Anyone else done an Archbishop ?

[aeolium]

As I said up-thread, it would be useful to look at the experience of those places where assisted dying is allowed - doe their safeguards work?

Here is a report, prepared for the Commission on Assisted Dying, on the operation of safeguards in jurisdictions where some kind of assisted dying is legal:

http://www.commissiononassisteddying.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Penney-Lewis-briefing-paper.pdf

I think examples of the operation of safeguards in the UK are all around us and in all walks of life. Whether we drink water, eat food, take medication, drive, take the train, fly, go into hospital, go into school or any other kind of institution these activities are all hedged round with innumerable safeguards. The whole climate of "health and safety", and minimisation of risk has changed out of all recognition since I was born six decades ago. At that time, and for decades after, it was quite common for children, borstal inmates and vulnerable patients in care to be physically and sexually abused. Now, thanks to the changed climate and the implementation of safeguards, this is far less likely.

And abortion is indeed relevant to this discussion. After all, its opponents claimed - and still claim - it was legalised killing contrary to the will of the victim. There was strong opposition to its legalisation and yet the strength of the campaign in favour of it - and evidence that women were taking matters into their own hands in dangerous and unregulated ways - carried the day. I'm sure the arguments of that time made play of the dangers of abuse, premature termination etc, and yet that has not happened. It is a procedure heavily regulated by legal and medical restrictions and they seem to work.

Here is Terry Pratchett's 2010 Dimbleby lecture on assisted dying, and he repudiates the suggestion that it is only opponents who think carefully about safeguards and the protection of the vulnerable.

[amateur51]

Well of course that is a separate issue, and quite obviously not best discussed here!

Your message #37 applies, I should have thought.

[amateur51]

Here is a report, prepared for the Commission on Assisted Dying, on the operation of safeguards in jurisdictions where some kind of assisted dying is legal:

http://www.commissiononassisteddying.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Penney-Lewis-briefing-paper.pdf

I think examples of the operation of safeguards in the UK are all around us and in all walks of life. Whether we drink water, eat food, take medication, drive, take the train, fly, go into hospital, go into school or any other kind of institution these activities are all hedged round with innumerable safeguards. The whole climate of "health and safety", and minimisation of risk has changed out of all recognition since I was born six decades ago. At that time, and for decades after, it was quite common for children, borstal inmates and vulnerable patients in care to be physically and sexually abused. Now, thanks to the changed climate and the implementation of safeguards, this is far less likely.

And abortion is indeed relevant to this discussion. After all, its opponents claimed - and still claim - it was legalised killing contrary to the will of the victim. There was strong opposition to its legalisation and yet the strength of the campaign in favour of it - and evidence that women were taking matters into their own hands in dangerous and unregulated ways - carried the day. I'm sure the arguments of that time made play of the dangers of abuse, premature termination etc, and yet that has not happened. It is a procedure heavily regulated by legal and medical restrictions and they seem to work.

Here is Terry Pratchett's 2010 Dimbleby lecture on assisted dying, and he repudiates the suggestion that it is only opponents who think carefully about safeguards and the protection of the vulnerable.

Thought-provoking links aeolium - many thanks.

[vinteuil]

I suppose the argument is that those those who felt the obligation to remove themselves from being a burden would conceal the fact so cleverly that you'd never find out.

... if I felt I were "becoming a burden" it would certainly be a factor in my decision to end my life - and I don't see why it should not be. Any such decision would be based on many factors - pain, distress, hopelessness, indignity - and I would certainly wish to consider whether my continued reduced existence was putting an absurd burden - psychologically, physically, emotionally, financially - on those who care for me.

[P. G. Tipps]

A person of sound mind (or not) already has the right to take their own life without it being considered a crime, as it used to be.

If they tried and failed, they could be prosecuted. The right of others to interfere with their 'freedom of choice' has quietly gone, and you didn't even notice.

Before the Suicide Act 1961, it was a crime to commit suicide, and anyone who attempted and failed could be prosecuted and imprisoned, while the families of those who succeeded could also potentially be prosecuted. In part, that criminalization reflected religious and moral objections to suicide as self-murder.

Isn't that another example of your slippery slope?

What did your supremely prescient father have to say about it back in 1961?

.

Pure irrelevance. You completely fail to grasp the point.

The issue under discussion is ASSISTED suicide not if someone takes their own life.

Didn't you notice that's what the good Lord Falconer's bill is all about?

[P. G. Tipps]

And abortion is indeed relevant to this discussion. After all, its opponents claimed - and still claim - it was legalised killing contrary to the will of the victim..

Of course it is (relevant), even though you and I are on different sides of the argument.

The fact that some here apparently can't see the relevance doesn't make it any less relevant!

It really is all about crossing lines, slippery slopes and thin ends of wedges, however sincere the motives of those who advocate assisted suicide to end the suffering for the terminally ill.

In other words who's going to be next and, please believe me, there will be a 'next' ...

[french frank]

The issue under discussion is ASSISTED suicide not if someone takes their own life.

Didn't you notice that's what the good Lord Falconer's bill is all about?

It is not, I think, about 'assisted suicide'.

[MrGongGong]

In what circumstances do you think the safeguards wouldn't work?

Look at the way in which our "safeguards" in the UK protect the most vulnerable
DO they work ?
ALL the time ?
For this to be acceptable they would have to be completely watertight

They don't work IMV, children are abused, disabled people are treated badly

Comparisons with Switzerland etc are not really valid IMV the UK is not Switzerland (where you can get "assisted suicide" if you are "tired of life" i.e Depressed)

There is also the question of how "choice" works. Most people (apart from my mother) seem to have had times in their lives when they have chosen things that they later regretted. What IS a clear choice anyway ? Having done the intensive care gig complete with the tubes and morphine pump I could say that it was nothing at all like what I might have imagined. People often look at disabled people and think that "I couldn't live like that" assuming that they are able to imagine what it is like to not be able to feed yourself, not be able to move, not be able to walk etc etc What I have learnt is that what one imagines is very rarely what something turns out to be like so given this how does one make an INFORMED choice ? and how are people protected from choices they make that later they regret ?

It might be fine for rich articulate folks like Terry Pratchett BUT I certainly don't trust our society with those less equipped.

[jean]

The issue under discussion is ASSISTED suicide not if someone takes their own life.

What I am talking about is the slippery slope argument, which you introduced into the discussion of the issue of assisted suicide with examples you considered 'relevant', but I do not.

What I am pointing out here is that it would be equally possible to construct a similar slippery slope argument about unassisted suicide.

Back in 1961 when (unassisted) suicide was decriminalised, someone (your father, perhaps?) might well have seen that as opening the floodgates to a rush of people who'd been deterred form committing suicide up to then for fear of what might happen if they didn't do it properly.

No, I don't think it's a good argument, either. It's no better than the abortion/shop opening hours ones. There are far too many other factors involved.

[Serial_Apologist]

Look at the way in which our "safeguards" in the UK protect the most vulnerable
DO they work ?
ALL the time ?
For this to be acceptable they would have to be completely watertight

They don't work IMV, children are abused, disabled people are treated badly

Comparisons with Switzerland etc are not really valid IMV the UK is not Switzerland (where you can get "assisted suicide" if you are "tired of life" i.e Depressed)

There is also the question of how "choice" works. Most people (apart from my mother) seem to have had times in their lives when they have chosen things that they later regretted. What IS a clear choice anyway ? Having done the intensive care gig complete with the tubes and morphine pump I could say that it was nothing at all like what I might have imagined. People often look at disabled people and think that "I couldn't live like that" assuming that they are able to imagine what it is like to not be able to feed yourself, not be able to move, not be able to walk etc etc What I have learnt is that what one imagines is very rarely what something turns out to be like so given this how does one make an INFORMED choice ? and how are people protected from choices they make that later they regret ?

It might be fine for rich articulate folks like Terry Pratchett BUT I certainly don't trust our society with those less equipped.

As a presumably usually well-abled person, what was it about your treatment (as experienced) that singled it out from the abuse you see as endangering children, disabled and dying people, should legislation for assisted dying be passed? I ask because it appears it must have been something about the way in which you were treated that put you at ease, or an underlying assumption on your part that you would not be bumped off if someone thought you were suffering too much to want to hold onto life?

[P. G. Tipps]

It is not, I think, about 'assisted suicide'.

How would you prefer to describe it, then ... ?

Interesting (and alarming to some) to see what's happening north of the border. The Scots appear to have few qualms about using the term.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/69604.aspx

[MrGongGong]

As a presumably usually well-abled person, what was it about your treatment (as experienced) that singled it out from the abuse you see as endangering children, disabled and dying people, should legislation for assisted dying be passed? I ask because it appears it must have been something about the way in which you were treated that put you at ease, or an underlying assumption on your part that you would not be bumped off if someone thought you were suffering too much to want to hold onto life?

In my case I was fairly certain that it wasn't going to be the end or forever (I have met several people who have been deemed to be in so called "vegetative" states who go on to do extraordinary things) but do have a half memory of hearing the family of the man in the bed next to me who was in a far worse condition than myself with assisted breathing etc asking the doctors whether they should "turn the machines off" and the medical staff telling them that they were maybe being a bit premature as he was very ill.

My description of that was more to try and illustrate that one can't predict at all what one would want.
Pain is a horrible thing and messes with your mind.

The normalisation of "assisted dying" is a great threat to those who have similar conditions and want NOT to do that.
I simply (as I said at the start) don't trust "US"

The argument that somehow that this is for people who have a short time to live doesn't stack up with those who go to Switzerland to die many of whom are (if the Terry Pratchett documentary about it is to be believed) at the very start of a "terminal" illness.

I'm concerned for those with profound and multiple disabilities, they are either seen as "heroes" who can be professors of theoretical physics OR sad and lonely people who should be helped to end their "miserable" lives.

[Flosshilde]

Look at the way in which our "safeguards" in the UK protect the most vulnerable
DO they work ?
ALL the time ?
For this to be acceptable they would have to be completely watertight

They don't work IMV, children are abused, disabled people are treated badly

Different types of 'safeguard' for different cases. The safeguard against child abuse is legislation; when it is discovbered it is dealt with; agreed that sometimes it is not discovered or dealt with quickly enough, & in that sense it could be better, but apart from installing cctv in every room in every house it's difficult to know how discovery could be improved.

People often look at disabled people and think that "I couldn't live like that" assuming that they are able to imagine what it is like to not be able to feed yourself, not be able to move, not be able to walk etc etc What I have learnt is that what one imagines is very rarely what something turns out to be like so given this how does one make an INFORMED choice ?

But it isn't the people 'imagining' (however poorly) what it's like to live who make the informed choice, but the people who are experiencing life. And using 'disabled' in a discussion like this is misleading - it covers a whole spectrum from a slight limp to total paralysis and more.

What it boils down to is this - one person wishes to end their life & is physically able to do so; another wishes to end their life & is physically incapable of doing so. Why should the first be able to end their life & the second not?

[MrGongGong]

What it boils down to is this - one person wishes to end their life & is physically able to do so; another wishes to end their life & is physically incapable of doing so. Why should the first be able to end their life & the second not?

Personally I have no problem with people committing suicide (though I would rather that they didn't)
BUT I don't think we can protect people from being "persuaded" or even "coerced"
It's a loose loose situation i'm afraid :-(

[french frank]

How would you prefer to describe it, then ... ?

It's not my preference. It's the definitions of 'assisted suicide' as against 'assisted dying'. You won't like either, and regard the second as on your 'slippery slope' to the first. But you weaken your argument by prematurely giving it a hefty shove down the slope to make your point.

The Bill of 'the good Lord Falconer' is about 'assisted dying': it is not about assisting people who happen to want, for various reasons and at a particular moment, to commit suicide. It is about being merciful to those who are dying in great pain.