To think Gill Pharaoh had the ideal end of life

[CurdinHenry]

Article in the Times about this woman who decided to end her life through voluntary euthanasia at 75. Huge outrage on social media as a result as various people missing the point entirely express fury because they think being very elderly will be great fun. I personally don't want to get older than that. I don't ask anyone else to take the same view but it stresses me out that the naive want to reduce choices available to the prescient. Euthanasia should be available to everyone without condition.

It’s infuriating when posters do this. If someone has had enough of life, they should be able to make the choice to die by having assisted dying in the UK. (I know this won’t happen in my lifetime.)

If we're talking politeness, then it's not a good idea to call people's comments infantile sarcasm. It would behoove you to behave with the politeness you'd like to receive.

Regardless, how did I tell you what you believed and what you were thinking? I actually mostly asked a lot of questions, to try to ascertain your beliefs. It seems you'd rather make up claims of rudeness and dodge those questions than answer them.

I can only assume that's because you don't have any answers, and my original statement stands ‐ if suicide is now good, and people should be able to decide to die whenever they like, and for whatever reason, then I imagine that for the most part (except where someone isn't considered medically competent), society can stop trying to prevent it and start assisting it.

I think that if you feel ready to go, then there are a million different ways to top yourself in a comfortable and dignified way that doesn’t involve anyone else. You do whatever works best for you.

If that's the case then what is stopping people coercing granny into doing this already?

You have absolutely no evidence that women would choose freezing or donating embryos over abortion. I find it strange that you seem so adamant that many women would do this when the issue is so often that women don't want children at all (for them or others to raise) or don't want to share children with the father.

The goal of abortion is to end the life of the fetus so that there is no baby.

The goal of AD is to end your life so you don't have to continue living anymore.

No amount of mental gymnastics can make abortion a means to an end but make AD somehow all about killing yourself. Both are about ending life to achieve an end state that the decision maker wants.

Bloody hell.

This kind of attitude is what makes me think that our current state of humanity means such nuanced and sensitive debates and decisions are still beyond us and would indeed lead to abuse of such legislation. The words vile and grim get overused on MN alot but apply here.

Exactly, it doesn't make any sense. It's estimated that 90% of suicide attempts fail. If it was that easy to kill yourself then the statistics would should a much higher success rate and lots of people wouldn't be living with the long term effects of failed attempts on their lives.

A criminal conviction and up to 14 years in prison. https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide

I am interested to know, given that people seem to think there's no inherent value in life, and nothing wrong with death, whether they would be philosophically in favour of the death penalty for those caught in the act of mass murder – so there's no possibility of innocent people being executed. Yes, in one case it's chosen and the other imposed, but if there is no inherent value to life, it strikes me as hypocritical to be philosophically against the death penalty in certain, irrefutable cases (I say philosophically as I understand that not wanting the state to have the power to execute people in actuality is an entirely separate issue.)

I'm sure there would be similar legislation in place for AD. It would be completely inconsistent to legislate against it in the case of suicide but not in the case of AD. Any suggestion otherwise is seriously fear mongering

Yes, this sentiment is very revealing. As their wishes won't actually influence reality, all they're doing is pointlessly highlighting their desire that others, who have no actual impact on creating legislation but merely hold opinions contrary to theirs, will suffer. Gross.

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.

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.

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

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.

No.

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

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!

Opponents are quite literally dooming millions of people to unimaginable unrelievable suffering

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.

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?

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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!