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

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

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.

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.

@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.

Yep. For one thing, 'suffering' is an extremely broad and malleable concept.
People suffer every day. We need to be much much more precise in our language and the arguments we make.

I just think it’s so sad that people can’t make an informed decision about themselves. Most would base the decision on the same criteria they would for their pets.

Hi Jane

I love animals but they aren't legally the same as people.

I hope we're not choosing not to torture people in our daily lives "just" because it's illegal. Let's focus on whether it's the right thing to do full stop. The law doesn't always get it right.

If somebody sold a person, or controlled who they could have children with, we would be horrified, but we accept those as normal for pets because we don't treat them the same as people.

That is a superb argument for why we shouldn't be doing this to animals. Not why we should lower ourselves to a substandard of principles for humans.

We put beloved pets to sleep if they're really ill with no hope of cure because we are responsible for them, and cats, dogs etc have no way, by definition, of understanding the situation or communicating what they would want.

And at that point, we decide the 'right' thing to do is to let our pets die quickly and painlessly. That's interesting. When we don't have to worry about judgement from society, every human who loves their pet/family member, opts for the most humane option. I think we've already voted on this via our actions.

A person is categorically different. We don't hold the same power to even decide between life and death over people that we do over pets, and rightly so! The comparison with pets is flawed.

But we can if we want to.. that's why we are able to advocate for changing laws. Also: we do hold power over people's lives. Prisons.. deportation.. in some countries - the death penalty.

I don't know why you think that's such an issue? You can see on this thread that lots of people believe that AD is an important and humane option. Lots of medical and care staff have to currently look after people that are alive against their will and suffering the most awful deaths. Just look on this thread and there are lots of accounts of harrowing stories. I assume many of them will need psychological support and would prefer to offer AD than be part of a system that's forcing people to have the most awful deaths that they absolutely wouldn't choose for themselves.

Hard disagree - we sat with my mil as she died, and at no point were we thinking "gosh hope we have another x days with her", as she lies there seemingly asleep waiting for her to actually die. She was in her late 80s and had been ill for a long time.

I loved her to bits, and yes she didnt seem to be in pain. There was no way she was coming back, and it was heartbreaking.

I know that when my elderly relative was very old he chose to go into a care home for 24hr care. He had an advanced directive and was very clear he didn’t want any life extending care. Wife on board, care home on board (in theory) he went down with an infection and the nurse on duty called to say she was going to have him taken to hospital for intravenous antibiotics. The nurse was apparently very taken aback when declined.

I think this happens a lot you make plans but then are pressured into continuing care by a well meaning medic in a 2am phone call or more routine care as it’s just a …, It is like a conveyer belt and it can be quite tough to get off. I do think there should be far more whole patient care rather than continuously playing whack a mole with symptoms

I am not scientifically incorrect. You are conflating science with moral personhood and legal rights.

A fetus is a life. This is the consensus across science.

I don't think that's true, and it would be terrifying if it were. The bar for ending a pet's life is lower than a human. And I don't think the comparison is helpful.

The discussion is already extremely loaded because of people having to witness suffering in the final weeks of their loved ones lives.

It's loaded because people worry that it's a slippery slope, and even suffering+patient consent isnt a high enough bar (e.g. a person with depression).

It's loaded because of the history of euthanasia for disabled people not only by the Nazis but in countries like Canada until relatively recently.

Bringing pets into the discussion adds a whole other level because people have euthanized their pets using different criteria than they would for a human, but need for their own wellbeing to keep a simple 'they were suffering so I did the right thing' narrative.

Leaving pets out of the discussion is the only way to have a proper ethical conversation about humans.

But your last paragraph is essentially an argument in favour of people being allowed to euthanise others, if they think the person's suffering is bad enough.

Suffering is subjective though isn’t it. There is an elderly lady in the block of flats next to me, she hasn’t been outside other than to the occasional medical appointments in the seven years I’ve lived here. She has carers to get her up, assist with personal care and put her to bed. Meals are delivered three times a day. Her son pops in a couple of times a week.

24/7 within the same four walls for over 2,500 days. That would be unbearable suffering to me and it might well be to her, but to others it might be a perfectly acceptable way of life.

My mum has a degenerative disease. The end will be very unpleasant and painful for her. She doesn’t want to go into a care home and would rather end her life on her own terms. She has the ability to do this. But currently neither me nor my siblings can be with her when she does it which is pretty inhumane to me.

I agree. All these people who want access to Assisted Dying - who are you expecting to assist you? A relative, friend, nurses or doctors? You require them to forever carry the burden of knowing they caused your death because they physically assisted you to die.

In the case of having our pets put to sleep we don't physically administer the fatal dose do we? We outsource that.

I agree. And this bit doesn't hold water either:
And at that point, we decide the 'right' thing to do is to let our pets die quickly and painlessly. That's interesting. When we don't have to worry about judgement from society, every human who loves their pet/family member, opts for the most humane option. I think we've already voted on this via our actions

Actually there is judgment in the opposite direction. People are expected to have pets PTS, and judged if they don't.

It's interesting that they used the passive 'let our pets due quickly' when an active act of killing is taking place. Similarly, PPs have also used 'causing suffering' to mean not euthanizing somebody - ie an active description for a passive act.

Anyway, having said I don't think pets and humans is a useful comparison, here I am getting drawn into the details of it anyway! Maybe it WOULD be illuminating to see how many people would have a relative PTS using the same criteria as a pet. For me it needs to be a much much higher bar and perhaps in practice unworkable.

I guess it's too different a scenario as an animal can never consent to anything.

And in humans even suffering plus consent isn't enough. Think of a severely depressed person who asks to be euthanized.

I agree not a useful comparison as it's too different a scenario in so many ways. But people keep using it, so I guess we need to engage with it. It won't be popular though as it involves saying 'well you didn't NEED to have your pet PTS, you chose to. Maybe it was the right decision, but it isnt as clear cut as people like to think.'

Your end question makes no difference. AD wouldn't involve someone else consenting for a relative. The person themselves would need to provide informed consent. The better question is how many of us on this thread would choose AD if scenarios we could reasonably foresee? There are a number of scenarios where I would choose it. I'm obviously not being coerced to say this. If lots of us feel the same way then we have to accept that lots of people at the end of their life are freely going to want to choose the same end. Why do we pretend that getting old and ill somehow changes this fact?

I honestly believe lots of humans have trouble dealing the death and their own mortality. Death is the worst case scenario they can imagine. Lots of people though don't agree and see death as a form of release in some scenarios. The two groups will never really understand each other.

But it isn't clear cut that you aren't torturing your relative and putting them through unnecessary suffering by refusing them AD by the same token. Lots of us selfishly want to keep hold of our relatives for as long as possible. There is a cruelty associated with that which many don't want to acknowledge.

It is different because AD and euthanasia are not the same thing.
Take Dignitas for example. The person has to be able to administer the medication themselves.. They are not injected. No one is touching them.
In Oregon, people can have the medication prescribed in advance, and take it at home. They don't even need to have a doctor present when they take it.

I agree, but assisted dying could potentially make it worse not better. You may feel obliged to go for assisted dying soon after a terminal diagnosis whereas potentially you could have good palliative care and live well for months or years longer. Liz Carr is the one who really influenced me re disability also. There are so many concerns about it.

Completely agree and I wish this facet of the debate was talked about more.

Have you sat with someone at the end of their life? "Relief" is not routinely on offer in the NHS, and nor is palliative care.