[Closed] Legalise Euthanasia!

I've figured out that over the next 20 - 30 years, I just need to make very good friends with a Vet 😀

'They shoot horses, don't they?'

This is however, one of the few issues that does irk me. We are constantly told about 'human rights' this, human rights that, except IMO, we are denied our only one true 'right' - which is whether we choose, as individuals, to live or die and able to do both with dignity.

Quite frankly, having witnessed the suffering of loved ones when in the final stages of a terminal disease and with an aging population that we have here in the UK and many other countries, euthanasia is going to have to be considered as a serious option and the Hippocratic Oath re-worded.

Like a turkey at Xmas, I will vote for it.

Slackalice plus one.

Needs all sorts of safeguards around consent, especially if mental competence and the ability to communicate is lost.

Legalise it and in weeks the old and ill will be pressurised by family to do them selves in. Dangerous ground this, how long before some carer is suggesting that someone should just die.

My Mum went to see a friend at the weekend.

She couldn't get out of bed, could only burble, and my Mum said she looked like death waiting to happen, but taking its time.

The same friend had asked a number of years before at the onset of Dementia, that her friends would promise to take her to Switzerland before it was too late.

2 years ago I rang the vet and asked him to come and put our dog to sleep. The hardest decision I have ever made, but was the kindest think for Whinnie and stopped her suffering, yet we make our friends and loved ones suffer

Legalise it and in weeks the old and ill will be pressurised by family to do them selves in. Dangerous ground this, how long before some carer is suggesting that someone should just die.

Other countries seem to manage without this problem - you have safeguards of course, it's not really going to be like this:

When you consider what our govt is doing to the poor and vulnerable right now, I'd be loath to trust them if euthanasia was legal.

However it is an option I'd like when the time comes. The trick is knowing what is the right time.

The biggest beneficiary of the current system must be the pharmaceutical industry.

I've recently watched my dad die. This came after 3 chemo battles in recent years. He was finally told they could do no more for him other than relieve his pain. Fortunately it was "only" two weeks til he passed.

I don't know if he'd have made a decision to end it, but having to watch him gasp til the end will stay with me forever. At the very least in these circumstances I think diamorphine should be replaced with a lethal injection to save those last 48 hours for all concerned. He would have not had to make the decision, he was already whacked up on other stuff but with no way back from it, what is the point of putting him through that grim death.

Of course it's never that easy. But like a donor card I'd like to have something that says once I become unresponsive, I'd like to go.

As much as I agree with it I do think it would be hard to regulate it. With the cost that granny farms (elderly care homes) have on families and the state how long before it becomes cheaper for Virgin Health Care to 'put people down' . We would go into it with good intentions but one bad government will turn it into Logan's Run!

Needs all sorts of safeguards around consent, especially if mental competence and the ability to communicate is lost.

Legalise it and in weeks the old and ill will be pressurised by family to do them selves in. Dangerous ground this, how long before some carer is suggesting that someone should just die.

Other countries seem to manage without this problem

How do you know this?

I believe there have been studies.

It's also been shown that, if you give people the option, many chose not to take it - and in fact it leads to improved remaining quality of life. Knowing they can step out when they want makes people feel better about being alive while they can.

I do believe people should have the right to die if they choose to. One potential problem I foresee with legalised euthanasia though is who will administer the fatal medication if your gp does not want to? Surely doctors have the right to refuse as it goes against the hippocratic oath.The same would apply to other health professionals too. How would people feel if the final act was carried out by a stranger?

I made the decision to switch off my dad's life support (which I describe as "killing my Dad".) That was a surprisingly easy thing to do not unemotional just clearly the right decision. I and my family then spent the bulk of 3 days watching his body shut down and slowly expire. 20 years latter i'm in tears typing that. I do not know whether i could have chosen to actually have chosen euthanasia for him rather than a withdrawal of life support but I am 100% sure he would have preferred that.

Surely doctors have the right to refuse as it goes against the hippocratic oath.

However at the same time doctors quite rightly give people doses of morphine 'to make them comfortable' knowing full well it will kill them.

Death is too much of a taboo subject and should be discussed more.

One potential problem I foresee with legalised euthanasia though is who will administer the fatal medication if your gp does not want to?

We already have doctors who specialise in end-of-life care. I'd expect that if euthanasia became legal it would become its own specialty or sub-specialty - set up not just to see off granny but to offer support and guidance to her and to the family to ensure that the decision is made in the best interests of the patient.

Interesting point from bencooper that having the option can improve [perceived?] quality of life. I can see that knowing it was there when I needed it might take away some of the terror of it.

I think the Hippocratic Oath doesn't need much tinkering, needs a review of how harm and suffering are interpreted. I'm pretty sure the GP prescribed enough morphine to make my Nans last few days shorter than they might have been, and have no problem with it from what she had told us beforehand.

It's one of those conversations everyone should have, like donor cards. I know my parents and wife's wishes, they know mine. Jnr is 12, he knows I'm on the donor register and why, he has said would be happy to donate if it came to it, God forbid.

Surely doctors have the right to refuse as it goes against the hippocratic oath.The same would apply to other health professionals too. How would people feel if the final act was carried out by a stranger?

I'm no expert but this is an issue i feel strongly about, having seen relatives suffer greatly with incurable diseases as descrived by others above.

The 'relevant' part of the oath is I believe 'do no harm' (paraphrased)

So it's your interpretation of what that means. I could easily argue that when a patient is in the last days of their life, is suffering miserably with no hope of respite, and it's in their powers to ease that suffering - to not offer that alternative if requested is in fact causing harm more than providing the euthanasia.

'Do not play god' - goes both ways. Prolonging life when there is no actual point to it and the patient has a clear and obvious desire for it to end - is that not playing god too?

Trouble with modern medicine is, that rather than saving a life, it can too often prolong a death. It drags out the last dregs of life from bodies that otherwise would have expired long ago. Inside of these bodies, all too often, are worn out elderly folk, who are just waiting to pass in peace. This doesn't amount to a dignified death, rather a perverse torture of a medically focussed society, with a historical taboo of death, its discussion, its planning, & its inevitable coming.

I am very very confused by any argumnent against it. We have no choice about coming in to this world so we should be able to choose when we leave. There would simply have to be very very strict legislation. That shouldn't be too hard to figure out. I often think the real sticking point is money. I assume the beaurocracy that would be introduced would be quite high, but then I assume this would be balanced with the reduced cost of caring to the terminally ill. As for care homes, I often think they do everything to keep people alive. People are no use to them dead.

The reality is the rich already have access to this service. So it is simply illegal for the less well off. It's a two tier system. So there really is no debate about the ethics of it, just access.

Crankboy, I feel very sorry for your loss. My Father suffered in the end (in a different way) and I would have done anything to be able to have been able to ease that pain for him. It wasn't the managed palliative care I had heard so much about. It was badly managed and brutal. As has been said, animals get better treatment.

[quote=mt opined]Legalise it and in weeks the old and ill will be pressurised by family to do them selves in. Dangerous ground this, how long before some carer is suggesting that someone should just die.

Slipperyslope argument - presented without evidence to support it- is slippery. PLenty of others on this threas and SOme seem to think it will
result in nursing homes being used by the govt/carers/family as a cheap way to kill folk off

Sometime this site is somewhat tin foil hatty and irrational.

Might as well argue we should not have the NHS because Shipman killed all those folk

IMHO you either agree with the principle or you disagree with the principle

the argument that it will lead to secret mass murder is just hysteria

bencooper - Member

It's also been shown that, if you give people the option, many chose not to take it - and in fact it leads to improved remaining quality of life. Knowing they can step out when they want makes people feel better about being alive while they can.

Yup. There is brutal arithmetic here, when you're faced with the realisation that soon you might not be able to take matters into your own hands. It becomes either take your own life earlier than you have to, or lose the choice entirely. And you're never more likely to want to make that choice, than after you lose the ability to take care of it yourself. We lost my great uncle this way, he could have lived well for years more but he knew he couldn't count on it.

Terry Pratchett's dimbleby lecture was good, on this subject. Articulate, informed, and furious.

My mother was terminally ill in last stage Alzheimers for over 7 years. We withdrew water from my mother when she could no longer process it. It took 11 days for her to pass away. You would not treat an animal this way.

My very elderly mother in law (Alzheimers) received some of the poorest care you could imagine in multiple hospitals. Day after day either they did not give pain meds leaving her screaming in pain or left her out of bed sitting in her own mess. Her quality of life was zero and you would not treat an animal in this way.

For the former I would vote for euthanasia rather than just withdrawing water. For the latter the system is completely screwed up and needs fixing.

I'm inclined to support it, with conditions such as it could only be used in the latter stages of terminal illness and agreed by two doctors

However events with the Liverpool care pathway leave me very uncomfortable regards the chance of preventing it being misused 🙁

[quote=ninfan ]However events with the Liverpool care pathway leave me very uncomfortable regards the chance of preventing it being misused

I think we have to accept that in a small number of cases it will be misused, it won't be perfect. But the question isn't whether abuse can be completely prevented, the question is whether the overall situation will be better than what we have now, and the answer is definitely yes.

Can it be trialed on BT's customer service division? Today?

All this piety about the sanctity of life makes me sick. We all die, the question is whether we can chose a relaxed painless process at a time and place of our chosing, or have to suffer whatever pain, indignity, frustration, fear and helplessness that happens to come our way through chance.

Doctors have long practiced euthanasia by stealth. Get over it, and legalise it.

Legalise it and in weeks the old and ill will be pressurised by family to do them selves in. Dangerous ground this, how long before some carer is suggesting that someone should just die.

How many families currently pressure the old and ill to throw themselves under a bus, or jump off a high bridge, or buy a one-way ticket to Switzerland?

'Do not play god' - goes both ways. Prolonging life when there is no actual point to it and the patient has a clear and obvious desire for it to end - is that not playing god too?

Indeed.

Doctors, particularly those regularly involved in terminal illness and palliative care, have a clearer insight into this than most.

That said, [url= http://bma.org.uk/support-at-work/ethics/bma-policy-assisted-dying ]the BMA is currently against it[/url].

The slippery slope argument is really rubbish and generally dragged out by people who say that they "care for those who can't speak for themselves" in some form or another.

They fail to mention what should be done in the case of people who _can_ speak for themselves and make their decision clear in advance but are unable to carry out their own wishes, or have their relatives help them for fear of jail.

This is one place where religion conspicuously raises its ugly head in trying to enforce its "morality" onto others as it has done in the past with the ability to divorce, abortion rights, gay marriage, and any other number of liberal measures.

As an example of this attitude, apparently some people find this picture reasuring rather than horrifying.
[img] [/img]

Religion .. not even once.

[edit] P.S. I love the roller coaster idea.. beats my current idea of a retirement cottage at the top of a massive sea cliff with no fence :O)

That sounds like a actual invitation to pop round their place and beat the living shit out of them, it'll be a grace filled opportunity for them to suffer having their balls stepped on. Who am I to deny them that? Jesus works through my sharpened knitting needle

Northwind .. I've never thought of it that way, but I see the logic in your argument.
It looks like being anti euthanasia (or "human rights" as I like to call it) could be a "slippery slope" to ball-crushing pain :O)

If you ever find yourself in the hideous position of suffering a drawn out end to a terminal illness please get on good terms with your GP and quickly....in my experience as a paramedic those who suffer most are those who suffer in silence....start seeing your GP soon after getting the diagnosis, even when you're still fairly well, mobile etc....unloading emotionally is beneficial for a start....but more importantly if you express just how terrified you are about the pain and suffering aspect the more likely you are in the end to have a GP who will administer that final large bolus of morphine 'to make you comfortable'....or the more likely that you'll be walking home with a script for several large bottles of oramorph solution, that then gives you the option of checking out on your own terms.

Don't be one of those martyrs that doesn't want to be a nuisance, it's your death so bloody well take control of it!

Northwind - Member
That sounds like a actual invitation to pop round their place and beat the living shit out of them, it'll be a grace filled opportunity for them to suffer having their balls stepped on. Who am I to deny them that? Jesus works through my sharpened knitting needle

Good thread btw, never expected that from the OP.

[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC479163/ ]1999 Journal of Medical Ethics article on the Netherlands[/url] euthanasia experience here. I'm sure there are more recent studies, and in other countries. I'm happily sharing this one because it acknowledges that the practice appeared (in 1999 to be developing. It doesn't [i]seem[/i] to be the case that allowing voluntary euthanasia produces an automatic slaughter of the burdensome elderly.

Just as we know perfectly well that banning firearms or permitting gay marriage in the US would actually be OK because it works everywhere else in the civilised world, so we ought to be mindful that other countries have had quite a lot of experience with euthanasia - enough to show that the nightmares conjured by its opponents are probably not going to happen.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book and made a film (on youtube) about mother teresa's practices in calcutta. He claims many patients were refused medical care to alleviate their suffering (pain killers) as it was the patients duty to suffer for god. This information was based on people who worked for her at the time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/mother-teresa-myth_n_2805697.html

Yes. Please.

Been a doc for 30 years... Never took the Hippocratic oath, it isn't universal and much of it is out dated rubbish.

The double effect doctrine means effective palliative care may lead to people dying sooner.

Sorting out euthanasia to work properly and safely would be difficult, but things worth doing often are.

The right to choose to die should be respected. The religious and their imaginary friends should butt out.

Stoatsbrother - Member
The right to choose to die should be respected.

So far so good ... your body, your life so do as you like. I agree totally.

The religious and their imaginary friends should butt out.

Oh hang on here we go again ...

On the one hand the right to choose should be respected (Okay, no problem with that) but on the other hand you are choosing for them? i.e. you are telling them there is no imaginary friends which in effect is trying to impose your views on them?

Am I reading that right?

😯

chewkw - Member

On the one hand the right to choose should be respected (Okay, no problem with that) but on the other hand you are choosing for them?

No, he's saying they don't get to choose for anyone else. If your religion says suicide/assisted dying is a sin then by all means don't commit suicide.

Northwind - Member

chewkw - Member

On the one hand the right to choose should be respected (Okay, no problem with that) but on the other hand you are choosing for them?

No, he's saying they don't get to choose for anyone else. If your religion says suicide/assisted dying is a sin then by all means don't commit suicide.

Ah ... Thank you.

Okay, nothing to see here continue with your conversation ... 😛

Nothing much to add here except if anyone thinks that this hasn't been going on in hospitals and hospices all over the country on compassionate grounds for years, wake up and smell the coffee. (Although possibly a little less after the Shipman thing, I certainly noticed a real effect upon Dr's willingness to write up decent opiate prescriptions since that).

It's high time this country grew up and had an adult conversation about death. Thing is, it's the ultimate 'let's talk about it, just not today' topic, isn't it?

I am sure this has gone on for ages what troubles me that is the Drs in my case made a deliberate decision to take steps that resulted in my dads death , he was going to die but they hastened it I actively supported consented to and encouraged those actions , on one view of the law they and I are guilty of murder harsh but true . Should we really be at risk of conviction avoiding it only because the facts are never reported or examined or because a essentially political appointee decides it is not in the public interest to prosecute us .
Part of me thinks the current lack of clarity and discretion creates a grey area where good can be done , but I also fear for those who needs some clear support and guidance at such a difficult time.

Absolutely, crankboy, my thoughts exactly. On the one hand, an open and honest conversation to bring out into the open the actions of the compassionate in order to protect them.

On the other hand, that conversation may not go the way that you and I would hope once the Daily Mail et al get their nasty teeth into it. Not to mention the Church; don't get me started...

Part of me thinks it's safer to keep this stuff in the shadows, but that way it's patchy and inconsistent. For every experience of compassion such as yours, there are several stories of horrible indeterminable suffering, due to doctors with differing moral views/lacking the bravery to do the right thing*

*delete depending on how charitable you are feeling...

As an example of this attitude, apparently some people find this picture reasuring rather than horrifying

I am a Christian (who mostly doesn't do the right thing) and I find that picture / quote utterly horrible. Quite the sort of thing I'd expect from certain sects that I have experienced - and from which I distance myself utterly.

I am totally in favour of assisted dying (although a part of me wonders how that squares with God's will). God gave us the intelligence to develop the means for it and to sort out a way of implementing safeguards, though, so let's think it through and do what's best for those in need.

Very hard question in some ways - and very straightforward in others.

Well said JulianA! and thats coming from an atheist... (but who hopefully respects other peoples views)

Whoa. Hang on a moment. With no suggestion it should bring this conversation to a halt, at the very least the situation and ideas [url= http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-death-treatment ]this article from the New Yorker[/url] about the Belgian approach to euthanasia needs to be read.

That picture might be fine if the target audience is a convinced religious group (although I find all pithy emotional appeals borderline offensive), but it is not fine if the creators of it were targeting the general population.

If nothing else, it would just be naive to think that a non-Christian would give a rip about sharing in the passion of Jesus.