Found this story on euthanasia a bit unsettling for some reason

[Monkeytrousers]

here

I am broadly in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide when it will ease an otherwise terrible death - and though this woman fitted that bill, I got the feeling reading it that she wanted her family to fight for her - to argue with her - to at least try to talk her out of it, hence her barely hidden rage (I thought).

Would be interesting to hear others opinions of it.

hm, tommy...but then you don't know if they had already talked through the ifs and buts.....I think if it was an option over here, I might would have a talk with dh what we want to do if and when, blablabla....just to know where the other stands with it....the same we did when we talked about organ donation , really...!

Tbh, I think a dying person has the right to be "selfish" in this way....however, I don't agree that it is a selfish thing to do. Because I would never expect a loved one or anyone to suffer pain, etc...just to keep me happy?
The grieving would have come eventually anyway, it was inevitable. Surely if someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness then their wishes take priority (within reason)....not sure I explained that well!

Interesting, everyone has slightly different views.

My reading of it was of a very strong woman, used to getting her way and determined to do things her own way, e.g. not involving anyone in writing the cards or planning her funeral. It also seemed that the family weren't very close or at least not very emotionally expressive with each other. Overall, having known a few Dutch people it also sounded a rather Dutch approach to it all - very pragmatic and straightforward without being particularly emotional.

yes, there are cultural differences , aren't there....I'm german myself...and I know it's quite a different culture between Briits and germans, so, yes there will be different aproaches with Neatherland people, too

can see your point 3andnomore but we can only judge on what was in the article can't we?

Also - it was not her place to write the cards saying "no flowers" etc - that is for the family to do afterwards and they may have wanted flowers and visits. So... it wa snot just about her IYSWIM

I kind of agree with Cestlavie. She was obviously a woman who took charge of everything and was probably quite controlling in RL. When faced with this nightmare she still sought to stay in control in the only way she could. I don't think she was being "selfish" per se.

I had the impression that the family were kindof used to the way she was and were more bemused by this whole situation - ie can this be for real? - you have to admit it is not something that happens to most families. "OK, so Mum has decided to die at 6.15 on Friday" etc etc. Tommy, I don't think "it was not her place" to decide about flowers etc - it was HER funeral after all. There's nothing ureasonable about deciding what you want to happen when you die.

This must be totally weird (for a want of a better word). Most people have not experienced such a thing plus it's kind of a taboo thing anyway. I can understand that the family do not how to deal with it. The strangest thing for me that was she chose to die after hosting a family lunch - even if in some pain she was still "living a life". I could understand it more if she was bed bound or in such pain that a "normal" life was now out of the question...

A very 'matter of fact' article.

People deal with death and dying very differently so I wouldn't criticised anyone for going away for the weekend prior to an 'arranged death'.

FWIW, I have a specialist degree in Palliative Care (Care of the Dying) and I continue to be against euthanasia;....this kind of story only reinforces my feelings about this.

thing is palliative care only works for those that receive excellent care, which is not always the case.And
Tbh, I would rather be freed from a life of pain, than have to suffer...but everyone is different.

Porto, I think she didn't want to that undignified stage, tbh...if she was a very independent woman, which can be assumed I think, than she would not have been able to cope with being dependent and helpless, letting others take over her personal care, etc....!

Tommy, surely if it is her own funeral than it can be her choice, if she wishes so? I would hope that my loved ones will obey any wishes I would have towards my own funeral.

CJMommy: that's interesting. What's your perspective on euthanasia?

i think having lost my mother to cancer when i was 11 and my mother in law in 1995 that although its a b**rd of a disease it does force you to realise your emotions in relation to death,to me this was 'too clean' it cut out the absolute misery cancer causes my mil was riddled with breast cancer and several secondaries and it was a full time job toileting and caring for her but without those times in the dead of night when dh changed her soiled nightdress again he would never have heard her tell him of the night he was born the pitch black of the night the rain pelting she held a miracle -the final few weeks we shared with her were mixture of laughter,anger and sadness but they were really a whole future many years melted down,things said that would never have been said.

yes i do support euthnsia to a degree but to be robbed of those final hours? i think this family must have had other issues before the dianosis.

3andnomore - its' interesting that you say she did not want to get to the undiginifed stage. As someone else pointed out she also hosted a family lunch the day before her death and was enthusiastically scrubbing the toilets out the morning of her death. So she doesn't seem to have been in any great pain. Certainly at that stage she was able to lead a full life.

As euth is usually put forward as a compassionate option where the person is suffering great pain and likely to continue to get worse, I cannot help but feel its use has been expanded beyond its original intenetion.

For example, when legislating for euth, it would have been put forward that many people were in great pain and would die unnecessarily slow and painful deaths and should be able to elect to die at an earlier and more dignified stage. The principle of that finds much sympathy. Thus the legislature, empathising with the nobility of the principle, enshrine in law the ability to end one's own life peacefully and with dignity should this stage be reached. But what is this stage?

The common expctation of euth is that it is administered in the last stages of an illness but before a person really begins to suffer. So, a diganosis of MS may for e/g/ be made and the person lives 15 yrs symptomless with treatment after which he declines rapidly. At some point before total paralysis , whilst he is bed bound and perhaps fed by a feeding tube, but before he suffers any consistent great pain he opts for euth. Thus the legislation has been fulfilled - a person at the last stages of a cruel illness who is incapacitated, in pain and likely to get worse has chosen to avail himself of a peaceful and painless end.

But , what about where he receives the diagnosis 15 yrs earlier and deicdes at that point that he no longer wants to live? Euth ( certainly in Switzerland - I don't know about Holland ) would sanction that too. how well does that fit with the noble principle.? At that point you have a 30 year old man choosing to end his life who is not in any pain at all and is capable of leading a full and productive life for the next say 20 years. Is this euth or murder with consent by the doctor administering the lethal injection?

In our exmaple of the article, this woman was not in great constant pain, nor paralysed nor bed ridden nor anyhting that would approach who the legislature originally envisioned the law would be for. She was able bodied and fit enought to scrub her house and enterain guests.Did she die becuase she wanted to or because she felt she ought to? Does it matter? As a civilised society I believe it does matter and that we should concern ourselves with these types of issues and not simply turn a blind eye to "murder with consent" if that is what it is and we feel it is.

What about if, in say 20 yrs time and euth is passed in UK and becomes more common place and accepted ethically worldwide, would it not be more accepted and therefore common for people to end their lives upon diganosis of a terminal illness rather than wait until it progresses etc. Many reasons abound - not wanting to be a burden, fear that there are no family around to take care of the person, insufficient health insurance etc. All of these surely wrong reasons to take one's own life and for another to aid and abet it.

If it became accepted or common place to opt for euth on diagnosis who is to say that years down the line it wouldn't be the expected thing to do ? Pressures on the NHS/treatments being withdrawn where they don't save- only prolong life/palliative care being massively scaled down due to its use no longer being inevitalbe in all cases but only in some cases where euth wasn't chosen. These could all be reasons in the future why and where euth could be presented /strongly indicated on a terminal diagnosis.

A bit orwellian its true but just look at history. Embryo research etc was not expected to produce living embryos who would be sustained beyond 6 week stage, ,cloning was to be confined to the laboratory and abortion starrted off in the 100s rather than tens of thousands.

And if that makes me sound like a nutty right winger - Im not. I belive in abortion and embryo research and most if not all scientific research in name of advancement . What greatly worries me is that "weapons " like euth which were originally gently introduced with the best of intentinos often get corrupted, extended and mutate into somehting much bigger, more unstoppable and ugly than was originally ever intended. And by then its too late.

Lisalisa.........a very comprehensive account that I totally concur with (you put it far more eloquently than I could).

I think you only have to look at the history books to see how the way things develop on from there original intention. It may seem very Orwellian, as you say but if you legalise euth for terminal illness, where will it have developed in 100 years..... euth for those with learning and physical disabilities, euth for those over 70...the list goes on. The biggest step to take would be to legalise euth; the cascade of accepted reasons for euth would ultimately follow and increase over time.

Yes, I agree that not everyone has excelent palliative care available to them but this is where I believe that time, effort and money should be spent. If good pall care was widely available, we wouldn't need to talk about whether euth should be available or not. it wouldn't be necessary.

but she was in bad pain and the medication stopped working? She had metastases in her brain , so, I can only imagine how much pain she suffered....but I would think the pain was pretty dire!
It wasn't that she was diagnosed and said...oh just kill me....
She also already needed help with physical care...unless I read the article wrong!
She hosted a family meal the week before, not the day before....it was about saying good bye, I think, which isn't an unreasonable thing to do?

Obviously if Euthanisia would ever become an option then it will have to be very thought through and strict legal regulations will have to be in place!

Lord Joffes proposed "assisted suicide for the terminally ill Bill"
you may have already read it anyway!

CJMommy - so yuo don't advocate euth? I don't either - as you can see from the above! In fact it makes me feel very frightened.

hm...I don't think even the best palliative care could completely cancel out a possible "use" for euthanisia though....

Lisalisa, that's a very eloquent and well put argument. My only comment would be that generally I'm reluctant to take the "thin edge of the wedge" argument as a reason for not doing something which you believe to be right in the first place.

Certainly history has shown in certain instances (like those you mention) that legislation or usage can expand well outside of its original intention but equally there are many other examples in which it hasn't. For example, when the Suicide Act 1961 was passed there were concerns that decriminalising suicide would lead to a huge rise in the number of people committing suicide as a result. Similarly in many other situations in which the situation justifies what would otherwise be murder (e.g. provocation, diminished responsibility, 'battered woman syndrome'), the courts, the legislature and in fact society are required to ensure that none of these become the "thin edge of the wedge" in facilitating murder.

Surely, if we believe that euthanasia is justified in certain specific situations, it's our responsibility to put in place structures and processes which allow this, whilst preventing it extending too far?

Until a proposal is put forward to absolutely and totally ensure that euth would be carried out without any external pressures and a decision by the patient is fully informed and not influenced by e.g. depression/fear due to poor pain control then I may consider it an option. However, I don't think that such an emotive decision can be made with objectivity.

I also don't think that a possible use for euth should even be considered until we do achieve the 'best palliative care'.

I am only talking from my professional point of view and hope I never have to deal with this at a personal level. However, I hope I would always fight for the level of palliation that I know can be achieved.

Lisalisa - it scares me too!

I think that's fair CJMommy

For what it is worth I agree with euthanasia, the process to get to the stage where you can have euthanasia carried out on you is lengthy and very indepth and if there is any doubt it will not be done.

My grandad died of cancer and wanted euthanasia and initially was rejected but he got what he wanted in the end and was hugely relieved by it. No more people around waiting for him to die plus them being so miserable because it was horrible to see him suffer and it only getting worse with the same end result: death

But unconsented euthanisia is a different matter altogether?

I completely agree with you!
But that wouldn't be the way it would ever be legalised over here anyway....

Obviously paliative care has to be in place, and excellent paliative care at that....only then would it be a real option, iykwim

Just as an aside, euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands as of 2002. To copy and paste slightly (apologies), the law "legalizes euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances and [is only legal when]:

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement;

• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs);

• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options;

there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above; and

• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present."

A full rationale as to why the Dutch government passed this legislation is available on the website of the appropriate ministry (whose name I completely forget!)