Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rosie9391)
    In a way i believe that you should be able to make the decision especially if there is no cure and your health is quickly deteriating. Would you allow an animal to suffer pain and cruelty, no they are allowed to be put to rest but when it comes to human suffering things change.

    I had to watch my granny for three years suffer from breast cancer which later spread and developed into brain tumors. Being told three times she was going to die over one summer after she sliped into a comma was soul destroying. Unable to speak, eat and drink; basically this highly dependable women was being kept alive on a morphine pump and tablets. It would have been her wish in the end to go peacefully and quickly to prevent anymore suffering to her and us. But it is never that simple.
    this is difficulty, do we adjudge objectively the circumstances in which a decision to die is acceptable? is it if you have objectively no quality of life?

    if not objectively then subjectively what if your job was everything to you and you lost it thus decided to die? should you be allowed to get assistance at that point?

    if you split up with your girlfriend who you felt was your world would you be able to get assistance to die?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    Just seen the result of that case with the woman who has MS and was just wondering what people on here thought about the result?

    should be people have a right to chose how they die?
    I'm gonna talk about this in relation to those who have family members with terminal illnesses only - Euthanasia is a huge topic that has loads of issues, I'm not gonna talk about all of them.

    I think those people with terminal illnesses, like MS, should have the right to die, if that is what they want. However, the effect on the rest of the family has to be considered aswell. If the family agree with the person that it's for the best, then there shouldn't be any restrictions on what happens next - it's a basic human right to decide whether you live or die under your own accord, surely?

    In a case where objectively the person has nothing to live for, say they are paraplegic or living with a progressive terminal illness it is difficult not to feel sympathy for their plight, however what about the borderline cases?
    Is there really a borderline for terminal illnesses? You're going to die at some stage or other. Of course, new cures are being found all the time and some would argue that it's best to wait. But if that person wants to die, then they want to die. Unless they have a mental condition (or something similar) which may influence their decision, then their wishes shouldn't really be disputed. However the person should have the right to discuss the matter with their family and come to an agreement about what to do next from there - I don't think it's right for the law to stop people from ending their lives if they and their families agree that it's best for them to end their lives.

    if it is acceptable for a paraplegic to choose to die what about a person confined to a wheel chair? if a really old person wants to die, what about a young person whose girl friend has just dumped him?
    Having known someone who lived in a wheelchair for years, I would say that anyone who says it's not right for them to want to die doesn't know what it's like. Sure, outsiders might feel sympathy but if you were to ask them if it's right for that person in the wheelchair to end their life, most would probably say no.

    But if you lived with them, spent time with them and knew what kind of life they were living, maybe people would think differently.

    but then you have to ask what about the people who feel subjectively they cant go on, but dont know how to kill themselves painlessly? should they be able to avail themselves of assisted suicide?
    Again, I'm talking about this from a terminal illness point of view. Most people have no idea what it's like to know someone with a terminal illness. It's easy from the outside to say that it's wrong for them to end their life. It's easy to say that life is sacred and so shouldn't be lost. It's easy to feel sympathy for them without truly understanding what they're going through.

    If they have a painful terminal illness with no hope of a cure, then I think we should respect their wishes if they want to die. If it's a close family member, of course it's hard to let someone die like that. You want them to live longer but is that partly selfishness? You could argue this from loads of different angles but it comes down to this:

    Is it better to let someone live a life of pain and indignity because you personally don't think it's right for them to die/the law won't allow it, or is it better to allow the person to use their basic human rights and end their life peacefully?

    EDIT: Though, I think those who do wish to end their lives due to a terminal illness should be absolutely certain, and I think that someone should be made to talk to them to make sure they're in the right frame of mind etc. There's no going back afterwards =(
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Euthanasia is a tricky issue to pass any laws on; there is a such a massive scope in which it could be misused. I think people with burdensome illnesses might feel under pressure by society and even their own families to have their life taken to allieviate the strain on the NHS and to excuse the family from stressful levels of care. This would take away the element of 'free will' from the decision. This is not to say that I disagree with it on all levels, I just think it's a dangerous can of worms to open. It may appear that people would begin to be put down like housepets.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A person has an undeniable right to end their life, and if impossible for them to do it themselves, entitled to a reasonable amount of help from others. If there are legal problems where one fears that someone could be pressured to do it so one can inheret money, surely the logical solution would be to 'cost' assisted dying at 90% of ones assets? Certainly not a perfect solution, but it would give those anti assisted dying idiots less ammunition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    A person has an undeniable right to end their life, and if impossible for them to do it themselves, entitled to a reasonable amount of help from others. If there are legal problems where one fears that someone could be pressured to do it so one can inheret money, surely the logical solution would be to 'cost' assisted dying at 90% of ones assets? Certainly not a perfect solution, but it would give those anti assisted dying idiots less ammunition.

    The idea certainly seems a good way to stop unscrupulous family members/beneficiaries gaining a small fortune from someones early death, although 90% does sound a little extortionate and would no doubt be deemed a 'death tax'.

    Another issue is the fact of determining a 'sound mind'. So how about people sign forms stating that if ever they are in a vegetative state, crippled, severely disabled etc, and are perhaps not in a sound mind at the time of being in that state - that someone, perhaps a named person on form, can and will help them to die.

    It's all about choice - just as we sign organ donor forms, let us sign assisted suicde forms, consenting assisted suicide at a later date when living in a state deemed unfit for that particular person, determined at a time prior to existing in that state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CityOfMyHeart)
    I'm gonna talk about this in relation to those who have family members with terminal illnesses only - Euthanasia is a huge topic that has loads of issues, I'm not gonna talk about all of them.

    I think those people with terminal illnesses, like MS, should have the right to die, if that is what they want. However, the effect on the rest of the family has to be considered aswell. If the family agree with the person that it's for the best, then there shouldn't be any restrictions on what happens next - it's a basic human right to decide whether you live or die under your own accord, surely?



    Is there really a borderline for terminal illnesses? You're going to die at some stage or other. Of course, new cures are being found all the time and some would argue that it's best to wait. But if that person wants to die, then they want to die. Unless they have a mental condition (or something similar) which may influence their decision, then their wishes shouldn't really be disputed. However the person should have the right to discuss the matter with their family and come to an agreement about what to do next from there - I don't think it's right for the law to stop people from ending their lives if they and their families agree that it's best for them to end their lives.



    Having known someone who lived in a wheelchair for years, I would say that anyone who says it's not right for them to want to die doesn't know what it's like. Sure, outsiders might feel sympathy but if you were to ask them if it's right for that person in the wheelchair to end their life, most would probably say no.

    But if you lived with them, spent time with them and knew what kind of life they were living, maybe people would think differently.



    Again, I'm talking about this from a terminal illness point of view. Most people have no idea what it's like to know someone with a terminal illness. It's easy from the outside to say that it's wrong for them to end their life. It's easy to say that life is sacred and so shouldn't be lost. It's easy to feel sympathy for them without truly understanding what they're going through.

    If they have a painful terminal illness with no hope of a cure, then I think we should respect their wishes if they want to die. If it's a close family member, of course it's hard to let someone die like that. You want them to live longer but is that partly selfishness? You could argue this from loads of different angles but it comes down to this:

    Is it better to let someone live a life of pain and indignity because you personally don't think it's right for them to die/the law won't allow it, or is it better to allow the person to use their basic human rights and end their life peacefully?

    EDIT: Though, I think those who do wish to end their lives due to a terminal illness should be absolutely certain, and I think that someone should be made to talk to them to make sure they're in the right frame of mind etc. There's no going back afterwards =(

    you see my point is that it would be easy to say yes terminally ill people deserve to choose to die. I'm not arguing the sanctity of life, Im suggesting that it is extremely difficult for the law to distinguish between people who should be able to choose to die and those who shouldnt.

    do we base it upon an objective assessment? "we think your life sucks enough so yeah you can kill yourself?"

    that would draw arbitrary distinctions, "well your paraplegic so you can kill yourself, but since your only half paralysed no youve got to put up with it!"

    if we do is subjectively, as in where a person feels they no longer want to live we have to start asking whether they have the capacity to make such a decision. What about the old guy who feels that he is a burden on his family, should he be able to choose to die?

    what about, well suicidal people? they obviously want to die, yet should they be given the option of assistance?

    like i say granting the right to die for the terminally ill would be easy if it werent for the practical difficulties.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    you see my point is that it would be easy to say yes terminally ill people deserve to choose to die. I'm not arguing the sanctity of life, Im suggesting that it is extremely difficult for the law to distinguish between people who should be able to choose to die and those who shouldnt.

    do we base it upon an objective assessment? "we think your life sucks enough so yeah you can kill yourself?"

    that would draw arbitrary distinctions, "well your paraplegic so you can kill yourself, but since your only half paralysed no youve got to put up with it!"

    if we do is subjectively, as in where a person feels they no longer want to live we have to start asking whether they have the capacity to make such a decision. What about the old guy who feels that he is a burden on his family, should he be able to choose to die?

    what about, well suicidal people? they obviously want to die, yet should they be given the option of assistance?

    like i say granting the right to die for the terminally ill would be easy if it werent for the practical difficulties.
    Yeah, the principle of allowing those who want to die remains sound but it's application of it which causes problems. I agree, it's extremely hard to judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't be - for example, the old man who feels that he's a burden on his family might want to die to save them the extra hassle. It's his wish to die so can anyone really stop him? But then he might not be mentally stable or his family might not feel he's a burden at all and don't want him to die. What can an outsider do there? =\

    Issues issues.
    Each case has got to be treated separately without comparing it to another case - the people, the feelings, the situation might all be different. With the half paralysed person, they could be severely depressed and have very little family support - if they wanted to die, what could the courts do? On the other hand, if there was another half paralysed person who was mentally stable and had great family support, but still wanted to die because they couldn't do anything with their life etc, then what could the courts do? It's really hard.

    T'is a tough and emotional decision - everything has to be considered to come to the "right" conclusion. With the case of Debbie Purdy, the MS sufferer, both her and her husband wanted to help her die peacefully but the courts would've sent the husband to jail for helping her do that, despite it being what they both wanted. Is it right to stop him from "aiding" her or is it right to uphold the idea that it would be murder, and so jail is the correct outcome?

    Dayum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CityOfMyHeart)
    Yeah, the principle of allowing those who want to die remains sound but it's application of it which causes problems. I agree, it's extremely hard to judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't be - for example, the old man who feels that he's a burden on his family might want to die to save them the extra hassle. It's his wish to die so can anyone really stop him? But then he might not be mentally stable or his family might not feel he's a burden at all and don't want him to die. What can an outsider do there? =\

    Issues issues.
    Each case has got to be treated separately without comparing it to another case - the people, the feelings, the situation might all be different. With the half paralysed person, they could be severely depressed and have very little family support - if they wanted to die, what could the courts do? On the other hand, if there was another half paralysed person who was mentally stable and had great family support, but still wanted to die because they couldn't do anything with their life etc, then what could the courts do? It's really hard.

    T'is a tough and emotional decision - everything has to be considered to come to the "right" conclusion. With the case of Debbie Purdy, the MS sufferer, both her and her husband wanted to help her die peacefully but the courts would've sent the husband to jail for helping her do that, despite it being what they both wanted. Is it right to stop him from "aiding" her or is it right to uphold the idea that it would be murder, and so jail is the correct outcome?

    Dayum.
    the only problem is the courts cannot assess entirely on a case by case basis as to do so will result in one judge assessing a set of facts one way and a different judge seeing them entirely differently therefore there must be principles and guidance for judgment. For example if we decide that in the case of terminal illness a person has the right to do we have to not only determine what consitutes a terminal illness, but also WHY such a person should have a choice, arguably because of a poor quality of life.

    I would however balk at the idea of a mentally sound and healthy person such as the old guy you mention choosing to die, as if we allow him to choose, why not a young guy etc.

    I think there may indeed be a sanctity of life in those cases and life shouldnt be cast aside so easily, but this must not be an unquestionable principle, the doctrines of reasonableness must apply to it so that those with questionable quality of life can end it in dignity...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    the only problem is the courts cannot assess entirely on a case by case basis as to do so will result in one judge assessing a set of facts one way and a different judge seeing them entirely differently therefore there must be principles and guidance for judgment. For example if we decide that in the case of terminal illness a person has the right to do we have to not only determine what consitutes a terminal illness, but also WHY such a person should have a choice, arguably because of a poor quality of life.

    I would however balk at the idea of a mentally sound and healthy person such as the old guy you mention choosing to die, as if we allow him to choose, why not a young guy etc.

    I think there may indeed be a sanctity of life in those cases and life shouldnt be cast aside so easily, but this must not be an unquestionable principle, the doctrines of reasonableness must apply to it so that those with questionable quality of life can end it in dignity...
    Definately. And like you said, where one judge would see one case a certain way, another could see it completely differently. But if there was a global set of.. "rules", so to speak, about what qualifies as a poor quality of life, I'm sure many people would disagree and it's mostly subjective - these things can never please everyone.

    I duno. I just can't stand it when some religious people (I know this isn't a religious debate but y'know) talk about the sanctity of life and refuse to even consider helping someone to die. Course, it's not an easy thing to do at all! But by not even considering it, they condemn someone to a life of indignity against their will.

    It's all subjective. Hopefully in the future there will be clearer laws on Euthanasia - and so those, like Debbie Purdy, can chose to end their life if they want. But there has to be limits and there has to be guidelines/restrictions/procedures for this to work for the right people. In the case of the old man, it'd be such a sad waste if he was to end his life because he felt like an extra weight on his family
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.