Okay this quite a dark subject matter, but it is, in my view political. When I was living in Bushey, I had a good friend who contracted Aids when he was just 25. He went though several bouts of treatment and looked to be getting better, however he went into remission and got very sick. After visiting him soon after he was hospitalized, he held my hand and asked me if I believed in Euthanasia. I remember saying I had no real view on it, but I did say it should be the choice of a person if they feel they want way out of the pain and cannot see any treatment working. Sadly, he passed away six months later. I have since viewed the subject of Euthanasia as one that should be a personal choice. In some countries it is illegal, and others it is not. Most people who feel it is something they wish to do, will confine in a loved one or friend, hence this is totally different from feeling suicidal (which I am not getting into). Do you feel Euthanasia should be a free right? I can see the up and downside of such a choice - family, friends, loved ones will all be hurt enormously, but if there is absolutely no way out, medication doesn't work, and they are almost "waiting" for the angels, should such a person have a free right to leave this world, with friends and family around them? Please - do not derail this thread into what I mentioned above, (S word).
I wouldn't criticise anyone taking either view on this. It's very difficult and seems highly unfair that anyone should have to live in pain without the choice of ending it. However, I'd probably swing towards keeping the law as it is because of the possible inadvertent consequences and because I can't see how medical doctors could perform the role. However, I'm certainly in favour of people being able to request any amount of morphine or fentanyl at the end and if that effectively ends it, so be it. Life's a bummer and no mistake.
Yes, I agree. It does go on at the moment. I know of two people personally that were "assisted" at the end. Whatever formal process is put in place, it is bound to end up putting pressure on terminal patients to go earlier "to help their families". I would leave it as it is but, like you, I am sympathetic to both sides of this debate.
Thank you both. I can totally see where you are coming from. It always has, and will always be a legal issue - especially in the medical profession that is a given. If we were make it legal, then who would carry it out? Because I can foresee many medical experts refusing to partake in such an event. Then, of course this could lead to other complications such as a higher rate in murders perhaps. However you have to argue that the opposite side to that is, pain and torment (especially a person going through a very acute episode), would agree that making it legal would allow them to get out of the circle. However, I am in agreement that as it stands being illegal - it does reduce the extra pressure on the medical profession which has been put through the ringer in the past two years.
I imagine this was a while ago as with modern computerised drug record keeping* (and fear of corporate/personal litigation) it's very hard to be 'accidentally' given too much 'pain relief' even though an awful lot of clinical staff have very sympathetic views on this matter. *The BMA/GMC were very surprised at the sheer (vast?) number of medics who were 'relaxing' with the aid of their little black bag so revamped the process of writing prescriptions (ISTR an amnesty was announced with offers of anonymous treatment and the helpline was swamped).
A friend of my wife's died from leukaemia a few years back. She was in her mid 30s and a pretty tough person, from a pain tolerance standpoint. Towards the end she was screaming in pain despite being maxed out on drugs, and became incoherent and unintelligible near the end. Up until the end both she and her family we begging for more pain medication. There was no curing her disease by that point - everyone knew it was terminal. It was senselessly cruel to make her suffer like that without any option to make that terrible pain go away, and her family and friends have to carry the scars of seeing her suffer like that for the rest of their lives.
Sorry they had to go through that, and I really feel for her. That is the other part of the somewhat one sided argument of it. If the practice was legalized, it would ease suffering on the people in great pain, as well as their friends and family who only want to see them at peace and away from the hurt. It's such a moral compass between what is right for a person, and the legality of even going through with it. Most legal standpoints would point to Euthanasia as causing a lot of suing - which would no doubt happen, say if a doctor euthanized a person due to their wishes, but the family of that person had no idea it had happened. It's a tricky situation for anyone to be put in, but even more so for the victim and everyone concerned with their plight.
Yes, both were a quite a while ago. I think that it is a shame that a blind eye is no longer given to this unofficial "assistance". We are now in limbo then which leads to so many cases like the one @Arakel describes above. No official or unofficial way of giving help to those at the very end of their lives. If it can no longer be done in the way I witnessed then I would support something that is laid down in law, providing it does not allow patients to be pushed into euthanasia because of family or financial pressures. The problem I see is finding a process that has these safeguards while still being nimble enough to end someone's suffering as quickly as possible.
If that was the case then, provided the person who died had capacity to make the decision, the euthanasia would be lawful. Patient wishes trump wishes of family members at law.
But what if the process allows the doctors to make the call to end someone's life? Or, even if it were down to the patient, the family could argue that they were not of sound mind to make the decision. I think most cases would be clear cut but I've no doubt that there will be some that will be disputed and end up in court.
Agreed, but also the backlash from the family could be a never-ending headache for the doctor(s) involved. Even if, as you say, the patient had the wish of fight or flight and chose the latter, I do not know what level of culpability would be hoisted onto the doctor(s). Emotional attacks, personal guilt etc. could always be a side effect of doing this, even it was legal. Just my thoughts.
And equally from not doing it. I'm sure any process will require the doctor to agree. If they do not and the patient continues to suffer then I'm sure that emotions would run high amongst the family.
Your points are valid but, sfaik, in jurisdictions where euthanasia is permitted, there hasn't been an explosion of litigation. It's true that the doctor could suffer other 'attacks' but to some extent that prospect exists with any form of medical treatment - it can always go wrong or fail. And legislation could provide for a conscientious objection exception for particular doctors if needs be.
This is the key point, for me. It has been made legal elsewhere, and successfully so, without the Doomsday scenarios people like to suggest. When you have working real world examples it trumps any theoretical objections. That fact that we will not provide the same mercies for our fellow human beings that we will provide to a stricken family dog is simply unconscionable to me.
It is hugely complex, and part of the issue is knowing for sure that it is the true wish of the individual. I have seen enough people who feel they are worthless and troublesome to their loved ones, and have been encouraged to do so, that they believe assisted mortality is either appealing to them, or simply the only choice that is actually being put to them. If it wasn't for that, I would have no problem with a change in law. I think people who choose euthanasia should receive councelling and should be presented with life alternatives if it turns out they rely, basically, on abusive relatives or friends who are in truth looking out for themselves. It does happen, and I think this is one reason for the law remaining as it does. There are also issues with people drawing others into their despair. Depressed people, particularly narcissists, who wish to take a 'pill' often wish to take others with them, or, at least, to make others feel the pain they are suffering, which is a very unhealthy environment to live in. I have a friend whose mother told him that she sought euthanasia, but couldn't bare the idea of him and his son having to live without her. Her implication was that they should commit suicide as she took her pill. I suppose you could look at that as suicide by euthanasia. Glad to say all three are still going ten years later, but what an episode? All motivated by stories of health related assisted suicide in Switzerland. All that said, I know I would like to think I had some control over things, if I was diagnosed with a gruelling disease. If it does become a thing, I think it is something not to be entered into lightly.
Our dog became sick this year and to save it from suffering we had it put down. Having watched both parents succumb to the Big C at a relatively young age, I am convinced that people should be allowed to choose the time and place of their own exit to save them from suffering too.
As a vet I probably put to sleep on average one animal a week, and have been doing so for the last ten years. I am an equine/farm vet, but my partner is a small animal vet and she puts to sleep nearly twice as many of animals as me. I can honestly say that there is not one single case where I regret putting an animal to sleep. They have all been performed because the animal has poor quality of life or is in severe pain. There are rare cases where we asked to put to sleep healthy animals, but we would both do our best to try and re-home animals like this wherever possible. I don't find euthanasia easy, but it doesn't weigh heavily on me either. I know there is a lot of concern particularly on the anti-euthanasia side about the well-being of doctors being asked to perform this procedure, and it is one thing to put to sleep and animal and another to euthanize a human however I always view it that I am performing a good deed not a bad one. If I can provide an animal with a peaceful end of life then I feel that I have done right by the animal. I would expect that doctors would eventually come round to this line of thought too.
Having seen my mother die after great suffering I would feel it should be an option to choose euthanasia as personally I would not wish my family to experience what we did as children, or to see anybody to suffer in that way with no hope of recovery. I'm not sure it should be down to the doctors administering care. Surely it should be put before a committee with the necessary qualifications (doctors, psychologists and those with knowledge of the situation involved) But the decision should ultimately be taken by people with no personal link to the patient after all concerns are heard. Also once the decision is made it should be done anonymously,
Both my wife's father and mine were given "faster" deaths by removing all food and fluids for their final week of life. It wasn't nice to see.
Sorry to hear that. I think the guidance is to keep on offering fluids now. Often people can’t eat, can’t drink and for the latter need a drip. We managed to get the mother in law to have a spoon of ice cream within the last 48 hours. She said it was lovely and had another. Seemed like a triumph.
With my wifes father it was severe dementia so pretty sure no drugs were involved, but he went downhill frighteningly fast before that last week. My own father kept having strokes, was in hospital for months with his behaviour becoming more erratic so pretty sure he was fairly well drugged up. When my wifes father was stopped being given food/water I vowed it would never happen to my own parents, but my own old man had absolutely no life and we all agreed that we would support whatever the hospital wanted to do to make the end come quicker. I still live with that decision.
This seems to be the Liverpool Care Pathway, that was supposed to be phased out almost a decade ago. My sister in law was managed under this in 2011, when it was already coming in for a lot of criticism - it is a managed end of life care programme, but one in ten people actually recovered under it, which suggested that it wasn't appropriate for at least 10% of the people it was being used on. She seemed to be at peace following her last bout on consciousness. Perhaps an alternative may have resulted in the odd moment of lucidity, but if it had also been tinged with pain, I am unsure whether the benefits would have been worth it. It sounds barbaric, and the fact that ten percent of people actually recover under it (incidentally, not deliberately) is a clear indicator that euthanasia is not necessarily the right thing at a given time. Yep, those people are going to die in the long run, but it does not mean they would not have some quality and productive time with friends and family. I have a close family member going through palliative care at the moment, and they don't want to check out whilst they have their wits about them, and there are things they want to do in as much time as they have left. It doesn't mean it won't get to the point where the purple pill may be a consideration, but the idea it would be taken under perfectly accurate advice is moot.
I imagine young people are the same all over the planet these days really, be they in Asia, Europe or any continent. Having said that I imagine the ones that have been tainted by western culture are a lot different to those that havnt been and probably have more respect for their elders.
Sorry @Diamond for dragging up those uncomfortable memories but "I've ǵot a dog in this fight*" and I'm genuinely interested in peoples' recent experiences. I know the 'good old days' of a word to sympathetic nurse/doctor are long gone... So I'm in the very strange position of planning for my 'future' and have a macabre interest in this. * Spoiler: Short Story The Jews are trying to kill me. Spoiler: Long Story My Ashkenazi heritage manifests itself by the fact that I'm covered with moles. A large funny shaped one appeared on my tummy sometime last winter and turned out to be a malignant melanoma and that was found in one of my sentinel lymph nodes (BRAF +tve which means that my chemo is twice daily tablets - which have all the delightful side-effects associated with taking a daily doses of poison(s). I've just had my six monthly scans: my body CT showed no evidence of tumours and I'm awaiting the results of my head MRI.
Good luck with the MRI result. As someone who also has a ton of the b*stards, (and had a few BCCs cut out of me), I understand the need to watch them. No problem answering questions regarding what I witnessed, but overall I do in hindsight feel that the pain for the viewer was 100 times worse than the people going through it.
