Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
To suffer or not to suffer, that is the question (USA Today article)
One man's quest for the right to die, with assistance. Discuss.
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-01-23/Briton-with-locked-in-syndrome-wants-right-to-die/52751678/1?loc=interstitialskip
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-01-23/Briton-with-locked-in-syndrome-wants-right-to-die/52751678/1?loc=interstitialskip
0
Comments
That is what he is arguing. It would take an act of Parliament to change that, and they do not want to set a precedent in other arenas, such as (lesser) quality of care for the elderly. Also, I agree that having no quality of life with a vibrant brain is horrific.
@ThailandTom, it's mentioned in the article, The Netherlands (ever progressive) has legal euthanasia.
I decided a long time ago that I have a shelf life (well, yes, we ALL do), and if I am terminally or chronically ill, and able to end my life I shall.
I reserve that right, legal or not, it's my body,my brain, and my heart.
If I decide to euthanize a pet is this considered killing?
Sorry if this is too much of a tangent but I thought of this yesterday and have been struggling with it.
What a tough call. But Buddhism helped give her some strength.
My Buddhist view tells me that suicide is a negative karmic act and that even in 'locked in syndrome' one can use still use the mind to reduce suffering and make progress on the path to enlightenment. Even in cases of terminal illness with much pain positive habits and karma can be developed as well as the pain removing past negative karma. If I was in that situation though I don't know that I would tough it out and wouldn't end my life. I don't want to seem to be passing judgement on someone who wants to end the pain, not everyone shares my views and they should be free to make whatever decision they feel is best for them.
Euthanasia of a pet is even harder, since they cannot speak for themselves. No matter how sick a pet is, and you know that you can end their suffering there is ALWAYS that doubt there, that you are doing divine intervention, because "what if___________". I have been there, thankfully the day before I was to take a beloved pet to be put down, he passed at home, it avoided that scenario. This time.
At least a cognizant human being, especially one who is in their right mind,relatively speaking can say "No, I do not want this life". We have no choice about coming into the world, why shouldn't we have the choice to leave as we choose, moreso under those circumstances?
I also agree that "fixable" things like situational depression, should not be an instant where death is warranted.
That said, legislating for lawful killing is challenging - it opens the floodgates to various unsatisfactory legal positions - for example - how do you define informed consent in such circumstances - what constitutes 'assistance' - what if the person changes their mind half way through - which conditions would attract the exemption - say youre depressed, what then? what if there is no next of kin and an institution has to make the decision - It is a legal minefield to draft, interpret and enforce... inevitably it will have to be tested through the courts and the issue is so controversial that the court service does not wish for the matter to play out with the judiciary - there's also the issue of forum shopping.
The present English legal system goes back to around 1066 so is very conservative - it is common practice to use what is known as a 'legal fiction' - this is where something that everyone knows is incorrect is taken as correct for a limited purpose - in this way, many issues are undecided but things happen anyway.
The inclination of legal policy in this area is to leave the matter to the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) - as the article itself points out, no cases have been brought recently against people who have assisted in suicide - this is very much a policy decision by the CPS and considered on a case by case basis.
I listened to an interview with a mother who assisted her daughter to die - it was a harrowing tale of loss - the issue was investigated fully and no charge was brought - in effect there is an unofficial system for dealing with these genuine cases - also the referral to the CPS starts with a doctor's report and the medical profession itself has its own guidelines on reporting procedure - basically, on terminally ill patients, a postmortem is not routinely conducted so if no 'issue' is articulated what happens on paper is that a terminally ill man simply passes away...
Also, it is no illegal (in certain circumstances) to withdraw nutrition (with opiate medication to ease suffering) - it is not legal to end life with a lethal injection however and that is what is being campaigned for - a legal mechanism to sanction express action to end life prematurely.
@Hubris - 'quest' is correct - some people in this situation seek to highlight the issue with a personal campaign - this is encouraged by the organisations that promote right to die and I suppose without this the debate would not be encouraged...
In essence, its the chap's choice - he will be able to do it if he wishes... but I do see the danger of the legal system moving to acknowledge lawful killing especially as in time the position will shift again - so what with all these old people who live to be 150 but spend 50 years basically incapacitated draining young peoples' resources...
Consider that when surveilance legislation was introduced there was a huge amount of opposition and the counterposition was that CCTV footage would be kept for a certain period and then destroyed / if you do not have a criminal record then CCTV images of you should be blotted out / CCTV would be employed for certain public areas and then only where there was a threshold of criminal activity that would be reduced or hampered by surveillance / cameras had limited pixalation and zoom so they would be limited to their area...
thats how it started - now, memory is cheap and footage is kept for far longer (with the advent of nanotechnology and crystal drives, memory issues will be a thing of the past) / no blotting out under any circumstances, you can be tracked and followed for a mere 'suspicion' (undefined and subjective) / at the request of the public CCTV was extended to cover all areas including mixed use commercial and residential and lately sole residential (on request from the residents) / I was told by a CCTV operator that for a laugh they would zoom in and catch people's pins at cash machines!! / face recognition tech means that now they just leave the cameras running and a computer analyses matches and builds films from various sources to show an individual's movements throughout camera zones... It is so far from what was inevisaged as the final surveillance system.
I think on balance best to keep the floodgates shut and deal with each case on a case by case basis - the gravity of loss of life I think demands a prima facie universal prohibition.
I don't believe those who assist the terminally ill are black-and-white doing something wrong. If the person who dies did in fact (and it can be rpoven - video recording for example) want to die, then for me personally, no issue.
The issue (legally) of course is knowing for sure what the person wants. It makes it hard in cases of sudden PVS or other such illnesses/injuries.
This is one reason it's good to have a living will. Make your wishes known. For example, my grandmother has a DNR in her living will.
If someone I loved (spouse, parent, sibling) were terminally ill and in an unending amount of pain, I hope I would have the guts to help if they asked. Needless suffering is unkind.
Can I prove it? No. However I have heard it on more than one occasion.
@Mountains, have you ever heard anything along those lines?
I firmly believe in DNRs and Living Wills in case I cannot decide on my own, and if I can decide, I most certainly will. One way or another death is inevitable, suffering need not be.
This is not to say I am suicidal or hate life, it just means that in case of catastrophic illness I shall leave on my terms, not my family's or doctors who may keep me as a wasted shell for their own purposes. Maybe that makes me a control freak, but I consider it being a realist.
Practice might be of benefit to a man such as this, however someone that desperate to leave earth has had some time to think about it, and decided it's worth fighting to leave. Meditation for him, if he decided to "live", might be considered wasted time, since the rest of his "living" would require him to be present, and back in the reality that is his paralysis. I do not see any worth there from his POV either.
Could he "transcend" ? Maybe, Stephen Hawking has, and provided the world with his brilliance, maybe this man hasn't that to offer.
1) Medical diagnosis - this varies greatly between doctors - so much that second opinions are common place - the test of a diagnosis is a negative one - i.e. whether any other reasonable doctor would diagnose the same - given the incredible ambiguity in medicine and doctor commeradery this test is rarely satisfied and only really challenged through litigation (which a dead person would not do), allowing a doctor to diagnose death or a condition that warrants death is dangerous in itself - eventually this will promote compliant doctors who are willing to sign off - very much like the crisis facing the personal injury industry - there is a wider public interest also and as such this will lead to a serious level of lenghty and costly state funded litigation.
2) Witnesses - this will be abused - you will also create a professional witness which will take away the intended effect of the legilation.
3) Psych-eval - these are extremely subjective - though psychology is badged with credibility, if you consider the underlying science, it is juvenile at best - we are nowhere near understanding how the brain works let alone its higher functions - diagnosis and treatment is very hit and miss and results are always subjective so again evaluating is near on impossible.
The debate is ignited in the public arena by genuine cases which is sad and I am sympathetic to their plight - that said, the matter has been extensively debated in parliament and reported in Hansard and there are and have been various working commitees looking at the issue - not to mention the legal commentary on the topic... despite this, the legal opinion is that the law should remain as it is as it best serves the balance of preserving life as against the extreme minority cases - unfortunately, public debate tends to focus on emotions rather than tangible facts and data.
I don't know, and I have no right passing judgement on someone who is in that situation. If I or my wife end up facing that dilemma, then I'll have my answer when I make the decision. If out of love, I have to help my wife end a life with nothing but suffering in her future, then I'd accept whatever bad karma this act of compassion brings as my final gift to her. I know she'd do the same for me.
But as I said, some situations you just have to deal with when or if they arrive, as best you can.
From a spiritual perspective, I think abortion is wrong, except in certain situations.
But as a citizen, I accept a woman's right to choose.
I think this is one of the issues in suicide as well. I can think it is wrong (not saying that's what I actually think), but not think that it should be illegal.
I *have* seen and participated in essentially the same thing whereby supportive care is withdrawn at the request of the patient and/or family (which is completely legal and ethical in all states in the US). Such cases usually involve patients on ventilators, which are turned off, and withdrawal of things like IV antibiotics, drugs to support blood pressure, etc. Aside from family members making a scene, it's usually very peaceful and quiet for the patient. The discussion between physicians, patients, and their loved ones around this type of end of life decision is what the right deftly twisted into "death panels" to support their case against health care reform. And people bought it lock, stock, & barrel.
I don’t know enough to reasonably assess whether the risk of lack of treatment outweighs the right to die with dignity… the debate both sides has valid points… I’m beginning to think that perhaps an official system is better than an unofficial one as at least you have relative transparency and data collected – concerned that treatment / funding criteria mean that more speculative treatment is not funded but I guess that can happen irrespective of whether there is an assisted suicide regime.
Certainly made me reconsider the issue.
Doctors as much as, if not more than anyone else have huge egos, and losing patients, no matter their condition is a blow to that. Family members love, and therefore get attached, and will refuse to "let go" of someone, despite the suffering they see before them. I have come to a place in life where I do not understand that. How do you make someone else's life about you??
What I mean about "the business of death...the funerary industry. It's a business, and like most things, is about making money. The elaborate things we put a corpse through, just for the living, who, for the most part do not accept death, even though every single on of us knows we will die at some point.
Makes you wonder, if more people took a pragmatic approach to death how would things be? Facing things realistically, and then engaging in the letting go process. Less grief, less suffering, and reconciliation with ones own mortality.
Letting go does not mean forgetting memories, and loving what was.