To ask why we apply end of life compassion logic to dogs but not humans

[NorthernRosie]

It struck me again today (whilst reading Tim Dowling's Guardian column!) that many people seem happy enough to believe that it's kinder to put down animals at the end of their lives to end suffering but when it comes to our own species the majority argue against people's right to make that decision.

After all an animal can't actually make the decision but a competent human adult can.

Why is this?

Just to clarify - I am not against assisted suicide. I'm pretty sure that I would choose it myself under certain circumstances. I, like many PP's, just think the comparison with dogs is a bit disingenuous.

Great. So I am not rich and not likely to be. May I please therefore have the right to die with dignity?

Families are capable of treating each other disgustingly over money. Always have, always will. Assisted suicide is irrelevant to this. If you are the kind of horrible toxic person who treats a relative as a a source of money and nothing else, you will find a way.

I'm a member of Dignitas, not because I am planning imminently to travel to Switzerland to end my life, but because of the provision of Patient's Instructions that are legally binding: this allows also for decisions to be taken if I should be no longer able - owing, for example, to an accident - to be taken. I feel better knowing that should I undergo, say, a severe brain injury, that my wishes in this circumstances are recorded and will be respected.

The issues surrounding legalisation are very complex, though, as PP have said, particularly when the onus might be on the state itself to take decisions. In practice, it's my understanding that in most cases, it is not found in the public interest to prosecute those who help family members to travel to Dignitas - and anyway, you need to be physically capable of taking the drugs yourself, as well as of sound mind to consent: so arguably, people are already "dying before they are ready" not because of British law over being accompanied, but because of restrictions in Swiss law.

A PP mentioned that prescribing drugs with the knowledge that a side effect might be death is legal (as opposed to prescribing them to die): I know of a number of cases in the past where this has happened, but I'd be interested to know how common it still is.

Also - dying can be extremely lengthy, even when someone is ready to go: and not everyone is in physical pain at the end of life - I think this is an enormous issue to legislate for, and I don't see it happening quickly: not because, as some people have said, over squeamishness over death, but rather closing every loophole possible to ensure that there is as little potential for abuse as possible.

The thing is that there is no way of knowing whether or not someone has been coerced into committing suicide because A, those doing the persuading are hardly likely to speak out, and the person who has been coerced is dead, so it can't be proven. So those saying that in countries where this is legal is evidence that it doesn't happen, the evidence simply isn't there.

There have already been people on this thread who have said that the reason they would want to kill themselves when the time comes so they wouldn't be a burden to their relatives. Equally I am sure that there are even well-meaning family who might, in all innocence, state that "it's not fair that you should live like this, we wouldn't let a dog go through it, why don't we see if the doctors can give you something...." And that person going along with it because it's what their relatives feel should happen/because it's the right thing to do.

And what about people who don't want to end their lives at an appointed time. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of wanting an assisted suicide. However if assisted suicide becomes legal the perception may well change to make people feel that it's what they should want, because wanting to live to the end is seen as wrong.

Afaik in countries where assisted suicide is legal the person still has to be of sound mind and capable of taking the medication. We should never reach a point where that person has reached the stage of being unable to take the medication therefore facilitating the need for someone to physically end their life.

There is a difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide should be decided on a case by case basis. Euthanasia should never become legal.

No they have to be of sound mind and able to take the medication. This is one of the reasons why people feel that not having legally assisted suicide in this country people have to end their lives earlier than they would if they were in this country, because they travel to Switzerland while they're still able to travel. Whereas in this country they would be able to stay home until such times as they were running out of time - iyswim.

We should never legalise a system which enables someone to be euthanised when they are no longer of sound mind. Even if they have a written directive, because it should never be down to the decision of another person when it is time to euthanise someone.

Interesting. Lots and lots of concern about preventing abuse. How do you think many many thousands of elderly people currently live and die? Alone, poor and frightened.

It's a pity people don't care so much for people while they are alive. But we feel very strongly about the manners of their deaths?

This is akin to right wing Americans trumpeting on about abortion - but they don't give a damn about the child once it's born.

I thought we were talking here about people who wanted to chose to die. Making that legal doesn't make it compulsory. Other systems have safeguards in place to monitor and preserve that choice. That we do not permit this but force people to travel far from home to die, is shameful.

I believe that of a horse breaks a leg it us usually put down too. I take it you don't think we should apply that to humans too?

I agree with what others have said about palliative care and pain management not bring great.

My grandfather died in his mid-60's, due to Alzheimer's. He was relatively young, really strong, but lost the ability to swallow (amongst other things). The hospital decided to withdraw all treatment and jet him die - essentially to starve to death, although aspirational pneumonia finished him off.

It took 5 days, and watching a strong 66 year old man die in that way, with no understanding of what was happening except that he was starving and thirsty and suffering was torture, for us and for him.

I know euthanasia is a difficult subject, but I am very, very much pro. No-one should have to die like that. It was 18 years ago and still haunts me.

bumshawk - i totally empathise. Very similar situation with my dad. Alzheimers and lung cancer. 5 days to die . I wasn't made aware of decision to withhold food and water. Looking back i can't believe i allowed that to happen. That has to be worse than an overdose morphine.

I saw a discussion on this and loved the rabbi who ripped into the priest who was against it for everyone because of his (note his) own personal beliefs.

I was disappointed but not surprised when the Bill in this got voted down. There were a lot of safeguards in it.

Plus, policy involves weighing up the benefits and the downsides. I think that even if there were a couple of cases of people being bumped off a couple of years early that would be an acceptable trade off against the suffering of many many people now. I know it sounds cold, but it's the type of calculation that's made all the time whether explicitly or implicitly. This particular issue just makes it more stark so we struggle with it more.

Is that the best you've got Witched? To say that because horses are shot when they break their legs we should shoot humans too?

Are you really stupid? Or just really offensive?

This is a discussion where people - including me - have had to watch people they love die in pain and confusion. Who may face that death themselves.

If I die because my cancer has come back and metastasised to my bone and brains it won't be anything like a broken leg.

As I understand it, it is very difficult to nurse back to health a horse with a broken leg; it is often way beyond the pocket of the owners; they just can't afford to care for horse. Humans can be up and running again in a matter of weeks or months and suffer little ill after affects.

To compare the two situations is utterly bizarre, bonkers and completely offensive, and I hope you will reflect on your comment and agree to withdraw it.

Giving it some thought - what is making me so utterly angry is that people are attempting to deny ME my choice. I am not trying to impose anything on anyone else, but others are trying to impose their own issues on me.

I want assisted suicide to be legal because IF I end up in a horrible and miserable state and my daughter offers to help kill me, I don't want her to risk criminal investigation and prosecution. This was the problem for Tony Nicklinson - he wouldn't let his wife and daughters kill him because he was so afraid of what might happen to them.

WHY should I have to travel abroad to die if I am in a similar situation, just too weak to kill myself?

How dare anyone else attempt to impose their own wishes and feelings about a situation that I am facing, they are not.

I think I have now identified the root of my anger with this thread, which is helpful to me anyway.

Spero - it should never be that your dd should have to assist you. Too much for someone. It has to be done properly by drs. for many reasons but mostly because she would have to live with it.

but yes. you shouldn't have to travel to Switzerland for that to happen.

Spero I agree with you.

I equally think if someone wants to hang on until the bitter end and endure horrific suffering, that is up to them too. It is none of my business.

I agree with Spero.

The horse with a broken leg analogy is both pathetic and offensive to people like her and me. We are both intelligent, articulate women who have had reason to consider this issue very carefully in relation to our particular circumstances.

A few months before my extended hospital stay last year my oncologist told me that there are very, very few people who have gone through as much as I have. Since then I've been through a hell of lot more. I'm still going. Only I am in the position to judge when and if I want it to stop.

I know two pp who have 'assisted' loved ones who were terminally ill.
One was in S America and one (a Dr and relative) in the UK.

I think that it may be more common than we think.

My dad has asked me to help kill him. He is not ready yet. But when he is, and if he asks me of course I will help him because he is my dad, I love him and I do not want to see him suffer.

But as the law stands I may face prosecution for murder. Bring it on. If that is what people consider a good use of public funds, then go for it. But what a waste of time and money my trial will be.

Of course if my daughter can't face it, I won't pressure her. But I suspect she will feel the same way as I do.

But WHY should we be put in this position of extra fear and worry? Why can't I get a nice quick overdose of morphine when I decide the time is right? Will I be left to stave to death over days? It is terrifying.

And as Zombie said. Her life. Her death. Her choice. And if she needs help making that choice, why would you deny it to her? You wouldn't deny a disabled person the equipment to make their other choices in life would you? So why then deny that help at one of the most profound and serious choices they will ever make?

yes that was my point, we should not be put in that position. in an age of moderm medicine no one should have to endure a long and drawn out death.

It's going slightly off on a tangent but the inconsistencies in the quality of care that the nhs provides is a massive concern for me.

My dad has wonderful end of life care, but from just reading this thread I know it is not the case for all.

If I knew that I would not have to worry about my family or myself being looked after I don't think I would be as pro-assisted suicide as I am.

Of course there are and will be many times where no matter how wonderful your care, you are still going to be terribly Ill, but effectively leaving someone to starve to death for 5 days is despicable. sorry to everyone for your losses xx

Tbh, the vast majority of dying people don't want to eat or drink towards the end anyway. It can increase intestinal discomfort and cause nausea. Being given fluids via a drip can lead to uncomfortable fluid retention which can affect breathing.

Gosh. Ok. So starving to death over 5-7 days is ok, because the dying person doesn't want to eat or drink.

funny, that's not what my friend said about watching her dad die over 7 days. She remains traumatised by what she saw.

Riddle me this. Lets say I don't want to die over a week with no food or water, no matter how 'usual' this is.

Why can't I just have a nice big shot of morphine?

Presumably doctors are able to make the decision about when they withdraw nutrition on the basis that the person has only a few days left. SO WHY MAKE THEM GO THROUGH THIS.

And why put their relatives through it?

Please, can someone tell me what the justification for this is?

If anyone against it found they had CJD or Huntingdons they'd change their mind in an instant.

Its like the organ donor or abortion 'debate'. People who feel they cant do it think they should get the ultimate say for everyone else.

We should be allowed to make our own choice, and others should respect it and MYOB.