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.

Terry Pratchett, choosing to die. For anyone who missed it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/hd/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/

The guys who do themselves in.. their stoicism beggars belief.

I enjoyed it immensely, and it further reinforces my belief that I should be allowed to die in the beer garden of my local pub, with something gak on my MP3 player after a last meal of chicken fried steak and noodle doodles.

Snow or rain of course, but English snow and rain!

Says i cant watch it here in the states...

Watching it now.

Had to re-inforce my bottom lip for watching that last night.

In other news; How annoying was that disabled woman on the debate afterwards? They one that was against it, and kept saying that it would lead to sinister places. That the people weren't even terminally ill, so shouldn't have died.



I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.

In other, other news; Jeremy Paxman should have interviewed the Duke instead of Ms. Bruce.

Medium of Death wrote:Had to re-inforce my bottom lip for watching that last night.

In other news; How annoying was that disabled woman on the debate afterwards? They one that was against it, and kept saying that it would lead to sinister places. That the people weren't even terminally ill, so shouldn't have died.



I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.

In other, other news; Jeremy Paxman should have interviewed the Duke instead of Ms. Bruce.

I watched last night and it got a bit smoky in the living room.

Very un PC of me but that woman in wheel chair who was against 'minorities choosing their fate' I called a stupid puppet version of Gollum.

I was sad because she made me angry and yet the religious guy made some sense even though I do not agree with his position.

English law is perfectly able and would be eminently suitable to enable centres like Dignitas to exist on our shores. The vulnerable are well catered for in law.

We just need to throw out 2000 years or so of dogma that has taught us to fear death in all its forms.

If I was able to I would like to choose the time and method of my own passing. And as the programme stated a lot of those who sign up with Dignitas do not take up that option (whatever the reason), having a choice is enabling.

Can't watch it here, apparently.

Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.

Because humans are selfish and would rather a loved one suffered than they themselves suffer the grief from losing said loved one...

If my pets are suffering and near death, I opt for the Green Dream for them... why not humans?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Can't watch it here, apparently.

^This.

We should have the choice of when to pop our clogs.

There is no diginity in death, there is only dignity in life.

A mate of mine lingered in a PVS for 5 months because his family argued over when to turn the machines off. Only the machines kept him alive. They stopped administering nutrients 6 weeks before he finally (metaphorically) just said "stuff it" and popped away.

I'm with Terry P on this one.

chromedog wrote:We should have the choice of when to pop our clogs.

There is no diginity in death, there is only dignity in life.

A mate of mine lingered in a PVS for 5 months because his family argued over when to turn the machines off. Only the machines kept him alive. They stopped administering nutrients 6 weeks before he finally (metaphorically) just said "stuff it" and popped away.

I'm with Terry P on this one.

Agree 100%.

I haven't seen the programme, but I have seen 2 relatives dying from terminal illnesses, and to say the end phases were unpleasant would be an understatement. Certainly made me realise I wouldn't want to suffer like that.

People should be given the right to decide what's best for them, it's their life afterall.

I've always been a supporter of assisted suicide (although euthanasia would be a more fitting term).

If I was diagnosed with an uncurable, terminal illness, the only possible outcome of which is a long suffering agonising death, I'd rather take a syringe of morphine and never wake up that watch my family get slowly destroyed by having to care for me in my suffering.

Of course, there is the issue of 'who is allowed to die', which I feel should be placed in the jurisdiction of a commitee of knowledgable and competent individuals. This way each 'request' to end a life has to be carefully considered, so that, for example, a terminal cancer patient would be allowed to die with dignity if he/she chooses, but a guy who loses one arm is told to 'man up' (a little crude but you get the idea).

But then again, UK health law is based on the principle of 'sanctity of life', so we are not allowed to even acknowledge that a person might be better off dead, regardless of how much they are suffering...


On the other side of the argument, consider Stephen Hawking...

Leigen_Zero wrote:I've always been a supporter of assisted suicide (although euthanasia would be a more fitting term).

If I was diagnosed with an uncurable, terminal illness, the only possible outcome of which is a long suffering agonising death, I'd rather take a syringe of morphine and never wake up that watch my family get slowly destroyed by having to care for me in my suffering.

Of course, there is the issue of 'who is allowed to die', which I feel should be placed in the jurisdiction of a commitee of knowledgable and competent individuals. This way each 'request' to end a life has to be carefully considered, so that, for example, a terminal cancer patient would be allowed to die with dignity if he/she chooses, but a guy who loses one arm is told to 'man up' (a little crude but you get the idea).

But then again, UK health law is based on the principle of 'sanctity of life', so we are not allowed to even acknowledge that a person might be better off dead, regardless of how much they are suffering...


On the other side of the argument, consider Stephen Hawking...

Stephen Hawking generates his own reason for living, and is a far better proponent of disabled rights than that shrieking dogmatised woman who happened to be in a wheelchair could ever hope to be.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/reading-discworld-backwards-%27makes-you-want-to-kill-yourself%27-201106143941/

I didn't watch it as I kind of have views about watching someone's final moments on TV*, but I'm not wholly against the idea of assisted suicides.

I am highly irritated by all the people complaining about the program though. It was quite clear as to what the content would be, so if this stuff offends them, why bloody watch it?!

*I remember flicking over to Newsnight once just as they were showing the execution of the Ceaușescus. Most unpleasant.

AvatarForm wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.

Because humans are selfish and would rather a loved one suffered than they themselves suffer the grief from losing said loved one...

Or maybe because humans are short-sighted and would rather take a short-term perceived benefit than realize a long term gain. Or because we're concerned about the selfishness of individuals who "choose to die" rather than give their friends & loved ones more time with them.

I recall reading a survey of people who had jumped off of a bridge (Brooklyn? Golden gate? Not sure) in an attempted suicide, but survived. The last thing each of them thought was "I can fix X, I can live with Y...the only thing I can't fix or deal with was jumping off of that bridge."

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.

I caught the end of the program, and I must say I found it very moving. In particular, when Peter Smedley (iirc) drank the poison and took his wife's hand saying, 'be strong, my darling', I must confess to having a lump in my throat.

Such a brave and dignified bloke. Best of British, right there.

When I was in school we talked about Euthanasia in religion class. Everyone had different opinions on weather it was right or wrong. I then said 'Whats wrong with asian kids'. Embarrassing

The fact is, if its good enough for our dogs, its good enough for us. feth me, most people prefer their dogs to people!

I hated that disabled womans ridiculous fething crowing. On and on and on, its a bad argument. Ridiculous in fact. Why?

IT ALREADY HAPPENS.

Do you see Belgians mass murdering disabled people?!

I cant see why its even a debate. The only fether that should choose how I check out is ME.

Toastedandy wrote:When I was in school we talked about Euthanasia in religion class. Everyone had different opinions on weather it was right or wrong. I then said 'Whats wrong with asian kids'. Embarrassing

I spent a full 10 seconds just staring at the screen wondering if I missed something.

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

The beeb had an interesting article about sterilisation and eugenics..

A mate of mine lingered in a PVS for 5 months because his family argued over when to turn the machines off. Only the machines kept him alive. They stopped administering nutrients 6 weeks before he finally (metaphorically) just said "stuff it" and popped away.

By not feeding him he probably starved to death as opposed to naturally died..

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

Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.

Photo, sorry mate, but your a creationist, ergo, before you even open your mouth we all know exactly what your position is going to be on this issue.

Hence, it doesn't have any credibility.

mattyrm wrote:

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

Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.

Photo, sorry mate, but your a creationist, ergo, before you even open your mouth we all know exactly what your position is going to be on this issue.

Hence, it doesn't have any credibility.

Didnt know he was a creationist,

Always wanted too ask if you guys believe in dinosaurs?

Toastedandy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

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

Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.

Photo, sorry mate, but your a creationist, ergo, before you even open your mouth we all know exactly what your position is going to be on this issue.

Hence, it doesn't have any credibility.

Didnt know he was a creationist,

Always wanted too ask if you guys believe in dinosaurs?

I think the answer is:

a) Dinosaur bones are actually the bones of dragons (which would be pretty cool)

or

b) Dinosaurs ate coconuts. (which isn't as cool, though still nifty)

Don't ask me why.

mattyrm wrote:

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

Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.

This is a bad argument.

There are plenty of things that are legal/illegal in other countries without the parade of horribles that supposedly come with the change in legality.

Abortion, drugs (either criminalization or decriminalization), capital punishment, etc.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

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

Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.

This is a bad argument.

There are plenty of things that are legal/illegal in other countries without the parade of horribles that supposedly come with the change in legality.

Abortion, drugs (either criminalization or decriminalization), capital punishment, etc.

I might have missed your point. Matty's argument that countries where euthanasia is legal aren't going around deciding who lives and who dies, is a bad argument becuase it's true? I mean, wouldn't your point reinforce matty's argument?

At a time and place of our choosing - not a lot to ask, surely?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

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

Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.

This is a bad argument.

There are plenty of things that are legal/illegal in other countries without the parade of horribles that supposedly come with the change in legality.

Abortion, drugs (either criminalization or decriminalization), capital punishment, etc.

I might have missed your point. Matty's argument that countries where euthanasia is legal aren't going around deciding who lives and who dies, is a bad argument becuase it's true? I mean, wouldn't your point reinforce matty's argument?

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.

Can we please not bash or insult other posters with reference to their (possible) religious beliefs please. ta.

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.

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.

But it does destroy the argument that the death penalty in the UK will lead to people being rounded up and summarily executed.

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.

But it does destroy the argument that legalizing weed will mean that everyone will get high and abandon their family.

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

Now that is debatable. My entire family is Irish, emmigrated here, and they're all of the opinion that it's a bit of a dump (to put it kindly).

biccat wrote:Women in Ireland aren't oppressed because abortion is illegal.

Luckily for them, there is a more enlightened nation right next door, with zero in the way of passport control for persons passing between the two. And they are oppressed - being told that one cannot do something (or must do something) by persons in a position of power is oppression.