Assisted Suicide: Way to go?

[Pebble]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/14/assisted-suicide-law-edward-downes

"The courts, which have said it is for parliament to change the law on assisted suicide, acknowledged prosecutions were unlikely after the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, decided last year that to prosecute the family of rugby player Daniel James, who also ended his life at Dignitas in Switzerland, was not in the public interest."


Are the politicians out of step with public opinion on this one?

What do people think of the slippery slope argument on this issue?

[Trinoc]

I'm ready to buy my ticket to Switzerland when there is nothing tolerable left of my life. I wouldn't want some moralistic politicians or priests telling me I should not do it.

[DrS]

Agreed, and if I were so bad that I needed assistance, I'd hope someone who loved me would help, as I would them.

[Tony Williams]

I agree also. No-one asked me if I want to be here, so it's no-one else's business if I decide that I don't want to go on living any longer.

OTOH, I can see that there is the risk of undue pressure being placed on old and sick people to off themselves if their continued care is a financial burden to their offspring (or even if their sprogs just can't wait to inherit). So there is an argument for putting screening in place to make sure this doesn't happen.

No doubt we will eventually fudge towards some middle ground, with politicians resisting making such a tricky moral decision until it's reached the stage of merely tidying up the law to reflect actual practice.

[Pebble]

As TW writes, the problem for politicians is deciding where the safeguards lie. Depressed, angry & manipulative teenagers would want access to this 'way out', people with financial problems, people who have had a catastrophic loss of self esteem etc etc.
For physically and mentally disabled and older people the argument could be that they are a drain on the countries resources, thus if they or their family cannot fund their care, why should the tax payer when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

On the other hand, if one limits access to people with proven terminal diseases, there is firstly the argument as to what is a terminal disease secondly, is this not depriving other perfectly rational people of their right to choose?

[Tony Williams]

On the other hand, if one limits access to people with proven terminal diseases, there is firstly the argument as to what is a terminal disease secondly, is this not depriving other perfectly rational people of their right to choose?
Life is a terminal disease - no-one ever survives.

[Pebble]

New definition of disease!

[Trinoc]

New definition of disease!
Disease ... lack of ease ... generally feeling crap ... looks like a fair description of life to me!

[Tony Williams]

From the planet's point of view (assuming for the moment that there is such a thing) humanity is a disease - spreading uncontrollably, destroying other species and wrecking the environment. Furthermore, it's looking as if we could be that most stupid kind of disease - the type which causes so much damage to the body it inhabits that it destroys its own chance of survival.

[Graham Lappin]

I agree that it is a personal choice. I am sure if the time came, I would be perfectly willing and able to go down this road. The argument about abuse of the system - relatives encouraging suicide so they can inherit etc, is a legitimate one but I do see a certain irony here. Surely it is not beyond the wit of human kind (well lawyers if not humans) to come up with some form of protective regulatory framework to safeguard against abuse. The trouble is, all the time a government is in denial about these issues, then they will not consider such legislation. At the end of the day, I think this is all about politics (ie getting elected) rather than rationality.

[Graham Lappin]

From the planet's point of view (assuming for the moment that there is such a thing) humanity is a disease - spreading uncontrollably, destroying other species and wrecking the environment. Furthermore, it's looking as if we could be that most stupid kind of disease - the type which causes so much damage to the body it inhabits that it destroys its own chance of survival.

Blimey - your not too optimistic then?

[Tony Williams]

Blimey - your not too optimistic then?
Politicians - who in this are simply reflecting most people's priorities - are extremely reluctant to face up to problems which won't hit home until some time in the future, but which require costly and quite drastic action now. That's where we are with climate change.

The really big problem with climate change is the time lag. It takes quite a while (I mean decades) for increases in CO2 levels to heat up the atmosphere; but once the extra CO2 is up there, it takes centuries to go away, so the planet keeps on slowly heating up. The same with sea-level rises; ice-cap melting only happens very slowly, but will go on for centuries with only a small rise in temperature.

Add all this together and there's a fair chance that we won't take the necessary action until it's too late to avoid major problems. In 2007 the IPCC forecast a global increase in temperature by the end of this century within the range 2 to 6 degrees, depending on what action we take to reduce CO2 output. Currently +2 degrees is the official, internationally-agreed target (but many climate scientists feel this is optimistic). This will lead to some problems. +4 degrees would be catastrophic with consequences which could mean much of the planet becoming uninhabitable due to drought. +6 degrees would be so devastating that humanity would struggle to survive at all, along with most other life above the bacterial level.

I suspect that, as usual, we will eventually respond sufficiently to avoid the worst-case scenario, but not enough to avoid some major problems. All rather academic as far as I'm concerned, since by the time it begins to bite I won't be around to see it. Unfortunately, that's a common attitude, and it could be an expensive one if it's held by decision makers.

I mean, it's bad enough the religious right in the USA believing that none of this environmental stuff matters because they're all going to be swept up to heaven in the Rapture, which is due any time soon...

[Nukapai]

I'm only slightly joking when I say this, but I wish there were easy suicide booths like in Futurama. Would solve a lot of overcrowding issues.

On a more serious note, I think the current proposal should have been passed. Deal with each stage of the "slippery slope" as it occurs. It seems :cheesy: to criminalise this process on the basis that "one day this might lead to teenagers walking into suicide booths on our High Streets".

[Tony Williams]

It could be argued that we already have some large "suicide roulette" booths; they're called hospitals. Thousands of people every year enter them for surgery and get killed off by infections they pick up in them. They don't usually get a lot of publicity, unlike the recent case of the wife of a former footballer.

Another form of suicide roulette seems to be owning a powerful motorcycle, judging by the regularity of the casualties reported in the Peak District near where I live. Any other suggestions?

[Trinoc]

I heard a depressing report of a woman who showed up to a hospital for (I think) a corneal transplant, and was told that they didn't have any suitable corneas available, but the doctor said something like "Don't worry. It's a rainy night so there should be a suitable biker in any time soon." -- apparently the ER slang for anyone riding a motor bike was "donor".

[Nukapai]

It could be argued that we already have some large "suicide roulette" booths; they're called hospitals. Thousands of people every year enter them for surgery and get killed off by infections they pick up in them. They don't usually get a lot of publicity, unlike the recent case of the wife of a former footballer.

Another form of suicide roulette seems to be owning a powerful motorcycle, judging by the regularity of the casualties reported in the Peak District near where I live. Any other suggestions?
I don't get how your example has anything to do with suicide.

[Pebble]

I heard a depressing report of a woman who showed up to a hospital for (I think) a corneal transplant, and was told that they didn't have any suitable corneas available, but the doctor said something like "Don't worry. It's a rainy night so there should be a suitable biker in any time soon." -- apparently the ER slang for anyone riding a motor bike was "donor".


In Philadelphia in the 70's helmets were not mandatory (don't know the position now) - patients on the transplant list used to discuss the number of 'donor cycles' (helmet free bikers) they had seen on the way to clinic.

[brianp]

There's a "Number 10" petition to legalize assisted suicide at:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/suicidelegal/

Probably a waste of time - but I've signed it.

[lost thought]

Ok signed, does this mean I’m now a subversive element and will now be watched by MI4 and a half. >:D

[Mulder]

Ok signed, does this mean I’m now a subversive element and will now be watched by MI4 and a half. >:D

Just means you get a priority place when its legalised ...

[Graham Lappin]

In Philadelphia in the 70's helmets were not mandatory (don't know the position now)

I am in Philadelphia on Monday and I will keep an eye out for bareheaded bikers.

[brianp]

Ok signed, does this mean I’m now a subversive element and will now be watched by MI4 and a half. >:D

Watch out for black helicopters and men in raincoats.:eek3:

[lost thought]

Just means you get a priority place when its legalised ...

Thank you that’s a really nice thought. I hope I can do the same for you.
What I would like is suicide by donor that is I will go on the operating table and surgeons would harvest what they need; this would keep the organs fresh. The by-product would mean my death then every one benefits. O0
The only organ that's useless they can chuck in the bin, my brain.:cheesy:

[Pebble]

In the late 1990's there was a great deal of interest in chasing down doctors who might have killed patients, because of Shipman. So there is very little fear that a hands off attitude would have been taken if valid concerns were raised at that time. 1994 would indeed have been different. Given your assertion that he 'liked killing' there are presumably others that share your view - were none of them prepared to testify in 1999?

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/shipman.htm#Widow

[Floppit]

This subject always has me torn. For myself I'd love to have the reassurance it was an option, preferably without having to travel, but then when I think about it I imagine myself of clear mind, with the mental capacity to weigh up the pros and cons and come to the right decision for me.

When I think about loved ones I want it there as an option too, I've spent so much time around animals and I've known circumstances I've wished the vet would get there faster to end it all. I've seen my hubby in agony I can't imagine and if there'd been no hope of recovery I KNOW I would have wanted it to end.

But, I'm not sure that anything can be written wisely enough to avoid some of the pitfalls. The Mental Capacity Act (to my understanding) asks that capacity is assessed through cognitive abilities in respect to the decision being made, that the issues are understood and remembered long enough to allow informed choice, as are the consequences and that the person has the capacity to understand and is able to communicate their decision. I really like the MCA, but I have one misgiving - what if a person's 'personality' rather than cognitive function is impaired by a temporary (or maybe even permanent) ailment?

The day after my other half was admitted to hospital with septicaemia he said he was going to discharge himself, cognitively he could relay all the consequences and appeared to know the risks he was taking (he could state them) but he wanted to come home. What no-one knew at the time was he'd had a frontal lobe bleed - I knew something was wrong but couldn't fault his reasoning just his decision, he even said my not agreeing with him didn't make him mad (as in insane rather than angry!). We got round it by my saying I would lock him out the house and his Mum doing likewise. The stubbornness increased through the day until I was begging to be believed something was very wrong - once he had a CT scan the mystery was solved. Within a matter of days he was back to himself in respect to his personality, no thought of leaving hospital.

That's my problem with assisted suicide, I don't want to be helped to die just for a post mortem to discover I wasn't exactly myself at the time!

I think we need to give the MCA a few years to weed out it's gaps and errors in practice. I think it's the most important document in relation to assisted suicide but that we need to go step by step. If that means I miss the boat and die in pain so be it.

ref for MCA:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/pdf/ukpga_20050009_en.pdf