Assisted Dying

[faraway saint]

Just seen a piece on the local news about a Tayside man who has decided to go to Switzerland to end his life.

I can understand this 100%, no real quality of life and no chance of any improvement.

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/tayside-man-who-die-today-at-swiss-clinic-calls-on-holyrood-to-review-assisted-dying-laws/

 

[oaksoft]

21 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Just seen a piece on the local news about a Tayside man who has decided to go to Switzerland to end his life.

I can understand this 100%, no real quality of life and no chance of any improvement.

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/tayside-man-who-die-today-at-swiss-clinic-calls-on-holyrood-to-review-assisted-dying-laws/

 

I wonder at what point will our laws step into the 21st century and free itself from the shackles of religious arseholes who believe they have a right and a duty to stop people ending their own lives on their own terms.

Nobody should have to travel that far, spend so much money and risk the prosecution of their loved ones because of religion. Nobody. All it needs is a bit of legal protection to prevent abuse, a dollop of commonsense and a willingness to ignore those who believe in ridiculous fairy tales and we could see a much more compassionate treatment of those with terminal illnesses.

I am fortunate to have enough money behind me that if I end up terminally ill, I'll be off to this clinic as soon as I can get the paperwork signed. Most others are not fortunate to be able to do that and face dying in excruciating pain or morphined off their tits (which apparently is pretty unpleasant). This is no way to treat fellow human beings.

BTW every individual should be able to choose to end their life for whatever reason they want providing they can find a doctor prepared to help them. It shouldn't be limited to terminal illness.

 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I wonder at what point will our laws step into the 21st century and free itself from the shackles of religious arseholes who believe they have a right and a duty to stop people ending their own lives on their own terms.

Nobody should have to travel that far, spend so much money and risk the prosecution of their loved ones because of religion. Nobody. All it needs is a bit of legal protection to prevent abuse, a dollop of commonsense and a willingness to ignore those who believe in ridiculous fairy tales and we could see a much more compassionate treatment of those with terminal illnesses.

I am fortunate to have enough money behind me that if I end up terminally ill, I'll be off to this clinic as soon as I can get the paperwork signed. Most others are not fortunate to be able to do that and face dying in excruciating pain or morphined off their tits (which apparently is pretty unpleasant). This is no way to treat fellow human beings.

BTW every individual should be able to choose to end their life for whatever reason they want providing they can find a doctor prepared to help them. It shouldn't be limited to terminal illness.

 

Agree 100% until the last bit.

Wide open to tragic decisions by people who may not be in a fit state of mind to make this decision. 

In these days when everything is put down to mental health their would be no chance any doctor would consider this unless the individual was terminally ill, IMO. 

[oaksoft]

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Agree 100% until the last bit.

Wide open to tragic decisions by people who may not be in a fit state of mind to make this decision. 

In these days when everything is put down to mental health their would be no chance any doctor would consider this unless the individual was terminally ill, IMO. 

You are right about no doctor considering it and that is their right. The individual is king for me regardless of their mental state. I was thinking specifically about depression when I wrote that. Depressed people who want to kill themselves should have the right to do so if they can find a doctor willing to help them. I don't expect to find many supporting that view but that's where I stand. These people will do it if they really want to anyway. It would be much safer to help them rather than them doing it on their own and directly affecting the lives of others e.g. walking out in front of cars, off bridges, hangings in parks, etc.

I understand the drive for life in people. I don't understand why some feel the need to project that onto others. For many people, life is just an endless, painful slog. Who am I to force them to continue living if they have a mind to die? Like I said, I'm probably in a small minority on this.

Edited September 6, 2019 by oaksoft

[chalky1]

Totally agree with it, I would never want my Mrs to go through watching me die. If the person is off sound mind when their decision was made then yeah. There should be no repercussions for any family members.

[Kemp]

Well something we can all agree on for once.

[HSS]

What do they have for breakfast at the Euthanasia Clinic?

Cheerios.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Well something we can all agree on for once.

Doubt it.
I'm sure someone will be along with a differing view.

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, HSS said:

What do they have for breakfast at the Euthanasia Clinic?

Cheerios.

Would you like one bowl or two? 

[stlucifer]

13 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You are right about no doctor considering it and that is their right. The individual is king for me regardless of their mental state. I was thinking specifically about depression when I wrote that. Depressed people who want to kill themselves should have the right to do so if they can find a doctor willing to help them. I don't expect to find many supporting that view but that's where I stand. These people will do it if they really want to anyway. It would be much safer to help them rather than them doing it on their own and directly affecting the lives of others e.g. walking out in front of cars, off bridges, hangings in parks, etc.

I understand the drive for life in people. I don't understand why some feel the need to project that onto others. For many people, life is just an endless, painful slog. Who am I to force them to continue living if they have a mind to die? Like I said, I'm probably in a small minority on this.

Terminally ill? Yes. But I cannot agree with the idea of people with suicidal thoughts being assisted by doctors. They deserve help. Many have went through dark tunnels for considerable periods of time but, with help, have come through it and went on to help others. It's not projecting anything onto anyone. You would effectively be removing their right to heal.

For me that is akin to not giving medicine to sick people just because they don't know its there.

Edited September 7, 2019 by stlucifer

[St.Ricky]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:06 AM, stlucifer said:

Terminally ill? Yes. But I cannot agree with the idea of people with suicidal thoughts being assisted by doctors. They deserve help. Many have went through dark tunnels for considerable periods of time but, with help, have come through it and went on to help others. It's not projecting anything onto anyone. You would effectively be removing their right to heal.

For me that is akin to not giving medicine to sick people just because they don't know its there.

I tend to your view on this St Lucy. In the case of the terminally Ill. A number of us will have had meaningful conversations with doctors regarding treatment or palliative care only for loved ones. As for people with reduced mental or emotional capacity, I am much less convinced. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by St.Ricky

[faraway saint]

An interesting case with, IMO, the right outcome...........................

An 80-year-old woman who gave her terminally ill husband a fatal dose of medicine so he could end his life has been cleared of murder, triggering calls for a change in the law on assisted dying.

Mavis Eccleston and her 81-year-old husband, Dennis, formed a pact to end their lives together, Stafford crown court heard. She said she gave him the medicine, which he took himself, kissed him and pulled a cover over him. He kissed her hand and said “Good night darling” as Eccleston, who had also taken the medicine, went to lie down on a sofa.

The couple had been married for 60 years. Dennis was suffering from advanced bowel cancer and had talked of ending his life.

They were found at their home in Huntington, near Cannock, Staffordshire, in February last year and were taken to hospital where Eccleston, who survived, was given an antidote.

Advertisement

In the final hours of Dennis’s life, hospital staff pulled their beds together. They held hands as he died.

The couple wrote a note to their children explaining their decision.

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, faraway saint said:

An interesting case with, IMO, the right outcome...........................

An 80-year-old woman who gave her terminally ill husband a fatal dose of medicine so he could end his life has been cleared of murder, triggering calls for a change in the law on assisted dying.

Mavis Eccleston and her 81-year-old husband, Dennis, formed a pact to end their lives together, Stafford crown court heard. She said she gave him the medicine, which he took himself, kissed him and pulled a cover over him. He kissed her hand and said “Good night darling” as Eccleston, who had also taken the medicine, went to lie down on a sofa.

The couple had been married for 60 years. Dennis was suffering from advanced bowel cancer and had talked of ending his life.

They were found at their home in Huntington, near Cannock, Staffordshire, in February last year and were taken to hospital where Eccleston, who survived, was given an antidote.

Advertisement

In the final hours of Dennis’s life, hospital staff pulled their beds together. They held hands as he died.

The couple wrote a note to their children explaining their decision.

I hope the people on the prosecution side can sleep at night for putting this woman through a court case.

[Bud the Baker]

New Zealand is to become the first country in the world to put euthanasia to a binding public vote after its lawmakers narrowly passed a bill laying out what the country’s assisted dying regime would be.

The law, which would allow terminally ill people with less than six months to live to choose assisted dying if approved by two doctors, passed its final reading in parliament in the capital, Wellington, on Wednesday by 69 votes to 51. It was a conscience vote, meaning that most lawmakers did not vote along party lines.

[Cornwall_Saint]

I still can’t fathom why in this day and age it’s still an issue. Well done to New Zealand for putting the vote to the people.

[DougJamie]

54 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I still can’t fathom why in this day and age it’s still an issue. Well done to New Zealand for putting the vote to the people.

Its a no brainer

Firstly all the suffering that can be avoided, the stress and anxiety for others, and of course not to mention the resources that could be put to better use

The country is stuck in Dark Ages ( who at least did have assisted dying- namely a spear )

[oaksoft]

It's a step in the right direction but you have to wonder why they arbitrarily chose 6 months and why it needs two doctors. There's no reason whatsoever to restrict peoples individual right to choose the timing and location of their own death providing they can find a doctor willing to help them.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

It's a step in the right direction but you have to wonder why they arbitrarily chose 6 months and why it needs two doctors. There's no reason whatsoever to restrict peoples individual right to choose the timing and location of their own death providing they can find a doctor willing to help them.

Harold Shipman amongst other reasons

[DougJamie]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

It's a step in the right direction but you have to wonder why they arbitrarily chose 6 months and why it needs two doctors. There's no reason whatsoever to restrict peoples individual right to choose the timing and location of their own death providing they can find a doctor willing to help them.

Harold Shipman amongst other reasons

Yeah but he is not a New Zealander

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

Maybe in case you can find a dodgy doctor to sign off on it for, say, 20% of your inheritance. Much harder to find 2 such doctors - and it would cost you 40%, maybe not worth it.

(Generic "you", not actually you)
 

No need to explain the generic "you" bit. Just like you, I can cut through the language to get the gist so no need to walk on eggshells. I'm not TPAK thingy. 

As far as the dodgy doctor bit looking for an inheritance you have to remember that I believe people should be allowed to choose the time and manner of their deaths even for suicide so your point about 20% of inheritance wouldn't be an issue. Of course, if you just allowed people to do what they wanted and trust them to live with their own decisions we wouldn't have that problem. The inheritance thing is actually caused by restrictions so it damages your point rather than boost it.

I'm still not sure why anyone other than the person themselves is being allowed to make this decision for them.

Edited November 14, 2019 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

10 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's a step in the right direction but you have to wonder why they arbitrarily chose 6 months and why it needs two doctors. There's no reason whatsoever to restrict peoples individual right to choose the timing and location of their own death providing they can find a doctor willing to help them.

Harold Shipman amongst other reasons

Killing people against their will is still going to be murder and therefore illegal so I'm not sure what relevance this has to folk who want to be euthanased.

[antrin]

It's amazing how many times I've used a generic "you" on here and people have taken it personally. Some have even been offended on behalf of others. Just wanted to make it clear for everyone.

What if someone chose the time and manner of their suicide as in front of a number 26 bus in Causeyside Street at 3pm?

What do you mean by "The inheritance thing is actually caused by restrictions"?

Only someone in a distressed and confused state of mind would rely on the punctuality of Causeyside Street buses.

Therefore they are mentally unstable and not fit to make a euthanasia decision.

Catch 22.
Or any other numbered bus...

[Bud the Baker]

31 minutes ago, antrin said:

Only someone in a distressed and confused state of mind would rely on the punctuality of Causeyside Street buses.

Therefore they are mentally unstable and not fit to make a euthanasia decision.

Catch 22.
Or any other numbered bus...

If I Catch the 22 where will it take me?

[HSS]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

If I Catch the 22 where will it take me?

Erskine.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Killing people against their will is still going to be murder and therefore illegal so I'm not sure what relevance this has to folk who want to be euthanased.

My apologies for assuming you had the ability to make the logical link on this.