Right To To Die.....would It Become Obligation To Die?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23506186
Every time these come up, I think the same, yes you have a case but we cannot change the law because of where it will lead. I'm so glad the judges seem to to concur.

[ummmm]

You really think people could legally bump off granny?

It's about people that want to take their own life but are unable to because disease and/or paralysis.

[LazyGun]

@3T Well there is where we fundamentally disagree , 3T. I think the publics appetite for a change in the law is probably more sympathetic to such a change than you assume.

I do not think these people are taking legal action merely to "make a fuss". That strikes me as an extraordinarily unsympathetic response lacking any empathy for their very real plight.

And I simply do not recognise this dystopian vision you appear to have of the vast majority of the population, slavering at the bit at wanting to knock off dear old granny at the slightest hint of a relaxation or change in the law, with granny complicit in the decision because she does not want to make a fuss.

Any change would have to adhere to strict conditions, such as terminal illness with extreme pain,or total paralysis or other such degradation of quality of life, before you could even apply for the right to die. Their would also almost certainly need to be a cooling off period - so you would have to reaffirm your desire some months later before any such right was granted.

We are not talking about a change in law that will lead to conveyor belts and carousels full of grannies here :)

[jackthehat]

I do not believe it is beyond the wit of the law to frame legislation which will ensure that those who wish to die are allowed to do so.......whilst protecting those who don't.

[naomi24]

^^Neither do I.

[pixie373]

Tora and sandy, i don't believe it will be a completely free choice, where you can just turn up with elderly relatives and bump them off. There will be a medical/psychological process first. Surely?!

[ToraToraTora]

Yes like all laws they are only there for the small percentage that make it necessary. I'm not saying that on cue we'd have a dump a granny fest but it will happen it will be done subtlely, quietly progressivley but it will happen. That's all I'm saying. This chap in the news has gone to a lot of trouble so I'm in no doubt he'd be a valid case but I fear for the future ones, the ones that are not mentally able to determine their own fate having over bearing realatives "assisting" them with their decision. I do not want to see a legal charade/circus with hungry lawyers filling their pockets on these tragic cases. The status quo is not perfect but I think it's better than what we'd get if we tinkered with it.

[jim360]

When LG and I did argue, my concern was never about a slippery slope to "life ends at 80" or something like it. I just don't see society ever turning to think this way. Besides, as health and care gets better, the age at which anyone starts being "just a burden" will become higher.

Rather, I am concerned about the fringe cases, and how legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide might change the way these cases are viewed. At present the system has a blanket illegality, but CPS guidelines lead to very few prosecutions despite this. The pressure however is to ensure that each case is thoroughly investigated to ensure that there was no wrongdoing. I feel that with euthanasia being legal there might be less investigation.

Currently there seem to be no more than 20-odd cases per year where assisted suicide/ euthanasia incidents go as far as the CPS. I don't think that we would see this rate rise all that much even if/ when the Right to Die becomes legal. Meanwhile, even if this is just a fraction of the number of cases that actually exist then we clearly already tumbled down that slippery slope a while back -- so that the only thing new would be recognising that we have. Either way, I don't feel that the slippery slope argument is worth pursuing.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide.html

[jackthehat]

Because of your nightmare scenario, I rather think that 'mental capacity to make the decision' will be Number One on the list of requirements.
Number Two ought to be an Independent Interview with no 'interested parties' present.
Number three ought to be a full disclosure of the medical diagnosis and prognosis.

[jno]

gollee, this takes me back to the 70s and all those arguments about "if you make homosexuality legal it'll soon be compulsory!"

[pixie373]

But not everyone will have the mental capacity, which could also mean a lot of suffering. In that case, the relatives might well be the best people to make that decision.

[ludwig]

Agree with jackthehat above. I just don't buy this argument that allowing people the right to end their own lives is an inevitable slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia.

[youngmafbog]

Afraid I have to disagree TTT.

It should be possible to set-up a structure, supported by law that aides the few that qualify. For instance a terminal illness or an extremely low quality of life. It should not be approved by a doctor but by at least say three judges, and should be done over a fair period of time including Social and psychiatric reports so trotting Granny down would not be possible.

I see your point, but I dont think it beyond the wit of man to come up with something pretty solid.

[dave50]

So if your pet labrador is living in pain and misery, it is the kindest thing to do to put it to sleep. If your father is living in misery in pain he must be kept alive at all costs. Obviously the dog gets more humane treatment than the man. Absolutely stupid and pathetic.

[mikey4444]

Difficult subject and always has been. Perhaps we should leave it to the doctors to dispense mercy when its needed, as they always have done.