Death with dignity

[Stramash]

A Scottish MSP, Margo McDonald, is currently trying to introduce a bill into the Scottish Parliament to legalise death with dignity (also known as assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, physician aided dying)

She has Parkinson's Disease and is determined to get a law passed so that she can choose to end her life with dignity and before the illness progressess towards the end stages.

In various forms this is already legal;The Netherlands, Belgium, Holland and the American States of Montana, Washington and Oregon.

If you were diagnosed with a terminal or a severe degenerative disease such as Parkinsons, would you choose to leave this mortal coil while you still had possession of the majority of your faculties?

And an even harder question; if a loved one was suffering a great deal as a result of terminall or degenerative illness, would you support them if they chose this path?

It should be noted that in order to make the decision, the patient has to be of sound mind when making that decision; so I am not asking if you would make a decision for a loved one, only if you would support them should they make that choice?

[MisterMatlock]

I'd support them. My grandmother died in the end stages of Alzheimer's. Didn't know my uncle or my mother when they visited. Ended up scaring her more than making her feel better. I don't think I'd ever want to be in that condition. Then again, with my pension for beating the crap out of myself, I doubt I'll ever get to that advanced of an age...

[Stramash]

I definitely agree with this, though person has to be diagnosed by a team of physicians. This team must certify that s/he has almost no chance of surviving, and that s/he will go through extraordinary pain in the process. I say "team" because physicians are human beings with biases. A panel of 3-5 would at least cut down on that issue.

Then of course, the patient has to be completely aware of what is going on to sign away on his or her life.

I don't agree with the average Joe being able to have himself killed because he is simply depressed or low on funds...that's just cheap.

Don't think that would happen (re the funds). The patient has to have a terminal diagnosis or one of severe degeneration; the decision must be made while they are of sound mind. One problem that has arisen from research is that some cases have been granted the right to die whilst also suffering depression, and there is a worry that this may affect decision making. A counter argument is that depression is often a natural 'side symptom' of the primary condition.

Jomama - a couple of your points vis a vis insurance laws or policies are good ones (though think the assisted suicide to avoid debts unlikely)

But obviously an accomodation has been reached or it would not be legal in the countries it is.

I don't know much about life insurance (wheres PiAnt when you need him) and how they deal with terminal illnesses (I presume they are covered for this if the policy is taken out before they are diagnosed)

I would also presume (but will do some more reading) that if a condition is definitely terminal, then the policy may also pay out as long as the process is carried out within the parameters of assisted suicide legislation.

Would love to hear the opinions of the TF members who work within the medical professsions.

[dannyboy]

I'm in total agreement.

If we feel that it is humane to put animals down who are suffering, why should it be any different for human beings...

I saw my own Grandfather have 3 strokes. The first took his movement in his lower body, the second his speech and then the third killed him after 3 days in a hospital bed. He was suffering so much and made it quite clear he wanted to die. I wish the option was there to have given him some sort of injection and just let him go peacefully in his sleep.

[GoldMember]

The problem is once it becomes 'the norm' to put terminally ill people down it will soon evolve into normal medical practice (as it is with pets).The world is not only getting larger but older and it's putting a strain on health resources worldwide.Politicians would like nothing better than give to give senile Granny a lethal jab to vacate her bed and/or free up expensive medication.It's a dangerous precedent which needs careful thought in a worryingly quick-fix 'now' orientated world.

[Stramash]

The problem is once it becomes 'the norm' to put terminally ill people down it will soon evolve into normal medical practice (as it is with pets).The world is not only getting larger but older and it's putting a strain on health resources worldwide.Politicians would like nothing better than give to give senile Granny a lethal jab to vacate her bed and/or free up expensive medication.It's a dangerous precedent which needs careful thought in a worryingly quick-fix 'now' orientated world.

I think we are a good way away from being close to a 'Soylent Green' scenario (minus the recycling aspect)

I think the whole ethical basis for any of this is that the individual must make the choice, not a relative or a member of the medical profession, otherwise the quick fix would be in danger of becoming reality rather than science fiction.

You already have the option of asking for DNR to be placed on your chart if you are hospitalised, so surely this is just another extension of free choice?

And is the denying of the choice to end your life when in great suffering or pain more or less ethical than allowing it?

[Stramash]

You are correct; I am not sure about the cases in the US and how authorities have handled cases where patients have travelled to a state where assisted dying is legal, yet the actions of the loved one may be construed as being illegal in their home state.

Certainly in the UK around 92 people have travelled to Switzerland for assisted dying, yet to date none have been prosecuted; despite UK law stating that those who assist suicide can face up to 14 years in prison.

A few interesting articles on the subect;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/07/health.law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/31/assisted-suicide

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2008-11-11a.221.0

and one from US

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3587255-1.html

Certainly I would see this as one of the most emotive pieces of legislation that is currently around.

There is the expected wholesale opposition from the Roman Catholic Church and other christian groups, but it seems to have a lot of suppoprt amongst ordinary people.

I certainly do not advocate allowing a free for all, or some of the potential problems Jomama points out could become reality.

But, at the end of the day, if certain conditions are met, it should be the decision of the patient only.

[Stramash]

Euthanasia (literally "good death" in Ancient Greek) refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium,[1] Luxembourg,[2] The Netherlands,[1] Switzerland,[1] the U.S. states of Oregon[3] and Washington[4] the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain),[5][6] and Thailand.[7]

I hadn't realised it was legal in Thailand; the citation in wiki for this reads;

¾ÃÃÃÒªºÑ­­ÑµÔÊØ¢ÀÒ¾áË觪ҵÔ ¾.È. 2550. (2550, 19 ÃÕ¹Ò¤Ã). ÃÒª¡Ô¨¨Ò¹ØມÉÒ, (àÅèà 124, µÃ¹·Õè 16 ¡).

The section for Thailand in wiki for 'Euthanasia and the law' reads;

Thailand

Thailand's National Health Act BE 2550 (2007) has come into force as of 20 March 2007. Such Act contains the provisions in relation to euthanasia as follows, with the pertained provisions:[9]

Section 12. A person shall have right to express in a written form the intention not to receive the public health service as provided for prolonging the death in the final stage of his or her life or for extinguishing the sufferings occurred from illness.

The performances according to the written document under Paragraph One shall be in accordance with the rule and procedure as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

After the medical practitioner has followed the intention of the person under Paragraph, such performance shall not be deemed wrongful and he shall be exempted from all liabilities.

Section 3. In this Act:

"public health service" means all services concerning the enhancement of health, the protection and monitor of illness and homininoxious factors, the exploration and therapy of illness and the rehabilitation of the capability of person, family and community;

"medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner under the law on xenodochium.

Section 4. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Health shall have charge and control of the execution of this Act, and shall have power to issue Ministerial Regulations in order to comply with this Act.

Such Ministerial Regulations shall come into force upon their publication in the Government Gazette.

This reads to me more a form of DNR than actual assisted dying.

Anyone have any further insights from within Thailand?