Assisted Suicide

Gbear

I heard again on the news about the women with some horrible degenerative disease going to the courts to try to find out if her husband would be prosecuted if he helps her to die with some dignity.

There was a similar case in the UK recently.

Why do these people always seem to go the the courts to try to fix this?

If the law is as it is, then what can the judges do? Even if they agree with assisted suicide it's not their job to write laws so their hands are tied. Even if a law was immoral it would be a dereliction of their duties not to enforce it.

I haven't noticed any great push to get the government to change the legislation rather than just looking for ways to evade the law as it stands.

keane2097

They're arguing that denying them the right to die in a manner of their choosing is unconstitutional, the courts are the correct place to do that.

robindch

Gbear wrote: »

I haven't noticed any great push to get the government to change the legislation rather than just looking for ways to evade the law as it stands.

Instead of referring to "assisted suicide", perhaps they should refer to "liquidation" and see what legislation the government can sign into law overnight.

eviltwin

Gbear wrote: »

I heard again on the news about the women with some horrible degenerative disease going to the courts to try to find out if her husband would be prosecuted if he helps her to die with some dignity.

There was a similar case in the UK recently.

Why do these people always seem to go the the courts to try to fix this?

If the law is as it is, then what can the judges do? Even if they agree with assisted suicide it's not their job to write laws so their hands are tied. Even if a law was immoral it would be a dereliction of their duties not to enforce it.

I haven't noticed any great push to get the government to change the legislation rather than just looking for ways to evade the law as it stands.

I suppose it depends on how you view the person who would assit? Do you think the partner or family of that woman, if they were to help her die, would be murderers? Should they be sent to prison? I don't but the law would see it differently. I think if someone wants to die in most cases they can so why should someone be denied that just because they have a disability that prevents them doing it themselves.

Mousewar

Suicide is no longer illegal. A severely disabled person is unable to commit suicide because of their disability. Therefore, they are arguing that they are unfairly discriminated against by the law since it is illegal for someone to help them.

Gbear

It just seems like the government could make an amendment more easily than this legal quagmire.

Instead of having to look for a loophole (I would include unconstitutionality in that) would it not be easier for the government to clarify things?

Tbh I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process of how amendments are made into law but if it's a bit of a murky issue could the government not legislate on it more robustly?
Now fair enough if the issue was raised and the government hid because of the potential opposition to it, but it doesn't even seem to have been raised as an issue for them to hide from.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

It just seems like the government could make an amendment more easily than this legal quagmire.

Instead of having to look for a loophole (I would include unconstitutionality in that) would it not be easier for the government to clarify things?

Tbh I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process of how amendments are made into law but if it's a bit of a murky issue could the government not legislate on it more robustly?
Now fair enough if the issue was raised and the government hid because of the potential opposition to it, but it doesn't even seem to have been raised as an issue for them to hide from.

We've been waiting 20 years for them to legislate for X - and in that case a Referendum instructed them to.

Last night they rushed through legislation which states "The common good may require permanent or temp interference with the rights, incl property rights, of persons" but the Constitution states
"2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."

The State sent around 25,000 women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries to be illegally detained and used as slave labour but according to the Constitution
" 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

That's not to mention the clause that says the State shall not endow any particular religion yet 93% of our State funded primary schools have a Roman Catholic ethos

What on Earth makes you think Irish governments have the slightest interest in clarifying what are and are not the rights of a citizen under the Constitution when they don't even uphold the protections already in the Constitution?

Beruthiel

Gbear wrote: »

I
Why do these people always seem to go the the courts to try to fix this?

Because sometimes it works to the betterment of a nation?
(Though when it comes to Ireland, we normally need a kick up the arse from Europe before we pull the finger out).

Most people would prefer to do it in their own country surround by friends and family than have to go off to a foreign country.
It's very expensive to go to Switzerland and get it done, so much money in fact, that it's out of reach for most people.

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We've been waiting 20 years for them to legislate for X - and in that case a Referendum instructed them to.

Last night they rushed through legislation which states "The common good may require permanent or temp interference with the rights, incl property rights, of persons" but the Constitution states
"2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."

The State sent around 25,000 women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries to be illegally detained and used as slave labour but according to the Constitution
" 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

That's not to mention the clause that says the State shall not endow any particular religion yet 93% of our State funded primary schools have a Roman Catholic ethos

What on Earth makes you think Irish governments have the slightest interest in clarifying what are and are not the rights of a citizen under the Constitution when they don't even uphold the protections already in the Constitution?

Oh, nothing at all, but even so I doubt it's because of cynicism about the government that this isn't the subject of lobbying of TDs.

My entire question is that if it seems so opaque, and not just in Ireland, is the law clear enough itself and should we not be trying to have it changed?

If this current challenge fails will the next step (although not one the poor woman in question will be able to pursue) be about chaning the legislation?

keane2097

Gbear wrote: »

Oh, nothing at all, but even so I doubt it's because of cynicism about the government that this isn't the subject of lobbying of TDs.

My entire question is that if it seems so opaque, and not just in Ireland, is the law clear enough itself and should we not be trying to have it changed?

If this current challenge fails will the next step (although not one the poor woman in question will be able to pursue) be about chaning the legislation?

Legislation is only enacted based upon the constitution. The courts have to first clarify the constitution, if the High Court decided that denying assisted suicide was unconstitutional then legislation would need to be enacted to reflect this.

As it stands, court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is not unconstitutional to deny this right so not only is there no legal need to legislate for it, to attempt legislation which would be contrary to the constitution on the matter would be illegal.

There are lots of great descriptions of the interplay between court/cabinet and constitution/legislation in the abortion thread, you should read up there. It's not a case that you have two options open, lobby the politicians or go to court, the politicians can only act on the instructions of the court re:interpretation of the constitution.

MrPudding

Gbear wrote: »

It just seems like the government could make an amendment more easily than this legal quagmire.

Instead of having to look for a loophole (I would include unconstitutionality in that) would it not be easier for the government to clarify things?

Tbh I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process of how amendments are made into law but if it's a bit of a murky issue could the government not legislate on it more robustly?
Now fair enough if the issue was raised and the government hid because of the potential opposition to it, but it doesn't even seem to have been raised as an issue for them to hide from.

I think the government leaves the legal quagmire in place intentionally.

The areas of law where we tend to see these issues are usually of a controversial nature, with people holding particular views and holding them quite strongly. For the government they tend to be a no win activity. Which ever way they go they will pi$$ off a portion of the electorate.

I think it is simply easier for them to hind behind the courts and avoid alienating a portion of their votes. That said, pressure builds and eventually they will have to do something.

MrP

LittleBook

Just to add to what keane already said ... if the woman you're referring to is Marie Fleming, I think the reason you heard it on the news again is that she lost her appeal to the High Court so she lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court which will be heard in a few weeks.

East Coast FM News wrote:

The Supreme Court has been told that Wicklow woman Marie Fleming's landmark, right-to-die appeal is ready to proceed next month. The former UCD lecturer who is living in Arklow is suffering from MS and is attempting to overturn the State's ban on assisted suicide. The Court was told that both sides are in the final stages of lodging papers in the case, which will be heard on the 26th February. It's understood seven Supreme Court Judges will hear the challenge, given the importance of the issues at stake.

I wish her the best of luck, she's an amazing woman. Chances are if there ever is any legislation put in place, it will be too late for her and she knows this. But instead of spending her last months quietly with her family, she's putting herself through this for the next people who will need assistance to end their lives.

Sarky

It'd be nice if this was the case that changed things. I know a guy who has his plan to "emigrate to Switzerland" if his current cancer/paralysis makes life too unbearable. Be so much cheaper and comforting to the family and friends if he were allowed to do it here.

Lingua Franca

I wish it could be changed, I also have experience with a family member who was attempting to get to Dignitas to escape an excruciating fate (emphesyma + MS, thankfully a heart attack took him before those two diseases destroyed him) and the mother of my son's schoolfriend here in the Netherlands was able to choose when to end her life when she was dying of breast cancer. It is shocking that people in the most desperate of circumstances still have to fight these court battles. I will never understand the 'keep them alive at all costs" mindset.

Gbear

LittleBook wrote: »

Just to add to what keane already said ... if the woman you're referring to is Marie Fleming, I think the reason you heard it on the news again is that she lost her appeal to the High Court so she lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court which will be heard in a few weeks.



I wish her the best of luck, she's an amazing woman. Chances are if there ever is any legislation put in place, it will be too late for her and she knows this. But instead of spending her last months quietly with her family, she's putting herself through this for the next people who will need assistance to end their lives.

Thanks.
I heard it on the radio yesterday but by the time I got home I'd forgotten her name, disease and the court involved.:o

keane2097 wrote: »

As it stands, court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is not unconstitutional to deny this right so not only is there no legal need to legislate for it, to attempt legislation which would be contrary to the constitution on the matter would be illegal.

1) The way I read that is that the government is allowed to deny the right to assisted suicide but not obligated to do so.
Was the ruling that: "court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is unconstitutional to allow the right"?
To me, one seems to allow for the government to maintain the status quo if it wishes but says nothing else while the latter actively prohibits legalising assisted suicide.


2) If a court ruling was to go in a person's favour (Marie Fleming in this case) would that immediately grant them the right to assisted suicide or would it merely allow (or indeed, require) the changing of legislation, which in turn could legalise assisted suicide?

Hotblack Desiato

Beruthiel wrote: »

Most people would prefer to do it in their own country surround by friends and family than have to go off to a foreign country.
It's very expensive to go to Switzerland and get it done, so much money in fact, that it's out of reach for most people.

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago where the Gardai got wind of someone's plans to go to Switzerland with a dying friend/relative, and warned them they'd be arrested if they proceeded with it?
No crime was to be committed in this country yet they put people in fear of arrest. The gardai were way out of line imho - imposing a moral view not a legal one.

Found it. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

If the gardai took that line with abortion, they could arrest any companion of a pregnant woman leaving the country on the grounds that they might be facilitating an abortion abroad. The right to travel for an abortion has explicit protection in the constitution however, doesn't / couldn't that be applied to euthanasia?

Sons and Lovers by DH Lawrence was published 100 years ago. To this day the mercy killing depicted in the book remains illegal. It is illegal to allow an animal to suffer, but humans are not allowed to ask that their own suffering be ended.

Hotblack Desiato

It was (rightly) said in 1992 that Ireland was effectively an open prison for pregnant women, until thankfully the X case ruling ended it and the right to travel referendum enshrined that right in constitutional law.

Ireland, thanks to spineless legislators and self-appointed moral guardians in our police force, is today an open prison for the terminally ill unable to end their own lives unassisted.

My mother is in the end stage of Alzheimer's Syndrome. The end stage that keeps on going. Probably at least 15 years now since the beginning of significant cognitive impairment, it's insidious. What's clear is that it's been almost ten years since she could recognise me or anyone. I don't want to help end her life as I know her strong religious beliefs ran contrary to that, and it's been several years since she could express an opinion on anything.

However the thought of ending up in a similar situation myself is absolutely terrifying. Her father died of the same thing - the highly intelligent and witty man I remember when I was a child was reduced to helplessness by my mid teens. I would like to be able to predetermine a level in cognitive tests below which my life will be painlessly ended. I do not wish to exist in such a fashion myself and I do not wish my relatives to be placed in a position of having to witness me waste away to a shell of a human over perhaps as many as 20 years.

LittleBook

ninja900 wrote: »

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago where the Gardai got wind of someone's plans to go to Switzerland with a dying friend/relative, and warned them they'd be arrested if they proceeded with it?
No crime was to be committed in this country yet they put people in fear of arrest. The gardai were way out of line imho - imposing a moral view not a legal one.

Found it. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

ninja900 wrote: »

Ireland, thanks to spineless legislators and self-appointed moral guardians in our police force, is today an open prison for the terminally ill unable to end their own lives unassisted.

And travel agents:

DPP to get file on woman who died of overdose after travel plans halted

It is understood that she was prevented from travelling to the clinic when a travel agent alerted gardaí of her intentions.

What ... a.... ####! :mad:

Ms Forde (51) was found dead at her apartment on June 6th [2011], having taken her own life.

Her body was identified at her home by her sister Catherine Campbell. Gardaí launched an investigation following her death, having previously been made aware that she had intended to travel to Switzerland to attend the Dignitas clinic.

Ms Forde was in the final stages of multiple sclerosis and had been planning to die in an assisted suicide

The inquest was in March last year, I wonder what the verdict was, pretty sure we would have heard if anything other than "misadventure" as returned.

Michael Nugent

This is a really important issue, and one which governments are reluctant to address despite its impact on people when they are most in need of compassion and empathy.

My wife died of cancer two years ago, and she had made plans to end her own life, with my help, if she needed to in order to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Like most people who make plans to do this, she died naturally in the end. But the peace of mind that she got from knowing that she had the option to decide not to undergo suffering at the end massively increased her quality of life in the final year before she died.

Unfortunately, this option is only open to people who are independently minded enough, and/or have assistance of family, to make preparations for something that is illegal if you are assisted in doing so.

Marie Fleming and her partner Tom Curran are making a very important stand for compassion and understanding and dignity in dying. While the courts will probably uphold the original decision on appeal, it is part of a process of normalising the discussion and ultimately I am confident that the law will change, though it may take some time.

In Marie's case, the High Court effectively gave her the traditional Irish nod and wink hint that the DPP would, in this of all cases, look at the issue compassionately and sensitively if Tom helped her to die.

The High Court also said that the DPP must be informed by the fact that the UK courts have introduced guidelines for deciding whether to prosecute in cases like this.

Tom and I and others have recently started a new lobby group called Right to Die Ireland, which will politically lobby for legislative change once Marie's appeal is over.

We will be supporting the right to choose to continue to live and the right to choose to die peacefully and with dignity, for terminally or seriously ill people who are of sound mind.

You can keep up to date with this campaign at
http://www.facebook.com/RightToDieIreland

MrPudding

ninja900 wrote: »

It was (rightly) said in 1992 that Ireland was effectively an open prison for pregnant women, until thankfully the X case ruling ended it and the right to travel referendum enshrined that right in constitutional law.

Ireland, thanks to spineless legislators and self-appointed moral guardians in our police force, is today an open prison for the terminally ill unable to end their own lives unassisted.

My mother is in the end stage of Alzheimer's Syndrome. The end stage that keeps on going. Probably at least 15 years now since the beginning of significant cognitive impairment, it's insidious. What's clear is that it's been almost ten years since she could recognise me or anyone. I don't want to help end her life as I know her strong religious beliefs ran contrary to that, and it's been several years since she could express an opinion on anything.

However the thought of ending up in a similar situation myself is absolutely terrifying. Her father died of the same thing - the highly intelligent and witty man I remember when I was a child was reduced to helplessness by my mid teens. I would like to be able to predetermine a level in cognitive tests below which my life will be painlessly ended. I do not wish to exist in such a fashion myself and I do not wish my relatives to be placed in a position of having to witness me waste away to a shell of a human over perhaps as many as 20 years.

i know exactly how you feel. I am looking forward to the same end myself. Getting double fcuked by religious morality, it blocks the stem cell research that might find a cure and stops us from getting help to die.

I always find it funny that humane treatment seems to be reserved for non-humans.

MrP

Readyhed

The reason why the government does not act in the case of issues like assisted suicide, abortion or the likes is because at any given point in time the issue is unlikely to affect the vast majority of the electorate.

Unlike topics that affect everyone like taxes, spending cuts etc., votes can be won or lost and careers made or broken by the stance a politician takes on these.

Anyone taking up the case for legislating for assisted suicide will be met by indifference from most people who are healthy and unaffected by the issue or by hostility from the religious self rightious who believe that to force people to suffer pain and indignity is what their "god" wants.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is a really important issue, and one which governments are reluctant to address despite its impact on people when they are most in need of compassion and empathy.

Enda announced that it's "not open to" him to commit to to legislate for the right to die:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/kenny-will-not-legislate-for-assisted-suicide-1.1409881

BTW, what's it with a figure of fourteen years (as it is with the abortion legislation)?

Irish Times wrote:

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has rejected calls to bring in new laws allowing assisted suicide.

Tom Curran, partner of terminally ill multiple sclerosis sufferer Marie Fleming attended the Dáil today, as the couple continue their fight for her right to die after being refused by the courts. “By any standards this is an extraordinary case involving an extraordinary woman,” Mr Kenny said. “I believe that if this house were asked to find words to adequately describe the impeccable courage and dignity and competence of Ms Fleming it would probably be rendered mute.”

Independent TD John Halligan called on the Taoiseach to legislate for assisted suicide with necessary safeguards and to allow for the contentious issue to be debated in the Dáil. “I understand the grief of this extraordinary woman and the commitment of her partner and family but it is not open to me to give you the commitment you seek,” Mr Kenny said. Ms Fleming, who was too ill to attend a recent Supreme Court ruling against her right-to-die appeal, was also too unwell to attend the Dáil today.

Court cases of her right-to-die campaign have heard the extent of her condition. She can only move her head and lives in constant pain and cannot swallow. Ms Fleming also suffers choking sessions which she fears will eventually kill her. “All of us have a right to a dignified life and the right to to demand a dignified life but we also have the right to a dignified death,” Mr Halligan said.

“We have the right to a peaceful death. It is everybody’s wish to have a peaceful death. Mr Halligan said the courts had ruled that there is nothing to stop the Government legislating for assisted suicide. Ms Fleming’s partner Mr Curran faces up to 14 years in jail if convicted of helping her to die.

Nodin

Not for him, because he's an ignorant thick.

Judge Denham added that there was nothing in the judgment to prevent the
State from introducing legislative measures, with appropriate safeguards, to
deal with cases such as Ms Flemings.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/marie-fleming-loses-supreme-court-righttodie-case-29228686.html

Daemonic

“I understand the grief of this extraordinary woman and the commitment of her partner and family but it is not open to me to give you the commitment you seek,” Mr Kenny said.

Please tell me some asked "Why not?"

Mark Hamill

Daemonic wrote: »

Please tell me some asked "Why not?"

Or "Can I speak to your manager or someone in charge?"

Galvasean

Deeds not words.

The Black Oil

I was reading an article in the Catholic Voice re Belgium's approach to this issue. It was basically stating this shouldn't be allowed 'it's grand, pain medication is improving all the time', amongst other things. Not too sure on the particular cases they cite here, and I haven't spent enough time reading up to come to a particular point of view in general.

This is the article. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61739.htm

gctest50

The Black Oil wrote: »

I was reading an article in the Catholic Voice re Belgium's approach to this issue. It was basically stating this shouldn't be allowed 'it's grand, pain medication is improving all the time', amongst other things. Not too sure on the particular cases they cite here, and I haven't spent enough time reading up to come to a particular point of view in general.

This is the article. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61739.htm

That reads like a real article you put in a food processor and mixed it up with some of the spew from the Iona crowd

"Instead of standing strong, arms linked together as brothers and sisters, the dogma of self-determination separates us, places us in bubbles of isolation, and then offers to kill us – if we want. In today’s Belgium all of us are at risk."

"A self-determination card describes a patient’s final wishes so that the social services know what to do in a terminal illness. There are centres where people can ask questions about how euthanasia can be performed."

"Instead of standing strong, arms linked together as brothers and sisters, the dogma of self-determination separates us, places us in bubbles of isolation, and then offers to kill us – if we want."

PopePalpatine

Sir, you must have nerves of a steel. I would've shredded that paper rather than suffer an aneurysm trying to read it.

Hotblack Desiato

The Black Oil wrote: »

I was reading an article in the Catholic Voice re Belgium's approach to this issue. It was basically stating this shouldn't be allowed 'it's grand, pain medication is improving all the time'

I was brought up to believe that pain and suffering were god's way of telling us something something. Why are they allowing medication to dull his message?!?

robindch

Canadian Supreme Court strikes down ban on doctor-assisted suicide

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-on-doctor-assisted-suicide-1.2223493

CTV News wrote:

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada shifted the goalposts Friday on one of the most fundamental of human laws. In a charter precedent that will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada, the court unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients.

The emphatic, unanimous ruling prompted tears of joy and frustration on both sides of the debate, reverberated through provincial health ministries and doctor's offices across Canada, and left skittish federal parliamentarians groping for time to digest the implications.
"The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," the nine justices flatly asserted.

The judgment -- left unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court -- gives Parliament a year to draft new legislation that recognizes the right of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable physical or mental suffering to seek medical help in ending their lives. It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness.

And to put an exclamation mark on the ruling, the court awarded special costs against the government of Canada for the entire five-year course of the litigation, less 10 per cent to be paid by the government of British Columbia

[...]

Turtwig

Great stuff for Canada. Can't see any government in Ireland go near the issue for another half decade at least.

recedite

Gbear wrote: »

1) The way I read that is that the government is allowed to deny the right to assisted suicide but not obligated to do so.
Was the ruling that: "court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is unconstitutional to allow the right"?
To me, one seems to allow for the government to maintain the status quo if it wishes but says nothing else while the latter actively prohibits legalising assisted suicide.


2) If a court ruling was to go in a person's favour (Marie Fleming in this case) would that immediately grant them the right to assisted suicide or would it merely allow (or indeed, require) the changing of legislation, which in turn could legalise assisted suicide?

I think you're correct on 1)
In the event of 2) the situation would be analagous to the x-case; the govt. would be under an obligation to legislate for the decision, but there's no knowing how many years they would wait. Because it would inevitably pi$$ off a significant section of the voters.
"After the next general election" is the stand-by response in such cases.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago where the Gardai got wind of someone's plans to go to Switzerland with a dying friend/relative, and warned them they'd be arrested if they proceeded with it?
No crime was to be committed in this country yet they put people in fear of arrest. The gardai were way out of line imho - imposing a moral view not a legal one.

Found it. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

An interesting case, I don't see how the Gardai could threaten a prosecution for something that was legal in the country in which it happened.
Might be one for the Garda Ombudsman to look at retrospectively.

FWIW the argument against assisted suicide legislation is that it could put pressure on elderly and/or disabled people to exit stage left, rather than be a burden on their relatives.
I'm sure some suitable wording could be worked out for the terminally ill though, involving the "futility of prolonging a natural death" and the "avoidance of unnecessary pain and suffering".
If there was the political will to do it.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If the gardai took that line with abortion, they could arrest any companion of a pregnant woman leaving the country on the grounds that they might be facilitating an abortion abroad.

In many respects I wish the Gardai did take this line,
It would finally force the issue to come to a head and finally we the people could vote on the bloody thing

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

In many respects I wish the Gardai did take this line,
It would finally force the issue to come to a head and finally we the people could vote on the bloody thing

Yes, like partners of women travelling because of FFA. Its incredibly hypocritical that David Quinn, Patricia Casey, Cora Sherlock and friends never mention the repeal of the right to travel to kill the unborn. Yet, that would be a logical step for those who oppose abortion on all grounds, unless it is life saving and then they call it a termination or some such word codology.

Gill Pharaoh, a leading palliative care nurse with no serious health problems, has taken her life in Switzerland

She said her experience as a nurse had shown her the reality of elderly life.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Gill Pharaoh, a leading palliative care nurse with no serious health problems, has taken her life in Switzerland

Can't say I blame her, her of all people see the reality's of getting old and how elderly people are treated.

Its her body, its her right.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Can't say I blame her, her of all people see the reality's of getting old and how elderly people are treated.

Its her body, its her right.

I'm not sure that there could be a wealth of 'better placed' people to make that decision either.

Lucy8080

Gills partner John Southall gave an interview to Adrian Chiles on this mornings " 5 live daily" on bbc radio. The full show is up on the site for anyone interested.

Starts at 8 minutes in .

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Can't say I blame her, her of all people see the reality's of getting old and how elderly people are treated.

Actually, she of all people might get a distorted picture of the reality of aging. She spends her time immersed in the most distressing cases, but the facts are that the great bulk of us will die without ever needing the services of a palliative care nurse, and the great bulk of us will die either having spend last night at home, or after less than two weeks in hospital. But of course that's not the reality that impresses itself on her, because her experience is untypical.

Not that this necessarily invalidates her choice, but it might at least offer the rest of us some hope or comfort!

magicbastarder

she is an unusual example. she chose to end her life *before* any illness or medication started to impair her enjoyment of it.
i would have thought that the option she took would be a reactive one, rather than a proactive one.

what she chose was suicide; not euthanasia.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, she of all people might get a distorted picture of the reality of aging. She spends her time immersed in the most distressing cases, but the facts are that the great bulk of us will die without ever needing the services of a palliative care nurse, and the great bulk of us will die either having spend last night at home, or after less than two weeks in hospital. But of course that's not the reality that impresses itself on her, because her experience is untypical.

Not that this necessarily invalidates her choice, but it might at least offer the rest of us some hope or comfort!

And of sound mind, decided that that eventuality, no matter how likely or unlikely, was not something that she wanted for herself.

Peregrinus

Yes, but any of us, at any time, might decide that what life offers us is something we do not want to face, and we might decide to kill ourselves rather than face it. In a way, that's a description of every single suicide that is not the outcome of mental illness, isn't it? And yet generally we see suicide as a bad thing, and a rising suicide rate as indicative of problems that need to be explored and addressed.

Actually, it's not clear to me why this woman went to Switzerland. She was perfectly free to end her own life in the UK, and wasn't suffering from any illness or incapacity which would have impeded her. And, of course, as a nurse, she would have had all the technical know-how and experience she needed.

The more I think about it, her case isn't really relevant to a discussion of assisted dying or euthenasia. This was a suicide for non-medical reasons. And, while it might be relevant to a discussion about the legality of suicide, suicide isn't in fact illegal either in the UK or in Ireland.

There's a serious discussion to be had about the plight of the dying and the disabled, but I don't think this case illuminates it very much.

I think it's is an extremely relevant case when the "life at all costs" mantras come out. A sane, mentally sound woman with experience of the quality of life that could befall her decided that some life was worth less to her and her family and friends than no life at all.

It's an appeal to authority of course, but it does show that at least one person with experience in end-of-life care not only believed that the quality of life was an important factor, but went so far as to end her own life to prevent that eventuality occurring.

Peregrinus

I admit I find the case a bit disturbing. If a 22-year old decided to kill themselves because dreadful things might happen later in life and they'd rather not face that risk, we'd definitely be bothered, and we wouldn't think that the appropriate reaction was confined to defending their right to make such a decision, and to carry it out. Should we be more comfortable if the person making the decision is 75? Both of them, after all, face the same risk that they might end their lives in need of palliative care, and both of them are taking the same action to avoid that risk. If we are less disturbed by the 75-year old's decision, what does that say about our attitudes towards older people and aging?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it's not clear to me why this woman went to Switzerland. She was perfectly free to end her own life in the UK, and wasn't suffering from any illness or incapacity which would have impeded her. And, of course, as a nurse, she would have had all the technical know-how and experience she needed.

The more I think about it, her case isn't really relevant to a discussion of assisted dying or euthenasia. This was a suicide for non-medical reasons.

I won't pretend I know all the reasons that she went to Switzerland, but from her account it was due to a physical deterioration in her body and/or mind, and she decided to go before her worsening ill health made the trip more difficult or impossible.
So I would classify that (loosely) as assisted suicide for medical reasons.
You seem to be suggesting that she could have killed herself at home without assistance. Maybe, but there could be lots of reasons she chose not to do that. A professional approach is often the best approach to most things in life, so why not in death? Why don't people organise their own funerals instead of paying a couple of grand to a funeral director?

Its quite possible that people like her would go on a bit longer if they thought they could get the same professional assistance closer to home.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I won't pretend I know all the reasons that she went to Switzerland, but from her account it was due to a physical deterioration in her body and/or mind, and she decided to go before her worsening ill health made the trip more difficult or impossible.

From the newspaper, she had "no serious health issues". She had intermittent back pain and tinnitus (ringing in the ears). No suggestion that either was unresponsive to treatment. She was on no medication. The quotes directly attributed to her don't mention any medical issues at all, and don't mention any fear that worsening health might make it difficult for her to travel to Switzerland and/or take her own life at a later point. She just talks about being "over the hill" and talks about going downhill "in almost imperceptible ways". Her fear, it seems to me, wasn't illness; it was aging.

And I really do think that this calls for us to think twice. Aging is not a disease; it's a natural process. It may not be a pleasant process and sometimes it can impose burdens on your nearest and dearest, but exactly the same is true of infancy, or of adolescence. If an adolescent thinks that life is too horrible, and they are just a burden to themselves and their families, and commits suicide, we see that as tragic and we see ourselves as having failed that adolescent. And I think if that's how an older person feels about the process of aging, then it does call into question our attitude to aging and older people. I honestly think it raises questions which can't be answered by saying "it was their right; they were of sound mind". If we don't say that about the adolescent suicide, why would we say it of the elderly suicide?

Nobody forms their views and beliefs in isolation; how an older person feels about aging is crucially influenced by how the people around them feel about it. If this woman decides that the prospect of aging, and the associated risk of becoming a burden, or losing dignity, is so appalling to her that she will give up any possibility of continued life and love and laughter and joy, we can't pretend that our wider society hasn't played some part in shaping those views. And I don't feel that "yes, she can kill herself if she wants" is an adequate response to the situation.

recedite

A 22 year old can normally expect many good years ahead of them. This woman had decided that all the good years were behind her. She doesn't say exactly what her experiences of being "over the hill" were, nor should we expect her to.
IMO the report overplays the "perfect health" angle just to make a story. Not being on medication does not mean perfect health. She may have experienced early signs of senility, or some embarassing physical bodily ailment that she didn't want to discuss.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

I admit I find the case a bit disturbing. If a 22-year old decided to kill themselves because dreadful things might happen later in life and they'd rather not face that risk, we'd definitely be bothered, and we wouldn't think that the appropriate reaction was confined to defending their right to make such a decision, and to carry it out.

indeed; we abhor the notion of someone - who is suffering from a grossly painful (but not terminal) condition - ending their life; but at the same token, i cannot place myself in their shoes and tell them they should not take that option.
it's the old 'there but for the grace of god go i' (is there an elegant way of phrasing this without invoking god?) stance.

the situation above is not one i've ever had to consider before. and it's not a case which informs the debate.

Huntergonzo

Look people should have the right to end their owns lives, most people have the ability to do so anyway (illegality is no barrier) but end up doing it in very undignified ways and anyway these are the people we should be doing our best to save, help them realize that there's a lot to live for. Tragically and ironically it's those that aren't even physically capable of ending their owns lives that end up suffering the most and it's very demeaning and disrespectful to them if they choose to end their owns lives and the state denies them that right, these people should be allowed to end their own lives in their own country with dignity and without scorn.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

A 22 year old can normally expect many good years ahead of them. This woman had decided that all the good years were behind her. She doesn't say exactly what her experiences of being "over the hill" were, nor should we expect her to.
IMO the report overplays the "perfect health" angle just to make a story. Not being on medication does not mean perfect health. She may have experienced early signs of senility, or some embarassing physical bodily ailment that she didn't want to discuss.

Well, she may have just had a diagnosis of terminal cancer that she doesn't want to discuss. But I think we can only meaningfully discuss this case on the facts we know, and on the assumption that she is being truthful.

And, on those assumptions, by her own account, her decision to commit suicide was not motivated by any illness, disease or infirmity from which she suffered.

Note that I am not suggesting that she does not have, or should not have, such a right. I'm suggesting that simply affirming her right is not an adequate response to this. This is not akin to somebody choosing to died because they are terminally ill and in intolerable and untreatable pain. This is more akin to somebody choosing to die because of how they feel about being gay. It should disturb us.