Assisted Suicide

Turtwig · 08-02-2015 11:12pm

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

recedite · 10-02-2015 1:25am

Gbear wrote: »

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

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

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

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Cabaal · 10-02-2015 12:53pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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

lazygal · 10-02-2015 1:00pm

Cabaal wrote: »

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

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

04-08-2015 2:19pm

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

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

Cabaal · 04-08-2015 4:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Its her body, its her right.

04-08-2015 4:28pm

Cabaal wrote: »

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

Its her body, its her right.

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

Lucy8080 · 04-08-2015 5:46pm

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

Starts at 8 minutes in .

Peregrinus · 05-08-2015 6:00am

Cabaal wrote: »

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

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

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

magicbastarder · 05-08-2015 8:35am

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

what she chose was suicide; not euthanasia.

05-08-2015 8:42am

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

Peregrinus · 05-08-2015 9:03am

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

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

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

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

05-08-2015 9:16am

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

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

Peregrinus · 05-08-2015 9:25am

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

recedite · 05-08-2015 9:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus · 05-08-2015 9:57am

recedite wrote: »

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

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

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

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

recedite · 05-08-2015 10:10am

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

magicbastarder · 05-08-2015 10:17am

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

Huntergonzo · 05-08-2015 10:47am

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

Peregrinus · 06-08-2015 3:11am

recedite wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Mark Hamill · 07-08-2015 11:33am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is more akin to somebody choosing to die because of how they feel about being gay.

Not really. Wanting to die because you are afraid of being gay is disturbing because there is nothing to fear (or should be nothing to fear) about being gay. Wanting to die because you are afraid of being decrepitly old may be irrational, even very irrational, but it's not disturbingly so because being decrepit is a bad thing.

The funny thing here is regardless of what you feel about this womans suicide, it still supports a proper home-country euthanasia system. Either you believe this womans fear was justified, and therefore she should have the dignity of ending her life with family and friends, or you believe she was being irrational, in which case a euthanasia system with counselling, as well as psychological assessment, would have convinced her otherwise.

recedite · 07-08-2015 3:47pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

She mentioned back pain and generally "going downhill". I agree it seems not to be anything too major, but I would not say "no infirmity" either. We are all going to die, and basically she is skipping the last bit of her lifespan, because she decided it wasn't for her.

Did you ever notice when eating out, say in a cafe or whatever, that some people eat every scrap on their plate, while others leave behind the bits they don't really like? Those who clean everything off their plate are usually disdainful of those who don't. But at the end of the day, if they only want to eat the best bits and leave the rest, why should anyone else care? OK there may be a moral hazard with food wastage, but at this point the analogy breaks down.

If you want to look at what it takes to keep the infirm elderly alive at all costs from a moral hazard point of view, a small fraction of that cost would save many more children in Africa from dying of malaria. But we would rather spend the money on our own relatives, keeping them alive in a nursing home; often they are barely aware that they are even alive.

robindch · 13-11-2019 11:52pm

New Zealand to hold a referendum on assisted dying next year:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50408033

BBC wrote:

The law would allow terminally ill people with less than six months to live the opportunity to choose assisted dying if approved by two doctors.

Cabaal · 14-11-2019 8:39am

Would be nice to see Ireland holding a ref on this,

magicbastarder · 14-11-2019 9:05am

i think there have been initial moves to refer it to the citizen's assembly, which would be a decent first step.

Bannasidhe · 14-11-2019 11:25am

Cabaal wrote: »

Would be nice to see Ireland holding a ref on this,

Would it need a ref?
Is there anything in the Constitution forbidding it that would need to be changed/amended?

smacl · 14-11-2019 11:39am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would it need a ref?
Is there anything in the Constitution forbidding it that would need to be changed/amended?

I was under the impression, quite possibly incorrectly, that assisted suicide was tantamount to murder in this country.

magicbastarder · 14-11-2019 11:43am

would this be the 'problematic' part?

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-11-2019 11:50am

Cabaal wrote: »

Would be nice to see Ireland holding a ref on this,

Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing stopping the Oireachtas legislating in this regard.

Apart from extreme cowardice, of course.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ruling-on-assisted-suicide-batted-problem-back-to-politicians-1.1635128

In Fleming v Ireland, the seven-judge Supreme Court held that although suicide is no longer a crime in Ireland, this does not mean there is a constitutional right to take one’s own life or to determine the time of one’s death. It also found that the principle of equal treatment did not confer on Ms Fleming, as a disabled person, the right to be helped in taking her own life.

While the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, it stressed that nothing in the judgment should be taken as necessarily implying that it would not be open to the State, if the Oireachtas was satisfied it could find appropriate safeguards, to deal with a case such as that of Ms Fleming.

With that, the ball has been batted back to the politicians.

Bannasidhe · 14-11-2019 11:55am

magicbastarder wrote: »

would this be the 'problematic' part?

Then it would come down to the interpretation of 'unjust'.
Theoretically, if that is the case, legislation could be passed to deem assisted suicide under defined conditions is 'just', and then it would be up to the President/Council of State.. and possible the Supreme Court.. to decide if such legislation was Constitutional.

Assisted Suicide

Comments