Assisted Suicide

Matt_Trakker

Those of you that listen to the news or read the rags will know about a current case involving assisted suicide.

Now since boards peps will come down upon us with great vengeance and furious anger were we to discuss that case we won't, but:

If I had a fatal/degenerative illness that meant constant pain and suffering I'm pretty sure that I'd want to kill myself before it became too much for myself and my loved ones.

And I know that if someone was to book flights/clinic etc to/in the utopia that is Switzerland, or the lesser utopias of Belgium and Holland should I ask them to do so I'd certainly appreciate it.

I think too that I'd probably help someone in a situation like that.

I'm always left dumbfounded when I think about how the state thinks it can have a say in a person taking their life.

Surely if we live in a supposedly civilised society then people who are in a constant state of pain and suffering should be allowed to die with some dignity rather than just wasting away in front of their loved ones?

I mean, your dog gets sick and you put it too sleep, A fecking horse can break its leg and will get put down.

Now, please I'm only referring here to people with long-term fatal/degenerative illnesses.

What say you boards posters? Am I stark raving bonkers to hold such an opinion?

TLDR; Assisted suicide for people will fatal/degenerative illnesses?
Yay or Nay.

TheBrinch

I honestly see no problem with it. If the person is going to die anyway, it would save them going through constant pain.

osarusan

I suppose the devil is in the detail but broadly speaking, I'd support such legislation.

Knex*

If you don't own your own life, what do you own?

Personally, I'm very much on the liberal side when it comes to assisted suicide, not just for those with terminal illnesses.

I vote yay - I believe if they do not wish to suffer anymore they should have the option to 'opt out'

FueledbyCoffee

Yes I would agree with it, having seen many loved ones suffer needlessly when we all knew the inevitable outcome.

From the point of view of myself I would like to remain somewhat in control and not prolong the suffering for myself and loved ones.

seamus

I wouldn't necessarily limit it to fatal or degenerative diseases.

Put a system in place with relevant gates that have to be jumped in order to ensure that the process is as solid as possible.

Once a person can declare that they are enduring suffering or a degraded quality of life, and it can be verified that this condition cannot be relieved through reasonable means within a reasonable timeframe, then that person should be able to avail of a prescribed and dignified method of ending their life.

We are going to die and some people are better prepared to accept this reality than others. Continually keeping them alive against their own wishes is macabre and shameful.

People who have been diagnosed with a degenerative disease, such as Alzheimers should have a way of making a form of will, like a DNR instruction, which allows for their life to be ended when certain criteria have been met, even if they're not capable of providing consent.

rodge68

100 % agree. I saw my poor mother in pain, gut wrenching...Like you said you wouldn't let a poor animal die that way...
A work colleague said there was a programme on tv recently based in Oregon that followed this topic..

MrWalsh

Absolutely agree.

Im not clear how a travel agent can report someone to the Guards for travelling to a country where euthanasia is legal in order to obtain an assisted suicide in a clinic such as Dignitas and the Guards stepping in to prevent the travel. Its all a bit thought-police imo.

If they cannot stop women travelling to obtain an abortion then why can they stop people travelling to Dignitas?

Maximus Alexander

The reason the state get involved, I believe, is because allowing it could potentially be open to abuse. That said, there are ways and means - it works in Switzerland.

Potatoeman

Yes but carefully so it is the individuals choice and not because of the cost/burden.

folamh

The devil is very much in the detail, so every case ought be closely reviewed so as to detect anything suspicious like manipulation by relatives for financial gain. And of course people who are suicidal because of depression should not be entitled to state assistance. But yes, I would support such legislation.

seamus

folamh wrote: »

And of course people who are suicidal because of depression should not be entitled to state assistance.

So they just go ahead and do it themselves anyway.

I'm not being flippant, but there are some levels of depression which are genuinely beyond our current ability to even treat, let alone cure. In that regard I see no difference between forcibly prolonging their suffering and prolonging the life of someone with MND.

That said, I believe that a major part of why we have such difficulty handling depression is society's reluctance to talk openly about dark thoughts, depression and suicidal ideation.
A society where death is more freely discussed and state assisted in certain cases may allow us to talk and research it more honestly and in time actually yield better success in treating depression and reducing the incidence of suicide.

mushu

I completely agree with assisted suicide and would support any legislation which had an appropriate control system in place

folamh

The point of state assisted suicide is to provide people with the means to pass on who don't have the ability to do it themselves, not to help every suicidal person to commit suicide. If a depressed person doesn't fit that criteria then authorities ought not provide them with the resources needed to kill themselves, ethics of helping depressives commit suicide aside. And of course more effort should be made on a social level to take depression seriously and that involves dealing with the bleak details of suicidal ideation.

Valetta

there's a fine line between assisted suicide and murder.

Dead people can't explain themselves.

errlloyd

Yay. I also can't believe Ireland would actually put someone on trial for helping a sick person exercise their own will. It's really sad.

elefant

folamh wrote: »

The point of state assisted suicide is to provide people with the means to pass on who don't have the ability to do it themselves, not to help every suicidal person to commit suicide.

In countries where euthanasia is legislated for (in the Netherlands at least) it's not quite as simple to undergo as you would suggest. Even for people suffering from seriously debilitating mental illness it requires a huge amount of bureaucracy and checks-and-balances before it reaches the final stages, and rightly so. It takes a long, long time and can be very tough on the individual and relatives, but at least there's a sense of autonomy about their own fate and they can die in dignity surrounded by loved ones if desired.

Legislating for euthanasia doesn't mean that every suicidal person can suddenly walk to the doctors and seek suicide assistance then and there.

libelula

Fully agree with it once it's properly legislated and all the opportunities for its abuse are tied off.

The day someone has to wipe my arse or I'm being fed with a spoon is the day I know it's time to check out.

brevity

Pro euthanasia here. People should be allowed control over their own life IMO. If they cannot live in a manner that they are not happy with then the option should be available to them.

Tiddlypeeps

folamh wrote: »

The point of state assisted suicide is to provide people with the means to pass on who don't have the ability to do it themselves, not to help every suicidal person to commit suicide. If a depressed person doesn't fit that criteria then authorities ought not provide them with the resources needed to kill themselves, ethics of helping depressives commit suicide aside. And of course more effort should be made on a social level to take depression seriously and that involves dealing with the bleak details of suicidal ideation.

I don't see any reason to discriminate, if someone is suffering in a way that can't be cured to the point of not wanting to live anymore I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to receive help. People do it wrong all the time resulting in unnecessary suffering, and they hurt others in the process too.

One of the biggest reasons I'm for this tho is that it will encourage people who are suicidal who have treatable conditions, but feel there is no hope, to seek help instead of doing it themselves. As long as you have to go through a series of psychological evaluations prior to being able to avail of assisted suicide.

These are people who wouldn't otherwise see a psychologist because they are in such a dark place they feel it will do no good. But in their attempt to find help ending their life someone along the way might just be able to help them find the right treatment for their condition.

MrWalsh

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

These are people who wouldn't otherwise see a psychologist because they are in such a dark place they feel it will do no good. But in their attempt to find help ending their life someone along the way might just be able to help them find the right treatment for their condition.

Thats an excellent point.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I don't see any reason to discriminate, if someone is suffering in a way that can't be cured to the point of not wanting to live anymore I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to receive help. People do it wrong all the time resulting in unnecessary suffering, and they hurt others in the process too.

One of the biggest reasons I'm for this tho is that it will encourage people who are suicidal who have treatable conditions, but feel there is no hope, to seek help instead of doing it themselves. As long as you have to go through a series of psychological evaluations prior to being able to avail of assisted suicide.

These are people who wouldn't otherwise see a psychologist because they are in such a dark place they feel it will do no good. But in their attempt to find help ending their life someone along the way might just be able to help them find the right treatment for their condition.

I think that's pretty naive, if someone is suicidally depressed and determined to end it, they're not going to run the risk of being committed, their family finding out, all the things that would happen from going through the proper channels. They're also not going to want to drag things out, AFAIR the time elapsed between making the decision to kill yourself and making the attempt is often a matter of minutes.

Lux23

I agree with one poster that the devil is in the detail, but essentially yay!

Tiddlypeeps

Alaia Unsightly Velour wrote: »

I think that's pretty naive, if someone is suicidally depressed and determined to end it, they're not going to run the risk of being committed, their family finding out, all the things that would happen from going through the proper channels. They're also not going to want to drag things out, AFAIR the time elapsed between making the decision to kill yourself and making the attempt is often a matter of minutes.

If that's the case then for those people this will literally make no difference, nor will it harm them in anyway. Just because there are people who can't be helped doesn't mean we should stop trying to help those who can be.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If that's the case then for those people this will literally make no difference, nor will it harm them in anyway. Just because there are people who can't be helped doesn't mean we should stop trying to help those who can be.

I just don't think it's practical. It goes against the core tenets of the mental health profession to introduce a scenario where someone comes to them with the express intention of ending their lives and they neither have them committed for their own safety nor provide other help; but rather assist them.

Depression is a horrible illness, but it is very different from a terminal or debilitating physical illness. The state or individual practitioners would be opening themselves up to all kinds of liability.

Don't get me wrong, in theory your idea is good, but for how complex (legally, morally) it would be to implicate vs how many people would ever take it up, I just don't think it's a goer.

If there's one word I'd like to eliminate from the whole debate, it's 'dignity'. Plenty of people die from terminal and degenerative illness and it doesn't mean their deaths or themselves are somehow undignified.

I had a close relative die of a degenerative illness, and right up to their last breath they were the epitome of dignity, and the implication that their life ended in indignity insults both them and everyone who helped care for them. There is no indignity in illness or in needing help. When people are contemplating their end of life decisions the word dignity has no place in the process, and to say someone has lost theirs is to steal the last vestiges of their humanity from them.

I believe people should be able to choose to truncate the process of dying if they are suffering from an incurable, inevitable, painful illness, and I believe people only lose their dignity if other people take it from them by deciding they no longer possess it by virtue of incapacitation.

Stephen Hawking is a severely disabled person who is dependent on others to assist him in every aspect of daily life. He has not lost his dignity.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Candie wrote: »

If there's one word I'd like to eliminate from the whole debate, it's 'dignity'. Plenty of people die from terminal and degenerative illness and it doesn't mean their deaths or themselves are somehow undignified.

I had a close relative die of a degenerative illness, and right up to their last breath they were the epitome of dignity, and the implication that their life ended in indignity insults both them and everyone who helped care for them. There is no indignity in illness or in needing help. When people are contemplating their end of life decisions the word dignity has no place in the process, and to say someone has lost theirs is to steal the last vestiges of their humanity from them.

I believe people should be able to choose to truncate the process of dying if they are suffering from an incurable, inevitable, painful illness, and I believe people only lose their dignity if other people take it from them by deciding they no longer possess it by virtue of incapacitation.

Stephen Hawking is a severely disabled person who is dependent on others to assist him in every aspect of daily life. He has not lost his dignity.

It's not necessarily the illness that people are referring to when they talk about dignity though, it's autonomy over one's own life, and having one's choices respected. It's being treated with the same compassion and mercy that's extended to an actual dog.

Gongoozler

It is the opinion of many people in that position that it is undignified.

Things such as having someone else change your colostomy bag, or wipe you, or feed you, or wash your hair. I can easily see how someone would feel they don't want to go through that.

folamh

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I don't see any reason to discriminate, if someone is suffering in a way that can't be cured to the point of not wanting to live anymore I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to receive help. People do it wrong all the time resulting in unnecessary suffering, and they hurt others in the process too.

One of the biggest reasons I'm for this tho is that it will encourage people who are suicidal who have treatable conditions, but feel there is no hope, to seek help instead of doing it themselves. As long as you have to go through a series of psychological evaluations prior to being able to avail of assisted suicide.

These are people who wouldn't otherwise see a psychologist because they are in such a dark place they feel it will do no good. But in their attempt to find help ending their life someone along the way might just be able to help them find the right treatment for their condition.

If your parent, significant other or child were suicidal because of mental illness, would you want the state to assist them in killing themselves?

folamh

Candie wrote: »

If there's one word I'd like to eliminate from the whole debate, it's 'dignity'. Plenty of people die from terminal and degenerative illness and it doesn't mean their deaths or themselves are somehow undignified.

I had a close relative die of a degenerative illness, and right up to their last breath they were the epitome of dignity, and the implication that their life ended in indignity insults both them and everyone who helped care for them. There is no indignity in illness or in needing help. When people are contemplating their end of life decisions the word dignity has no place in the process, and to say someone has lost theirs is to steal the last vestiges of their humanity from them.

I believe people should be able to choose to truncate the process of dying if they are suffering from an incurable, inevitable, painful illness, and I believe people only lose their dignity if other people take it from them by deciding they no longer possess it by virtue of incapacitation.

Stephen Hawking is a severely disabled person who is dependent on others to assist him in every aspect of daily life. He has not lost his dignity.

Well, not all people with autonomy-restricting degenerative illnesses feel the same way about it and that's fine. If Stephen Hawking doesn't want to die, good for him, but what's that got to do with other people and their lives?