Assisted suicide

hinault

krudler wrote: »

Well by that rationale isnt using medicine to keep someone alive "playing god"? .

No.

krudler wrote: »

Well by that rationale isnt using medicine to keep someone alive "playing god"? if someone has a fatal disease and thats gods plan for them, taking care of them and keeping them alive for years longer is going against that plan, yes? so how is ending someone suffering any different?

If someone has a fatal disease they are treated for that disease until medically there is nothing more than can be done for that patient.
But the patient is treated until that point of no return is reached.
That is the way all patients should be treated.

And you speak of suffering.
Who is suffering ? The patient? Or the loved ones seeing the patient?
Ever witness someone holding on for dear life.
Where literally every second is precious to that person?
Have you?

By your rationale, that person should have been "assisted" to their death long before then.

krudler wrote: »

My housemates uncle died of colon cancer only a few months ago, he was in hospital for months then decided he had enough, he stopped taking his meds, wouldnt attend his chemo and lived his life as best he could, the way he put it was if he was going he as going on his terms.

I'm sorry for you loss.

What your housemates uncle chose to do was not assisted suicide : many people do decide not to take medical assistance after they reach a certain point in fighting a disease/condition.

This is diametrically different to deciding to take a proactive course of action to end ones life (ie ingesting a solution to end ones life)

krudler wrote: »

Its utterly ludicrous that if a horse breaks its legs its put down to ease it suffering but we'll keep a cancer victim dosed up on a cocktail of drugs and therapy for years to keep them alive and only prolong the inevitable.

We're not dealing in the equine world.

This discussion is about human life and the sanctity of human life.

krudler

We're not dealing in the equine world.

This discussion is about human life and the sanctity of human life.

Exactly, animals are afforded a more humane death than people in most cases

If someone has a fatal disease they are treated for that disease until medically there is nothing more than can be done for that patient.
But the patient is treated until that point of no return is reached.
That is the way all patients should be treated.

And you speak of suffering.
Who is suffering ? The patient? Or the loved ones seeing the patient?
Ever witness someone holding on for dear life.
Where literally every second is precious to that person?
Have you?

Yes I have

By your rationale, that person should have been "assisted" to their death long before then.

If thats their wish then yes.

MrPudding

mardybumbum wrote: »

No need to apologise.

Why thank you.

mardybumbum wrote: »

But with the use of analgesics and tractotomy in the more extreme cases, there arent very many people who suffer "unbearable pain".

I am going to go ahead an presume you have not had much experience with anyone with end stage cancer. For some the levels of pain they experience are such that the level of pain killers they would need would be potentially fatal. There are limits to what analgesics can do. I have had two people close to me die of cancer and toward the end the drugs were not even "taking the edge off" the pain.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Most people who avail of the services provided by dignitas are just fed up with life.

Lets forget about dignitas for a moment. I really did not hold them up as the model anyone should follow. Any person has the right to kill themselves. Personally I would like them to get some support to make sure they are making the correct decision.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Should someone with a level of pain at 8 be given the opportunity to take their lives but tough luck for those who are only at 7.

Anyone has the right to take their own life.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Should MS patients who relapse every 2 months be allowed to, but those who relpase every two years be denied.

Again, anyone can take their own life. Who should be assisted? I don't know.

mardybumbum wrote: »

These are not important questions for me as i dont support assisted suicide, but I am interested in how you, as an advocate for assisted suicide would decide whether someone is worthy or not?
Its not enough to say " Well they decide themselves ". People have good days, and they have bad days.

I will be honest with you, I don't know. I don't know if there can be hard and fast rules, I don't think there can be. I think that even if you had two people with exactly the same condition they could be completely different people. This is not a cop out, but I don't see how you could make hard rules like frequency of episodes. Someone only having one episode per year might be less able to cope than someone that has 4. It depends on the individual.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Someone who decides to take their life one day may be totally opposed to it another.
Indeed many people who went to dignitas, made a U - turn at the last moment.

Great! As long as dignitas don't kill them anyway. They don't do they?

mardybumbum wrote: »

This is why I think the living will argument is irrelevant.
The mechanics of it cant be ignored. its an integral part of the argument.

No, the mechanics can't be ignored, they are the most important part of it, however I am not qualified to make recommendations about what those mechanics should be.

mardybumbum wrote: »

At the moment, those who are clinically depressed cannot avail of the services provided by dignitas.

And I presume there is a good reason for that, but the fact remains, there is nothing to stop a clinically depressed person from taking there own life. Personally I would prefer that they attempted to go down the assisted suicide route, go refused and maybe get the help they need to get over their problem.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your story. My own Grandmother has parkinsons and often comments how she wished she were in heaven with grandad.
Its not the same as alzheimers but I do understand where you are coming from.

Anyway, I dont think either of us is going to convince the other.
Its something I cant envisage myself changing views on anytime soon, but maybe in a few years, with more life experience behind me who knows?

Likely not, but that does not take away from the conversation.

MrP

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

If someone has a fatal disease they are treated for that disease until medically there is nothing more than can be done for that patient.
But the patient is treated until that point of no return is reached.
That is the way all patients should be treated.

But what if they don't want to be?

hinault wrote: »

And you speak of suffering.
Who is suffering ? The patient? Or the loved ones seeing the patient?

Both of them. But the one that matters most is the patient.

hinault wrote: »

Ever witness someone holding on for dear life.
Where literally every second is precious to that person?
Have you?

Yes I have thanks. I have also had the misfortune of witnessing someone that everytime they were able gather enough breath to speak begged for it to end.

hinault wrote: »

By your rationale, that person should have been "assisted" to their death long before then.

It is one thing to be clinging to life enjoying what little time you have left with you loved ones. It is quite another to be in unspeakable pain that the drugs can't touch.

hinault wrote: »

What your housemates uncle chose to do was not assisted suicide : many people do decide not to take medical assistance after they reach a certain point in fighting a disease/condition.

Exactly, what he got was much worse, simply being left to die.

hinault wrote: »

This is diametrically different to deciding to take a proactive course of action to end ones life (ie ingesting a solution to end ones life)

Absolutely, it is much less humane.

hinault wrote: »

We're not dealing in the equine world.

This discussion is about human life and the sanctity of human life.

No we aren't, but the parrallel is interesting. How come it is ok to treat animal humanely and end their suffering but we can't do the same for a person that actually wants their suffering to end?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

I was watching the news and it appears that Ian Huntley (Soham murderer) has been attacked today, and not for the first time. Apparently his throat was slashed open by another prisoner. (Despite his horrendous crime, I find this attack to be quite horrific.) He has also attempted to take his own life on 3 occasions.

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

krudler

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

No, this isnt someone who contracted a fatal disease, he murdered people, him being killed is just getting the easy way out

Fanny Cradock

krudler wrote: »

No, this isnt someone who contracted a fatal disease, he murdered people, him being killed is just getting the easy way out

Possibly. But I believe that some of the people who have availed of the services (wrong word maybe) of Dignitas haven't been terminally ill either.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

It's a very complex situation obviously. I have known people that attepted suicide, one while in prison and he was put on suicide watch. He managed to attempt suicide a couple of times after that awsell but survived. If there was an option for someone to seek a compasionate death rather than imprisonment then it's pretty clear he would have chosen it. But he was eventually released, and it took time but he got his life back on track and he is now married with two kids and a more content person I don't know of. It is one thing to assist the suicide of someone that is terminally ill or have no hope of recovery. But lots of people attempt suicide for many reasons and then come to view thier failure to finish the job as a lucky escape, and view the people that prevented them from doing it with extreme gratitude.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm wondering what Christians think of the recent assisted suicide events given by Dr Philip Nitschke.

There is a thread about the event in Dublin. It may be of any interest to those reading this thread. I hope it is not too off topic as it is about the event itself and not the content, but given the quote above I think it should be on topic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055858681

strobe

Just to clarify something for myself, is suicide considered a mortal sin to Christians? Is it your belief that anyone that takes thier own life goes to hell?

PDN

strobe wrote: »

Just to clarify something for myself, is suicide considered a mortal sin to Christians? Is it your belief that anyone that takes thier own life goes to hell?

Most Christian denominations do not recognise the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal sin and venial sin.

Within Roman Catholicism suicide is a mortal sin, but it does not follow that anyone who takes their own life goes to hell. The official stance of the Church is that a number of mitigating circumstances (eg mental instability, mental illness, or a simple lack of understanding) would mean that a suicidal person does not necessarily go to hell.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was watching the news and it appears that Ian Huntley (Soham murderer) has been attacked today, and not for the first time. Apparently his throat was slashed open by another prisoner. (Despite his horrendous crime, I find this attack to be quite horrific.) He has also attempted to take his own life on 3 occasions.

I wonder would his life (or maybe a life of a less detestable character) fall within the bounds of what one could constitute a life not worth living. Yes, he is a horrible example of humanity, but his life must be some type of torture. Should there be a capital punishment option for prisoners who don't think that their prison or post prison life has any meaning?

Hmmm, as if the topic wasn't complicated enough...

I am not sure how I feel about this. I am all for ending suffering, but possibly not this kind of suffering. I am against capital punishment, but never thought of voluntary capital punishment. I suppose it is close to assisted suicide, but my gut feeling is it should not be allowed when it is being used to dodge punishment.

This might be somewhat controversial but Ian Huntley, like anyone else convicted of a crime, should be able to serve his sentence in relative safety. The punishment of prison is about being in prison, it is the removal of freedom, it does not need to be cruel or vicious.

But punishment is punishment and he should serve his sentence and not get out of it early by ending his life.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, as if the topic wasn't complicated enough...

It's an odd one, I'll grant that.

MrPudding wrote: »

This might be somewhat controversial but Ian Huntley, like anyone else convicted of a crime, should be able to serve his sentence in relative safety. The punishment of prison is about being in prison, it is the removal of freedom, it does not need to be cruel or vicious.

MrP

I completely agree. But we should be realistic when we look at someone like Huntley. I gather that there are certain taboos even amongst criminals, and Huntley (and those of his bent) will never be safe or accepted, either in prison or outside of it.

I wonder what then is a prison sentence supposed to achieve. Is the punishment simply the removal of freedom? Or is it to inflict suffering? Is it both?

It seems to me a person in Huntley's position ticks at least some of the same boxes that an organisation like Dignitas requires. And if assisted suicide was enshrined as a right - a prospect that I still find disturbing despite my indecision on the rights and wrongs of it - what then? How does one quantify if a life is or is not of sufficient quality to keep going? That this might open door to unforeseen possibilities is my greatest concern.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I completely agree. But we should be realistic when we look at someone like Huntley. I gather that there are certain taboos even amongst criminals, and Huntley (and those of his bent) will never be safe or accepted, either in prison or outside of it.

It is difficult alright, but it is the job of the prison service to do it. A thankless and almost impossible task to be sure.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder what then is a prison sentence supposed to achieve. Is the punishment simply the removal of freedom? Or is it to inflict suffering? Is it both?

There are a number of reasons for a prison sentence. Rehabilitation or treatment, punishment and the safety of society. I suppose there is also the deterrence factor, but that really only seems to work on people less likely to commit crime in the first place. Criminal don't expect to get caught, therefore don't expect to have to do the time, so the deterrence is limited in effect.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated, keeping them in prison is, IMHO, a mixture of punishment and keeping them off the streets.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me a person in Huntley's position ticks at least some of the same boxes that an organisation like Dignitas requires. And if assisted suicide was enshrined as a right - a prospect that I still find disturbing despite my indecision on the rights and wrongs of it - what then? How does one quantify if a life is or is not of sufficient quality to keep going? That this might open door to unforeseen possibilities is my greatest concern.

It is a tricky one, ethically, alright. My initial thought is if assisted suicide did become legal allowing a prisoner to avail of it to avoid an unpleasant life in prison is not really in keeping with the spirit of it, if you know what I mean.

That said, perhaps it is not ethical to remove this right form them? I suppose it is win win. The prisoner get off with a horrible life and society does not have to pay for him to live or run the risk of him being released and re-offending. I am not really a fan of financial reasons for things like this, so I am not convinced of this.

If assisted suicide did become legal, and I think it will in the UK anyway within our lifetimes, I would want it to be very tightly controlled. I would expect that people would not be getting killed willy nilly, and certain classes of people simply would not be eligible. I think that perhaps prisoners, for me right now, should be one of those classes.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

It is a tricky one, ethically, alright. My initial thought is if assisted suicide did become legal allowing a prisoner to avail of it to avoid an unpleasant life in prison is not really in keeping with the spirit of it, if you know what I mean.

I certainly do.

MrPudding wrote: »

That said, perhaps it is not ethical to remove this right form them? I suppose it is win win. The prisoner get off with a horrible life and society does not have to pay for him to live or run the risk of him being released and re-offending. I am not really a fan of financial reasons for things like this, so I am not convinced of this.

If the option is on the table for free citizens, then I think, yes, in principle it would be unfair to deny them the same right. My fear is that beyond somebody dying of motor neurone disease or whatever choosing to end their life in the final stretch, it is conceivable - to me at least - that a challenge could arise from someone who is not terminally ill that it would be better if they were dead. And how tragic would it be if the right people agreed? And what would it say about us as a society?

MrPudding wrote: »

If assisted suicide did become legal, and I think it will in the UK anyway within our lifetimes, I would want it to be very tightly controlled. I would expect that people would not be getting killed willy nilly, and certain classes of people simply would not be eligible. I think that perhaps prisoners, for me right now, should be one of those classes.

MrP

I don't mean to scare monger, but do you remember this case. Again, given that this case caused so much controversy - they got the sentence right but only on the second attempt - I wonder are we in some small way devaluing life? This is my fear.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the option is on the table for free citizens, then I think, yes, in principle it would be unfair to deny them the same right.

But then, we currently remove several rights from prisoners that free citizens enjoy. Freedom being the obvious one, but also voting. This could be just another one.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My fear is that beyond somebody dying of motor neurone disease or whatever choosing to end their life in the final stretch, it is conceivable - to me at least - that a challenge could arise from someone who is not terminally ill that it would be better if they were dead. And how tragic would it be if the right people agreed? And what would it say about us as a society?

The short answer about what it would say about our society is that we are a society that give people control over their own lives, including when it should end.

Personally I am not sure it would be a good idea. For me a big part of any assisted suicide scheme would be counselling. I would expect anyone that is looking for assistance in ending their life to interviewed and counselled. I would hope that this would mean that many people would get help they might not otherwise have received and actually choose not to end their lives. This would be particularly true where people simply wanted to end their lives for physiological only reasons, and there was no underlying illness impacting quality of life.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't mean to scare monger, but do you remember this case. Again, given that this case caused so much controversy - they got the sentence right but only on the second attempt - I wonder are we in some small way devaluing life? This is my fear.

The law is run by humans, as such it does not always get things right first time, sometimes it simply does not get them right at all. I am sure there are many people that would argue they got it right here the first time. Without reading the case reports I could not really give an opinion on it.

Are we devaluing life? Perhaps in a way. I think it is more like we are coming to terms with the fact that some people don’t value their lives as much as others, and as it is their life, perhaps they should have the right to do whatever they want with it…

MrP