Allowed to die?

[ColinEssex]

Should people have the right to decide when they die?

It could be administered by injection or by tablet. It could be people who are terminally ill with no hope or dignity left. Or it could just be someone who has just had enough and wants to go before senility or whatever kicks in.

Isn't it a human rights issue? Why is it illegal to assist someone's death? How many tens of thousands of people are living a life of misery waiting and hoping to die?

We do it to domestic animals to avoid suffering, why not humans? What's the difference?

If someone asks to die then why not?
Col

 

[Brianwarnock]

Basically I agree with you, BUT the procedures to protect this from abuse are complicated.

There is currently a trial taking place of a son charged with the murder of his parents in order to obtain their assets, we have to make sure that beneficiaries or even just fed up carers cannot bully or persuade the elderly that it is their time to go.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Should people have the right to decide when they die?

It could be administered by injection or by tablet. It could be people who are terminally ill with no hope or dignity left. Or it could just be someone who has just had enough and wants to go before senility or whatever kicks in.

Isn't it a human rights issue? Why is it illegal to assist someone's death? How many tens of thousands of people are living a life of misery waiting and hoping to die?

We do it to domestic animals to avoid suffering, why not humans? What's the difference?

If someone asks to die then why not?
Col

This highlights the postcode lottery of the NHS.

Staffordshire has some kind of system for this.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We had a court case in the state of Oregon, USA. It had to do with a person's right to end their own life. It got very convoluted before the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that there was at least an implied right to choose a time to die.

The case involved a man with a terminal disease known for being terribly debilitating in its later stages. The petitioner wanted the right to an assisted suicide. The ruling was in his favor. The part I wanted to mention has to do with one of the decisions, which in USA court cases usually contain some statement of principle that assisted the judges in making their ruling.

In this case, the senior judge opined (and I am paraphrasing for brevity) , "In our country we speak of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, in plaintiff's case, due to his disease, his liberty is limited to freedom of movement within his bed. His constant pain tends to negate his happiness and makes his ability to pursue that happiness questionable at best. When life becomes constant agony, who are we to insist that a right to life becomes an obligation to life?"

I wish I had the link, but I found the case eloquent in many ways, including the idea that the bed-ridden person would have one last decision to make about himself. Of course, the losing side in the case appealed to Federal District courts and delayed the man's suicide yet again. He eventually died but not necessarily by his own hand.

 

[ColinEssex]

I hear weird things go on in Oregon. Be interesting to go there one day, just drop in on a few people perhaps.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, certain parts of the state of Oregon are spectacularly beautiful. I liked The Dunes (Pacific coast, southern part of the state) and the area around the Willamette River, but the city of Portland has some nice scenery too.

The only thing you have to watch out is littering. They take littering VERY seriously.

 

[jefnelson]

Currently, two U.S. states have a "right-to-die" law on their books: Washington and Oregon. Both sates are filled with beautiful landscapes. If you feel that you need to die after gazing upon their magnificence, you certainly can.

 

[Fifty2One]

If you truly love and respect the person you would be assisting, then it should be worth the risk of incarceration or what ever a government will offer up as the deterrent.

 

[Vassago]

I believe every situation and request for assisted suicide should be treated on a case by case basis. The patient must be content and accepting of their situation. If you are in a depressed state, you certainly cannot have the proper mindset needed to take your own life and should be treated as a suicidal patient who needs psychiatric help rather than help encouraging the decision their mental state chose to make. They should need to prove their affairs are in order and everything is in place for how things will work after they have died. If these things have been met, then by all means, let them end their suffering with dignity.

 

[Fifty2One]

Not really assisted suicide if a physician cautions you that an accidental overdose of a certain medication which is prescribed to the loved one would be fatal.

 

[Rabbie]

In answer to the original question the answer should be "Yes" subject to stringent conditions that the person has not been pressurised into making that decision. I have heard of cases in Holland where elderly people have chosen to die rather than be a burden to their carers.

There is however the risk that the pressure could come from doctors or bureaucrats eager to save on the care budget. It could so easily become a system where all old people were at a risk of being disposed off regardless of their own wishes

 

[ColinEssex]

These days there appears to be more and more medical breakthroughs in keeping people alive.
People live longer now than ever (except in the North UK) it is a massive drain on welfare pensions, a massive drain on the NHS, and a massive drain on families who inevitably have to act as willing / unwilling carers.

Has medical research gone too far? Populations are exploding using more and more food, oil, water, housing etc.

Whilst on the subject, where does all the hundreds of billions of dollars or pounds go that people (not me) give to Africa? It seems just the same now as in the 1980's. Africans seem to be the only ones keeping populace down whilst the west grows and demands more and more.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, your comments about medical research going too far and keeping people alive longer reminded me of an old movie called "The Asphyx" - a macabre little tale of a guy who is using a special light projector for his late-1800s camera. It has the bizarre property of trapping a "death spirit" (called an "asphyx", apparently from Greek mythology). He contrived a way to capture his own death spirit and couldn't die as a result of it. So 60 years later, he's a pedestrian hit in a car accident, run over and crushed, and still can't die. Looks like he died about 20 times over, but he has to live in his misery and he contrived it so that his "asphyx" couldn't escape and he couldn't release it. A real hokey old movie but for some strange reason my grandson loves it.

Anyway, I sort of agree with your musing that we try too hard to live too long; far longer perhaps than we should. Past a certain point, we need to make room for the next generation. OK, I'm not QUITE ready to go yet, but when the time comes, as long as it isn't too painful, I might remain calm about the whole thing. At least I got to see a lot of wonderful things - and I got to play with my grandsons. Some blessings, you can't trade for anything.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Col is wrong to put the population explosion purely down to medical research keeping people alive longer, leaving aside the purely mathematical factor it is mainly the improved living conditions that have allowed children born to survive and then live longer lives. We now need to persuade people to have fewer kids but the power mad people who run major religions wont hear of it.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Col is wrong to put the population explosion purely down to medical research keeping people alive longer, leaving aside the purely mathematical factor it is mainly the improved living conditions that have allowed children born to survive and then live longer lives. We now need to persuade people to have fewer kids but the power mad people who run major religions wont hear of it.

Brian

What about the fact that more and more successful people are putting off having kids or choosing to not have kids at all? This leaves who reproducing? It scares me to think how the future of our species will survive if this trend continues.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I read an article once that said that modern western society had turned natural selection on its head. Normally the more able in society had more and longer surviving offspring, but in a society that provides benefits it is the feckless and work shy that are having the most offspring.

Don't shoot me I am only the messenger even if I think there is some truth to this.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

I read an article once that said that modern western society had turned natural selection on its head. Normally the more able in society had more and longer surviving offspring, but in a society that provides benefits it is the feckless and work shy that are having the most offspring.

Don't shoot me I am only the messenger even if I think there is some truth to this.

Brian

That's one of the unfortunate consequences of paying people benefits for all of their children. However it would be unfair to the children to allow them to suffer just because they have feckless/work-shy parents.

 

[Lightwave]

I read an article once that said that modern western society had turned natural selection on its head. Normally the more able in society had more and longer surviving offspring, but in a society that provides benefits it is the feckless and work shy that are having the most offspring.

Don't shoot me I am only the messenger even if I think there is some truth to this.

Brian

I think its valid to conclude that natural selection for humanity is substantially different to our distant ancestors.

Knowing humanity if we can get round it and genetically improve ourselves through guile and intelligence we will. If we can't then eventually we'll just go back to last person standing after the outbreaks hit.

Ultimately medical techniques will promote a perceived natural health so if we don't kill ourselves first we'll probably just end up in the same place.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I don't understand how what you are saying has anything to do with my post, medicine does not cause the workers to have less children than the shirkers, that's the benefit system


I realise that that may be a bit OTT but I wanted you to understand the message.

Brian

 

[Bway24]

What about the fact that more and more successful people are putting off having kids or choosing to not have kids at all? This leaves who reproducing? It scares me to think how the future of our species will survive if this trend continues.

Most 1st world countries are going extinct. Ideally you want a ratio of about 2.2
children per couple to maintain the current population. The .2 children is to offset the ones who are never able to reproduce due to death, injury, medical problems, etc. Any less than that and you experience a population decline. Very few 1st world countries are hitting that number. Most of the worlds population growth is coming from 3rd world countries and impoverished subcultures in wealthy nations.

In essence educated productive people that contribute to GDP are going the way of the dodo bird.

Kind of scary to think about. Almost makes you not want to have kids in order to spare them that future.............

Oh yea I had a point to that. As we are having fewer children and living longer than ever the increased societal costs of caring for our aging population is going to become harder and harder to sustain. Giving people the right to die seems a rather efficient method of population control.