Euthanasia

[Flanker8]

Yay or Nay?

[jenstar]

For certain people, yay. And the sooner the better.

[becks]

I say yay, at least have the choice - if it's not for you fair enough, sign the thing to say you DON'T want it, but why should your views mean someone else has to live in pain? Drives me crazy this, it's  the same with abortion, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT, DON'T DO IT, i'm pro-choice more than anything.

I remember doing a project on euthanasia when i was doing my gcse's (about 8 years ago) and couldn't believe then that we don't have the choice, and i still can't believe it now. There'll always be people against it but there'll be a hell of a lot of people for it, and speaking in practical terms it would free up some hospital beds and save mmoney for the NHS - i know  that's a really cynical view but it's something else the government will be considering.

If it was me, i wouldn't want to be in hospital, terminally ill, in pain, or severely disabled, unable to communicate or recognise my family and loved ones, we put dogs down for less, so why can't people be given the same right to die?

[woofgang]

I am pro choice, but I am even more pro openness about the discussion. Currently it is in the hands of the medical profession, so willy nilly decisions are being made for us on the basis of someone else's beliefs or experiences. A legally enforceable living will means that you can specify, not only that you would not want feeding, hydration, resuscitation etcet, but that you would, and that would be enforceable too. What does need to happen is that people need to be clear about what they are requiring to happen or not happen which means that hospitals and care services need to be more open about what the options and outcomes are.

[bernardo]

Nay, because it is too easily open to abuse.  There is a lot of anecdotal evidence from the Netherlands of ill or elderly people being pressurised, or of their consent being assumed rather than properly confirmed, or of being killed, even when they are not terminally ill.

[becks]

I can see where bernardo's coming from but I don't think it would happen to people unless they gave explicit instructions that they wanted it to - it's like the donor card system - they don't just take them without making sure it was the wishes of the person who has died. I do however agree that there could be some pressure on the elderly and that it may be misused (hello Mr Shipman?) but i think under the right circumstances ie a congrolled hospital environment and with explicit compliance and instructions, there's no reason not to have the choice, IMHO.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I am a supporter of the Justice for Diane charity, a group formed after a UK court denied Diane Pretty the right to be assisted to die and I firmly believe that it is an individual's right to make an informed choice on this matter. I also believe that it is inhumane to prosecute a relative for helping someone to carry out their wishes.

I think Bernardo is right and there are circumstances which we need to ensure cannot happen. A living will is a good way of doing this, but there is still a long way to go in determining a framework that ensures that the sort of things he describes happening in the Netherlands cannot happen.

From what I have read from pro-euthanasia groups, there is an unequivocal acknowledgement that any laws would to be very carefully drafted. 

[woofgang]

bernardo, there is the potential for this to happen in the uk now because of the unclarity and secrecy around what actually happens and how the decisions are made. At least this would give people the opportunity to say that they DID want all efforts to be made and that they did want feeding and hydration to be continued, or, for instance, sufficient morphine to be given even if it did shorten their life. People who work in hospices talk openly about the options, all of them, and that's the kind of converstion that needs to be happening everywhere 

[Yeah Bee]

Yay it is a personal deciscion which the state shouldn't medle in. Of course it can be misused but if it is done in an hospital and the patient has statted it in a will it is perfectly okey

[gypsy]

i go along with the yes to it..if i was really ill and suffering and just stuck in a hospital bed lingering i would rather be put to sleep..as its no life just being kept in pain and suffering,,its a free country or supposed to be and i believe we are responsible for our own fate,,so the decision should be ours to take,,also as someone pointed out it would save the nhs a great deal of money,,i bet a lot of really sick people would jump at the chance to just have an injection and drift into a painless sleep,,it should be put to a national vote...gypsy

[Robinia]

This is a very difficult one.  Some years ago I was extremely ill with cancer, the doctors told my relatives I had no chance & stopped medication.  I was in pain & so desperate & I have to admit that if anyone had come in  with a big syringe & offered me a way out I would have said yes please.

 Twenty years on I'm still here!

However, if I was to develop dementia or have some very long term disabling condition I have to say that I would have liked the option to have made my wishes known at a time when I was able to.

So over all I would vote yay.

[Philtaz]

Definitely pro choice.  I find it obscene to keep a person alive against their express wishes when for those who would choose euthanasia it is the only way to escape the living hell of a body racked with pain, causing untold misery.  Obviously the choice can only be made by the individual and that individual must be deemed to be competent and there be no third party involvement.

 

It is obvious that those who choose such a course of action have no credible alternative.  We don't keep suffering animals alive so why do it to humans who can actually choose not to suffer?

[Flanker8]

bernardo - for the sake of argument, if it could be guaranteed that the system would not be open to abuse, would you be yes or no?

[woofgang]

Folks, the assumtion seems to be that you would only make a "living will" if you didn't want to be kept alive, whereas if I understand the legislation correctly, you wishes to be kept alive are equally enforceable. Lets be clear, these decisions are being made now, every day in every hospital in england, mostly by people who genuinely want to do the best thing for their patient, but may have no idea of what the patient themselves would want. All the guidance that we have now talks about the patients best interests, not about their wishes THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME

[kags]

The one thing that bothers me about this subject is the way so many people confidently say "if I was teminally ill, or in terrible pain or suffering" etc that they would rather die. Who knows how they would feel in these circumstances (with the exception of noddy who has been there). You might think that now, but what if you find, once (god forbid) you are in that situation, that you do in fact want to live every moment you have left? And if you are unable to communicate, perhaps through dementia or some other debilitating illness, that you have changed your mind, what happens then?  It is really difficult, because I firmly believe everybody has  the right to end their life, so if someone IS able to communicate their wish to die, then they should be able to do so with dignity, and the suport of their loved ones. But if someone is not able to communicate their wishes, it is a big risk to rely on something they said or wrote when they were in good health. So I'm neither a yay or a nay, I'm a maybe, in some circumstances, possibly.