Anyone else done an Archbishop ?

[amateur51]

Except that it used to be considered 'normal' to administer a quantity of drugs necessary for the relief of pain, even when it was known that such a dose would hasten death.

Ask any doctor past middle age.

From my own experience of talking to doctors, I agree jean.

[teamsaint]

Killing someone is an interesting way of "relieving" pain.
You mean like that nice Dr Shipman ? what some people appear to want is what he was doing, loved by his patients.

And sadly, Shipman wasn't a one off.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247000/Dr-Jane-Barton-escapes-struck-prescribing-potentially-hazardous-levels-drugs.html

On an associated note, The lethal injections that america uses to kill criminals don't seem to be that good either.

I'll spare you the link and details of the latest horrors.

[french frank]

Killing someone is an interesting way of "relieving" pain.

But the criterion is that they have not much longer to live - and they don't get a 'lethal injection' - they are given the means to administer the drugs themselves at a time of their choosing - or not to do so if they change their mind. They must be of sound mind and they aren't forced to take it.

The alternative is to allow them to live with often unbearable pain - I'm sure they would thank you for allowing them that opportunity. And it won't be for long as they're going to die soon, so that's all right.

Shipman was not 'relieving pain' - he was murdering people for profit.

[Flosshilde]

You mean like that nice Dr Shipman ? what some people appear to want is what he was doing, loved by his patients.

You seem to have missed the fact that his patients (or their relatives) hadn't asked him to do it; that's the difference between murder and 'assisted dying', where the patient has asked for help in ending their life, or for their life to be ended.

[Flosshilde]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle once out!

'Slippery slope', 'opening the door', 'genies'? Argument by cliche doesn't really say anything. Laws passed by Parliament can be repealed by Parliament, & the slope de-greased, the door closed & the bottle stoppered (& the horse put back in the stable - not had that one yet but it's sure to crop up). It wouldn't be impossible to have a monitoring group & regular reports, with a review of the effect of the legislation in, say, ten years time. If there was a surge in deaths in that time then it could be amended or repealed.

[MrGongGong]

But the criterion is that they have not much longer to live - and they don't get a 'lethal injection' - they are given the means to administer the drugs themselves at a time of their choosing - or not to do so if they change their mind. They must be of sound mind and they aren't forced to take it.
.

"Sound mind" that's an interesting one
There are many people in the world who have been given "weeks to live" , given that these things aren't as exact as people make out (I've met several people who have been classified as "vegetative" who have gone on to recover) then I think that on balance that because "mistakes" will happen then we can't have "safeguards" that work.

I'm no expert in Palliative care but it seems to be a very defeatist attitude to say that there are people for whom medicine can't relieve their pain. People who DO know about this often say otherwise

You seem to have missed the fact that his patients (or their relatives) hadn't asked him to do it; that's the difference between murder and 'assisted dying', where the patient has asked for help in ending their life, or for their life to be ended.

I don't think the boundary is as clear as folks make out.
It's not hard to imagine that at least one of the folks he killed had asked him to do something "merciful".
At what point are people deemed to be making a clear and informed decision ?

[Flosshilde]

It's not hard to imagine that at least one of the folks he killed had asked him to do something "merciful".

But it's impossible to know - you are simply 'imagining' it because it helps your argument, after saying, upthread, that it's impossible for someone to imagine what life is really like for someone severely disabled (which I would agree with).

At what point are people deemed to be making a clear and informed decision ?

There are already guidelines in place for granting Powers of Attorney for health & welfare, and within the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (I don't know if there is an equivelant for England and Wales).

[MrGongGong]

So I wonder what the advocates of this feel about the inevitable "mistakes" that will happen ?
A bit like those who want the death penalty back and are quite happy for a handful of innocent people to be killed (but probably NOT if it was one of their own children).

Some things are simply too risky IMV particularly in the UK with the culture we have at the moment.

[teamsaint]

So I wonder what the advocates of this feel about the inevitable "mistakes" that will happen ?
A bit like those who want the death penalty back and are quite happy for a handful of innocent people to be killed (but probably NOT if it was one of their own children).

Some things are simply too risky IMV particularly in the UK with the culture we have at the moment.

And there isn't really an issue with imagining how things might be.
Isn't that what drives creative processes, for instance. No doubt there is imagination involved in good law making.

I spent some time on jury service years ago, which is quite revealing about some peoples attitudes as to the rights of others.

[vinteuil]

... if and when the time comes I hope I shall be able to ask for a termination to my existence, and if I am incapable I hope that the wishes I have passed to my nearest and dearest will enable someone to do for me what I may be unable to do for myself.

I would resent it if the opinions of such as Petrushka, Mr GongGong, teamsaint, Mr PG Tipps meant that I had to suffer in agony or distress needlessly.

[MrGongGong]

... if and when the time comes I hope I shall be able to ask for a termination to my existence, and if I am incapable I hope that the wishes I have passed to my nearest and dearest will enable someone to do for me what I may be unable to do for myself.

I would resent it if the opinions of such as Petrushka, Mr GongGong, teamsaint, Mr PG Tipps meant that I had to suffer in agony or distress needlessly.

Blimey you trust your family
So if you are in the supposed "vegetative" state that could mean you are aware but unable to communicate (and from which people do sometimes recover) I wonder how you would feel about this ?

And have you always been so sure of your decisions ?
When I was young I met several young women who would have killed for Les Mckeown

[vinteuil]

Blimey you trust your family

I do; on this subject my nearest and dearest think as I do.

So if you are in the supposed "vegetative" state that could mean you are aware but unable to communicate (and from which people do sometimes recover) I wonder how you would feel about this ?

I would wish my life to be terminated forthwith.

And have you always been so sure of your decisions ?

I have.

[MrGongGong]

I would wish my life to be terminated forthwith.

You think at the moment, my point is really that people have no way at all of knowing.
Have you ever met someone who had been in that state and recovered ?
(I have) Which is one reason why I wouldn't be so sure

I have.

That's a little scary IMV

(You are Tony Blair and I claim my £100) ;-)

[Flosshilde]

You think at the moment, my point is really that people have no way at all of knowing.

Yet you are quite happy to 'imagine' that one of Shipman's victims asked him to be merciful - because it serves your argument. As you rightly say, imagining someone's state of mind in certain circumstances is well-nigh impossible; we can only base actions on knowledge. We know that some people want to be helped to die; we know that in some jurisdictions that is possible, and if we looked at the experience there we would know if it worked or not.
You seem to want to deny to others something you do not wish to use yourself - isn't that a little unreasonable?

[MrGongGong]

.
You seem to want to deny to others something you do not wish to use yourself - isn't that a little unreasonable?

No it's not
because there will inevitably be some (maybe a tiny tiny number) of people for whom mistakes will be made.
And in their interests (like those of innocent folks who are killed in the US for murders they didn't commit) we can't afford the risks.
People go on about "safeguards" but recent events in the areas of child protection and neglect have shown these to not work 100%.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to people killing themselves. I would rather they didn't and have lost several people that way but how do people feel about the inevitable "mistakes" ? Those folks who supposedly have weeks to live then go on living happily for decades ?

There are no "winners" in this.