Euthanasia

mr_fegelien

Would you support euthanasia in psychiatric cases? There was a 24 yr old Belgian woman who was granted euthanasia because she suffered depression since childhood.

AFAIK, Belgium and the Netherlands have the worlds most liberal euthanasia laws.

Could you ever see this being passed as a referendum in Ireland.

Rodin

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Would you support euthanasia in psychiatric cases? There was a 24 yr old Belgian woman who was granted euthanasia because she suffered depression since childhood.

AFAIK, Belgium and the Netherlands have the worlds most liberal euthanasia laws.

Could you ever see this being passed as a referendum in Ireland.

The right to die is a fundamental human right IMO.
A referendum on this should have preceded an abortion referendum.

tuxy

mr_fegelien wrote: »

AFAIK, Belgium and the Netherlands have the worlds most liberal euthanasia laws.

I believe Switzerland may be more liberal since non citizens go there for euthanasia.

Yes people should not have to suffer a painful undignified death.
It would have to be well monitor so people are not pressured into it by others.
Some people would convince themselves that they are a burden and should go ahead with it, I don't think there's anything that can be done to prevent that.

So overall less suffering for the terminally ill but would lose some people that don't really want to die.

Tilikum17

My dad had vascular dementia. In the end he was put into the nut house because they didn’t have the training to deal with him in the hospital. He starved himself to death. I can’t put into words how horrific his death was. He was an amazing dad and that was his death.

I’ll know the signs & I’ll want to end it quick.

If people want to die they should be allowed to.

mr_fegelien

Tilikum17 wrote: »

My dad had vascular dementia. In the end he was put into the nut house because they didn’t have the training to deal with him in the hospital. He starved himself to death. I can’t put into words how horrific his death was. He was an amazing dad and that was his death.

I’ll know the signs & I’ll want to end it quick.

If people want to die they should be allowed to.

But do you mean old people or younger people who are physically healthy but mentally unwell.

I'd wager that most people would be firmly against euthanasia for mental illness.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Rodin wrote: »

The right to die is a fundamental human right IMO.
A referendum on this should have preceded an abortion referendum.

This topic doesn’t require a referendum AFAIK.

kys

Fr_Dougal

Great bunch of lads.

tuxy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This topic doesn’t require a referendum AFAIK.

Not sure about this but I think a constitutional change would be best if Ireland decided to allow Euthanasia just for clarity.

The right to life should be followed by the right to die.

Samuri Suicide

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Would you support euthanasia in psychiatric cases? There was a 24 yr old Belgian woman who was granted euthanasia because she suffered depression since childhood.

AFAIK, Belgium and the Netherlands have the worlds most liberal euthanasia laws.

Could you ever see this being passed as a referendum in Ireland.

I
Don't
Love
Your
EVERY THOUGHT
is
a
vibe

Calhoun

I hope its passed if it comes to it, there are allot of horrible diseases that really reduce quality of life and are very painful to go out on.

Would rather have the option than not have it.

fonecrusher1

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Great bunch of lads.

Simi

tuxy wrote: »

Not sure about this but I think a constitutional change would be best if Ireland decided to allow Euthanasia just for clarity.

The right to life should be followed by the right to die.

Definitely not. We need to move past inserting laws into the Constitution. The Dail should legislate for euthanasia like a proper mature democracy. Forcing people to vote in referendums on contentious issues is not empowering the electorate, it's an act of legislative cowardice.

wiggle16

tuxy wrote: »

Not sure about this but I think a constitutional change would be best if Ireland decided to allow Euthanasia just for clarity.

The right to life should be followed by the right to die.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This topic doesn’t require a referendum AFAIK.

This below is from a post I wrote in a thread about the same topic last year. It does not require any change to the constitution and therefore no referendum - it's just a matter for legislation, meaning the only reason nothing has changed is because we are not pressuring politicians to do so:

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.

One eyed Jack

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Would you support euthanasia in psychiatric cases?

No, to be honest. I’d rather see the State putting it’s resources into assisting people to live as opposed to encouraging people to envision death as a viable option under any circumstances.

One eyed Jack

Stopped Clock wrote: »

If you had to sit by helplessly and watch your terminally mother die slowly for weeks on end, you'd change your tune.

You can’t possibly know whether anyone has been in those circumstances already, or what anyone else who isn’t you would or wouldn’t do in those, or similar circumstances, or what way those circumstances if they have been through them would influence another persons opinion. You’re being incredibly presumptuous there really.

Stopped Clock wrote: »

People like you, who want to make you fellow human beings suffer needlessly like this are heartless zealots.

I don’t know who the post is directed at, but I don’t imagine anyone here wants that to happen, and I don’t know that anyone here gives a shìt for being called names when what’s under discussion is literally whether or not the State should permit anyone to end another human beings life on request. Nobody should have to die needlessly is the way I would look at it anyway, and from that it should be obvious that I wouldn’t want anyone to suffer needlessly either. That’s why I said that I wouldn’t support the State legislating for euthanasia, but would rather see the State putting resources into assisting people to live - something which it has historically and catastrophically failed to do up to this point, which means some people have come to view death as a viable option.

Graces7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can’t possibly know whether anyone has been in those circumstances already, or what anyone else who isn’t you would or wouldn’t do in those, or similar circumstances, or what way those circumstances if they have been through them would influence another persons opinion. You’re being incredibly presumptuous there really.





I don’t know who the post is directed at, but I don’t imagine anyone here wants that to happen, and I don’t know that anyone here gives a shìt for being called names when what’s under discussion is literally whether or not the State should permit anyone to end another human beings life on request. Nobody should have to die needlessly is the way I would look at it anyway, and from that it should be obvious that I wouldn’t want anyone to suffer needlessly either. That’s why I said that I wouldn’t support the State legislating for euthanasia, but would rather see the State putting resources into assisting people to live - something which it has historically and catastrophically failed to do up to this point, which means some people have come to view death as a viable option.

Excellent post. Thank you.

arccosh

Genuine question here... but if people want to die so much, why not just do it themselves?

Before anyone hops in on suicide is terrible, I'm looking at this from a completely semantics point of view.

What would be the ramifications of just doing it yourself?

I know some health insurance plans would be void, there would be legal battles for funds etc...
I take it there is far more? Or is it a case, people just want to do it in a semi supervised manner?

Rodin

arccosh wrote: »

Genuine question here... but if people want to die so much, why not just do it themselves?

Before anyone hops in on suicide is terrible, I'm looking at this from a completely semantics point of view.

What would be the ramifications of just doing it yourself?

I know some health insurance plans would be void, there would be legal battles for funds etc...
I take it there is far more? Or is it a case, people just want to do it in a semi supervised manner?

Do it yourself?
Locked in syndrome ?

To tell someone they've no right to die in that scenario is cruel.

arccosh

Rodin wrote: »

Do it yourself?
Locked in syndrome ?

To tell someone they've no right to die in that scenario is cruel.

I'm not gonna lie... I didn't even think of that before I posted...



I was thinking along the lines of some of the recent cases of people with MS, who were still able bodied

Rodin

arccosh wrote: »

I'm not gonna lie... I didn't even think of that before I posted...



I was thinking along the lines of some of the recent cases of people with MS, who were still able bodied

Though the fine detail of how it should be implemented will be difficult to sort, there are some unfortunates whose plight is so awful that they should be allowed to end it. How dare someone tell anyone that they must suffer on....

People also may well want a dignified, nonviolent death. Many ablebodied don't want hanging, shooting, drowning but may not have the knowledge to kill themselves with pills.

Stopped Clock

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105716/amp/MS-patient-Carol-Hutchins-threw-canal-begging-sister-pay-flight-Dignitas-clinic.html

This poor woman had to resort to desperate measures to kill herself while she still had limited control over her movements.

Galwayguy35

For myself if i knew I would be ending my days with some incurable disease or not knowing who I was through dementia and relying on others to look after me I'd like there to be a legal option to end it before this happened.

None of us will have a say when we enter the world but it would be nice to have one on when we check out of it.

maudgonner

Simi wrote: »

Definitely not. We need to move past inserting laws into the Constitution. The Dail should legislate for euthanasia like a proper mature democracy. Forcing people to vote in referendums on contentious issues is not empowering the electorate, it's an act of legislative cowardice.

A referendum doesn't necessarily mean amending the constitution. While that's the usual cause of a referendum in Ireland, it's also possible to have a referendum on an issue that doesn't require any changes to the constitution but is of national importance and sensitive enough that it's wise to gauge the feelings of the nation on the question.


I'd imagine putting the question of the right to die to the public is a good idea. As for legislative cowardice, I'd rather have my say heard directly on topics like these. I chose who to vote for in a general election based on a number of issues, not one. So how can I expect my TD to reflect my wishes (as well as all his/her other constituents) on a question like this?

Widdershins

Tilikum17 wrote: »

My dad had vascular dementia. In the end he was put into the nut house because they didn’t have the training to deal with him in the hospital. He starved himself to death. I can’t put into words how horrific his death was. He was an amazing dad and that was his death.

I’ll know the signs & I’ll want to end it quick.

If people want to die they should be allowed to.

I am sorry to hear this.

My friend's been trying to care for his dad for this reason but it recently became unsustainable and all they were offered was a place in a secure ward of a psych. Unit. It does highlight a need for appropriate training, support and units for people with advanced dementia.

My friend's distraught mum has even tried to bring her husband home with the idea that he should die at home. I'm being careful with my wording about this...and the whole family have said exactly that, they all want to end it quick if they start seeing the signs.

Lewis_Benson

Brilliant album.

robwen

Can an Irish citizen assuming they can afford it travel to Switzerland or wherever it's legal & have it done?

arccosh

arccosh wrote: »

I know some health insurance plans would be void,

Not sure there would be much need for health insurance if you commit suicide.

Stopped Clock

robwen wrote: »

Can an Irish citizen assuming they can afford it travel to Switzerland or wherever it's legal & have it done?

I assume they can. It's when others try to help them that they run the risk of being prosecuted. Which sometimes leads to people opting to die sooner than they'd like.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

arccosh wrote: »

Genuine question here... but if people want to die so much, why not just do it themselves?

Before anyone hops in on suicide is terrible, I'm looking at this from a completely semantics point of view.

What would be the ramifications of just doing it yourself?

I know some health insurance plans would be void, there would be legal battles for funds etc...
I take it there is far more? Or is it a case, people just want to do it in a semi supervised manner?

Because, contrary to belief, suicide isn’t easy. The only foolproof methods are the violent ones i.e. jumping off a building. Once you get down to your overdosing and wrist-cutting, the success rate is very low. Do we really want to condemn people to a violent death? Most people won’t do that so they’ll suffer on. People want to end their lives in a reliable, peaceful manner.

Another issue is that you have to plan the suicide alone because any hint that somebody helped you could see that person get in big trouble. So you die alone, out of necessity.

Mad_maxx

arccosh wrote: »

Genuine question here... but if people want to die so much, why not just do it themselves?

Before anyone hops in on suicide is terrible, I'm looking at this from a completely semantics point of view.

What would be the ramifications of just doing it yourself?

I know some health insurance plans would be void, there would be legal battles for funds etc...
I take it there is far more? Or is it a case, people just want to do it in a semi supervised manner?

Committing suicide isn't easy and it's especially difficult for terminally ill people

wiggle16

arccosh wrote: »

Genuine question here... but if people want to die so much, why not just do it themselves?

Before anyone hops in on suicide is terrible, I'm looking at this from a completely semantics point of view.

What would be the ramifications of just doing it yourself?

I know some health insurance plans would be void, there would be legal battles for funds etc...
I take it there is far more? Or is it a case, people just want to do it in a semi supervised manner?

This is going to sound cold but.... many people survive suicide attempts, and that's because people tend to underestimate what their body is capable of withstanding. As ODB pointed out, the only "fool-proof" methods are violent ones which no one has any chance of surviving, most of which are impossible for infirm or very ill people to carry out.

In addition, wanting to die does not eliminate the fear of dying. I have no problem with death/the idea of being dead because I don't believe in an afterlife, so I won't know I'm dead. And if there is an afterlife then that will be an interesting surprise, so I don't fear death itself. But the idea of dying, the process of it, of knowing that the end is coming and you can't go back... that's terrifying. Terminally ill people who want to end their lives don't fear that any less then the rest of us.

Calhoun

wiggle16 wrote: »

This is going to sound cold but.... many people survive suicide attempts, and that's because people tend to underestimate what their body is capable of withstanding. As ODB pointed out, the only "fool-proof" methods are violent ones which no one has any chance of surviving, most of which are impossible for infirm or very ill people to carry out.

In addition, wanting to die does not eliminate the fear of dying. I have no problem with death/the idea of being dead because I don't believe in an afterlife, so I won't know I'm dead. And if there is an afterlife then that will be an interesting surprise, so I don't fear death itself. But the idea of dying, the process of it, of knowing that the end is coming and you can't go back... that's terrifying. Terminally ill people who want to end their lives don't fear that any less then the rest of us.

The one thing I think your missing is the dynamic of how you do end it changes if you legislate for it, it's all well wanting to do it and then your family finds a body somewhere with no answers.

With right to die legislation it means that you could have a conversation with your nearest and dearest of your plans, without the desperate need to go off alone to do it. I feel it gives the person and family more dignity.

Mrs OBumble

Calhoun wrote: »

With right to die legislation it means that you could have a conversation with your nearest and dearest of your plans, without the desperate need to go off alone to do it. I feel it gives the person and family more dignity.

Suicide-by-doc legislation also means that if granny is getting a bit troublesome, the loved ones can plant the idea about what a burden she is, in the hope that she'll feel sorry for them and ask to be knocked off sooner rather than later.

It also means that it's harder to tell a depressed teenager not to consider suicide as an option.

Calhoun

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Suicide-by-doc legislation also means that if granny is getting a bit troublesome, the loved ones can plant the idea about what a burden she is, in the hope that she'll feel sorry for them and ask to be knocked off sooner rather than later.

It also means that it's harder to tell a depressed teenager not to consider suicide as an option.

It's a double edge sword for sure but that's why we must have the right checks and balances if we brought in such legislation.

You don't have to go straight to the model of allowing depressed people end it all but regardless of what you do if you have a more open policy you give the person the ability to speak with their family member about it.

shamrock55

Should be a basic human right, I'd vote for it 1000000%

One eyed Jack

shamrock55 wrote: »

Should be a basic human right, I'd vote for it 1000000%

What exactly are you arguing should be a basic human right?

The idea of euthanasia or assisted suicide is that it permits people to end someone else’s life under certain circumstances and conditions. It’s still legally considered homicide, but if the circumstances and conditions and criteria are met, then the person who commits the act is not liable to be prosecuted.

Nobody is going to be offered the opportunity to vote on granting people permission to end anyone’s life any time soon, and that’s why the so-called “right to die” is something of a misleading misnomer. The implications of any right aren’t attached to the person who wants to die, or who is dying, or whom it has been determined would no longer receive any benefit from life sustaining technology. It attaches to the person who ends that person or persons life, or assists a person or persons in ending their life.

Essentially, the argument isn’t that anyone should have a right to die (it’s not necessary, we die anyway), the argument is that people should have a right to end someone else’s life without fear of prosecution.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Suicide-by-doc legislation also means that if granny is getting a bit troublesome, the loved ones can plant the idea about what a burden she is, in the hope that she'll feel sorry for them and ask to be knocked off sooner rather than later.

It also means that it's harder to tell a depressed teenager not to consider suicide as an option.

Has this been observed as a big problem in any of the jurisdictions in which medical aid in dying is legal? In some of them, it’s been legal for two decades. I think psychiatrists would be able to pick up on any reticence on the part of the person requesting assisted dying.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Has this been observed as a big problem in any of the jurisdictions in which medical aid in dying is legal? In some of them, it’s been legal for two decades.

Yes, and Oregon is an interesting case in particular with regards to the influence of how people feel they are a burden on others, rising year on year, not exponentially or anything, not like the suicide rate in Oregon anyway (which doesn’t include assisted suicide statistics), but enough to put the willies up Oregon legislators and the medical profession there.

In chronological order, the percentage of people who listed being a burden to others as one of the reasons for their decision to avail of physician-assisted suicide:

1998 - 39.2
2008 - 33.3
2016 - 48.9
2018 - 54.2

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think psychiatrists would be able to pick up on any reticence on the part of the person requesting assisted dying.

Apart from the fact that any determination one way or the other regarding your beliefs about psychiatrists abilities is entirely subjective, the data suggests that prescriptions for medication for assisted suicide are a bit of a closed shop with the majority of psychiatrists simply reluctant to prescribe medication, and those who do, gaining something of a reputation for themselves. In other words it’s simply about knowing who to go to in order to get the job done. It doesn’t have to be a majority of psychiatrists with mind reading abilities, it just has to be the minority who aren’t particularly reticent about prescribing medication which is prescribed with the specific intent of being used to end a persons life.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly are you arguing should be a basic human right?

The idea of euthanasia or assisted suicide is that it permits people to end someone else’s life under certain circumstances and conditions. It’s still legally considered homicide, but if the circumstances and conditions and criteria are met, then the person who commits the act is not liable to be prosecuted.

Nobody is going to be offered the opportunity to vote on granting people permission to end anyone’s life any time soon, and that’s why the so-called “right to die” is something of a misleading misnomer. The implications of any right aren’t attached to the person who wants to die, or who is dying, or whom it has been determined would no longer receive any benefit from life sustaining technology. It attaches to the person who ends that person or persons life, or assists a person or persons in ending their life.

Essentially, the argument isn’t that anyone should have a right to die (it’s not necessary, we die anyway), the argument is that people should have a right to end someone else’s life without fear of prosecution.

No, the assisting part is providing the medication, nothing more. The person must be able to take that medication themselves. If they can’t take the medication themselves with their own hands, the death can’t happen. I believe the event has to be filmed to prove that the person took the medication themselves. Nobody is proposing the administration of life-ending drugs by somebody else as in physically putting them into the person’s body.

Euthanasia does means somebody else putting the drugs into somebody’s body but I don’t believe anyone wants that.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not interchangeable. Though I have no doubt if this is ever debated in this country, that this dishonest likening will be made. Looking forward to it. :rolleyes: Anyone who does feel the need to claim the two are interchangeable must lack confidence in their arguments again assisted suicide. There’s a clear distinction between it and euthanasia.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, and Oregon is an interesting case in particular with regards to the influence of how people feel they are a burden on others, rising year on year, not exponentially or anything, not like the suicide rate in Oregon anyway (which doesn’t include assisted suicide statistics), but enough to put the willies up Oregon legislators and the medical profession there.

In chronological order, the percentage of people who listed being a burden to others as one of the reasons for their decision to avail of physician-assisted suicide:

1998 - 39.2
2008 - 33.3
2016 - 48.9
2018 - 54.2

Those statistics don’t tell us anything about coercion. One might feel a burden but it doesn’t mean that anyone else made them feel that way.

The rest of your post is classic OEJ waffle that I couldn’t read more than a few words of.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, the assisting part is providing the medication, nothing more. The person must be able to take that medication themselves. If they can’t take the medication themselves with their own hands, the death can’t happen. I believe the event has to be filmed to prove that the person took the medication themselves. Nobody is proposing the administration of life-ending drugs by somebody else as in physically putting them into the person’s body.

I was speaking generally of the concept of assisted suicide, the key difference of course between suicide which isn’t unlawful, and assisted suicide which is unlawful, is the involvement of another party in assisting the person who intends to end their life. That’s why Gail O’ Rourke was arrested, and later found not guilty of the offence under Irish law -


Gail O'Rorke found not guilty of assisting the suicide of her friend

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Euthanasia does means somebody else putting the drugs into somebody’s body but I don’t believe anyone wants that.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean, and I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s my misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that nobody is arguing for euthanasia? Already it’s been argued in just this thread alone that euthanasia should be considered a basic human right!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not interchangeable. Though I have no doubt if this is ever debated in this country, that this dishonest likening will be made. Looking forward to it. :rolleyes: Anyone who does feel the need to claim the two are interchangeable must lack confidence in their arguments again assisted suicide. There’s a clear distinction between it and euthanasia.

I wouldn’t want anyone mixing up physician assisted euthanasia, with some jackass assisted suicide imagining they’re exercising a basic human right either tbh. I’d have no qualms about seeing that person punished to the fullest extent of the law for the commission of an offence, if only to discourage jackasses of a similar mindset from any kind of copycat behaviour.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Those statistics don’t tell us anything about coercion. One might feel a burden but it doesn’t mean that anyone else made them feel that way.

They don’t spoonfeed you the information, no, but to a reasonable person at least it’s obvious that the statistics indicate a rising number of people are availing of assisted suicide because they imagine themselves to be a burden on others. They don’t form ideas like that in isolation. They receive those messages from the society in which they live, constantly being reinforced in their minds.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The rest of your post is classic OEJ waffle that I couldn’t read more than a few words of.

I was getting worried reading yours that you’d lost your ability to be condescending. Phew, right at the end there! :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but to a reasonable person at least it’s obvious that the statistics indicate a rising number of people are availing of assisted suicide because they imagine themselves to be a burden on others.

Ah the old "A reasonable person would agree with me" move. The implication being that anyone who does not swallow an assertion whole is therefore an unreasonable person. However the statistics in the link you cite do not, alone, allow us to jump to that conclusion at all no. What you have is a SINGLE data point which was consistent for a time then suddenly started going up year on year. There are any number of "reasonable" explanations for such a change. Any one or more of which could be true. You have merely selected the one that suits you personally the best. But without any data that supports it. There are also a few concerns you are missing here.

One important concern is that these people are not filling out ONE end of life concern but several. So an increase in people citing "being a burden" just means an increase in people including that on the COMPLETE LIST of concerns that are leading them to make that choice. For us to share the conclusion you have jumped to, we would have to gauge more information that that. Such as where on the list of their concerns, in terms of priority, it stands. The fact is that "being a burden" remains in the bottom three concerns statistically. The important information about how relevant a criteria this one is on their list is data we do not have in those statistics. If we look to other links than your own therefore we find that "Other concerns, including that of being a burden on family, friends and caregivers, are cited by fewer than half of those who make use of the law, and almost always in conjunction with other, more frequently cited concerns." And in another source showing where in the priority that concern lies it was half way down the list. Coming in at a 3.5 score on a 1 to 5 scale if I recall.

Another important concern with jumping to that conclusion is we are assuming the concerns cited by patients are their actual reasons and concerns for seeking the choice. I am not so sure this is safe assumption given they have to consult with a professional who grants them access to assisting them with their choice. So the fact they are giving this reason does not automatically mean it IS their reason. It just means it is, for whatever reason(s) the explanation and motivation they choose to give. For example people can make choices of that nature and then RETROSPECTIVELY fit the explanations to it that they feel others want to hear. Or if they are coached, or have come to the conclusion some other way, that giving this as a reason were to improve their chances of approval of their application..... some will of course give that as a reason. Just like if you limit abortion choices only to women who present as suicidal, you are going to get some women DECIDING to present as suicidal. When there is a sudden marked and constant increase in a reason given therefore, especially after a multi year period of stability in that measure which "being a burden" was for a time, it is not safe to simply assume to know what the explanation for that rise is. It should be investigated to determine if some procedural or other aspect is motivating the rise and to discount that as an explanation first before drawing any other conclusion at all. For one example of MANY I did not see on a quick reading of your link HOW this information was collated. Is it a paper questionnaire? Verbal? Free choice? Multiple choice? Has the method of collation of the information changed in the years or remained consistent? ALL of this could affect the statistic. All we know, in other words is that that statistic went up. Explanations as to WHY this is, is without further data merely assumption and narrative at this time.

A third version important concern however is that "Family members describe loved ones who pursue PAD as individuals for whom being independent and in control is important". So here we have to be cautious about how we interpret the "being a burden" statistic too. Because it then becomes a "self selecting" statistic. That is..... people who value independence and control are already pre-selected to be people who wish to avoid being a burden to others. So the "being a burden" statistic becomes more a measure of that type of character, than it is a valid measure of PAD in and of itself. Or put another way, the statistic is less telling us the reasoning that leads people to PAD, but more telling us the TYPE of person likely to seek PAD in the first place. In fact another paper on the matter notes this potential too when it says "That Oregon PAS patients almost always discussed concern about becoming a burden in conjunction with losing autonomy suggests that it might be part of patients’ ideas about independence. However, a negative interpretation of concern about becoming a burden is that patients may feel pressured by others into using PAS. No evidence indicates that such pressure has been a primary motivating influence among the 70 Oregon patients participating to date" and another source also agrees suggesting "That evidence suggests that the desire to hasten death often comes from wanting to maintain some power over one's own life" and that "they found no indication that the former group was motivated by financial concerns or being a burden to their loved ones".

Now NONE of this is me suggesting it is not a valid concern, or that it is not a possibility that patients are somehow being given the idea there are a burden so they should just bugger off and die and do everyone else a favour. These things are all of course entirely possible. But it is not really a valid concern based off one single, vague, data point. The data point offered in your link does nothing more to a "reasonable person" than say "Look over here! Something interesting is happening! Please come study it further!".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t form ideas like that in isolation. They receive those messages from the society in which they live, constantly being reinforced in their minds.

Well to echo a little your own words from the opening of post #16 above..... You are not psychic and you frankly can not possibly know where people form their ideas from. Let alone declare where they do NOT form them from. You have no basis for this assertion that I can yet see. You are just making it up to suit yourself. As you said yourself in that opening paragraph in the post above "You’re being incredibly presumptuous there really."

There is absolutely no reason at all why people can not, and would not, come to such conclusions themselves in isolation. Even if every loved one around them, in great numbers, are constantly reassuring them to the contrary, such a person can STILL decide themselves they do not wish to be a burden on others. You seemingly are pretending to know what these people think based solely on what your already held positions on the matter require them to be thinking.

Hell it is not like it is even some crazy out there non-sequitur thought that is amazing anyone ever jumps to. It is an entirely natural, simple, basic, obvious thing to think and feel based on nothing more external than the thoughts, emotions, experiences of one's own life. Nothing to do with ominous vague shadowy "messages" being pumped from some nebulous source in Society. It requires nothing more than noticing in your life that when you support others it places a burden on you and your time and resources. Therefore if someone has to look after you and support you, you will be a burden on their time and resources too. Why can someone not reach that conclusion "in isolation" exactly?

In fact when we read the paper "Experiences of Oregon Nurses and Social Workers with Hospice Patients Who Requested Assistance with Suicide" we are told the opposite of what you are saying here. They say "Patients who received prescriptions for lethal medications were concerned about burdening their families. Their families, however, were considered less likely to be burdened by caretaking, including the cost of care, and were more likely to find positive meaning in providing care than were the families of other hospice patients. Among these patients, the fear of being a burden may have reflected their own reaction to the thought of being dependent during the dying process rather than communication with their families."

In other words, in direct contrast to what you are claiming, the description above very much is of them coming to those ideas in isolation themselves. Based on THEIR OWN reaction and based on their idea of being a burden being heavily tied in with their ideas of autonomy and control. Even in opposition to any communication with their families or their society they may or may not be having. Though at least they are being honest including words like "may" here rather than pretending to know for sure what ideas those patients do or do not form, or how, purely by the virtue of their psychic powers. And again as a paper I cited above stated "a negative interpretation of concern about becoming a burden is that patients may feel pressured by others into using PAS. No evidence indicates that such pressure has been a primary motivating influence among the 70 Oregon patients participating to date".

So I am not sure what messages you feel they are receiving from society, nor their source or their content. That all sounds contrived to be hand wavy, ominous and scare mongery but with no substance. What messages? From what source? With what content? With what intent? In what form?

But the professionals writing on the topic above seem to say little more than this is the kind of concern we should at least be aware of, open about, and communicate about, but there is no evidence at this time it is actually a factor in play that we should be jumping to any paranoid, let alone psychic, conclusions about. And I am fully in line with their authority and experience and opinion here. We should be very hyper sensitive to individual cases where someone is being pressured in this way into an option they might not otherwise want to take. But we should also be hyper sensitive to any attempts to blow that concern out of proportion. Most of all if it were to be construed as an argument against offering services like PAD in the first place.

Hannibal_Smith

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Suicide-by-doc legislation also means that if granny is getting a bit troublesome, the loved ones can plant the idea about what a burden she is, in the hope that she'll feel sorry for them and ask to be knocked off sooner rather than later.

It also means that it's harder to tell a depressed teenager not to consider suicide as an option.

In Switzerland when you go to the euthanasia centre, or what ever its called, you go through an evaluation process. They have to make sure that the decision is yours and yours alone.

Similarly, with the drink, they have to be able to life the glass ans drink it themselves. Otherwise its murder.

Its a really beautiful peaceful end. People do it for all sorts of reasons. But its regularised, there are rules to it.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly are you arguing should be a basic human right?

The idea of euthanasia or assisted suicide is that it permits people to end someone else’s life under certain circumstances and conditions. It’s still legally considered homicide, but if the circumstances and conditions and criteria are met, then the person who commits the act is not liable to be prosecuted.
.

No its not. You have to be in your full senses and you have to drink the drink yourself. They are not allowed feed it to you. All they do is comfort you when you take it.

Its not permitting anyone else to do it and if youre passed the stage of not being able physically to lift the glass yourself, they cant go through with it.

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No its not. You have to be in your full senses and you have to drink the drink yourself. They are not allowed feed it to you. All they do is comfort you when you take it.

Its not permitting anyone else to do it and if youre passed the stage of not being able physically to lift the glass yourself, they cant go through with it.

I think we need to be careful about what we’re describing here because it’s like you ignored the part where I said “once certain terms and conditions and criteria are met, then a person is not liable to be prosecuted”. What you’re describing is only one form of assisted suicide - passive assisted suicide, and from the way you’re describing it, it could certainly leave a person liable to being prosecuted under current Irish law.

That’s why I said earlier I wouldn’t want some jackass getting ideas and thinking they shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. In Ireland the people involved could face prosecution in the circumstances you’re describing if I understand you correctly.

The medical profession in Ireland already have guidelines which allow for circumstances where treatment may be withdrawn or discontinued, but they are prohibited by Irish law from acting deliberately to end another person’s life -


Guidelines issued to Irish doctors by the Medical Council are clear, stating they “must not participate in the deliberate killing of a patient by active means”. However, the guidelines also advise physicians: “There is no obligation on you to start or continue a treatment, or artificial nutrition and hydration, that is futile or disproportionately burdensome, even if such treatment may prolong life.”


A person who is not a medical professional should not be granted the right to assist or encourage or facilitate in any way, another person who chooses to end their own life, and a person should not have the right to request that another person who is not a medical professional should have a right to end their life, as were the circumstances in the case where Gail O’ Rorke was prosecuted for her part in the death of Bernadette Forde.

ILoveYourVibes

I don't have the answer. There is probably no definitive one.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think we need to be careful about what we’re describing here because it’s like you ignored the part where I said “once certain terms and conditions and criteria are met, then a person is not liable to be prosecuted”. What you’re describing is only one form of assisted suicide - passive assisted suicide, and from the way you’re describing it, it could certainly leave a person liable to being prosecuted under current Irish law.

That’s why I said earlier I wouldn’t want some jackass getting ideas and thinking they shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. In Ireland the people involved could face prosecution in the circumstances you’re describing if I understand you correctly.

The medical profession in Ireland already have guidelines which allow for circumstances where treatment may be withdrawn or discontinued, but they are prohibited by Irish law from acting deliberately to end another person’s life -


Guidelines issued to Irish doctors by the Medical Council are clear, stating they “must not participate in the deliberate killing of a patient by active means”. However, the guidelines also advise physicians: “There is no obligation on you to start or continue a treatment, or artificial nutrition and hydration, that is futile or disproportionately burdensome, even if such treatment may prolong life.”


A person who is not a medical professional should not be granted the right to assist or encourage or facilitate in any way, another person who chooses to end their own life, and a person should not have the right to request that another person who is not a medical professional should have a right to end their life, as were the circumstances in the case where Gail O’ Rorke was prosecuted for her part in the death of Bernadette Forde.

I never mentioned current irish legislation remaining the same. Of course it would have to be amended or changed to legalise euthanasia.

The method i described is exactly to remove any direct assistance from The People in the room. Feeding them the drink is murder no matter where euthanasia is allowed.

Again, i never suggested anyone BUT a doctor would facilitate the assisted suicide. Doctors and medical staff have to be there. You can also have a family member with you.

Bernadette Forde is a bit of a side step. Euthanasia isnt allowed here. Im not recommending someone just deciding it and away they go. Im all for it, when it is regularised properly.

If you look at Terry Pratchetts documentary on it, its a vwry interesting watch.

Bigbagofcans

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

In Switzerland when you go to the euthanasia centre, or what ever its called, you go through an evaluation process. They have to make sure that the decision is yours and yours alone.

Similarly, with the drink, they have to be able to life the glass ans drink it themselves. Otherwise its murder.

So does that mean someone with locked-in syndrome can't be euthanised?

Hannibal_Smith

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

So does that mean someone with locked-in syndrome can't be euthanised?

It depends how far legislation goes i would imagine.

Will they allow doctors become actively involved in administering what needs to be administered.

But whether its active or passive, i suppose with locked in syndrome, youd have difficulty in passing the initial stages of being able to fully communicate that this is your wish? Im not really sure about locked in syndrome and how they deal with that.

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I never mentioned current irish legislation remaining the same. Of course it would have to be amended or changed to legalise euthanasia.

The method i described is exactly to remove any direct assistance from The People in the room. Feeding them the drink is murder no matter where euthanasia is allowed.

Again, i never suggested anyone BUT a doctor would facilitate the assisted suicide. Doctors and medical staff have to be there. You can also have a family member with you.

Bernadette Forde is a bit of a side step. Euthanasia isnt allowed here. Im not recommending someone just deciding it and away they go. Im all for it, when it is regularised properly.

If you look at Terry Pratchetts documentary on it, its a vwry interesting watch.

The method you described is likely the same method Ms. Forde was advised by Exit International, and they assumed too that by avoiding giving direct assistance, they would be unlikely to be held criminally liable for their part they played in the death of Ms. Forde. It’s no surprise that all parties involved were trying to pass the buck and absolve themselves of any responsibility for her death -

Gail O'Rorke says someone else was with her friend when she took her own life

Even if Irish law were changed to permit people under certain circumstances to end the life of another person, the people involved in the death of Ms. Forde could still find themselves facing criminal prosecution. You made no mention of medical supervision in your post. You described one method of how passive assisted suicide is practiced in other jurisdictions is all.

I think the way procedures are regulated now is fine. I don’t think we should legislate for anyone to be able to take another persons life. Physicians already have guidelines that don’t include actively and deliberately ending a persons life.

I’ve watched plenty of documentaries on the subject and I have plenty of experience of people with what are considered terminal illnesses, and that’s precisely why I’m opposed to the idea of the State granting anyone permission to end another persons life.