'There Is Nothing In The World A Person Has More Right To Than Their Own Life'

[Rhiannon]

I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.

And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.

On the basis of what is written I strongly suspect I know what condition you're referring to.

How do the family get away with calling him selfish? Selfish for not having the operation, you mean?

Yes. They'd rather have him alive and living a life he believes he would find intolerable than have to face grieving for him.

I could just about understand if this were a young man with dependent children but he is a similar age to my dad.

[Rhiannon]

I remember that the Liverpool Pathway business scared some people, as people were put on it, without being told, without their relatives being told, and various other cock-ups.   It didn't inspire confidence about how these things would be handled, but I'm not against being helped to die in principle.   I think there were controversies about people being deprived of water and food deliberately, and so on, hastening death, without being informed.

I agree completely with this. There was what some perceived as an arrogance on the part of the medical profession around the LP in deciding what was a 'worthwhile' life. With a different set of values and the decision resting with the individual and not the doctors assisted dying should be very different.

[Rhiannon]

I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.

And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.

I'm with him - I'd do the same thing.

In my case, which I know isn't the same for everyone - I'm really lucky to have had a great life, I'm really happy. If I died tomorrow, it would be fine. I feel a bit bad thinking about the people who would miss me, but I remember my grandmother dying suddenly when I was a kid - 9 yrs old - she lived with us and brought me up from when I was a baby as both my parents worked and in fact my parents left the country when I was 6 months old and I was left in my grandmother's care and didn't see them again for about a year. I remember the pain of losing her - it actually felt like something tore in my heart as I sat on her bed the next morning and wept.

But the pain lessens and you move on and the person remains in your memories - and I have told my kids that death and pain are part of life and losing someone you love is a lot less painful than other things they might potentially go through, and they will have to find ways to cope and manage and be happy if they were ever in that situation of losing me, because I definitely don't want to be alive and physically dependent on someone else.

I would too.

Like you I was looked after by my nan whilst my parents worked, although they did come home each evening. Losing her was awful but it is a part of life. I bumped into an old friend yesterday who lost a child some years ago and although it isn't something she will ever get over it is something she has found a way of living with.

I've been stuck in my life in some ways and there is do much I want to do - I would rage if I had to leave the party just now because I feel like I've only just put my coat on the bed. But if I were terminally ill and in pain - no question what I would want.

[Udayana]

My understanding of Keith's proposition was that that there should be no "safeguards", counselling, checks and so on. That we should have an absolute right to assistance for suicide, ie with no need to provide reasons.

I don't think society is ready to support that. Even the bill for  assisted dying, with appropriate checks is unlikely to pass.

[Shaker]

Even the bill for  assisted dying, with appropriate checks is unlikely to pass.

Like equal marriage (for example), its eventual acceptance is a matter of time. It's inevitable. It may be delayed, causing more suffering in the meantime - I hope not -, but it's inevitable.

[Keith Maitland]

A discussion in the Opinion Pages of today's New York Times:

DOCTOR IRA BYOIK: Should a person who is not terminally ill be allowed to commit suicide? If so, should physicians be permitted to assist in causing the person’s death? Should non-physicians? These are critical issues. Many people’s lives are miserable with no end to their suffering in sight. We are living through unprecedented circumstances in which society is strained by widespread poverty, chronic illness and disabilities, mental illness and drug abuse. Ours is also an era in which previously outlawed or socially deplored behaviors are increasingly accepted, whether or not they are legal: same-sex marriage, marijuana use and physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill people.


MARK KLEIMAN: Doctor Byock and I are definitely on different sides of the looking-glass. He finds it chilling that a person might choose to die when he would prefer that person to live. I find it chilling that anyone would presume to make that choice for another competent adult.

This isn't euthanasia, killing someone you think would be better off dead. This is helping people who think they’d be better off dead.

He sees the question as “whether society should sanction hastening death.” I see the question as whether there’s an entity called “society” that can rightfully claim more power over my life than I have. Dr. Byock asks “What level of suffering qualifies for hastened death?” I answer, "Whatever level of suffering the person actually doing the suffering finds intolerable.”

Should a congenitally deaf man who is now losing his sight be required by law to live on in dark, silent isolation? I think not. It’s not a question of whether “we” approve, whoever “we” may be. It’s a question of whether to force someone to suffer who would prefer to stop suffering.

Assisted dying is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is killing someone because you think he would be better off dead. Assisted dying is helping someone die because he thinks he’d be better off dead. It’s precisely the difference between rape and consensual sex. Allowing people to have sex doesn’t put us on the “slippery slope” to legalizing rape.

RTWT here:

http://tinyurl.com/pdk8syz

[ekim]

some of us, especially the more hedonic among us, may decide that no experience is better than to continue experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread

...... and some, especially the more adventurous and pioneering, may decide that 'experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread' is better than 'no experience' as it challenges them to realise or awaken a potential they hitherto did not know they had and they may even act as an inspiration to others, especially those who are bored with just living a life in their heads, of safe entertainment.

[Shaker]

A discussion in the Opinion Pages of today's New York Times ...

Good post - thanks for the link Keith, that was an interesting dialogue.

I'll perhaps come back to it when I have more time to digest it all more thoroughly, but one thing leaps out at me, a comment from the anti-choice party:

Depression is surely the cause of most rational suicides.

By sheer coincidence I've just finished reading a book which states that in actual fact, contrary to popular belief, this may very well not be the case; depression is apparently a very weak/poor indicator of potential suicide risk (and even then, only in men) compared to conditions such as bipolar disorder, anorexia and borderline personality disorder. I was very surprised by that.

This, from the same person:

Suicide has existed from antiquity, and has always been discouraged.

is blatantly wrong. I assume he's never heard of Japan 

[Udayana]

How many suicides occur because "life has become intolerable" as opposed to "I'm really embarrassed for having done something stupid" or "This is my way at getting back at you for having an affair" etc.?

I tend to agree that if life is "pointless" there is little point trying to stop people killing themselves. However most people don't see it as pointless, and as any death has  repercussions on other people, it won't be allowed unless there is pressing need. Even if the principle is accepted there are a lot of practical considerations, eg. if poisons were easily available, they could be used for murder.

Rights don't spring up out of the ether, they are essentially conventions people agree to respect.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've been stuck in my life in some ways and there is do much I want to do - I would rage if I had to leave the party just now because I feel like I've only just put my coat on the bed. But if I were terminally ill and in pain - no question what I would want.

Since the world is continuously changing I think there will always be much I want to do even if I live to be 90. So long as I have my health I can do it - as you say.

My dad is a retired civil engineer, but at the age of 73  he is still flying to Sri Lanka on a voluntary basis and travelling around rural areas managing engineering projects started by him in partnership with locals at grass roots level. In 2012 he was lobbying at the UN Human Rights Council to get a resolution passed requiring the Sri Lankan government to account for the massive civilian casualties due to shelling by the army at the end of the civil war.

But if I end up being physically dependent on someone else for my daily needs I am certain that spending time with my family and friends, watching my children grow up, get married etc,  giving them some measure of happiness by having me still present in their lives would not sufficiently compensate me for my loss of independence. I just meant that I feel I have been privileged to have lived the life I have - good and bad - compared to the experiences others have to endure - the refugees spring to mind. So if it had to end tomorrow I think I've had more than my fair share of the happiness on offer in life.

If any member of my family decided they loved or would miss me too much to allow me to die, I would just conclude they didn't really love me in the first place to wish that kind of dependent life on me. That would be even more torturous - being forced to be dependent on people who don't really love me in the first place.

[ippy]

Presumably Keith suffers from

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190

Treatment refractory depression.

If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.

Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.

What a silly post, no one is encouraging Keith to end it all!

Quite. I pointed this out as did Gordon. But Rose needs to fulfil her role as self-appointed nanny of the forum every once in a while.

 

Spot on, nail square on the head, well deserved, like it

ippy

[Shaker]

So do a majority of people who identify as religious in this country.

[Shaker]

How do you know?

Evidence.

Have you asked the majority of people?

No. But reputable polling organisations who know their stuff have conducted the surveys and come up with the evidence which supports what I say.

[Outrider]

All polls are open to interpretation and open to criticism

Yes, they are, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically dismiss them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3230108/Poll-backing-assisted-dying-skewed-ambiguous-Warning-MPs-debate-right-die-bill.html

I'd not accept the word of a politician on matters of the statistical significance of a poll over that of the reputable polling agency, especially not after that commentary had been 'filtered' by the Daily Fail.

Doctors and those who being asked to do it are divided

Yes, they are, but in approximately the same balance as the general populace, which is to say that a majority are in favour.

It's a difficult question which is probably easier for those of us who don't have to do anything or feel responsible.

Harder for those medics  involved.

And still harder for those whom are now condemned to a choiceless, pain-filled remainder of their lives by this ruling. Offering people choice forces nothing - if the potential for incitement is so invidious, how much worse is the compulsion of law?

O.