I have been listening to and reading about Kelly Taylor, a 30 year old terminally ill woman who is to launch a legal battle to force doctors to allow her to die. Should Doctors and the law accept when a patient feels enough is enough and assist them in ending their life?

I know it must be hard for all parties involved in such a case and I hope it is something I don't ever have to go through but as Kelly argues "I don't really understand why I'm here. I go from day to day just making it through the day. I don't want to be here.".

Should Kelly be allowed to die?

Story here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6353339.stm)

Yes they should. I cannot see a sensible reason why they should not ... other than religious, which is twaddle!

Its illegal to allow animals to suffer so why allow people to?
This poor lady is in constant pain and should be allowed a dignified and pain free end.

i personaly believe it shouldbe a personal choice but you shoud have to have the backing of say 2doctors or a doctgor and a family member or some thing allong those line so you dont get everone who is a little depressed killing them self. i alsso think there should be a set methored for ending you life. but i dont realy think you would be able to get a doctor to back you because they would be left wide open for allsorts of leagle difficulties

I think it should be personal choice. I could choose it for myself, but not sure I could agree for my partner, child etc.

In a word, yes. Palliative care is absolutely diobolical in this country. Morphine is worse than useless. I had no choice surrounding my birth but if needs be and if in sound mind, I will have the ultimate choice surrounding my death.

Yes, but there would have to be safeguards in place, to make sure that it was a rationally arrived at choice by the sufferer.

Its your life it should be your choice

We don't allow animals to suffer lingering deaths, treating them with enough drugs to enable them to suffer a little longer - we say 'the kindest thing to do' and we allow them to die peacefully and painlessly

A colleague of mine was distraught that her grandmother's tube feeding was withdrawn at the agreement of family and doctors, but it took her eight days to die after that

they shoot horses, don't they?
(don't report that comment, it's a saying, and a film title ;) )

In a word, yes. Palliative care is absolutely diobolical in this country.


I think you have hit the nail on the head, I believe that the lady in question wants to die because her pain is so bad. Then surely there needs to be a lot more research and work done to improve palliative care, this then could make her last few precious days bearable.

I fear that if euthinasia is legalised the research into palliative care may drop off.

Having watched relatives end their lives in pain and distress, then no, you should not be able to choose. Strange logic? Not really, as I saw how the process of getting ill and infirm inevitably made them feel they were a 'burden', and its only a tiny step away from feeling like a 'burden' to sincerely wanting to die.

Now take this urge and look at how easily it could be exploited by the family. All it takes is sighing, a few little moans about 'how busy they are these days' and the relative stuck in the care home soon feels guilty and eventually says they want to die. How can safeguards prevent that from happening? And then there are people who when lucid said they would want to die - what happens when they lose their powers of communication - how can we be sure they still want to die?

It's a tragedy for those who have genuinely taken the conscious decision to die that they cannot, but we have to protect the vulnerable who have not taken a conscious decision as death is pretty final.

This has nothing to do with religion, and a lot to do with protecting those who could be exploited. As long as that doubt remains we can't legalise it, which is nevertheless sad on those who are completely decided.

i personaly believe it shouldbe a personal choice but you shoud have to have the backing of say 2doctors or a doctgor and a family member or some thing allong those line so you dont get everone who is a little depressed killing them self. i alsso think there should be a set methored for ending you life. but i dont realy think you would be able to get a doctor to back you because they would be left wide open for allsorts of leagle difficulties

I don't mean people who are a little depressed dinger. I mean terminally ill people who know they are going to die and most probably have a painful existence until they do die.

I agree that there should be guidelines and regulations but for doctors to outright refuse someone the right to death seems a bit sick to me and especially in the name of medical ethics.

I fear that if euthenasia is legalised, then some money-grabbing git will jump on the bandwagon and charge the sufferer's relatives a fortune for the service: .... see 'undertaker'.

It's one of those things that I'm never entirely sure about ... For me, yeah I'd like to think that, should living become unbearable, I would have a choice in whether or not I continued to live.

However, I do accept the comments made above by Mathom - protecting the vulnerable is important, and no matter how tight the safeguards, loopholes would be found and exploited.

Also, I think that no doctor should be automatically expected to carry out the procedure. No-one goes into the profession wanting to end up deliberately killing people, and therefore I think all doctors and medical staff should be entitled to refuse to carry it out, should they so wish.

My argument towards Doctors is this. If a Vet puts an animal down does this mean he is a bad vet? Are vets not taught that if there is nothing more that can be done then put the animal "out of it's misery"? A Doctor that assists a patient in death could also be seen as doing what is best for the patient.

I completely agree that some people will take advantage of and try to find any loopholes in the law but these issues could be addressed and some solution could be found.

I'm really not sure where I stand on this. I definitely agree with the points raised so far that it should be an individual’s choice with the necessary safeguards put in place by a number of doctors. However, while it isn't a common occurrence, sometimes people do make miraculous recoveries. It isn’t a situation I envy. .

My argument towards Doctors is this. If a Vet puts an animal down does this mean he is a bad vet? Are vets not taught that if there is nothing more that can be done then put the animal "out of it's misery"? A Doctor that assists a patient in death could also be seen as doing what is best for the patient.
.

Fair enough, but many doctors may well see it as murder, or indeed they themselves may have religious or other moral reasons for not wanting to do it - in which case, they should not be forced to do it. I'm sure that, in the event that it did become legal, there would always be someone willing to do it - but I strongly feel that it should be each individual doctor's own choice, at the end of the day.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, I believe that the lady in question wants to die because her pain is so bad. Then surely there needs to be a lot more research and work done to improve palliative care, this then could make her last few precious days bearable.

I fear that if euthinasia is legalised the research into palliative care may drop off.

It's not just about pain relief but more about dignity really. In the latter stages of terminal illness, pain relief equates to sedation. Prior to this, Opiates have side effects that reduce a patients' dignity to little more than that of a new born. Unfortunately, palliative care is one of those areas the NHS can so easily reduce, cost wise: the knowledge is there but, as I know from experience,and not in an NHS establishment............."Don't bother with him................he's going to die anyway"

I made my choice long ago if ever i was terminally ill with no chance of getting better i would end it anyway . I have told my family of my views
and after much huffing and puffing they agreed they would probably do the same .Why suffer and linger on for however long you have left ,at least you go in your time and with some dignity.

If the illness is terminal or the quality of life is bad, then yes. Death is always tragic for those around the patient, but Im sure that loved ones would rather see a dignified end to a life of pain than to see the patient suffering.

The bottom line is this..............I'm going to die anyway. Tis a question of when and what of.............." Send me the bill and I'll send you my best wishes"

I think it should be a personal choice, towards the end people dont have a quality life and are in constant pain. They also want to say goodbye to their familys before the inevitable happens, as they want loved ones to remember them as they were, not as they are going to be towards the end, which could be weeks of lingering

On the subject of palliative care. I believe euthanasia does exist. I also believe that if someone who is terminally ill, really has had enough then they should have the choice to die with diginity and without anymore pain and suffering - But only when they themselves are ready.

I sat with my mother as she died. She'd already said that she didn't want a lot of effort spent kepeing her alive, and I followed he instructions the best I could. When the time came, she was kept hydrated but not ventilated, and she gradually slipped deeper in to a coma and died.

I was there for the whole process, and was with her when she died.

Despite following my mother's instructions, I got the feel that my family were not at all happy with me. Family relations fell apart after that; I still feel that my family blamed me for my mum's death today.

You have to be strong to let someone you love die; I couldn't imagine actually signing off on a deliberate putting to death.

The cliched comment of 'Who's life is it anyway?' is only partially answered when you allow euthanasia. What you have to bear in mind is the impact on the living as well, in their decision making process and the aftermath.

No one wants to see people in pain, but at the same time having been in the position of the relative with the say so it's no bloody picnic there either.

If the illness is terminal or the quality of life is bad, then yes. Death is always tragic for those around the patient, but Im sure that loved ones would rather see a dignified end to a life of pain than to see the patient suffering.

i totally agree, i wouldnt want to spent the end of my days in pain and unable to do for myself, and its just as upsetting for family members to see loved ones go through it.

I think the thing that people who are fit and well think about is the prospect of not being able to care for yourself, but if you ever have an accident or an illness where this happens (hope nobody does, but it is always likely!), then you find you have changed your mind! You are just glad to be alive, and yes, having to have someone else do your personal care isn't dignified, but after a while you accept it.

The problem for a lot of ill and disabled people is that they do not have good care, they are sometimes left feeling dirty and uncomfortable, and if the care has to come from family (the government is spectacularly stingy in regards to care) then people often start feeling intense guilt. For example, their sheets have not been changed and they stink - they are upset by this but they don't feel they can tell the relative who has given up work to care for them that the care is just not good enough. Soon, thoughts turn to death...

If you look, most of these cases seem to be of people being cared for at home and you begin to wonder what more can be done to help out and to stop them wishing what's left of their lives away.

Its illegal to allow animals to suffer so why allow people to?
This poor lady is in constant pain and should be allowed a dignified and pain free end.

In this case yes. She is very clear in what she wants.
It gets harder if the person is not quite so clear or sure as she is. Could others 'help' her with the choice ?

I agree with a lot of the comments above, it`s a very delicate area and no matter what is or isn`t allowed there will always be people who don`t agree with it.
My personal choice would be to choose but if the time came and i was incapable, what would happen then? In an ideal world i would have made the choice earlier and my wishes would be carried out.

yes i think people that are teminally ill should be allowed to die if they know they have not got long to live. i would not want to just linger if all i was doing was sleeping or i was in that much pain.

after watching my hubby die its the most upsetting thing to watch someone you care for die, watch them to not be able to do the things they liked to do. to see them in pain and then to gradually get weaker not being able to do things for themselfs. seeing them not being able to eat then not want to drink then seeing them just laid there not being able to comunicate but just letting out little noises. you feeling so helpless that you cannot do anything. you have to just sit there and watch their breathing get to were its big gaps between breaths then the gaps become longer and you know its anytime now then they just stop breathing and you still want them to take another breath

i had never seen anyone die before until my hubby.i have read that the dehydration death is the best way to go with cancer patients and that pallative care is good at the end they do everything to try and make it as peacful as they can. but they dont really know what you are feeling when you are dying though do they.but the last 7 hours he didnt look as if he was in pain

It's a tragedy for those who have genuinely taken the conscious decision to die that they cannot, but we have to protect the vulnerable who have not taken a conscious decision as death is pretty final.


Your suggestion, that we refuse to aid those facing an undignified and painful death in order to ensure we never assist a vulnerable person to die when they might not really want it, has no balance. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it was cowardly. The fact that people can make mistakes, or even be "duped", is not a valid excuse for not trying to do the right thing.

We need to achieve a balance between quality and quantity of life. The "vulnerable" have risks to bear just the same as the rest of us. Some of us have strong hearts and some don't. Some of us have strong minds and others don't. We all have to play the cards we are dealt and, whilst we can and should help each other along the way, none of us have the right to compel others to sacrifice their quality of life to reduce a potential risk to our quantity of life. Expecting people to drive sensibly, so not to risk other people’s lives, is an acceptable ask. Expecting people to die painful, humiliating deaths, to avoid any risk that a vulnerable person might make a bad decision to end their own life, is not an acceptable ask.

We should never allow the fear of sometimes getting things wrong to prevent us for taking difficult decisions.

Sorry but 'strong minds' doesn't even come into it. Have you ever been teetering on the edge? I have, and your mind is not strong, but it may be ten days, ten weeks, even as long as ten years later.

We have to protect people, that's what separates us from mere animals.

Nobody 'expects' anyone to die painfully - in fact loosening the law leaves everything open for vast reductions in research into the care of the terminally ill and disabled, it reduces the impetus for providing palliative care. Right now the UK excels in providing palliative care (even though it has a long way to go in terms of care); with the NHS in crisis its not a big step to take to cut that funding if we can instead exercise psychological pressure on the expensively ill, disabled and elderly to die.

There's also the other not inconsiderable problem that Harold Shipman could happen many times over if we gave people the 'right' to die.

The truly compassionate, and Brave, thing to do is to increase palliative care. That includes mental therapy for those facing a lifetime of being in care as depression is a huge contributor to people saying they wish to die. Speak to anyone who's been involved with hospices and they will tell you a very different tale.

I read about this in today's paper and have to agree that the decision of how you leave this mortal coil should surely be the individual's. It's their life and if they are of sound mind and are capable of making an informed decision then that should be respected and acted upon. I think that is the one thing that scares me to death (pardon the pun) not being in control and having to endure a slow painful death. Given the choice, I know which I would choose!!!

We have to protect people, that's what separates us from mere animals.

But not to protect one lot of people at the expense of another lot.


Nobody 'expects' anyone to die painfully - in fact loosening the law leaves everything open for vast reductions in research into the care of the terminally ill and disabled, it reduces the impetus for providing palliative care.


You want to keep people alive against their will to conduct "research"?


Right now the UK excels in providing palliative care (even though it has a long way to go in terms of care); with the NHS in crisis its not a big step to take to cut that funding if we can instead exercise psychological pressure on the expensively ill, disabled and elderly to die.

Nobody is advocating a policy of placing psychological pressure on the expensively ill, disabled and elderly to die.



There's also the other not inconsiderable problem that Harold Shipman could happen many times over if we gave people the 'right' to die.

You could argue that keeping people alive against their will, to suffer agony and humiliation, is just as much as crime as bumping off the odd pensioner who at least didn't see it coming.


The truly compassionate, and Brave, thing to do is to increase palliative care. That includes mental therapy for those facing a lifetime of being in care as depression is a huge contributor to people saying they wish to die.

I would have to disagree that it was compassionate or brave to keep someone alive who truly didn't want to be, particularly when the money could be spent of raising the quality of life for many others.

Nobody is advocating cyanide pills on perscription for anyone asking to die. There would need to be strict guidelines and procedures to minimise risks. However, to simple say point blank that it can never be right to help someone end their life is not true and is IMO inhumane.

Sorry Zamo but I get the distinct impression you're just arguing to win judging by the odd statement about 'research' when you know that's NOT what I'm saying. I'll repeat it: opening the floodgates of 'right to die' risks crossing the boundaries of NHS funding and LESS money will be put into researching palliative care for the vast majority who want it - and note that those seeking the 'right to die' are a tiny, tiny percentage of the terminally ill and permanently disabled every year.

I'm afraid that if allowing people to 'die' means we risk other people being killed then we have allowed murder to happen. One of the reasons the death sentence was abolished was because it was not foolproof and we could never be 100% sure we were killing the right people (Pierrepoint himself believed Ruth Ellis was innocent, even though he put the rope round her neck). In short, it was open to mistakes and abuses.

So long as one person who is innocent is at risk then legalising moves like this cannot be brought in. Death is pretty final - as final as it gets. Allowing a handful of people less 'suffering' is no justification for legalising something extremely risky.

Anyone who knows anything about good palliative care also knows that people do not have to suffer at the end. What these people asking to die need is better care, not to be murdered.

I may be wrong but isn't one of the lines of the Hippocratic Oath "first do no harm"?

I am definitely in favour of Euthanasia and always have been. I saw a programme on this years back when my own husband was dying. Apparently, in Holland, the patient can make the decision to go for euthanasia. It has to be done all legal and the patient has to be seen by two independent doctors as well as his GP (I think) He has to be in full possession of his marbles as well. When the time comes, his GP comes in, checks he has still got his marbles, bumps him off, and then it is reported to the legal authorities (presumably just to make sure that the GP isn't having a jolly time bumping everybody off).

The example they showed was a chap dying of cancer as it happened. I haven't a clue what would have happened if he had gone nuts towards the end, but I got the impression that it would not have been carried through. I also seem to remember that certainly the first order and possibly the final one, the chap had to make a mark to show that this was what he wanted, but I could be wrong there.

What happens in the cases of badly injured or otherwise "deserving" cases, I don't know. These are by far the more difficult ones to deal with but as has been said before, vets can tell the difference, why not doctors?

I suppose we have always had certain gynaecologists who do abortions and some that won't, so it will come down to that in a way.

As to my own husband, he was fortunate, he had a cardiac arrhythmia from which (fortunately) he could not be converted, so his death in the end was sudden. Had he been able to choose his death, he would probably have chosen not to die alone, perhaps had me with him? It wouldn't have been in the back of an ambulance on the way to Rotherham.

I personally would like to thank this young woman for opening up the debate in this country about voluntary euthenasia.

Speaking for myself (and having been through a situation where for a number of months everyone, including my doctors, believed that I was terminally ill) I would hope that if and when the time came that I was faced with a future of constant pain and suffering, followed by a certain and painful death, that there was a way of saving my family from having to watch me go through that without being able to help my suffering.

I'd also want there to be a way for me to absolve them of the terribly lasting guilt of thinking that they had committed a crime if they felt that they had helped me if I actually did decide that I'd had enough. One of the reasons why I at the time I thought about euthenasia and its implications and passed it by was because of the implications that it would have on my family members.

In a world where no medicine could make a person's life longer or more productive, it would be humane to allow people to choose the time of their own passing to relieve suffering and the burden of guilt off their family.

In terms of the law, I have no idea how this could be made to work with adequate safeguards that everyone who was a 'burden' didn't end up feeling forced to kill themselves, but I can't help feeling that there has to be a way that's better than the current law.

There is a huge difference between executing a wrongly convicted healthy human being and respecting someone's final wishes to die with dignity.

Palliative care is all well and good if a person wishes to see their life through to the end but is palliative care the right thing if that is not what a terminally ill person wants?

You could flip the coin both ways and see palliative care as an inhumane act. If someone wishes to have the right to die when they can see no way out other than a painful existence until death, who are we to choose otherwise?

I am all aware of "self actualisation" and am well aware that for some people who can't do much with their body, even the smallest thing can be the greatest thing.

The point is though, this girl is of sound mind and wants to die. We as fellow human beings should not refuse her that right.

It is a very tough subject and I'm sure we won't find all the answers but to merely brush the wishes of a patient to one side to me is medically unethical.

Everyone should have the right to die.

You could flip the coin both ways and see palliative care as an inhumane act. If someone wishes to have the right to die when they can see no way out other than a painful existence until death, who are we to choose otherwise?



Sorry to take issue with you on something there, but palliative care is all about alleviating suffering, in patients who have a good prognosis as well as those for whom no cure can be found.

My palliative care physician has had a bigger effect on my life than I think he could ever understand- the difference between existence and life. Before he helped me I was definitely existing- I was in constant agony and actually wanted to die. Now I'm living with much lower pain, and whilst my life is limited by my disabilities, it's certainly not bad enough that I dread waking up in the morning.

Please don't confuse palliative care with euthenasia.

Sorry to take issue with you on something there, but palliative care is all about alleviating suffering, in patients who have a good prognosis as well as those for whom no cure can be found.

My palliative care physician has had a bigger effect on my life than I think he could ever understand- the difference between existence and life. Before he helped me I was definitely existing- I was in constant agony and actually wanted to die. Now I'm living with much lower pain, and whilst my life is limited by my disabilities, it's certainly not bad enough that I dread waking up in the morning.

Please don't confuse palliative care with euthenasia.

I understand completely Medusa. After all I have been lucky enough to not have to go through or see anyone go through the above mentioned things so all I can offer is my opinion and I am always open to it being changed.

If anything I should be thankful for palliative care and the Doctors that helped you out (if it wasn't for them SF chat would now be a dull place).

I don't confuse Palliative care with euthanasia and if it comes across that way then my english skills need improving.

Sorry Zamo but I get the distinct impression you're just arguing to win judging by the odd statement about 'research' when you know that's NOT what I'm saying. I'll repeat it: opening the floodgates of 'right to die' risks crossing the boundaries of NHS funding and LESS money will be put into researching palliative care for the vast majority who want it - and note that those seeking the 'right to die' are a tiny, tiny percentage of the terminally ill and permanently disabled every year.

Make your mind up. You over emphasis the risk with talk of opening floodgates in one breathe and then, when it suits, say the number of people wanting assisted deaths is tiny.

I personally think the number of cases will be proportional low because they are the exceptional cases. But that will be small comfort to them if society automatically condemns them to a miserable deaths because to offer an assit death might risk the life of an "innocent". Aren't these people innocent too?


I'm afraid that if allowing people to 'die' means we risk other people being killed then we have allowed murder to happen. One of the reasons the death sentence was abolished was because it was not foolproof and we could never be 100% sure we were killing the right people (Pierrepoint himself believed Ruth Ellis was innocent, even though he put the rope round her neck). In short, it was open to mistakes and abuses.

I don't agree with the death penalty for the exact reasons you cite but this is not the same but assisted death is not murder. It is an act of mercy in rare and extreme cases.

So long as one person who is innocent is at risk then legalising moves like this cannot be brought in. Death is pretty final - as final as it gets. Allowing a handful of people less 'suffering' is no justification for legalising something extremely risky.

No decision we ever take is risk free and risks can be managed. Risk does not automatic justify a veto.


Anyone who knows anything about good palliative care also knows that people do not have to suffer at the end. What these people asking to die need is better care, not to be murdered.

Like I said, it isn't murder to help someone with an unbearable existance, and no hope of recovery, to bow out gracefully.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is a question of economics. Money doesn't grow on trees, which means people have to make tough and uncomfortable decisions. I don't see the value in spending 10's of thousands of pounds extending a miserable life by a couple of months when it could be used elsewhere to much better effect.

It's very telling that all the cases or arguments put forwards so far on the 'pro' side are based not around the suffering of the individual but the suffering of the relatives - suffering witnessed personally by some, suffering imagined by others. It's not about the personal suffering that the patient endures, suffering brought about by the intense depression that knowing you have a terminal illness or a severe disability can cause. It's that which needs addressing, not the deeply emotional response of those 'on the outside' to suffering. It's fine of course to have this natural response to suffering, human even, but death is so final we have to be thankful our doctors and lawmakers are more dispassionate and rational on this emotional matter.

Holland brings us a truly disturbing example of what happens when euthanasia is legalised. 3% of all deaths are now due to it - if you project that onto stats from the USA, it would mean more people there died due to being euthanised than dies due to homicide.

But the most disturbing fact of all is that 20% of all cases of euthanasia in Holland are carried out without the patient's consent. This includes people with mental disabilities and depression, and children. Old people in homes have taken to carrying about 'Sanctuary cards' stating they do not wish to be euthanised.

I know that I do not want to be 'put to sleep' like a dog; having been right on the brink I want to hold on to every last moment no matter how painful or 'unproductive'. Why should I be denied the right to have my life kept protected? If euthanasia was legalised I would lose that right, we would all be possible victims.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is a question of economics. Money doesn't grow on trees, which means people have to make tough and uncomfortable decisions. I don't see the value in spending 10's of thousands of pounds extending a miserable life by a couple of months when it could be used elsewhere to much better effect.

So what it boils down to is that the sick and the disabled are unproductive members of society. They cost us too much so let's pile them all into the gas ovens and get rid of them.

It wouldn't be a big step from agreeing in law with the views of those who assume they are being 'kind' and 'caring' to agreeing in law with this view you put forward which is disturbing. :(

If you want some stats on how common it could become, then see my post above.

Oh, and you seem to have missed that the UN convention on human rights defends our rights to life and does not allow anything by law which interferes with that.

If you think that one person's right to death is more important than the rights of the majority to have their lives protected then that's a little odd.

Yes TERMINALLY ILL patients should have the right to die peacefully and in dignity. I dont agree that anybody should be able to eg because they are depressed[as somebody has mentioned], only those who have no chance of being cured, and will eventually die from their disease/condition.
I have watched members of my family suffering in the final stages of terminal illness and it is a heartbreaking and soul destroying thing to see. To watch someone you love gradually go downhill becoming unable to walk, eat, drink and even go to the toilet themselves until all they can do is lay there is an awful thing.
I have also watched countless patients in the same situation and seen them and their families suffer just waiting for the inevitable to happen. Most people recieving palliative care arent in pain in the end but it is the fact that they are laying there 'existing' rather than living that needs adressing.
I personally wouldnt want to lie there waiting to die and I wouldnt want my family to have to watch me, waiting for me to take my last breathe.
Surely it would be nicer to have the chance to say goodbye to you're family and friends while you are still able to talk and tell them everything you want before you go rather than them saying goodbye to you when you are unconcious and unable to respond?
I know there are a lot of legal issues surrounding this which would need to be thoroughly researched and adressed to aviod any loopholes but I think it needs to be done and any improvement on the current laws would be something.

So what it boils down to is that the sick and the disabled are unproductive members of society. They cost us too much so let's pile them all into the gas ovens and get rid of them.

It wouldn't be a big step from agreeing in law with the views of those who assume they are being 'kind' and 'caring' to agreeing in law with this view you put forward which is disturbing. :(

If you want some stats on how common it could become, then see my post above.

Oh, and you seem to have missed that the UN convention on human rights defends our rights to life and does not allow anything by law which interferes with that.

If you think that one person's right to death is more important than the rights of the majority to have their lives protected then that's a little odd.

You seem to be thinking we want to put people down as we see fit Mathom. No-one seems to have mentioned putting anyone to sleep because they're taking up a bed. The thread is about the sufferer's choice not the will of the family, friends or doctors. It's about respecting a person's wishes when that person decides enough is enough.

You seem to be thinking we want to put people down as we see fit Mathom. No-one seems to have mentioned putting anyone to sleep because they're taking up a bed. The thread is about the sufferer's choice not the will of the family, friends or doctors. It's about respecting a person's wishes when that person decides enough is enough.

That aint what Zamo said, which was:


"Also, whether you like it or not, there is a question of economics. Money doesn't grow on trees, which means people have to make tough and uncomfortable decisions. I don't see the value in spending 10's of thousands of pounds extending a miserable life by a couple of months when it could be used elsewhere to much better effect."


Fair enough, it might be a mistaken line of argument, but this is why our Doctors and legal experts are still dismissing any notion of legalising euthanasia out of hand - it can so easily slip into disturbing uses that we cannot control. And after all these are the men and women who would be injecting lethal drugs into the veins of other humans, signing official death warrants and conducting inquests into their deaths, something they do not want to do.

Bear in mind we're not talking about denying someone a drug that's been keeping them alive, we're talking about the equivalent of putting a bullet to their head. The medical profession does not want this. They can see other ways which are much more humane.

So what it boils down to is that the sick and the disabled are unproductive members of society. They cost us too much so let's pile them all into the gas ovens and get rid of them.

It wouldn't be a big step from agreeing in law with the views of those who assume they are being 'kind' and 'caring' to agreeing in law with this view you put forward which is disturbing. :(

If you want some stats on how common it could become, then see my post above.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

You have strong views on the subject because of your own experience but can't you see that not everyone can be helped as you have been helped?

You say 20% of all cases of euthanasia in Holland are carried out without the patient's consent and make it out as if disabled people are being murdered in their sleep with lethal injections. I find it very hard to believe. How exactly are you defining euthanasia? By any chance, do the figures you quote include cases where doctors decide not resuscitating people as examples of involuntary euthanasia?

I know that I do not want to be 'put to sleep' like a dog; having been right on the brink I want to hold on to every last moment no matter how painful or 'unproductive'. Why should I be denied the right to have my life kept protected? If euthanasia was legalised I would lose that right, we would all be possible victims.

The point I was referring to.

You're right you shouldn't be denied the right to life but neither should a person be denied a right to death.

I like to think if I was terminally ill and got told I only had a few weeks left and they would be difficult weeks for all concerned, I would be allowed to say my goodbyes, sort out my affairs and pop off with dignity.

There would be nothing to stop me doing this anyway, it's not hard to purchase heroin and take a lethal dose.

i had to watch my father die a slow and painful death,at the age of 54. He so desperately wanted the pain to end. He could not speak without gasping for air. He talked to me about suicide,as he had no intention of giving any of his loved ones the responsibilty of his death.However,suicide was not an option for him as his life insurance would have been void,and he needed to die knowing my mum would be financially secure.
So,yes,i do believe that the terminally ill should have the right to make a choice as to whether they continue to live,or die.

.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is a question of economics. Money doesn't grow on trees, which means people have to make tough and uncomfortable decisions. I don't see the value in spending 10's of thousands of pounds extending a miserable life by a couple of months when it could be used elsewhere to much better effect.


i personally want to live 4ever, it's not gonna happen i know.
but "society" will pay to keep me alive. my life is just as valuable as "elsewhere".

The point I was referring to.

You're right you shouldn't be denied the right to life but neither should a person be denied a right to death.

I like to think if I was terminally ill and got told I only had a few weeks left and they would be difficult weeks for all concerned, I would be allowed to say my goodbyes, sort out my affairs and pop off with dignity.

There would be nothing to stop me doing this anyway, it's not hard to purchase heroin and take a lethal dose.

Well no, there's nothing to stop you! The Suicide Act does not 'legalise' suicide, but it does mean that you cannot be punished for attempting to take your own life. The only thing to bear in mind is that suicide has devastating effects on the surviving family, far more devastating than death by illness does as it carries so many implications of guilt and not having 'done anything to help'. It also eventually makes you wonder if the person really cared for you and your family, you start thinking they were selfish, and this horrible confusion you cause to your loved ones haunts them for as long as they live, possibly also makes them ill.

Suicide, even assisted suicide in the case of the terminally ill, has devastating consequences, it's not an easy way out and can remove all the dignity of those left behind as they crumble to pieces.

We cannot allow both rights to life and rights to death as inevitably one will suffer - if some are allowed to die then others will slip through the net who were unwilling. As death is pretty final it is surely more important to protect those who wish to live. If not we may as well turn the lights off and forget everything!

Zamo, you'll find those stats online in various reports carried out. It was actually much worse at one time, and the 20% figure is a slight improvement on what had been happening. It is for straightforward cases where the doctors believed they had the patients' 'best interests' at heart. It's this whole 'quality of life' thing again. What seems an unbearable life to a fit and healthy person is nevertheless a life.

Well no, there's nothing to stop you! The Suicide Act does not 'legalise' suicide, but it does mean that you cannot be punished for attempting to take your own life. The only thing to bear in mind is that suicide has devastating effects on the surviving family, far more devastating than death by illness does as it carries so many implications of guilt and not having 'done anything to help'. It also eventually makes you wonder if the person really cared for you and your family, you start thinking they were selfish, and this horrible confusion you cause to your loved ones haunts them for as long as they live, possibly also makes them ill.

Suicide, even assisted suicide in the case of the terminally ill, has devastating consequences, it's not an easy way out and can remove all the dignity of those left behind as they crumble to pieces.

We cannot allow both rights to life and rights to death as inevitably one will suffer - if some are allowed to die then others will slip through the net who were unwilling. As death is pretty final it is surely more important to protect those who wish to live. If not we may as well turn the lights off and forget everything!

Zamo, you'll find those stats online in various reports carried out. It was actually much worse at one time, and the 20% figure is a slight improvement on what had been happening. It is for straightforward cases where the doctors believed they had the patients' 'best interests' at heart. It's this whole 'quality of life' thing again. What seems an unbearable life to a fit and healthy person is nevertheless a life.

You're doing a thing that I personally find very wrong. You're looking at everything from the sides of the ones who are left behind. Suicide can no doubt leave relatives in a bad way but surely you wouldn't feel bad for someone who is "as stated many times" terminally ill, in a lot of pain and frightened at the prospects of having their last weeks on earth being undignified. To wish someone a slow painful death just to save your own feelings is a very selfish act to me.

Remember it's terminal illness' we are discussing here not suicide just because someone is fed up.

I personally dislike the idea of suicide and always think that where there is life there is hope but to not allow someone the right to choose how they leave this mortal coil is not our business.

i personally want to live 4ever, it's not gonna happen i know.
but "society" will pay to keep me alive. my life is just as valuable as "elsewhere".

In this world life and death decisions are a reality and sometime "elsewhere" wins. It simply isn't possible to save everyone that is saveable or give 'money's no object' treatment to everyone. Economics is a fact of life (and death) whether we like it or not.

Zamo, you'll find those stats online in various reports carried out. It was actually much worse at one time, and the 20% figure is a slight improvement on what had been happening. It is for straightforward cases where the doctors believed they had the patients' 'best interests' at heart. It's this whole 'quality of life' thing again. What seems an unbearable life to a fit and healthy person is nevertheless a life.

Deciding not to resuscitate someone is not the same and involuntary euthanasia and makes the "stats" disingenuous to say the least. Who knows what sort of cases they have lumped in to create the shock stat they desired.

If euthanasia becomes legal, then perhaps Dr. Shipman will become a hero. Then I will know the world has finally gone mad.

If euthanasia becomes legal, then perhaps Dr. Shipman will become a hero. Then I will know the world has finally gone mad.
No. The world went mad when it was ordained that animals should never suffer, but humans must ... by law!!

The animals never suffering bit makes sense, but the humans must suffer bit is just plain weird. :loopy:

If euthanasia becomes legal, then perhaps Dr. Shipman will become a hero. Then I will know the world has finally gone mad.

Shipman didn't do assisted deaths at the request of people with an unbearable quality of life and no hope. He murdered people.

In this world life and death decisions are a reality and sometime "elsewhere" wins. It simply isn't possible to save everyone that is saveable or give 'money's no object' treatment to everyone. Economics is a fact of life (and death) whether we like it or not.


fortunately for us you aren't the one making the decision. economics or not you will keep me alive.

if its economics then keep me alive and let the druggies , alcos and smokers die.or in fact no just withdraw assistance and save that money for the ones who care about there bodies.

Shipman didn't do assisted deaths at the request of people with an unbearable quality of life and no hope. He murdered people.

What I am saying is that if people like Hitler can become a hero to some people http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/868469.cms and I know someone in London who does tours of the sites where Jack the Ripper murdered his victims, with some tourists thinking of Jack the Ripper as a hero, then what I was saying is that if Dr. Shipman ever becomes a hero, then I will know the world has finally gone mad.

No. The world went mad when it was ordained that animals should never suffer, but humans must ... by law!!

The animals never suffering bit makes sense, but the humans must suffer bit is just plain weird. :loopy:

Have you noticed how the government is gradually legalizing things that were once illegal? It doesn’t mean these things are right, but it does mean that if it continues, then in time people will be able to get away with murder and euthanasia will be the first step.

fortunately for us you aren't the one making the decision. economics or not you will keep me alive.

if its economics then keep me alive and let the druggies , alcos and smokers die.or in fact no just withdraw assistance and save that money for the ones who care about there bodies.

You are right that it is not my job to make these decisions and for that I consider myself fortunate. However, unfortunately for you, there are people whose job it is and these sorts of decisions are made every day.

Hospital Trusts have to set budgets for different departments providing different types of health care. The budgets are not unlimited and this includes money assigned to wards providing palliative care. This effects how many staff they can employ, the type of drugs they can afford etc, etc. In other words the level of care is, to a large extent, determined by the amount of money available.

Because we can't afford to provide 'money no objective' palliative care, it means that some people will be suffering more than if we could provide 'money no object' care. For some this suffering will be unbearable and, with no hope of a recovery, may want to end their own life. All I'm saying is that this is a reality no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. I'm also say that just because it is distasteful, we should not dismiss out of hand helping some of these people with assisted deaths if that is what they truly want.

You are free to complain about money being spend helping smokers, druggies etc if you think ii is wrong and the money could be used better "elsehere". But that is a separate issue to whether we should consider helping people with assisted deaths. However, as you so rightly pointed out, I'm not the one making these budgetary decisions, so you're venting your spleen on the wrong man! I'm simply pointing out the harsh reality that money does come in to it whether we like it or not. Don't shoot the messenger.

Isn't that about prolonging someones life though, perhaps unnaturally, when normally they they would have passed on, but euthanasia is about ending someones life before their time has come?

My friend Erica, on seeing a poster advertising a debate on "the ethics of euthanasia:

"Oh no! Somebody could get killed!" *sarcastic shock-horror expression*

About sums it up.

Isn't that about prolonging someones life though, perhaps unnaturally, when normally they they would have passed on, but euthanasia is about ending someones life before their time has come?

Modern medicine is perfectly capable of prolonging life well past the point when most people think that the patient is no longer living, but merely existing.

We can no longer argue about anytime being 'their natural time'- their natural time would probably have been when they were 3 and got an infected cut on their foot, if we weren't capable of killing infections so well.

Modern medicine is perfectly capable of prolonging life well past the point when most people think that the patient is no longer living, but merely existing.


Indeed. But isn't that the point of the debate? Just because we can keep people alive is it always the right to do so? Especially if the person whose life it is doesn't want to be kept alive and wants help to bow out in a dignified and painless way with thier loved ones with them, instead of throwing themself under a train.

Modern medicine is perfectly capable of prolonging life well past the point when most people think that the patient is no longer living, but merely existing.

We can no longer argue about anytime being 'their natural time'- their natural time would probably have been when they were 3 and got an infected cut on their foot, if we weren't capable of killing infections so well.

But you wouldn't want to do that though would you?