[1965Wolf]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

So many people have admitted killing loved ones and not faced prosecution it makes me think they did not commit an unlawful act, and so it was not murder. If Mr Nicholson was killed in similar circumstances it would therefore not necessarily be murder. All we need do now is have the law changed to make it crustal clear the circumstances of when assisted suicide is murder and when it is not.

Examples?

[1965Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tiger Rich

Do you believe that is morally right?

No it is not.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

If it happens behind closed doors, how do you know it is happening?

Because it is so common it is hardly a secret. Giving people a "overdose to ease them on the way" is what happens but it is said in code.

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

You may have confidence in your family but many others are not so fortunate. We must protect them and if that means, and I believe it should, not changing the law, so be it.

Yes, we must protect them with proper legislation. The idea that these evil people willing to "top" granny for her money are currently stopping themselves from doing it because "it is illegal", but will gladly kill her once it is made legal is ludicrous.

Furthermore I stick by my claim that ending suffering can be the right thing, and the law should not make it illegal.

[Tiger Rich]

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

No it is not.

Do you think it's possible to have a system of assisted suicide whereby nobody of sound enough mind is coerced or otherwise conned into stating their desire to end their life? I appreciate that it can happen, but I think it's possible to almost completely eliminate the possibility with a strong and thorough system that relies heavily and solely on the consent of the individual concerned and provides several opportunities for the individual to pull out of the process at any time. A drawn out cooling off period, no impulse, no spur of the moment.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

I both respect and understand what you say, but if you cannot guarantee that there will be no one killed against their wishes, that for me is a clinching argument against any change in the law.

I do not think your comments re the hippo ratio oath are tight but would stand to be corrected.

The views of the medical profession vary - palliative care staff are more opposed than other types of medics. In a Glasgow postal survey of UK medical practitioners and pharmacists, 54% were in favour of a change in the law to allow physician-assisted suicide to take place in specific circumstances, with only 36% against. Other studies have shown more opposition.

The modern hippocractic oath says ' I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty' The 'do no harm' quote refers to 'Primum non nocere' which essentially requires doctors to do nothing in preference to treating people if it might cause them harm. This has been taken by some to extend to the active treatment of those who are in vegetative states if it means they will live in pain or distress.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

Examples?

Brave Michael Bateman for one. Who loved his wife so much he risked his freedom to help her end the suffering.

A very brave man.

and Doctor Michael Munro
A hero of our time

[Keiō Line]

A top Dutch medical professional says some British doctors carry out euthanasia, even though a UK court has again ruled that killing a chronically ill person is illegal.

"The practice is done everywhere. In England they're doing it too," said Arie Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman, head of the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

Doctors in the UK "tell me that they do it," he said. "Some use IV potassium, high doses of insulin, morphine."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19284756
(two days ago)

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

True, but nor is it just about those who are suffering and want to end it all. It is very much about protecting the vulnerable who may either be killed against their wishes or pressured into believing they are too much of a burden to their family.

I've never seen anyone present any evidence that this would happen, at the very least anyone wishing to die would go before qualified people who would check whether they were under any undue pressure.

The people who put this argument are by and large against allowing other people being allowed to die because it goes against their own (usually religious) beliefs. They are just using it as an excuse.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by flagpole

people certainly have been prosecuted.

you may regard our current system as perfect. but notwithstanding that, this man is forced to endure torture.

And were they convicted?

I never said it was perfect, but at least it's workable.

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

............ All we need do now is have the law changed to make it crustal clear the circumstances of when assisted suicide is murder and when it is not.

As you say, that's all that's needed. And how long do you think that would take? The lawyers can't even define tax concessions closely enough to limit them to the people they were intended for.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

As you say, that's all that's needed. And how long do you think that would take? The lawyers can't even define tax concessions closely enough to limit them to the people they were intended for.

It would take me a couple of days. It may take others several months. I guess it would take a similar amount of time when they were drafting the legislation for abortion.

It certainly is needed so I am wiling to wait. Far better than the situation we have now when decisions are done in secret. The vulnerable people need protecting from the ridiculous situation we have now of the apparent policy of "sssshhhhhhh!!!!!!, do it if you have to but for gods sake we would rather not know".
.

Originally Posted by jsmith99

And were they convicted?
I never said it was perfect, but at least it's workable.

I don't think it's workable. Loved ones being arrested in a cell when they have just lost one of their nearest and dearest. They should be grieving at home and certainly without the fear of prosecution. What a terrible thought to have in you mind as you pass away, that the act of kindness may result in the person imprisonment.

[jmclaugh]

The one question none of the various opponents of assisted suicide can ever answer is what business is it of yours to stop another human being from ending their own life.

[Tiger Rich]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

The one question none of the various opponents of assisted suicide can ever answer is what business is it of yours to stop another human being from ending their own life.

That pretty much trumps everything else for me. Yeah, it is in the realms of possibility that an assisted suicide system can be abused, but I say this in the same way I'd say it's in the realms of possibility that Accrington Stanley will win the Champions League. The right system can leave the element of doubt reduced so miniscule that I don't think it should be used as an excuse not to have a system.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

And were they convicted?

I never said it was perfect, but at least it's workable.

i'm only dealing with what i recall but yes they have been convicted. their sentences have been pretty lenient, like suspended sentences and that sort of thing.

but they still have a criminal record.

it just seems to me that it is hard enough a situation without this. imagine getting to the point where you want to ask a loved one to help you end your own life. if that were not horrendous enough having to worry that you might be putting that loved one in danger too.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

............... I guess it would take a similar amount of time when they were drafting the legislation for abortion.................

The vulnerable people need protecting from the ridiculous situation we have now of the apparent policy of "sssshhhhhhh!!!!!!, do it if you have to but for gods sake we would rather not know".
......

And look how well the practice of abortion has complied with all the promises.I seem to recall, for example "definitely no abortion as a lifestyle choice", "no abortion on demand" " a few thousand a year", etc.

That's a completely different debate, but I think it's about the worst possible example - any safeguards we were promised in the Act have been completely ignored.

And vulnerable people need protection from those who'd be happy if they were dead, and can make killing them appear to comply with a hastily drawn up Act.

Because the important thing to remember is that we'd be giving one person the right to kill another person. Not a situation which can be corrected if it turns out they weren't sanctioned after all.

Originally Posted by flagpole

i'm only dealing with what i recall but yes they have been convicted. their sentences have been pretty lenient, like suspended sentences and that sort of thing.

but they still have a criminal record..............

I too seem to remember cases with that result, but I think they were spouses who snapped after years of well-documented abuse.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

I too seem to remember cases with that result, but I think they were spouses who snapped after years of well-documented abuse.

no i specifically have in mind assisted suicide:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=56100

not a great example but i'm sure there are more.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

And look how well the practice of abortion has complied with all the promises.I seem to recall, for example "definitely no abortion as a lifestyle choice", "no abortion on demand" " a few thousand a year", etc.

That's a completely different debate, but I think it's about the worst possible example - any safeguards we were promised in the Act have been completely ignored.

And vulnerable people need protection from those who'd be happy if they were dead, and can make killing them appear to comply with a hastily drawn up Act.

Because the important thing to remember is that we'd be giving one person the right to kill another person. Not a situation which can be corrected if it turns out they weren't sanctioned after all.

I think it's rather a good example.

Far better to have legislation governing abortion than for us to have had an argument of "no abortion in any circumstance!!! because it would take too long to draw up the law and it will be open to abuse. Far better to have backstreet abortions, but sssssshhhhh!!! don't tell us and we will not prosecute"

Originally Posted by jsmith99

And vulnerable people need protection from those who'd be happy if they were dead, and can make killing them appear to comply with a hastily drawn up Act.

Because the important thing to remember is that we'd be giving one person the right to kill another person. Not a situation which can be corrected if it turns out they weren't sanctioned after all.

Vulnerable people do need protecting which is why we need legislation to govern its use. Far better to have everything open to scrutiny than the excuse of "its what she wanted" said AFTER the event.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by flagpole

i'm only dealing with what i recall but yes they have been convicted. their sentences have been pretty lenient, like suspended sentences and that sort of thing.

but they still have a criminal record.

It also means that the person is arrested and held in the cells after just losing a loved one. The very time they should be at home with friends and family coming to terms with the death.

Additionally the departing person should be free to slip away without worrying about the police immanently dragging away their friends and family for "committing" the one last act of love.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by flagpole

no i specifically have in mind assisted suicide:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=56100

not a great example but i'm sure there are more.

It's a good example, though I notice it dates from 2006. There've been a few high publicity cases since then, and I think attitudes to prosecution have changed.

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

I think it's rather a good example.

Far better to have legislation governing abortion than for us to have had an argument of "no abortion in any circumstance!!! because it would take too long to draw up the law and it will be open to abuse. Far better to have backstreet abortions, but sssssshhhhh!!! don't tell us and we will not prosecute".................

That argument belongs to a discussion about abortion, which this isn't. I was commenting on how badly the legislation was drawn up.

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

...........Vulnerable people do need protecting which is why we need legislation to govern its use. Far better to have everything open to scrutiny than the excuse of "its what she wanted" said AFTER the event.

The situation you describe is the situation as it is now. In what way would it be different if there were legislation? Every case where A claimed they'd killed B because B wanted them to would have to be examined by the police and CPS.

The only difference would be that if A had managed to make the circumstances agree with the legislation, he'd get away with it.

[gavinfarrelly]

We shouldnt discriminate against the disabled for any reason. This includes denying them the right to end their own life as they see fit. Its not illegal for an able bodied person to commit suicide, thus ending their own life (though if it was...how on earth would they enforce it I guess) so why should a disabled person not have the right to do the same? If this requires assistance such as in the case of Tony, then so be it.

There would have to be strict measures put in place though to stop people abusing it though, but in this case its pretty clear what should be done IMO.

To be honest I find it absolutely disgusting that we can end an animals life because they are in severe pain etc. yet someone who clearly does not want to be alive is forced to live through pain and suffering everyday because of some law.

[madscotsboy]

Assisted Suicide has always been a very difficult topic to talk about as you only ever really hear 2 sides of the argument. “Its Murder” and “It should be allowed”.

To those who say it is murder, I recognise where you are coming from as you are stating the simple fact that taking someone’s life is indeed murder. However what is the definition of murder? “Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought” How can assisted suicide fall into that bracket? There is no malice intended with this mans demise. It is his wish that someone end his life in a premeditated act that he condones. That is not the definition of murder, even in legal terms (if I am wrong about that I would like someone to show me the law on murder and this specific term and I will happily apologise). Though it is often twisted into the broad “Murder is just killing anyone at any time for any reason”. Which is really just opinion.

As for the other argument “It should be allowed”. It really needs to be thought out carefully where we draw the line. When is someone sick enough to be considered for this kind of demise? Is an elderly relative who suffers dementia and is frightened, being bullied into wanting it or is it genuinely their wish? These are the kind of problems that could easily arise from assisted suicide being made legal. And they create a bit stickler of a problem as there is no real way to verify the case.

However, it is MY OPINION that assisted suicide should be legalised. Obviously careful steps should be taken to mitigate any potential cases where someone may be forced into opting for it. But I am not saying that these kinds of cases will not happen. I could never watch my partner virtually disintegrate in front of me as he is trapped in his body, with no dignity, having to have me or nurses wipe his backside and wash him because he has no functionality. Its sick and perverse to watch when someone pleads to die. I would rather wheel him to a hospital and sit with him while drugs are administered that will let him sink into a deep sleep and drift away from me. Yes it would be heart breaking and my life would be empty but I would damn well do it!

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19284756
(two days ago)

it certainly does happen.

but my understanding is it is in cases where the patient is dying, imminently, and in great pain. they administer enough pain killer to stop the pain...

[jjne]

The right to life is absolutely fundamental.

The right to a dignified death should be equally inalienable.

This applies regardless of the physical, emotional or mental health of the individual.

Frankly, if I decide, as a healthy individual, that I want to go, the facilites to allow me to self-terminate in a painless manner should be available without question, subject to formal checks.

No ifs, no buts. It's my life and no-one else has the right to decide what happens to it.

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by cloudymountain

Why not just go to switzerland?

A real 'let them eat cake' response.

1. Dignitas is an expensive option, open only to those with the means to pay

2. Forcing somebody who is gravely ill to die in a foreign country in an unfamiliar flat - totally horrible

3. Terrible for the relatives.

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

A real 'let them eat cake' response.

1. Dignitas is an expensive option, open only to those with the means to pay

2. Forcing somebody who is gravely ill to die in a foreign country in an unfamiliar flat - totally horrible

3. Terrible for the relatives.

Plus why should we just accept that other countries like Switzerland show more compassion than we do, we should seek to improve our own country.

[flagpole]

it has been said before that taking someone to dignitas could be illegal in the UK.