[Rob P]

Of course, no political party would dare even mention it in a manifesto, but isn't it time that we, as a nation, once again looked seriously at the question of assisted dying?

With all the pressures on (and expense of) social care for those dying of/with dementia and other more painful terminal illnesses, offering the opportunity for those diagnosed to opt out of the last chapter where they become a burden on state and family (thinking here of mental and emotional rather than financial) alike makes tremendous sense in terms of savings to the economy and quality of life for the individuals and family.

The bishops will immediately emerge to tell us all about 'God's wonderful mercy' and his great plan for us all, but they are increasingly an irrelevance.

Not mentioned by any political party - you can just imagine the headlines that the esteemed and wonderful 'journalist' community would come up with to decorate the red tops - but surely an idea whose time must come?

Rob P

[johnm]

Indeed it should not be unthinkable. Part of the problem is that medical profession and some families seem to think that Granny should be immortal and so Granny is kept alive by popping pills on a grand scale.

For my part I have told my missus that I'm not interested in being kept alive by that method if the resultant quality of life is still very poor. It's one thing to control an affliction and allow a more or less normal life, quite another to stave off death leaving someone more or less moribund who would be dead without medication.

[masterofnone]

No, I don't think it should be unthinkable, but it does open a can of worm, especially in the edge cases. Ultimately it would be about ensuring that the wishes of the euthanasee have been formed independently from a sound mind free from coercion. It's unfortunate that the church feel the need to invariably close down the debate, because their opinion only has relevance in the context of believers.

The government have a big say in how I, as an individual, get to live my life. They constrain to a lesser or greater extent how I can behave, what I can say and dictate how much of my income they will help themselves to. Like most, I am reasonably compliant with this. However, I vehemently believe there is one aspect my life that that the government should never have any influence over. And that is how I choose to die.

[ChrisRowland]

Killing people because you think it's too expensive to keep them alive should be unthinkable. It is a new low even for this group of bigoted rascists. Who next? Jews? Muslims? Anyone a bit Asian? This isn't a slippery slope, it's already at the bottom of the gutter.

[Morten]

I think what is being discussed is not to 'kill people because you think it's too expensive' but to 'allow those people who have themselves expressed a desire not to be kept alive in certain cases the dignity of choosing how and when they take their farewells and are allowed to die'.
It is absolutely not something which should be unthinkable and more and more civilised societies are starting to realise that and look at it with a reasonable eye.

(Congratulations for proving Godwin's law after 3 very reasonable posts... )

Morten

[nallen]

I was interested (amazed too) to discover that several US states have passed laws entitling those in receipt of a terminal diagnosis to a lethal dose of secobarbital, to be self-administered at the time their choosing. (I came across this because a friend of a family member has elected to do this.) Dementia is explicitly excluded from this process, as soundness of mind is a prerequisite.

Newspaper report of the Colorado law here: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/08/colorado-aid-in-dying-proposition-106-election-results/

To me, this is progressive and enlightened thinking …

[Rob P]

Killing people because you think it's too expensive to keep them alive should be unthinkable.

I'm sure nobody would disagree with that. The rest of your post is childish and offensive.

Rob P

[Nick]

No, I don't think it should be unthinkable, but it does open a can of worm, especially in the edge cases. Ultimately it would be about ensuring that the wishes of the euthanasee have been formed independently from a sound mind free from coercion. It's unfortunate that the church feel the need to invariably close down the debate, because their opinion only has relevance in the context of believers.

The government have a big say in how I, as an individual, get to live my life. They constrain to a lesser or greater extent how I can behave, what I can say and dictate how much of my income they will help themselves to. Like most, I am reasonably compliant with this. However, I vehemently believe there is one aspect my life that that the government should never have any influence over. And that is how I choose to die.

Here here. I second that.

Nick.

[riverrock]

The social issues are fairly well established.

More than 20% of people who have committed suicide, facilitated by Dignitas, had no medical issue.

With loneliness endemic among our elderly population - we need to look at societal issues - breakdown of community and family - rather than making making ending life easier. Its a blight on society that people think they need to consider this.

One thing that churches are generally good at, is keeping elderly folks within a community. Relatively recently (I know about Scotland and N. Ireland) your local church would have people who visited the various elderly people in their area in their homes (known as "Pastoral Care"). Social services and NHS would coordinate with local churches whenever someone would like + benefit from a visit from the local church minister and team. Now the NHS and social services refuse to discuss such things with churches and the gap hasn't been filled. Now few people know who their neighbours are, and family rarely stays close to "home".

There is a big difference between medical professionals letting a life end as comfortably as possible and someone wanting to take their own life. If someone wants to take their own life (assuming they are sane), I suggest there is a societal issue that needs sorting. Words like "burden", "finance", "inheritance" show where pressure could be coming from.

[Rob P]

If I get a moment I will try and upload to Dropbox the Radio 4 interview with Sally McIntosh, a perfectly rational (and very beautiful) person who wanted to end her life, not for reasons of loneliness or societal pressures, but because she didn't want to die in pain and have those many who loved her, myself included, spectate the process.

Her last three months were grim.

Rob P

[nallen]

More than 20% of people who have committed suicide, facilitated by Dignitas, had no medical issue.

Source for that one, please.

[Irv Lee]

Unless a Dutch friend is covering-up a murder, she has just been through seeing her sick mum have official assisted dying in the Netherlands, including what amounts to a family pre-wake. For some reason (probably media based) i thought it was only Switzerland out of nearby countries that had assisted dying, perhaps it is only Switzerland that allows it for "temporary visitors", and if it got out that one of our near neighbours have it on the quiet, it would be more acceptable here.

....Frank???

[nallen]

The Netherlands legalised euthanasia some years ago -- under conditions summarised in the Legal Framework paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

[Morten]

If I get a moment I will try and upload to Dropbox the Radio 4 interview with Sally McIntosh, a perfectly rational (and very beautiful) person who wanted to end her life, not for reasons of loneliness or societal pressures, but because she didn't want to die in pain and have those who loved her, myself included, spectate the process.

I would also heartily recommend Terry Pratchett's "A slip of the keyboard" which is as interesting a read as any of his fiction but also has quite a long section on assisted dying. Written by someone who has the gift of writing but sees the end approaching and knows what it means. Luckily, he (and his family and friends) were spared the indignities, frustration and unhappiness which he did not want to end his life with.
As a keen fan, I wish he were still with us, but I am glad he went the way he did.

Morten

[Dave W]

Words like "burden", "finance", "inheritance" show where pressure could be coming from.

In 1997, aged 35, with no spouse or children, I suffered a major heat-related accident in Arizona, which I have mentioned on here before.

I recovered completely - indeed, I was flying again for both work and pleasure within 3 months - but initially the overwhelming medical opinion was that I had suffered severe brain damage. So severe, in fact, that whilst I was not expected to die my parents were considering how to modify their home to look after a son in a persistent vegetative state from which he would never recover.

Thankfully medical science, and the specialist neurosurgeon*, were wrong, and it did not come to that.

But.

After I had returned to the UK, I began to think seriously about what I would have wanted to happen should I have indeed been in that state, and had my family been put in the position of caring for me so long as I continued to draw breath. My conclusion was that "Quality of Life" is not just a term relating to the very sick person.

I had no doubt then, and 20 years later I have no doubt now, that I would have wanted the switch to be pulled ASAP. (FTAOD: This is my decision for me, I am not suggesting that others should share my opinion when they anticipate how they would react if they found themselves in the same situation)

There was absolutely zero pressure from anybody on me to drive my unwavering conclusion that I would not wish those burdens (of both lifetime care or switch-flicking decision) to be placed on my loved ones.

In summary: the word "burden" does not inevitably mean that there is external pressure in the equation. Some of us come to that conclusion entirely on our own. It is more than a shame that in the UK it cannot legally come to pass.




*Whose real name I now have to strain to remember. Not because of any lasting issues from the accident, but because he was, and will forever be, known to our family as "Doctor Death".