Wow, this is really something!

Allowing natural death to occur whilst dying!

Avoidance of sufferance!

Advanced directive!

Call it what you want!

I welcome it.

What do you think people?

I welcome it too - although they've existed for a while doctors haven't been forced legally to take into account what the patient wants when making decisions about life & death.

I think a proper legal document that leaves everyone in no doubt about what treatment someone does or doesn't want should they get past the point of being able to communicate can only be a good thing.

This is not about youthanasia, but people who are actually dying. The right wing are making a mountain out of this predictably.

We say 'it's the kindest thing' when talking about pets, but we prolong the suffering of humans for as long as we possibly can. What for? Why prolong somebody's life for 2 months (arbritary figure) when all they will experience in those 2 months is excruciating pain?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not of the opinion we should dispose of just anybody who's ill, but I think a person should have the right to bring forward their own date of the inevitable if it prevents their suffering.

At the moment we are able to withdraw treatment. This includes tube feeding. When this decision was taken for a friend's grandmother, it took NINE DAYS for the poor woman to die, and her deterioration was so shocking that my friend was not permitted to see her (by her own mother, not the hospital). This was surely a case where morphine would have been kinder.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
This is not about youthanasia, but people who are actually dying. The right wing are making a mountain out of this predictably.

LOL!! I think 'youthanasia' may be a wholly different thread, darlin'! Pesky kids...best we do away with them before those hormones kick in too badly...

Sorry, muddycoffee. Couldn't help it.:D. It's euthanasia

Cosy:thumbsup:

Oh, and I voted 'for'.

I voted for, as it is giving people the right to say they don't want treatment forced upon them... ie the right not to have your life prolonged by enforced treatment.

If the bill was about euthanasia... ie the right for someone to commit an act to kill you, I would definately vote against!

Originally posted by Strix
We say 'it's the kindest thing' when talking about pets, but we prolong the suffering of humans for as long as we possibly can. What for? Why prolong somebody's life for 2 months (arbritary figure) when all they will experience in those 2 months is excruciating pain?
Agreed...

It seems nuts as anything that this makes "sense" and not take the next kinder step to provide a means for someone to die with dignity and grace... instead of the example Strix gave...

Voting for...

I would be very reluctant to make comparisons to the way pets are treated. Many people would take their dog or cat to the vet to be "put down" as soon as it lost the ability to walk, for example.

Originally posted by Patchy
I would be very reluctant to make comparisons to the way pets are treated. Many people would take their dog or cat to the vet to be "put down" as soon as it lost the ability to walk, for example.
Most of the pet owners I've known have taken the decision to have a pet put down with the same level of stress and heart wrenching as if they were losing a close friend or relative.

However your point that euthenasia could be seen as a "convenience" on a par with the way divorce has become nowadays has some merit... I doubt very much anyone would welcome anything that ended up on a par with Monty Pythons holy grail black death scene..