Assisted dying

I am a big fan of assisted end of life.  Some states in the US are moving in that direction. 

Bob K

I agree with you Bob on this one.

I for one, would not want to suffer the indignity and pain of lying, incapacitated in a bed somewhere waiting to die whilst doctors are trying to keep you alive with a cocktail of drugs which are only prolonging the inevitable.

If an animal was suffering from a terminal illness and you let it suffer you would be prosecuted in the UK BUT if you let a friend or member of your family suffer with the same condition its ok.
It says a lot about the UK that its the Royal s.p.c.a. and the National s.p.c.c.
Surely it is better to allow that person to be made comfortable and die with dignity than prolong the pain and suffering both physical and emotional for all concerned.
This is my opinion

While it is not publicly known many medical doctors in Canada will counsel patients with terminal diseases on how to make a relatively painless and graceful exit, while not directly involving themselves in the process. They also will prescribe medications for the patient that when taken in combination with each other, and possibly alcohol will get the job done.

When my late father was hospitalized with cancer, doctors put him into a medically induced coma and let him pass without pain and with complete dignity. I can never put into words just how much their compassion meant to me, how I saw their actions as nothing less than heroic. I don't see why anyone would want someone they loved suffer unnecessarily or want to punish medical personnel who assist a patient die with dignity.

Odd that these same people, for the most part, wouldn't want to see an animal suffer and have no moral problems with having them sacrificed.

Cheers,
James        Expat-blog Team

I agree with the comments here.
A dog would be saved from the misery of a slow painful death, but a human has to suffer until the last possible moment.
That seems entirely wrong, perhaps even sadistic.

I fully understand the moral/religious stance that ideal is based upon, but I don't believe that point of view to be valid as the person is all but dead anyway.

This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to, lately. At the ripe age of 75, it's rather relevant. I joke that I've got Dignitas on speed-dial; not 100% true, but close enough. A couple of months ago I posted a 600-word blog called "The right to die". EB won't allow people to link to their personal blogs, so all I can do is paste (below) the last three paragraphs. They encompass my belief in the right to die.

Over centuries, individuals have gradually been allowed to gain some rights over their own lives. In Western societies, at least. Some simpler, pacifist, cultures have always been generous in recognizing individual rights in respect of death. Committing suicide has never been a shameful act, there, and nor has assisting it.
Logically, suicide is the final freedom. Indeed, it is irrefutable proof of individual freedom. Neither church canon nor civil statute ought to hold any veto over the basic human right to be free. The main clause of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights obliges all national government-signatories to recognize a right to life, and the right to life ends with death, surely, not a split-second earlier.
Human Rights advocates and supporters claim that human rights exist ab initio, so to speak. They can't be granted, only recognized: they can't be withdrawn or cancelled, only not recognized. Communities who endorse the basic principle have no moral option but to recognize the logic of the statement in the paragraph above this one. The right to life ends with death, and not a moment earlier. Suicide is the act of a free man. Preventing it is the act of an unfree society.

Well said Gordon, as always!

If human rights exist ab infinito, and one has the right to life then it stands to reason that would include not only the right to live it, but also the right to choose how and when to end it. If one accepts the first concept, then they cannot ignore the second.

Sadly, politicians always get in the way and screw up something that in itself is a flawless idea. I'm sure that most of us would agree that governments do have a right, and responsibility to place conditions on assisted suicide; otherwise I'm sure some people would try to abuse it. That said, I don't think that government has either the right or the responsibility to flatly prohibit it.

How can it somehow be right if we show mercy for our sick and injured animals, put them out of their suffering when the end is inevitable; yet we don't allow a human being (in most cases) to choose that for himself?

Suicide is allowed and legal in all countries I know, regardless of the reason one wants to die (perfectly healthy people do it, too!). It is also legal to sell sleeping pills, a rope or a knife to somebody who might kill himself with it.
I really cannot see why things should differ from this just because the person is terminally ill.

beppi wrote:

Suicide is allowed and legal in all countries I know, regardless of the reason one wants to die (perfectly healthy people do it, too!). It is also legal to sell sleeping pills, a rope or a knife to somebody who might kill himself with it. I really cannot see why things should differ from this just because the person is terminally ill.

I'm not sure about that, beppi. I've always understood that under British law suicide is a crime, and that's why assisting somebody to commit it is a crime. However..., Wikipedia agrees with you. Which makes it really puzzling that assisting someone to do something that is not illegal is itself illegal. Even in Switzerland!

On the Swiss TV news last night:
"The European Court of Human Rights upheld a French court's decision allowing Vincent Lambert the right to die, stating it did not violate article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights."
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/06/eu … to-die.php
Looks like Switzerland is leading the way for other countries to introduce similar more liberal practices.

El_Jost wrote:

On the Swiss TV news last night:
"The European Court of Human Rights upheld a French court's decision allowing Vincent Lambert the right to die, stating it did not violate article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights." Looks like Switzerland is leading the way for other countries to introduce similar more liberal practices.

That's very good news for those who want to die, or want someone to help them die without putting the helper in danger of prosecution. A friend lent me the book "Final Exit" a few months ago, which actually recommends specific procedures on how to kill yourself peacefully. It (the book) is advertised on Amazon, so I guess the practice is going mainstream. Wikipedia has an entry for the book, too.

Gordon Barlow wrote:

EB won't allow people to link to their personal blogs, so all I can do is paste (below) the last three paragraphs. [/i]

Since I posted this, one of the administrators assured me that it's quite OK to link to specific personal blog-posts. So... The actual post was in February this year, and is titled "The Right to Die". Anybody interested in reading the whole thing can either dig it up from the Archives or Google the title plus my name.

Gordon Barlow wrote:

El_Jost wrote:

On the Swiss TV news last night:
"The European Court of Human Rights upheld a French court's decision allowing Vincent Lambert the right to die, stating it did not violate article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights." Looks like Switzerland is leading the way for other countries to introduce similar more liberal practices.

That's very good news for those who want to die, or want someone to help them die without putting the helper in danger of prosecution. A friend lent me the book "Final Exit" a few months ago, which actually recommends specific procedures on how to kill yourself peacefully. It (the book) is advertised on Amazon, so I guess the practice is going mainstream. Wikipedia has an entry for the book, too.

Two days ago I received a second-hand copy of the very same book from Amazon UK. Have just started reading it yesterday. Interesting ideas in it, in particular that one should not leave it too late.
BTW Thanks everyone for all your comments.

El_Jost wrote:

Two days ago I received a second-hand copy of the very same book from Amazon UK. Have just started reading it yesterday. Interesting ideas in it, in particular that one should not leave it too late.

Yes, that's the main worry, El, that one will leave it too late to do it by oneself.

I am all for euthanasia. I even wrote a post about it in my blog when my terminally ill father-in-law made it clear to us (in 2013) that he was considering it (because it is legal in Belgium, my home country). He didn't do it in the end, although he suffered severely. May he rest in peace.

You can read about it here: http://allthecontinentsinonelifetime.bl … nasia.html

Funny how after starting this thread a couple of unforeseen events have recently come to a head.

1) My wife's 85 yr.-old big brother in Austria was not at home on his recent birthday when we telephoned to congratulate him. After a lot of phoning and emailing around it transpired he had to taken to an old-people's home to be cared for. Some days later we were able to eventually get in touch with him and he is very sad now that he is away from his home and clearly would like to have a way to escape his fate.

2) A 90 yr. old man - who is not a blood relative but is my uncle-in-law, if there is such a term - died last week in the region where we live and today I attended his Trauerfeier (funeral service) at his local Catholic church and a get-together afterwards in a garden for drinks with savoury goodies served on squares of bread.
There I heard he had been going downhill slowly because his kidneys were failing. As a catholic the only acceptable way for him to hasten his departure (and still have a place in the church cemetery) was to refuse all food. Just before the end he entered a Hospiz where palliative care is given to someone dying. As he slowly lost his remaining strength on the last two days the doctors there administered morphine in large enough doses to lessen his pain.  This presumably also had the effect of shortening his suffering as well.

Both these events serve to warn of the need to get things organised early enough to be in a position to do the necessary when the time comes.

globetrotter wrote:

I am all for euthanasia. I even wrote a post about it in my blog when my terminally ill father-in-law made it clear to us (in 2013) that he was considering it (because it is legal in Belgium, my home country). He didn't do it in the end, although he suffered severely. May he rest in peace.
You can read about it here: http://allthecontinentsinonelifetime.bl … nasia.html

That was a good post, trotter. Indeed, it seems an excellent blog altogether - well worth checking into from time to time. I've been blogging since 2010. All my posts are in chronological order, but I don't know how to index them by topic. Can anybody help me how to do that - or point me in the right direction?  My "Right to die" post was in February this year, by the way.