To think people should not use 'we put pets to sleep' as an argument to allow assisted dying?

@Jane3212 Can I ask you this? Have you ever sat by someone's bedside and watched them suffer a prolonged, dreadfully painful and ultimately gruesome death from terminal illness? Did they groan in agony continuously for several days before they were finally released from their terrible suffering, even though they were on the highest possible dose of morphine?

Have you ever held someone's hand and hoped in despair that the end would come as soon as possible, so as to put an end to their suffering? Did you sit there thinking how wicked and cruel it was, that we could do something to end an animal's suffering yet that same release was denied to humans?

Because without having been in that exact situation, people will never be able to understand how I (or many others like me) feel about compassionate euthanasia.

Well, yes you can’t demand a specific person assist you, but the law will mean you have the right to demand that someone assist you. The government will have to hire and then provide psychological support to whoever gets the jobs.

You are scientifically incorrect. An embryo or fetus is not a life in the sense of a living, conscious being. It is only the potential for a life. It has no person hood, no rights. It has no thoughts or emotions. I agree we need to stick to science, but you seem not to be doing so. A woman choosing to have an abortion cannot be compared to a woman choosing to euthanise her mother or herself.

I don't think you will ever be able to demand someone kills you. In the same way that you can't demand that someone aborts your baby. Many medical professionals won't have a problem with AD but some will. Those that do won't be compelled to do it

At the moment it is strange to allow suicide but ban AD. The only difference is one's ability to end their life themselves.

There is a difference you are overlooking, the fact that suicide is done solo, but assisted dying is done with the assistance of a doctor or nurse. The ability to demand a person help kill you is a very large difference.

the risk of coercion will never go away regradless of the guardrails out in place. BUT I think the risk of people dying in unnessessarily tortuous conditions that we wouldn’t put a dear pet through is much much higher. I’m willing to risk one to prevent the other.

No one is saying a human is like a pet. If you wouldn’t EVEN put an animal through it- they are saying it’s much worse for a human.

My grandfather died of leukemia. We were told he had days to live. He was in hospital and they moved him to a private room as he was screaming in pain but they wouldn't give him any more medication.

When my father was able to move him into a local hospice (unfortunately we had to wait 2 days for a bed), he was medicated more and his last 2 days were peaceful.

I remember at the time we wouldn't let an animal suffer like this but the staff at the hospital was adamant, no more painkillers. I have no doubt he would have wanted to be helped on his way if he'd been offered the choice. He wasn't going to recover.

This

Not to derail thread but there was a Japanese artist who underwent gender nullification surgery and created a dinner with his penis and testicles to which he sold tickets.I think he only sold five and made £1k in yen.

Cannabilism isnt illegal in Japan but I think he was charged with the equivalent of public indecency for displaying his detatched penis and testicles.

That is not what science says. A fetus is a life. I think it's important we don't start pretending we can pick and choose when life begins. It also completely wrong to compare a fetus to a finger nail scientifically. Finger nails are formed from dead cells, a fetus is a growing, living organism.

We have to stick with science otherwise what's yo stop someone saying that a terminally ill person is kind of dead already? Or that death is different for a very old person?

Life is life and death is death.

Off topic, but it's very common for cats to be incestuous ime. We have a colony of farm cats that hangs around near our house (that we're trying to socialise and slowly take the girls into the SPCA as they get pregnant), and they're a lovely bunch, but the two current top toms (from the same litter) keep hounding and impregnating their sisters, nieces, and daughters, while driving off the younger toms when they reach maturity by, erm, mounting them constantly. Anyway, sorry for the derail!

Abortion stops a potential life from starting, it is completely different from prematurely ending the life of a human being who is already born and living.

It is a worse comparison than the pet one, because most abortions are carried out on a clump of cells the size of a grain of rice. There is no more life or person hood there than in a fingernail.

My issue is that assisted suicide for depression and such like, will essentially frame suicide as a good thing that should be accessible, normalising it, so that even mentally unwell people who don't qualify think that they should be enabled to kill themselves. And we know that suicide is 'contagious', which is why reporting around it in the media is usually restricted, etc.

So what do we think assisted suicide for severe depression being normalised over time will do for society? Especially a society that suffers from poor mental health provisions, financial inequality, and resource scarcity? Nothing good, I think.

Yes but the point is that the law allows it. The same with suicide. It may be impractical to convict someone of suicide but theoretically attempted suicide could be a crime in the same way attempting to assist someone dying would now be a crime even if you were unsuccessful. In fact convicting dead people of suicide would send out a consistent message regarding body autonomy and being able to end life.

At the moment it is strange to allow suicide but ban AD. The only difference is one's ability to end their life themselves. Coercion could exist on either case and both could be used as a front for mercy killings.

Dying of pneumonia is a horrendous death. You slowly drown. Refusing medical care on the basis of a dementia diagnosis would cause you more suffering.

Did the elderly patient agree with not attending medical appointments? You know a person is allowed to be distressed by bad news at medical appointments? Very uncomfortable to read that you may have deliberately refused your elderly relative basic medical care because she was dying of something else. When someone is terminally ill, it adds completely avoidable physical suffering and reduces quality of life left to medically neglect other conditions to what is left of their life.

We shouldn’t let ANY living thing suffer or endure years of pain, with no hope of improvement, and only guarantee of more pain and zero quality of life. It’s barbaric. I’ve just put my beloved 16 year old dog to sleep. It was calm, dignified and loving. It was my final act of love for him - he needed me to make the call for him, because he couldn’t. My DM and DMIL are being prevented a natural death by doctors by continual treatment with antibiotics propping up their frail bodies and minds. It’s horrific and unless you’ve seen it for 10+ years like I have, you have no idea the trauma and suffering to the old person.

I don’t think it’s entirely right to say that logistics can’t be a part of it. I’d rather die than have my children beggar themselves taking care of me in a hopeless situation. More relevant in places like the states (I grew up in the states and my parents are there) than here just now but still something I’d put on my list of considerations.

I think it’s totally shocking that the people flying overseas to seek out this sort of relief can’t have their family with them for fear of them being prosecuted. People with the capacity to research and book this and get there are certainly capable enough to make this choice. Eerily like the horrors in the states just now of all the women desperately seeking health care across state lines while being careful to cover their tracks.

Yes animal rights clearly can’t be equal to human rights, in the same way that children can’t have the same rights as adults, because they have different brains and different abilities. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat them as we would wish to be treated if we were in their position. In a way that is kind and for their own benefit, not our benefit.

Sorry to derail your euthanasia thread with animal rights stuff though. I think in response to the euthanasia question, I think consent is an issue. For example with a child or mentally disabled person who isn’t able to consent to the euthanasia, giving someone else the power over their life could be dangerous. And even when people do consent, they could be doing it due to temporary feelings, which may change. Sometimes suicidal people embrace life later. If you allow euthanasia, it is too late.

I know someone with disabled pug... a result of siblings breeding.
When I was a kid, we had a female kitten that our tom had sired. He kept trying to mount her until we had her neutered.

https://nltimes.nl/2026/09/09/first-ever-case-euthanasia-young-child-2-handled-well-dutch-committee

Info on the Dutch toddler. I did read in a diff article that they weren't terminal. There are also articles that detail some dr's thought different epilepcy meds could have helped.

My son has many disabilities inc cognitive. At what point is a persons worth or lack of growth or ability to learn the cut off for euthanasia?