When is it ok to kill?

[dimreepr]

 

Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, has "locked-in syndrome" following a stroke in 2005 and is unable to carry out his own suicide.

 

He is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life.

 

The Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder and change the law governing it.

 

"Locked-in syndrome" leaves people with paralysed bodies but fully-functioning minds.

 

Mr Nicklinson, who communicates through the use of an electronic board or special computer, said before the ruling that his life was "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable".

 

During the radio interview, Mrs Nicklinson passed on questions to her husband, using his letters board to spell out his response.

 

When asked what he hoped would happen next, he replied: "I will be able to access a doctor when the time is right."

 

He went on to spell out: "I can just about cope with life at the moment, but not forever."

 

 

Having survived my own suicide attempt (at the time of trying it wasn’t a cry for help) I have since changed my mind on the subject.

 

Should this be allowed?

 

Isn’t this just a temporary state of mind however long this state persists?

 

Does a doctor’s oath become meaningless if s/he is allowed to kill?

 

 

[Appolinaria]

 

Having survived my own suicide attempt (at the time of trying it wasn't a cry for help) I have since changed my mind on the subject.

 

Should this be allowed?

 

Isn't this just a temporary state of mind however long this state persists?

 

Does a doctor's oath become meaningless if s/he is allowed to kill?

 

 

 

 

 

I think assisted suicide is necessary. I'm sure in the future it will be legal in more places around the world.

 

Suicidal feelings could be a temporary state of mind. But that's why I believe organizations like Dignitas have people sign agreements over a period of time. They also assess the person to make sure they have "sound judgement".

[dimreepr]

They also assess the person to make sure they have "sound judgement".

 

 

If one is suicidal couldn’t this be considered to be contradictory by definition?

 

 

[DrRocket]

If one is suicidal couldn't this be considered to be contradictory by definition?

 

 

 

Not at all.

 

It could well be the signature of a rational mind grappling with unavoidable impending doom.

 

Think of someone with Alzheimer's disease who is in the last stages of being able to think ratiionally. Such a person might very well wish to end his life. At this point in time no one, not even family, can legally assist that person in carrying out his very rational wish. The result is immense expense and turmoil for the family, while the patient slips from the grip of reality, into an existence that cannot be called living.

 

Been there.

[dimreepr]

Not at all.

 

It could well be the signature of a rational mind grappling with unavoidable impending doom.

 

Think of someone with Alzheimer's disease who is in the last stages of being able to think ratiionally. Such a person might very well wish to end his life. At this point in time no one, not even family, can legally assist that person in carrying out his very rational wish. The result is immense expense and turmoil for the family, while the patient slips from the grip of reality, into an existence that cannot be called living.

 

Been there.

 

 

Good point.

 

Couldn't this be covered by a living will?

 

 

 

 

[Appolinaria]

Not at all.

 

It could well be the signature of a rational mind grappling with unavoidable impending doom.

 

Think of someone with Alzheimer's disease who is in the last stages of being able to think ratiionally. Such a person might very well wish to end his life. At this point in time no one, not even family, can legally assist that person in carrying out his very rational wish. The result is immense expense and turmoil for the family, while the patient slips from the grip of reality, into an existence that cannot be called living.

 

Been there.

 

Been there too. Just not with Alzheimer's.

 

Anyway, watched this documentary recently. It definitely shook me.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bxQYTFIZi8A

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQYTFIZi8A

 

If one is suicidal couldn't this be considered to be contradictory by definition?

 

 

 

I think they only accept the terminally ill. But I think in the future it will be more lax. If a physically healthy person wants to commit suicide, and signs a series of agreements over say the course of two years, why not?

[DrRocket]

Good point.

 

Couldn't this be covered by a living will?

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. A living will can specify that no treatment be given in case of illness but it cannot decree euthanasia.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I think they only accept the terminally ill.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease: it has a 100 % mortality rate.

[HGrimston]

If one is suicidal couldn't this be considered to be contradictory by definition?

 

 

 

Why is it that the acceptance of death sounds like mental illness? Death is something we all experience, and based on literature concerning the psychology of loss, it is far more healthy to come to terms with the inevitable losing of our lives. The desire to be euthanized at a point when one becomes only a hindrance and can no longer enjoy their own life is a thing only possible in the strongest, most rational of minds. Is it not more mentally sound to be able to accept the fact that lingering only means more pain? It seems to me to be insane to try and fight the inevitable.

Edited June 6, 2012 by HGrimston

[Greg H.]

Why is it that the acceptance of death sounds like mental illness?

 

It's not the acceptance of death that sounds off, it's the invitation of it to visit that most people can't come to terms with. Wanting to die is so far outside our normal existence that most people can't understand what would drive someone to desire it over continued life. The vast majority of people simply cannot conceive of a time when they would choose death over continued life.

 

That aside, in terms of assisted suicide, I think it's important that we place as much value on the dignity and quality of a person's life as we do on the simple length of it. Surviving is not the same as living.

 

 

[Joatmon]

Nobody seems to be considering the feelings or traumatic effect actually ending life might have on the person expected to either provide the means or administer the procedure. The thought of this being part of a doctor's routine range of treatments might not be accepted by many doctor's for a variety of reasons.(Including, dare I say it on a science forum, religious scruples).

[Greg H.]

Nobody seems to be considering the feelings or traumatic effect actually ending life might have on the person expected to either provide the means or administer the procedure. The thought of this being part of a doctor's routine range of treatments might not be accepted by many doctor's for a variety of reasons.(Including, dare I say it on a science forum, religious scruples).

 

That's an interesting viewpoint, but I think it's outside the premise of the OP. (I could be wrong but) I think there's an inherent assumption in the opening post that finding a method of termination isn't the issue so much as why is it deemed wrong to want to exit life at a time and in a manner of my choosing in order to preserve my own dignity and quality of life.

 

Maybe the discussion of the impact on the provider of such services should be a separate thread?

 

 

[HGrimston]

It's not the acceptance of death that sounds off, it's the invitation of it to visit that most people can't come to terms with. Wanting to die is so far outside our normal existence that most people can't understand what would drive someone to desire it over continued life. The vast majority of people simply cannot conceive of a time when they would choose death over continued life.

 

That aside, in terms of assisted suicide, I think it's important that we place as much value on the dignity and quality of a person's life as we do on the simple length of it. Surviving is not the same as living.

 

 

 

This does make sense to me, but then again, most people have never experienced something as seemly horrific as locked in syndrome. Perhaps the masses need a lesson in empathy and perspective taking.

 

 

Nobody seems to be considering the feelings or traumatic effect actually ending life might have on the person expected to either provide the means or administer the procedure. The thought of this being part of a doctor's routine range of treatments might not be accepted by many doctor's for a variety of reasons.(Including, dare I say it on a science forum, religious scruples).

 

You do make a good point. One person's rights end where another person's begin.. and so a doctor probably shouldn't be forced to do this. However, there are obviously M.D.s out there who are willing to help a person find an end to their suffering through euthanasia. Maybe a new branch of medicine should be developed devoted entirely on the ethical practice of euthanasia for those willing to do it.

Edited June 7, 2012 by HGrimston

[tavonga]

Euthanasia is carried out only on terminal patients on life support also known as "pulling the plug" but this is carried out on patients who wouldn't survive without life support but there is no form of ethical euthanasia in which one carries out killings at the whim of another because that is assisted suicide. Although I am not oblivious to the condition of the patient it should be understood that whether or not one has locked in syndrome emotional instability may be a cause the want to commit suicide, this is why euthanasia is not carried out at ones discretion

[iNow]

Would assisted suicide make life insurance benefits null and void? Should it?

[HGrimston]

Although I am not oblivious to the condition of the patient it should be understood that whether or not one has locked in syndrome emotional instability may be a cause the want to commit suicide, this is why euthanasia is not carried out at ones discretion

 

I would imagine that if staring at the ceiling is all one has to look forward in life, there will never come a time when they will be emotionally stable. Why force someone to maintain existence if they don't want to spend another 10 or 20 years without the ability to even move or speak?

 

As to iNow's question, legislation on the issue would change current insurance practices. In my opinion, if someone is deemed to have a euthanasia-worthy illness, they should still receive life insurance benefits.

Edited June 7, 2012 by HGrimston

[tavonga]

And I know I must sound terribly heartless but from a medical point of view locked in syndrome is not terminal..... I don't know whether it can be treated but the principle behind euthanasia is, " If I don't kill him, it will". In this case if the illness is not terminal then..........

 

In reply to HGrimson

it is true that one should not be forced into remaining alive in those conditions but the fact of the matter is that if I come to you with a gun because I can't bear to continue my life how is shooting me any different from carrying out "euthanasia" on that patient whom as you pointed out would normally continue living for 10-20 years

Edited June 7, 2012 by tavonga

[HGrimston]

The difference is quality of life. I know that we are all aware that military is just another word for state sanctioned killing. So why not form legislation around the medical industry that allows state sanctioned killing of a far more humane kind?

[Appolinaria]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12973273

[tavonga]

"The difference is quality of life"

 

I do not agree with the assumption that simply because one has full control over movement and coordination means that they possess a higher quality of life Than one who does not because we can ascertain that his desire to die was based on emotional reasons and physical disability was a contributing factor therefore if he is killed it should mean that anyone with emotional problems should be able to walk into a hospital and ask for euthanasia

[HGrimston]

"The difference is quality of life"

 

I do not agree with the assumption that simply because one has full control over movement and coordination means that they possess a higher quality of life Than one who does not because we can ascertain that his desire to die was based on emotional reasons and physical disability was a contributing factor therefore if he is killed it should mean that anyone with emotional problems should be able to walk into a hospital and ask for euthanasia

 

I get the feeling that this particular phenomenon might be currently in play: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

I cannot agree that a person who has average physical health has equal or lower quality of life than a person who is completely paralyzed. That just seems silly.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12973273

 

Ok, based on this, some people want to die and others don't. Why shouldn't we offer the choice to that one person who does?

[dimreepr]

No. A living will can specify that no treatment be given in case of illness but it cannot decree euthanasia.

 

This is true as of now, but I see no reason it couldn't be extended, legally, to encompass such wishes.

 

 

[Greg H.]

"The difference is quality of life"

 

I do not agree with the assumption that simply because one has full control over movement and coordination means that they possess a higher quality of life Than one who does not because we can ascertain that his desire to die was based on emotional reasons and physical disability was a contributing factor therefore if he is killed it should mean that anyone with emotional problems should be able to walk into a hospital and ask for euthanasia

 

There is significant difference between partial loss of motor function and not being able to do anything but stare helplessly upwards at the ceiling and wait for someone to come change your colostomy bag. There are many partially physically disabled people who live quite fulfilling lives.

 

The physical disabilities aside, what about the mental ones? If my last act as a rational, sane human being with the mental capacity to do more than drool into my pillows is to spare my loved ones and my family the burden and the horror of watching me turn into a driveling idiot who can't even find the bathroom, much less use it, shouldn't that be my choice? What gives you the right to make that choice on my behalf?

 

As for anyone with an emotional problem being able to just walk right up and pop off to heaven, several folks have mentioned the idea of counselling lasting years as part of the process to insure that you are really capable of making this decision and quite sure this is what you want.

[dimreepr]

There is significant difference between partial loss of motor function and not being able to do anything but stare helplessly upwards at the ceiling and wait for someone to come change your colostomy bag. There are many partially physically disabled people who live quite fulfilling lives.

 

The physical disabilities aside, what about the mental ones? If my last act as a rational, sane human being with the mental capacity to do more than drool into my pillows is to spare my loved ones and my family the burden and the horror of watching me turn into a driveling idiot who can't even find the bathroom, much less use it, shouldn't that be my choice? What gives you the right to make that choice on my behalf?

 

As for anyone with an emotional problem being able to just walk right up and pop off to heaven, several folks have mentioned the idea of counselling lasting years as part of the process to insure that you are really capable of making this decision and quite sure this is what you want.

 

I’m at risk of sending my own thread off topic here but, in the UK the NHS’s biggest drain is, the “ethical” need to keep people alive (for the sake of life). If, along with the “Donor Card” a “Living Will Card” could be kept about ones person many, many millions could be saved, here, at least, in the UK.

 

 

[Greg H.]

I'm at risk of sending my own thread off topic here but, in the UK the NHS's biggest drain is, the "ethical" need to keep people alive (for the sake of life). If, along with the "Donor Card" a "Living Will Card" could be kept about ones person many, many millions could be saved, here, at least, in the UK.

 

 

 

There's an interesting topic. When is it unethical to keep someone alive?