Assisted Suicide

[Haydos]

I appreciate this is a sensitive subject and might be a lot closer to home for some than others. Listening to 5Live today they were discussing the topic after a commission recommended changes to the law which currently states it is an offence to encourage or assist the taking of ones life. The area the commission are looking at is that of terminal illness sufferers who have been given <12 months to live.

For the record I believe that not only terminally ill patients, but also severely disabled patients who consider their own quality of life to be very poor, should have the right to make their own decisions about their passing. Obviously every situation is a lot more complicated than that and I admit that I am a bit ignorant to the other side of the argument (as yet, I have not heard anything that has made me properly think about reconsidering), but that is my fundamental opinion.

One thing that struck me was a lot of guests/callers (either suffering from a mild disability or not suffering from anything) getting rather high and mighty about any potential law change effectively deeming terminally ill/disabled patients lives less valuable than healthy peoples. Now while I can understand the sentiment I found this extremely condescending toward anyone in the position being described. What right do perfectly healthy people have to make claims about the value of others lives? One caller who was suffering from a terminal illness summed it up perfectly: "There's only one person who decides how valuable my life is and that's me". He was unsurprisingly in support of the proposal as he wanted a dignified, painless death before his health declined dramatically and I totally sympathise with people in similar situations.

Alternatively, one subject of discussion was a man who had 'locked in syndrome' (he did not want to carry on living) who cannot move and communicates solely through a computer controlled by his brainwaves (or eye movements, not totally sure). For healthy people to come on and tell him that he should effectively have to live with this for the next 40 years because his life is just as valuable as everyone elses is baffling to me. I find that sentiment patronising at the least and insulting at the worst.

I'm not sure why as I've not really given this subject much thought before but I was surprised at how strongly I felt about it. Anyone else hear this? Even if you didn't, any thoughts (or counter arguments as I'd be interested to hear them)?

[Guest MattP]

Totally agree with you, if you dont own your own life, then what on earth do you own?

I have no intention of living to an age where I am crawling up the stairs covered in extrement, I can totally understand when people say that quality of life is the most important thing to them. It's a grave shame in this country people have to fly to Switzerland at huge cost and distress if they want to end it.

There is no dignity in death, but you can at least try to give people as much as you can.

Edited 5 January 2012 by MattP

[Thracian]

Assisted suicide should be legal. It's your life, no-one else's. The body is just a shell we use in this dimension and how long we live on this planet matters nothing. Even the religious arguments are dead. If the concept of paradise is as glorious as is implied, what's to fear?

[Charl91]

I'm all for assisted suicide, providing there are enough safe-guards to prevent people using it to bump of their old mum for an early inheritance. Surely it's more inhumane to force people to suffer?

[Guest BlueBrett]

Safeguards obviously essential but assisted suicide puts people back in control of their own fate, allieviates fear and suffering and, at base level, saves money.

[MikeyT]

Definitely for it. I think with a horrible, painful, long suffering illness then certainly. Why keep someone suffering in agony and being degraded in that way. If they want to choose to end their own life rather than having to wait for however long then it's their choice. No one should have the right to dictate on someone else's existence if they are totally sane when choosing to die.

Think that makes sense.

[Haydos]

I'm all for assisted suicide, providing there are enough safe-guards to prevent people using it to bump of their old mum for an early inheritance. Surely it's more inhumane to force people to suffer?

This also stood out for me...I know it seems extreme but in certain cases (such as the 'locked in syndrome' case mentioned) staying alive is surely tantamount to torture.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I appreciate this is a sensitive subject and might be a lot closer to home for some than others. Listening to 5Live today they were discussing the topic after a commission recommended changes to the law which currently states it is an offence to encourage or assist the taking of ones life. The area the commission are looking at is that of terminal illness sufferers who have been given <12 months to live.

For the record I believe that not only terminally ill patients, but also severely disabled patients who consider their own quality of life to be very poor, should have the right to make their own decisions about their passing. Obviously every situation is a lot more complicated than that and I admit that I am a bit ignorant to the other side of the argument (as yet, I have not heard anything that has made me properly think about reconsidering), but that is my fundamental opinion.

One thing that struck me was a lot of guests/callers (either suffering from a mild disability or not suffering from anything) getting rather high and mighty about any potential law change effectively deeming terminally ill/disabled patients lives less valuable than healthy peoples. Now while I can understand the sentiment I found this extremely condescending toward anyone in the position being described. What right do perfectly healthy people have to make claims about the value of others lives? One caller who was suffering from a terminal illness summed it up perfectly: "There's only one person who decides how valuable my life is and that's me". He was unsurprisingly in support of the proposal as he wanted a dignified, painless death before his health declined dramatically and I totally sympathise with people in similar situations.

Alternatively, one subject of discussion was a man who had 'locked in syndrome' (he did not want to carry on living) who cannot move and communicates solely through a computer controlled by his brainwaves (or eye movements, not totally sure). For healthy people to come on and tell him that he should effectively have to live with this for the next 40 years because his life is just as valuable as everyone elses is baffling to me. I find that sentiment patronising at the least and insulting at the worst.

I'm not sure why as I've not really given this subject much thought before but I was surprised at how strongly I felt about it. Anyone else hear this? Even if you didn't, any thoughts (or counter arguments as I'd be interested to hear them)?

And if Hawkins had taken this stance?

Just a thought.

Myself I can see as many cons as pros - I'm sure lawyers would love it - kerching!

[Yojoe36]

It should be legal. However, I can see people abusing it for the inheritance. Assuming the government doesn't put a massive fine, or up the tax on it, if you wish to have assisted-euthanasia.

[Haydos]

And if Hawkins had taken this stance?

Just a thought.

Myself I can see as many cons as pros - I'm sure lawyers would love it - kerching!

Hawking?

I understand what you're saying so fair enough to that point. At the same time it kind of highlights another, and I suppose, another problem to go with it: Everyone is different. Hawking had his genius, and he is a huge exception, a lot of people will have nothing (or what they perceive as nothing, which is where it gets complicated, but again we're round to 'who decides the value of someones' life?', surely they should be the decider of that) and this is why I feel it should be up to the individual.

[acooling08]

This seems like another thing that everyone agrees with except for religious and political figures.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Hawking?

I understand what you're saying so fair enough to that point. At the same time it kind of highlights another, and I suppose, another problem to go with it: Everyone is different. Hawking had his genius, and he is a huge exception, a lot of people will have nothing (or what they perceive as nothing, which is where it gets complicated, but again we're round to 'who decides the value of someones' life?', surely they should be the decider of that) and this is why I feel it should be up to the individual.

yeah that fella

But you know at the end of the day that the people who decide the value of someone's life will be lawyers... richer lawyers. I also wonder how it would affect the life insurance industry? The more I think on it the more "what ifs" I come up with.

[Haydos]

yeah that fella

But you know at the end of the day that the people who decide the value of someone's life will be lawyers... richer lawyers. I also wonder how it would affect the life insurance industry? The more I think on it the more "what ifs" I come up with.

They did speak about this, not in much detail mind. The disease/disability would go on the death certificate but so would assisted suicide but the general consensus was that life insurance companies would be persuaded to use the disease, but at the end of the day it would be at their discretion. Very foggy. My cynical side thinks that if they have no legal obligation to pay up then they won't.

[PegguyArphexad]

I did quite a lot of work on this area of law as part of a dissertation I wrote last year for the medical law part of my law degree. It is a hugely fascinating area of law which encompasses many different theories and arguments including: theologists, ethics, morals, sanctity of life, self-determination.

The current law is perhaps not satisfactory in theory, i.e. it is illegal to aid someone to commit suicide. Whether that be to put someone on a plane to Switzerland or to pay for the treatment. However, in practice recent changes which were introduced by the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) have made it the law more flexible. In short a document was produced which lists all the factors which would suggest that a prosecution would be made against the person aiding the patient who wishes for their life to be taken away and also the situations in which a prosecution would be less likely.

There is a great deal wrong with the document all of which I can't remember off the top of my head. However, it is most likely the nearest this country will get to legalising assisted suicide. To create an outright law would potentially be political suicide.

I might have a flick through some of my notes again on the subject so I can be a be more detailed in my information...

[z-layrex]

I completely agree with assisted suicide. If someone is in chronic agony that is not going to go away, or they have been diagnosed with an awful dementia etc, I think they should have the right to end their life in a safe place, helped by health professionals and surrounded by their loved ones. I think organisations like Dignitas are very important.

Of course given my occupation as a nurse this can be a controversial opinion, but I can tell you it's one shared by 90% of my colleagues (obviously that's a random statistic pulled out of the air, so a better way to say it would be most people I work with share my view).

Edited 5 January 2012 by z-layrex

[Saxondale]

I think fundamentally it can only be a good thing but it's difficult to legislate effectively.

What stipulations do you put in place?

A ruddy minefield.

[I am Rod Hull]

I think fundamentally it can only be a good thing but it's difficult to legislate effectively.

What stipulations do you put in place?

A ruddy minefield.

That would be more fun than an injection and with all the minefields around the world it would be killing 2 birds with one stone.

Remote control beds or catapults would be needed though for the disabled. Maybe they could do a Top Gear suicide race special...

Edited 5 January 2012 by WTF BBQ

[Captain...]

The thing with assisted suicide is that it only applies to those that need assistance to kill themselves, there is no law against able bodied and able minded people killing themselves, so surely those that can't should have the same right to end it as those that can.

One problem is when do you decide, if you have a debilitating illness that will cause you to lose your mind, at what point can you judge that you are ready to die, when you don't have the mental faculties to make that decision, then you are entrusting your life to someone else. If you entrust your family to make the decision then a that is a horrible burden to place on someone, if you entrust it to a stranger how can you trust them.

In the case of the guy who can't move, then he has every right to end his life if he is of sound mind to make that decision.

I would suggest a suicide care home, basically a care home with professionals to make the decision when someone's quality of life reaches such a point that there is no point in them continuing to live, but there will be grey areas and controversy, but I think people have the right to decide whilst they are of sound mind to not want to continue as a vegetable.

[Finnegan]

I see it as a purely religious debate and a throwback to Ye Olde Times. I honestly can't see a modern, rational reason why somebody can't choose to end their own life.

I've had Radio 1 on all day at work and they've been talking about it. Some utterly ridiculous points made against, like it being a defence for murders!? For ****s sakes. Nobody's suggesting you could just go and knife your granny in the neck then claim she wanted you to.

It'd take countless policy and procedure and it'd need to be vetted heavily by qualified professionals.

[Rincewind]

I do not think Hawkins has the kind of disease thar affects the mind. He has always had the interlect even from an early age. There was a program on TV some time back where Terry Pratchett followed people to Swizerland to commit suicide. Even the rules there are strict. You have to make the decision when your mind is still good for want of a better word. If you are unable to make a rational choice they will not do it because it may not be your choice.

Terry Pratchett himself has altzeimers and has said he does not want to be at a stage where he is unable to do what he loves - write. He says he wants to go sitting in the garden in the sunshine. One bloke on the programme was quite rational. He had an illness that would eventually make him dependant on others. He did not want this. His wife was not keen but respected his wishes. The nurse administrating the drug asked him two or three times whether he wanted to carry on. He seemed perfectly calm and content.

For myself I do not know. I would not have the nerve to do it myself or even ask somebody to do it. Hopefully that time may never come or many years away. Perhaps if I am approaching 100 i may change my mind.

My stepdad has dementure and can do little for himself. It's sad to see him like it considering how he was when he first married my mum. He is also blind. I don't know what goes through his head. He remembers times when he was in the forces but not recent things and gets things mixed up. He would not be in the right frame of mind to decide for himself so all the family can do is watch him linnger.

[Mission Unlikely Promotion]

• Think whoever dreamt this idea up should be shot . . . . . .
  

[SeCrEt FoX]

Im for this. And there is many ways they could sort a fair ruling for this , i mean surly it would go to some sort of court or hearing first? i mean you wouldnt be able to get up on a Tuesday morning and decide to end your/someones life that day. People are coming up with things like legalised murder ? come on how would anyone would like to not be able to live a normal life , in complete agony? And things like end someones life for their money etc, Surly there would be a legal system in place who would say yes we give you permission everything looks legit . And as for insurance they could either give you back what you have payed 'or' well sorry but insurances dont cover assisted suicide, as they do for anything you try getting a payout for .

[Rincewind]

Maybe they could start by not stopping people going to countries that allow it. Or if anyone does do it be a bit more sympathetic if the person is suffering and made a handwritten or verbal request in front of witnesses lawyers or similar. Other than that it will be difficult to get a law passed. I'm sure it goes on though. Giving too many pills or wrong pills because of the distress and caused by a loved ones illness. Doctors may also turn a blind eye when registerring the death if they know the history. May have been called out on a regular basis. The law just needs a little relaxing for a start.

[SOCCERROO FOX]

If you need assistance for Suicide you're really battling to begin with.

[MikeyT]

If you need assistance for Suicide you're really battling to begin with.

Very good point. Never thought of it that way.