Assisted Dying Bill

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28274531

Lord Carey appears to have had a conversion on the road to Damascus on this issue. As an ex-Archbish, he still commands much respect, and his views may be enough to tip the balance here.

[Zacs-Master]

Exactly Pixie.

[sandyRoe]

This kind of legislation has a way of evolving. When abortion was introduced many of its backers could never have imagined how availability would widen. It seems there's pretty much abortion on demand now.

[sandyRoe]

Naomi, I said 'urge her' rather than 'help her'.

[hc4361]

I'm glad I'm not a decision maker in this.
On the one hand I am all for assisted suicide where the situation is impossible and that is what the patient wants.
On the other hand it is unfair to expect a doctor to assist if he really doesn't want to.
Then would we have 'death doctors' who are willing to do it? That doesn't seem right either.

There is no doubt that caring for the terminally ill, those in a vegetative state and others for whom there is no hope is extremely stressful and very, very costly. Would it get to the stage where assisted suicide becomes a money saving exercise?

As for the Church having a stake in the law making process, I am all for it. The Lords Spiritual consists of 26 bishops; there are roughly 750 Lords Temporal so the Church is very much in the minority in Parliament.

[jim360]

No matter the good intentions, tight controls can slip over time. I don't expect this to be the first step on the road to enforced euthanasia at 80 or something, but I'd be worried that the odd poor decision would slip through, and someone would die against their real will. I think the current balance is about the right one, with the onus on people to prove that there was no criminal intent and maximum scrutiny applied to each case.

[naomi24]

Don't tell me, sandy .... tell him. ;o)

Actually, I hope it does evolve. If people are so ill that they want to die, they should be allowed to make that choice. We don't leave animals to suffer so why enforce suffering upon human beings who given the choice would choose to go? We don't have that right.

[Zacs-Master]

I hope you don't have a close relative who has to go through months of almost unbearable pain then Jim.

[pixie373]

Jim, that doesn't work, because criminal intent is looked at afterwards- when it's too late, anyway. This means it will be looked at first. You're right, Naomi.

[naomi24]

Experience teaches.

[jim360]

So do I, ZM. But why should that have any bearing on things? We're talking about a shift in the law from the onus being on people proving that they had the right motives, to the state proving that they had the wrong ones. It's a shift that could have terrible consequences. You only need one or two cases of someone being forced into something they don't want, and it's a law that's led to the wrong outcome. I don't think the law in its current form will do that, but in the long term it is just a truism that tightly-established controls fade, and a law set up with the best of intentions has unintended consequences. That is a risk that we should be very wary of taking.

[sherrardk]

I know for a fact that himself would want to die if he was left in a PVS (a very real situation which we have faced) and I would welcome a change in the law.

[Zacs-Master]

You're being very 'clinical' Jim. Emotions are part of this, not just cold hearted law.

[pixie373]

I think you're wrong, Jim.
Currently, this happens daily on an unofficial basis, no checks, relatives get the choice and anything suspicious is not looked into until after the person has died.
The alternative would be proper counselling and checks BEFORE it happens, the decision would be made by the affected person and it would be done properly and recorded.
Much safer imo.

[naomi24]

Jim, // But why should that have any bearing on things? //

Why should having a close relative who has to go through months of almost unbearable pain have any bearing on things? Are you serious? As I said, experience teaches.

[naomi24]

//Currently, this happens daily on an unofficial basis...//

That's true - and, thankfully, it's always been true.

[pixie373]

Indeed.

[sherrardk]

The problem is is that it's so emotional and personal. I have actually had a conversation with himself about this when he had a very real chance of ending up in a PSV (still have bridges to cross). He saw one sister die of MS and his other sister has MS. Until you've 'experienced' it, you don't really get it (and no, I don't think you should get bumped off just because you are getting old).

[jim360]

Emotions are part of the decisions of the individual. I don't see that they should be part of the decisions of the state. There is no way I would want to see any relative of mine suffer. In admittedly different contexts from this I already have, and it's soul-destroying -- and that experience lasted barely a few seconds but has left a lifelong scar. I can't imagine , and don't particularly want to, what it would be like to watch something many times worse than that happening over a much longer time period.

But I still maintain that the law needs to be extremely careful in this matter. And, yes, perhaps cold-hearted, but on the one hand you have the honest people who don't want to see suffering and on the other you have the dishonest who can and will find the tiniest loophole and exploit it mercilessly. I'm worried that this will be too high a price to pay.

[Zacs-Master]

I think the dishonest loophole would be closed. As has been explained several times. Quite clearly.

[pixie373]

The law is 'cold-hearted', but is based on emotions. Why is murder illegal? Because it upsets people, not because the population is endangered.
The point is not "should this happen?" but more "how should it happen". It already does and always will.