Scotland Parliament Rejects Euthanasia

am946745

Great news to see that Scotland has rejected Euthanasia.

Its terrible to hear the story of Jeffrey Spector who left his family to die in Switzerland.

StealthRolex

It will be accepted when they realize how much pensions and care for the elderly and terminally ill costs.

Give it time.


BTW I am delighted it has failed this time but do governments change

Guy:Incognito

StealthRolex wrote: »

BTW I am delighted it has failed this time but do governments change

Why? Whats christian about forcing people to prolong pain and suffering against their will?

Black Menorca

Thank you SNP.

StealthRolex

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why? Whats christian about forcing people to prolong pain and suffering against their will?

There is nothing Christian in playing God and deciding who will die and when.

Guy:Incognito

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is nothing Christian in playing God and deciding who will die and when.

People are deciding for themselves. You're deliberately making it sound like some guy in an office is picking names off a sheet for execution.

Making someone go through days/weeks/months/years of pain and suffering because it's against your religion sounds barbaric to me. You're deciding someone you never met should suffer because of your beliefs.

You dont agree with euthanasia so you dont have to avail of it. Dont make other people suffer for that. Why should non Christians suffer because of the will of Christians?

I dont believe in God so I wouldn't be playing anyone but myself in deciding when to end my own suffering. I also wouldn't be so cruel as to force one of my kids to suffer so I an watch them die slowly. Torturing someone against their will for no good reason is against my beliefs.

StealthRolex

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People are deciding for themselves. You're deliberately making it sound like some guy in an office is picking names off a sheet for execution.

Making someone go through days/weeks/months/years of pain and suffering because it's against your religion sounds barbaric to me. You're deciding someone you never met should suffer because of your beliefs.

You dont agree with euthanasia so you dont have to avail of it. Dont make other people suffer for that. Why should non Christians suffer because of the will of Christians?

People deciding for themselves is still playing God only now the person deciding has decided they are their own god.

Deciding you know better than God is not clever and is a sure way to lose your soul to Satan for eternity.

Guy:Incognito

StealthRolex wrote: »

People deciding for themselves is still playing God only now the person deciding has decided they are their own god.

Deciding you know better than God is not clever and is a sure way to lose your soul to Satan for eternity.

What if they believe in no god or one that allows euthanasia? I havnt delivered untold pain and suffering on millions of people and animals across millions of years so maybe I do know better than God?

Surely God can tell people himself if he doesn't want them deciding when to die. He's more than welcome to pop in to my house for a chat on the subject. Until he does I'll continue to believe he doesnt exist and my opinions will remain as they are. TBH, even if god decides to ask me for a one on one chat, I'd still support euthanasia. He's a fan of free will after all is he not?

Better still,he could not let kids die an agonising death (or adults for that matter) in the first place through no fault of their own then it wouldnt be an issue. Hard to believe a guy that engages in wholesale torture and murder is in a position to take the moral high ground when a few of the subjects of his wrath decide to opt out a bit early.

StealthRolex

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What if they believe in no god or one that allows euthanasia? I havnt delivered untold pain and suffering on millions of people and animals across millions of years so maybe I do know better than God?

Surely God can tell people himself if he doesn't want them deciding when to die. He's more than welcome to pop in to my house for a chat on the subject. Until he does I'll continue to believe he doesnt exist and my opinions will remain as they are. TBH, even if god decides to ask me for a one on one chat, I'd still support euthanasia. He's a fan of free will after all is he not?

Better still,he could not let kids die an agonising death (or adults for that matter) in the first place through no fault of their own then it wouldnt be an issue. Hard to believe a guy that engages in wholesale torture and murder is in a position to take the moral high ground when a few of the subjects of his wrath decide to opt out a bit early.

If the state claims to believe in God through its monarchy or constitution the laws should be based on this belief and not an atheistic one.

Do you want to debate the existence of God or the objective morality of killing sick people?

Mrs OBumble

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why? Whats christian about forcing people to prolong pain and suffering against their will?

But there is a lot that is Christian about providing adequate physical and emotional care to people - including people who are approaching the end of the lives due to illness - so that they don't experience suicidal ideation when they are sick.

If someone wants to kill themselves, then the care they are receiving is inadequate. The compassionate response from either a religious or humanist perspective, is to to make it adequate.

Kiwi in IE

StealthRolex wrote: »

People deciding for themselves is still playing God only now the person deciding has decided they are their own god.

Deciding you know better than God is not clever and is a sure way to lose your soul to Satan for eternity.

I don't believe in your god or your satan. Why should the rules of your religion be forced on me? If I was terminally ill and wanted to have control over my own death, who are you to tell me that I can/should not, based on what you believe your god wants, when I do not believe in your god? The rules of your religion do not apply to me. Why do you think it is ok to try and force your religious rules and beliefs onto others?

Kiwi in IE

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But there is a lot that is Christian about providing adequate physical and emotional care to people - including people who are approaching the end of the lives due to illness - so that they don't experience suicidal ideation when they are sick.

If someone wants to kill themselves, then the care they are receiving is inadequate. The compassionate response from either a religious or humanist perspective, is to to make it adequate.

But what if a terminally ill person does not want physical and emotional care? What of they do not want to have others dealing with every aspect of their bodily functions, because they can no longer do anything for themselves? What if the strongest painkillers available are not enough to adequately stop the pain? What if they do not want to lie in a bed in pain while someone else attends to their food and fluid intake, hygiene and toileting until their inevitable death, however long that may take? No amount of physical and emotional support would make that an option I would want. Why should others get to make that choice for me? What are the positives of being in this situation as opposed to choosing a comfortable, timely death of your own planning?

mdebets

StealthRolex wrote: »

If the state claims to believe in God through its monarchy or constitution the laws should be based on this belief and not an atheistic one.

That's always an argument that baffles me. Whenever this argument is brought forward, it's always about some secondary issues, never the real important one, the first commandment.
If you really believe that the state law should be based on the Bible, shouldn't the first law be that you have to believe in the Christian God and all other Gods/Religions are illegal? After all, you can follow as many of the other Biblical laws as you want, as long as you don't believe in God, it doesn't really matter, as you won't go to heaven anyhow.

Mrs OBumble

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But what if a terminally ill person does not want physical and emotional care? What of they do not want to have others dealing with every aspect of their bodily functions, because they can no longer do anything for themselves? What if the strongest painkillers available are not enough to adequately stop the pain? What if they do not want to lie in a bed in pain while someone else attends to their food and fluid intake, hygiene and toileting until their inevitable death, however long that may take? No amount of physical and emotional support would make that an option I would want. Why should others get to make that choice for me? What are the positives of being in this situation as opposed to choosing a comfortable, timely death of your own planning?

But where do you make the distinction between who does and doesn't get to choose.

Many mentally ill people don't want care - it's a symptom of their diseases, and the reason that compulsory treatment orders are sometimes needed.

Many people with non-terminal disabilities have to live with other people tending to many or all aspects of the lives. Ditto for many older people who don't have a specific terminal disease, but whose capabilities have been curtailed by age-related conditions.

Should these people also get to say "had enough of this, please kill me now"? What's the point at which it becomes ok vs not ok?

How do you prevent greedy children subtly influencing ageing parents from feeling that it's their duty to die early while there's still plenty of inheritance left?

How do you say to teenagers "Suicide is a bad idea, reach out for help with your mental anguish", while at the same time saying to other people "If you've had enough with living, it's ok to choose to check out when you choose"?

am946745

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But what if a terminally ill person does not want physical and emotional care? What of they do not want to have others dealing with every aspect of their bodily functions, because they can no longer do anything for themselves? What if the strongest painkillers available are not enough to adequately stop the pain? What if they do not want to lie in a bed in pain while someone else attends to their food and fluid intake, hygiene and toileting until their inevitable death, however long that may take? No amount of physical and emotional support would make that an option I would want. Why should others get to make that choice for me? What are the positives of being in this situation as opposed to choosing a comfortable, timely death of your own planning?

It would save us millions in palliative care.

PopePalpatine

StealthRolex wrote: »

If the state claims to believe in God through its monarchy or constitution the laws should be based on this belief and not an atheistic one.

Do you want to debate the existence of God or the objective morality of killing sick people?

I noticed this poster hasn't been back...has he gone off to start a Christian equivalent to IS? :pac:

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I noticed this poster hasn't been back...has he gone off to start a Christian equivalent to IS? :pac:

MOD NOTE

Less of the sniping at other posters.

Try to keep to the topic, please and thank you.

Manach

This is a welcome yet somewhat surprising outcome. The issue of care for the elderly and the cost for such has been a driver in the push for economic savings. Historians like Michael Burleigh have linked the drive to cull health spending to that of policies of the more totalitarian states, starting from the 30s. As well the countervailling trend of economics being a key driver in legal decisions when deciding end of life matters (Posner etc,) has also been a key driver. Thus hopefully the view of all life being worthy of value and not just the economically viable ones can act as a conceptual counter-balance to this.

MrPudding

I always find it funny that 'humane' treatment appears to be reserved only for non-humans. If a beloved pet is in pain and suffering from an incurable illness then the 'humane' thing to do is to put that pet to sleep. If one decided to keep that suffering let alive it is considered cruel. Yet, when we have a person suffering unimaginable pain and loss of dignity there is no humane treatment. When palliative care fails to provide relief, not because it is inadequate, but because there is no palliative care capable of easing the suffering, there is no humane treatment.

It is time humane received access to the same humane treatment currently reserved for animals. I am not suggesting a free for all, that would be wrong, as wrong as denying access currently is. A properly controlled process for being allowed to end one's life on one's own terms is a good thing.

MrP

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

I always find it funny that 'humane' treatment appears to be reserved only for non-humans. If a beloved pet is in pain and suffering from an incurable illness then the 'humane' thing to do is to put that pet to sleep. If one decided to keep that suffering let alive it is considered cruel. Yet, when we have a person suffering unimaginable pain and loss of dignity there is no humane treatment. When palliative care fails to provide relief, not because it is inadequate, but because there is no palliative care capable of easing the suffering, there is no humane treatment.

It is time humane received access to the same humane treatment currently reserved for animals. I am not suggesting a free for all, that would be wrong, as wrong as denying access currently is. A properly controlled process for being allowed to end one's life on one's own terms is a good thing.

MrP

I remember many years ago being at a function mainly made up of relatives and friends of my dad.

A wining/dining kind of night. I was sitting at a table with a group of about 10. Having a good night of light chat and jokes.

Then one of the people at the table diverted onto euthanasia for some reason. Most people were divided but were being polite about it, regardless of their side of the fence.

The person who introduced the topic wasn't though. Very adamant against it and started to berate people who were leaning to it being okay.

An eldery aunt had been watching the discussion and you could see her slowly getting more and more annoyed. Eventually it just was too much and she looked like she was going to throw herself across the table at the anti-euthanasia person.

The aunt was a retired nurse with a long career in various hospitals here and in the UK. She was livid at the casual dismissal of extreme and/or chronic pain some people suffer every day. Said all too often people outside of medicine/hospitals have this weird rose-tinted notion of what extreme pain/degenerative diseases are like.

She knew what most diseases entailed and stated that she had very little time for people that would compel her to endure certain ones against her will.

Big C

sorry it was not passed in scotland. As a person who may or may not travel to dignitas I have a personal interest in this topic. I have had MS for over twenty years and currently in the second progressive stage of this incurable disease. I have passed the stage of any medication.

I wake every morning worrying that something will have got worse. At present I am fulltime wheelchair user + many other problems which if I explained here would terrify a lot of people, but I can cope and am happy to be here, (if any one want's full details just pm me)

If I end up permanently flat of my back,being tube fed, having my wife doing cleaning, toileting, trying to lift me etc etc I really won't want to be here both for my wife and my personal quality/ dignity.

My options at present are go to dignitas (if i have the money) or got to the local river and tip my self over or get in my car and crash head on in a 40ft truck. In my opinion dignitas sounds like the best of a bad lot a maybe some of your children may be the ones to have to scrape me off a truck or go diving in a river to try and find me,

Lastly was Jesus not one of the first recorded euthanasia, he chose to die for mankinds sins.

goulders

well done big c, this is how to end an discussion, well thought out and personal experience. Having read this I looked forward to the God squad trying to reply but the silence is deafening.

Mrs OBumble

Big C wrote: »

sorry it was not passed in scotland. As a person who may or may not travel to dignitas I have a personal interest in this topic. I have had MS for over twenty years and currently in the second progressive stage of this incurable disease. I have passed the stage of any medication.

I wake every morning worrying that something will have got worse. At present I am fulltime wheelchair user + many other problems which if I explained here would terrify a lot of people, but I can cope and am happy to be here, (if any one want's full details just pm me)

If I end up permanently flat of my back,being tube fed, having my wife doing cleaning, toileting, trying to lift me etc etc I really won't want to be here both for my wife and my personal quality/ dignity.

My options at present are go to dignitas (if i have the money) or got to the local river and tip my self over or get in my car and crash head on in a 40ft truck. In my opinion dignitas sounds like the best of a bad lot a maybe some of your children may be the ones to have to scrape me off a truck or go diving in a river to try and find me,

I used to work with someone who had exactly the same condition. I cannot begin to describe how his family felt when he took a similar option to one you've describe. Devastated that they did not get to say goodbye and cheated of the chance to accompany him through the last part of life's journey do not even start to describe it.

When/if you get to the stage of needing daily personal cares and feeding, the health service should be providing that for you, along with the other asepcts of good palliative care. (From what I can see, it's a post-code lottery in this country whether the do or not - for your sake, I sincerely hope they do.)

If you do decide on the automotive method, for the love of all that is good do not drive into another vehicle. Somebody did that with one of the college buses here a couple of years ago: the bus driver also died, and the students headed to college were traumatised.

smacl

Sorry for your troubles big_C, and very eloquently put. My own dad died quite recently after a painful few months, but luckily enough without a particularly difficult exit with his kids and grandkids around him. I certainly think we all should be able choose your own manner of parting, and feel that its more than a little unfair on those who can't do so due to simple physical constraints. I personally don't think it is a reasonable burden to have to bear knowing that you might not be in a position to make such a choice, thus having your hand forced to make it sooner and by more drastic measures. Personally, I plan of having a big stash of interesting drugs for he occasion on that (hopefully distant) day.

At the same time, you never know how many great days you'll still have regardless of illness, so I wouldn't go rushing off anywhere. With dad, we acknowledged the body was a write off, with mobility and toileting beyond his control, and moved on from there very quickly. (We were also lucky to have a fantastic carer in a couple of times a day). We still had plenty of laughs and banter most days, so even on the flat of your back, life may still be well worth living.

Anyhoo, best of luck with it going forward.

Turtwig

goulders wrote: »

well done big c, this is how to end an discussion, well thought out and personal experience. Having read this I looked forward to the God squad trying to reply but the silence is deafening.

Mod Note: Terms like God Squad are not appropriate for anywhere on this forum.

Thanks,

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I used to work with someone who had exactly the same condition. I cannot begin to describe how his family felt when he took a similar option to one you've describe. Devastated that they did not get to say goodbye and cheated of the chance to accompany him through the last part of life's journey do not even start to describe it.

I understand this but I also disagree. That's the family being selfish to some extent. I've seen it so often too. Individual is suffering and they're moaning about him/her taking pain medication, or they want to control every aspect of that individual's life. Often times people forget the balance between patient comfort and relatives and friend comfort. Very often comfort actually becomes lobsided towards the family. They visit a relative and conclude "He's looking well." "In great spirits" When in my experience most of the time they never communicate at all with the person. Just talking loads of pointless banter without actually offering any personal support or more importantly asking them how they're feeling or doing in a manner that they're willing to listen to, and empathise with, complaints, worries, stress, etc.

Celly Smunt

As a person with conservative views i feel it's absolutely disgusting to bring a belief into the life of a suffering person for personal view points.

Obviously euthanasia shouldn't be applied to those with a chance of recovery, though if a person is terminal it is disgusting to allow a person to suffer against their will for the sake of a strangers faith they may not even believe. There's nothing christian or moral about having people suffer needlessly against their will.

MrPudding

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I used to work with someone who had exactly the same condition. I cannot begin to describe how his family felt when he took a similar option to one you've describe. Devastated that they did not get to say goodbye and cheated of the chance to accompany him through the last part of life's journey do not even start to describe it.

It is interesting that a lot of the people that are against a person being able to choose the time and manner of their own death seem to be more concerned about the people left behind.

Yes, it is upsetting for those left behind, but given the circumstances, if those left behind can't understand the reasons then they are lacking something, empathy at the very least. And this is a very important point, and one that those like yourself seem to miss. If one has the the option to end one's life on one's own terms at a time of one's choosing and with the assistance of a firend relative or a third party, then everyone will have the chance to say goodbye. The death will not be a shock, it will have been planned. In addition, it is generally considered that where there is the option for assisted suicide the person is likely to be around longer. The reasoning here being that, particualrly when there is a degenerative disease involved, a person might end their life ealier than they want to simply becuase they are worried that they may be unable to later.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

When/if you get to the stage of needing daily personal cares and feeding, the health service should be providing that for you, along with the other asepcts of good palliative care. (From what I can see, it's a post-code lottery in this country whether the do or not - for your sake, I sincerely hope they do.)

You are completely and spectacularly missing the point here... This is not necessarily about the quality of palliative care. Do you think, for example, that Terry Pratchett was not going to have access to excellent palliative care? I would suggest that he could probably have the best possible available, yet he still want the option to end his own life on his own terms.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you do decide on the automotive method, for the love of all that is good do not drive into another vehicle.

I have to agree that this is, no offense to anyone, a disgusting way of ending one's life. I fully support a person right to end their own life and I further think that the option of physician assited suicide should be available, but potentially killing or injuring someone else is an unacceptable way of doing this.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Somebody did that with one of the college buses here a couple of years ago: the bus driver also died, and the students headed to college were traumatised.

Yes, nasty business.

MrP

Mrs OBumble

MrPudding wrote: »

You are completely and spectacularly missing the point here... This is not necessarily about the quality of palliative care. Do you think, for example, that Terry Pratchett was not going to have access to excellent palliative care? I would suggest that he could probably have the best possible available, yet he still want the option to end his own life on his own terms.

No, I'm not.

Suicidal ideation is one of the many issues that may arise when someone has a terminal disease. Appropriate physical and emotional care needs to be provided for that as well as everything else.

smacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No, I'm not.

Suicidal ideation is one of the many issues that may arise when someone has a terminal disease. Appropriate physical and emotional care needs to be provided for that as well as everything else.

The premise here is that the decision to end your own life is both wrong and irrational in all cases. I can appreciate why a Christian might see things this way, as that is part of their religious belief system. If however you take religion out of the equation, there do seem to be select situations where ending one's own life seems reasonable. For example, given a choice, would you rather die peacefully at home in your sleep, or in great pain some days later in a hospital? Most people would instinctively choose the former, but in making any choice have balanced the value of a few remaining days of life against an easier death. Luckily, most of us will never have to make that choice, and of those that do, will be able to make the choice unhindered. For the few that remain, who are we to take that choice from them?

MrPudding

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No, I'm not.

Suicidal ideation is one of the many issues that may arise when someone has a terminal disease. Appropriate physical and emotional care needs to be provided for that as well as everything else.

Again you are missing the point. First, as smacl mentions above, ending one's life may, in some circumstances actually be the rational move.

Your view makes a very large, and unfortunately for your argument, a very wrong assumption. Your argument assumes that there is appropriate and effective palliative care available and that where this care is available people won't want to kill themselves.

This is wrong on both counts. For many terminal illnesses there is no effective palliative care. The levels of pain and suffering are so great that either no pain relief is available at all, or the does required would effective euthanise the patient.

The second point is that even where effective care is available, some people may still not want to live like that. I know I mentioned him before, but I think Terry Pratchett is a perfect example of this. He was a very successful and wealthy man. He would have had access to the best possible palliative care, but he still campaigned tirelessly for assisted suicide rights as he knew that even will the support he would have had, he did not want to 'live' like that.

I appreciate that the religious often hold this idea that that life is sacred and believe that is a Good Thing (TM), but what it seems to boil down to is 'life at any cost' with no thought or regard to the quality of that life.

I love life. I love being with my family, I love learning new things and trying to make the world a slightly better place than how I found it, but this love of life is predicated on a couple of things, and one of them is the quality. Were I to begin to suffer from Alzheimer's, which is likely as it runs in my family, my quality of life would degrade. I know there is excellent care available. I saw the care my grandmother got. She was completely oblivious as she lay on here side in bed for 24 hours per day, not having to do anything to clean herself, the nursing staff cleans her very thoroughly when she soiled herself. She didn't even need to feed herself as there were tubes for that. Her care was excellent, but pardon me if I don't want that for me. And there is no amount of emotional care or support that will convince me, as it failed to convince Terry Pratchett, that lying in a bed wearing a nappy and being fed by tubes is how I want my life to end.

It is not life at any cost, and different people have different opinions on what quality of life they want. Simply because your religion tells you that every life is sacred does not give you the right to tell me, or anyone else, that I have to spend my final days or years wearing a nappy and being cleaned by nursing staff whilst being fed through a tube.

There are a number of areas where I think religion makes people cruel and lacking in empathy, and this to me is one of them. I don't think, necessarily, that this is an intentional thing. I think it is simply a horrible side effect of genuinely believing you know the answers and that you are right. The thing is, even if you do know the answer (which you don't), and even if you are right (which you aren't) you still should not have the right to tell someone else how they must live their life or that they don't have the right to end it as they see fit. The lack of empathy here is breathtaking.

MrP

Big C

MrPudding wrote: »

Again you are missing the point. First, as smacl mentions above, ending one's life may, in some circumstances actually be the rational move.

I love life. I love being with my family, I love learning new things and trying to make the world a slightly better place than how I found it, but this love of life is predicated on a couple of things, and one of them is the quality. Were I to begin to suffer from Alzheimer's, which is likely as it runs in my family, my quality of life would degrade. I know there is excellent care available. I saw the care my grandmother got. She was completely oblivious as she lay on here side in bed for 24 hours per day, not having to do anything to clean herself, the nursing staff cleans her very thoroughly when she soiled herself. She didn't even need to feed herself as there were tubes for that. Her care was excellent, but pardon me if I don't want that for me. And there is no amount of emotional care or support that will convince me, as it failed to convince Terry Pratchett, that lying in a bed wearing a nappy and being fed by tubes is how I want my life to end.



your experience with your grandmother shows excellent care is available but on a personal level I could end up in the same situation with one difference, I would be fully aware of my situation, This is where quality of life and personal dignity come to the fore. Who on the anti euthanasia side would be proud of the fact that because of there views I could have to live like that for maybe 20 years.

MrPudding

Big C wrote: »

your experience with your grandmother shows excellent care is available but on a personal level I could end up in the same situation with one difference, I would be fully aware of my situation, This is where quality of life and personal dignity come to the fore. Who on the anti euthanasia side would be proud of the fact that because of there views I could have to live like that for maybe 20 years.

And this is the problem, for them it is life at any cost. That you will suffer indignity and pain is simply not soemthing they care about. Whilst they may not be as bad as the evil monster, Mother Teresa, they do beleive that only their god should be allowed to make these decisions. It really is a very cruel and un-empathetic position. But then we see this in a number of areas when dealing with the religious, the first quote in my signature seems very applicable.

I have enormous sympathy for the position you find yourself in, but we will both have our difficulties. The chances are you will be able to still communicate, albeit with some assistance. So hopefully you will be able to receive the assistance you will need. I, on the other hand, will not be of sound mind so I will likely need to 'make arrangements' early so I don't end up being stuck. This leads to the somewhat ironic position I mentioned earlier, where it is likely I would have to end my life earlier than I might want to just to be sure I am still capable, whereas, if there were proper provisions for living wills and assisted suicide I would not need to as I would be confident that even were I to suddenly lose my faculties I would be facilitated.

MrP

Darpa

I've seen first hand what suicide does to a family.
The government / HSE managers / accountants will love it though.
"Don't be a burden to others, don't put yourself through this, do the decent thing"

MrPudding

Darpa wrote: »

I've seen first hand what suicide does to a family.
The government / HSE managers / accountants will love it though.
"Don't be a burden to others, don't put yourself through this, do the decent thing"

This is a cross misrepresentation about what is being discussed here. This is. It for the benefit of accountants, the HSE, the government or relatives. It is for the person that is sick.

You have seen, I would guess, what suicide does to a family when it is unexpected. This is not what is being discussed here. I myself also know what suicide does to those left behind. I know what it does to a mother to come home from work and find her teenage son hanging from the upstairs bannister so he was the first thing she saw when she opened the door.

This is very different to when a decision is made with the full knowledge of those that will be left behind. Where the person contemplating it explains their reasoning to those that will be left behind. Where those that will be left behind have a chance to discuss what is going to happen and when, and perhaps try to change the persons mind.

One of the reasons suicide is so terrible for those left behind is that it is something that does not get talked about. Dragging g it I to the cold light of day can only be a good thing.

MrP

Darpa

MrPudding wrote: »

This is a cross misrepresentation about what is being discussed here. This is. It for the benefit of accountants, the HSE, the government or relatives. It is for the person that is sick.

You have seen, I would guess, what suicide does to a family when it is unexpected. This is not what is being discussed here. I myself also know what suicide does to those left behind. I know what it does to a mother to come home from work and find her teenage son hanging from the upstairs bannister so he was the first thing she saw when she opened the door.

This is very different to when a decision is made with the full knowledge of those that will be left behind. Where the person contemplating it explains their reasoning to those that will be left behind. Where those that will be left behind have a chance to discuss what is going to happen and when, and perhaps try to change the persons mind.

One of the reasons suicide is so terrible for those left behind is that it is something that does not get talked about. Dragging g it I to the cold light of day can only be a good thing.

MrP

You're right, do the decent thing, top yourself as Bertie said

Big C

Darpa wrote: »

You're right, do the decent thing, top yourself as Bertie said

why try drag a reasonable debate to level of a drunken night out

Darpa

Big C wrote: »

why try drag a reasonable debate to level of a drunken night out

Big C wrote:

go back to your discussion on Fr Ted, they are missing you, was tempel bar fun last night ?

When you hold a reasonable debate, let me know

Delirium

Darpa wrote: »

When you hold a reasonable debate, let me know

MOD NOTE

Back on topic please.

Also, creating quotes and attributing them to posters is not acceptable behaviour. Especially when the created quote would actually result in warnings for the quoted poster.

Thanks for your attention.

Darpa

Especially when the created quote would actually result in warnings for the quoted poster.

I didn't create it, they PM'd it to me. Is that an acceptable PM ?

Turtwig

Mod

PM's are not within the remit of moderators. If you have an issue with them contact the site admins.
It's also unacceptable to quote a PM in a general fora post without the consent of the party the message was sent to/received from.

Darpa wrote: »

I didn't created it, they PM'd it to me. Is that an acceptable PM ?

Darpa

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod

PM's are not within the remit of moderators. If you have an issue with them contact the site admins.
It's also unacceptable to quote a PM without the consent of the party the message was sent to/received from.

I will, as a mod has said it should result in a warning. How can I contact them, and can you direct me to the charter that say I cannot publicise an abusive PM sent on your site ?

porsche959

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why? Whats christian about forcing people to prolong pain and suffering against their will?

There are many drugs to alleviate pain and furthermore, it is troubling that the euthanasia campaigners seem to want a "right to die" for people who aren't even ill but have just decided they are tired of life.

Also, from a Christian perspective, there is of course the small matter of commandment number 6.

Celly Smunt

porsche959 wrote: »

There are many drugs to alleviate pain and furthermore, it is troubling that the euthanasia campaigners seem to want a "right to die" for people who aren't even ill but have just decided they are tired of life.

Also, from a Christian perspective, there is of course the small matter of commandment number 6.

No drug will completely alleviate pain without making the person pretty much a lying vegetable. What quality of life is that? And furthermore why should they adhere to your belief in that small matter? What difference is it to you that a stranger may have control of their faith in which you might not even be aware that it is taking place?.

I for one hope you never have to see your mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister suffer for your little commandment.

What is your view on life support also? Surely that is artificial stimulation of life and playing god.

Delirium

Darpa wrote: »

I will, as a mod has said it should result in a warning. How can I contact them, and can you direct me to the charter that say I cannot publicise an abusive PM sent on your site ?

MOD NOTE

Private Messages are private conversations between posters.

If you have a problem with a PM, use the report button to report the problem PM.

Regarding publishing a PM without permission:

This is contrary to normal Boards.ie Guidelines that permission be sought before publication of any PMs sent or received.

Taken from the notice at the top of the linked forum.

Darpa

SW wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Private Messages are private conversations between posters.

If you have a problem with a PM, use the report button to report the problem PM.

It's been reported, but I've heard nothing, only what you've been posting here with regard to me.

SW wrote: »

Regarding publishing a PM without permission:

It says it's in the guidelines, but I can't find it in the guidelines, where is it, can you quote it directly please ?

Big C

porsche959 wrote: »

There are many drugs to alleviate pain and furthermore, it is troubling that the euthanasia campaigners seem to want a "right to die" for people who aren't even ill but have just decided they are tired of life.

Also, from a Christian perspective, there is of course the small matter of commandment number 6.

A fairly big difference when someone wants to commit suicide because they are tired of life and a person who wishes to exit this life with dignity.

as for number 6 ! well thats your beliefs.

orubiru

Ha! Not surprised to see some of the points made here.

Again, why not just allow people to make an educated and well informed choice?

Again, it's not like it will become mandatory and people will be forced to kill themselves upon discovering that they have a terminal illness.

Rules and regulations can be put in to place to ensure that the system is not abused.

Mrs OBumble

MrPudding wrote: »

. I, on the other hand, will not be of sound mind so I will likely need to 'make arrangements' early so I don't end up being stuck.

I've got some bad news for you.

Alzheimer's is not a terminal disease. People don't die of it, they die with it, but of pneumonia etc.

So for you to be allowed to "make arrangements" requires extending euthanasia provision to be pretty much anyone, with pretty much any disease. I cannot see that happening any time soon, because of the difficulty combining it with the "ask for help" message that is needed for mentally ill teenagers most of whom can go on to live full productive lives, with the right treatment.

And in case you think I'm talking through a hole - this is from personal experience. My father went from totally unaffected to not recognizing anyone at all in about three months. The worse bit is not when the person's mental state is totally altered: it's when they're only part-way gone, and know what's happening to them at least some of the time. But during this time, when it is still possible to have some good days with them, there's no way that most families would agree to a loved one being put to death.

Also - my thinking in this area is based on humanist principles. Human life is precious in and of itself, not because God / Allah / the Spagetti Monster ... says so. As such, intervening to end human life before its natural end is always wrong.

Big C

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've got some bad news for you.

Alzheimer's is not a terminal disease. People don't die of it, they die with it, but of pneumonia etc.

So for you to be allowed to "make arrangements" requires extending euthanasia provision to be pretty much anyone, with pretty much any disease. I cannot see that happening any time soon, because of the difficulty combining it with the "ask for help" message that is needed for mentally ill teenagers most of whom can go on to live full productive lives, with the right treatment.

And in case you think I'm talking through a hole - this is from personal experience. My father went from totally unaffected to not recognizing anyone at all in about three months. The worse bit is not when the person's mental state is totally altered: it's when they're only part-way gone, and know what's happening to them at least some of the time. But during this time, when it is still possible to have some good days with them, there's no way that most families would agree to a loved one being put to death.

Also - my thinking in this area is based on humanist principles. Human life is precious in and of itself, not because God / Allah / the Spagetti Monster ... says so. As such, intervening to end human life before its natural end is always wrong.

So from your humanist principle you think it's your responsibility to decide for the rest of humanity.


think I'll give humanism a miss and maybe check out Spagetti Monster ism

orubiru

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've got some bad news for you.

Alzheimer's is not a terminal disease. People don't die of it, they die with it, but of pneumonia etc.

So for you to be allowed to "make arrangements" requires extending euthanasia provision to be pretty much anyone, with pretty much any disease. I cannot see that happening any time soon, because of the difficulty combining it with the "ask for help" message that is needed for mentally ill teenagers most of whom can go on to live full productive lives, with the right treatment.

And in case you think I'm talking through a hole - this is from personal experience. My father went from totally unaffected to not recognizing anyone at all in about three months. The worse bit is not when the person's mental state is totally altered: it's when they're only part-way gone, and know what's happening to them at least some of the time. But during this time, when it is still possible to have some good days with them, there's no way that most families would agree to a loved one being put to death.

Also - my thinking in this area is based on humanist principles. Human life is precious in and of itself, not because God / Allah / the Spagetti Monster ... says so. As such, intervening to end human life before its natural end is always wrong.

Now, my question here is why should it be the families choice?

I want to sign a document that says if I get any illness from a specified (by me) group, or any illness that affects me in a specified (by me) way, and I get so far gone that I am not able to kill myself, then I want to be put down in a humane way. Why should I be prevented from doing something like that?

It seems unfair that I might want to die and society is saying "no way, you have to suffer".

OK, I can't say we can just allow assisted suicide to be brought in unregulated and free to anyone under any circumstances. In the case of severe illness? Why not?

Why should that be my families choice? What if my family agree with me?

Nobody is saying that people should be forced to die. Hey, maybe I get taken to the room where they are gonna put me down and I change my mind. There can be rules and regulations for that.

Why should you have the right to stop me from ending my life in a safe and controlled environment? You'd rather I jump off a building or splatter myself all over a train?

MrPudding

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've got some bad news for you.

Alzheimer's is not a terminal disease. People don't die of it, they die with it, but of pneumonia etc.

So for you to be allowed to "make arrangements" requires extending euthanasia provision to be pretty much anyone, with pretty much any disease. I cannot see that happening any time soon, because of the difficulty combining it with the "ask for help" message that is needed for mentally ill teenagers most of whom can go on to live full productive lives, with the right treatment.

And in case you think I'm talking through a hole - this is from personal experience. My father went from totally unaffected to not recognizing anyone at all in about three months. The worse bit is not when the person's mental state is totally altered: it's when they're only part-way gone, and know what's happening to them at least some of the time. But during this time, when it is still possible to have some good days with them, there's no way that most families would agree to a loved one being put to death.

Also - my thinking in this area is based on humanist principles. Human life is precious in and of itself, not because God / Allah / the Spagetti Monster ... says so. As such, intervening to end human life before its natural end is always wrong.

At work so I don't have time to respond fully, but I do want to make two point: First, Alzheimer's is considered to be a fatal disease. Second, even if it wasn't, I place considerable value on quality of life and I am not a proponent of life at any cost, irrespective of the quality.

MrP