Anyone watching "Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die"

[MindyMacready]

Uncomfortable viewing.

Psst, MNHQ you've spelt Pratchett wrong in Discussions of the Day

I only saw the debate, not the propaganda film. I believe Debbie Purdy to be what is known as a 'useful idiot'; she has now put all of us with MS etc in the position of fighting an unnecessary battle. I do not believe we will be put down like dogs, the problem is that now we're only ever talking about assisted suicide, never about expensive adapted houses/cars/equipment, benefits, new treatment, nothing except suicide. The women's movement originally campaigned for 24 hour childcare, flexible working, housing and abortion on demand. But the cheap hing, the thing that doesn't inconvenience anybody else, is abortion. Guess what we got? Everything Riven said on this is true too, disability is considered a sufficient reason for suicide. In fact an art activist group did a performance/experiment of having a healthy woman in a wheelchair with a big sign "Help me fly to die". She collected loads of money and not one person questioned her. This is now considered quite reasonable. Every time these programmes are on I spend the next n days explaining to friends and family that I am quite happy to be a drain and a burden.

But what if someone with a mental illness doesn't want their illness managed and can't cope with that? This is my thing about those in opposition to assisted dying - who are we to decide that someone else's condition can be managed, be it a mental illness or not, if someone has decided they have had enough then why should we sit in judgement and tell them that they can't decide their future?

On balance I agree with assisted dying, but until I'm in the position of considering it myself or knowing someone who would be then I would hate to have to decide for other people and I really sympathise with those who have to.

aliceliddell I think anyone who thinks disability is a valid reason for suicide is being naive and not acknowledging the complexity of life.

For me it is about quality of life, and for some people they feel they can still have a good quality of life with a disability, while others don't. I don't understand why those who feels they have (or would have ) no quality of life should be forced to endure when they could be at peace.

But then, my experience is tempered by mental illness. Whilst I dislike suicide and fear it in my friends and family, I understand that sometimes it is actually the best thing for the person involved.

I forced myself to watch this having read the article in this week's Sunday Times.

I thought it was a well-balanced programme.

What a shame these two fantastic men had to travel to Switzerland to do this, probably denying themselves a few extra months of decent quality life, had there been a clinic in the UK.

I think it is equally as disgusting to keep someone alive against their will as it is to kill someone against their will. It is no-one's business but the individual's to decide if they want to end their life. I am a big believer in living wills to avoid mis-use of euthanasia.

Empusa Then there are a lot of naive people.

I am a person with physical disabilities, as is my husband. I have had people who are meant to care for me out and out say that they think it would be better for me (at least one had the gaul to admit better for them) if I chose the suicide route.

I'm not even that physically bad off I'm still mostly independently mobile and able to fend for myself, and neither of our conditions we currently have would leave us completely dependent but there is currently this mindset even in the care world that if you are mentally capable but physically not, you must be planning suicide some time as having a disability is horrid. It seems few consider what could be done so we can fully live life even with our conditions and remove the common concern about becoming a burden. The most commonly stated reason people say they'd die in our condition - they don't want to be burdens. Not the pain, not even the indignity, not the difficulty of losing the ability to do things we loved, it's becoming a burden.

And that message of being a burden is sent to everyone with a terminal or incurable condition - that we are valueless burdens if we require help. Riven's article, and quote, spells it all out very nicely and eloquently. I think far fewer people would fly out to die if we could manage to treat every person with value.

That's awful and sickening that people have said that to you. But just because assisted suicide isn't right for you, why shouldn't it be available to people for whom it is right?

The programme was thought-provoking and my heart went out to the brave families who were followed. It was not however well balanced. Terry Pratchett has previously spoken in favour of assisted suicide many times. He told the BBC this morning that making the film had not altered his view.

500,000 people die in the UK each year. Fewer than 50 go to Dignitas.

The talk of others making the decision for a person who no longer has capacity are the start of the 'slippery slope'. Unfortunately there are people who will think in terms of costs. Think of the increasing ageism in the NHS eg. over a certain age you are less likely to get your hip replacement. That's before we dare to broach the area of nursing home costs, family members and wills.

I didn't see the film, but would choose euthanasia over a long drawn out painful or undignified death.
I carry a credit card sized advanced directive and have one with our solicitor and GP. The latter is probably pointless, we are in Belgium and I don't know what the Belgian law is regarding AD. We did live in Switzerland and I know that to use the services of Dignitas you have to be pretty well off.
In my ideal world, AS would be available to anyone who has registered a good while before wanting to do it. I can't decide whether it should be 1 year or 10, but certainly not less than a year.
I am sorry to say, DH does not agree with me at all. He is an active christian and thinks that only God can make the decision of when you die. Tis the only thing, apart from abortion, that we can't see eye to eye on.

SueSylvestersCheerios, I am sorry to hear about your dad. How very brave of you to be able to follow through with his wishes.

I remember having this conversation with my parents. I told them that, god forbid, they were ever in that kind of situation, I would offer them every assistance to fulfil their wishes and damn the consequences.

I do think that we should have a film, or at least some articles on the other side of the argument - it wasn't particularly balanced, with only a short nod to hospice care in the middle. It didn't set itself out to be anything other than a programme on assisted dying so I don't think we were misled, but it would be useful and informative to have as much emphasis on the alternatives.

I think the cost of using Dignitas is £10k, which is way out of reach for most people. It would be helpful to know how many people, and the level of illness of those who do die in countries where it is legal - Holland I think was one.

"The talk of others making the decision for a person who no longer has capacity are the start of the 'slippery slope'."

I agree. The choice should be solely that of the one who is to die.

Ive been told to my face that dd and i would be better off dead. Just because we are disabled. I do t want people like that deciding on laws.
The process of dying should be made more comfortable and dignified so no one has to fear going into hospital. There shoild be hospices and decent pallaitive care. But suicide is cheaper

It seems so simple but is actually so complicated.

My main reservation is the problem of giving mentally competent people the right to suicide but not mentally incompetent people. On one hand you have to do this as a safeguard but on the other it feels discriminatory to deny one group the right to suicide on the grounds of mental impairment.

I also agree with the view that if assisted suicide became a more mainstream option there might well be more pressure on people to commit suicide who would have been happier to live under the current system.

Having said all that, I would want it as an option myself - confused much?

Riven, that's horrific. I cannot believe that anyone with an ounce of humanity in their body could say to another human being that they would be better off dead.

My mother died in March of secondary bone cancer (original source in her pancreas). She was diagnosed on 16th February and died 4 weeks and 2 days later. She knew she was dying, but didn't know how long she had left - much less time than she or any of us anticipated. She was one of the lucky ones though - she expressed her wish to die at home, and her GPs surgery, district nurses, local hospice and Macmillan/Marie Curie support network launched into action and did EVERYTHING to ensure that she got her wish. She was on a morphine driver for the final 48 hours and died in her bed, at home, with my father and brother there with her (I was unable to get there in time, but arrived the following morning with the baby and stayed for nearly two weeks to support my father and help him plan the funeral). We will be forever grateful to the people who provided her palliative care at the end.

As for last night's programme: I caught the final 20 minutes where Peter ended his life, and watched the debate afterwards. I also saw TP on the news this morning talking about it all.

I felt that Peter was very certain of what he was doing, and I was full of admiration for his wife holding it together for him so that he was able to take that final step without worrying that he was distressing her. I sobbed throughout, mainly because it brought back memories of my mother's death (the stertorous breathing in particular). But I found it very calm and peaceful and, in a way, reassuring. I didn't see any evidence of coercion. He died in a place and at a time of his choosing, without having to suffer unduly, and with his wife holding his hand. I would choose to go that way.

I also felt that the debate afterwards was somewhat confused. Half an hour is never going to be long enough to air everyone's opinions fully. I felt that the doctor made a good point when she said that she thought Peter was there too early in her opinion, but that she couldn't in all conscience send him home because he was so scared that he might not be able to make it back again. I suppose that is the big difficulty for those with degenerative illnesses - you know that there will come a point when you will be unable to physically make that decision and take that medication, but you have no idea when that point will come so you maybe have to make the decision to end your life earlier than you might have otherwise chosen to, especially as, at present, the only option is travel abroad.

It was hard to watch, but I'm glad I did. We don't talk about death in our society, people are too scared to talk about it and see it, and I feel that - having seen several people die in my lifetime - it is the actual mechanics of the body shutting down that are the most shocking to me.

What an illuminating post, oneofsuesylvesterscheerios, and thanks for telling us your dad's story.

I found the film almost unbearable, but I think everyone should watch this sort of testimony. Yes, the 'other' side wasn't shown, but there are so many other sides to this whole debate. I feel very strongly that this sort of option should remain open to people facing death by slow, horrible degrees, though I found myself wondering if the same availability of 'exit' should be available to people who are 'life weary', as Dignitas puts it. But as other posters on this thread have said - why not? If assisted suicide is available to one person in clear mind, then why not to another?

I keep on seeing that lovely geeky young man, Andrew (?) in my mind's eye. He had a beautiful face and was so articulate. And because he didn't look 'ill', I just wanted to snatch him back. And that was one of the lessons/points of the doc - we can't make those decisions for another person. Only they know what constitutes unbearable suffering and only they can draw the line over which they won't continue.

I didn't watch this. I have seen similar programmes though.
It seems so unneccesarily painful and drawn out though just because there has to be direct involvement of the subject themselves.

I had a pet PTS at the weekend. She was put to sleep with an anaesthetic gas and then injected to end her life. No pain and no fear (well I hope not ). But we can't do that to people because the law requires they have an active part in it I guess. Seems arse about face to me - if you want to die, you know you want to die, you are prepared to make it legally clear and binding that you want to die, it should be done as painlessly and quickly as possible by whoever can do it best.

Kreecher - AD is legal in Belgium in cases of terminal and degenerative illness. There is a Euthanesia tab on our commune's website.....

frostyfingers - I looked up Dignitas online last night, and actually it's not that costly - Dignitas charge 4000 euros for assisted dying, or 7000 if you want them to take care of the funeral over there, the paperwork and everything else. Of course you'd have to get over there too. But yes, I take your point - it is a lot of money for someone to find, particularly if they've already had to pay for nursing care or a home for a while.

I'll admit to being rather taken aback that Peter's passing wasn't that peaceful. It scared me, though god knows, as an alternative to slowly grinding to a halt with no control over your body (or mind), it has to be a lot better. I understand (from reading last night online) that some people slip away with the Nembutal they use very easily and quickly, and with others it's more of a struggle. There are unsubstantiated claims by a former employee of Dignitas that one man took hours to die - she claims he was on a sort of driver to adminster the drugs (they have this option if you're unable to hold a glass - you press a button instead) and died in a lot of distress and pain. Who knows if that's true? It's worrying that the end can be unpredictable from person to person. But I suspect that if the alternative is facing a horrible end from illness, you'd take that chance. Not nice for the family to watch, though.

well said aliceliddell seems that assisted suicide is something almost everyone agrees with at the moment.
i wouldn't trust a society that can't look after ill and diabled people as it is to start making decisions as to who should die and ensure that noone ill was ever coerced into that decision.
let's care for people properly and break down the barriers society puts in disabled people's way. then we can talk about this. so that will be never....

The belgian law:

The request of the patient is at the centre of the debate. Without this request, there is no question of euthanasia, defined as the act, performed by a third person, in order to end the life of a person at the request of this person.

Ï The Criminal Code remains unchanged but this specific law introduces the decriminalization of euthanasia if the physician follows the preconditions foreseen by the law.

Ï To avoid prosecution, the physician ? and the physician alone ? must respond only to the voluntary, written, well-thought-out and reiterated request by an adult patient who is in a serious and incurable medical condition, and experiencing unbearable physical or mental suffering. The physician must also inform the patient of his state of health and life expectancy, and of the possible therapeutic measures and available palliative care.

Ï The physician must hold a consultation with a second physician.

Ï If death is not imminent, the physician must request a consultation with a third physician, either a psychiatrist or a specialist of the patient?s pathology.

In that case, a delay of at least one month between the request and the euthanasia has to be respected.

Ï As is the case in The Netherlands, there is a system of control. The physician has to declare the act of euthanasia to a Federal Commission composed of 8 physicians, 4 jurists and 4 persons from environments entrusted with the problems of patients suffering from an incurable disease. This Commission has a second mission: to establish every other year a statistical and evaluative report, and to suggest recommendations.

Ï The form of living will called ?anticipated declaration? is officially recognized but strictly limited to those who will lapse into a state of irreversible unconsciousness.

Freedom and self-autonomy form the cornerstones of this law. No physician is bound to perform euthanasia. But the physician who, calling upon his right of freedom of conscience, refuses to perform euthanasia, must transfer the patient?s medical record to a colleague of the patient?s choosing.

A question that is raised very frequently is whether citizens of foreign countries can come to Belgium for euthanasia. The preconditions and procedure of the law clearly establish the principle of a strong doctor-patient relationship. Outside of this long-standing personal contact, it is not possible to consider conducting legal euthanasia.

I didn't watch the programme but have seen and read several interviews with Terry Pratchett about this issue. I have also followed the Debbie Purdy case closely.

It makes me quiet angry that successive Govts and the Courts keep dodging the debate and deliberately avoiding making a proper decision about it. We need proper safeguards in place to protect very very vulnerable people and it is incumbent on our rulers and the legal system to take that responsibility that we the people have given them.

In my own view, a human being has a right to decide on their own death as long as it is properly informed and they are of sound mind and were under no duress. People will keep using Dignitas and the UK Govt and Courts will keep turning a blind eye. That is not a proper solution - it is a fudge.

A human life is worth infinitley more than an animal's life (so please don't shout at me) but to me having taken the decison to euthenase animals who are suffering on quite a few occassions I really see no difference in that ultimate act of compassion and humanity than a person wishing to end their own suffering.

Allowing or even forcing a person to suffer a slow, agonising, degrading death against their wishes because you don't want to make a decision is utter despicable cowardice in my view.

Thanks for that Porto. It won't be any use to me soon. I doubt Warrington has the same level of information in its website.
I did see a report about organs being harvested from people who have taken this step. I'll see if I can find it and post a link.

portofino - yes that is the law as it stands and I can see why it has to be so clearly stated. It is cruel though.