Heartland

"If granny walks up to the tribunal and bangs her walking stick on the table and says 'Look, I've really had enough, I hate this bloody disease, and I'd like to die thank you very much young man', I don't see why anyone should stand in her way."

It takes someone with The Hairiest Arms Known To Man to cut through the crap and lay it out the way it is. Bloody good show.

It's an inspired suggestion. One of the big stumbling blocks even to people who agree with the principle of voluntary euthanasia is that it would be open to abuse. This would be a good way of assessing things properly. Good old Terry.

I've always felt this was a no brainer - as long as the person is of sound mind and making a decision based on quality of life/amount of pain.

The right to die with dignity opposed to a slow wasting away has always struck me as a fundamental right.

I've yet to see the actual speech by himself/Tony Robinson, but I saw the article on BBC News prior to it.



Worried he has a 'vested interest' - and as one of my favourite authors, although I intellectually respect his wishes, I would emotionally reject the decision.

It's difficult, I wouldn't argue with the dignity of it, but for the sheer comprehension of the importance of it...

I'm all in favour of the "right to die".

In certain cases I'm also in favour of the "right to terminate", but of course it's tricky to lay down any formal criteria for when it might apply without sounding genocidal. You'd have to treat every incident on a case-by-case basis.

Well, despite my great love for his writing, he's in the wrong here. There were similar arguments regarding abortion years ago, how it was only for exceptional cases, and two doctors would be needed, etc, etc. The end result is we now have abortion on demand, effectively a last-minute contraceptive. The medical profession did nothing to stop that developing. I don't trust them to stand up and prevent abuse of it, quite frankly.
Terry's forceful old lady in the vein of a wearied Granny Weatherwax would be a rare example I suspect.
I'm always interested in wether those who support state-sponsored death in the name of mercy agree with it in the name of punishment? Surely there's little difference?

Jesus I never imagined anyone would actually be against it.

There's nothing noble and brave about the end. Just the pain.

Europa wrote:Jesus I never imagined anyone would actually be against it.

There's nothing noble and brave about the end. Just the pain.

Do what Pratchett suggests, and within twenty years you'll be seeing dementia patients/the mentally ill killed off by their well-meaning relatives with power of attorney. Probably believing themselves doing granny/poor Dave a favour because "It's no kind of life she/he's leading, really.". Thirty years and it'll be pressure when an old person/ill person cannot look after themselves. He believes people are "generally pleasant". I don't. I believe our capacity for selfishness is only matched by our ability to delude ourselves as to our own true motives.
And this is without the general incompetence of the GMC, and the kind of horror stories you can hear from any hospital about crooked/useless doctors and consultants.

DeWinter wrote:I'm always interested in wether those who support state-sponsored death in the name of mercy agree with it in the name of punishment? Surely there's little difference?

Europa wrote:Jesus I never imagined anyone would actually be against it.

There's nothing noble and brave about the end. Just the pain.

I used to be against it for all the reasons of it being open to abuse,and I can still respect that viewpoint. But then I watched my granny dying slowly and painfully ove a period of ten months. The number of times she pleaded with us asking why we couldn't give her something to end it all. If there had been something I'd have given it to her without a second thought.

1. In the unlikely event that everybody breaks out in murder. I would still consider that a better world than the one that contains nursing homes, dim witted and ignorant 20 something carers, terminal physical pain and pointless and lonely hours sat in a chair waiting for....what?

2. I think the idea is a living will, of sound mind and body and all that.

3. Are you suggesting that it is selfish for people to not naturally leap at the chance to spend their limited(if you are unlucky) active years caring, cleaning and crying for someone who no longer wants to be here or is not aware they are here?

4. Geriatric wards are images of hell. That is humanity at it's worse.

5. We love our kitties don't we? But we are perfectly happy with the 'it's the kindest thing'.

6. Nothing wrong with true motives, but people do tend to judge them harshly when they are stated. Might be why a few delude.

7. Better to live after the crooked Dr and his botched operation has left you on a machine?

Personally when the machine is going beep beep I'll haunt the very footsteps of anyone who tries to stop it being turned off. Although if the power bills rise again I can't see anyone arguing.

Europa wrote:1. In the unlikely event that everybody breaks out in murder. I would still consider that a better world than the one that contains nursing homes, dim witted and ignorant 20 something carers, terminal physical pain and pointless and lonely hours sat in a chair waiting for....what?

2. I think the idea is a living will, of sound mind and body and all that.

3. Are you suggesting that it is selfish for people to not naturally leap at the chance to spend their limited(if you are unlucky) active years caring, cleaning and crying for someone who no longer wants to be here or is not aware they are here?

4. Geriatric wards are images of hell. That is humanity at it's worse.

5. We love our kitties don't we? But we are perfectly happy with the 'it's the kindest thing'.

6. Nothing wrong with true motives, but people do tend to judge them harshly when they are stated. Might be why a few delude.

7. Better to live after the crooked Dr and his botched operation has left you on a machine?

Personally when the machine is going beep beep I'll haunt the very footsteps of anyone who tries to stop it being turned off. Although if the power bills rise again I can't see anyone arguing.

1. Nursing homes are a crying shame in themselves. Avoiding responsibility in the worst possible way, and then whinging about the care given by those paid a pittance to do it.
2. A will can't protect you from pressure or undue influence. Especially from those meant to look after you.
3.Yes!! I absolutely f~cking do!! They should be damn grateful it's not them. I don't whine about looking after my partner, but I do it every day.
4. Geriatric wards are reflective of society's values. Visit a childrens ward and see the love, care, and money lavished on them comparatively. If the elderly were as photogenic as a young child, those wards would be smartened up pretty damn smartish.
5. Love? No, we treat them as an accessory, something we bought and own. That's why we neuter and spay them for our convenience, not theirs. The hilarity that prevailed amongst my work colleagues when they discovered I paid £350 for an operation for my cats twisted stomach was quite uproarious. We put them to sleep because it's more convenient.
6. You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. I'm just saying don't delude yourself this is a merciful thing you're proposing. It's sugar-coating getting rid of people who have become an nuisance. It may not be the original motive, but it is what the result will be. And you only have to look at how the abortion debate began, and how its ended up to see how.

When someone has made a living will when they were of sound mind (and if you live in a jurisdiction where such things are enforceable, I would recommend that you have one) then there is no reasonable argument against that person choosing to end their life in certain well-defined circumstances.
Decent safeguards can prevent the relatives bumping off Auntie Ethel so they can get their hands on her collection of Precious Moments figurines.
If/when I am diagnosed with something nasty and terminal, the end-stage of which would see me bristling with tubes and full of drugs that will only prolong my life without improving the quality of it, then I would hope that those who love me would acquiesce to my wishes and allow me to die in a manner and at a time of my choosing, instead of forcing me to eke out my final hours in a hospital bed, incontinent, unable to breath on my own or enjoy a rare rib-eye steak with a green salad and a glass of sublime Merlot.

You don't have to agree - you might choose to prolong your life for as long as medical science makes it possible. That's your call. For those of us who feel otherwise, being prevented from deciding when to die is the last gasp of the nanny state. As adults we can have a mortgage, drink, smoke, marry, have children, join the army and drive a car, all decisions that the state has decided that most of us are capable of making. I'd like to think that I was mature enough to make a decision about when to die.

As Sir Terry says, people don't fear death, they fear the thing that causes it. If I could choose when to die then I would live. And I would not choose to have the last 3 years that my dad did, not for anything. Let me die with dignity - doesn't seem like much to ask. Does my choosing when to die impact you? Does it somehow diminish your right to live as long as you choose? No, it doesn't. It's like the abortion debate - you may choose to have one, or not, it's your call. Someone else having one isn't your problem - let them make the choice they're comfortable with, but don't for a second think that you have the right to take that choice away from them. You don't.

I'm sure, a law as such would reduce the number of posttraumatic stress disorders among train drivers ...

However, one can't compare human beings with kittens ... it's hardly much of an effort to pay for another operation or have the little creature enjoy
a few more nice days (if this should be really the case). Your elderly relative might clearly have other needs and demands ...
and as hard as it is for them to no longer be able to care for themselves, to be incontinent and regulary put into question mentally based on the
fact of their age and the probability to suffer from Alzheimer or Dementia ... as hard it is for others when it comes to care. It can be a hell of a job
... and not that I wouldn't do it for those I love, but very often it's nothing to be done after work or just in between ... so if you can't afford an
inpredictable time off your job you gotta either quitt or marry or pay someone else to do it or leave your dear one in a nursing home or other
such institution, whether they and/or you like it or not ... this situation is already a misery in itself and it will surely support the idea for some
to leave this place earlier than under different conditions, if they do get the chance.

In addition, the number of people without any relatives has risen remarkably. I'm one of them. No relative will see to my well-being in case
I fall ill or even needed care. And apart from the fact that I will not have the means to pay for a nursing home, anyway, I wouldn't even want
to go there. Preferrably, I 'll set an end as soon as I can't care for myself any longer, be it legal or not. I'll make a nice day of it and just
leave - no need to ask anybody's permission. Hopefully, I won't get a stroke before or some other disease to hinder me.

Furthermore, the consequences of the financial crisis have not yet reached the peak ... health services have been downgraded for a few years
already and it's getting worse ... and once they gather what further reductions are possible in order to save money on their human lifestock,
they will not let the chance go by and promote volutary demise ... for the sake of the next generation, allegedy, I presume. In Germany you're
not allowed to rent a flat on your own if you're under 25 and don't have an income sufficient to pay it. In Italy, more than 50 % of the unmarried
youngsters still live with their parents, as the wage they receive for a full-time job is not enough to pay for a flat on their own ... many of them
will easily agree for any sort or death in dignity if they are asked for their vote ... and many elderly will clearly understand ... especially when
such understanding is officially supported ...

DeWinter wrote:I'm always interested in wether those who support state-sponsored death in the name of mercy agree with it in the name of punishment? Surely there's little difference?

It isn't a case of "state-sponsored death". And of course there's a huge difference.

People are going to want to kill themselves whether you like it or not. By being hard-line in opposition to this, you risk criminalising their relatives for an act of mercy. Or you force them to kill themselves earlier than they might have done, so they don't get anyone else in trouble.

And as you brought up abortion, women are going to have abortions whether they're legal or not. All you accomplish by making them illegal is making them more dangerous to the woman.

I reject your "slippery slope" argument. The objective of the pro-choice movement has always been for abortion-on-demand (which we certainly do not have in the UK) whereas the objective for the pro-euthanasia movement has never been, and will never be, the genocide of the elderly and infirm. It's about being allowed to die with dignity.

markfiend wrote: It isn't a case of "state-sponsored death". And of course there's a huge difference.

People are going to want to kill themselves whether you like it or not. By being hard-line in opposition to this, you risk criminalising their relatives for an act of mercy. Or you force them to kill themselves earlier than they might have done, so they don't get anyone else in trouble.

And as you brought up abortion, women are going to have abortions whether they're legal or not. All you accomplish by making them illegal is making them more dangerous to the woman.

I reject your "slippery slope" argument. The objective of the pro-choice movement has always been for abortion-on-demand (which we certainly do not have in the UK) whereas the objective for the pro-euthanasia movement has never been, and will never be, the genocide of the elderly and infirm. It's about being allowed to die with dignity.

People are going to mercy-kill wether it's legal or not too, it seems. You already have your first example of the moral grey area too, with a mother killing her son off with a heroin overdose because she believed his life wasn't worth living. And she honestly believed she was doing something good. Public opinion is divided, thankfully judicial opinion wasn't.
It's arguable wether the UK has abortion on demand in all but name. Certainly doctors have backed precisely that for many years, so I think it unlikely they are being strict with the criteria for it. Were it being used purely for exceptional cases, we wouldn't have such a high level.
It'll start with "exceptional cases" and then progress beyond, if you start allowing this. It sounds reasonable, and it's hard to say it isn't in truth. But you don't need to be that far-sighted to see how this could go. And judging by our already fairly callous treatment of the elderly and infirm, I'm saying it will.

As for C.P , if you'd kill your sick puppy,why wont you kill off a mad dog? Stop puppy from hurting, save the mad dog from mauling someone. If you disagree with minimising puppy's pain, why do you agree with keeping the mad dog locked up in a cage for years then releasing him?

We have the right to die here in Holland. And in my eyes it's a very good thing. When you look at people with cancer, the right to say "it's enough I don't want to live anymore" should be an option. Two doctors have to see the patient to see what the case is about, but usually with cancer, and the body is fading to a nothingness, that injection is a blessing.

So in cases like this, I'm most certainly pro.

DeWinter wrote:People are going to mercy-kill wether it's legal or not too, it seems.

Well yes. Would it not be better to have some sort of legal framework in place to codify boundaries?

DeWinter wrote:You already have your first example of the moral grey area too, with a mother killing her son off with a heroin overdose because she believed his life wasn't worth living. And she honestly believed she was doing something good. Public opinion is divided, thankfully judicial opinion wasn't.

And then there's the mother who killed her daughter with ME who did exactly the same thing, only she wasn't convicted of murder. She got a manslaughter conviction and a 12-month conditional discharge (if I remember correctly). Or Daniel James's parents, who weren't prosecuted at all, even though they took him to Dignitas in Switzerland when he wasn't even terminally ill, "merely" paralysed.

I won't argue that any of these judicial decisions was wrong, but they don't seem to me to be consistent with each other. It's precisely because there are grey areas that the law needs to be changed.

As for your charge that

DeWinter wrote:within twenty years you'll be seeing dementia patients/the mentally ill killed off by their well-meaning relatives with power of attorney

Pratchett in the original post claims entirely the opposite:

no evidence from countries where assisted dying is allowed of granny being coerced into dying

Can you bring you any evidence to bear on the issue?

By the way, I don't see much point arguing abortion again, we've been round that roundabout before. We'll agree to disagree, OK?

MadameButterfly wrote:We have the right to die here in Holland. And in my eyes it's a very good thing. When you look at people with cancer, the right to say "it's enough I don't want to live anymore" should be an option. Two doctors have to see the patient to see what the case is about, but usually with cancer, and the body is fading to a nothingness, that injection is a blessing.

So in cases like this, I'm most certainly pro.

Yes, I heard about that and in theses cases I also think it's really a blessing.
Just having an end on one's own decision.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/ju ... d-his-life

Terry Pratchett starts process to take his own life
The fantasy writer Terry Pratchett says he has received consent forms requesting assisted suicide but has not yet signed them

Sir Terry Pratchett, the fantasy writer who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2008, said yesterday he had started the formal process that could lead to his own assisted suicide at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland.

Pratchett, whose BBC2 film about the subject of assisted suicide is to be shown on BBC2 tomorrow, revealed he had been sent the consent forms requesting a suicide by the clinic and planned to sign them imminently.

I won't say I'm looking forward to this, but I certainly intend to watch it.

A good if slightly one-sided documentary. I found it interesting that my interpretation of Peter's final moments were slightly different to Terry's. While it did seem peaceful overall, there was a moment where I thought he became a little distressed (when he asked for water and was refused) before sleep took over. And, while anyone taking their own life is undoubtedly brave, I thought the bravest person in the room was Peter's wife.

The debate that followed was a bit of a damp squib as the people on the pro side didn't answer their critics very well while those against didn't state their case very well. It was also really three against two as the lawyer was neutral and only took part when she was asked a direct question.

Paxman's facial expressions were also very interesting. He clearly had opinions but - unusually - chose not to voice them. I wish he had - he might have enlivened the debate.

"When someone has made a living will when they were of sound mind (and if you live in a jurisdiction where such things are enforceable, I would recommend that you have one) then there is no reasonable argument against that person choosing to end their life in certain well-defined circumstances"
Exactly.
I am a believer in all people's right to self determination in all aspects of their lives.

I cannot personally imagine a fate more traumatic or devastating than being incapacitated, in pain and indefinitely extended in that manner.

Legal frameworks around this issue - protecting the roles of all parties - will be difficult to formulate, yet must be.

The 21% who were merely weary of life was a little disturbing, but I guess if you follow self determination through it's their life at the end of the day.

I think most people will come away from the documentary with the same opinion they had before.

I still remain in favour of having the right to die.

I am finding the religious groups denunciation of assisted suicide rather hard to understand. From what I can gather the thrust of their argument is that God means you to suffer in agony and will be p*ssed if you take a short cut to end it! Doesn't make him sound a compassionate fellow..
The scene with the refused water..it was hard to watch. But I think your body wants to live even when your mind doesn't, it was his body's reaction to the drugs. By all accounts giving him water might have meant him surviving with brain damage, something it seems unlikely he'd have wished.
My gripe remains that I don't see how you can legislate against undue influence. Perhaps I have too contemptuous a view of human nature.