What does everyone think on this issue? Margo MacDonald

[Craigieboy]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/I-want-right-to-end.3919354.jp

 

 

.

[blondejamtart]

I'm with her on this issue, I have to say. I believe everyone should have the right to die with dignity - and since my mother was hospitalised and diagnosed with Alzheimer's, that has only served to strengthen that view. She once helped to care for a neighbour who had Alzheimer's and I remember her telling me "if I ever go that way, just take me down the bottom of the garden and shoot me". Of course, she's no longer in a position to make any decisions, but I'm the one who's got to watch her slowly deteriorating - the mother I grew up with is already gone, and it's only going to get worse.

I understand the concerns some people have that it could be abused - but I honestly believe we should have that right. We've all got to die at some point - surely if we've suffering from a terminal illnesses which we know is only going to end in pain and suffering, or a slow, lingering death, then we should have to right to decide to go at a time of our choosing, and with dignity.

[djf]

Firmly pro choice

[lyonjambo]

I am totally with her on this one. Everyone has a right to respect for private life and freedom from torture....if left to deteriorate and not allowed to chose when to stop does this not just amount to torture.

I believe that a person of sound mind who is diagnosed with a degenerative disease should be allowed to determine what point they no longer want to go on.

[Strachsuit]

I like Margo tbh and I think in a supposed "free" country that we live in, the choice should be their for all.

 

Just a little difficult to police in a way because how do you determine if someone is in a fit state to make their own decision on a matter like this?

[Regal Kingston]

Pro Margo!

[lyonjambo]

I like Margo tbh and I think in a supposed "free" country that we live in, the choice should be their for all.

 

Just a little difficult to police in a way because how do you determine if someone is in a fit state to make their own decision on a matter like this?

 

think it would have to be along the same lines as when someone makes a will, e.g. if it can be proven there was no undue influence or duress...etc

[Tams bird]

I agree with Margo..

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I agree.

 

Reading BJT's post, it must be terrible watching your family/friends deteriorate infront of you.

 

As has already been said though, how do you police it?

[Medico]

I am very much pro-choice, but also think there are many complicated issues alongside it...

 

At what point would it become acceptable to make that choice? i.e. you can choose to die when first diagnosed or you have to wait until you are suffering to 'x' degree.

 

What illnesses would allow the choice to be made - would it only include Parkinson's/Alzheimer's etc. or also conditions such as depression?

 

Also, who would make the decision as to whether the person was suffering enough to be allowed to die - would you want to be that person?

[speedbump]

Pro choice.

[BigC]

I am very much pro-choice, but also think there are many complicated issues alongside it...

 

At what point would it become acceptable to make that choice? i.e. you can choose to die when first diagnosed or you have to wait until you are suffering to 'x' degree.

 

What illnesses would allow the choice to be made - would it only include Parkinson's/Alzheimer's etc. or also conditions such as depression?

 

Also, who would make the decision as to whether the person was suffering enough to be allowed to die - would you want to be that person?

 

A sensible suggestion would be to have a panel of doctors assess the level of suffering only, then report the findings to a panel of judges to make the final call, based all all the evidence available.

[The Doctor]

Whilst I fully sympathise with people like BJT who watch loved ones struggle in later life with incurable conditions and terminal illnesses, I seem to be a lone voice who is opposed to active euthanasia/assisted suicide. With proper care or palliative care, no one should suffer.

 

I am not opposed to passive euthanasia, allowing someone to die, but not by starvation or dehydration.

 

It is a moral minefield and I find it very hard to understand how people must feel when they see a loved one suffer, never having had an extreme experience of it. (I had Grandparents who suffered briefly before death, a few hours following a heart attack or such like)

 

I cannot accept that deliberately taking a life is justified in these circumstances.

 

It's one of the situations I am glad we have politicians and judges for. Left to the general public I have no doubt euthanasia would be common place, along with the death penalty and the public exposition of paedophiles, but sometimes public opinion is wrong. We are not the highest authority on these things and I am sometimes grateful for that.

[BigC]

We are not the highest authority on these things and I am sometimes grateful for that.

 

Yes we are the highest authority on these things.

 

We vote for the people that make the decisions, and if we don't like what the politicians do, we can vote them out.

[doctor jambo]

A few points on this matter

Firstly- if you think that "the clinical endinig of suffering" which is what we are talking about, does not exist already - you are being foolish- it does

And no doctor is prosecuted for it either

But it is not done by going OK games up , lets just finnish them off

I am firmly and utterly opposed to this for several reasons

1- who decides what is unbearable suffering? eg young people with severe mental illness

2- who is really suffering here and who are you trying to help- the relatives or the patient?

3-How do you decide if the patient is capable of making this judgement?

4- do you really want Drs to have the power to actively kill people, and if you do, would you not have reservations about any Doc who would wish to do this?

5- The European Court of Human Rights- dont think for a second that at some point some basket case patient with a minor illness will try and redefine what is suffering or an applicable illness to cover their own situation.

6- Being killed by a Doctor should not be a basic Human Right

7- if you want to die- fine -go out and do it, if you want a realtive to die- go ahead and do it- Dianne Petty's husband could have easily done it himself, but didnt want the responsibilty of killing someone- and neither do I

[The Old Tolbooth]

I have to admit that if I became seriously ill, couldnt fend for myself and needed someone to wipe my backside for me, to take me to the toilet every time I needed to go, couldnt remember who my loved ones are and basically suffered from a loss of independant existence, I would honestly prefer to be dead.

 

A vet would put your pet down if it suffers badly, but humans are made to carry on losing their dignity, suffering all sorts of pains and embarrassment in the sake of so called humanity, I think euthanasia should be allowed in certain cases.

 

*EDIT* I have to add that I think it would be very unfair to expect a member of the family to aid with your death however, and I also agree with Dr Jambo's point about who the hell would decide if euthanasia should be carried out. It's a very tricky subject.

[flecktimus]

Pro Margo

[Doctor FinnBarr]

I'm with her on this issue, I have to say. I believe everyone should have the right to die with dignity - and since my mother was hospitalised and diagnosed with Alzheimer's, that has only served to strengthen that view. She once helped to care for a neighbour who had Alzheimer's and I remember her telling me "if I ever go that way, just take me down the bottom of the garden and shoot me". Of course, she's no longer in a position to make any decisions, but I'm the one who's got to watch her slowly deteriorating - the mother I grew up with is already gone, and it's only going to get worse.

I understand the concerns some people have that it could be abused - but I honestly believe we should have that right. We've all got to die at some point - surely if we've suffering from a terminal illnesses which we know is only going to end in pain and suffering, or a slow, lingering death, then we should have to right to decide to go at a time of our choosing, and with dignity.

My own mother had it for years before she progressed to the vegetable stage where she couldn,t speak or bugger all, no quality of life whatsoever, shes gone now but I,m sure she,d a gone quicker if assisted euthenasia had been allowed.

[The Doctor]

Yes we are the highest authority on these things.

 

We vote for the people that make the decisions, and if we don't like what the politicians do, we can vote them out.

 

BigC, I meant in the context that we do not tell judges and politicians what to do, what to decide. If we did, if every decision made was put to democratic vote our laws would look very different. The public are too reactionary, the House of Lords (for example) is more considered.

 

We don't vote for the people who make the decisions on these things ultimately.

[doctor jambo]

I have to admit that if I became seriously ill, couldnt fend for myself and needed someone to wipe my backside for me, to take me to the toilet every time I needed to go, couldnt remember who my loved ones are and basically suffered from a loss of independant existence, I would honestly prefer to be dead.

 

A vet would put your pet down if it suffers badly, but humans are made to carry on losing their dignity, suffering all sorts of pains and embarrassment in the sake of so called humanity, I think euthanasia should be allowed in certain cases.

 

*EDIT* I have to add that I think it would be very unfair to expect a member of the family to aid with your death however, and I also agree with Dr Jambo's point about who the hell would decide if euthanasia should be carried out. It's a very tricky subject.

 

But if as a member of the family you give the green light for this to be done- you are already doing this- you are merely bottling out of doing the final coup de grace

And as I've said, terminal patients already have their suffering eased in a fatal manner, with no convictions- but what Margo wants is that when SHE decides she has had enough, some Doc will kill her

But what she thinks is unbearable will be different from what another thinks is unbearable

Is everyone going to have to put in writing thier own definition of what they find intolerable- brain injury, paralysis, impotence? Or even a stoma?

What about disabled children- who decides for them?

Just because you were under 16 when an incident happened does that mean you have to suffer, or can your parents decide to kill you, partly because they dont like seeing your condition?

[The Old Tolbooth]

But if as a member of the family you give the green light for this to be done- you are already doing this- you are merely bottling out of doing the final coup de grace

And as I've said, terminal patients already have their suffering eased in a fatal manner, with no convictions- but what Margo wants is that when SHE decides she has had enough, some Doc will kill her

But what she thinks is unbearable will be different from what another thinks is unbearable

Is everyone going to have to put in writing thier own definition of what they find intolerable- brain injury, paralysis, impotence? Or even a stoma?

What about disabled children- who decides for them?

Just because you were under 16 when an incident happened does that mean you have to suffer, or can your parents decide to kill you, partly because they dont like seeing your condition?

 

Some cracking points in there DJ, it really is opening a can of worms. How do the Swiss get round it?

[felix]

Euthenasia been working in Holland for 25 years - altho' there has been recent fears of abuse.

 

If a patient is in a fit state of mind, then can't see a problem with allowing them to agree to have their life ended if (like in Holland) they're in "unbearable suffering" with no hope of recovery or in a vegitative state - with no hope of recovery.

[doctor jambo]

Some cracking points in there DJ, it really is opening a can of worms. How do the Swiss get round it?

 

They are not bound by the ECHU

And it is controversial

In Holland they have "put down" young women with anorexia, young men with schizophrenia- both horrible conditions, admittedly, but generally neither fatal, nor untreatable

The thing we have to watch is the societal impact of this- society and the law makers decide what is an illness- for example homosexuality was an "illness"

Cerebral palsy is untreatable

Downs syndrome hampers quality of life and shortens it

Stroke survivors same

Are we going to "intervene" here for the, erm, "quality of life" of these people, or merely because we as a society find some things difficult to look at and come to terms with

facial disfigurement cases- would Simon Weston have the right to be killed, had he not the character to deal with his appearance?

Dear Margo- ***** happens dear, the strength of a person comes from dealing with adversity

YOu cannot control everything- stop trying

two weeks after some Dignitas psycho kills you they may find a cure

[Boaby Ewing]

I wouldn't hit it.

[I P Knightley]

They are not bound by the ECHU

And it is controversial

In Holland they have "put down" young women with anorexia, young men with schizophrenia- both horrible conditions, admittedly, but generally neither fatal, nor untreatable

The thing we have to watch is the societal impact of this- society and the law makers decide what is an illness- for example homosexuality was an "illness"

Cerebral palsy is untreatable

Downs syndrome hampers quality of life and shortens it

Stroke survivors same

Are we going to "intervene" here for the, erm, "quality of life" of these people, or merely because we as a society find some things difficult to look at and come to terms with

facial disfigurement cases- would Simon Weston have the right to be killed, had he not the character to deal with his appearance?

Dear Margo- ***** happens dear, the strength of a person comes from dealing with adversity

YOu cannot control everything- stop trying

two weeks after some Dignitas psycho kills you they may find a cure

 

I'm impressed by your arguments Doc.

 

I think that saying we'd like Euthenasia is an easy cop out but once the surface is scratched and a few "what-if" scenarios are explored, it's fairly clear that it's not workable.

 

I'm sure if we were given a room of 100 candidates and asked to choose which one to 'let go', we'd each come up with a different one.

 

The other side of the argument is interesting too. I mean, who's to say that consistently developing medical treatments to prolong life that would otherwise perish is justifiable?

[BigC]

BigC, I meant in the context that we do not tell judges and politicians what to do, what to decide. If we did, if every decision made was put to democratic vote our laws would look very different. The public are too reactionary, the House of Lords (for example) is more considered.

 

We don't vote for the people who make the decisions on these things ultimately.

 

Oh right.

 

In that case I agree with you.

 

If we always went with the majority then we would end up with The Sun newspaper dictating our policies, which would be truly awful.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Pro choice.

Unfortunately insurance companies will look on this a little different when it comes to life insurance. Lots of work left to do for law makers.

[monkfish1979]

They are not bound by the ECHU

And it is controversial

In Holland they have "put down" young women with anorexia, young men with schizophrenia- both horrible conditions, admittedly, but generally neither fatal, nor untreatable

The thing we have to watch is the societal impact of this- society and the law makers decide what is an illness- for example homosexuality was an "illness"

Cerebral palsy is untreatable

Downs syndrome hampers quality of life and shortens it

Stroke survivors same

Are we going to "intervene" here for the, erm, "quality of life" of these people, or merely because we as a society find some things difficult to look at and come to terms with

facial disfigurement cases- would Simon Weston have the right to be killed, had he not the character to deal with his appearance?

Dear Margo- ***** happens dear, the strength of a person comes from dealing with adversity

YOu cannot control everything- stop trying

two weeks after some Dignitas psycho kills you they may find a cure

 

To be fair, I think your argument - whilst valid and generally agreed with - moves slightly away from the "choice" aspect of the discussion. It's all down to who is making that choice. I'd hate to have the decision made for me, but I would like the option to have the final say.

 

Edit - the highlighted bit. That'd just be p*** poor luck....

[doctor jambo]

To be fair, I think your argument - whilst valid and generally agreed with - moves slightly away from the "choice" aspect of the discussion. It's all down to who is making that choice. I'd hate to have the decision made for me, but I would like the option to have the final say.

 

Edit - the highlighted bit. That'd just be p*** poor luck....

 

 

You are right of course, but my point was that not everyonewho could be bracketed as having a condition that would entitle them to make sucha choice would be able to do so

So do you only give choice to those who can make it, thereby excluding say, road crash victims in a terrible, permanent condition, or children with severe problems ie societies most vulnerable

Or do you , by including some physical conditions thereby default all with it as having worthless lives?

Where does euthanasia become merely legitimised eugenics?

Just because I dont find the prospect of being wheelchair bound later in life with mental handicap appealing, does not mean that the carers of,say, profoundly disabled children cannot cope with them anymore and decide that iwhat is best for them is to die, and because legal precedent has been set over adults in a similar condition it would be hard to stop

I have no problem with decisions not to prolong life, but a great problem with prematurely ending it

And having been in a situation where I have been asked whether or not to try and save my sons life as he statistically could be severely handicapped I can assure you- these things are not easy

They are highly emotive, and you do,ultimately take some calls for selfish reasons (ps- he is fine by the way)

And just try getting two experts to agree in the medical field- easier nailing jelly to a wind tunnel wall

And top Drs are highly politicised as well- dont trust 'em

[monkfish1979]

You are right of course, but my point was that not everyonewho could be bracketed as having a condition that would entitle them to make sucha choice would be able to do so

So do you only give choice to those who can make it, thereby excluding say, road crash victims in a terrible, permanent condition, or children with severe problems ie societies most vulnerable

Or do you , by including some physical conditions thereby default all with it as having worthless lives?

Where does euthanasia become merely legitimised eugenics?

Just because I dont find the prospect of being wheelchair bound later in life with mental handicap appealing, does not mean that the carers of,say, profoundly disabled children cannot cope with them anymore and decide that iwhat is best for them is to die, and because legal precedent has been set over adults in a similar condition it would be hard to stop

I have no problem with decisions not to prolong life, but a great problem with prematurely ending it

And having been in a situation where I have been asked whether or not to try and save my sons life as he statistically could be severely handicapped I can assure you- these things are not easy

They are highly emotive, and you do,ultimately take some calls for selfish reasons (ps- he is fine by the way)

And just try getting two experts to agree in the medical field- easier nailing jelly to a wind tunnel wall

And top Drs are highly politicised as well- dont trust 'em

 

Absolutely. IMO the choice should be yours and yours alone. To give that power to doctors would, i reckon, leaves things wide open for a whole load of problems - giving the choice to the family likewise. It would, though, dealt with responsibly, give people who might suffer terrible pain a chance to go they way they would prefer.

[blondejamtart]

I fully agree that this whole area is a complete minefield, and to be honest, I wholly sympathise with the posters who are obviously from a medical background and have highlighted it from their point of view. I don't think there are any easy answers - all I can do is speak from my own (very) personal point of view. My mother, when she still had all her faculties, was very clear that she did not want to carry on if things deteriorated to such an extent that she was no longer "living", but merely existing. I've seen that at first hand and wouldn't wish it on anyone - but I appreciate that to ask someone else to administer the "coup-de-grace", as it were, would be a very difficult thing to do.