Assisted suicide

[Fat Bob]

Looks like the UK is getting slightly more OK with the idea of assisted suicide: Tory graph report

Think it's good that those helping someone who has a terminal illness to die, usually by shipping them to Switzerland's Dignitas clinic will have clear guidelines on what constitutes a crime and what doesn't. OK, we're a few years off the same sort of clinic in the UK, but it's a step in the right direction.

I'm very pro assisted suicide: when people still have all their memory functions but none of the bodily functions to use them, or are suffering from a illness that is only going to take them that way, then I'm more than happy for people to make up their own minds and take this route. It shouldn't be forced, it should be done under proper care and consultation, and really, the laws against it are pretty poor focusing on morals and ideals from 2 centuries ago.

[Zephyr]

OMG, I actually agree with you!

[Morrolan]

ditto, FB.

[Burbage]

There are issues regarding insurance policies and inheritance etc which muddy the water considerably. My view is that anyone has the right to decide when they want to die.

[Fat Bob]

Good points there, Burb. Needs to be put into law in order that insurance companies can make the link that terminal illness and assisted suicide different from just jumping off a bridge.

[slinky]

Good points there, Burb. Needs to be put into law in order that insurance companies can make the link that terminal illness and assisted suicide different from just jumping off a bridge.

I can't see that will be an easy task though -- seems to me insurance companies love to find any way possible not to pay out.

[JJ]

Alternatively just sign over all your assets and dosh as a gift, leaving just enough for a wild trip around the world, ending up in Mexico with a bottle of Nembutal.

[Fat Bob]

Wasn't there a case of someone who was diagnosed with a terminal illness, 6 months to live, so he sold up, left his wife and went on a trip. After 6 months the doctor called him and said "oppps, wrong diagnosis". Oppps indeed.

But yes, fine way to go JJ. Must think about a bucket list one day.

edit - in actual fact start now and then there's no need to cram it all in (or I can do the stuff that I really enjoy again!)

[Spike]

Agree with FB. I recently spent time visiting an 87 year old man over the course of two years, right up until the night that he died. He spent two years bed ridden and suffering from more and more uncomfortable ailments as time went on. They were a really miserable two years for him and I'm sure he would have taken the option to die sooner in a more dignified state if he'd had the option. I would also like that option if I were in the same position. We put animals "out of their misery" if there's no chance of survival, but don't extend the same luxury to humans, which I've always thought is a bit odd.

[Pinklepurr]

Good points there, Burb. Needs to be put into law in order that insurance companies can make the link that terminal illness and assisted suicide different from just jumping off a bridge.

I can't see that will be an easy task though -- seems to me insurance companies love to find any way possible not to pay out.

Not quite true, they just don't like being ripped off by people. Insurance companies are quite happy to pay out on legit claims, the doubts here would only be regarding assisted meaning illegal/murder or whatever rather than suicide. Suicide clauses on most insurance policies are only applicable for the first 13 months of the policy. Same with the inheritance part of it, it does make things difficult. That said, I would rather someone helped me out of my misery as well rather than linger on for no reason.

[Fat Bob]

OK, not that I read the Mail daily, but there's a report saying a bill will be put forward at the next session of parliament in the UK. OK, unlikely to go through considering the amount of time it will be given the need for a General Election in late 2009/ early 2010, but at least debate is starting at a level that might get changed later.

Seems there was a bill in 2006 but it didn't pass.

[Fat Bob]

Terry Pratchet agrees too. Though he prefers to call it assisted death. Which is probably more correct.

[Fat Bob]

Just seen Terry Pratchett Choosing to Die documentary from the BBC. Wow.

The final scenes are a bit harrowing. Very sad as well.

But also very dignified and something that I believe was the right decision.

[Tas]

Will look out for this one, thanks for mentioning Bob

[sundaymorningstaple]

I've long believed that should be an option. In fact, I was one of the early AMD's in Singapore when it was finally allowed. While it isn't Assisted Death, it does help in extreme cases. I'd also be a candidate if it's ever made a legal option as well - but hopefully, I'd not need it for a long, long time though. I reckon I've still got around 20 good ones left anyway.

[Joseph27]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbrie ... transcript

Just listened to this program on Sunday, the transcript is on the link and you can get the podcast. It will help with the discussion

[cromasaig]

Just seen Terry Pratchett Choosing to Die documentary from the BBC. Wow.

The final scenes are a bit harrowing. Very sad as well.

But also very dignified and something that I believe was the right decision.

Watched it last night, agree, very thought-provoking, and very sad. I'm broadly supportive of the right to die in principle, but I can't even begin to imagine the complexity in legislating that. However, the part that gave me pause for thought was the older couple. He was very clear about what he wanted to do. His wife was very clear about supporting him in his wishes (as an aside, I didn't think Britain made upper lips that stiff any more. What a woman!)

However, personally, I didn't get the impression that it was what she wanted, or rather, not at that time. Her duty, as she saw it, was to support him. I'm not really convinced that her true feelings were ever given much of a hearing. I really think she wanted him to wait.

[Fat Bob]

Yes, and same with the younger MS sufferer, his parents, or certainly his mother, did not like the idea, wanted something different but were there and supported their son no matter what. It must be a bloody tough decision and in both of those cases, it's not clear cut.

I also feel for Terry, he's got a different disease which means that, unless he makes that choice very soon, then he may not be of sound mind and therefore may not be accepted, no matter what he says now.

Also thought about the Swiss laws - where anyone has the right to decide. Tough. I fully support the paraplegic young rugby player a year or so ago, and I continue to support another paraplegic rugby player who chose to carry on.

It's not a simple, clear cut thing. And the law making, especially with such vocal voices within UK law such as the Church, then I don't pity them. And I don't think any amount of documentaries, debate or anything else would change that many people's minds.

I've just thought: interesting how all of the people who were interviewed were either males suffering from harrowing life-ending diseases, and all supporting cast were females, who had help or were helping them. Not sure if that made a difference?

[Fat Bob]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbrie ... transcript

Just listened to this program on Sunday, the transcript is on the link and you can get the podcast. It will help with the discussion

The article is about prolonging life versus preparing for death. Things like Do Not Resuscitate and stuff like that. Here's a good quote from the transcript:

"Dr Silvester says he's seen many patients treated against their wishes, because health professionals often find it difficult to let go."

I find this very easy to believe.

[Joseph27]

Yeah it introduces the complexity of medical professionals wanting to make sure life maintained regardless of the patients wishes. I personally a patient needs to be able to decide at what point they will die from a terminal illness. Not taking the relevant treatment to extend your life by a few pain filled months seems difficult enough - so asking the same doctor to up the morphine dose til it actually ends your life - is a big ask.

This is an issue that would seemingly have wide spread public support yet politicians and some within the medical profession seem to want to keep laws as they are. I understand the complexities but if the choice is 6 months of cancer filled pain versus a swift end where you die in your sleep - I will take the latter and I don't think there are many around who will choose to let the disease take them - especially once the pain meds stop being as effective.

[baloo]

The other complication is life insurance. I'm sure the insurance companies won't want to pay out for assisted suicide.

[slinky]

Yeah it introduces the complexity of medical professionals wanting to make sure life maintained regardless of the patients wishes.

I don't think this happens when the medical professionals actually know what the patient's wishes are -- I doubt they actively disregard the patient's wishes when they are clearly stated, at least in regular, non-extraordinary situations. The only way to be sure they know is for the patient to have something like a living will which states when and if extreme measures to save life should be taken.

[Lili Von Shtupp]

I can't see that will be an easy task though -- seems to me insurance companies love to find any way possible not to pay out.

Not quite true, they just don't like being ripped off by people. Insurance companies are quite happy to pay out on legit claims, the doubts here would only be regarding assisted meaning illegal/murder or whatever rather than suicide. Suicide clauses on most insurance policies are only applicable for the first 13 months of the policy. Same with the inheritance part of it, it does make things difficult. That said, I would rather someone helped me out of my misery as well rather than linger on for no reason.

But I think that Slinky has a point. In a country without national healthcare this is a completely different debate. Medical professionals/institutions benefit from prolonging care, insurance companies* do not. In a perfect world, profit motive wouldn't matter but in a place like the US I wouldn't be surprised to see a public debate over patient rights being settled in a back room battle between the biggest financial stakeholders.

*EDIT to say by "insurance" I mean medical care insurance, not life insurance.

[Fat Bob]

The other complication is life insurance. I'm sure the insurance companies won't want to pay out for assisted suicide.

I think there's got to be something there which links the choice of ending ones life to a seriously debilitating or life-ending disease. In which case, if it's within the Law, then why not. You can also put a time on the number of years post policy take-up before it comes into place for this type of death.

[Tas]

In a really crass yet logic based debate point regarding insurance, there are several aspects to the insurance that would I suspect on net basis would benefit it. If you consider following
1) Medical Benefits insurance (Health insurance)
2) Income protection insurance
3) Life insurance.
I'm not completely sure how the insurance industry works, but I note on several of my policies they refer to an underwriter, and that underwriter looks pretty familiar across several types of insurance.
Without a drop of access to acturial accounts I can't help assuming that 1) and 2) would benefit. And in terms of 3) I think it would be hard to argue against a 12-24mth earlier payment in patients above 45yrs age in event of a terminal illness.

But in any discussions or feelings on this topic, financial aspects have barely been discussed. In our case I know and understand that a big part of the depression that came with cancer coming into our family life, was and still is a fear and horror of coming to the end in a painful dragged out, uncontrolled undignifying way while spouse, children and grandchildren stand by. I completely know that the interest in this came from a desire to seek comfort that there would be some measure of choice at the end. Anything I've read or heard on legalised euthenasia is that the statistics of assisted death don't show a significant increase, but that there is a noted improvement in managing the coping and depressive aspects of dealing with a terminal or debilitating illness. I'm not sure how this is measured other than by casestudy review. That is a bit part of the benefit of this legislation in my view.