Getting other people to help you end your life.

[FBM]

I read that he cried when his appeal was rejected. Poor man. Stoopid gummit.

[Audley Strange]

Audley .. ambivalent? Must say I'm somewhat surprised and perhaps a tad disappointed that you don't have a strong opinion on this ... Disappointed insofaras I generally appreciate reading your thoughts on a topic whenever you share them.

I have too many unanswered questions RiverF. So I draw no single conclusion that I can say "this is my opinion" which are and should always be considered works in progress anyway. I'll explain why I'm ambivalent if that helps?

There is, obviously, an issue of personal human rights, of human autonomy and dignity. I think most people consider that primary. However I don't know how we could implement such a legal measure without massive social and cultural ramifications in both the short and long term. First of all I think we have to take into consideration the big question. "Who's going to do it?"

I'm not sure we are being wise if we say "the relative" or "next of kin" because it seems to me to be putting a massive psychic burden on that person who is more than likely enduring a chronic trauma state as they watch their partner erode in agony in front of them. I'm not sure what kind of toll that would take on a person nowadays. Sure decades perhaps centuries ago people did it, but most of us seem to be growing into our cosy soft domestication so I'm not sure many people could deal with the ramification of their actions properly. Despite them being at peace, despite it being the right thing, they killed the person they loved.

Maybe people are made of sterner stuff, I hope not, some are obviously, but in general, I think it would take a heavy toll on the person.

So this leaves us with health professionals. Dangerous idea. Certainly acute terminal medical "negligence" is performed. Accidental "overdoses" of morphine and the like but there is a difference between that mercy given and that mercy demanded. If we have legalised assisted suicide where do we draw the line? Do we allow people who are terminally ill the quick way out to save their families from financial bankruptcy? Do we allow insurance companies to offer cash bonuses to illness and death policies for those who are willing to tick "assisted suicide?" If humanity is good at anything it is exploiting rules. Whether those be mathematical theorems, laws of physics or social convention, people will find a way to use them to capitalise on it. Also the lack of suffering people will not propel us towards the cure, necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

This is before we even get into what we consider appropriate for "assisted suicide" and what not. As I say questions questions questions.

I think such a change in law needs a much better discussion and longer consideration than it's been given. Until then the only solution I could give is either a "decriminalisation" approach or a case by case approach biased more towards of individual human dignity than the good of the state, but not by much and given strict consideration by a panel of judges.

[charlou]

That didn't read as at all ambivalent to me

Certainly concerns and ideas to think about and, as you say, much to discuss.

[Mallardz]

I read that he cried when his appeal was rejected. Poor man. Stoopid gummit.

That's true. I felt exceptionally sorry for the guy.

He earlier said if he couldn't be assisted in dying he would starve himself. His plea was simply to avoid the agony of having to go to such a length.

[PsychoSerenity]

Explaining the decision, Lord Justice Toulson, said both cases were "deeply moving".

However he added: "A decision to allow their claims would have consequences far beyond the present cases. To do as Tony wants, the court would be making a major change in the law.

"It is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place.

"Under our system of government these are matters for Parliament to decide."

The trouble is most politicians would never risk touching this issue. Cases like this have been going on for years, and nothing has been done. I searched the parliament website for euthanasia, and this is amongst the few things they've got there:

That this House welcomes the Government's statement that any change to the law on assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia is a matter for Parliament to consider rather than one of Government policy; notes the ongoing efforts of the euthanasia lobby to bring about the legalisation of these practices; further notes that, although campaigners often proclaim their wish to see a change in the law limited to the licensing of assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill, they often appear to be supportive of practices which go beyond these limitations; believes that the existing law, with its flexibility not to prosecute in appropriate instances, provides an optimal combination of deterrence with compassion; opposes as dangerous to vulnerable people any change in the law relating to assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia; endorses the report by The Economist's Economic Intelligence Unit ranking the UK as top of the list of 40 OECD and non-OECD nations for quality of care of the dying; and calls on the Government to continue investing in palliative care.

There's no debate on the actual issue - it's just a motion to agree not to talk about it.

I'm sure it's possible to set up a system with plenty of safeguards in place. Nobody's asking that doctors be given unrestrained freedom to end people's lives at a single request. But I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to take their case to a tribunal, and have it decided on an individual basis. The complicated issues what is and isn't acceptable can only be tackled after it's opened up for debate. At the moment they're just avoiding the arguments entirely.

[HomerJay]

I thought this was going to be a sign-up Rum, for when you needed it.

The court is both wrong and right in this example, I think.

Firstly, yes the court is correct in that it is up to the government to provide statutory guidance.

But it would be interesting if the court had decided that although they were unable to provide the necessary assurance, the current legislation was discriminatory and opened the door for compensation.

You don't need to define new legislation to decide that the current legislation is illegal, forcing the government's hand.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The man needs a brave friend.

[FBM]

Well, looks like this one is all wrapped up, anyway.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/world ... ?hpt=hp_t3

[Tyrannical]

Euthanasia (from the Greek εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering. ...

I just think they should call it that.

[HomerJay]

Euthanasia (from the Greek εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering. ...

I just think they should call it that.

So if your death were to relieve our pain and suffering would that be euthanasia, "good death"?

[Mysturji]

If you follow me on Twitter, you already know how I feel about this.
If you don't, or even if you do, please sign the petition:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/t ... m=26335600

Edit: Especially if you live in the UK

[Mysturji]

Too late:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722

[FBM]

Looks like we're getting it here soon: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 35851.html

`Death with dignity' to be allowed next year

By Kim Jae-won

The government will grant terminally-ill patients the right to die next year at the earliest.

The presidential committee on bioethics reached an agreement at its subpanel level Thursday to permit the suspension of life-sustaining treatment with the consent of patients and members of their family.

The 11 members of the Special Subcommittee on Stopping Meaningless Life-sustaining Treatments’ agreement will likely be legislated by the end of the year for approval by the National Assembly and will go into effect next year.

The subcommittee, chaired by Seoul National University Hospital Professor Lee Yun-seong, consisted of doctors, religious leaders and heads of patients’ associations.

“If patients indicate that they don’t want to receive life-sustaining treatment, their decision will be respected. If all immediate family members agree, it should also be allowed,” said Park Seon-myeong, a committee member.

The subcommittee will host a hearing on the issue later this month and will submit the case to the presidential committee.

Currently, there is no law related to life-sustaining treatment. Due to a lack of legal basis, such treatment has often been the cause of legal disputes between doctors and families of terminally ill patients.

The committee’s decision reflects a Supreme Court ruling in 2009, which approved a petition from the family of a comatose 75-year-old female patient, surnamed Kim.

The highest court approved the removal of respirators from Kim because she expressed the wish not to receive life-sustaining treatment before she fell into a coma.

Observers say the late Cardinal Stephen Kim Sou-hwan had a positive influence on public awareness about the right to die with dignity because he faced his death naturally at the age of 86 in 2009 by refusing any life-support.

[En_Route]

I'm surprised to hear that Rum. I thought the recent study paid for by Richard Dawkins' foundation showed that most religious people in the UK are religious in name only.

edit: Christian religions anyway

Bearing out perhaps the well-established correlation between research outcomes and the agenda of the funder.

[Animavore]

"Who's going to do it?"

Like with the death penalty, have multiple people press a button with only one administering the shot.


Or, alternatively, give me a couple of hundred