Assisted dying

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Proper palliative care is what is needed, that is what 'normal people' want.

Bones so fragile they fracture at sudden movements, uncontrollable nausea & vomiting, inability to control one’s bowels or bladder…. am not sure that all symptoms can be managed by palliative care (unless the patient is kept unconscious).

Additionally, if you happen to have locked-in syndrome like Tony Nicklinson, am not sure that palliative care will help with that either.

The more prominent secular ethicists of recent times (Peter Singer, Jonathan Glover, Ronald Dworkin and Mary Warnock) have all been in favour of the legalisation of euthanasia and address concerns about potential 'slippery slopes' and other issues in their writings.

For example, Ronald Dworkin has argued that ‘making someone die in a way that others approve, but he believes a horrifying contradiction of his life, is a devastating, odious form of tyranny.’

On the other hand, for others, ‘the struggle to stay alive, no matter how hopeless or how thin the life, expresses a virtue central to their lives, the virtue of defiance in the face of inevitable death.’

Dworkin therefore thinks that the laws we make about euthanasia should reflect the patient’s right to self-determination as an expression of the sanctity of their own individual existence when it comes to deciding how their life should be completed. In other words, the law should be flexible enough to allow them to end their lives with dignity if they wish, whilst allowing others to fight on if that is what they want to do.

In addition, the state should ‘encourage people to make provision for their future care themselves’. By this, Dworkin meant that the government should prompt people to make it known what their wishes would be should they, for example, become terminally ill or involved in an accident which renders them brain dead.

In cases where no prior wish has been expressed, he thinks ‘the law should so far as possible leave decisions in the hands of their relatives or other people close to them, whose sense of their own best interests…is likely to be much sounder than some universal, theoretical, abstract judgement born in the stony walls where interest groups manoeuvre and political deals are done.’

Not the last word on the topic, of course. But I’m with Dworkin on this.

 

[metalblue]

I wouldn't put it like that. People tend to lose their appetite and stop eating themselves near the end.

Correct.

 

[metalblue]

I don't think it's a decision as such. It's just like you not fancying anything to eat or getting out of bed when you feel sick, but for the terminally ill like your mates mum and the two family members I've seen die like that its obviously not going to 'get better'. I suppose there is an ethical argument to feed via a drip etc and keep the morphine dose as low as possible to prolong life, but what for realistically?

By the time you don’t want to eat and drink your body can’t really process it. You start putting fluids in to a body that can’t process it and it’s not ending well for anyone.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

I don't think it's a decision as such. It's just like you not fancying anything to eat or getting out of bed when you feel sick, but for the terminally ill like your mates mum and the two family members I've seen die like that its obviously not going to 'get better'. I suppose there is an ethical argument to feed via a drip etc and keep the morphine dose as low as possible to prolong life, but what for realistically?

I agree there is no point and I’m sure the person would agree too. I thought they would feed via a drip but from what you are saying, this is not the case at end stage?

 

[metalblue]

Bones so fragile they fracture at sudden movements, uncontrollable nausea & vomiting, inability to control one’s bowels or bladder…. am not sure that all symptoms can be managed by palliative care (unless the patient is kept unconscious).

Additionally, if you happen to have locked-in syndrome like Tony Nicklinson, am not sure that palliative care will help with that either.

The more prominent secular ethicists of recent times (Peter Singer, Jonathan Glover, Ronald Dworkin and Mary Warnock) have all been in favour of the legalisation of euthanasia and address concerns about potential 'slippery slopes' and other issues in their writings.

For example, Ronald Dworkin has argued that ‘making someone die in a way that others approve, but he believes a horrifying contradiction of his life, is a devastating, odious form of tyranny.’

On the other hand, for others, ‘the struggle to stay alive, no matter how hopeless or how thin the life, expresses a virtue central to their lives, the virtue of defiance in the face of inevitable death.’

Dworkin therefore thinks that the laws we make about euthanasia should reflect the patient’s right to self-determination as an expression of the sanctity of their own individual existence when it comes to deciding how their life should be completed. In other words, the law should be flexible enough to allow them to end their lives with dignity if they wish, whilst allowing others to fight on if that is what they want to do.

In addition, the state should ‘encourage people to make provision for their future care themselves’. By this, Dworkin meant that the government should prompt people to make it known what their wishes would be should they, for example, become terminally ill or involved in an accident which renders them brain dead.

In cases where no prior wish has been expressed, he thinks ‘the law should so far as possible leave decisions in the hands of their relatives or other people close to them, whose sense of their own best interests…is likely to be much sounder than some universal, theoretical, abstract judgement born in the stony walls where interest groups manoeuvre and political deals are done.’

Not the last word on the topic, of course. But I’m with Dworkin on this.

One problem with that. Consent. You have to know that is their wish at point of fatal dose and you simply can’t outsource that to family or friends - even if you assume everyone acts in the best interests of the patient the process of grieving will be irrevocably damaged by it.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I agree there is no point and I’m sure the person would agree too. I thought they would feed via a drip but from what you are saying, this is not the case at end stage?

I can't speak for every patient and every doctor obviously, only from my own limited experience. What I do think is that terminally ill people tend to live for as long as they feel like fighting, and if you watch someone die slowly from something like cancer eventually every day and towards the end every breath becomes a fight. I suspect that fight doesn't seem worth it once you are stuck in bed, in pain, wasting away, no dignity, no control of anything (including bodily functions),and breathing/speaking is a huge effort.

 

[metalblue]

I agree there is no point and I’m sure the person would agree too. I thought they would feed via a drip but from what you are saying, this is not the case at end stage?

Why do you want your relative prodded and poked with needles? Veins become withdrawn at this point and hard to find - it’s painful for the patient often.

Not to mention the bodies inability to process it.

They are dying, let them die.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

I can't speak for every patient and every doctor obviously, only from my own limited experience. What I do think is that terminally ill people tend to live for as long as they feel like fighting, and if you watch someone die slowly from something like cancer eventually every day and towards the end every breath becomes a fight. I suspect that fight doesn't seem worth it once you are stuck in bed, in pain, wasting away, no dignity, no control of anything (including bodily functions),and breathing/speaking is a huge effort.

Sounds horrendous reading that. I’m glad both my parents went quickly (heart attacks) - I have never experienced this.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Why does it have to be a medic that helps the person die? Can it not just be someone with the specific medical training for pain and the drugs being used?

I wouldn't have any ethical quandary about helping a dying person to die a bit earlier, I'd take comfort in fulfilling their wishes.

 

[johnny crossan]

Why does it have to be a medic that helps the person die? Can it not just be someone with the specific medical training for pain and the drugs being used?

I wouldn't have any ethical quandary about helping a dying person to die a bit earlier, I'd take comfort in fulfilling their wishes.

Medical practitioners take an oath 'to do no harm'

Have seen the God Botherers Rees-Mogg and Kruger doing the rounds the last 24hrs decrying the bill - I think Kruger will be egged on by JRM to do his best to talk out and derail whatever he can - I mean he has a Party to re-build and constituents to represent but they can wait he has a higher calling

I suspect Wes Streeting and Gordon Brown will also be doing their best to get the bill voted down at second reading.