Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 18 Mar 2008.
Well put, I find it hard some people don't understand this.
It's a shame this lady made such a fuss. She could just have gotten in touch with Dignitas in Switzerland. They'd have been perfectly willing to carry out the procedure in a peacefull, painless, and minimally traumatic manner.
It's a shame that our socieities are not culturally advanced enough to recognise that the right to death is held by all, but at least there are groups that will assist with such matters in countries where it can be done legally. Hopefully she'll be informed by someone that these groups exist and will be aided in her desire to die.
I think the fact that she is insisting on a Doctor providing her with medication is well out. Doctors are required to swear the hypocratic oath, which expressly forbids them from providing such treatments.
I was watching quite an interesting documentary earlier on lethal injection that the BBC had done. The common response when people asked about medical training for giving it was that it was nothing whatsoever to do with medicine at all. Whilst I would expect a certain level of medical competence (an ability to find a vein rather than go straight through it (which has happened)), I do appreciate that really the whole concept of a Doctor helping someone to die, either by their own wish or on the instruction of the state, to be quite peculiar.
The largest problem with officially sanctioned government assisteted sucided is the slipperly slope that can result. How do you decide which qualifies for government suicide assistence? Can anyone decide that they want to end their life this way or do you have to qualify through some means? Any time you set up regulations on a topic as sensitive as this situations are going to arise that have not been accounted for. It seems tragic that some people come to the point in their life where they feel sucide is the only way out: however, not having a plan to this is being unrealistic.
Absolutly there needs to be regulation, documented transparent procedure, and training and support for physicians who are involved.
I think there needs to be a recognition that death is a necessary and natural part of life and that just as we help people lead better lives, medicine should also help them have better, more peaceful deaths when the time comes.
Physicians should not have to be involved in cases like this at all. It is not their job nor something they should be burdened with. It is a slippery slope to start on as others have said and could end up causing more problems than solutions. If someone is unable to kill themselves then that is a slightly different matter and there should of course be support given there in extreme cases. However to compare a case like this to a case of soldiers injured at wartime and who are already doomed to death is foolish as there is little to no comparison.
As Spec says, there are groups who can provide what she is looking for and there is an arguement to say that she should be able to have herself killed - however to force that obligation on to doctors via legal precedent is dangerous and foolish. If anything she should have pressed to have her family be allowed to kill her.
As for the whole peaceful/unpeaceful death arguement, well I just don't buy it. Obviously she may not what to take a shotgun to herself, but there is certainly no need for a rationally minded person to involve a doctor as pretty much everyone knows that an overdose of sedatives or morphine will do the job even if you don't want to take more creative or traditional methods. We have to assume that she is rationally minded too because is she weren't then this case would not even be considered.
There should possibly be room to provide for cases like hers, but to try and shoehorn room for it into the existing framework could be potentially damaging for everyone and that role should not fall on doctors who may be unwilling to perform such 'treatments'.
From my understand though, this woman is not being asked to just be allowed to die, she is asking for her life to be ended prematurely - there is a huge difference between that and some of the statements that others here have come out with.
Having been involved with suicides in a number of ways and at a number of times in my life, I can tell you that suicide is always selfish at some level - though that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes the correct course to take too - and that it is a very personal thing. Thus, it should be kept personal and not be forced onto doctors as this lady is suggesting.
Fear is not an excuse or a reason for a case like this and, while I understand that she may be scared of dying and so on, that doesn't condone the potentially far-reaching and damaging actions that a case like this could have bought about. She should face her fear herself or accept it, because asking others to breach their own ethics and murder someone because of your own fear is something I find reprehensible and wrong.
It would appear that she has killed herself:
****ing shame, not a nice way to go at all, all by yourself...
I've been suicidal 2-3 times when I was having hardcore problems, but the only reason I didn't kill myself was purely the fact that I had a 5 year old little brother, and every time, I'd set whatever I needed to set up, but then I'd think of my brother, and ****, I just said to myself "Imagine what I would do to my brother if I did". Thank **** I didn't.
Tragic, but I think it was the right way to go for her if that is what she truly wanted.
I'm sure she knows that she *could* kill herself, but there's a huge stigma around it. If she was allowed to die in her own country, legally and comfortably, that's surely more dignified than skulking off to a corner to eat some drugs she's been illegally hoarding.
As for whether 'assisted suicide' should be made legal, I think not. It would just be far too hard to police, and I think would cause more trouble than its worth. It does indeed such for the handful of people like Ms Sebire but that's the minority (albeit the minority that gets all the press coverage).
Do you know what an overdose of Morphine would be? How much would be required to kill yourself? Or paracetamol - should you take 8 tablets or 800? I think the answers could probably be found quite easily on the internet if you did a bit of intelligent searching, but not everyone can do that, particularly if blind. It's not always as easy as you might think.
You clearly don't know any blind people, they have screen readers and automatic brailers for use with computers
To set a precedent. There are, and will be, many people who want to die. perfectly rational people, who have probably sorted out all the relationship problems and discussed with their friends and family, and have a good reason to want to commit suicide. and the courts make it an illegal act for anyone to help. in fact, i think in many countries you can be charged as a criminal if you attempt and fail.
how on earth is the current system humane, or even logical?
You clearly don't know any blinded people. Keep in mind that this lady lost her sight only a year ago --not nearly long enough to become proficient at reading braille or using blind adaptive computer equipment.
Taken inhand with the braile readers you kind of shot yourself in the foot there.
Personally, I don't know how much morphine would be required - but I know how much is too much. I know that two or three bottles of the stuff in the jugular is bad news. I also know that paracetamol is foolish and painful way to go as it damages the liver - and I knew that much even before I absorbed the knowledge from my parents. Anyone watching casualty knows that tbh.
Personally, I'd never kill myself. But if I were going too then I'd do a shed load of high quality whisky and a cocktail of illegal drugs, then jump off skyscraper. Blurriness + certainty = win.
Either way, this is ancillary to my original points in previous statements.
This thread is full of "All talk no Action".
No, you don't know what you would do if you were going to kill yourself, and it's quite easy saying I'll do this and this, but you wouldn't, and when your life is at stake, it's a whole different ball game. It's like people saying how easy it is to mug someone or even take someone hostage for some money, but at the end of the day, you will hardly be in that kind of situation.
Bang on, again something people don't seem to understand, they think death is death, when it certainly isn't.
This is exactly the same as the Dianne Petty case in the UK, but the goverment said no. So, she just suffered until she eventually passed away because she didn't want to be killed/die in some other country. I think its totally wrong, it can be the most humane thing you could possibly do, to put someone out of their misery. However, in most countries its illegal because it conflicts with their religious views.
Please don't mix up religious views and individual morals. Personally it's due to my individual non-religious beliefs that I opposed state sponsored assisted suicide.
Obviously if someone is suffering steps should be taken to ensure they are comfortable, even to the point of issuing high enough doses of painkillers that can reduce the lifespan of the patient in order to make sure they're comfortable. However I don't think the government should be providing the resources for a person from taking their own life, but helping is moving things in a direction I'm not comfortable with.
when did government funding ever come into question? all these people are asking for is the be allowed to die, legally, when they want to. they're practically asking for the government NOT to spend money arresting and prosecuting the doctors that help them.
oh, and from what i understand, anti-assisted-suicide does have religious roots. almost all religions that have some kind of "afterlife reward" also have a "don't kill yourself" rule to stop people from skipping out on all the suffering in life. when you look at the problem objectively, the only reason not to allow it is because some people might not be in the proper mental state to make decisions about their own lives (young children, schizophrenics, bipolars, etc). but that shouldn't force perfectly sane, rational people from doing it.
Government funding is always an issue when you're talking about medical treatment in a country which has socialized medicine. These people aren't asking to be allowed to die, no government can stop a person from committing killing themselves. They're asking for the government to legally kill them or provide the means of killing themselves. While religions may indeed frown upon assisted-suicide so do many non-religious individuals; all I'm saying is that there are other reasons than religion for not supporting assisted suicides.
Separate names with a comma.