23 year old has assisted suicide in Switzerland

[Evenstar]

Here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7676812.stm

This is terribly sad, I wonder how much help and support this family were given in the wake of their son's accident.

The clinic are not there to judge whether a person is making the right choice. That is not their place. They are facilitators, not judges. You think they should say yes or no to whether a person is allowed to kill themselves? I find that utterly abhorrent. If you allow them that power, you are effectively turning it from assisted suicide to euthanasia because someone else is actually making the final choice.

The clinic's place is to help the person carry out their wish, not to make that choice for them.

"One year after a life-changing difficulty you would say 'give it time'." Don't you think this was said to Daniel?? Do you really think his parents and all around him just said "righty ho! Off to Switzerland with you." If you said "give it time" to a person who was physically able to kill themselves and they disagreed with you, they'd just kill themselves. He physically couldn't and you think he should have less choice because of that. That is wrong.

Dont' lose sight of the fact that the only person making a quality of life judgements about this man's life was that man himself.

I have to say, I disagree strongly that the clinic should simply be able to help polish off anyone who turns up. I think there would have to be criteria. Otherwise you could have a teenager whose boyfriend dumped them on Tuesday turning up on Wednesday ready to make a grand gesture. Or someone who was mentally ill, or all sorts of things. I think if a person is not terminally ill, then the criteria do have to be even stricter. I'm sure Dignitas was not set up to be a suicide factory.
I do have a lot of sympathy with the view that this was too soon, but I think the fact that this determined seeming man was seriously planning to starve himself to death makes me think there would have been no long-term change in his feelings, as he was simply refusing to be around long-term.

Well said, jimjams.

Dragon - surely the clinic must make judgements: if someone came asking to them because they were depressed, presumably they would make the judgement that this was inappropriate and refuse to assist their suicide.

No, because if they are given the power to make a judgement they are then making the decision about whether a person dies.

That is euthanasia.

"Otherwise you could have a teenager whose boyfriend dumped them on Tuesday turning up on Wednesday ready to make a grand gesture"

No, because they would, for example, simply jump in front of a train.

A Dragon - I don't understand. Are you saying that the clinic has a duty to assist the suicide of anyone who requests their help, regardless of their circumstances?

I'm still with Dragon here.

Having been suicidal myself, I'd have found 'give it time' extremely patronising. Right up there with telling someone who's lost a loved one 'you'll find someone new'.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

That's not the point.

The point is the here and now and how they see their lives.

I don't agree with time limits on these sorts of things.

Oh, let's make him wait and suffer a few more years, he'll come round.

That's not anyone's right to make that choice for him, only his.

Of course Dignitas cannot and does not just instantly polish off anyone who wanders through the door! That would be illegal, for a start, even in Switzerland. And I think, totally immoral. You need to be assessed by doctors and psychologists. The whole question of suicide tourism is controversial in Switzerland, and I found it interesting that of those who got the green light to kill themselves in a preliminary visit, 70per cent never went back. It seems just the idea that you can opt out of it all gets too much is enough to make life tolerable for many people.

Dragon, they might jump in front of the train, or they might not. They might like the idea of the drama, the painless drink, the filmed goodbye. They might, as some people do with abortion, get swept along with the process even while feeling doubts.

Dragon is perfectly right to say that the clinic is not there to judge whether a person is making the right choice. The onjly judgement they need to make is whether the choice is an authentic and adequately unambivalent one. Provided they are sure that the person has thought carefully and reached a reflected and determined conclusion, they need enquire no further. They should make no judgements whatsoever about quality of life.

Actually, the clinic IS there to make sure the person is making the 'right' choice. It is legally obliged to.

Dignitas isn't free. I also imagine (but don't know) that they have some form of counselling service to ensure the person is making the decision of their own free will and maybe to try to persuade them to take another path. I doubt you just turn up, sit down and have a drink.

"to make sure the person is making the 'right' choice" They are not there to make that choice for them though.

How does the law define the 'right' choice -- quality of life, or thoroughness of thought etc leading to the choice?

I asked this further down: Should they also make terminal patients wait X years in case they change their minds about ending their life early or decide whether they are "worthy" of the service Dignitas provides? I mean some wonder drug/treatment might come along and save them. Of course they shouldn't and no one seems to think they should.

However, there are plenty of cases where the patient has far outlived the original prognosis and lived life to the full in that time. Had they chosen assisted suicide at the diagnosis, they and their families would have missed out on that precious time. Is that so very different to the choices in this case?

Well, yes, they ARE there to make that choice for them, if you mean they must legally refuse euthanasia/assisted suicide to people who don't meet the legal criteria.

What are those legal criteria?

If someone doesn't fit the legal criteria then it is the government who is making that decision, not the clinic.

Christopher Reeve (post accident) is in a TV drama on at the moment, propelling his own wheelchair and looking very handsome. Only saw a moment as dd is watching kids tv before we go to the park.

really? He never managed to propel his own wheelchair or even come off the breathing machine. Before he died he had re-gained some tiny movment in his left hand and some feelings in other parts of his body.

course, he never gave up hope and raised the profile of spinal research and managed to look handsome in blue tights n red knickers

Jimjams has really made me think, because if I examine my own feelings honestly I do judge severely disabled by what they are not able to do rather than in any more positive way, and that is no doubt in part due to the fact that so far I have had little contact with people in this situation.

I also think there is a genuine point that people do need time to come to terms with any loss. Clearly if he was able to do so he would have taken his own life but that is not an argument for refusing to consider a time limit before you can access suicide which is state sanctioned. A parallel argument might be;anyone can have children naturally without assesment for their suitability as parents, it doesnt mean its not a good idea to assess people who are adopting children.

It is not practical to assess and detain every depressed person for a couple of years to stop then killing themselves (although my hazy undersatnding of sectioning people for their own safety means we do try in some cases) despite the fact some might well reconsider given time.

Any time we start getting the state involved in personal matters like these, broad judgements have to be made by others, even if it can sometimes seem unpalatable and an unfringement of that individual's autonomy. I think that it hugely important that we have access to dignified death for all sorts of circumstances but I also believe that the system needs to be robustly and sensitively designed.

So I lean towards the state taking advice on the usual progression of grief and acceptance in non terminal cirucmstances and putting a time limit on access. What time limit? I dont know, I dont have the experience of expertise to make a judgement, but I think somebody should.

However a huge huge exception in my opinion would be pain. I cant get away from the business of pain. A daily life in pain without relief or prospect of relief would seem to be intolerable whether or not you have other issues to deal with. Of course I am not saying anyone in pain should be encouraged to die, I am saying that making someone endure pain does not want to, is a form of torture. So you need a system that has broad guidelines and the ability to adapt to circumstance, and we should not have to add 'travel to switzerland' at the end.

Does anyone know what the rules are for swiss nationals or how the system works in holland?

Most people that live with a long term illness have to cope with daily pain. This is one of my problems with the whole scenario

He appeared to be using his very small hand movement to control it. But that might be an illusion of course.