a dilemma?