Because we don't worry if we kill a pet that was actually a happy pet, but if we kill a human that was actually happy, then we've murdered someone. Obviously people can then debate whether or not someone is happy before possibly killing them, but that's pretty messed up.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Euthanasia
- Thread starter jcdenton08
- Start date
Because we don't worry if we kill a pet that was actually a happy pet, but if we kill a human that was actually happy, then we've murdered someone. Obviously people can then debate whether or not someone is happy before possibly killing them, but that's pretty messed up.
I'm surprised she hasn't done it already
This.
I believe the right to end one’s own life (and suffering) should be sacrisanc.
However, getting to a point where all the checks, balances and safeguards are full proof would be a huge challenge.
Sacrosanct
Fool proof
- Oct 12, 2022
- 2,787
I watched my mother undergo weeks of pointless suffering. The outcome was clear and inevitable, she had already (at the time that she could speak) said that she was ready and wanted to move on.
I went back to the hospice every day for nearly a month, being told that today was likely to be the day, only it wasn’t.
To the extent that when they rang to call me back to the hospice, I was frankly disbelieving, yet she passed as I was on my way there.
I would have done a lot to spare her those last few weeks, there was no quality of life, it was an unnecessary cruelty.
We need (in my opinion) to be a little more humane about end of life care. Where there is suffering and an inevitable outcome, I would rather not prolong someone’s torture past the point where they decide for themselves that their time is up.
Just my personal thoughts on the matter.
I went back to the hospice every day for nearly a month, being told that today was likely to be the day, only it wasn’t.
To the extent that when they rang to call me back to the hospice, I was frankly disbelieving, yet she passed as I was on my way there.
I would have done a lot to spare her those last few weeks, there was no quality of life, it was an unnecessary cruelty.
We need (in my opinion) to be a little more humane about end of life care. Where there is suffering and an inevitable outcome, I would rather not prolong someone’s torture past the point where they decide for themselves that their time is up.
Just my personal thoughts on the matter.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
At the risk of derailing the thread, when abortion was first legalised, it was only in the case of a severe risk to the mother, or severe deformity, with two signatures needed from doctors. That was dropped within a few years.
Or liberalised further after listening to women?
Most MP’s, historically, are against euthanasia. In the unlikely event the law on this is changed, I’d be confident that Parliament would put in place strong safeguards. And I don’t think it’d be the think end of the wedge.
If someone with full faculties sets out their ending should it be avoidably painful and enduring, witnessed by two independent professionals at that early stage, I’d trust the system.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
You have more faith than me.
There’s two doctors implicated in procurement for Al Fayed right now, one has deceased.
Interesting to see what happens in Scotland where they are progressing a bill…..on the following lines :
To be eligible to be provided with assistance to end their life, a person must:
- be terminally ill (have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition which they cannot recover from, and which is expected to cause their premature death)
- be aged 16 or over
- have been resident in Scotland for at least 12 months be registered with a GP practice in Scotland
- have sufficient capacity to make and understand the decision
If confirmed as eligible, a terminally ill adult can lawfully be provided with an approved substance by a health professional. They can choose to administer this substance to themselves to end their life. Assisting death outside of what is set out in the Bill would remain unlawful.
Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Scotland Bill
www.parliament.scot
Yes I have.
I’ve followed that with disgust. In the pay and/or in awe of a multi millionaire. The one who’s still alive is despicable.
Back on subject, I’m talking about the express written wishes of a person of sound mind to two independent doctors. Unlike Al Fayed’s doctors, they simply could not possibly have a corrupt angle.
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Lots of valid points written, several from a personal perspective.
Like many things in life there is never a straight yes or no. But I do believe there should be a maybe, a way to end a life prematurely, but only under the right circumstances. The difficulty is articulating the right circumstances that stand up to all scenarios.
So here's a novel idea. When a serious decision has to be made in a criminal case it goes to crown court where 12 lay-people hear evidence - why should this suspect be found guilty or not guilty. Experts will be brought in to give their views and opinions such that, eventually, the jurors will have learned enough to make a decision (hopefully, the right one). Could a similar process not be created for cases to end a life, both for people with and without mental capacity?
NSC, please be the jury for my mum. She is now 91 and for the last 18 months, been living in a care home, totally dependant. After a severe stroke in Nov 22, 4 months in hospital with intensive physio and therapy, has lost all use of her (dominant) right arm, cannot walk and cannot speak, save for a couple of almost incoherent words. She is incontinent, and now is too fragile to sit in a chair, unable to support her own body weight. Her weight has gone from a healthy 10 stone 2 years ago, to a skeleton-like 7 stone now. There is zero chance for any improvement or recovery. In the last couple of weeks the care home has applied for a Depravation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) which effectively has mum classified as no longer of mental capacity (no mention of any Dementia, but maybe?).
There is more info that could come out if this case was presented by both the "kill her" and the "save her" camps (a-la defence v prosecution). The important thing is there is ZERO quality of life, her world is now the bed she lives in and the care she gets. She may or may not be able to give a sensible or coherent response if she were asked "Would you like to go to sleep forever / die now?". For the avoidance of doubt, I want my mum to live for ever, I love her, one of the few people I.ve known since the day I was born. I don't get to see her very often (I live in Shropshire), but when I do, it breaks my heart to see her like this. I've been down this week and when I saw her today, she was quite agitated and was able to mumble away, several sentences of gibberish, the only clear bit was "take me home". I want what's best for her - what say you?
Anyway, have to sign off now as my tears are dripping all over the keyboard ....
Like many things in life there is never a straight yes or no. But I do believe there should be a maybe, a way to end a life prematurely, but only under the right circumstances. The difficulty is articulating the right circumstances that stand up to all scenarios.
So here's a novel idea. When a serious decision has to be made in a criminal case it goes to crown court where 12 lay-people hear evidence - why should this suspect be found guilty or not guilty. Experts will be brought in to give their views and opinions such that, eventually, the jurors will have learned enough to make a decision (hopefully, the right one). Could a similar process not be created for cases to end a life, both for people with and without mental capacity?
NSC, please be the jury for my mum. She is now 91 and for the last 18 months, been living in a care home, totally dependant. After a severe stroke in Nov 22, 4 months in hospital with intensive physio and therapy, has lost all use of her (dominant) right arm, cannot walk and cannot speak, save for a couple of almost incoherent words. She is incontinent, and now is too fragile to sit in a chair, unable to support her own body weight. Her weight has gone from a healthy 10 stone 2 years ago, to a skeleton-like 7 stone now. There is zero chance for any improvement or recovery. In the last couple of weeks the care home has applied for a Depravation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) which effectively has mum classified as no longer of mental capacity (no mention of any Dementia, but maybe?).
There is more info that could come out if this case was presented by both the "kill her" and the "save her" camps (a-la defence v prosecution). The important thing is there is ZERO quality of life, her world is now the bed she lives in and the care she gets. She may or may not be able to give a sensible or coherent response if she were asked "Would you like to go to sleep forever / die now?". For the avoidance of doubt, I want my mum to live for ever, I love her, one of the few people I.ve known since the day I was born. I don't get to see her very often (I live in Shropshire), but when I do, it breaks my heart to see her like this. I've been down this week and when I saw her today, she was quite agitated and was able to mumble away, several sentences of gibberish, the only clear bit was "take me home". I want what's best for her - what say you?
Anyway, have to sign off now as my tears are dripping all over the keyboard ....
chip
Well-known member
Yes. Mental health problems generally don't preclude the ability to make decisions for yourself.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,687
When abortion was legalised, it was understood that the unborn foetus was a human being with human rights, and that was why there were such strong safeguards. Now, of course, the idea that the unborn foetus is a human being with the right to life is widely ridiculed.
God forbid that anything similar should happen with old people. But I would not be confident.
In Canada, in 2020 there were 2.5% euthanasia deaths, in 2021 3.3%, in 2022 4.1%. Preliminary figures for 2023 outs it at 5%. That's 1 death in every 20 that is supposedly the death of someone whose quality of life is zero and is dying shortly anyway. I do not believe it - I am sure that there are vulnerable people here who are being shuffled off this mortal coil without justification. Remember, being vulnerable is not a reason to die. The vulnerable need to be protected.
Don't rely on doctors' safeguards. It takes a couple of months nowadays to find a doctor able to treat cancer. How long will it take to find a doctor (or two doctors) willing to spend the several hours necessary to prove that a person really is of fully sound mind and is not just a little vulnerable or depressed?
Do the Samaritans still have a purpose in all this?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
My heart goes out to you. Waiting for a loved one to die is one of the most painful things in life we go through.
96.5% of the deaths in Canada were people with terminal illnesses…….personally don’t think 1 in 20 sounds unreasonable but as with anything I’m sure there will have been cases that are open to a degree of questioning.
Hometownglory
Well-known member
- Jan 12, 2014
- 725
If you have a terminal illness, you should have control over how your life ends. It's inhumane to insist that people waste away and endure suffering.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
With an elderly relative a few years ago, we found Do Not Resuscitate akin to Do Not Bother to treat.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
My ex father in law was diagnosed with leukaemia aged 70 and refused any treatment. He actually died of pneumonia just 5 months later.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
It’s strange how a person’s will has control. I know one of my aunts who received a cancer diagnosis, aged 60, who died within 6 weeks, whereas a friend, in her 80s, was determined to celebrate their Diamond wedding, lived for 8 months, but once done, died within two weeks.
Agree with this. My neighbour (in her 90s and with terminal cancer) died the day after her great-granddaughter was born and was brought into the hospice for her to hold. No doubt in my mind she was waiting to do that.
This.
In an ideal world we would all create a legal document while compos mentis that covers our assisted exit under the multiplicity of situations that can arise at any time: from the slow demise of neurodegeneration to the sudden impact of stroke or a terminal cancer diagnosis.
However. People change their mind. And once we cross the Rubicon of lost communication we are then in the hands of our custodians, our family, our GP, our consultant. Then it starts getting complicated.
There is a reason why murder and suicide are taboos. I would like to have control of my demise, but how can I do that if I no longer have the power?
And this is before we get into a discussion about the hoi polloi. People who live chaotoic lives. People who never got on with their parents let alone lifted a finger for them as they became infirm. Parents who go on holiday when their teenage kid is due in court. Wifebeaters. Piss heads. The generally feckless.
So 'it' would have to be managed by professionals. A medical directorate specifically charged with managing suicide. Capable of reading the minds of the stupid members of the population.
Perhaps we could seek a legal certificate of having a working brain and the capability of making wise informed decisions before signing ourselves over to the medical suicide directive.
But it all sounds deeply 1984 to me, and is open to so much abuse it beggars belief. Canada indeed. Want Trudeau's UK equivalent (Johnson?) flicking the off switch? f*** that.
I'm a 'no' and will remain a no. Even if I find I'd rather like to go, myself, at some point. As for switching off a loved one's life support, sorry but I don't have the right. I heard my sick granny tell me she wanted Jesus to take her, and watched mum dies of cancer. Frightened she was. Luckily it ended quickly. Unfortunately death is part of life.