The last taboo?

FlicketyB

The trouble, as I see it, with the mantra you quote is that the "not strive officiously" part is interpreted according to the institution or relative who has the power. If a close relative loves the dying person too much to really be able to "let go" in a loving way, or a doctor believes that his/her duty is only to keep the patient breathing or they have "failed", a sort of "blindness" descends as to the compassionate action ( or lack of it).

We now have so much technical ability to keep people alive that we seem to think that that is the only moral thing to do instead of asking whether morality might sometimes be to let nature take it's course.

Are we really gaining very much in quality of life as we add that extra 6 months or year to everyone's life?

I DO NOT believe than anyone has the right to force/persuade someone else to end their life but that does not seem to be the question here: the question, as I understand it, is whether we, as individuals, have the right to make our own decisions at this most profoundly personal moment of our life.

This is a bit like the abortion issue isn't it. On the one hand there is a group of people, a powerful lobby group, who believe "thou shalt not kill" is a moral absolute. They would like their view of morality to be enshrined in law so that it applies to everyone and not just those who agree with them. On the other hand there are those who think that people have "a right to choose". This group want the choice to be enshrined in law but do not wish to impose their will on others.
Have to say that the hospice movement sets a standard in care of dying - but isn't it interesting that it relies on charitable donations and that many people have to put up with a hospital ward and the unreliable care that this affords. See the thread on that subject elsewhere on this forum.

iloverose, I disagree, 'not to strive officiously to keep alive ' does mean letting nature take its course and not using every technical facility to keep people alive, this is why we used the phrase. Of course there will be families who want to go on using every technique to keep someone alive, but they would not use the phrasing we used. Doctors too will ignore or disagree with relatives. Subjects like this will always have grey areas around the edges but nobody had any difficulty in understanding what we wanted which we did anyway spell out quite clearly, Yes to medication, nutrition and hydration, no to invasive treatments which would cause him physical and mental distress.

JessM, The problem is what starts as the right to choose soon becomes what you ought to do and finally what you are pressured into doing. Abortion started out as applying to circumstances where there were good medical or psychological reasons for abortion with each case carefully examined before decision is made. Bit by bit it has become abortion in demand . These developments can be considered to be a right and proper way to go but we now have a situation where it is assumed that parents will abort a foetus that may be born disabled and some are put under considerable pressure if they decide not to and extensively in the far east foetuses are scanned for gender definition so that unwanted female foetuses can be aborted because boys are preferred to girls

This evening there was a programme on R4 about treating people in persistent vegetative states. It including a story of a consultant deciding on a very cursory examination that a patient was in this state and had been for a considerable time, there was no purpose in keeping them alive and just telling the relatives that nutrition etc would be stopped. The consultant was acting illegally and eventually a court order stopped the process, But the attitude shown by the consultant and his behaviour towards such patients will not go away just because in this case he acted illegally and he is probably not the only one who thinks and would act like him if possible.

I am not suggesting that lives of all people in this state should be preserved until they die of natural causes but at the end of the programme there was mention that with NHS resources stretched some trusts are considering how much resources can be given to people in this state for long periods or put simply if you do not end the life of the person in a vegetative state, you may have to bear the cost of their care. And if you cant? From there it is a short step to deciding that the NHS must consider how much resources can be spent on elderly people with chronic conditions that are costly to treat. Death by a thousand cuts.

It is called the law of unintended consequences

Having only just picked up this thread, I find it interesting, and pleasing, to see that most contributors are in favour of having the right to choose when they die.
As the (mainstream) medical profession has developed over the centuries it has sought to repair broken bodies and improve and preserve life. It has evolved in partnership with a wide range of ancillary facilities, such as nursing services, pharmaceutical companies and, of course, political control of our lives. In many ways they've done well - but - they are not as clever as they'd like to have us believe, and they should not have the right to dictate to us that we must "soldier on" whatever the state of our lives and our health.
One of my worries about this subject is that it tends to consider only the effects and the consequences of a painful and/or debilitating physical disease. But those people who raised the Terry Pratchett involvement will be aware that he is suffering from a particular type of Alzheimer's disease. This means that a time will arrive when he will be unable to make his thoughts, his needs and his wishes known. He will, at that time, be unable to insist on a particular course of action. He will not be considered to be "of sound mind" and therefore the medical profession will, without doubt, ignore any plea he may be able to make to have his life ended peacefully.
This will mean that anybody who develops the early stages of Alzheimer's will need some means of declaring their wishes at that time, and then have them carried out at a later date - or before the disease's effects really get a grip. This is a major problem, both for the individual and for any legislation that may be enacted.
As someone who has seen, up close, the way the disease can destroy people and their families, and watched the incompetent and un-caring manner in which this society "cares" for sufferers, I have to say that I do not intend to follow the route taken by those I've loved and lost - and that means lost before they've died.
How a government will frame legislation to allow those with totally destructive mental problems to die in peace - and at a time of their choosing - is a question that will tax even the most brave, compassionate and understanding of politicians. But they have to do it.

bikerdave

You have put into a much more eloquent posting, that which I wished to convey. Thankyou