But what is considered as "helping" or "assisting"? This seems to be the sticking point in the law.

Is driving your loved one to the airport, assisting? If you know that they are flying to Switzerland for instance?

Is helping them to get dressed in the morning, assisting? If you know that they are getting dressed to get a taxi, to go to the airport, to fly to Switzerland?

No Mr B, assisting is disconnecting the relevant tube or sticking the needle in their arm or pushing the red button.

Personally I think that anyone who wouldn't be permanantly traumatised by "helping" a loved one to end their life is definitely not the person you want doing it.

There is always a choice to assist or not & if someone doesn't want to, have professionals on hand who are able to do it. The ultimate point is if someone wants to end their life, then let them do so with whatever means are available & with dignity.

Saying that forcing someone to assist is asking them to commit homicide is dramatic to say the least, no one can be forced & the point is, if the law made it possible for someone to die with proper help then there would be no need to place the burden on someone who was unable to cope with it.

No Mr B, assisting is disconnecting the relevant tube or sticking the needle in their arm or pushing the red button.

But what I mentioned above has been the crux of the recent legal battles Scea. The fear of loved one's being prosecuted for assisting, even if just escorting them to Switzerland. They were never actually going to give the injection or push the button etc.

No, most people are able kill themselves if they really want to, they've no right to involve others in the process.

Even though loved ones might be involved?

The effect it has on others seems to be one of the major objections to assisted suicide. Seems selfish to me.

'Oh, Grandad's going to die soon but rather than doing as he asks and giving him a dignified and quiet death we'd rather leave him screaming in pain for a couple of weeks so as not to offend our sensibilities'. That's not the action of someone who loves Grandad.

Hmnnn...

Please excuse the rant.

Regards.

No worries TT, we often use this little forum as a road race of frustration and like a Manx cat the tail knocks over few sensibilities.

Agreed absolutely.... what WE choose to do with our bodies, not what we get someone else to do with our bodies. It has to be our choice, not someone else's. Assisted suicide is homicide.

What is being discussed is not somebody else's choice, but the individual itself, as long as that individual choice has the usual checks and balances, it should protect itself against any unscrupulous relatives.

. He didn't spend a year suffering. He left this world in a moment - at peace.

I think this epitomises my exact argument, read it as you will.

I agree. No problem with people taking their own lives, especially when close to the natural end. But I think its also quite selfish to ask someone to help end your life. Placing that burden on a loved one, who may hold different views to your own, I think is quite unfair.

It doesn't have to be a loved one and certainly not someone who holds a diametrically different point of view. The point is holding on to this world until you wish to let go, this sometimes means after you have the ability to instigate proceedings to end your own life.

But what is considered as "helping" or "assisting"? This seems to be the sticking point in the law.

Is driving your loved one to the airport, assisting? If you know that they are flying to Switzerland for instance?

Is helping them to get dressed in the morning, assisting? If you know that they are getting dressed to get a taxi, to go to the airport, to fly to Switzerland?

Fully understand Jangles, no one quite understands the remit and as such everyone is wary including the relevant authorities as no one has been prosecuted to date.

No Mr B, assisting is disconnecting the relevant tube or sticking the needle in their arm or pushing the red button.

Personally I think that anyone who wouldn't be permanantly traumatised by "helping" a loved one to end their life is definitely not the person you want doing it.

Scu, I think you have misinterpreted Jangles post in the first part, as for the second, if it was a close relative and they asked me to turn off a machine ( where the disease is terminal and degenerative and they were in full awareness of the situation ) , I would be upset at the passing, but certainly have no feeling of trauma.

The case I mentioned in post #4 has made the front page of today's local Perth newspaper. It is quite relevant to the thread.

TheWest

If you had a choice, you were terminally ill, it was going to get progressively worse and your quality of life is slowly but surely degenerating, would you prefer to live it out to the last breath, take your life prematurely, hop on a plane near the end and have a complete strange and clinical service provided, or draw your last breath surrounded by family and friends, with a qualified medical profession administering the final act in your own home.

You say that now, but as far as I know you do not have a terminal illness. Once you do, you might find you think differently. I know my Dad did, he said many times before he got cancer that he would never want to live in pain, and went on about how he would want to pull the plug or have somebody else do it for him - but when the time came that his life became very, very painful, he still held on until his last breath.

So I won't answer the question because I think it is something we won't be able to do until we know for a fact that our death is near.

I find this most interesting.

My dear old Mum was a tough sort, who said all the same things. She, after making me promise when she was healthy that if ever she was in a bad way, I would pull the plug; held on to the bitter end with cancer because she couldn't bare to leave my Dad alone.

Truly brave even at the end.

The case I mentioned in post #4 has made the front page of today's local Perth newspaper. It is quite relevant to the thread.

TheWest

That's one sad story. I certainly would let him go in the way he requested.

Nope, I'm not convinced.

Mind you, if it matters that much why don't more people do it illegally and take their chances with the law?

Yes, yes, I know people have but there's plenty allow Granny to die in pain rather than risk a couple of years porridge for breakfast.

OK, I know that's in poor taste but I'm also afraid of the legal jungle that allowing it would involve. What constitutes an unbearable life? I've recently been diagnosed with depression... (and all you lot picking on me isn't improving the situation either ), but is a depressed persons life any less bearable than someone who is physically ill? What would be the guidelines here?

Mind you, if it matters that much why don't more people do it illegally and take their chances with the law?

I don't think it matters how many have gone before, just the Right to choose, matters.

but is a depressed persons life any less bearable than someone who is physically ill? What would be the guidelines here?

The guidelines I am pitching the ball at are, 'degenerative' and ' Without a cure' and ' Serious loss of a normal life'.

I don't know much about depression, but I hope you are getting adequate help and support.

Moss

Hmnnn...

It's the truth though. Grandad gets another fortnight's unnecessary and avoidable suffering because the 'loved ones' are too squeamish to allow his wishes. They're thinking of themselves rather than him.

Coincidentally there was a programme on Radio 4 today (The Ethics Committee?) where a bunch of professionals were discussing a specific case of a woman with a terminal disease who wanted to die. There was a theoretical discussion in the studio and then the verdict of the 'real' ethics committee. Joan Bakewell was the Ringmaster. The prospective suicide was sane and reasonable and not depressed. She was living in a hospice. She had had enough and just wanted to die. A major proportion of the discussion revolved around the feelings of everyone else apart from the suicidee. They all seemed to be slightly hacked off that she was sane and reasonable and knew her own mind. There was even talk of trying to get her sectioned so she could be locked up. In the end, with lots of deep sighs, they agreed that her wishes were reasonable. The 'real' ethics committee said the same but you could hear them all gnashing their teeth that this bloody impertinent woman wasn't willing to do as she was told and wanted to take her destiny into her own hands. It wasn't about compassion - it was about control.

I am sure I have brought this up before, but I couldn't find it, hence:

If you are in a position of sound mind ( remember guys this is meant to be the serious forum ) shouldn't you have the Right of choice for your future?

This does obviously have further impact regarding, in present law assisted suicide, it also leads on to the question of whether we should allow a form of supervised suicide.

Many questions and responses are welcome on all the above, but in particular the vote is regarding the topic title.

Link to Article in IoS

I say we don't we need it. Pain or not you'll die soon enough and anyone who is related to you or cares about you will get stuck with the bill for it. You allow people to show up and help with suicides and they'll want to get paid too. How much will that be then? On top of the box to put you in and the hole to put the box in plus whatever the hospital or in home care you had while you were dying, just kneeling over is getting to be one of life's major expenses. I thought dying was the end of all that BS? If someone wants to die that badly they will find a way.

I'm pro-choice.

A farm animal that was bred to be slaughtered is protected under the law from cruelty. It's death must be swift and as painless as possible. I would be considered cruel and would face legal penalties if I allowed a farm animal to suffer a lingering death. This is a compassionate law for protecting animals.

Why would I have less compassion for a human, particularly a human that I love?

Are the anti-suicide laws a religious hangover? They certainly have no rationale, just the concept of "life is sacrosanct" with no reasoning and no exception.

On the other side of the argument I can see that the assisted suicide laws, if they are passed, will have to ensure that the assistance is not premeditated murder by an interested party.

Looking past that, I wonder though if in fact there is a social argument FOR "murder". Just as a convicted criminal is a burden on society and is given a lethal injection, I can see that a husk of a body, a bedridden vegetable with NO hope of recovery can be a burden on the family. To be compassionate to the family would be to allow the plug to be pulled. The greater good.

The greater good.

Hypothetical situation: A unique person with a unique antibody that can be given to, say, AIDS patients for a full cure. Hundreds have been cured by this persons blood donations. This person becomes terminally ill without affecting his ability to keep producing the special antibodies. For the greater good, should this terminally ill person be kept alive, even though he would otherwise be a prime candidate for assisted euthanasia?

Why do people complicate things so much? It's MY body. It's MY life. If I want to end it it's MY choice.

Fine. IF you can do it yourself.

Asking someone else to do it, is a step too far though.

If Granddad asks his loved ones to pull the plug, they may feel obligated to do so out of their true love for him, even when that might be against everything that they believe in.

The 'if you loved me, you would do it' argument, is nothing better than emotional blackmail.

The loved one does not pass on though and has to carry that burden, for the rest of their days. Knowing that they took the life of someone they loved, even if that was what Granddad wanted.

There is no telling how such a substantial act will effect someone, no matter how well it maybe rationalised. (Unless you have sociopathic tendencies)

Fine. IF you can do it yourself.

Asking someone else to do it, is a step too far though.

If Granddad asks his loved ones to pull the plug, they may feel obligated to do so out of their true love for him, even when that might be against everything that they believe in.

The 'if you loved me, you would do it' argument, is nothing better than emotional blackmail.

The loved one does not pass on though and has to carry that burden, for the rest of their days. Knowing that they took the life of someone they loved, even if that was what Granddad wanted.

There is no telling how such a substantial act will effect someone, no matter how well it maybe rationalised. (Unless you have sociopathic tendencies)

I can see your argument. I can FEEL your side of it....except for your last paragraph.

I think you need to consider why those that love Grandad would resent assisting him if it was his sincere wish.

Why would it be a burden to them ("for the rest of their days") to have followed Grandad's wishes by shortening his agony by hastening the inevitable?

How can that decision and act be burdomsome?

The only answer I can think of would be for religious and dogmatic reasons.

The court heard that Ian Button was suffering from terminal lung disease and that his 63-year-old wife, Christine, was in a care home with Alzheimer's. He had hoped to join her in the home but was unable to sell their house – the proceeds of which would have gone towards funding their long-term care.

Mr Button took the gun and 19 rounds of ammunition

?!!

"However there's a high degree of culpability, especially having regard to the fact it was a public ward in a hospital and with regard to the patients and staff and the distress this will have caused. You have the burden of the responsibility for what your father did and the circumstances in which he did it."

A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "While the evidence indicates that Guy Button's father committed suicide with a vintage handgun, which his son had provided for him, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Guy Button had any intention to do acts which he knew to be capable of assisting his father's suicide."

I have taken just a few excerpts but have linked the whole story.

However, a man who is terminally dying, unable to be with wife in a care home, because of a financial situation and he has to live in a depressive state, knowing he is dying and unable to be with his wife and because of the law he has to implicate his son, who's love for each has to carry additional burdens.

Total Madness in my opinion.

What it also does is carry additional risks, a depressed man with a PPK and 19 rounds is not a cocktail I would want to be anywhere near.

I thought it quite extraordinary that the CPS thought there was insufficient evidence to prove the son was assisting suicide, what did they think he was going to do with the gun??

Mixed messages throughout, but an unsatisfactory outcome in all senses of the situation.

Link IoS

This is an example of a very difficult case Moss, thanks for the link.

Fine. IF you can do it yourself.

I'm not allowed to do it myself. The people who have control over the drugs that are most efficacious for committing suicide refuse to give them to people who want them. As I said earlier it's all about control whether medical or religious.

Do You Believe In The Right To Determine Your Own Destiny?

Perhaps if the question were restated, "Do You Believe That Others Have A Right To Determine Your Own Destiny?" the correct conclusion would be rather obvious.

Do You Believe In The Right To Determine Your Own Destiny?

Perhaps if the question were restated, "Do You Believe That Others Have A Right To Determine Your Own Destiny?" the correct conclusion would be rather obvious.

No. I mean, no I don't agree that an answer would be obvious.

Each situation is unique, therefore there is no single obvious answer.

Hark back to the example I gave of a person who was of great value to society if kept alive. The "greater good" example. I don't think there is a clear-cut answer. I know that my opinion on the question would not be shared by everyone, and also my opinion could very well be changed by reasonable argument.....so no obvious conclusion.

What I'm saying is that in general, I support freedom of choice, but that freedom, whether to commit, or to resist, euthanasia might not always be best left to the individual.

Do You Believe In The Right To Determine Your Own Destiny?

Perhaps if the question were restated, "Do You Believe That Others Have A Right To Determine Your Own Destiny?" the correct conclusion would be rather obvious.

No. I mean, no I don't agree that an answer would be obvious.

Each situation is unique, therefore there is no single obvious answer.

Hark back to the example I gave of a person who was of great value to society if kept alive. The "greater good" example. I don't think there is a clear-cut answer. I know that my opinion on the question would not be shared by everyone, and also my opinion could very well be changed by reasonable argument.....so no obvious conclusion.

What I'm saying is that in general, I support freedom of choice, but that freedom, whether to commit, or to resist, euthanasia might not always be best left to the individual.

Harcourt, you have a sincere from me as to the bolded, red statement in your quote.

Allow me to counterpoint the "greater good" argument. I believe that by denying someone their right to determine their own destiny, at least in the context of this discussion, then what happens next is that we have now unwittingly or not accepted forced sacrifice. If you had a fortune would you share it with the never-ending multitude of impoverished until you were destitute yourself? Would that sharing not constitute a sacrifice on your part for the "greater good?" Now if that comes from the goodness of your heart and makes you happy then that is your right to choose. What if the government were to force you into such a sacrifice? Would you still be feeling happy?

And what does an acceptance of sacrifice (BTW, my definition of sacrifice would simply be that I yield what I want to your wants) portend for the issue of freedom? Have you not lost your freedom in a forced sacrifice? Of course.

And once the Pandora's box of others-having-the-right-to-determine-your-self-destiny is opened over a single issue we can now evaluate all other issues in terms of whether or not you are allowed your rights or not. Is this not now the, excuse the French, clusterfcuk that the world has evolved into? Rights denied for the sole reason that others are able to have what they want?

I choose to stand by my statement/opinion that the correct conclusion is most obvious.

I accept what you are saying. I agree on that level.

I put to you that there is another ideal. Whether it is a "higher" ideal is a matter of debate, but I suggest that it is.

That is perhaps best summed up by Jon Donne; For Whom The Bell Tolls.

We are a part of humanity. We are at once individuals and a part of a bigger "organism".

Although I have my reservations about "democracy", so I don't like to quote "democracy" to anyone, there is something democratic about decisions being made for the "greater good".

It has been decided in many states around the world that the "greater good" is best served by the execution of certain prisoners. By and large, I agree with that.

By the same rationale, could not the "greater good" be best served, on occassion, by preserving a life that had otherwise chosen to cease?

BTW, your example of sharing my wealth..... I would rationalise my NOT sharing my wealth until I too was destitute by reckoning that I could help more in the long run if I remained wealthy and distributed the money piecemeal.....even better for the "greater good".

I accept what you are saying. I agree on that level.

I put to you that there is another ideal. Whether it is a "higher" ideal is a matter of debate, but I suggest that it is.

That is perhaps best summed up by Jon Donne; For Whom The Bell Tolls.

We are a part of humanity. We are at once individuals and a part of a bigger "organism".

Although I have my reservations about "democracy", so I don't like to quote "democracy" to anyone, there is something democratic about decisions being made for the "greater good".

It has been decided in many states around the world that the "greater good" is best served by the execution of certain prisoners. By and large, I agree with that.

By the same rationale, could not the "greater good" be best served, on occassion, by preserving a life that had otherwise chosen to cease?

BTW, your example of sharing my wealth..... I would rationalise my NOT sharing my wealth until I too was destitute by reckoning that I could help more in the long run if I remained wealthy and distributed the money piecemeal.....even better for the "greater good".

Nice quote from "For Whom The Bells Toll." A sentiment which I not only agree with but hold as truth. My truth affirms that we are all connected despite the fact that we are individual at the same time. And since we are undeniably individual then full and pure freedom must be given in order for us to pursue our own destinies. If not, then who can make the claim to our freedom? Who can claim that as their right? Are we not then merely puppets to which someone else pulls the strings? And what if we do not like someone else attempting to determine for and dictating to us? Do we have the right then to resist?

Years ago I read Richard Bach's Illusions. There was a chapter on the Golden Rule. I have to rely on memory here, so bear with me, but as they were sitting around the campfire discussing the rule a vampire appeared and sat next to Bach. The vampire asked him if he could drink his blood. Of course Richard Bach replied, "No." The vampire proceeded to explain quite politely that he could not help being who he was, and as such it was his nature to drink the blood of others. The good of the vampire was not the good of Richard Bach. Who determines who's good is to be served? In this example or any other?

Surely I believe in the "greater good," in the interconnectedness of not only all humanity but the entire natural world as well, and yet I believe that sacrifice is not workable. I believe also that if one were to truly follow their heart then the "greater good" is automatically served; and despite whether or not it is so perceived by any other.

Questions such as this are not easily answered. The questions themselves become a process of self discovery, in which we make assumptions regarding the "truth" of an idea and then test the idea out in the "real" world in a multitude of seemingly different situations, which then gives us feedback, from which we conclude once more. Rinse and repeat. Learning never ceases for us.

I accept what you are saying. I agree on that level.

I put to you that there is another ideal. Whether it is a "higher" ideal is a matter of debate, but I suggest that it is.

That is perhaps best summed up by Jon Donne; For Whom The Bell Tolls.

We are a part of humanity. We are at once individuals and a part of a bigger "organism".

Although I have my reservations about "democracy", so I don't like to quote "democracy" to anyone, there is something democratic about decisions being made for the "greater good".

It has been decided in many states around the world that the "greater good" is best served by the execution of certain prisoners. By and large, I agree with that.

By the same rationale, could not the "greater good" be best served, on occassion, by preserving a life that had otherwise chosen to cease?

BTW, your example of sharing my wealth..... I would rationalise my NOT sharing my wealth until I too was destitute by reckoning that I could help more in the long run if I remained wealthy and distributed the money piecemeal.....even better for the "greater good".

Nice quote from "For Whom The Bells Toll." A sentiment which I not only agree with but hold as truth. My truth affirms that we are all connected despite the fact that we are individual at the same time. And since we are undeniably individual then full and pure freedom must be given in order for us to pursue our own destinies. If not, then who can make the claim to our freedom? Who can claim that as their right? Are we not then merely puppets to which someone else pulls the strings? And what if we do not like someone else attempting to determine for and dictating to us? Do we have the right then to resist?

Years ago I read Richard Bach's Illusions. There was a chapter on the Golden Rule. I have to rely on memory here, so bear with me, but as they were sitting around the campfire discussing the rule a vampire appeared and sat next to Bach. The vampire asked him if he could drink his blood. Of course Richard Bach replied, "No." The vampire proceeded to explain quite politely that he could not help being who he was, and as such it was his nature to drink the blood of others. The good of the vampire was not the good of Richard Bach. Who determines who's good is to be served? In this example or any other?

Surely I believe in the "greater good," in the interconnectedness of not only all humanity but the entire natural world as well, and yet I believe that sacrifice is not workable. I believe also that if one were to truly follow their heart then the "greater good" is automatically served; and despite whether or not it is so perceived by any other.

Questions such as this are not easily answered. The questions themselves become a process of self discovery, in which we make assumptions regarding the "truth" of an idea and then test the idea out in the "real" world in a multitude of seemingly different situations, which then gives us feedback, from which we conclude once more. Rinse and repeat. Learning never ceases for us.

Rights are not bestowed by God or Gaia. We are not naturally born with rights. Rights are afforded by society.

I suspect that we are alive because we want to live. We are driven by a will to survive. But not just ourself as an individual. We procreate to ensure our genes carry on.

To succeed in this quest to get our genes to "carry on", we, as sentient entities, sometimes have to compromise our instincts, sometimes have to allow competitors to also succeed, sometimes have to create societies to live in.....and all the permutations that that involves, including deeming rights to individuals, formulating ethics and morals etc.

So on the road to survival, it pays to remember that morals are only a matter of opinion, ethics and rights are man-made ideas, formulated for the sake of society, and those opinions and ideas might not neccessarily be best for you, the individual......so you need to balance how much you need society vs what you're willing to pay (sacrifice).

It may indeed be prudent to self-sacrifice if it means society succeeds, if that society holds the future of your genes.

It may be prudent to sacrifice another individual, to ignore his "rights", for the sake of society, as that society collectively holds the future of many genes, including the genes of the sacrificial lamb.

Perhaps there is no hard and fast rule. Perhaps priorities are dynamic and can change as the situation changes.

Ultimately, it's humanity that needs to survive as my genes are invested in humanity.

Rights are not bestowed by God or Gaia. We are not naturally born with rights. Rights are afforded by society.

Those statements are certainly a matter of opinion and not ones which I share. The key issue for me is rather elementary - we are either free or we are not. There is no grey area. For as soon as there is a single instance where we are manipulated by another against our choosing, whether for our benefit or not - be it another person, entity, or even God himself, we have lost our freedom to choose for ourselves. I cannot think of many human attributes which are dearer to us than our freedom. I would be the last to argue against it. In fact, I will be the first to advocate freedom, most fervently, even to those who would deny it for themselves.

If there was anything God, All-That-Is, or whatever tag you choose to use bestowed upon us it was freedom.

And yes, none of the above can be proven.