hodgepig66 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Lets be honest there are 2 things in life MOST people don't want to talk about DEATH & CANCER.......let alone have to deal with it.... People need to remember it's quality of life,if there is none then why on earth would i still want to be on this this planet...... I totally accept that if someone doesn't agree with this then,thats fine but don't go telling me what i can and can't do with my own life..... I also think a lot of people who are against this have a fear of dieing,which i have not,it takes us all in the end and i just want to make the most of life while i'm here..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Then where is the line drawn? They are assisting those with non-terminal illnesses who have improving health. I seem to remember someone with chronic depression using Dignitas as well but I'll have to find a source. http://www.lifenews.com/2009/05/25/bio-2858/ What a strange one-sided website you linked the there. Besides, did you not read the first paragraph? The Dignitas assisted suicide facility in Switzerland is coming under investigation for allegedly killing a man with depression. Under the euthanasia law in Switzerland, someone can only be killed in an assisted suicide if they suffer from a terminal illness. Which is precisely why I said "I think the line is fairly well drawn, at least in principle." I would never claim that rules cannot be broken, but they can be established. Nobody should be assisted to commit suicide because they are suffering from depression, that is quite clearly established. Edit. Having skimmed that site, I think it really is rather offensively pushing an intolerant anti-choice agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I’ve never understood why we are able to end the suffering of a loved pet but not a loved family member. It's the influence of religion, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 It's the influence of religion, I'm afraid. I'm inclined to agree. A few months ago my neighbour, who is a Church Warden, was talking about his parent that had just died, when he surprised me with the confession that the long drawn out suffering he had to witness had changed his mind about assisted dying. It's easy to restrict choices for other people, from a distance, because of some belief in what some made up god may or may not want. But this lack of empathy is not only actually immoral, according to real humanistic principles, it is also a failure to recognise that those other people might one day become you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I think that the choice to end a life humanely and painlessly - and equally I think that a major rethink should be made on how we use medical interventions to extend life. Both my grandparents had pretty drawn out and nasty ends. My grandfather died (eventually) after several days in hospital when he was obviously in a huge amount of pain, hallucinating and terrified. He was in his late eighties and had been pretty much incapable of doing much other than sitting and reading for a few years. However even when he was quite obviously in lengthy and painful death throes the hospital was set up to try and keep him alive and in that state rather than let him leave that state as painlessly and easily as possible. My grandmother died after a massive stroke. It was obvious she could never recover from it and while not in pain was effectively just a shell after it had happened. The only thing that the doctors could do was to withdraw feeding (IV feeding might have kept her going for a few months rather than the few days she lasted) so she died a slow death from dehydration rather than a quick and painless one. If I'm ever in that sort of position I hope that the option of a medical intervention to shorten my suffering will be available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 If David Cameron or Boy George Osborne ever need any assistance, I'm your man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 If David Cameron or Boy George Osborne ever need any assistance, I'm your man. ..menage a trois, T?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I think that the choice to end a life humanely and painlessly - and equally I think that a major rethink should be made on how we use medical interventions to extend life. Both my grandparents had pretty drawn out and nasty ends. My grandfather died (eventually) after several days in hospital when he was obviously in a huge amount of pain, hallucinating and terrified. He was in his late eighties and had been pretty much incapable of doing much other than sitting and reading for a few years. However even when he was quite obviously in lengthy and painful death throes the hospital was set up to try and keep him alive and in that state rather than let him leave that state as painlessly and easily as possible. My grandmother died after a massive stroke. It was obvious she could never recover from it and while not in pain was effectively just a shell after it had happened. The only thing that the doctors could do was to withdraw feeding (IV feeding might have kept her going for a few months rather than the few days she lasted) so she died a slow death from dehydration rather than a quick and painless one. If I'm ever in that sort of position I hope that the option of a medical intervention to shorten my suffering will be available. That the medical profession is prepared to do that but not assist you in ending your life peacefully utterly disgusts me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What a strange one-sided website you linked the there. Besides, did you not read the first paragraph? The Dignitas assisted suicide facility in Switzerland is coming under investigation for allegedly killing a man with depression. Under the euthanasia law in Switzerland, someone can only be killed in an assisted suicide if they suffer from a terminal illness. Which is precisely why I said "I think the line is fairly well drawn, at least in principle." I would never claim that rules cannot be broken, but they can be established. Nobody should be assisted to commit suicide because they are suffering from depression, that is quite clearly established. Edit. Having skimmed that site, I think it really is rather offensively pushing an intolerant anti-choice agenda. That link probably wasn't entirely pleasant, I didn't read it as I was just looking for a reference for the case. Whatever the law in Switzerland says, Dignitas flouts it on a regular basis. I'm not anti-assisted dying at all, I just think it's something that needs incredibly careful thought because it's such a complex issue and whatever is laid down in the law is likely to mean some will push the boundaries even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spuggy1 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I think the poll results speak for themself,the majority of people do agree in principal to assisted suicide,surely a sound of mind person has the right to end their own suffering.why do we inflict on ourselfs that which we would not inflict on a animal, bloody crazy if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.