Right To Die: Parliament To Act?

[ChillDoubt]

In another morally abhorrent ruling a person in abject misery is denied what ought to be a human right: the right to choose a dignified death in order to end suffering.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28016033

One would guess that the judges were sympathetic however their hands are tied and they have urged Parliament to act.
I sincerely hope they do and eventually arrive at the only sensible, right and decent conclusion.
But will they?

[sandyRoe]

I hope they do.
More info here.

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/lord-falconers-assisted-dying-bill/

[anneasquith]

i find these cases very upsetting/tragic, bless them .

[gordiescotland1]

A review of this act is long overdue in parliament it is utterly ridicolus that someone in pain and suffering cant get assistance to end their lives. I know if I was ill and unable I know I would want help

[ToraToraTora]

These cases come up now and again and I always have the same answer. For the cases concerned yes they should have the right to die if they want. The problem is the effects of a general law that allows this. Essentially the unscrupulous will use this to bump off granny for their legacy. Old people don’t want to be a bother and many will go along with it, pretty soon there will be thousands lining up to be put down, the right to die will become the obligation to die. In common with those before them these people have a good case and no doubt they would have been allowed to expire quietly in the corner of a hospital but they drew attention to themselves they sought exemption from prosecution for those assisting and as such brought themselves to attention of the authorities. Thus the authorities now cannot allow them to flout the law. The judges are correct and if parliament do intend to change this they must frame something pretty bullet proof or we’ll have OAP disposal points in our high streets.

[Peter Pedant]

Type of case where the judge walks in and says:
dont we know the law on this ?

and lawyer jumps up and jabbers - My lord if I can be permitted to explain

[jno]

I share TTT's doubts. What happens now is that if you assist someone to die you are taken to court and have to justify yourself, which seems not unreasonable if you've participated in ending a human life. And if you convince the court, you should get off lightly. But it does mean every case is investigated thoroughly, and that can't be bad.

[pixie373]

There is no reason to think rights will turn into obligation. It won't be that easy at all. I think it's exactly what a civilised country should do- have the investigation BEFORE the person dies and not after.

[ToraToraTora]

from what jno says we already have what is needed. These people just want exemption.

[pixie373]

We do. Of course it happens.

[pixie373]

...although rarely goes to court. It has to be "unofficial" as it stands.

[ChillDoubt]

IMHO it's not about the pain, it's about quality fo life, or lack of it.
Tony Nicklinson wasn't in pain as such, he had locked in syndrome. The only pain he appeared to suffer was the mental anguish and heartbreak when told he must continue to suffer at the behest of others.
So the poor man had to literally drown in his own fluids, suffering pneumonia and had to refuse food in order to bring about his own demise. What a dreadful indictment on modern society.
Absolutely nobody should have the right to deny anyone a dignified death of their own choosing(obviously provided they are compos mentis), it's simply abhorrent and disgusting.

[pixie373]

Yes- although the compos mentis bit worries me. Often people without it suffer the most. My friend has Huntingdon's in her family. Is horrific and ends in starvation or drowning- but the dementia would ensure they were not able to decide- even in advance.

[ToraToraTora]

do you not acknowledge my points chill? Do you not accept he had what he wanted? Do you accept the knock on effects this would undoubtedly have?

[ChillDoubt]

do you not acknowledge my points chill? Do you not accept he had what he wanted? Do you accept the knock on effects this would undoubtedly have?
------------------------
Who had what he wanted, TTT?

[ChillDoubt]

And no TTT, I don't accept the knock on effects one iota.
We are talking about people who have absolutely no quality of life, are totally dependent and in many cases need respiratory equipment and/or dedicated 24 hour medical care just to exist.
You're using the excuse of any old dear over 70 who feels she might be a burden! Eons apart medically, eons.

[ToraToraTora]

read what jno said, he would have been allowed to die quietly somewhere.

Can you not see unscrupulous relatives marching granny down to the orderly disposal site? have you not read the horror stories of those trying to cash in on their elderly relatives? You appear to have taken a very subjective emotive stance here and are blind to all other points. Look at it logically and you may see further. The law is as it is for a reason.

[ToraToraTora]

I already said I agree with the cases concerned but legislation is general, you have to consider how it might be mis used.

[ChillDoubt]

Can you not see unscrupulous relatives marching granny down to the orderly disposal site? have you not read the horror stories of those trying to cash in on their elderly relatives?
-----------------
Exactly, you're missing the point. You are using the example of relatives who feel their elderly parents are a burden and should now be discarded at the earliest opportunity.

The case here is about very specific patients WHO OF SOUND MIND ARE MAKING THEIR OWN CONSCIOUS AND INFORMED DECISION TO END THEIR OWN LIVES, one's who have no quality of life and an ever-worsening prognosis.
Simply being geriatric will not be part of the criteria.
What about people in their 20's who have gone to Dignitas as a result of being paralysed from the neck down? These are the sorts of cases that need addressing, not some scaremongering about granny being 'offed' by the rellys just because she has become a burden and deserves to be 'Shipmanned'!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/18/11

[ToraToraTora]

So how do we judge the "sound mind" criteria? Please I'm only debating the issue, you seem to be taking it personally that I have not dived straight in and agreed with you.