Assisted Suicide

[Xemmy]

With the passing of Dr. Jack Kevorkian I thought this might be an interesting topic.

If you don't know, Dr. Kevorkian is famous for advocating and preforming assisted suicide for patience that wished to end their life. He famously said "dying is not a crime". He served 8 years in prison due to lethally injecting a terminally ill man that wanted to die. Dr. Kevorkian was charged with 2nd-degree murder, and managed to make parole in 2007 provided that he no longer assisted in suicides and stuck to campaigning for the laws to be changed.

Assisted suicide is a touchy subject and it depends on what form it takes.
Many, but not all, would agree that it should be ok for a terminally ill person to end there life if they're in pain. But to extend beyond what Dr. Kevorkian did, what about lesser situations? Should someone be punished for assisting someone in their suicide? Not just for the terminally ill, but for all situations that involve someone helping end the life of someone who wishes to, but does not have the means. ls it wrong to help someone to a painless death?

Being able to end your own life, to me, is an act of freedom. Death, though inevitable, should be a choice under the right circumstances.

Do you think someone should be punished for assisting in suicide?

What are the limits? Should someone be able to help a disabled person, or a depressed person?

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Depends, really.

If a patient wishes to commit suicide as a result of being diagnosed with a terminal disease (etc), then active euthenasia (assisted suicide) should be an option to the patient. That person knows that their time is coming; but seeing as how they perhaps do not know the actual date of their death or are in complete pain, then they should have the right to choose whatever date it is that they want so that they may have the kind of closure that they want and not what time itself will give them. Moreover, the person that is assisting the patient should not be punished whatsoever, as (s)he is just helping said individual with their final ordeals.

However, when it comes to dealing with the common suicide -- as in suicide for people that are feeling 'depressed' -- I believe that assisted suicide should be considered a crime. Reason being is because your helping someone commit suicide when chances are, the depression to which the person feels is not as big as the individual and his surroundings make it out to be. Perhaps all that would've been needed would've been some psychological treatment. If not, surely the thoughts to which the 'ill' patient faces could be turned around to make them achieve an even better mentality and self-esteem. But if that person commits suicide, then how are we to know how much better said individual would or could have gotten?

As a result, the fact that 'assisted suicide' would be considered a crime under these terms would undoubtedly prevent people from being the assistances. Besides, if those people want to die so bad, they don't need anyone to assist them... they could do it on their own... Just grab a knife and slash! Done.

 

[WWWYKI777]

On one hand.... if someone was really set on killing themself I'm pretty sure they'd do it either way , assisted or not (My grandpa and aunt and some distant 2nd cousin or something have all committed suicide on their own)

Why exactly does it have to be assisted? I think the only thing going for that is attempting to get a loophole on religions calling it a sin punishable by hell but I honestly don't think having someone else do it for you would even count as you not doing it and it would still count as suicide cause you paid them to do it

Then all you end up with is some doctor killed a person and the person killed themself essentially as well just putting guilt on both people involved if you ask me

I suppose assisted suicide would be less... messy than some commonly chosen methods of suicide but like... its just a weird subject

I think if someone committs suicide , they probably had considered it for quite some time but when they finally decide to go through with it is probably pretty spontaneous... what you're talking about here would involve them scheduling an appointment and then going in to get killed... which by then they may have just cooled down and decided they don't really want to do it. Plus how would they break the news to their family that they have a doctors appointment to kill themself? Its just odd.....

So overall I'd say.... if its a terminally ill or long time comatose or paraplegic person whos doomed or is basically dead anyway well then whatever I guess thats a humane way to put them out of their misery

However , for depressed people? Cmon thats just ridiculous. If someone signed up for assisted suicide citing the reason as depression they should probably just be handed a burrito , a beer , and a $50 walmart gift certificate when they walk in the door given a pep talk and then escorted off the premises. Then they'd eat/drink the stuff and buy themself something nice cheer the hell up at least temporarily and go on with their life of discontent.

I mean , I know I've thought about these things myself and even been thrown in the mental hospital once. Give a depressed person even a small reason to cheer up and they will get over it and go on with their life. Well thats what I say from personal experience anyway

So my summarized opinion on this is :
If the person wanting assisted suicide is doomed and/or a "vegetable" anyway , then by all means they should be allowed that but if its some healthy person who is just sad cause things aren't going their way then hell no , just try to cheer them up a bit.

 

[Xemmy]

Both of you have mentioned that depressed people that want to kill themselves are going to find a way. This is true, but suppose the way they have isn't a preferred way, or dignified. Suppose they're disabled and can't really move, but aren't terminal?

Is it wrong for a person to assist these people, even in a slight way, like providing a method? Not actually having a hand in it, but advice, providing a gun, or medication.

 

[#hamler]

With all the rapid and dramatic developments in technology, medicine and science, we now have the ability to save lives more rapidly than ever before. With that kind of medicine, pain often simply dissolves with the taking of a pill smaller than your fingernail or a shot of pain releaver. With that said, with the numerous ways to take away such pain, I don't believe it's necessary for someone to assist another individual in an suicide attempt. A person who is terminally ill, will NOT be sane enough to make that life altering (Lulz) decision.

HOWEVER...

I have no problem with a doctor or physician ending a teminally ill patient's life. Although I stand by my point about a teminally ill petient not being sane enough to make that decision on their own, I will say they have a right to take their own life. Instead of the decision relying soley on the insane patient, I would require at least two other family members to agree. The only problem I have with a physician ending their patient's life would be the Hippocratic Oath which would prevent them from taking someone's life.

I'm more split on this debate. I do believe someone should be punished for taking someone's life, no matter the circumstance. But physical pain is an awful thing to deal with. I know if I were unable to pull the trigger, I'd sure as hell want someone close to me to do it for me.

 

[HBK-aholic]

A person who is terminally ill, will NOT be sane enough to make that life altering (Lulz) decision.

A disagree with this. Having a terminal illness does not equate to being insane, and those with a terminal illness who need help in committing suicide have often had the condition for quite a long time - so it's rarely the shock of finding out about an illness which has led to this. Also, a patient should be deemed to have mental capacity - the ability to make their own decisions - unless proven otherwise. And in this situation they wouldn't be be deemed to lack mental capacity unless the illness affected their mind. Thus, they are allowed to make a decision that medical staff may call unwise.

Now, I realise assisted suicide doesn't come under that, currently being illegal, but it does show we aren't allowed to class someone as insane based on a decision they want to make, or a illness they have which doesn't affect their mental capacity.

Generally, I agree assisted suicide should be legal for those who can not kill themselves due to a terminal illness, or even if they're paralysed. While unsure whether I'd be able to carry out the act myself if a loved one wanted it, those that can and are acting solely in the interests of their loved ones should not have to deal with grief, and possible guilt, as well as facing a criminal investigation and public scrutiny. Given the option, if I were paralysed or dying a painful death I would choose suicide, assisted if I couldn't do it myself. I have no idea why people believe that isn't my right. And as for the 'religious sin' thing, I truly can't think of something I care less about. If there's a God out there who wants his believers to die painfully and have done nothing wrong to deserve that pain, why would I want to believe in that?

 

[Loveless]

I want to write a long post on this but I'm somewhat short on time so I'll see how this goes.
OK what I've actually done is just drawn up a list of questions that need answering. I'll return to answer my own questions later on.

Considering that pain is subjective, is someone with less tolerance a better candidate for AS?

Does the considerable amount of pain medication available negate the pain argument?

In situations where there is no physical pain (paralysis) is emotional pain a sufficent reason?

Is terminal depression intolerable enough to justify AS?

Is someone "suffering" in the right state of mind to be able to make a subjective and unbalanced decision?

Where is the line drawn in terms of life quality?

Is paralysis a terminal illness or just a severe injury?

Giving the progression of medical science, is it ethical to end the life of someone who may recover?

Whose decision is it to make and can someone suffering ever make a objective and unbiased decision

In circumstances where you had the chance to kill yourself and chose not to, is it fair to then ask someone else to do what you failed to?

Does assisted suicide go against the very essence of a doctors hypocratic oath?

Would legalization and ethical acceptance lead to the public taking matters into their own hands

 

[Davi323]

Assisted suicide, regardless of the circumstances, is, and should be a crime. I don't care how you want to sugarcoat it, it is still taking an active role in killing someone. Ask yourself this: if assisted suicide is okay, then it doesn't matter what method is used, right? So if I used a gun and shot my terminally ill friend in the face, or slashed his throat with a knife or something, that isn't any different than hooking them up to a chemical cocktail device and pushing the button. Yet, I wager most people who claim to support it would probably also state that using a gun or knife or other weapon would be akin to murder. What is the difference though?

Actively participating in killing someone is active participation, and it's wrong, period. I am okay with passive euthanasia, such as disconnecting life support machines, because that is simply allowing a dying body to continue dying. Life support machines artificially extend life, so unplugging someone merely allows nature to take over again. Assisted suicide is active, you are causing the death directly, not merely allowing it to happen.

I guess essentially, my thoughts can be boiled down to a quote from Batman Begins:

"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

 

[HBK-aholic]

Assisted suicide, regardless of the circumstances, is, and should be a crime. I don't care how you want to sugarcoat it, it is still taking an active role in killing someone. Ask yourself this: if assisted suicide is okay, then it doesn't matter what method is used, right? So if I used a gun and shot my terminally ill friend in the face, or slashed his throat with a knife or something, that isn't any different than hooking them up to a chemical cocktail device and pushing the button. Yet, I wager most people who claim to support it would probably also state that using a gun or knife or other weapon would be akin to murder. What is the difference though?

The difference is what the person dying wants. If they WANT to be shot in the head or have their throats slashed, and are unable to do so themselves, I wouldn't call it murder, it'll still be assisted suicide. However, most people who want help in dying want a fast, peaceful, painless death - something they can't do themselves, for some reason. I'd be willing to bet a huge majority of people who seriously wanted the option of assisted suicide wouldn't ask someone to simply slit their throat and to then die slowly and painfully.

 

[Davi323]

what legal standard do you apply though? Verbal? People lie, or often say a lot of things they don't really mean. Do they only have to tell it to you for it to be legal? Does it have to be written down on a signed document? Documents can be forged. How do you prevent people with ulterior motives from staging an "assisted suicide", making it look legit, because they had something to gain from that person's death? If you allow people to help other people die in an active/participatory role, it is VERY easy to blur the lines, and even if you distinguish a difference between murder and assisted suicide (I don't) there would be plenty of people getting away with murder under that guise..

 

[Loveless]

Considering that pain is subjective, is someone with less tolerance a better candidate for AS?
Does the considerable amount of pain medication available negate the pain argument?
In situations where there is no physical pain (paralysis) is emotional pain a sufficent reason?
Is terminal depression intolerable enough to justify AS?
Is someone "suffering" in the right state of mind to be able to make a subjective and unbalanced decision?
Where is the line drawn in terms of life quality?
Is paralysis a terminal illness or just a severe injury?

I'll put these all together because they're really all getting to the same point. How can you accurately guage a personal experience? What is tolerable to one person could be intolerable for another and herein lays the first problem. Do we just kill off the weak but leave the strong to suffer?
Now getting to the 2nd major issue, mental illness and paralysis. As someone who has suffered from bi-polar disorder all my life I can say quite clearly that I don't always know what the fuck I'm doing. The idea that in this terrible state I would be allowed be allowed a make such a decision is frankly, fucking stupid. Now to tie paralysis into this, someone who is paralysed is not terminally ill, they're incapacitated, they're not in pain, they're just fucking miserable. So is it acceptable to end someone's life because they're miserable?
The law must be the same for everyone so how do you define where the line in the sand is? I don't know but ending someone's life because they're not happy is totally unacceptable. Moving on...


Giving the progression of medical science, is it ethical to end the life of someone who may recover?

Problem No 3. Ending someone's life is a long-term solution for what could be a short-term problem. This is basically the capital punishment argument flipped. By making a final judgement, you're giving up on the patient and any chance they have of recovering. It's a very dangerous road to travel down because once again, where do you draw the line? I'd be extremely concerned if the US adopted this system given their health is more concerned with profit than patients who need expensive treatments. Why treat a stage 3 cancer patient on the verge of stage 4 (terminal) if the odd's aren't in their favour (by the way, that was exactly my circumstances)

Whose decision is it to make and can someone suffering ever make a objective and unbiased decision

I think I've already established that the patient is biased and that the doctors wouldn't have their patients interests at heart 100% or an accurate way to judge the candidate. You also can't have every AS case going to court. In my view there is no adequate way of making this decision.

In circumstances where you had the chance to kill yourself and chose not to, is it fair to then ask someone else to do what you failed to?

Rather obviously no. So that's basically everyone with a degenerative illness then.

Does assisted suicide go against the very essence of a doctors hypocratic oath?

Ah now this is a complicated one. "Do no harm" define harm. Is it more harmful to take care of someone and prolong their suffering or end their suffering by harming them. Strictly speaking, it's the illness that is causing the harm so I feel that you can either fight the illness or you can aid it, and that by aiding it you're breaking the oath.

Would legalization and ethical acceptance lead to the public taking matters into their own hands[/QUOTE]

Now this is a major fucking issue. Once suicide is portrayed as acceptable

1. Suicide rates rocket
2. Failed suicides rocket causing terrible harm
3. At home AS cases rocket. Now this is where things really go to hell because once people start skipping all the legal processed and medical evaluations, it would be open-season for oppurtunists, depressives and anyone having a bad day. I only need to point you to Google "Bridgend suicides" to see what happens when suicide becomes socially acceptable.

 

[Slyfox696]

Assisted suicide, regardless of the circumstances, is, and should be a crime. I don't care how you want to sugarcoat it, it is still taking an active role in killing someone.

It is. By why is that a bad thing? You don't see our military in the Middle East trying to find Al-Qaeda for a game of chess, winner takes all, do you? So is some killing okay, but not others? Is all killing morally wrong, and we should just hope everyone feels the same way we do? Where's the line?

Ask yourself this: if assisted suicide is okay, then it doesn't matter what method is used, right?

Well, sure it does. The concept behind assisted suicide is to allow for a peaceful passing into death. A stab wound in the stomach is hardly a peaceful way to die.

So if I used a gun and shot my terminally ill friend in the face, or slashed his throat with a knife or something, that isn't any different than hooking them up to a chemical cocktail device and pushing the button. Yet, I wager most people who claim to support it would probably also state that using a gun or knife or other weapon would be akin to murder. What is the difference though?

The pain involved in the death. Some people are in great and agonizing pain in the days or even weeks leading up to their death. Killing them with, for example, a morphine drip eases the pain, and allows them to pass comfortably from this life.

I am okay with passive euthanasia, such as disconnecting life support machines, because that is simply allowing a dying body to continue dying. Life support machines artificially extend life, so unplugging someone merely allows nature to take over again. Assisted suicide is active, you are causing the death directly, not merely allowing it to happen.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...whoa whoa whoa whoa...

But that's still killing someone. We have medical technology to allow them to live, and by pulling the plug, you are actively taking a role in their death. Those people don't have to die, we can keep them alive with technology and medicine. By pulling the plug, you just killed someone, and according to you, killing someone is wrong/immoral, no matter how it's done.

what legal standard do you apply though? Verbal? People lie, or often say a lot of things they don't really mean. Do they only have to tell it to you for it to be legal? Does it have to be written down on a signed document?

Just off the top of my head...

A signed legal document in a government office, with witnesses, after which the person goes through a 3 day period of counseling with a psychologist. And at the end of the third day, if the person still wants to commit suicide, they go to a "suicide center" (for lack of a better term), and the peaceful death is administered by a doctor with witnesses.

How do you prevent people with ulterior motives from staging an "assisted suicide", making it look legit, because they had something to gain from that person's death?

How is it prevented now?

If you allow people to help other people die in an active/participatory role, it is VERY easy to blur the lines, and even if you distinguish a difference between murder and assisted suicide (I don't)

Actually, that's not true, you DO distinguish a difference between murder and assisted suicide, you said so in your first post. You may want to try and claim taking off life support and injecting chemicals are two different things, but the end result is the same...a dead body which you played a part in.

So don't say you don't distinguish a difference because you already have.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I fully support the assisted suicide of terminally ill patients. I may be in the minority, but I actually feel that passive euthanasia is a more immoral act than active euthanasia. The objective of euthanasia should be to:

a) lessen the pain of the person who is dying

b) allow the person who is dying to die with dignity by allowing him to choose the time and way of his death.

None of the two objectives are achieved in passive euthanasia. The human body is wrecked in pain if you allow nature to play it's course in the case of terminally ill patients. It is nothing but hastening the death of a human being and causing him pain and suffering. You are niether lessening the pain and nor are you letting the patient decide the way he should die. The only thing you are doing is thinking that you are not commiting murder, which, in fact, you are. You are basically depriving a patient of something that would have saved his life, for at least some instant of time. I fail to understand how that is not murder.

I see nothing wrong with active euthanasia. If anything you are actually helping in lessening the suffering of a fellow human being. People, I think, are not willing to look into the positives of this act. They just pan it down as "OH it's murder and that's horrible" as the final judgement for the act while actually approving of something painful and torturous like passive euthanasia.

Of course some measures need to be taken. The doctors as well as the patient should be consulted before a decision is made. If there is absolutely no chance of recovery and if the patient is in a lot of pain AND the patient himself wants to die, then I see no problem in offering the patient an easier way out.

 

[WWWYKI777]

Both of you have mentioned that depressed people that want to kill themselves are going to find a way. This is true, but suppose the way they have isn't a preferred way, or dignified. Suppose they're disabled and can't really move, but aren't terminal?

Is it wrong for a person to assist these people, even in a slight way, like providing a method? Not actually having a hand in it, but advice, providing a gun, or medication.

I already actually said if someone was a "vegetable" in a coma or paraplegic etc then by all means help them kill themself if they want it

So overall I'd say.... if its a terminally ill or long time comatose or paraplegic person whos doomed or is basically dead anyway well then whatever I guess thats a humane way to put them out of their misery

See , I meant that condition to be included in that bunch I figured it kind of fell into the same category

Basically if someone was :

Stephen Hawkings condition (Severely and unrehabilitatably paralyzed)
In a coma for several months
Limbless from war
Or has been diagnosed terminal/doomed anyway

Then by all means let them die and put them out of their misery

But if someone is :
Sad cause they are broke
Sad cause they got dumped
Sad cause they arent getting laid in the 1st place
Sad cause people insulted them
Sad cause of any other generally stupid and non-suicide worthy reasons

Then hell no , like I said give them something to cheer up about and send them on their way cause those ones will just get over it

Interestingly enough , I had mentioned 3 family related suicides and to go into detail

My Grandpa shot himself , he was ill with prostate issues and could not even pee (This case I deem understandable)

My Aunt , shot herself due to general clinical depression (This case I deem tragic and probably preventable , ridiculous because she left 2 boys behind parentless and it was just because of depression)

My 2nd cousin (Or whatever he was) hung himself , due to just being an emo kid who got picked on at school (This case I deem absolutley fucking ridiculous , because I was picked on in a ghetto ass high school but I never actually killed myself or killed any of them either even though the thoughts did admittedly cross my mind) (He could have just quit school and got a GED later or done homeschooling or done other things like bring brass knucks and beat some asses , or just wear non ridiculous clothes)

So theres some real examples of peoples reasons for suicide and what I'm saying is if assisted suicide was legal I would deem my grandpas case acceptable reasoning , and rejected the other two cases and send them back home.

 

[RockFan89]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...whoa whoa whoa whoa...

But that's still killing someone. We have medical technology to allow them to live, and by pulling the plug, you are actively taking a role in their death. Those people don't have to die, we can keep them alive with technology and medicine. By pulling the plug, you just killed someone, and according to you, killing someone is wrong/immoral, no matter how it's done.

Passive euthanasia is not killing someone. When you kill someone, you are interrupting that person's natural state of living. Taking someone of off life support means no longer interrupting that natural state, which leads to death. Yes, in passive euthanasia the person making the decision is responsible, but that person is not a killer, they're just letting nature take its course.

With assisted suicides, however, that person is in a state in which they are not dying. Interrupting that is tantamount to killing them.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I think physician assisted suicide should only be legal in a very strict sense. Loveless brought up a multitude of questions that one must ask themselves in regards to this issue. It's just not practical to allow anyone except with the most physically debilitating diseases to receive assistance in suicide.

With that being said, I am a supporter of right-to-die organizations such Compassion & Choices and (the now defunct) Hemlock Society. I strongly believe everyone has the right to take their own life. These organizations provide literature on how to go about committing suicide in the least painful way (well, at least the Hemlock Society provided literature like this). Those that decide to commit suicide and are physically capable have the responsibility to not put their blood on anyone else's hands; it's the least one can do if one decided that life isn't worth living anymore.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I've always felt that each hospital (or each city/town) should have a "commissioner" who handles these matters on a case-by-case basis. The patient (or his family, if the patient is not capable of making decisions for himself) could present their case to the commissioner, looking to prove that the person has no quality of life and is doomed to keep suffering if relief isn't granted. The commissioner must be versed in medicine and psychology so he can make an informed decision. Of course, he must be capable of making an impartial decision, and one of the requirements for the position is that the commissioner's decisions be periodically reviewed by someone else, to make sure the commissioner wasn't following his own agenda.

But if this kind of policy were to be enacted, it must be binding. All parties would have to agree to be bound by the arbitration, with none of the damn "appeals" that the American legal system has been tied up with. His decision goes: if he says no to the request, then the patient must continue to live. If he says yes, then the hospital would be bound to oversee the termination of life function.....quickly and safely, so that there would be no need for a Dr. Kervorkian......and there would be no more need for time-consuming court proceedings with lawyers and advocates that gum up what should be a family decision.

 

[Loveless]

Interesting idea Mustang but (particularly in the US) there's just no way in hell that could work.

Firstly I don't believe with your legal system there is any such thing as a "Final word" and I don't think anyone against this would sign away their rights to a 3rd party anyway.
Secondly your right to lifers would go absolutely ape-shit. Signing it into law would be near impossible and having 1 person who makes the decisions would make them a target.
To be honest finding a doctor who is qualified in medical and psychological to the highest standard required (and legally it would be challenged constantly) wouldn't be easy either. And obviously they have to be unbiased, which might be the most difficult thing of all considering, y'know, they're a doctor.

I mean these things are just technicalities. The more difficult thing is drawing up a bullet-proof set of rules and ethics that would have to be followed to the letter.
Once that's all done and dusted, you've got to deal with how the public reacts and that's something that can't be predicted. You could be looking at a major philosophical change in the way people percieve death and the sanctity of life. Once the message is out that suicide is acceptable...

 

[HBK-aholic]

I want to write a long post on this but I'm somewhat short on time so I'll see how this goes.
OK what I've actually done is just drawn up a list of questions that need answering. I'll return to answer my own questions later on.

Considering that pain is subjective, is someone with less tolerance a better candidate for AS?

I don't believe we can use the term 'better candidate' as this whole issue is subjective. One person may be content, or able to live with being paralysed from the neck down, or having terminal, painful breast cancer. Another may want to die soon, with their own terms and conditions, painlessly and quickly.

Does the considerable amount of pain medication available negate the pain argument?

Not in the slightest. Despite their being a considerable amount of pain medication available, not all medication works for all conditions. Also, many pain medications that could work may 'knock out' the person, so they sleep all the time, or make them so 'high' they can't function properly or have any type of life quality. Different medications work differently for different people, and for some the options of lots of pain, or being so knocked out they can't live anyway means they may want a third option - suicide.

In situations where there is no physical pain (paralysis) is emotional pain a sufficent reason?

Definitely. If I were paralysed completely, or like a 'vegetable', I would never want to live that way. Having to live for the next 60 years unable to move would be unbearable to me, and I think those who feel the same shouldn't have to find a way to fly to Switzerland to die peacefully.

Is terminal depression intolerable enough to justify AS?

I think the issue to me for assisted suicide is that depression isn't generally something that physically stops you committing an act if you really want. Someone with terminal depression could kill themselves, with no help from anyone else. I'd use assisted suicide as a way to help those who can't physically kill themselves, but are mentally fine, and have made their choice. Depression would need to be looked at in detail, from experienced qualified people as to whether assisted suicide would be allowed in those circumstances - as of now I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Is someone "suffering" in the right state of mind to be able to make a subjective and unbalanced decision?

Suffering doesn't equate to not having mental capacity, and every adult has to be deemed to have mental capacity unless proven otherwise. If that is proven, their decision can be questioned. However, just because someone is in pain, and wanting to make a decision you deem as unwise, it doesn't mean they aren't capable of making a decision.

Also, I'm not suffering any physical or emotional pain at the minute - and yet I say I'm almost completely sure I'd want to die when faced with situations of paralysis or a complete lack of dignity permanently. I say almost completely now as you can't ever know for sure until you're in the situation, but I'd say I have a pretty good idea that being in the situation would eventually lead to me wanting a painless, fast death for myself, when I choose.

Where is the line drawn in terms of life quality?

Completely based on how the patient with the illness feels. As I said above, there are some situations one person could live with and another would want to die with. Each situation would have to be looked at individually. Remember assisted suicide isn't about having a list of illnesses we kill people with, but how every individual feels with their symptoms and circumstances.

Is paralysis a terminal illness or just a severe injury?

It depends how you define a terminal illness. I've always thought of it as an illness which will go on to kill you. Paralysis doesn't necessarily do that. However I don't think that means assisted suicide shouldn't be allowed in that situation.

Giving the progression of medical science, is it ethical to end the life of someone who may recover?

I think this is solely a question for the person wanting death. Some may be able to wait with that hope - others not so much.

Whose decision is it to make and can someone suffering ever make a objective and unbiased decision

It's the decision of the person wanting to die, ultimately. They need to be assessed with medical experts to ensure this is something they truly want and that they understand the impact of.

However, the issue becomes more complicated when the person is a 'vegetable', for want of a better term. Someone with little brain function, no way of communicating, unable to move..but technically alive. How do we determine that particular decision? Because it should never be something a medical expert decides. And yet if it were me in the situation I'd want my mum or husband to decide to let me die. But that just brings up a whole host of new questions. How do you decide who genuinely is acting in the persons best interests? And how do we know they aren't doing that due to a benefit they'll get, such as money in a Will?

In circumstances where you had the chance to kill yourself and chose not to, is it fair to then ask someone else to do what you failed to?

I think it depends on circumstances - have they changed a lot since not committing suicide and suddenly feeling you need to? But I'd be wary. If someone couldn't kill themselves yet is asking someone else to do it, I'd likely think they didn't seriously want to die. Or maybe were looking for attention as opposed to death.

Does assisted suicide go against the very essence of a doctors hypocratic oath?

One of the most difficult questions here. I personally think of the Hippocratic Oath as something which means all doctors should work to prevent suffering in their patients. Others think of it as preventing death, no matter what the cost or implication. I think this would have the same type of argument as abortion does amongst doctors. Some won't perform them, others would in certain circumstances.

Would legalization and ethical acceptance lead to the public taking matters into their own hands

The public already take matters into their own hands. Asissted suicide is legal in places like Switzerland, and as yet I haven't seen anything to suggest there's been a negative impact on society, although I haven't looked very hard for anything so that would need to be looked at.

what legal standard do you apply though? Verbal? People lie, or often say a lot of things they don't really mean. Do they only have to tell it to you for it to be legal? Does it have to be written down on a signed document? Documents can be forged. How do you prevent people with ulterior motives from staging an "assisted suicide", making it look legit, because they had something to gain from that person's death? If you allow people to help other people die in an active/participatory role, it is VERY easy to blur the lines, and even if you distinguish a difference between murder and assisted suicide (I don't) there would be plenty of people getting away with murder under that guise..

Everything you've said is what happens now. By legalising assisted suicides there would be a correct method. A legal method with witnesses, psychiatric reports, qualified doctors, specialised centres. Those not following that strict code could very well be found guilty of a crime.

 

[Loveless]

I'm impressed

I don't believe we can use the term 'better candidate' as this whole issue is subjective. One person may be content, or able to live with being paralysed from the neck down, or having terminal, painful breast cancer. Another may want to die soon, with their own terms and conditions, painlessly and quickly.

So if this is purely about personal tolerance, what's to stop someone who has osteoporosis (let's say they're 45) deciding they've simply had enough after a couple of years of it and don't fancy continuing? You've got to draw the line somewhere, simply wanting it to end isn't enough.

Not in the slightest. Despite their being a considerable amount of pain medication available, not all medication works for all conditions. Also, many pain medications that could work may 'knock out' the person, so they sleep all the time, or make them so 'high' they can't function properly or have any type of life quality. Different medications work differently for different people, and for some the options of lots of pain, or being so knocked out they can't live anyway means they may want a third option - suicide.

There will always be exceptions but help is available for pretty much everyone. Personally I think the onus here is for you to show how being dead is preferable or any different to being drugged up or comatose. I've already stated why it's better not to go down that road.

Definitely. If I were paralysed completely, or like a 'vegetable', I would never want to live that way. Having to live for the next 60 years unable to move would be unbearable to me, and I think those who feel the same shouldn't have to find a way to fly to Switzerland to die peacefully.

This leads right back to my first reply. Unhappiness cannot be the only argument for suicide. If some people can tolerate it, why shouldn't everyone.

I think the issue to me for assisted suicide is that depression isn't generally something that physically stops you committing an act if you really want. Someone with terminal depression could kill themselves, with no help from anyone else. I'd use assisted suicide as a way to help those who can't physically kill themselves, but are mentally fine, and have made their choice. Depression would need to be looked at in detail, from experienced qualified people as to whether assisted suicide would be allowed in those circumstances - as of now I don't have a strong opinion either way.

* Raises eyebrows *
I'm just going to let that one go

Can someone in tremendous pain ever make a clear judgement in the moment? Does someone in pain actually want to die, or do they simply want the pain to stop?
Just as an aside, do you think it's ok for depressed people to kill themselves or it is better they're offered treatment.

Suffering doesn't equate to not having mental capacity, and every adult has to be deemed to have mental capacity unless proven otherwise. If that is proven, their decision can be questioned. However, just because someone is in pain, and wanting to make a decision you deem as unwise, it doesn't mean they aren't capable of making a decision.

That's the question isn't it? Suffering might not always equate to not having mental capacity but the two certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Trauma has a habit of messing with people's heads, especially in the moment and often long afterwards.

Also, I'm not suffering any physical or emotional pain at the minute - and yet I say I'm almost completely sure I'd want to die when faced with situations of paralysis or a complete lack of dignity permanently. I say almost completely now as you can't ever know for sure until you're in the situation, but I'd say I have a pretty good idea that being in the situation would eventually lead to me wanting a painless, fast death for myself, when I choose.

I'm exactly the opposite. So am I just being stubborn or are you being weak? I'd say the answer is neither because it's subjective. Aaaaaand we're right back where we started.

Completely based on how the patient with the illness feels. As I said above, there are some situations one person could live with and another would want to die with. Each situation would have to be looked at individually. Remember assisted suicide isn't about having a list of illnesses we kill people with, but how every individual feels with their symptoms and circumstances.

Completely based? Completely? So the 15 year old who just got dumped and now thinks the world is ending, her feelings are the only thing that should be considered? I'm being ridiculous of course but your wording is open to abuse. The decision to end someone's life can never ever be completely based on the patients choice. That's just asking for trouble.
You also can't drag every individual case through the courts, it only causes more suffering to the patient, the family and it's impractical for so many other reasons.

It depends how you define a terminal illness. I've always thought of it as an illness which will go on to kill you. Paralysis doesn't necessarily do that. However I don't think that means assisted suicide shouldn't be allowed in that situation.

It's not difficult to argue that life is a terminal illness, we are all dying afterall anyway.
I deliberately brought up depression and paralysis because they're comparable. In the end you're faced with a failing body but not one that is immediatly dying. Both come down to wanting to die because you're unhappy and yet again, we're back to being subjective.

I think this is solely a question for the person wanting death. Some may be able to wait with that hope - others not so much.

Subjective. The law needs to be objective

It's the decision of the person wanting to die, ultimately. They need to be assessed with medical experts to ensure this is something they truly want and that they understand the impact of.
However, the issue becomes more complicated when the person is a 'vegetable', for want of a better term. Someone with little brain function, no way of communicating, unable to move..but technically alive. How do we determine that particular decision? Because it should never be something a medical expert decides. And yet if it were me in the situation I'd want my mum or husband to decide to let me die. But that just brings up a whole host of new questions. How do you decide who genuinely is acting in the persons best interests? And how do we know they aren't doing that due to a benefit they'll get, such as money in a Will?

You say it's the decision of the person wanting to die but what if the medical assessment disagree?
Passive euthanasia is something entirely different. Letting someone die and actively killing them off are different matters entirely.

I think it depends on circumstances - have they changed a lot since not committing suicide and suddenly feeling you need to? But I'd be wary. If someone couldn't kill themselves yet is asking someone else to do it, I'd likely think they didn't seriously want to die. Or maybe were looking for attention as opposed to death.

Ah now we're getting somewhere. How are you supposed to judge this persons true state of mind? Keep in mind you were in favour of them having total control of the decision earlier. If this is someone who really just wants attention, do you just let them go ahead with it anyway? Do you force it through the courts at tax payer expense only for the patient to change their mind?

One of the most difficult questions here. I personally think of the Hippocratic Oath as something which means all doctors should work to prevent suffering in their patients. Others think of it as preventing death, no matter what the cost or implication. I think this would have the same type of argument as abortion does amongst doctors. Some won't perform them, others would in certain circumstances.

Preventing death and preventing suffering aren't incompatible. The oath is do not harm and I personally don't see treatment as breaking that oath. It really does all come down the intent, keeping someone alive may as a consequence prolong their suffering but that's not the intent. Killing someone off though, no matter how merciful it may seem, can never become a better option than trying to help them. The intent should always be to try to improve life.

The public already take matters into their own hands. Asissted suicide is legal in places like Switzerland, and as yet I haven't seen anything to suggest there's been a negative impact on society, although I haven't looked very hard for anything so that would need to be looked at.

I think you've misunderstood me. It's legal in Switzerland but pretty much nowhere else. It's not legal or portrayed as morally acceptable in our society but the moment the government stance changes, so does the perception of acceptability. Suddenly all the (healthy and unhealthy) people who were previously ashamed of feeling suicidal and had dismissed the idea, aren't being told it's forbidden anymore. Inevitably this leads to more suicide attempts across the board and this is exactly what I was talking about when I brought up the Bridgend suicides earlier. That was a perfect example of an idea or perception spreading through a community like a virus. Once the idea that suicide is allowed is out there, you can't put it back in the box.

Everything you've said is what happens now. By legalising assisted suicides there would be a correct method. A legal method with witnesses, psychiatric reports, qualified doctors, specialised centres. Those not following that strict code could very well be found guilty of a crime.

By legalising suicide all you do is give encouragement to people who otherwise might not have considered it and it won't be in a controlled enviroment.
Legally you can't leave these things open to interpretation or personal circumstances. In this case, things have to be absolutely set in stone, you can't have subjective law or a situation where every case has to be argued in court, it's simply unworkable en masse.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'm impressed

So if this is purely about personal tolerance, what's to stop someone who has osteoporosis (let's say they're 45) deciding they've simply had enough after a couple of years of it and don't fancy continuing? You've got to draw the line somewhere, simply wanting it to end isn't enough.

I view assisted suicide as the suicide of those who NEED help to end their lives. Someone with a terminal condition who can't do much at all for themselves. Someone paralysed completely. Someone with osteoporosis - if they want to end their lives they can do it on their own. And that's up to them.

There will always be exceptions but help is available for pretty much everyone. Personally I think the onus here is for you to show how being dead is preferable or any different to being drugged up or comatose. I've already stated why it's better not to go down that road.

Being dead very much may be preferable to being so drugged up you can hardly move. It's certainly what I'd choose, if there was nothing I could do to change it.

This leads right back to my first reply. Unhappiness cannot be the only argument for suicide. If some people can tolerate it, why shouldn't everyone.

Absolutely ridiculous statement. Human beings are not the same, and acting as if they are, and can all tolerate the same things is absurd.

* Raises eyebrows *
I'm just going to let that one go

No clue what this means. If you have depression, physically, you could get up and jump off a bridge. Physically, you could order some pills from the internet. Physically, you could hang yourself or slit your wrists. Drink yourself to death etc. I'm not saying depression as an illness isn't serious, but that they have options available that those paralysed do not.

Can someone in tremendous pain ever make a clear judgement in the moment? Does someone in pain actually want to die, or do they simply want the pain to stop?

What if the way to stop the pain is to die? Why is that such a bad thing? If it's what someone wants, and they've been counselled through it, let them.

Just as an aside, do you think it's ok for depressed people to kill themselves or it is better they're offered treatment.

Provided that there's treatment likely to help them, of course I'd choose treatment. Exactly the same with any of the other illnesses we're talking about here. But for those people who have no other hope, I'm okay with suicide. My view is that if someone wants to die, they're welcome to. There are situations I'd completely disagree with it in - such as if they have children, or I deem the reason stupid - but that's not to say the person suffering feels that way.

That's the question isn't it? Suffering might not always equate to not having mental capacity but the two certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Trauma has a habit of messing with people's heads, especially in the moment and often long afterwards.

Which is why I believe if done legally and there's made a set of rules and regulations, the person will have counselling, by trained doctors who may be able to see whether a person is capable of making decisions.

Completely based? Completely? So the 15 year old who just got dumped and now thinks the world is ending, her feelings are the only thing that should be considered? I'm being ridiculous of course but your wording is open to abuse. The decision to end someone's life can never ever be completely based on the patients choice. That's just asking for trouble.
You also can't drag every individual case through the courts, it only causes more suffering to the patient, the family and it's impractical for so many other reasons.

You only read the first part of my sentence - the rest read 'the patient with the illness'. The person in that scenario has no illness. And if she was so upset she wanted to kill herself she'd do it without worrying about the pain of death.

As for the patients choice - who else would you say get's to decide? The way I look at this is simple - you or me could go out and commit suicide today if we wanted to. Someone paralysed, or with a terminal illness where they're losing all their dignity because they can't even wipe their own bottom doesn't have that choice. I don't think that's fair. If I decide to die today, I can die. But why can't they?

It's not difficult to argue that life is a terminal illness, we are all dying afterall anyway.
I deliberately brought up depression and paralysis because they're comparable. In the end you're faced with a failing body but not one that is immediatly dying. Both come down to wanting to die because you're unhappy and yet again, we're back to being subjective.

Depression and paralysis aren't comparable to me. Like I explained above, with depression, you can find the means to kill yourself. With paralysis, you can physically do absolutely nothing.

I'm not saying the 2 illnesses aren't similar. But someone with depression can kill themselves without assistance - it happens all the time. When's the last time someone completely paralysed managed to slit their wrists?

Subjective. The law needs to be objective

It's clearly been worded correctly in Switzerland - so it can be done.

You say it's the decision of the person wanting to die but what if the medical assessment disagree?

Very difficult to answer here. If the medical assessment deems the person lacks mental capacity and therefore can't make the decision themselves, decisions have to be made for them in the patients best interests, and with the input of Independent Medical Capacity Advocates. This would be based solely case be case.

Passive euthanasia is something entirely different. Letting someone die and actively killing them off are different matters entirely.

Completely agree.

Ah now we're getting somewhere. How are you supposed to judge this persons true state of mind? Keep in mind you were in favour of them having total control of the decision earlier. If this is someone who really just wants attention, do you just let them go ahead with it anyway? Do you force it through the courts at tax payer expense only for the patient to change their mind?

We already have total control of our decision to live or die. It's those few people with paralysis or long term illnesses that don't.

Preventing death and preventing suffering aren't incompatible. The oath is do not harm and I personally don't see treatment as breaking that oath. It really does all come down the intent, keeping someone alive may as a consequence prolong their suffering but that's not the intent. Killing someone off though, no matter how merciful it may seem, can never become a better option than trying to help them. The intent should always be to try to improve life.

If improving life is impossible, where does that leave things? Keep the patient 'comfortable'? Is that fair?

I think you've misunderstood me. It's legal in Switzerland but pretty much nowhere else. It's not legal or portrayed as morally acceptable in our society but the moment the government stance changes, so does the perception of acceptability. Suddenly all the (healthy and unhealthy) people who were previously ashamed of feeling suicidal and had dismissed the idea, aren't being told it's forbidden anymore. Inevitably this leads to more suicide attempts across the board and this is exactly what I was talking about when I brought up the Bridgend suicides earlier. That was a perfect example of an idea or perception spreading through a community like a virus. Once the idea that suicide is allowed is out there, you can't put it back in the box.

As I've said previously, if someone wants to kill themselves, let them. Are many likely to be for stupid reasons? Yes. But that's up to them.

By legalising suicide all you do is give encouragement to people who otherwise might not have considered it and it won't be in a controlled enviroment.

I seriously doubt legalising assisted suicide for people with unmanageable illnesses is going to lead to regular people who had never thought of suicide before killing themselves.

Legally you can't leave these things open to interpretation or personal circumstances. In this case, things have to be absolutely set in stone, you can't have subjective law or a situation where every case has to be argued in court, it's simply unworkable en masse.

Switzerland manages, I'm sure our finest lawyers would be able to word it all perfectly.

 

[Loveless]

I view assisted suicide as the suicide of those who NEED help to end their lives. Someone with a terminal condition who can't do much at all for themselves. Someone paralysed completely. Someone with osteoporosis - if they want to end their lives they can do it on their own. And that's up to them.

I'll give a full reply to everything else later but I did want to address this.

We seem to be stuck on this assumption that assisted suicide is only for people incapable of doing it themselves and I don't think that is a realistic scenario. For an "industry" that is so concerned with compassion do you really think a clinic is going to look at a more capable patient and say "You're capable of doing it yourself without our help" or "Go away for 6 months until it gets worse". Most of the people who actually go to Dignitas are quite capable of killing themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be fit to travel in the first place. Let's not kid ourselves that this practice would be restricted to the minority who are entirely phsyically incapable.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'll give a full reply to everything else later but I did want to address this.

We seem to be stuck on this assumption that assisted suicide is only for people incapable of doing it themselves and I don't think that is a realistic scenario. For an "industry" that is so concerned with compassion do you really think a clinic is going to look at a more capable patient and say "You're capable of doing it yourself without our help" or "Go away for 6 months until it gets worse". Most of the people who actually go to Dignitas are quite capable of killing themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be fit to travel in the first place. Let's not kid ourselves that this practice would be restricted to the minority who are entirely phsyically incapable.

As you rightly said, however, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Now I'm not saying someone with terminal cancer - but who can still walk and talk etc. wouldn't be able to benefit from this. 'Entirely' physically incapable was likely an error of words on my part, but I'd draw the line at someone with a condition which doesn't greatly affect the body, and which isn't likely to get worse. If that person wanted to kill themselves I'm sure they could without assistance. Helping someone end their life is a huge thing, and despite me being completely for this being legal, I don't underestimate the enormity of such a decision on the person asked to help commit the act and the burden on their shoulders. It's for that reason I don't believe assisted suicide should be for every person that wants it.

Suicide is a very sensitive topic, and not a decision to be taken lightly. If a person completely capable of committing suicide on their own ONLY wants it if it's 'assisted' and all nice and lovely (As nice and lovely as death can be, anyway), I don't believe they want to die.

 

[Loveless]

Absolutely ridiculous statement. Human beings are not the same, and acting as if they are, and can all tolerate the same things is absurd.

Which is my point. The law can't be flexible in regards to every different case, it has to be the same for everyone and as everyone isn't the same, I'd say that rather a large problem.

No clue what this means. If you have depression, physically, you could get up and jump off a bridge. Physically, you could order some pills from the internet. Physically, you could hang yourself or slit your wrists. Drink yourself to death etc. I'm not saying depression as an illness isn't serious, but that they have options available that those paralysed do not.

It's a bit more complicated than that but I can't think a way to adequately explain it. Firstly try to imagine that your thoughts and your body aren't connected, you might think you want to do something but your body is totally unresponsive. Now add into that mix the idea that your brain might be lying to you and the feelings you're having aren't actually real. Personally, it's very difficult to take even the smallest decision in that state of mind, let alone killing yourself when you don't even know whether you actually want to die. I think the mental inconsistency actually keeps most depressives alive, sometimes against their will. It's mental paralysis

What if the way to stop the pain is to die? Why is that such a bad thing? If it's what someone wants, and they've been counselled through it, let them.

Things are never so simple. In practice there are consequences, legal, ethical, personal. You can't just say "Kill those who want to die" and then imagine that it stops there.

There are situations I'd completely disagree with it in - such as if they have children, or I deem the reason stupid - but that's not to say the person suffering feels that way.

Woah there! So people with kids aren't allowed help now? Guess they can just go and throw themselves off a bridge instead then, providing they're physically capable.
This is kind of what I'm talking about. You can't be making exceptions for special groups, it totally undermines legal equality.

Which is why I believe if done legally and there's made a set of rules and regulations, the person will have counselling, by trained doctors who may be able to see whether a person is capable of making decisions.

Unless they've got kids, are capable of doing it themselves or are just depressed?

OK again I'm going to have to stop here because too much quoting. I'll finish the rest later on.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Which is my point. The law can't be flexible in regards to every different case, it has to be the same for everyone and as everyone isn't the same, I'd say that rather a large problem.

The law has always been flexible to different situations. Sure, we have 'Don't kill anyone' - but then the crime, with the exact same end result, is often less if you didn't really mean to...or you'd just found a man in bed with your wife and acted in a moment of madness.

It's a bit more complicated than that but I can't think a way to adequately explain it. Firstly try to imagine that your thoughts and your body aren't connected, you might think you want to do something but your body is totally unresponsive. Now add into that mix the idea that your brain might be lying to you and the feelings you're having aren't actually real. Personally, it's very difficult to take even the smallest decision in that state of mind, let alone killing yourself when you don't even know whether you actually want to die. I think the mental inconsistency actually keeps most depressives alive, sometimes against their will. It's mental paralysis

If they can't adequately make their decisions, or if the feelings they're having aren't actually real, I'd feel very wary about allowing them to be considered for assisted suicide.

Things are never so simple. In practice there are consequences, legal, ethical, personal. You can't just say "Kill those who want to die" and then imagine that it stops there.

Of course not. It is, however, a basic premise to work from and beyond.

Woah there! So people with kids aren't allowed help now? Guess they can just go and throw themselves off a bridge instead then, providing they're physically capable.
This is kind of what I'm talking about. You can't be making exceptions for special groups, it totally undermines legal equality.

Where did I say they wouldn't be allowed? I said I don't agree with it. In my opinion, killing yourself when you have children dependant on you is selfish. The law shouldn't work that way, but it's my personal opinion. I then went on to say the person committing suicide may feel differently. As I'm sure other people do. Just because I disagree with something doesn't necessarily mean it should be set in stone law.

Unless they've got kids, are capable of doing it themselves or are just depressed?

Again, regarding children, I never said they shouldn't be allowed to. What should be allowed and what I agree with happening are two very different things.

If you're capable of doing it yourself I fail to see why you need to put the burden on someone else. You're welcome to kill yourself - go right ahead.

And when have I ever said 'just depressed' as if I'm lessening the illness? But when you, yourself, described depression as difficult to make even the smallest decision, I doubt you'll find any doctor willing to help you die.

OK again I'm going to have to stop here because too much quoting. I'll finish the rest later on.

I'm going to sleep anyway, your hurting my brain I'll reply in the next day or so, when you do