Right to die, right to live, and prejudices

glass Thanks for posting this. I hope the legacy he's left will not be in vain.

Thanks, Glass, what a wonderful article. I wish everybody had ignored the miserable, inhumane, nasty, horrible person! Not a good advert for Christianity! And mostly rubbish.

Yes, a wonderful eulogy that gave us a glimpse of the man he truly was

Very moving, thank you.

Just found this from Tony Nicklinsons Daughter

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/tony-nicklinson-lauren-daughter-euthanasia

Life is precious and beautiful a gift but the moral debate of allowing people with severe terminal illness or disability the right to die if they so wish is hypocritical. The Church sees no problem with able bodied young people who wish to offer their lives (which may mean to give up their life) for queen and country. Indeed it honours such sacrifice. Equally are they not comapaining to prevent those who die from addiction (a form of suicide) Indeed they are not campaining for somone not to take their own life if they so can.

Yet when one disperately ill individual asks that they should be helped to die after endless scrutiny of the the individual case they complain on moral grounds. The qulaity and suffering of that individual`s life seems unimportant. Would a loved dog to be allowed suffer in such a way? The excuse that making this legal could be abused does not hold up. It is not rocket science to ensure each case is considered on it own merit.

Thanks you for that story, printmiss. I don't think it's off track at all. She made her choice and that choice had to be accepted whatever anyone else thought.

I wonder if I might just go off track for a little? There is another side to this, a friend whose daughter had learning difficulties, not severe, but bad enough to need constant supervision, was found to have stomach cancer which was at a stage when it could be treated. Because it was appreciated she could understand what was happening, it was necessary for her to sign the consent form for an operation - she was of that age - but refused to do so on several occasions, and eventually died. I have been told there was nothing that could be done about her refusal, but I am not absolutely sure on the fact. I do know however that she was a very determined young lady, and quite aggressive on occasions.

I don't want the carers in the old people's home giving me long hard stares when I'm being a pain in the bum.

I'd know just what they'd be thinking.

Seriously, I think it would be a retrograde step in the treatment of old people.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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!

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.