To have issue with the idea of assisted suicide?

[wannaBe]

The high court is to hear the appeal of a man who wants doctors to be allowed to help him die. He had a stroke and has locked-in syndrome which basically means that he is of sound mind but his poly is completely paralyzed.

I understand his desire to want to die, I really do. But I still have massive issue with the idea that a court might actually grant permission for doctors to essentially be allowed to kill him. And you can call it assisted suicide, but the doctors will need to administer whatever medication would be required in order for him to die.

Suicide in the UK is illegal. If this man were able to kill himself, where possible, he would be prevented from doing so.

If someone attempts suicide and fails then every step has to be taken to try to save them, even though the knowledge is there that death is what they want.

So on the one hand we have a law that says that if you try to kill yourself and fail you will be saved, or if we believe you are suicidal we will take steps to prevent you from carrying out a suicide, yet on the other we have people arguing for the right to be killed in the name of suicide.

It's a blatant double standard and really doesn't sit well with me.

I can't understand how anyone can think that it is a good thing to force people to keep on living in situations where life is intolerable, and there is no prospect of improvement! Medicine is getting more and more advanced, so people can be kept alive with more and more severe injuries. People like the man mentioned in the OP would not be alive without major medical intervention. I don't see how it is wrong for him to decide he's had enough, and be helped to die. I certainly would like to know that is an option if I was facing cancer, or dementia, I think it would be a great comfort to know if it got too much you could end it, even if most people never took that option!

People aren't prevented from committing suicide where possible though. We're allowed to refuse life-saving medical treatment, and you can choose to refuse to eat in hospital. No one will then force these things on you, despite the fact that it's suicide to refuse them.

Well there are lots of issues there.
If one was in an awful lot of physical pain. They would be given morphine or whatever else is available. Even if this means that it will shorten their life.
People are put in induced coma to help them recover, to reduce the physical pain until they are better.
And then you have people who are in a lot of emotional & mental pain. What is done for them? What steps have been taken right from the start to support that person. What are doctors doing now? Are they even able to do anything? Knowing that this pain will stay with him for the rest of his life.

If one was in unimaginable physical pain, screaming all day long because of it, would you understand why they want to die? Would you be able to bear hearing them all day long?
How is it different with emotional pain? It's not because you can't hear them that the pain isn't just as real. And it's not because it's emotional that 'they will and should get over it'.... eventually....

I think that when someone is clear in their mind, they should be given the choice.
If that person had being able to 'move', he would have organized his own suicide. And would have succeeded.
Because he is unable to do it, he has to do what is imposed on him by 'other' people. People that don't know him, people that don't have to live with him day in day out.
How is that fair?

If I wanted to commit suicide, I would walk to the bus stop, board a bus to a local bridge and jump. Certainly, a kind bystander could try and persuade me otherwise, but s/he would not be able to prevent me from jumping. A police officer could haul me off the bridge and put me under a Section 136 at a local psychiatric unit, but the doctor would have to release me as a mentally competent adult... and I could walk out and take the bus right back to the bridge.

The man who's legal challenge we're discussing does not possess the physical ability to travel to a bridge, or even to commit suicide my simpler means. Why should his physical limitations deny him the same access to death as anyone else?

I'm from a country where euthanasia is legal. And you know what? I'm glad it is. I have known two people who went through the process - which is a long, drawn out one, with many safeguards in place - of requesting it. Both were very sick and suffering terribly. Once they had the approval, neither of them went through with it, because simply the knowledge that they would not be forced to continue suffering if they could not bear it any more made them feel able to carry on until the end came naturally. Knowing that the option of saying 'no, I can't do this' was there gave them peace, comfort and dignity, and I'm glad for it.

Has any doctor been recorded as saying they'd be willing to do it? It's been a resounding 'no way' from all the doctors I've asked the opinion of.

Stop thinking about laws and standards and start thinking about PEOPLE.

That poor bastard is locked into his body, unable to move, unable to do anything for himself, and he wants to DIE. He is of sound mind and knows what he wants. I would too. Let people help him, humanely, to release him from his suffering.

We put down pets to save them pain and suffering, yet you want to compel a human of sound mind to live indefinitely against his will, because you don't like the idea of it?
WHATS WRONG WITH YOU?

I wouldn't agree that people only become doctors to save lives- there's a whole area of medicine dedicated to the end of life known as palliative care. Without those doctors and nurses many people would find their last few days much less comfortable.

It's hard to imagine what this guy must be feeling. How bad must it be that he wants to give up being with his wife and daughters? My first instinct is that he should be able to end his life when he wants to. "How" is the question. He can't physically take the drugs required (as they do in dignitas afaik), so someone would have to administer them for him. Who would do that? I would also worry that others in the future would feel backed into a corner and say they wanted to end their lives to free their relatives, rather than through any real desire to die. If this were to become legal I'd hope there'd be a very thorough vetting procedure (eg, psych analysis for patients and carers/families) over several months before anything was done.

My mum died of throat cancer. Despite receiving very good care, she was in terrible pain for much of the time. In the last stages of her life, every morning she asked me if I could give her a large dose of morphine and end it all. I could have done, but I didnt, because it is illegal and I was scared of the consequences. It broke my heart to do so, but every morning I talked her out of it and gave her just enough of her prescribed painkillers to make her suffering just about bearable for another day. She was never pain free, she couldnt eat and eventually she died of pneumonia. That is the reality of cancer death in this country in 2010.

Had euthanasia been legal in this country she would have definately chosen it and would have died at home a few weeks earlier than she did, surrounded by her family. She would have been spared a few very painful last weeks.

If I treated my dog the way we treated my beloved mother in her last few weeks, I would be prosecuted for cruelty. How is that right?

I hope he wins his case.

It is a whole bag of worms. I am a rabid supporter of voluntary euthanasia. The biggest problem in this country would be finding a Doctor willing to do the euthanising.
I really hope that individual gets his way. I couldn't imagine living a life like his.

I don't think it's a double standard.

On the one hand you have people seeking assisted suicide due to diminishing quality of life from a chronic, worsening medical condition. There is no hope of a cure and their prognosis is not being questioned. They would want to continue to live were it not for their illness, but have not desire to stay alive with such a poor quality of life.

On the other hand you have people with mental health issues that can be treated and a suicide attempt is a symptom of their illness. With treatment their health problems may well be overcome or controlled to allow them to lead a full and enjoyable life. Such a treatment is not available to the man appealing to the High Court.

The problem for me is that I don't think that legislation can ever be written with enough safeguards and shutting all potential loopholes to allow euthanasia in the UK.

My OH had a brain haemorrhage 4 years ago. Had he lived, he would have been "locked in" or even a vegetable. I so, so wanted him to live, but I know he would not have wanted to live in that state. To have his dignity and privacy taken away is something he would not have been able to deal with. He wouldn't have been able to play any musical instrument, speak, write, do anything. It would have been a living hell for him.

I really feel for the family of the man going to the High Court about this. It's such a dreadful situation to be in. He really doesn't want to live in this state. If it were me, I'd support his decision, but be absolutely heartbroken.....

From my own experience euthanesia is a good thing. My father had terminal cancer and when in hospital he was given a choice to either go into a hospice or go home to die. Neither options he wanted, nor did he want to prolong the agony of the inevitable. He quite clearly stated with all of us there that he wanted to end it right there and then. The doctor gave him an overdose of morphine at an agreed time and day after we all had been able to say our goodbyes.

Couldn't have been a more peaceful and dignified death. I could never be against it.

YABU, its not for anyone else to decide when enough is enough. If they are physically incapable of commiting suicide by themselves and are of sound mind, then I think they should be able to get someone to do it for them without that other person getting in trouble

so where do we draw the line then?

If it is (in some peoples' opinion) unreasonable to even have issue with the idea of assisted suicide, would it be unreasonable to not want to help someone commit suicide? Or should doctors be legally bound to do so if requested? and if not, why not?

Fwiw I have read articles about dignitas and they have been rather disturbing and it sounds everything but the peaceful end that people are seeking.

Nobody should have to carry out assisted suicide, throughout the process of deciding it was right for someone an appropriate practitioner for it should be introduced to the family to ensure they are aware of what happens and how.

Medical science has made it so that people are able to be kept alive much longer than they would have been able to previously. While this is beneficial to many people, there are some cases where prolonged life is not desired by the patient. Cancer (using this as my example as it's the only one I've experience with) can mean a slow and painful death. If someone can opt to prolong their life, I'm not sure why they can't opt to shorten it, especially under such conditions.

I would want that option, personally.

Personally I could not and would not assist a death in this way. I am very aware of the mental anguish this man is in and have no doubt of the fear he must have when he thinks of his future. I do not think that he lacks capacity or is suffering from a mental illness. But again I would not assist his death because it a step too far. It is the thin edge of a wedge where I can envision us moving to ever more laxer guidelines and where do you draw the line? A previous athlete who has become paraplegic? An artist gone blind? A person who is of sound mind, but has no employment prospects, has no one they can call friend or family, who cannot bear the thought of carrying on?

To those who point to dignitas the reason why this isn't an option for this poor man isn't because of the difficulties of travel but because they require the patient to committ that final act - they must be able to either take the tablets themselves or to press a button. They provide the means but it is the patient who must do it themselves. This allows for that final change of mind. What if at that moment he changed his mind? How would the doctor know he still had consent at that final moment?

Suicide is legal so the OP is based on an incorrect understanding of the law.

I believe that the man in this case should be assisted to end his life when he decides that it is time.

I also agree with the idea that the laws on this stuff have not caught up with modern medicine. The man in this case makes the point that if it was 40 years ago he would not be alive anyway.

isenodust - not too sure why you linked to that article. In a country where euthanasia is legal, a team of properly qualified individuals is offering the service. Ultimately it is about personal liberty and the "slippery slope" argument infuriates me. In a grown up, democratic society we are capable of providing appropriate safe-guards to avoid slithering down the slope into a heap of compulsory euthanatised people. There will always be concerns about the individuals who feel they are a burden and should take the option but that's what the counsellors are for - to identify this. Palliative care is not yet of a consistent or reliable enough standard and would not apply in the case of the locked in man anyway. The sooner the law catches up with the capabilities of modern medicine where we keep people alive at all costs the better.

BobMarley

My feelings are the same as yours. In the same situation with my mum and I wish with all my heart that the doctor had done the same for her. She was in so much pain, so scared and her last weeks were horrific. I will never get over the trauma of her death and I will always feel a sense of guilt that I could not help her. I, like you, could never be against someone making a choice to end an existence because in that situation it's not a life at all.

Naoko you spoke of the precautionary measures in place in your country. Could you elaborate a little on what they are.

This poor man cut a simply tragic figure last night. I'm not sure if he's in physical pain but the poor man looked positively haunted. He has to communicate using only his eyes and via his wife (who deserves a medal IMO).
His only escape if his legal battle fails is suicide. Surely the doctors would then have to tube him? It's just awful.

From an entirely "in this case" perspective, it would seem entirely compassionate and humane to allow his wishes to be enacted.

But what happens next, and next year and in 10 years when this case is referred to as a means to explain assisted suicide when it isn't as clear cut as Tonys case. What if doctors just decided on the patients behalf?

There is already the situation where people who are very old and very ill and in a lot of pain, reach a point where enough pain killer to relieve the pain will be too much IYSWIM. I am sure that doctors in that situation sometimes make a quiet decision to give enough painkiller to stop the pain. And I wouldn't blame them and hope that if my time comes in that way I hope someone does that for me.

Have you even considered how you would feel spending five years paralysed in your own body? The man can only move his EYES and he only uses them to spell out messages saying he wants to die.

How could anyone force him to live through that?