Right to die, right to live, and prejudices

Whose life is it anyway?

While I was reading this report, I was listening to an item on BBC News which said that UK hospitals were on the verge of collapse. The hospital trust involved in this case is the one that allowed David Jackson to continue to operate after he bungled one operation after another and which made it very difficult for us to obtain my daughter's records.
Allowing people to die because they have a mental or physical disability was one 'solution' used in Nazi Germany. I would be very afraid if I had a relative whose quality of life was judged by doctors.

I think this highlights the dangers inherent in so-called assisted suicide. I cannot think of any safeguards which would be entirely trustworthy in the case of the vulnerable, whether because of age or incapacity.

So, lily, Do you think that Tony Nicklinson's family wanted him to die and he didn't? That's certainly not the impression I got from what I read. It seemed to be his decision that his family were supporting. I fully understand and agree with your reservations, but we ought to be able to accommodate those so that the rights of people like Tony Nicklinson are protected as well as the rights of people like AWA.

Lilygran - do you think your reservations about assisted suicide could be coloured by your religious beliefs?

I know I am going off on a tangent here so sorry bags we have a friend whose DD is Downs and needed a life saving heart op, the battle they had to get the hospital to carry it out. Its a disgrace the way judgement was made because she was Downs. The operation took place and her quality of life has greatly improved but would have been very different if they hadn't taken on the Authorities.

Sounds like a similar case to the one in the article, glass, and yes, it is shocking that there is still so much prejudice against Downs Syndrome and other genetic problems

Glass - I think your post is very relevant to the thread.
I think some doctors make judgements about old people too.
My sister was told by various doctors that all her ailments were just because of her age. Finally, she found an unbiased doctor who actually treated her. I have just heard that people over 65 comprise the major parts of patient numbers. Perhaps we should all just die before we get expensive to treat.

Not sure it matters what influences reservatiions about assisted suicide. It might, but we can go past that and debate the actual issue of whether people, such as Tony Nicklinson, should be given help to end their lives simply because they cannot do it themselves even though they want to.

What's to stop us looking at the Swiss model for dealing with such things? I'm sure safeguards are in place there. It's not as if there is no experience of assisted suicide working well anywhere.

I've got a 'Get to Switzerland' slush fund.

Forgive me but what makes Lily's concerns because of her religion? I think many people are concerned that if assisted suicide becomes legal older people will feel pressured to die and get out of everyone's way. They might feel they are being a nuisance and request assistance to die rather than be in the way. There is even a suggestion that some families might want the older person's money. I don't think this is anything to do with religion, just concern about the outcome of making it legal.

Do we really know enough about this poor man to really judge this? Is it really because he has Downs Syndrome that they have done this, or is it because of his actual quality of life? He is bed bound. Fed through a tube. And has now developed dementia. He was admitted to hospital with pneumonia.

Could it be that the health people know what they would be keeping him alive for? I don't know much about Downs, but I'm fairly sure that at 52 he is coming to the end, for someone with this awful syndrome.

I think they might know what they're doing.

I agree with Lily and that this highlights the inherent dangers that need to be faced. JO4, I am sorry but whatever gave the health authorities the right to make the decision that they did. As I understand it, the gentleman made a full recovery from his bout of pneumonia and is now back enjoying life in his care home. Why should it make any difference what 'syndrome' he is suffering from as to whether he is treated or not.

We cannot really know what quality of life he has. Dementia alone can be terrifying for people without Downs. At 52 he would, sadly, be coming to the end of his natural life.

jings has made a good point.

movedalot, as you say, it's the need to avoid 'mistakes' or unfair pressure on old people (or young ones, for that matter; Tony Nicklinson wasn't old) that means this issue has to be debated properly and the law made "fail safe." They seem to have done this in Switzerland. What's stopping us doing the same as they are doing?

Sometimes it's just kinder to let nature take it's course.

Obviously it is sensible to give doctors discretion about resuscitation as long as they make their decisions on clinical grounds and not as a result of judging someone's quality of life. Resuscitation is a drastic act and, more often than not, is unsuccessful. If it looks as if it will not be successful there is good reason to refrain from putting a patient through this ordeal. However, it appears that Downs syndrome and learning difficulties were two of the reasons given for this do not resuscitate instruction. This is clearly unethical and is almost certainly contrary to guidelines.

As far as assisted suicide is concerned, anxieties about vulnerable old people being pressurised by their families looks pretty groundless to me. This doesn't appear to be a problem in Switzerland and other places where assisted suicide is legal. Are those who raise this point suggesting that Brits are far more uncivilized, money grubbing and callous than these other nations?

I absolutely agree that it is sometimes kinder to let nature take its course, but where do we start/end? How long should we attempt to resuscitate fit footballer/ fit 90 year old? Should we treat beautiful pop singer with breast cancer but not 85 year old grandmother? Should the unemployed 18year old with pneumonia not receive any treatment but the company director receive only the best care? And if the question is to be about quality of life.... well who has any right to determine that? Ultimately, our safest course is for the decisions to be made by a court and not by medical/political/social agencies or anybody else on our behalf or with our best interests in mind!

You can only go by the quality of life you are bringing them back to. I would prefer doctors to decide.

I'm pretty sure that if this had been a reasonably fit and healthy person, Downs or not, there would have been no hesitation in resuscitating.

I think age is relevant. Why resuscitate someone who's heart has packed in as a result of pneumonia when they are, for example, already in their late eighties or early nineties. Death from such a cause is natural and good.

If it happens naturally, I agree with you, Bags. It seems to me there are a number of problems here. One is the assumption that someone else's quality of life is so poor that they'd rather be dead. The other is that medical intervention means people often don't quietly leave, they are kept alive to a certain point and then present a problem because they will never be well again. Even if you say for example, at age 75 and in reasonable health that you want to be put to sleep if you develop dementia or some other degenerative incurable condition, how do you know that you will still feel the same when it comes to it? Or doesn't that matter? I come from a long-lived family so I have some experience of old people clinging onto the life they have with admirable determination even when it might seem that life is empty and painful. And of old people saying one minute, 'I wish I was dead' and next minute chortling at some television programme.

Those are legitimate concerns which the Swiss system has successfully addressed.

Yes, the person concerned would have to prove they had thought long and hard about it and considered every angle - they wouldn't accept someone just on a sudden whim. I'm not sure why this country is so suspicious about the consequences of allowing us to have a choice in the manner of our death. If there was any question of coercion or intimidation, if the system had been set up properly it would be detected. I certainly wouldn't trust the Courts to decide my fate for me.

Me either nag about time the government stopped burying their heads and looked forward for a change. I know I would prefer to have a say in the end of my life.