[GStevens]

(Original post by Elipsis)
He should definitely be allowed to be killed. I seriously question how much some of these people want to die when they choose to fight lengthy legal battles with a 1% chance of success, when they also know that their family members won't face much trouble for euthenasing them. Or no trouble at all if they do it right. There are hundreds of complications that can cause a fully paralised person to die, just trigger one.

Idiots. All that fuss and all this time it was so simple. Why didn't they think of that instead of engaging in lengthy court battles just for their entertainment.
And of course, all the people who want to die are 'fully paralised', aren't they? Because anything less wouldn't be a good reason to want to die.

Many of the people fighting are fighting for a future right, they have debilitating illnesses that will become increasingly painful or distressing. They are fighting for the right to be assisted at some point in the future, not to kill themselves on the courtroom steps 5 minutes after the judgement. The current lack of protection for anyone who assists may well be leading to people ending their lives sooner than they would have wanted to, taking action while they are still physically capable.

Their life as it is now may be tolerable, even better than tolerable. They may consider that their life may be tolerable up to a point past where they are able to end it unaided. For example, it may be that even when many functions are limited that life may still be worth living (in their judgement) up to the point when the slow suffocation*, perhaps lasting for weeks, begins. It may be at that point that they need the assistance.

Fighting court battles with a 1% chance of winning is worthwhile when each case raises more questions and brings 'success' closer. Most of the people figting for this right have given it a lot more thought that you or I, they have a good idea of when they will die.

*I believe that some of the muscle wasting diseases end up this way.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by GStevens)
There are two seperate issues:

1. Should people be able to decide to end their own lives?

2. How do we frame the law to allow that to happen while providing necessary safeguards?

Most of the arguments presented on here conflate the two, using the possibility of abuse as a reason to deny the right.

Get the 'moral' issue resolved and then draft a suitable law, don't use the possibility of abuse as a reason to deny people a right which almost every argument suggests they should already have.

It is also rather daft to be assuming that the law wouldn't provide safeguards. Obviously we make errors in law, have daft laws with unintended consequences etc, but in the main our laws are sensible. The idea that the processes and debates involved wouldn't consider safeguards is ridiculous.

Also the problem is whether or not it was dictated by depression, or whether it is a genuine feeling, and then you would have to redraw the boundaries for what counts as a legimate disease for euthanasia to be acceptable.

[Ryan_94]

All things like this should be decided on a case-to-case basis. The only hard thing about it is that he can't actually communicate. It's all being interoperated, which may cause an issue.

[Hopple]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Also the problem is whether or not it was dictated by depression, or whether it is a genuine feeling, and then you would have to redraw the boundaries for what counts as a legimate disease for euthanasia to be acceptable.

Is that just laziness/incompetence on the part of politicians, that they would rather just leave things as is than address the very real problem?

(Original post by Ryan_94)
All things like this should be decided on a case-to-case basis. The only hard thing about it is that he can't actually communicate. It's all being interoperated, which may cause an issue.

Should all people be made to go through a lengthy court process, most likely whilst their condition makes life more and more unbearable?

[madders94]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm confused: could the man not go to Dignitas and die there?

I'd rather our law was changed here to allow the man to die if he wishes, but surely in the absence of that happening, could he not use Dignitas?

If he went to Dignitas on his own then I'm fairly sure he could, but he's unable to get there unaided as far as I'm aware, and if anyone was to travel with him they'd be liable for assisting in his suicide and could face a lengthy jail sentence.

[battycatlady]

When animals are so sick they're that it's no longer moral to keep them alive because their quality of life would be so low, we put them to sleep. So why can't the same be done for people? It's no more murder than putting down an animal is murder. In fact, it's more immoral to keep him alive when he wants to die.

Ultimately, in a country where we are supposed to have freedom of will, I don't see how he can be denied the right to chose to die when his quality of life is clearly and he wants to die. And he's not mad. He knows what he wants 0.o

[Elipsis]

(Original post by GStevens)
Idiots. All that fuss and all this time it was so simple. Why didn't they think of that instead of engaging in lengthy court battles just for their entertainment.
And of course, all the people who want to die are 'fully paralised', aren't they? Because anything less wouldn't be a good reason to want to die.

Many of the people fighting are fighting for a future right, they have debilitating illnesses that will become increasingly painful or distressing. They are fighting for the right to be assisted at some point in the future, not to kill themselves on the courtroom steps 5 minutes after the judgement. The current lack of protection for anyone who assists may well be leading to people ending their lives sooner than they would have wanted to, taking action while they are still physically capable.

Their life as it is now may be tolerable, even better than tolerable. They may consider that their life may be tolerable up to a point past where they are able to end it unaided. For example, it may be that even when many functions are limited that life may still be worth living (in their judgement) up to the point when the slow suffocation*, perhaps lasting for weeks, begins. It may be at that point that they need the assistance.

Fighting court battles with a 1% chance of winning is worthwhile when each case raises more questions and brings 'success' closer. Most of the people figting for this right have given it a lot more thought that you or I, they have a good idea of when they will die.

*I believe that some of the muscle wasting diseases end up this way.

I'm talking about the ones who are pretty much gone anyway. I just get the feeling they are doing it to prove a point, so they can feel their life means something. There are ways and means for them to go and shuffle off this planet when the time comes. And even if it does become legal to do it here, it will be fundamentally flawed like it is in Switzerland - in that you can only be assisted, so you generally have to kill yourself before you really want to.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by Hopple)
Is that just laziness/incompetence on the part of politicians, that they would rather just leave things as is than address the very real problem?



Should all people be made to go through a lengthy court process, most likely whilst their condition makes life more and more unbearable?

Well, to a degree, but it is also a challenging issue to tackle

[GStevens]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Also the problem is whether or not it was dictated by depression, or whether it is a genuine feeling, and then you would have to redraw the boundaries for what counts as a legimate disease for euthanasia to be acceptable.

Surely that is included in the second part, establishing appropriate safeguards.

The argument at this stage is not remotely about which particular issues are considered good cases for euthenasia, that is a practical detail for consideration when it has been agreed that the idea is sound in principle. Wandering off into defining each and every possible condition that may or may not be eligible is not relevent at this stage.

[Sir Fox]

May be a very strange suggestion, but from what I know placing the pills needed for a suicide at the person's table and then leaving the room to give the person the chance to kill himself/herself isn't murder, right?

Modern technology has provided us with sophisticated machines like robotic arms etc. Connect such a device to his computer, place the pills on the table, leave the room and let him use his eyes to navigate the robotic arm. On the other hand, being locked-in usually means not being able to swallow as well, but I bet there would be a solution or that.

Still, the best and rightful decision would be to allow such people to commit suicide such as everyone else can. It's not up to the state to force people to live.

[GStevens]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I'm talking about the ones who are pretty much gone anyway.

Might have been useful to make that point earlier rather than move the goalposts now.

I just get the feeling they are doing it to prove a point, so they can feel their life means something.

How easily you diminish the efforts of people in such awful circumstances that, I hope, you never find yourself.
I have already given a response to this suggestion, which bit did you disagree with or not understand?
And how odd that you make this statement and then make the statement about the flawed Swiss law. On the one hand you appear to understand that there are stages when a person is capable and others when they are not, on the other you appear to wilfully ignore it.

There are ways and means for them to go and shuffle off this planet when the time comes.

Yes, but as you say later, often earlier than necessary. Which is why the law requires change and why some people try to 'prove a point' before they are actually in need of assistance.

And even if it does become legal to do it here, it will be fundamentally flawed like it is in Switzerland - in that you can only be assisted, so you generally have to kill yourself before you really want to.

Why do you assume that? Have you heard that we are to copy the existing Swiss law? What do you imagine 'assistance' means in law? Do we have a definition? Would it mean, in law, that an assistant can only help by mixing the drugs but that the person had to press the button? Or could it mean that assistance can be up to and including pressing the button or administering an injection? Until it is defined we can't assume for our particular arguments that it will be defined in any one way.

[GStevens]

(Original post by Sir Fox)
May be a very strange suggestion, but from what I know placing the pills needed for a suicide at the person's table and then leaving the room to give the person the chance to kill himself/herself isn't murder, right?

Modern technology has provided us with sophisticated machines like robotic arms etc. Connect such a device to his computer, place the pills on the table, leave the room and let him use his eyes to navigate the robotic arm. On the other hand, being locked-in usually means not being able to swallow as well, but I bet there would be a solution or that.

I expect that something like that will form part of the practical solution at some point. At the moment it would be for a court to decide whether setting up the robot and preparing the drugs was legal. It is that greyness that leads would be suicides to attempt to have the law changed.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by GStevens)
Might have been useful to make that point earlier rather than move the goalposts now.



How easily you diminish the efforts of people in such awful circumstances that, I hope, you never find yourself.
I have already given a response to this suggestion, which bit did you disagree with or not understand?
And how odd that you make this statement and then make the statement about the flawed Swiss law. On the one hand you appear to understand that there are stages when a person is capable and others when they are not, on the other you appear to wilfully ignore it.



Yes, but as you say later, often earlier than necessary. Which is why the law requires change and why some people try to 'prove a point' before they are actually in need of assistance.



Why do you assume that? Have you heard that we are to copy the existing Swiss law? What do you imagine 'assistance' means in law? Do we have a definition? Would it mean, in law, that an assistant can only help by mixing the drugs but that the person had to press the button? Or could it mean that assistance can be up to and including pressing the button or administering an injection? Until it is defined we can't assume for our particular arguments that it will be defined in any one way.

Well you seem to think that they are doing it for future generations of sick people. I happen to think that the majority of people who campaign AFTER they've got a disease, or AFTER their child died from taking a certain drug, are only doing it precisely because of that thing happening in their lives. Humans have a need to believe things happen to them for a reason.

And I assume that is the way the law would work because we wouldn't have it written into our legal structure that you can/will be killed at a certain predefined point where you can no longer give any form of consent. It just wouldn't work, and would be a legal minefield. It is hard enough to get a law passed that will aid people who can push a plunger down or swallow a poison. Let alone getting a law drafted that would allay all the concerns that putting people who can't properly consent brings.

And if I found myself in this guys position i'd be dead already because i'd actually want to die, and would have solved the problem myself already. I already know more than enough people who would do it for me as long as I could ask or communicate that in some way. It's not that hard to get lethal combinations of drugs to inject that will be far nicer than anything dignitas will give you. You seem to be taking this all very personally and are becoming extremely uppity. Court cases are not the way that this issue will be solved. Even though in this case it is slightly different to the others, the courts are still going to say not a chance. That isn't a precident they will want to lay down. It has to come from parliament, and appropriate lobbying of parliament.

[Macabre]

Its seems to me the only problem with the courts/parliament to deal with this once and for all is paper work. This is disgraceful. This man has made a clear and consciuos decision to end his own life. He would do it himself but hes so disabled he cannot even swallow, let alone take his own life.

I understand that the health profession, pro lifers and the law has a duty to preserve life. However keeping this man alive against his will is nothing but a form of torture.

Some argue that allowing someone to take his life for him would open floodgates so that people who just have a limp are bumped off. Rediculous. The Netherlands has strict set of criteria which are rigourously enforced and allow people to end their lives with the dignity they rightfully deserve.

Theres nothing stopping britain adopting a system as robust as the dutch and quite fankly the only reason it hasnt happened sooner is apathy and fear.

Its about time people stood up for those who are prisoners within their own society for no fault of their own and allow them the freedom to control their own fates.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Also the problem is whether or not it was dictated by depression, or whether it is a genuine feeling, and then you would have to redraw the boundaries for what counts as a legimate disease for euthanasia to be acceptable.

This is flawed logic and I do not understand why this reason is put forth so often. People who commit suicide are not usually in a state of elation and, more often than not, are considered clinically depressed. Depression is a genuine feeling.

[saggy8]

(Original post by squeakysquirrel)
The law will not be changed, because it would open the floodgates for people wanting to kill off their disabled relatives. I do support him and I cannot imagine how awful his life must be. We would not allow an animal to exist like this, yet to "put down" a human goes against all that our moral codes dictate. I read an article about him several months ago where he stated that apart from his locked in syndrome he was sickeningly healthy. He takes virtually no drugs yet all his body systems function well - he cannot die of some other disease like a heart attack etc. The best outcome for him would be to request that no post mortem be done and then he could be injected with an overdose of insulin or something similar.

Why are people negging this guy? Although I fully support this mans will to die, the law won't be changed because as he said it would open the floodgates for more similar claims.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by saggy8)
Why are people negging this guy? Although I fully support this mans will to die, the law won't be changed because as he said it would open the floodgates for more similar claims.

What's wrong with that? Surely that's the whole point.

[NomNomNom :)]

I feel so sorry for him, he no longer sees himself fit to live and love his life. it's very sad.

[squeakysquirrel]

(Original post by saggy8)
Why are people negging this guy? Although I fully support this mans will to die, the law won't be changed because as he said it would open the floodgates for more similar claims.

Nice to have the support. Unfortunately we live in a society that is run by lawyers and the human rights act. You would get the same response if you suggested bringing back the death penalty. As I have stated in my posts, I fully support Tony in his quest to die and I would administer the fatal dose if I could be assured of not getting a prosecution for murder. But the law will not be changed because of the above.

I have worked in the caring professions for many years and have seen lots of people in the same position. It is a hard one to call - our moral duty is to maintain life. In reality we cannot effectively kill people because it goes against our code of conduct. In reality we can speed up the death of people if they have underlying diseases. In this case Tony does not have underlying diseases apart from having no speech or movement. It is a very distasteful scenario
because we could all find ourselves in the same situation

[GStevens]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Well you seem to think that they are doing it for future generations of sick people. I happen to think that the majority of people who campaign AFTER they've got a disease, or AFTER their child died from taking a certain drug, are only doing it precisely because of that thing happening in their lives. Humans have a need to believe things happen to them for a reason.

But that is quite understandable. Very often, until it becomes personal, an issue has no impact. And I have no blinkered belief that the campaigner's work is completely altruistic, I expect many are trying to give meaning or leave a leagcy. I see nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

And I assume that is the way the law would work because we wouldn't have it written into our legal structure that you can/will be killed at a certain predefined point where you can no longer give any form of consent. It just wouldn't work, and would be a legal minefield. It is hard enough to get a law passed that will aid people who can push a plunger down or swallow a poison. Let alone getting a law drafted that would allay all the concerns that putting people who can't properly consent brings.

However the law is written it will face challenges and require several cases before it 'matures'. I expect it would be just the minefield you suggest. Is that any reason to avoid it? Wouldn't it be better to work to avoid the minefield and be prepared to deal with it when it comes?

And if I found myself in this guys position I'd be dead already because i'd actually want to die, and would have solved the problem myself already.

His or your individual situations are irrelevant to the overall principle.

And just because you (think) you would have solved the problem yourself doesn't mean that everyone would have that option. You may have people who would do it for you (I think you might find they thin out a bit if faced with the prosepct) but not everyone will. Laws like this are about people like them.

A well written law would make it unecessary for you to enlist friends or family to procure illegal drugs for you. It would also have safeguards in place to make sure you had time to adjust and establish whether you desire to die was long term or a result of a reactive depression that could lift in time. Can't see how an ad hoc approach would be better than that.

I already know more than enough people who would do it for me as long as I could ask or communicate that in some way. It's not that hard to get lethal combinations of drugs to inject that will be far nicer than anything dignitas will give you.

Again you are basing this on your ability to manage the situation, totally disregarding other people's situations.

You seem to be taking this all very personally and are becoming extremely uppity.

I'm sure you don't like having your opinions challenged but you will learn to deal with that as you grow up. What leads you to believe I am taking this personally?

Court cases are not the way that this issue will be solved. Even though in this case it is slightly different to the others, the courts are still going to say not a chance. That isn't a precident they will want to lay down. It has to come from parliament, and appropriate lobbying of parliament.

And you don't think that the two are linked? You don't think that failure of the courts to address the current lacuna will motivate parliament to discuss this issue? You don't think that appeals to local courts and to Europe will keep the issue high on the agenda and prompt action?

Debbie Purdie's case was not a total success but it was a significant advance.

This issue is increasingly in the news, it is a growing problem because of the increasing ability of medicine to keep us alive and it will be resolved at some time in the near future.