Euthanasia

wiggle16

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

A person's non religious beliefs dictates how others should think and they're demonised for standing against the tide. Just look at the last 2 referenda and the numerous threads on here as examples.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right.

You are the one who is trying to force their views upon others. No one is telling you what to think, or forcing you to do anything. People with a secular view are saying that you do not have the right to dictate or set a boundary upon the rights of other people. Which is exactly what your views do, conversely. Talk about throwing stones.

The last two referenda? Standing against the tide? FFS.

No one is going to force you to marry another man. Am I right in assuming you'd deny that right to other people? I'm gay. Would you rather I didn't have the same rights as you?

No one is going to force anyone else to have an abortion. But you'd rather the choice was not there, to suit yourself.

No one is going to euthanise you against your will. But you'd rather no one else had the choice.

See, there's a pattern here......

uck51js9zml2yt

wiggle16 wrote: »

You are the one who is trying to force their views upon others. No one is telling you what to think, or forcing you to do anything. People with a secular view are saying that you do not have the right to dictate or set a boundary upon the rights of other people. Which is exactly what your views do, conversely. Talk about throwing stones.

The last two referenda? Standing against the tide? FFS.

No one is going to force you to marry another man. Am I right in assuming you'd deny that right to other people? I'm gay. Would you rather I didn't have the same rights as you?

No one is going to force anyone else to have an abortion. But you'd rather the choice was not there, to suit yourself.

No one is going to euthanise you against your will. But you'd rather no one else had the choice.

See, there's a pattern here......

No but if I were a solemniser I'd be forced to by law or else be brought to court.
If I were a doctor who opposed abortion if people had their way, I'd be forced to refer someone for one.

See the pattern here??

wiggle16

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

No but if I were a solemniser I'd be forced to by law or else be brought to court.
If I were a doctor who opposed abortion if people had their way, I'd be forced to refer someone for one.

See the pattern here??

Would you please educate yourself at some point before making statements?

From the Marriage Act 2015 (available at irishstatutebook .ie):

7. (1) Nothing in this Act or any other enactment shall be construed as obliging—
(a) a religious body to recognise a particular form of marriage ceremony for the purposes of section 51(3)(c) of the Act of 2004, or

(b) a religious solemniser to solemnise a marriage in accordance with a form of marriage ceremony which is not recognised by the religious body of which the religious solemniser is a member.

No one can be forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony nor can they be brought to court for refusing to do same. Are you okay with same sex marriage now?

The argument that abortion should not be legal simply so that some doctors will not have to make referrals is like saying that nuts should be banned because some people are allergic to them. It's not an argument. It's a distraction. And I don't agree that a doctor should be obliged to make a referral, myself. But it isn't relevant to the provision of abortion services in general. It is a separate issue.

No one is forcing you to do anything or think anything. But your views, where enshrined in law, do force others to do things. Surely you can see that that is not right.

uptherebels

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

No but if I were a solemniser I'd be forced to by law or else be brought to court.
If I were a doctor who opposed abortion if people had their way, I'd be forced to refer someone for one.

See the pattern here??

Your confusing being forced to perform the abortion with not being allowed to obstruct medical care.

uptherebels

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

I know very little about her life so can't comment.

What I do know is that for me, being absent from my body is to be present with God...that's what makes it glorious. But most here wouldn't know anything about that.

As for euthanasia/ assisted suicide/ abortion not being murder....aren't euphemisms fantastic.

Euphemisms? We are all still waiting for to show where it states an abortion is murder?

Sardonicat

Not really.

No one is going to force Euthanasia upon you or force you to assist another who wishes to end their life.

No one is going to force you to die before you want to. You seem to think it's alright to force those who do not share your views to endure every last moment of suffering til their body gives up even if they don't want to.

Paddy Cow

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

I know very little about her life so can't comment.

What I do know is that for me, being absent from my body is to be present with God...that's what makes it glorious. But most here wouldn't know anything about that.

As for euthanasia/ assisted suicide/ abortion not being murder....aren't euphemisms fantastic.

Your religious beliefs are just that - yours. If staying alive until the end is what you feel will bring you closer to God, then all power to you. No one is going to force you to end your life just because you are dying in agony. It's between you and your God how you chose to go out.

That's all we're asking for other, mentally competent people who have a terminal illness - to chose how to die and not have that choice foisted upon them by people who don't think the same. If I have cancer and decide at the end, just before it gets really bad to spare myself that death and chose a medically assisted one, it has absolutely no baring on your life or your choices.

I don't deny you your religious beliefs or medical choices. Who are you do deny me mine?

yuridwyer

eigrod wrote: »

If I could sign up to something now, while aged 51 and compos mentis, stating that I consent to assisted death where 2 properly qualified medical practitioners, and my next of kin (or nearest relative who is sound of mind), agree that it is the best thing for me, I would sign immediately.

At long last, someone making clear sense. If you don't agree with euthanasia/assisted suicide, don't sign, simples.

Hotblack Desiato

Ivanna Beautiful Ibex wrote: »

But most here wouldn't know anything about that.

No, but hopefully we can increase that number to 100%

AllForIt

The irony of the religious purporting to care about ppl but all they care about is following the word of god and to hell with suffering people.

Sardonicat

AllForIt wrote: »

The irony of the religious purporting to care about ppl but all they care about is following the word of god and to hell with suffering people.

They may well grasp just how ironic it is when their turn comes round.

eviltwin

I'm all for it. My dad died of cancer and by the end he was crying and begging us to smother him because the pain was so great. The last memory I have of my dad is of him suffering and not being able to help him. I wish there was something we could have done but we were helpless.

If I'm diagnosed with a terminal illness I'm taking charge of my exit. It's inhumane what my dad had to endure.

Fcuk religion. This is actual people and their wishes should be paramount.

Sardonicat

^^^^
I'm so sorry, Twin.

Those who are against people having the option to shorten their death have never had to witness anything like that. If anyone who saw that still dissagrees with allowing people the choice to avoid their suffering they are nothing but an evil pos totally empty of empathy.

eviltwin

Sardonicat wrote: »

^^^^
I'm so sorry, Twin.

Those who are against people having the option to shorten their death have never had to witness anything like that. If anyone who saw that still dissagrees with allowing people the choice to avoid their suffering they are nothing but an evil pos totally empty of empathy.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I was lucky to have 27 years with my dad, lots of happy memories but the ones that stand out are those from the last week of his life.

It's cruel to inflict that on the sufferer and their family. My daughter never got to say goodbye because hospice staff felt his distress would be too traumatic for her. Imagine how the people sharing the ward felt knowing that was facing them.

I would imagine those against euthanasia are just ignorant to the reality of a terminal illness. I would hope no one would see suffering as a good thing or a cross that must be bourne.

Ursus Horribilis

So sorry to read that, Eviltwin. Sometimes I wonder if these "glorious death" and "God's will" fanatics have ever had to stand by helplessly and watch someone they care about go through agony before their body finally expires? I've got news for you, boys and girls. Palliative care and all the fancy drugs they have at their disposal are not a magic bullet. People still suffer and it can go on for weeks. I'm normally tolerant of people's religious beliefs even though religion isn't my thing. But when it comes to forcing a long, lingering death on their fellow human beings, I wish nothing but ill on them. There is something wrong with the way we view end of life matters when we'll euthanise an animal without a second thought yet there is no choice available to humans.

L.Jenkins

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for it. My dad died of cancer and by the end he was crying and begging us to smother him because the pain was so great. The last memory I have of my dad is of him suffering and not being able to help him. I wish there was something we could have done but we were helpless.

If I'm diagnosed with a terminal illness I'm taking charge of my exit. It's inhumane what my dad had to endure.

Fcuk religion. This is actual people and their wishes should be paramount.

I'm sorry to hear that for your family and your father. I've seen many members of my family pass from cancer. I too would want to leave on my own terms having witnessed their suffering. We afforded my dog last May the dignity of dying without suffering from colon cancer, why can't we people have the same?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for it. My dad died of cancer and by the end he was crying and begging us to smother him because the pain was so great. The last memory I have of my dad is of him suffering and not being able to help him. I wish there was something we could have done but we were helpless.

If I'm diagnosed with a terminal illness I'm taking charge of my exit. It's inhumane what my dad had to endure.

Fcuk religion. This is actual people and their wishes should be paramount.

I’m so sorry, eviltwin. Your poor pops.

I followed the blog of a woman who died of cancer. A family member wrote a guest post on the blog after her death to finish the blog off. Apparently one thing she said in her dying weeks was “I didn’t realise pain could be so painful”. I think many people don’t get what 10/10 pain feels like. I’ve been unfortunate enough to experience it twice in my life. Luckily both times, we eventually got it under control. But the things that run through your mind. At one point, jumping off my balcony seemed like a reasonable option. At this point, they were having trouble pinpointing the cause of the pain and couldn’t treat it until they did. Not only was I in sustained, extreme agony but I began to lose my mind a bit. Now imagine having pain that bad that no painkiller can even take the edge off?

PuppyMcPupFace

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m so sorry, eviltwin. Your poor pops.

Seconded. I am religious but I'm off if anything goes wrong.

Stacksofwacks

Having seen an elderly relation bedridden for 5 years after a strokes crying out like a baby for his minders to wipe his butthole and help him pee i think its a human travesty that this option is not already in place, its sick, inhumane and demented

wiggle16

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

There is something wrong with the way we view end of life matters when we'll euthanise an animal without a second thought yet there is no choice available to humans.

100% agreed.

Further to that, it says a lot about society that we pander to the feelings of those people who oppose assisted dying, to the detriment of the sick and dying who are actually enduring the consequences.

yuridwyer

wiggle16 wrote: »

100% agreed.

Further to that, it says a lot about society that we pander to the feelings of those people who oppose assisted dying, to the detriment of the sick and dying who are actually enduring the consequences.

Never thought of it in those terms, spot on

Sardonicat

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Now imagine having pain that bad that no painkiller can even take the edge off?

Oh they do have the painkiller but are prohibited from administering it in a sufficient does to kill the pain as it would kill the patient. Can't have that. And I've witnessed 02, IV fluids for treating dehydration and paracetamol for treating high temperature withdrawn because they can prolong life unnecessarily. How's that for an obscene bit of cognitive dissonance?

wiggle16

yuridwyer wrote: »

Never thought of it in those terms, spot on

It's astonishing. A terminally ill person who wishes to end their suffering cannot do so, and must go on suffering until their illness kills them, just so that other, completely disconnected people can sleep safe and sound knowing that euthanasia is illegal and so all is right with the world.

It's the most pathetic form of cruelty.

Ursus Horribilis

L.Jenkins wrote: »

... We afforded my dog last May the dignity of dying without suffering from colon cancer, why can't we people have the same?

I like to think that in the future, assisted suicide/euthanasia will come into being here. Those and living wills.

We've become more secular as a society and I think there's more openness about terminal illnesses and death. And thanks to the various "right to die" cases that have made the news, we know that there are people existing in all sorts of misery.

It'll probably have to be regulated but I've no problem with that. As with any big decision like this, it's not to be taken lightly.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sardonicat wrote: »

Oh they do have the painkiller but are prohibited from administering it in a sufficient does to kill the pain as it would kill the patient. Can't have that. And I've witnessed 02, IV fluids for treating dehydration and paracetamol for treating high temperature withdrawn because they can prolong life unnecessarily. How's that for an obscene bit of cognitive dissonance?

I know, it’s mental. I think the bolded does happen sometimes, they give enough painkillers to kill. It’s a kind of loophole but the patient suffers along the way. And of course, you’d be completely out if it in your last days. At least with assisted-dying, you can die whilst still lucid and say your goodbyes.

It’s mad. Dying via being doped up on painkillers = grand. Dying lucidly = bad.

PuppyMcPupFace

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know, it’s mental. I think the bolded does happen sometimes, they give enough painkillers to kill. It’s a kind of loophole but the patient suffers along the way. And of course, you’d be completely out if it in your last days. At least with assisted-dying, you can die whilst still lucid and say your goodbyes.

It’s mad. Dying via being doped up on painkillers = grand. Dying lucidly = bad.

My mother passed away whilst sedated for surgery. We should all be so fortunate

L.Jenkins

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

...It'll probably have to be regulated but I've no problem with that. As with any big decision like this, it's not to be taken lightly.

It will be difficult to get through on the back of a referendum and strict regulation though, as such a decision brings with it a finality. Not many other personal decisions would.

Not to gloss over past referendums, but it makes the debate over many other topics such as same sex marriage and bodily autonomy seem a little ridiculous or nonsensical. This would a human right to trump all human rights in my opinion, the right to die with dignity on ones own terms, without external interference of any kind. So fighting over the right to marry or for the choice to continue a pregnancy shouldn't be a long drawn out process, but a given.

A given right for me would bring with it a relief in knowing that should I succumb to a terminal illness, no one has to watch me suffer when I feel I've reached a point were delaying the inevitable is no longer bearable.

Sardonicat

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

[b/]Oh they do have the painkiller but are prohibited from administering it in a sufficient does to kill the pain as it would kill the patient. Can't have that. [/b]And I've witnessed 02, IV fluids for treating dehydration and paracetamol for treating high temperature withdrawn because they can prolong life unnecessarily. How's that for an obscene bit of cognitive dissonance?

I know, it’s mental. I think the bolded does happen sometimes, they give enough painkillers to kill.

It’s mad. Dying via being doped up on painkillers = grand. Dying lucidly = bad.

Yes it does. A lot more frequently that the anti Euthanasia crowd would care to admit . But it's not always possible or even the best thing to do. But think about what I wrote and what it implies : We cannot hasten death by administering pain relief so your last few minutes will be comfortable but we can withdraw treatment for some of the non terminal stuff that is compounding your suffering. That should send you off a bit quicker, could take hours, could take days or more, we don't know. Not only will you be in excruciating pain but you'll be gasping for air, driven tormented by thirst and driven mad with a fever.
In short, we can end your suffering faster by increasing it. Obscene.

And just to add, this carry on is equally distressing for those treating and caring for the dying. Why is there no advances in end of life pain relief. The only thing we really can offer are opiates and they bring a whole host of problems of their own. And at the very end their efficacy is limited.

wiggle16

As far as I am aware (and it may have already been mentioned in this thread) it would not even require a referendum to be made legal. There's nothing in the constitution that expressly forbids it - it's simply that, if you assisted a terminally ill person in taking their own life, you could be charged with murder. It would fall to the DPP to decide whether or not to charge you.

In the case of Marie Fleming, the supreme court established that the constitution provides for a right to life, not a right to die. As such, the constitution does not expressly forbid it. It just makes no provision for it. So the change required is to legislation rather than the constitution, as was the case with contraception. Marie Fleming's course of action was basically to challenge the laws that ban assisted suicide by getting the supreme court to find them unconstitutional. Unfortunately they didn't.

Suicide itself was decriminalised by the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993. Conversely, section 2.2 of that act created the new offence of assisting suicide. That's the part of the law that prevents assisted suicide and needs to change. The supreme court itself said that there was nothing to stop the Dáil legislating for Marie Fleming's case to change that Section 2.2, thereby removing the legal obstacle. There's no constitutional reason why that cannot be done (as far as I am aware).

So we are just sitting on our hands, in all honesty.

wiggle16

wiggle16 wrote: »

There's no constitutional reason why that cannot be done (as far as I am aware).

I should add that I am open to correction on this, any change to the law would have to be tested for constitutionality. But as far as I am aware, the above is the case.