In 2006 my dad died of Cancer for the last 2 weeks of his life, he suffered, he suffered so bad that i could barely bring myself to the house of my childhood. He had no life he had no control over his destiny but he was hurting he was in pain that you can not and i pray do not ever feel.
So yes he should have had the right to chose to end his own suffering.
If you are suffering from an incurable illness and you wish to remove yourself from that then i think you should and NO ONE has the right to decide otherwise.
everyone has the right to decide where and what happens to them in life themselves.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]In 2006 my dad died of Cancer for the last 2 weeks of his life, he suffered, he suffered so bad that i could barely bring myself to the house of my childhood. He had no life he had no control over his destiny but he was hurting he was in pain that you can not and i pray do not ever feel.
So yes he should have had the right to chose to end his own suffering.
If you are suffering from an incurable illness and you wish to remove yourself from that then i think you should and NO ONE has the right to decide otherwise.
everyone has the right to decide where and what happens to them in life themselves.
Sorry to hear that.
I think euthanasia and assisted suicide are quite different things, in law and morally. One is the state choosing which people to kill on the basis of a condition or age with no choice or appeal from the individual. The other is allowing the individual an informed personal choice, either through their own words or a living will, to decide when and how they die. For those who do not wish to die that option must remain and appropriate treatment be given.
As for thall shall not kill I can respect that viewpoint in pacifists. But the Gurkas, who are greatly respected by me and many other are killers. The same applies to our other armed forces. It's part of what they are trained to do and what we, the UK pay them to do. Are they wrong to kill then?
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]In 2006 my dad died of Cancer for the last 2 weeks of his life, he suffered, he suffered so bad that i could barely bring myself to the house of my childhood. He had no life he had no control over his destiny but he was hurting he was in pain that you can not and i pray do not ever feel.
So yes he should have had the right to chose to end his own suffering.
If you are suffering from an incurable illness and you wish to remove yourself from that then i think you should and NO ONE has the right to decide otherwise.
everyone has the right to decide where and what happens to them in life themselves.[/quote]
This is terrible, and a tragedy. I fully understand that you would want to end your fathers suffering and I know the pain you went through having to deal with it.
I do, however think that the law should be “reason without passion” (Plato ?). If we let our own emotions dictate the law then we get into a very messy situation.
As per the 10 commandments quote – it is true that the bible says this, but the UK has a secular legal system and should always remain that way. Should we begin to pander to fundamentalists we begin to tread the irreversible path the Americans find themselves on.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]One more point what is "quality of life" and who determines what it is?
Somebody with a condition like Downs Syndrome for example can enjoy life on their own level. What right does somebody else have to deprive such a person of life because THEY deem it of insufficent quality?
Where on earth do you get the " somebody else" in this argument. Assisted suicide is requested at the time or beforehand in a living will by the person seeking assistance not anybody else. The doctors involvement would only be to either agree that this course of action fits the criteria of terminal illness and deterioration in life quality and if agreed by all 3 then a process could be put in place. All these arguments for a slope to euthanasia and eugenics is a nonsense.
I can see where he’s coming from. Once assisted suicide is out there it’s a very thin line to euthanasia. A parent who’s just had a child with Down(e?)s Syndrome who doesn’t fancy much caring for it will argue that they have no quality of life, and them being the child’s legal guardian will be able to speak for it. Once we agree to start killing people where do we stop.
I think the argument for is flawed in these regards – if it’s quality of life which is the issue, then what is the determinant of this ? Who is to say that someone with a terminal illness has a worse quality of life than one with severe depression, and more importantly how can you stop someone with that aforementioned depression proving in court his right to afforded the same treatment as one with terminal illness as he can show he satisfies the class of “poor to no quality of life”.
So then the argument is we only open this right to a very small, heavily controlled class of people (quite how or why these people are deemed suitable whilst others are not still doesn’t occur to me). Then we’ve got the issue that we have an universal health care system, available to anyone IN the UK. No right of residence needs to be proved, no employment, no family ties nothing. You can just get off a plane and suddenly you have the right to free healthcare. There is no other country on earth (to my knowledge) which provides this free, universal, assisted suicide, imagine the clamor globally to get to Britain for those who think they fall into this “small, heavily controlled class of people” that has been described.
There are many good arguments which have been raised for assisted suicide, but the fundamental questions of who it should be afforded to, why those should be selected, how we avoid it becoming a “free for all” in terms of people simply proving their poor quality of life qualifies them for the procedure and how it should be paid for I don’t think have been answered. Until they have I don’t see anyway that this could be introduced, and that isn’t even scratching the surface of the moral implications.
Someone mentioned further up the thread that assisted suicide was similar to turning off a life support machine – I have to say I see where he’s coming from, but I disagree. Turning off a life support machine or not administering drugs which will pro long life is an omission to treat. This is very different in my mind to doing something “positive” which would end a persons life rather than letting nature take it’s course.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Assisted suicide is a euphemism for murder and potentially a charter for eugenics. Furthermore If it is sponsored by the NHS then economic considerations will almost inevitably override the wishes and welfare of patients if they don't in fact already in many NHS Trusts. Stafffordshire being a recent example.
McLoving, whether intentionally or unintentionally, hit on the real agenda of many advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide when he suggested killing people once they reach the age of 80.
If this became law vulnerable old and disabled people would be pressurised to consent to being murdered sorry I meant assisted to commit suicide in order to avoid "being a burden" either financially on the State or on those who care for them.
They killed the elderly and disabled in Nazi Germany as well as the Jews and frankly it frightens me that so many on this thread appear to want to live in that kind of society. Why did we bother to fight World War 2?
I won't even mention Religion because it is evident that many have contempt for it on this forum. However one of the 10 Commandments is Thou shalt not kill and that says it all as far as I am concerned.
You are right that the Nazis killed people who were mentally/physically handicapped (and forcibly sterilised people suffering from depression), but that was by force, they didn't give the victims or their families any veto, (most families were later told that the deceased had died either of natural causes or as a consequence of an accident or infection etc). However you are confusing the State making a decision and over-riding the wishes of the patient, no one suggests that the State should make this kind of decision, it should be entirely voluntary.
Confusing the two and involing the Nazi euthanasia programmes is scare mongering.
As for your comments about "religion", given that religion has been the cause of enough major conflicts and deaths over the millenia then the last people you should invoke to support your argument are "believers".
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]One more point what is "quality of life" and who determines what it is?
Somebody with a condition like Downs Syndrome for example can enjoy life on their own level. What right does somebody else have to deprive such a person of life because THEY deem it of insufficent quality?
The individual concerned determines what their "quality of life" is. If someone has a terminal illness and is in considerable pain and needs more-or-less around the clock healthcare to the point where they have lost control of bodily functions and dignity and they would like to "end it all" then the State should assist, but only in cases of terminal illness and where the individual has specifically requested that they want to die.
No for the same reasons that the Death Penalty should never be reintroduced:
What if you execute someone and it's later proved beyond all doubt that they were innocent?
What if 'society' helps someone with MS to commit suicide and three months later they find a cure that not only halts its progress but also reverses the effects?
If you are confident you will never want or need 'assisted suicide' that's fine....for you.
My circumstances may be different. Despite being in reasonable health for someone of my age, right now. I KNOW i do not wish to die a long lingering death, should my health deteriorate. I KNOW now, if my mental faculties become so weak i cannot care for myself (eg. advanced dementia) I want out. It's not for you or the Government nor anyone to deny me that right. It's a decision for me.
Just as a small but significant anecdote. I had a friend three years younger than me. He developed pancreatic cancer. The doctors told him it was incurable. He may live for one or two more years.
They then spent the next twelve months pumping him full of chemicals in a forlorn attempt to do 'something' to the cancer. He went from twelve stone to six, from white skinned to greenish. He looked like a victim of Belsen. He then died. What was the point? He could have lived on without treatment for a year, then ended his own life when ready. All he got from the medical profession was a year of torture.
When i visited him in hospital i refused to allow my emotions to well up. I talked and laughed with him about the stupid things we had done together. After his funeral i wept. Not just because my mate had died, but because of the indignity and pain he had endured for nothing!
In 2001 my father died of mesothelioma a particularly nasty cancer. From diagnosis to death was 17 months in which time there was a gradual but steady deterioration in his health. He knew very well what was coming in terms of the final stages of his disease and I know that he did not want to spend his final weeks confined to his bed, helpless and in pain unable to look after himself. I know this because he told me in many discussions we had. Had he been given the opportunity or choice to end his suffering just a few weeks earlier than nature had intended I know that he would have taken that option. What actually happened was that the final two weeks he was in so much pain that he was dosed to the point of stupor with morphine, confined to his bed on oxygen and unable to interact with anyone. Very distressing for my family and whats more important is I know it was exactly the kind of dreadful undignified death that he did not want or deserve. He had no choice in this country to end his life in a way that was of his own planning. I sincerely hope with all my being that this awful situation whereby people in the same sort of situation my father was in are allowed to make a decision that in the end is only concerned with their life and their death and nobody elses business. How this kind of situation equates to some of the arguments against assisted suicide posted above is quite beyond me.
See - that's why there can never be a debate on a subject like this. It's a pointless waste of time because no matter what someone who isn't in favour of it will say, there will always be people who have perfectly legitimate, heartfelt reasons for wanting it to be legal. Its like the abortion debate - there really can't be a debate - either you agree with it or you don't.
That's why I deliberately didn't post anything more than 'no' to start with - expanding upon it always makes you look and feel a complete c*** when people post stories like those above. I could rebut by saying that the more people treated, the more scientists understand about cancer (and the quicker they'll find a cure for it) - which may lead to someone being able to 'hold on' for just another two weeks and, for instance, watch the birth of their first grandchild.
However, I don't think getting into long, undignified shouting matches over what is, quite possibly, the most emotive subject there is serves anyone's best interests. I don't agree with it - end of.
as i said earlier on that the debate on this subject no matter how much in favour i am of the right to die due to what my father went through, I think this is a debate of great context and depth and the reasons behind your opinion have made me think and made me wonder, it just has not changed my mind keep posting what you think and dont bow down i enjoy your posts even if i dont agree with them sometimes
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]See - that's why there can never be a debate on a subject like this. It's a pointless waste of time because no matter what someone who isn't in favour of it will say, there will always be people who have perfectly legitimate, heartfelt reasons for wanting it to be legal. Its like the abortion debate - there really can't be a debate - either you agree with it or you don't.
That's why I deliberately didn't post anything more than 'no' to start with - expanding upon it always makes you look and feel a complete c*** when people post stories like those above. I could rebut by saying that the more people treated, the more scientists understand about cancer (and the quicker they'll find a cure for it) - which may lead to someone being able to 'hold on' for just another two weeks and, for instance, watch the birth of their first grandchild.
However, I don't think getting into long, undignified shouting matches over what is, quite possibly, the most emotive subject there is serves anyone's best interests. I don't agree with it - end of.
I can`t agree with your point that this subject can`t be sensibly debated but I do accept and respect your right to disagree with my point of view. I posted the above only because I could think of no better way to give example of the type of situation wher I believe assisted suicide should be allowed.
Actually Leroy, the one thing that hasn't happened is 'an undignified slanging match' All contributors have said their piece in a reasonable manner. Probably because it's such a sensitive matter.
I'll sign off now by saying i think you are wrong, but i respect your right to differ. My life is mine, my death should be too, if that's what i wish.
Comments
So yes he should have had the right to chose to end his own suffering.
If you are suffering from an incurable illness and you wish to remove yourself from that then i think you should and NO ONE has the right to decide otherwise.
everyone has the right to decide where and what happens to them in life themselves.
Sorry to hear that.
I think euthanasia and assisted suicide are quite different things, in law and morally. One is the state choosing which people to kill on the basis of a condition or age with no choice or appeal from the individual. The other is allowing the individual an informed personal choice, either through their own words or a living will, to decide when and how they die. For those who do not wish to die that option must remain and appropriate treatment be given.
As for thall shall not kill I can respect that viewpoint in pacifists. But the Gurkas, who are greatly respected by me and many other are killers. The same applies to our other armed forces. It's part of what they are trained to do and what we, the UK pay them to do. Are they wrong to kill then?
So yes he should have had the right to chose to end his own suffering.
If you are suffering from an incurable illness and you wish to remove yourself from that then i think you should and NO ONE has the right to decide otherwise.
everyone has the right to decide where and what happens to them in life themselves.[/quote]
This is terrible, and a tragedy. I fully understand that you would want to end your fathers suffering and I know the pain you went through having to deal with it.
I do, however think that the law should be “reason without passion” (Plato ?). If we let our own emotions dictate the law then we get into a very messy situation.
As per the 10 commandments quote – it is true that the bible says this, but the UK has a secular legal system and should always remain that way. Should we begin to pander to fundamentalists we begin to tread the irreversible path the Americans find themselves on.
Where on earth do you get the " somebody else" in this argument. Assisted suicide is requested at the time or beforehand in a living will by the person seeking assistance not anybody else. The doctors involvement would only be to either agree that this course of action fits the criteria of terminal illness and deterioration in life quality and if agreed by all 3 then a process could be put in place. All these arguments for a slope to euthanasia and eugenics is a nonsense.
I think the argument for is flawed in these regards – if it’s quality of life which is the issue, then what is the determinant of this ? Who is to say that someone with a terminal illness has a worse quality of life than one with severe depression, and more importantly how can you stop someone with that aforementioned depression proving in court his right to afforded the same treatment as one with terminal illness as he can show he satisfies the class of “poor to no quality of life”.
So then the argument is we only open this right to a very small, heavily controlled class of people (quite how or why these people are deemed suitable whilst others are not still doesn’t occur to me). Then we’ve got the issue that we have an universal health care system, available to anyone IN the UK. No right of residence needs to be proved, no employment, no family ties nothing. You can just get off a plane and suddenly you have the right to free healthcare. There is no other country on earth (to my knowledge) which provides this free, universal, assisted suicide, imagine the clamor globally to get to Britain for those who think they fall into this “small, heavily controlled class of people” that has been described.
There are many good arguments which have been raised for assisted suicide, but the fundamental questions of who it should be afforded to, why those should be selected, how we avoid it becoming a “free for all” in terms of people simply proving their poor quality of life qualifies them for the procedure and how it should be paid for I don’t think have been answered. Until they have I don’t see anyway that this could be introduced, and that isn’t even scratching the surface of the moral implications.
Someone mentioned further up the thread that assisted suicide was similar to turning off a life support machine – I have to say I see where he’s coming from, but I disagree. Turning off a life support machine or not administering drugs which will pro long life is an omission to treat. This is very different in my mind to doing something “positive” which would end a persons life rather than letting nature take it’s course.
well done chaps
You are right that the Nazis killed people who were mentally/physically handicapped (and forcibly sterilised people suffering from depression), but that was by force, they didn't give the victims or their families any veto, (most families were later told that the deceased had died either of natural causes or as a consequence of an accident or infection etc). However you are confusing the State making a decision and over-riding the wishes of the patient, no one suggests that the State should make this kind of decision, it should be entirely voluntary.
Confusing the two and involing the Nazi euthanasia programmes is scare mongering.
As for your comments about "religion", given that religion has been the cause of enough major conflicts and deaths over the millenia then the last people you should invoke to support your argument are "believers".
The individual concerned determines what their "quality of life" is. If someone has a terminal illness and is in considerable pain and needs more-or-less around the clock healthcare to the point where they have lost control of bodily functions and dignity and they would like to "end it all" then the State should assist, but only in cases of terminal illness and where the individual has specifically requested that they want to die.
What if you execute someone and it's later proved beyond all doubt that they were innocent?
What if 'society' helps someone with MS to commit suicide and three months later they find a cure that not only halts its progress but also reverses the effects?
No thanks.
If you are confident you will never want or need 'assisted suicide' that's fine....for you.
My circumstances may be different. Despite being in reasonable health for someone of my age, right now. I KNOW i do not wish to die a long lingering death, should my health deteriorate. I KNOW now, if my mental faculties become so weak i cannot care for myself (eg. advanced dementia) I want out. It's not for you or the Government nor anyone to deny me that right. It's a decision for me.
Just as a small but significant anecdote. I had a friend three years younger than me. He developed pancreatic cancer. The doctors told him it was incurable. He may live for one or two more years.
They then spent the next twelve months pumping him full of chemicals in a forlorn attempt to do 'something' to the cancer. He went from twelve stone to six, from white skinned to greenish. He looked like a victim of Belsen. He then died. What was the point? He could have lived on without treatment for a year, then ended his own life when ready. All he got from the medical profession was a year of torture.
When i visited him in hospital i refused to allow my emotions to well up. I talked and laughed with him about the stupid things we had done together. After his funeral i wept. Not just because my mate had died, but because of the indignity and pain he had endured for nothing!
That's why I deliberately didn't post anything more than 'no' to start with - expanding upon it always makes you look and feel a complete c*** when people post stories like those above. I could rebut by saying that the more people treated, the more scientists understand about cancer (and the quicker they'll find a cure for it) - which may lead to someone being able to 'hold on' for just another two weeks and, for instance, watch the birth of their first grandchild.
However, I don't think getting into long, undignified shouting matches over what is, quite possibly, the most emotive subject there is serves anyone's best interests. I don't agree with it - end of.
as i said earlier on that the debate on this subject no matter how much in favour i am of the right to die due to what my father went through, I think this is a debate of great context and depth and the reasons behind your opinion have made me think and made me wonder, it just has not changed my mind keep posting what you think and dont bow down i enjoy your posts even if i dont agree with them sometimes
I can`t agree with your point that this subject can`t be sensibly debated but I do accept and respect your right to disagree with my point of view. I posted the above only because I could think of no better way to give example of the type of situation wher I believe assisted suicide should be allowed.
sounds like me and you went through the same thing fecking rotten to happen to a son, having to watch that but it made me stronger in the long run
Tragic thing for me is that its happening to families the length and breadth of the country every day.
I'll sign off now by saying i think you are wrong, but i respect your right to differ. My life is mine, my death should be too, if that's what i wish.
BBC News