Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
Arguing that X won't happen because it didn't happen in country Y is a bad argument because it proves too much.

People in the United States aren't rounded up and summarily executed simply because we have the death penalty. Is this a reason to support the death penalty in the UK? No.

People in Amsterdam don't get high all the time and abandon their families simply because pot is legal. Is this a reason to support pot legalisation? No.

Women in Ireland aren't oppressed because abortion is illegal. Is this a reason to support bans on abortion? No.

That's all out of context, someone says that it would lead to people being killed for their own good, too which someone replied, it doesn't happen where its legal.

That is a valid argument

mattyrm, I think this is an issue we can agree on. Having given a dearly beloved pet a peaceful and dignified end this January, it angers me greatly that human friends and family have no such recourse.

The Debbie Purdy case was a textbook example of the hysteria that surrounds this issue. An MS sufferer, she wanted the supreme court to confirm what the law's position would be if her husband were to help her seek assisted suicide abroad; UK law carries a sentence of up to 14 years if you 'aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another'. She had to go to the House of Lords to force the courts to force the government to publish guidelines on assisted suicide law.

Note that this wasn't a campaign to change the law; it was a campaign to get the legal system to concretely state what the law is as it stands, and it still took multiple appeals to get anywhere.

Albatross wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:How long before we decide to euthanase people 'for their own/the greater good?'

It's a pretty big leap from a person electing to end their life at a time of their own choosing, to killing people for 'the greater good'. Actually, the leap is huge.

I'm not even sure how you can draw an equivalency between permission and coercion, to be honest.

Thats the point.

Honestly, its flat out ridiculous. Cant people see that? The entire argument is ludicrous.

"Ok because I can end my life at a time of my own choosing Im off to kill everyone in a wheelchair"

If you think that doesn't sound absolutely fething ridiculous, then crack on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lindsay40k wrote:mattyrm, I think this is an issue we can agree on. Having given a dearly beloved pet a peaceful and dignified end this January, it angers me greatly that human friends and family have no such recourse.

The Debbie Purdy case was a textbook example of the hysteria that surrounds this issue. An MS sufferer, she wanted the supreme court to confirm what the law's position would be if her husband were to help her seek assisted suicide abroad; UK law carries a sentence of up to 14 years if you 'aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another'. She had to go to the House of Lords to force the courts to force the government to publish guidelines on assisted suicide law.

Note that this wasn't a campaign to change the law; it was a campaign to get the legal system to concretely state what the law is as it stands, and it still took multiple appeals to get anywhere.

Im glad we can agree on something mate.

As I said, if its good enough for peoples much loved cats and dogs, why not for ourselves? Its nobody's choice but your own, and as always its the churches sticking their fething noses in.

The main reason I got so militant against the church was because of their stance on this. If my wife is rotting to death because of cancer and she begs me to allow her to die, what the feth has this got to do with some guy in a funny costume who has never met me or my wife?

Why, its hard to keep the rage in!

This is an issue which is very close to my heart. Both my mother and my mother's sister suffer from Friedreich's ataxia

You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.

Last year, my aunt decided she had had enough (she was slightly worse with her symptoms than my mother). She refused her insulin treatment, was taken into a hospice and died over a period of two weeks after ensuring she had declared a 'living will' in place to prevent treatment being administered.

Basically, the only way she could control her life and death, in a manner of her choosing, was to slip off the face of the earth by her fingernails in a way which if she were a dog, would be considered deplorable and inhumane. I wouldn't wish my mother the same fate and nor would I wish it on my worst enemy. My mother has already contemplated solutions like Dignitas and assisted suicide, because when you can do bugger all, you have plenty of time to think about it.

filbert wrote:This is an issue which is very close to my heart. Both my mother and my mother's sister suffer from Friedreich's ataxia

You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.

Last year, my aunt decided she had had enough (she was slightly worse with her symptoms than my mother). She refused her insulin treatment, was taken into a hospice and died over a period of two weeks after ensuring she had declared a 'living will' in place to prevent treatment being administered.

Basically, the only way she could control her life and death, in a manner of her choosing, was to slip off the face of the earth by her fingernails in a way which if she were a dog, would be considered deplorable and inhumane. I wouldn't wish my mother the same fate and nor would I wish it on my worst enemy. My mother has already contemplated solutions like Dignitas and assisted suicide, because when you can do bugger all, you have plenty of time to think about it.

fething right. I dont go into my life story cos I dont want to look like a big girls blouse, but my mum snuffed it at 32 with cancer, and she basically turned into a yellow skeleton over a period of about 6 months, and it was the worst thing you can see as a kid. If she demanded my Dad help her out and give her some extra morphine, why has that got anything to do with Religious people? Its between my mum, my dad, and if we were old enough, their kids.

Nobody else.

If they had it their way my old man would have had to do it with a fething shovel while nobody was looking!

biccat wrote:
Another reason to prohibit "assisted suicide" (i.e. homicide) is because ease of access to the "procedure" can lead to an increase in suicide amongst depressed people. And if consent is a defense to homicide, it gives criminal defendants a new tool in their defense that functions as a means to attack the victim.

This is why we place the decision in the hands of a learned and experience commitee of people that is controlled and regulated by the government. That way, only people who would actually be better off dead would be considered. The commitee looks at quality of life, treatability of condition, options left etc etc to decide whether they are allowed to be euthanised.

Two examples:
Depression - Treatable? Yes, Terminal? No, Quality of Life? Likely to improve through continuous treatment and counselling, Suffering? Yes but again likely to improve. So commitee denies suicide
Terminal Cancer (i.e. all treatments have failed, death is guaranteed) - Treatable? By definition no, Terminal? Yes, Quality of Life? Will slowly degrade as cancer develops, Suffering? Guaranteed, will get worse as cancer develops. So commitee approves suicide.

The whole point is that we should be able to request to die with dignity, but the decision should be based solely on an unbiased and medically sound analysis.

filbert wrote:You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.

And do you think your life would have been better off without your mother and aunt for the last 30 years? Did either one of them have an enjoyable experience in those 30 years that they (and friends or family) would have missed out on during those 30 years?

I imagine the answers are "no" and "yes," respectively.

The idea that a hard life is worse than no life at all is astounding to me.

Leigen_Zero wrote:Two examples:
Depression - Treatable? Yes, Terminal? No, Quality of Life? Likely to improve through continuous treatment and counselling, Suffering? Yes but again likely to improve. So commitee denies suicide.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to end their life in a secure environment be granted consideration. Even with heavy medication and treatment, some people suffering from depression still have no quality of life.

There are a number of non-terminal illnesses or accidents that I could suffer where-by I would consider (at least, I believe I would consider) ending my own life (or asking someone to end it for me). If someone genuinely wants to die they should be considered regardless of their "illness".

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.

The idea that a hard life is worse than no life at all is astounding to me.

Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me. That's not to say it has always been like this; its a degenerative illness - but the point is it gets to a stage where living with is too hard.

Leigen_Zero wrote:This is why we place the decision in the hands of a learned and experience commitee of people that is controlled and regulated by the government. That way, only people who would actually be better off dead would be considered. The commitee looks at quality of life, treatability of condition, options left etc etc to decide whether they are allowed to be euthanised.

This is even worse. Giving a panel of "experts" the right to determine if you have the opportunity to "choose to die"? The government making a determination that some people "would be better off dead."

I am honestly sickened at the thought that some panel of experts can:
1) determine that your life is not worth living; or
2) determine the scope of your rights (assuming there's a "right to die")


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.

I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.

biccat wrote:

Leigen_Zero wrote:This is why we place the decision in the hands of a learned and experience commitee of people that is controlled and regulated by the government. That way, only people who would actually be better off dead would be considered. The commitee looks at quality of life, treatability of condition, options left etc etc to decide whether they are allowed to be euthanised.

This is even worse. Giving a panel of "experts" the right to determine if you have the opportunity to "choose to die"? The government making a determination that some people "would be better off dead."

I am honestly sickened at the thought that some panel of experts can:
1) determine that your life is not worth living; or
2) determine the scope of your rights (assuming there's a "right to die")


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.

I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.

The point is YOU decide bic, cant you understand that simple point?

YOU choose. Not a panel, not your wife, not a random guy. You dont roll a dice, you decide to do it yourself while still of sound mind.

Would you describe yourself as a Religious man Bicc? I ask because Ive yet to meet a man who strongly disagrees with the right to die who isn't.

biccat wrote:The idea that a hard life is worse than no life at all is astounding to me.

If you were confined to your bed for the rest of your life, were incontinent, had little to no control over your limbs and could only continue through a massive intake of various drug and pain killers which only just took the edge off your condition, would you still want to live?

Granted, this is a pretty nebulous debate - the point at which life is worth living differs for many people. Some will cling to it with both hands, fighting for every second, others will cry out for an end to their suffering, even if comparatively "mild" in the grand scheme of things.

Some people who would have said they would end their life when the time came change their mind and keep the machines on and pills flowing, whilst others who are staunchly against suicide, assisted or otherwise, will seek the embrace of death. It is one of those situations where you will never really know how you will react until you get there. However, the point remains is that people do decide that they want to end their lives, but are denied the ability to do so.

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.

I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.

I don't believe you - simple as that.

filbert wrote:

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.

I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.

I don't believe you - simple as that.

If he is toppers with Jesus juice I absolutely believe it and I absolutely believe he is sincere.

They also happily ignore science, logic, common sense and outright facts if it contradicts what their pastors tell them or what they think Jesus apparently said.

They are sincere alright, mores the pity.

Religious beliefs aside, Michael Moore made a pertinent point in one of his books/diatribes, that once Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers, a surprising amount of previously anti stem cell treatment proponents suddenly reversed their opinion and thought that stem cell treatment might actually be a good thing.

The point is, you can never say for certain what you will or won't do until you get in the situation.

mattyrm wrote:

filbert wrote:This is an issue which is very close to my heart. Both my mother and my mother's sister suffer from Friedreich's ataxia

You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.

Last year, my aunt decided she had had enough (she was slightly worse with her symptoms than my mother). She refused her insulin treatment, was taken into a hospice and died over a period of two weeks after ensuring she had declared a 'living will' in place to prevent treatment being administered.

Basically, the only way she could control her life and death, in a manner of her choosing, was to slip off the face of the earth by her fingernails in a way which if she were a dog, would be considered deplorable and inhumane. I wouldn't wish my mother the same fate and nor would I wish it on my worst enemy. My mother has already contemplated solutions like Dignitas and assisted suicide, because when you can do bugger all, you have plenty of time to think about it.

fething right. I dont go into my life story cos I dont want to look like a big girls blouse, but my mum snuffed it at 32 with cancer, and she basically turned into a yellow skeleton over a period of about 6 months, and it was the worst thing you can see as a kid. If she demanded my Dad help her out and give her some extra morphine, why has that got anything to do with Religious people? Its between my mum, my dad, and if we were old enough, their kids.

Nobody else.

Agree totally with both of these statements - says it far better than I ever could.

mattyrm wrote: The point is YOU decide bic, cant you understand that simple point?

Of course I understand the point. And I think that people should have the right to decide if they want to end their life. I think it's a poor decision, but they do have that choice.

What they don't (and shouldn't) have the "right" to do is procure the services of someone else.

mattyrm wrote:YOU choose. Not a panel, not your wife, not a random guy. You dont roll a dice, you decide to do it yourself while still of sound mind.

Um, the point has been made that a panel of experts decides whether you get that option or not. Depressed people can walk into the suicide booth, pop in a quarter, and get processed into soylent green.

I think that such easy access to suicide (as a right) is a problem. However, if you impose substantial burdens on the exercise of this "right," then you're admitting it's not a right.

mattyrm wrote:Would you describe yourself as a Religious man Bicc? I ask because Ive yet to meet a man who strongly disagrees with the right to die who isn't.

I am religious (in that I have religious beliefs), but my opposition to assisted suicide isn't based on religion, it's based on several objective facts, as I've pointed out before.

SilverMK2 wrote:If you were confined to your bed for the rest of your life, were incontinent, had little to no control over your limbs and could only continue through a massive intake of various drug and pain killers which only just took the edge off your condition, would you still want to live?

Yes.

SilverMK2 wrote:Granted, this is a pretty nebulous debate - the point at which life is worth living differs for many people. Some will cling to it with both hands, fighting for every second, others will cry out for an end to their suffering, even if comparatively "mild" in the grand scheme of things.

And some will end their life at the drop of a hat, or because their girlfriend dumped them. Should we be encouraging or abetting such behavior?

SilverMK2 wrote:Some people who would have said they would end their life when the time came change their mind and keep the machines on and pills flowing, whilst others who are staunchly against suicide, assisted or otherwise, will seek the embrace of death. It is one of those situations where you will never really know how you will react until you get there. However, the point remains is that people do decide that they want to end their lives, but are denied the ability to do so.

I have made my intentions clear to my family on life saving treatments. The so-called "right-to-die" isn't about the right to refuse treatment (a passive death), but the right of physicians to help the person actively achieve death.

filbert wrote:

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.

I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.

I don't believe you - simple as that.

If you can't take someone at their word, how do you expect to know when someone really means that they want to end their life, rather than just posturing?

Just leave it to the Death Panels, they will know when it is time.

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.

I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.

I don't believe you - simple as that.

If you can't take someone at their word, how do you expect to know when someone really means that they want to end their life, rather than just posturing?

Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word. If I had to sit down with someone and consider their mental and physical state, health records, physician's opinions as well as spending time talking to them and their family then I would think I would be in a better position of judging whether that person really wants to end their life. As I said, if you haven't been in that position or had close experience of what it is like, then it is very difficult to say with certainty what you would or wouldn't do and how you would or wouldn't act. Anything else is just postulating.

As far as assissted suicide goes, I personally don't think that it is right, however, I can understand why a person would choose to do it. I refuse to judge a person since I don't know what they are going through, how they feel, or how they see any given situation. If I were brain dead and had no possiblility or recovery then as far as I'm concerned I'm already dead, my body just doesn't know it yet. If I have to face a slow decline of health until my eventual painful death then I'll take it since I can at least spend some time with family and friends. I've had family members die this way and yes it sucks, but I respect them for be willing to endure just for everyone else's sake. I am a religious person, but I believe in free will and I won't force my view on anyone so if they want to go quick and painless, then I wont stop them.

filbert wrote:Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word.

Wait, why not? If you are going to give someone the right to assisted suicide on the grounds that they are better off dead, why make them suffer another day?

filbert wrote:As I said, if you haven't been in that position or had close experience of what it is like, then it is very difficult to say with certainty what you would or wouldn't do and how you would or wouldn't act. Anything else is just postulating.

And what are you basing your knowledge on that I "haven't been in that position or had close experience of what it is like"?

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word.

Wait, why not? If you are going to give someone the right to assisted suicide on the grounds that they are better off dead, why make them suffer another day?

So you advocate allowing people to come in off the street, tell a Doctor there and then and receive a lethal injection without any form of control, scrutiny, checks or balances?

filbert wrote:

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word.

Wait, why not? If you are going to give someone the right to assisted suicide on the grounds that they are better off dead, why make them suffer another day?

So you advocate allowing people to come in off the street, tell a Doctor there and then and receive a lethal injection without any form of control, scrutiny, checks or balances?

No, I'm advocating against assisted suicide.

I'm just pointing out that your position is inconsistent.

biccat wrote:
I'm just pointing out that your position is inconsistent.

I haven't said anything about assisted suicide, either in principle or in how it would be practiced. All I have outlined is my mother and aunt's situation and the manner with which they live/die and suggested that it might not be entirely humane.

filbert wrote:

biccat wrote:
I'm just pointing out that your position is inconsistent.

I haven't said anything about assisted suicide, either in principle or in how it would be practiced. All I have outlined is my mother and aunt's situation and the manner with which they live/die and suggested that it might not be entirely humane.

My mistake then for assuming you were advocating for assisted suicide. The tone of your post was slanted in that direction so I mentally lumped you in with the others I was responding to.

The point I was trying to make (and failing it seems) is that you can't really say what you may or may not do, until such time as you are in that given situation. I have often said if I found myself in a position like my mother, given what I have experienced with her, that I would top myself, but would I really? If it came to the crunch and I was staring down the barrel of a gun or a syringe, would I really have the mettle to do it? Maybe not. That's why I have enormous respect for my aunt; she choose to go out with the only realistic option left to her, given that she was incapable of taking her life any other way, knowing full well that it would be a slow and painful death. That takes a lot of balls, frankly.

I can't say I am for or against assisted suicide; its not an easy call to make and I wouldn't want to be the one making that call. I would suggest that perhaps we contemplate how we care for the terminally ill and whether a patient has the right to ask a doctor to withhold treatment or whether someone should be allowed to choose the manner and time of their own death.

Its just such a shame it gets used as a political (and to a certain extent) religious football. We should be concerned with people's well being, not scoring points off either side.

I don't even see why its a debate.

Well, I do see why, its because dick heads like to think they can order us all around.

If I WANT to kill myself, what the feth has it got to do with you?

I agree there filbert. It really does make me wanna slap people when they sit there and force you to live the way they want to live. Then they get pissed when you tell them that you don't want to live like that and they tell you that you wrong about everything or whatever.

mattyrm wrote: I don't even see why its a debate.

Well, I do see why, its because dick heads like to think they can order us all around.

If I WANT to kill myself, what the feth has it got to do with you?

If people just did what the wanted to do nothing would work...
Society in general would break down.

mattyrm wrote: If I WANT to kill myself, what the feth has it got to do with you?

It might make others think that they can make their own choices...even if they don't agree with them? Heaven forbid we do something an over opinionated person doesn't like...