Assisted Dying

I haven't answered it yet, janea. Gi's a moment...

The Dignity in Dying campaign which I support, says this:

"We campaign to change the law to allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults the choice of an assisted death."

That is my understanding of assisted dying, which I hope answers the question about age.

Suicide, by comparison, I see as stemming from altogether different causes and I presume the urge to commit suicide can affect almost anyone except young children.

I don't accept that doctors who support assisted dying are killing people. They are helping people to end their suffering if those people want to. The patients kill themselves.

If the person takes their own live without any assistance from another that is suicide. If there is help from another that is assisted suicide.

Not sure that the difference between assisted suicide and assisted dying is clear.

I'd think most people would accept assisted death ought to be available to those who wish it.

X posts bags

I think we would all support the Dignity in Dying's aims with regard to terminally ill people. They have a right to choose to end their suffering. I am not comfortable in Dr's aiding suicide for other less understandable reasons. Perhaps I have different views to others between ending, and taking, a life.

And I'd like to challenge the view that families are inevitably devastated when a relative passes away, by whatever means. Mixed in with grief there is often a sense of relief.

I speak from petsonal experience, but I know this is not a unique feeling.

I agree with that, annsixty. What is not clear to me is why people insist that the woman in the OP was not suffering. It seems to me that she was suffering enough to want to die by her own hand but in a medically controlled environment so that she didn't botch it. Dignitas gives couselling before they assist anyone.

That is my feeling too, anya. One still has to go through the grieving process but the feeling of relief for the dead person is profound and important. Their suffering is more important than the suffering grief causes.

I am not sure that this lady could be regarded as having been terminally ill - by her definition we are all terminally ill, life being a fatal disease.

Her case is certainly unusual, from what we can glean online, but it also looks to me as if nobody has done anything wrong. For me, that's the bottom line.

I have seen too many members of my family and friends die long, lingering, painful and undignified deaths. I want to be able to choose to die when I think there is no hope of a cure or a good quality of life.

Also, as the vast numbers of baby boomers enter old age, the cost of end of life care will be an enormous drain on the state. What is the point of giving very old people dialysis, antibiotics, expensive surgery etc when it only prolongues a miserable existence for a few more months? It seems that no one is allowed to die peacefully and quickly anymore. As a generation, we have had a lot of choice and control over our lives. Why not be able to control our death?

We don't know what was going on in this lady's life, but she seems to have made a decision that was right for her. She shouldn't have had to do it in Switzerland.

I saw a TV interview w the husband, who seemed to be taking it in his stride - they had talked about it a lot. Her health, while nothing like terminal was going downhill, she could only do 10 mins gardening and then needed a sleep on the sofa etc.

To me it's like abortion. It started out that there had to be certain conditions, now pretty much ignored, on demand etc. The danger here is the relatives hanging over the sick person saying, well you could go now if you like (and spare me the hosp visits). I'll help you. Person feels they have to go for it - not good. It is a can of worms in my opinion best left unopened.

I believe that if you look at the best outcome for the greatest number of people, things need to stay as they are. Of course some terminally ill people would suffer but a far greater number of people would then not feel pressured and guilty at the end of their lives.

I think that if the rigorous legal processes were followed, it's no one else's business, apart from the immediate family's – but theirs only to a limited extent. I would argue that their opinions and wishes are outweighed by the rights and autonomy of the person who is making that choice.

Bags if that is Dignity in Dying's 'mission statement' then from what we have been told about this woman's health, she was very far from fitting their criteria.
I would be very interested in whether or not they condone the procedures she went through before her death.

It doesn't answer the question about age because it refers to terminally ill people.
The question was at what age should doctors kill people who aren't terminally ill.
That if the woman had been 45 and had mild disability? Would that have been ok?

What if ....

fluttERBY123 - the system here with EXIT in Switzerland prevents this from happening. The person requesting help to die at home is interviewed, on their own, by trained counsellors who would NOT go ahead if there is any signs of outside pressure- they know how and which questions to ask, and any hesitation would stop the process. A similar interview is done again on the day of the deed, again with the person alone- and again, any hesitation or any sign would stop the process. It is really 100% failsafe.

I do have mixed feelings about this case- but find it tragic that this woman had to travel to Switzerland to carry out her wishes, in order to protect her partner and family from accusations.

Again, a reminder that Dignitas is only used by foreigners. Swiss people who choose this route will be members of EXIT and will be able to die in their own home, with family or friends, if they choose- in their own bed or favourite armchair- with or wihout their favourite music, etc, etc. Dignitas is only a last resort for foreigners who do not have that choice back home- who wants to die in a foreign countra, on an industrial estate? No-one unless they have no other choice.

It's not the doctors' choice

Anyone remember that relatively young man, completely disabled by a stroke, with no hope of recovery but who could potentially live your years and years? He was refused help with assisted suicide, and ended up starving himself to death?

jane, picking an arbitrary age is just not helpful, is it- each case has to be taken on its 'merits'. And yes, the case you mention would make me feel very un-easy- but if the person is adamant this is what they want - perhaps it is still their choice. At the end of the day, they can commit a messy suicide anyhow- without the security of making sure it would be quick and painless. I don't know. 1000s commit suicide every day- DD1's train is constantly stopped and delayed due to 'jumpers' - is that a better way? (just asking- I am not sure myself where I stand here- just talking aloud- as you say, this is NOT an argument but a discussion).

And I agree re-abortion laws- it has gone too far, with many women choosing repeated abortions instead of contraception, which to my mind is really tragic. One woman in France recently wrote about having 30+ abortions.

I think if that's what she really wanted to do then that's fine, but as an ex-socaial worker I admire the way the mental health act uses professionals to help decide what is really best for a person't future.

Three people see a person who is being assessed as possibly needing admission to hospital. Two doctors see the person and assess their mental condition but the social worker is there to protect people's civil rights. It is not the same as counselling, but more proactive, checking there is no pressure from anyone else, or other reasons like mounting debts, worry about ill health or anything else.

If all those things could be eradicated, and the lady pronounced to have capacity to decide and the social worker to be sure she was not unduly influenced, then I think she should have the right to make her own decision.

I think if this was adopted by assisted suicide proponents it would have a better chance of success, though I accept that it would require change in statue not just a break with precedent.

I do think that this case opens up a can of worms. There is no suggestion in any of the reports that she was "terminally ill" by anyone's definition. As far we can tell she did not have a life-threatening illness, nor was she in the sort of pain that normally is regarded as intolerable and intractable. It appears to have been solely based on the fact that she was getting older and slowing down. So are millions of others - that should not become a legal criterion for ending one's life. It has shifted the goal posts quite considerably.

We'll never know what happens about the what ifs until we try to find out in a practical and careful way, as has been done in, for instance, Oregon, for more than a decade. With, I might add, no problems or abuses of the system. Human beings can learn from each other. The initial 'experiment' has already been done and the outlook os good.

What if she had just taken her own life without reference to anyone else: suicide?

Would that have been preferable? I think not.

But at the moment that is the only alternative in the UK. Pretty awful, I'd say.

Granjura - Switzerland is one thing - I can't imagine any such stringency if the process was administered by the NHS....though I take your point.