Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Silver

Assisted suicide OK

Families who help terminally ill loved ones to commit suicide will not be prosecuted under landmark guidance to be issued this week, it has been reported.

The new guidelines on assisted suicide are expected to say that people will only be prosecuted if police can prove they stood to gain from the death.

The documents are being drawn up by the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, after Law Lords backed multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy's call for a policy statement on whether people who helped someone kill themselves should be prosecuted.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...-suicide-Families-prosecuted.html
Shaker

It's been a long time coming, but I always knew it would be "when," not "if."

Good news.
Leonard James

Unfortunately it still leaves the uncaring free to prolong the suffering of their relatives if they want to.
Shaker

Sad but true, yes.

I really don't believe it's beyond the wit of man to work out a system of assisted suicide/euthanasia that's as near to perfect (that is, foolproof) as possible, but I suspect that it would be shipwrecked on the reefs of bureaucracy and the legal profession  :(
Leonard James

admin. wrote:
Sad but true, yes.

I really don't believe it's beyond the wit of man to work out a system of assisted suicide/euthanasia that's as near to perfect (that is, foolproof) as possible, but I suspect that it would be shipwrecked on the reefs of bureaucracy and the legal profession  :(

Yes, Steve, I'm afraid that is true. Human intelligence, although lauded as vastly superior to that of all other species, still has a long way to go to find its way out of the moral maze it has woven for itself.
Judders Lady...

I don't believe you can call it suicide. :shock:
Hear me out!  If someone is already dying and in final stages then it is not suicide is it? They are going to die anyway. One hour earlier isn't going to change any outcome.

I think the person should be able to make their own decision and carry it out. A drip which they can press a button with when the painkillers are not working would be a suitable and apt method.


It is also unfair to call people 'uncaring' for not being able to take the life of a loved one.  There are many reasons why someone would not want to help someone die. Not selfish but they would have to live with the knowledge once they had gone.
A doctor should and can do it... I think this is a far better way.


Love Lynne.xx

Smilie_PDT
Leonard James

Hello Lynne,
Judders Lady... wrote:
It is also unfair to call people 'uncaring' for not being able to take the life of a loved one.  There are many reasons why someone would not want to help someone die. Not selfish but they would have to live with the knowledge once they had gone.
A doctor should and can do it... I think this is a far better way.

Of course it should be the doctor that does it, but he can't do it if the relatives refuse to consent to it, even though the patient begs for it.
Judders Lady...

Leonard James wrote:
Hello Lynne,
Judders Lady... wrote:
It is also unfair to call people 'uncaring' for not being able to take the life of a loved one.  There are many reasons why someone would not want to help someone die. Not selfish but they would have to live with the knowledge once they had gone.
A doctor should and can do it... I think this is a far better way.

Of course it should be the doctor that does it, but he can't do it if the relatives refuse to consent to it, even though the patient begs for it.


Hi Leonard, Smilie_PDT



Then whilst the patient has their full faculties the doctor should be allowed to let the patient sign a consent form allowing them to act on their behalf and to carry out their wishes.

This would take the responsibility away from the patients relatives and allow the will of the patient to be carried out. This means the relatives need never know the doctor assisted the patient to die and would leave the relatives to grieve free of any knowledge of the assisted suicide.

Love Lynne.xxx Smilie_PDT
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
Then whilst the patient has their full faculties the doctor should be allowed to let the patient sign a consent form allowing them to act on their behalf and to carry out their wishes.

This would take the responsibility away from the patients relatives and allow the will of the patient to be carried out. This means the relatives need never know the doctor assisted the patient to die and would leave the relatives to grieve free of any knowledge of the assisted suicide.

Fine, but the thread is about protecting relatives who assist the patient to die, which is quite a different thing.
Judders Lady...

Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Then whilst the patient has their full faculties the doctor should be allowed to let the patient sign a consent form allowing them to act on their behalf and to carry out their wishes.

This would take the responsibility away from the patients relatives and allow the will of the patient to be carried out. This means the relatives need never know the doctor assisted the patient to die and would leave the relatives to grieve free of any knowledge of the assisted suicide.

Fine, but the thread is about protecting relatives who assist the patient to die, which is quite a different thing.


Quote:

Leonard James



Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 805


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately it still leaves the uncaring free to prolong the suffering of their relatives if they want to.



I think in all fairness I clearly responded to what you had previously said in your own posts.  'Uncaring' relatives free to prolong suffering of relatives... I merely pointed out a way around that. :(
Ketty

I think it's worth remembering that every single one of us is living 'terminally' and will die to this life.  So why should just organic illness be sufficient to justify suicide, assisted or otherwise?
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Then whilst the patient has their full faculties the doctor should be allowed to let the patient sign a consent form allowing them to act on their behalf and to carry out their wishes.

This would take the responsibility away from the patients relatives and allow the will of the patient to be carried out. This means the relatives need never know the doctor assisted the patient to die and would leave the relatives to grieve free of any knowledge of the assisted suicide.

Fine, but the thread is about protecting relatives who assist the patient to die, which is quite a different thing.


Quote:

Leonard James



Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 805


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately it still leaves the uncaring free to prolong the suffering of their relatives if they want to.



I think in all fairness I clearly responded to what you had previously said in your own posts.  'Uncaring' relatives free to prolong suffering of relatives... I merely pointed out a way around that. :(

Yes, I suppose doing it behind their backs would be a good way of stopping them from pontificating, but it seems to bend morality a little in another direction.
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:
I think it's worth remembering that every single one of us is living 'terminally' and will die to this life.  So why should just organic illness be sufficient to justify suicide, assisted or otherwise?

Because everybody should be allowed control over their own life, and if they are suffering terminal and unbearable physical or mental pain they should not have that right taken from them.

Give them as much help, relief and counselling as possible, yes, but leave the decision about ending it to them.
Judders Lady...

Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Then whilst the patient has their full faculties the doctor should be allowed to let the patient sign a consent form allowing them to act on their behalf and to carry out their wishes.

This would take the responsibility away from the patients relatives and allow the will of the patient to be carried out. This means the relatives need never know the doctor assisted the patient to die and would leave the relatives to grieve free of any knowledge of the assisted suicide.

Fine, but the thread is about protecting relatives who assist the patient to die, which is quite a different thing.


Quote:

Leonard James



Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 805


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately it still leaves the uncaring free to prolong the suffering of their relatives if they want to.



I think in all fairness I clearly responded to what you had previously said in your own posts.  'Uncaring' relatives free to prolong suffering of relatives... I merely pointed out a way around that. :(

Yes, I suppose doing it behind their backs would be a good way of stopping them from pontificating, but it seems to bend morality a little in another direction.


Does being terminally ill somehow change the morality or the rights of a person over their own life? NO! So no 'behind back' or 'bending morality', involved.:shock:

I am surprised you suggested there was, (((Leonard))).
If, that was the case it would be bending morality to ask a doctor to give a lethal injection or assist suicide in the first place.
Because Morally he would become a murderer.:shock: :?  :(


It is a tangle but the only way past it, is the right of the person terminally ill to choose. Being terminally ill does not remove the persons rights to choose for themselves.

Christ summed it when he said, "No one takes my life from me, I give it up."  You might say the Romans and the Jews took his life.
What Christ was pointing out was that he did not deserve to die and could have stopped his suffering and crucifixion at any time.
But he didn't he allowed them to carry on.
A terminally ill patient can stop their suffering at any time.
But they cannot make someone else do it, they can only allow them to assist them. Morally, signing a form for assisted suicide is the right of the person doing it, not the right and decision of any other person. Not even the spouse.

Love Lynne.xxx :)
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Then whilst the patient has their full faculties the doctor should be allowed to let the patient sign a consent form allowing them to act on their behalf and to carry out their wishes.

This would take the responsibility away from the patients relatives and allow the will of the patient to be carried out. This means the relatives need never know the doctor assisted the patient to die and would leave the relatives to grieve free of any knowledge of the assisted suicide.

Fine, but the thread is about protecting relatives who assist the patient to die, which is quite a different thing.


Quote:

Leonard James



Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 805


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately it still leaves the uncaring free to prolong the suffering of their relatives if they want to.



I think in all fairness I clearly responded to what you had previously said in your own posts.  'Uncaring' relatives free to prolong suffering of relatives... I merely pointed out a way around that. :(

Yes, I suppose doing it behind their backs would be a good way of stopping them from pontificating, but it seems to bend morality a little in another direction.


Does being terminally ill somehow change the morality or the rights of a person over their own life? NO! So no 'behind back' or 'bending morality', involved. :shock: I am surprised you suggested there was.

Once again you have missed the whole point! It is behind the backs of the relatives, isn't it? The doctor and the patient are acting in secret to prevent the relatives interfering. NOW do you understand how it is bending morality?
Quote:
If, that was the case it would be bending morality to ask a doctor to give a lethal injection or assist suicide in the first place.
Because Morally he would become a murderer.:shock: :?  :(

Murder is the taking of life unlawfully ... otherwise hangmen and the fighting forces would be murderers, wouldn't they? For goodness sake think! The doctor is doing what the patient asks him to do, just as the hangmen does his job, and the army do in war.

Quote:
It is a tangle but the only way past it, is the right of the person terminally ill to choose. Being terminally ill does not remove the persons rights to choose for themselves.

Precisely, and that is why relatives have no right to prevent them choosing death if they want to.
Quote:
A terminally ill patient can stop their suffering at any time.
But they cannot make someone else do it, they can only allow them to assist them. Morally, signing a form for assisted suicide is the right of the person doing it, not the right and decision of any other person. Not even the spouse.

Except in the case of the patient being unable to do it themself, as in the case of permanent coma.
Judders Lady...

Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:


Does being terminally ill somehow change the morality or the rights of a person over their own life? NO! So no 'behind back' or 'bending morality', involved. :shock: I am surprised you suggested there was.

Once again you have missed the whole point! It is behind the backs of the relatives, isn't it? The doctor and the patient are acting in secret to prevent the relatives interfering. NOW do you understand how it is bending morality?


Hi Leonard,

Again, our medical conditions and our doctor patient relationship has nothing to do with our relatives. We don't ask their permission to attend the surgery and we don't have any obligation, moral or otherwise to tell them anything we decide based upon that visit or our health and medical problems. So NO there is no conspiring or secrecy there is the simple and the usual right of patient and doctor privacy. The doctor cannot reveal anything about the patients medical records or conditions and the patient is under no obligation to share it with anyone, including their family.(outside legal reasons) So there is no bending it is simply the doctor must carry out the patients wishes.
He has not obligation to those outside his patient. Not even their family. So no bending morality, a patients rights to confidentiality is not changed because of the type of illness. If the patient wants to tell their family or not they are free to do so.


Quote:

Quote:
If, that was the case it would be bending morality to ask a doctor to give a lethal injection or assist suicide in the first place.
Because Morally he would become a murderer.:shock: :?  :(

Murder is the taking of life unlawfully ... otherwise hangmen and the fighting forces would be murderers, wouldn't they? For goodness sake think! The doctor is doing what the patient asks him to do, just as the hangmen does his job, and the army do in war.


Not the same thing... A person sentenced to death is under penalty for breaking a law. The person at war are fighting a war which means people die. But a doctor takes an oath to preserve life.
The person does not physically kill the other they merely press the button or pull the switch of the machine that will kill them. If they strangled them, then they are the murderer. Now A gun kills and so does bombs. Armed combat means all have an equal chance of living. But if it is kill or be killed then it is not murder.
But the person who puts others in that position how will they become answerable? Good question. The doctor also uses a method the person dying is being helped to go peacefully, helped on their way to death which is certain. But the murderer and the soldier are casualties that need not have occurred.
Quote:

Quote:
It is a tangle but the only way past it, is the right of the person terminally ill to choose. Being terminally ill does not remove the persons rights to choose for themselves.

Precisely, and that is why relatives have no right to prevent them choosing death if they want to.


Which is why, the person and their doctor are doing nothing wrong in arranging their painless death.

Quote:

Quote:
A terminally ill patient can stop their suffering at any time.
But they cannot make someone else do it, they can only allow them to assist them. Morally, signing a form for assisted suicide is the right of the person doing it, not the right and decision of any other person. Not even the spouse.

Except in the case of the patient being unable to do it themself, as in the case of permanent coma.



If terminally ill they can leave the instructions, can't they.
Doctors under the law can administer pain relief necessary to relieve the pain. Sometimes it does overdose the patient and they die.
But the doctor has that clause when patient dying to only have administered enough to kill the pain. When expected death no postmortem is necessary so no checks on pain dose administered.
The doctor being allowed to treat the pain.

It is sad in this day and age we cannot see God as not wanting his children in pain. :(

Love Lynne.xxx Smilie_PDT
Leonard James

Thank you for your reply, Lynne.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum