UKC

Given the way that such things tend to spread through the Western world, this could be significant:

"Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and permanently have the right to a doctor’s help in dying, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday morning. The intolerable suffering can be physical or psychological."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-rules-on-doctor-...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Good. I still finding astonishing that as a society we often think the right thing for an animal is to put it down if it has incurable pain, yet this is seen as a crime if it were to be done to humans

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Would have to agree. If I got to the point to where I was in so much pain, I 'd want help to end it all

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Agree 100%

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Generally a good thing in my opinion. However I would like to see safeguards in place so that people cannot be put down against their wishes, and a clear protocol on psychological suffering that takes into account the affects of depression etc on perception.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Other than certain religious groups, who is it that disagrees with the notion that someone of sound mind and in great pain should be able to choose their time and to a degree, mode of death?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
This post prompted me to read the Hippocratic oath which I had never looked at previously. It made interesting reading.

In reply to DaveHK:

I have hesitations on it to do with people feeling like they are a burden on others. I worry that people don't want to be a hassle, so "I will say that I want to die rather than keep burdening others with my care" could be someone's thought process.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think it's strange that the same people who consider that allowing a police officer a computer is the "thin end of the wedge" into an brutal and oppressive state regime, consider that allowing the state to euthanase people is a totally reasonable decision.

In reply to off-duty:
Umm, they don't.

In reply to girlymonkey:

particularly as those feelings could be engineered, grooming for euthanasia

In reply to girlymonkey:

Unfortunately it's take that risk or impose on all people whatever fate hands out. Working in the community with over 65s for years I am clear, absolutely clear, I have no wish to spend years hoisted from a to b in adult nappies that get changed as and when carers arrive - that remains true even if carers arrive on demand, it just isn't the life for me.

People make bad choices due to coercion (amongst many other events that can lead to lousy choices!) but that has never been reason to remove choice itself.

In reply to girlymonkey:


Being somewhat provocative:

Let's suppose that someone really does want to die, rather than burdening their relatives (or others), and is sufficiently clear in that wish that they maintain it and state it in private conversations with at least two different doctors over a period of some months (or whatever safeguards are specified), in that case why shouldn't they have their wish?

To me the problem case is if the relatives would be happy for them to end it, but they themselves wish to go on. In such cases one presumes and hopes that the private conversations with doctors would be sufficient safeguard. But genuinely wanting to end things owing to not wishing to be a burden on others could be considered rather noble. So long as it is genuinely their choice, I don't have a problem with them deciding on those grounds.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Having heard the moral expression of more elderly and infirm not wanting to burden their relatives with their infrmity, i feel very ambivalent about this. Especially because tacit financial pressures on all health services world wide look for expedient utilitarian solutions that suit. Personally I think the compulsion to relieve pain and discomfort without a compromise to life is crucial in medicine lest medicine become political in its end points. I would suggest that if this is to become a reality it should be left to a group of elected civil but trained individuals, such as yourself and others of a like mind, to execute on this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Don't know what the answer is about the law but the question should be debated.

As someone who has considered murder/helping someone to die while they were in severe pain due to a terminal illness I hope society can come up with a better solution to what we have at the moment

Debate away (please!)

In reply to off-duty:


Because I get to tell the state (or my partner) when to euthanise me.

I have no control over what the state does with my information and my freedom. In fact, if not allowing me the choice of when to die, the state it restricting my freedom in the most fundamental way.

In reply to girlymonkey:


Indeed it coild be, but shouldnt that be part of free choice? One of the worst thing for my dad was the embarasment of having to appear in such a state infront of family and friends, and it was another thing that added to his suffering, and I expect was one of the things he considered when he decided to not have kemo (which would only prolong his suffering there was no hopemof cure)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

All for it with safe guards in place and not just for pain either.
I am an active person and go out of my mind if unable to do things. Even a few hours on a train reading a book starts to drive me crazy (I can happily read a book for 8 hours if I want but forced reading on a train for instance is different).
If I ended up paralysed or even just bed bound I am fairly sure I would want to call it a day.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The problem with all this is that someone has to do the killing.

In reply to icnoble:


Why is that a problem? The emotionally harrowing stuff that people do in their working lives is in extreme cases much more difficult to deal with (in my mind at least) than carrying out someone's express wishes to end their suffering.

In reply to icnoble:

Your assumption is that someone wouldn't want to administer the drugs?
The problem is that the law prevents someone from ending the life of someone who has no quality of life.

In reply to wercat:


Very important point. But in the balance of it all, this risk is not overwhelming in the face of forcing people to endure years of intolerable suffering.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Euthanasia is now 3% of all deaths in the Netherlands.

Public opinion is strongly in favour of assisted dying in the UK, so its just a matter of time.

I just hope the politicians do a decent job of creating a well thought out law with sufficient safeguards.