To think Gill Pharaoh had the ideal end of life

People are entitled to their views. I wouldn't celebrate her death. I am pleased for her that she was able to have a dignified death on her own terms. That ability to choose was a positive. Since her reasoning would also be mine, having a high risk of dementia, then I would describe it as rational. Since she died on her own terms when she wanted to after 74 presumably good years, I would be hard put to consider it a tragedy. If there is any tragedy it is that she had to travel abroad and probably choose to go earlier than she needed to because she could not give instructions in the UK that she should be helped to die when she became incapacitated. If that was the case, then the loss of time she would have chosen to live if she could have given that advance directive is indeed a tragedy.

Gill Pharaoh’s death was a positive thing. She made a rational decision to end her life before she declined physically and mentally.

Could you please explain why it is then? Why is hospice care so poor? Genuinely interested, as a family member is a long standing hospice nurse.

But some people seem to view Gill Pharaoh's death as not just rational, but positive, even to be celebrated – hence why I used the word.

So are you saying that you don't think her death is positive, and you view her suicide as a rational tragedy?

(Additionally, I used a question mark in my comment – I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was asking whether that was the case, and you've said it wasn't.)

I do not want people to suffer horrible deaths when terminally ill; I also think the main reasons they do are down to systemic and economic policies in the main. This should be addressed as much as anything else.

You are wrong about that and working in a hospice would show you how wrong you are. Don't bother asking serving staff though, there is an absolute conspiracy of silence in the industry about the uncontrollable pain and indignity of death through serious illness that does not render you unconscious.

I did not say that!

You have now substituted the word "positive" for "rational" and the two are not the same.

I specifically said that it could be both rational and a tragedy.

I don't think being as simplistic as you persistently try to turn the discussion back to is at all useful.

And PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth!

No, for the most part, people are questioning how safe and effective state assisted and sanctioned suicide could be achieved without it being a cloak for economically driven eugenics in the extreme.

People are also questioning the pragmatic disregard for human life in general which is seeping into discourse.

For years there has been an inordinate amount of work done to help people deal with and overcome obstacles and illnesses to give them self worth and foster mutually supportive communities. Are we now going to turn around and say that suicidal people who sound rational should be helped along regardless of consequences?

I live with passive suicidal ideation. I choose not to act on it because my son and friends have dealt with enough loss in recent years. All this talk of people being selfish if they balk at the prospect of a loved one deciding to end their life is so extremely individualistic but an inevitable reflection of modern life.

I do not want people to suffer horrible deaths when terminally ill; I also think the main reasons they do are down to systemic and economic policies in the main. This should be addressed as much as anything else.

Those so certain that enough safeguards would be in place to avoid abuse or mission creep are looking so hard at their personal rights and choice that they refuse to contemplate the complexity of the matter beyond their own lens.

Those discussing the pros and cons are trying to analyse the sanctity of both life and death and for many I suspect it's a deeply troubling and conflicting subject.

Fair enough. So a DIY suicide where someone has tried to alleviate their depression over the years and has been unable to, would be considered a positive decision, but one that came out of nowhere, by a person who has never sought help, would be a tragedy? I guess that makes sense (although I still don't agree, personally.)

I would not allow an assisted dying request unless a person has tried medically recommended psychological therapy and any appropriate drug therapy. If those do not relieve the desire not to be alive then I would call the decision rational.

what's the difference between a depressed person who kills themselves at home and has it painted as a tragedy, and a depressed person who kills themselves at a clinic and has it praised as rational?

The clinics won't accept people who have not tried extensive treatments to alleviate their depression. Both situations can be rational and tragic at the same time, depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

Assisted suicide would by definition be allowed because the idea of assisted suicide has been normalised, it won't happen otherwise. . But if you believe as I do that there is no inherent magical value to life as one of 8 billion people, and that once you are dead you cannot miss or regret the years you might have lived but didn't, I can't see an issue with it except for the people left behind, who should respect their loved one's wishes.

The issues are all around how to protect the vulnerable.

I didn't flippantly erase anything. I literally meant what I wrote and you have willfully chosen to misinterpret it. Some women don't want to be a mother but are willing to continue a pregnancy, give birth and then have the baby adopted. The fact that most women don't want to do this doesn't make my statement flippant. I have been pregnant and given birth myself multiple times. I understand how difficult it is but I also understand that pregnancy and birth are a separate issue to wanting to be a mother to a child. If a woman's concern was with the latter then adoption is an option for her and some women do choose this.

I wouldn't call 75 very elderly. People can vary enormously in their quality of life at that age. There's women older than that at my gym and they're certainly having a good time!

I don't think life has "inherent" value. I think it has as much value as the subject, the liver, of that life - the only person (or, indeed, animal) to whom that life belongs - decides that is has. No more, no less.

"Yes, in one case it's chosen and the other imposed..."

You phrase it as though that were a throwaway, incidental detail - a minor consideration - when in fact it is the fundamental and essential difference. This is all about consent and volition.

It not only makes total sense to be against the death penalty and in favour of voluntary euthanasia, it is in fact the only logical and consistent position - the very opposite of hypocrisy. The state/society should neither end someone's life against their will, nor keep someone's life going/prevent their life ending against that person's will. (And I do think that extends to helping that person end their life in accordance with their will, for reasons already expressed.)

Well if I am to look at the state's track record then I can say with absolute certainty that no government of any political persuasion has ever considered, let alone attempted, to loosen the coercion laws around suicide. This would also be potential a huge money saver for the state and yet this has never been raised by an elected politician to the best of my knowledge as an area of law that should be weakened. There are plenty arguing that it should be strengthened though.

Except I don't think anyone against widely normalised assisted suicide has said they want people to suffer. Generally, the sentiment on the thread seems to be worry about how the normalisation of suicide will affect society more broadly, and whether it may lead to people feeling pressured or coerced into it in the future.

In your words:

If women simply didn't want to be a mother then they could give birth and put the baby up for adoption.

This flippantly erases the physical toll and risk of pregnancy, which is generally also what most women want to avoid putting themselves through.

So what? Another person who is 76 might be fed up of life!! Do they have to stay alive because your mum is “full of beans?”

My question essentially boiled down to – how can you tell a rational suicide from an irrational one? As given the assisted suicides that have been publicised, the only difference between them and an ordinary suicide seems to be the money and organisational skills to pay for a clinic.

I also haven't said all suicide is the same – I've said suicide where the person is competent to decide, and also used words such as 'most' and 'some'. Of course, a suicide while a person is psychotic isn't rational, for instance, but what's the difference between a depressed person who kills themselves at home and has it painted as a tragedy, and a depressed person who kills themselves at a clinic and has it praised as rational?

And if life has no inherent value, and people should be able to end their lives whenever they like, should we really be attempting to recent suicide, which is people exercising their right to choose to die?

And how will increased normalisation of assisted suicide affect how society views suicide more generally?

Who suggested women deliberately get pregnant to abort the fetus? It's the same as saying that people want AD so that they can experience killing themselves. These are such ridiculous notions that surely you can't even believe them? As I've repeated a million times, abortion and AD are just a means to an end.

When did I suggest pregnancy wasn't a big deal?

You seem to be making straw men arguments and weird inferences rather than address what is actually being argued. Very strange.

Agreed, my mum is 76 and still full of beans. We tend to think of pensioners as war veterans still. My mum went on protests with John Lennon fgs!

No.

Because I consider it a far greater punishment to live the rest of their life in prison.

Adament? No, I just think that some women would, just as some women now choose to go through the rigors of pregnancy and give the baby up to adoption.

But no, women don't deliberately get pregnant so they can kill a foetus. They just want to be not pregnant, and not a mother, and the only route to that is to kill the foetus.

Anyway, considering you seem to think that pregnancy is no big deal, I think your opinion on the matter can be safely discounted.

Surely it's a reaction to feeling like people against AD want others to suffer.

And that’s fine if you have sufficient faith in our government to do that. I prefer to look at their track record of broken promises and money saving schemes (both Labour and Tory) that just skirt on the right side of the law and I don’t trust them not to look at it as the perfect way to save millions. You trust them, as you have every right to do. But fear mongering? No. It’s not fear mongering.

You go ahead and assume whatever you like, then. I haven't refused to answer any questions.

Your reasoning as if all suicide can be considered as one thing is far too simplistic for me I'm afraid.