Body & Soul3 mins ago
Assisted Suicide
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-109309 1/Why-I-want-husbands-death-suicide-clinic-sho wn-TV---wanted-people-thinking-talking-it.html
What are your thoughts on this article? Was he right to take this decision? Is Sky wrong to show it on TV?
What are your thoughts on this article? Was he right to take this decision? Is Sky wrong to show it on TV?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lakitu. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
when I said "attention seeking" I meant the perphery, every time this comes up some one spends huge effort trying to get the authorities to promise they won't prosecute for "assisted suicide". If they went and did it quietly no one would take any notice and we'd be non the wiser, in fact I'd imaging that's what happens in 99% of cases, but no you have years of legal wrangling lining the pockets of the legal profession, the whole thing is just unnecessary.
-- answer removed --
It is important because right now the law is a mess.
Assisting someone to go to Switzerland and die is against the law but the CPS have now chickened out of prosecutions and said it's not in the public interest.
So they've basically signalled that the existing law will not be enforced.
So the law needs to be changed. I'm not convinced that people like the Rugby player should be permitted to do this as they don't have a terminal condition.
I think the law should be modified to the end that this should be legalised if two doctors certify that you have a terminal condition.
Assisting someone to go to Switzerland and die is against the law but the CPS have now chickened out of prosecutions and said it's not in the public interest.
So they've basically signalled that the existing law will not be enforced.
So the law needs to be changed. I'm not convinced that people like the Rugby player should be permitted to do this as they don't have a terminal condition.
I think the law should be modified to the end that this should be legalised if two doctors certify that you have a terminal condition.
I think the current situation if perfect. If it was actually made legal I fear it would be misused by the unscrupulous to bump off eldery relatives for the inheritance. They say they won't prosecute now, that's fine. They could though if it was iffy. I don't think it needs any attention at all. if you want to go then pop off to Dignitas quietly without ringing the media.
Perfect? are you kidding?
How can it be acceptable where there is a law that is routinely not enforced because it's not in the public interest?
We already have many doctors who administer fatally high doses to terminal patients on a "nod and a wink" to help ease them through their final hours - they risk prosecution and disbarring for their compassion
Your concerns are valid but they are on the detail.
You'd have to write in that the doctors would have to be satisfied that the person was of sound mind. Yes doctors could be "got at" but that can happen any way - The law didn't stop Shipman did it?
There are other practical considerations for example say someone had life insurance and developed a painfull terminal condition.
There'd have to protection to make sure his suicide didn't disallow a claim under the insurance - you couldn't have people suffering agonising deaths so their families could inherit.
It might be necessary to limit it to British citizens too.
It needs revisiting - not just by politicans but by a committee on medical ethics so tht something can be drawn up that can get through and become law.
Things can't stay as they are it's just daft.
How can it be acceptable where there is a law that is routinely not enforced because it's not in the public interest?
We already have many doctors who administer fatally high doses to terminal patients on a "nod and a wink" to help ease them through their final hours - they risk prosecution and disbarring for their compassion
Your concerns are valid but they are on the detail.
You'd have to write in that the doctors would have to be satisfied that the person was of sound mind. Yes doctors could be "got at" but that can happen any way - The law didn't stop Shipman did it?
There are other practical considerations for example say someone had life insurance and developed a painfull terminal condition.
There'd have to protection to make sure his suicide didn't disallow a claim under the insurance - you couldn't have people suffering agonising deaths so their families could inherit.
It might be necessary to limit it to British citizens too.
It needs revisiting - not just by politicans but by a committee on medical ethics so tht something can be drawn up that can get through and become law.
Things can't stay as they are it's just daft.
As to whether he was right to take this decision, I think that is personal to him and his family and no one has the right to judge. I worked very closely with someone who had MND, and it was excrutiating to see a once brilliant man trapped in a body that just would not work. At the end he had no dignity at all.
As for it being shown on Sky, I have mixed views. I wouldn't watch it myself, but do think it tackles a serious issue.
As for the CPS deciding not to prosecute. There is no blanket policy on these cases. The difficulty they face with a prosecution is that assisted suicide is legal in some jurisdictions. But never mind the potential arguments against the correctness of a prosecution, every Crown Prosecutor is bound by the CPS Code. The two stage test is a) whether there is sufficient interest and b) whether it is in the public interest. Given that a court is likely to impose only a nominal penalty plus other factors, most of these cases are investigated and then NFA'd. The Judgement in Purdy v DPP contains a useful exposition of the factors. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008 /2565.html
As for it being shown on Sky, I have mixed views. I wouldn't watch it myself, but do think it tackles a serious issue.
As for the CPS deciding not to prosecute. There is no blanket policy on these cases. The difficulty they face with a prosecution is that assisted suicide is legal in some jurisdictions. But never mind the potential arguments against the correctness of a prosecution, every Crown Prosecutor is bound by the CPS Code. The two stage test is a) whether there is sufficient interest and b) whether it is in the public interest. Given that a court is likely to impose only a nominal penalty plus other factors, most of these cases are investigated and then NFA'd. The Judgement in Purdy v DPP contains a useful exposition of the factors. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008 /2565.html
You just cannot quantify it jake, there's an infinite series of "what if" secnarios that will always not be covered by the "law". What we actually have now is, almost by accident, a law of common sense, ie there won't be a prosection if it not in the public interest, The CPS can react depending on the case. There are lots of laws that are routinely ignored for a variety of reasons. I think this is one of those cases where, although the law is not framed to cover the subject the net effect is that it works, genuine case can go off to Dignitas without fear of anyone prosecuting anyone.
The law can and does quantify these things on a regular basis.
It quantifies everything from drink driving to the age of consent to abortions
Imagine (heaven forbid) you should find yourself in that position with a hugely painful terminal condition - you decide there's no point in dragging things out for a few extra weeks of agony.
You need help though - would you want your nearest and dearest to be arrested, be questioned by police possibly go to court for helping you?
That's what people have to go through now.
Who is the victim in this "crime" can you point to one solitary case where this has been a problem in Switzerland or anywhere else it's legal?
Allowing people to go to another country on an individual case is an appalling cop out.
It says "We're not brave enough to legislate like you"
It quantifies everything from drink driving to the age of consent to abortions
Imagine (heaven forbid) you should find yourself in that position with a hugely painful terminal condition - you decide there's no point in dragging things out for a few extra weeks of agony.
You need help though - would you want your nearest and dearest to be arrested, be questioned by police possibly go to court for helping you?
That's what people have to go through now.
Who is the victim in this "crime" can you point to one solitary case where this has been a problem in Switzerland or anywhere else it's legal?
Allowing people to go to another country on an individual case is an appalling cop out.
It says "We're not brave enough to legislate like you"
I don't think it's definable to the extent a law can be framed.
Ok so let's take one of your earlier suggestions what if I can't get 2 doctors to agree? What if I'm in pain but it's not one of the reasons on the list? What if ....what if.....
Yes it's possible to get question for assisteed suicide but I think on balance the CPS would use a bit of common.
What are the rules in Switzerland how have they managed to define it?
Ok so let's take one of your earlier suggestions what if I can't get 2 doctors to agree? What if I'm in pain but it's not one of the reasons on the list? What if ....what if.....
Yes it's possible to get question for assisteed suicide but I think on balance the CPS would use a bit of common.
What are the rules in Switzerland how have they managed to define it?
He didn't want to choke to death. Seems reasonable to me that he made the right decision :)
I haven't made my mind up about watching it yet.
I too belong to DIGNITAS.
Thank you Barmaid for that link. It mentions Diane Pretty in point 7: you'd think they would have got the disease right though. She also had MND not multiple sclerosis as it states.
It's not a decision one makes over night btw.
I haven't made my mind up about watching it yet.
I too belong to DIGNITAS.
Thank you Barmaid for that link. It mentions Diane Pretty in point 7: you'd think they would have got the disease right though. She also had MND not multiple sclerosis as it states.
It's not a decision one makes over night btw.
That's the point jake, in it's own disjointed bumbling way, what we have now is not too bad. Ok it's not written down set in stone and defined but the net effect is that it works. Has anyone been prevented from ending it? Has anyone been bumped off for convenienmce? Has anyone been prosecuted for assisting suicide? Has a depressive managed to get themselves executed?
I think the people who have had to go to Switzerland to end their life would sureley have preferred to do it at home. What about the people who cannot afford to go abroad? They are condemned to an agonizing death. I think that it is up to the person who is suffering to be able to end that suffering. This man wanted it to be shown to help others. What a brave man. I did not think it was distasteful at all. I just wish he could have done it from he comfort of his own bed/home. Why should you have travel miles from home and end up in some featureless, impersonal room. Not right.
Certain health conditions allow palliative care at home anyway, but for many people deciding to commit suicide by way of an overdose, this can backfire, leaving them to die from lingering liver poisoning and other organs failing. At the clinic, carefully-measure doses of barbiturates are given, guaranteeing that the patient dies in as uncomfortable way as possible.
As said on another thread though, if assisted suicide was legal here, it'd raise all sorts of issues, particularly if the person concerned wasn't in charge of their faculties, or had no way of communicating their wishes.
As said on another thread though, if assisted suicide was legal here, it'd raise all sorts of issues, particularly if the person concerned wasn't in charge of their faculties, or had no way of communicating their wishes.
i would never have thought I would agree with assisted suicide but wayching my mum die with motor neurone I am now fully convinved it is an individual choice and nobody should be forced to live in pain knowing they are dying and have lost all their dignity etc, It is a harrowing illness.
I agree with it being shown on TV and it is an individual choice whether to watch it or not. ?It is as real an issue as rape murder violence. Mostly it is tragic that people are forced to travel to Switzerland in their final days at a time when it would be nicer for them to be at home with their loved ones. By televising it it may lead to some real debate about asssisted suicide just like other topics that have received press have led to debate and ultimatly policys. Abortion is a good example of this.
My thoughts are with hs family and friends and I hope both they and he finally find peace
I agree with it being shown on TV and it is an individual choice whether to watch it or not. ?It is as real an issue as rape murder violence. Mostly it is tragic that people are forced to travel to Switzerland in their final days at a time when it would be nicer for them to be at home with their loved ones. By televising it it may lead to some real debate about asssisted suicide just like other topics that have received press have led to debate and ultimatly policys. Abortion is a good example of this.
My thoughts are with hs family and friends and I hope both they and he finally find peace
