Should Euthanasia Now Be Made Legal In The Uk?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3098418/A-death-dividing-Britain-s-emotive-issue-father-three-girls-right-life-Swiss-clinic-three-writers-different-views.html

We have seen the law changed regarding Gay marriages, why hasn't this more important issue not been addressed?

[ToraToraTora]

AOG:"......in a sound mind gives his or her permission to put an end to their suffering" - even if they are of sound mind many old people don't want to be a burden and unscrupulous relatives would put pressure on them. Come on granny Just sign up to www.kickthebucket.co.uk and we can have that new boat! The current law has worked well for centuries, leave well alone.

[sp1814]

But doesn't this open up another can of worms.

Let's say that assisted suicide becomes law and those in pain, suffering from terminal illnesses could opt for euthanasia - what about those who suffer catastrophic injuries leaving them quadrapaedic (definitely spelled wrong, but my Spellchecker isn't helping me)?

I would seriously consider wanting to end it if I were in that position.

And then others might want to opt for a living will in which they would be 'eased out' if they suffered a major brain injury (eg. brain dead).

Would parents have the right to euthanise their children under 16 if they were terminally ill (or hadn't tidied their rooms?)

There would have to be a number of exclusions and caveats because there are so many circumstances that would have to be considered.

[sp1814]

So yeah...after thinking about it....I've changed my mind.

I agree with ToraToraTora.

That last sentence looks really weird written down.

[mushroom25]

//One gets pushed through post haste, whereas the other more important issue gets put on the back burner.//

the one was straightforward.

the other more important is such a minefield it's almost in the too difficult box.

[sandyRoe]

When people are terminally ill and in pain, doctors should never feel they have to stint on pain relief drugs for fear of being labelled a 'Shipman'.
This is a hard question with no easy answers.

[Ellipsis]

I will repeat, as I think it's a fair comparison of "difficult" laws involving death, religion, morals, etc. ... if we can have an abortion law, which gives the right to end/prevent the life of another at the start of its life, then surely we can have a euthanasia law, which gives a right to end the life of yourself at the end of your life as you determine it to be - both laws with appropriate safeguards.

Think of how abortions were being done before the Abortion Act, and how euthanasia or assisted suicide is being done now, and the parallels are clear.

[woofgang]

"Would parents have the right to euthanise their children under 16 if they were terminally ill (or hadn't tidied their rooms?) "
The second part of that is just silly
I am for a legal framework precisely because it does happen in hospitals and homes every day by the back door. What this means is that I can't choose but that others can choose for me and by means that I might not choose for myself. The current law hasn't "worked well for centuries". Suicide used to be illegal and is now not. Surely its not beyond the wit of the law to set up protection for the vulnerable?
I very strongly believe that its my life and therefore should be my choice and that if I need assistance, I shouldn't have to travel abroad to get it.
Can I suggest for those who disagree, there should be a register for people who will NEVER wish to avail themselves of assisted dying. That way they would be protected from the avaricious relative scenario.

[Clanad]

As relates to the same debate here in the U.S., I find typical Brit irony in the comparison of abortion and euthanasia... in one case the dieee (can that be a word?) has, at least, the opportunity to have a voice in his/her death whereas, in the other case, the one being killed has absolutely no voice of choice... how can that be reconciled?

Secondly... is it not incongruent that most people (unofficial perusing of news vs. valid poll) supporting euthanasia are also anti-death penalty? How can that be reconciled? The same concerns voicied in opposition to the death penalty (possible execution of an innocent, inhumane, etc.) are noticeably in abeyance by the supporters of death by choice. Or is a consistency in ones views necessary?

[Svejk]

No, for the reasons given by TTT. I think some of you judge other people by your own standards and don't imagine that others would be 'nudging' granny etc. to an early grave. They will.

[mushroom25]

clanad, it never fails to amaze me that in the US, those who would campaign to prevent the unborn being terminated, would quite happily kill their fellow beings to make the point.

[woofgang]

Svejk, those people can do it now with less protection because its not controlled.

[Retrochic]

My Father died at home from Cancer of the Throat and at the end he 'just wanted it over' he'd fought it for five years. He was visited by the family doctor and in his own room overlooking his garden he peacefully fell asleep forever. He was fortunate,both he and the doctor. It should be legalized as end of life care, and very very strictly monitored. Doctors should never be prosecuted for giving that little bit extra morphine or whatever to ease someones passage who is going to die anyway,probably frightened and in pain.

[Clanad]

Nice, moderate turn of words, that; "...prevent the unborn from being terminated..." when a murderer (for example) is given years and years of State sponsored appeals and is finally executed, some choose to call it State sponsored murder... all the while using a nice, operating room sterile phrase such as yours for the murder of a helpless child... You don't find black irony in that? Must not be a true Brit, then, mushroom...

[woofgang]

Clanad I think that the three issues (abortion, death penalty and assisted dying) are different although they all involve death. The abortion discussion has many facets (health of foetus, the issue of a child of rape, health of mother, the right to choose.) the death penalty too I think is multifaceted but for me the big issue is that there is no possibility of righting a wrong should there have been a mistake in the legal process or the evidence. For me assisted dying is solely about my right to choose and my right to control my destiny.

[Clanad]

Woof, I'm in the uncomfortable position of disagreement with you... a rare event... but, that you don't see the the disparate arguments of your "choice" over against the complete lack of choice by the "terminated foetus" is troubling...

[woofgang]

I do agree with you over the lack of choice of the foetus..its not an easy decision. When does the foetus become a person? When does the foetus get a soul? What I was trying to say is that the three discussions, while they all involve death by decision, and not death by a natural cause all have different issues attached to them and its not unreasonable to have one view on one issue and a differing view on another.

[Clanad]

Woof... everything... absolutely everything that is present in the construct of a human at the time of his/her death is there at the instant of conception. The only thing that changes is quantity and how the two differ in looks... no?

[Ellipsis]

Clanad, I am uncomfortable with the UK abortion law but the whole point of me raising it was to show that if an abortion law is possible then so is a euthanasia law. This is not a debate on abortion - the genie is out of that bottle.

I am much more comfortable with a euthanasia law and I completely agree with woofgang's comments: "I very strongly believe that its my life and therefore should be my choice and that if I need assistance, I shouldn't have to travel abroad to get it. Can I suggest for those who disagree, there should be a register for people who will NEVER wish to avail themselves of assisted dying. That way they would be protected from the avaricious relative scenario."

You might agree with neither law, and that's fair enough, but I find it incongruous to have one law and not the other (and, as you pointed out, the euthanasia one is actually the fairer one when it comes to the "dieee").

[Svejk]

Another thing to consider is that these pro-campaigners use current proposals as a 'foot in the door'. So that the checks & balances which are advocated now get pushed further and further until you have euthanasia 'on demand'. This has happened already in other countries. (can't be bothered to google but I think Holland was one such I read about.)
Seeing as others have brought abortion into the argument, I could see a parallel with that. Doubt anyone expected 8 million @ c200,000 per year when they legalized that.

[Clanad]

I understand, ellipsis... but let me add one more thing... human nature being what it is has often shown the right to euthanasia can and frightenly does become a "duty to die"... no matter how stringent the safeguards at the law's inception... hence:

"Once physician-assisted suicide is legally permitted for patients designated as terminally ill, the gradual extension of the practice to ever-widening groups of patients has been referred to as the slippery slope. The Netherlands, where doctors are able to practice euthanasia as long as they follow certain established guidelines, provides an empirical example of what the slippery slope means in actual practice.

Over the past two decades, Dutch law and Dutch medicine have evolved from accepting assisted suicide to accepting euthanasia, and from euthanasia for terminally ill patients to euthanasia for chronically ill individuals. It then evolved from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress. Finally, it evolved from voluntary euthanasia to the practice and conditional acceptance of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Once the Dutch permitted assisted suicide, it was not possible medically, legally, or morally to deny more active medical help such as euthanasia to individuals who could not effect their own deaths.

Although involuntary euthanasia has not been legally sanctioned by the Dutch, it has increasingly been justified or excused as necessary by the need to relieve suffering patients who are not competent to choose a course of action for themselves.

The inability to regulate euthanasia within established rules is even more slippery. Virtually every guideline established by the Dutch (whether it be a voluntary, well-considered, persistent request; intolerable suffering that cannot be relieved; consultation; or the reporting of cases) has failed to protect patients or has been modified or violated with impunity." (Source: Herbert Hendin, M.D.)