Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
My husband lived with Motor Neurone Disease. He never once said "Why me?" Instead, "Why not me?" He fought bravely and cheerfully.
If he had taken the path of assisted dying/suicide nobody would have known the strength of his character and the depth of his Faith.
It is murder in disguise. The legalised taking of a life dehumanises our society as a whole. Just because it is performed in a 'sterilised' and 'clinical' manner, that should not fool us into ignoring the barbarity of the intention. We should all be working together to build a compassionate future where human dignity and the value of life are respected no matter what the cost. The strong and powerful should be protecting the weak and defenceless. ......Come on, we are made to be better than this!
God gave us life only he can take it away
In the interim policy connected with this debate, the public interest factors in favour of prosecution are extremely complex and would be very difficult to prove in law. I fear that this would give rise to countless cases coming to court quite apart from the question of whether it is morally acceptable to help another to their death. Do we want a society which approves of euthanasia? Just as the abortion law has led to millions of innocent lives being terminated in the interest of the individual and the state, I would anticipate that a law allowing assisted suicide would lead to a huge loss of life. I am afraid we could expect a very large number of these deaths to be questionable just as abortion accounts for a large number of deaths for reasons little more than convenience. What sort of society have we become? Compassion can be offered in other ways with a more positive, caring approach. Let us seek the answers to this difficult dilemma elsewhere.
NO! NO! NO! thank you. Life is sacred from the moment of conception until it is ended naturally. What right has man to think he has the wisdom to decide for anyone when and how he will be "terminated"?
A wise man once said'if you would look to the future...look at history'. Have we forgotten so soon all that Hitler's regime brought about?
(Already the truth has been removed from school books in Britain 'in case it offends'!!)
Let us remember the past and all that we witness in the world today.Let us keep in mind the possibility of mans' inhumanity to man when power over life and death are given into the wrong hands.
while there is still time.."render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's". God alone knows what passes between God and man in those last moments of life.Let no mortal man deceive us into thinking he has the Wisdom of God that he may,in our weakness ,deprive us of any one of them.
I currently work in a hospital and care for the elderly where many many resources and sientific advances are used to treat and diagnose right until the patients last afternoon on this earth. What is missing however are more human resourses, to make the patient more comfortable until their last breath.
Maslow's hierarchy of human needs is not currently in fashion.
I am completely against assisting suicide.
Like the abortion bill, legalisation of euthanasia will be the thin end of a wedge. It will allow pressure on "unwanted" folk to have their lives ended.My experience as a GP of 28 years tells that good palliative care raises the value of persons (both patient and carers) while euthanasia wuold diminish it.
Life and death are the EXCLUSIVE preserve of God. Let's leave Him to it, and let's resist the temptation of much trust in ourselves because we have acquired SOME knowledge and titles (PhDs, BSc,s Lorships, Damess, etc), we know it all. To date, we know just a tiny bit of the universe and what it reaaly stands for. Let us avoid the mentality that could be called IMMODESTY.
By what right do we "put down" a fellow world citizen as we would a dog? Each of us has a unique life to live, including the coming into and departing from it. We need to guard against thinking we are "assisting" when we are just taking control over another's life and "eliminating" them. Life is not tidy or comfortable and the dying bit is especially hard for us to address but with the loving care and respect from friends, family, professionals we have the right to "do it" the best we can. We all know the consequences of too much power in the hands of men, good or bad, at the start, power corrupts .... a life is and must be considered precious and sanctified.
I do strongly disagree with Dr Joffe.
Medicine is there to cure, not to kill.
Improving and universalising paliative care (including pastoral and spiritual care of every individual, believers and non believers) is the answer.
No more playing God. Life, from conception to its final stages has to be protected. Suicide is a failure of the health system and society as a whole.
I do personately would distrust any doctor close to me if I ever become fragile or and terminally ill. This is insane. Like ever, the more vulnerable, lonely and economically weak will pay the bill of this "social lab" experiments.
Not in my name and certainly not with my taxes.
We are afraid that Assisted Dying would be revisited with more bills to legalise voluntary euthanasia and become progressively more extreme.
We grew up in the Second World War and learned to fear Hitler.
We are now more afraid of the proposers of this bill for assisted dying.
We survived Hitler. What realistic hope do we have of surviving the culture of death that is growing already in our society? (for example Dr Shipman, and the proposals to legalise assisted dying).
Who are we to decide on the right time for someone to die? We cannot know what meaning and dignity and blessing a life can bring, even in its final stages.
The Sanctity of Life is a concept we should vigorously uphold, not wear away or water down.
It's not right that some medical practicioners are trying to find ways to end life, and lobbying for that, while many devote their lives, careers, and money to trying to prolong and aid the lives of people with Altzeimers or terminal Cancer. Do we value life to its very end, or not?
Regardless of whether people believe in God or not, it still seems against nature to end someone's life. It is the biggest thing any person could do, and the consequences to your own conscience, let alone somebody who perhaps is vulnerable and doesn't really want to die, are huge. I can't imagine what itis like suffering with such pain, but I feel that if we open the door a little bit, the floodgates will come puring in and the system willbe abused
Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive officiously to keep alive'
Don't know the source, but says it well. Maximum control of pain & distress
must always be priority, but intention to kill another human being can never
be justifiable.
It is vital to oppose this proposal from a very practical, rational, humanist perspective - there are many people who are already living below the stated level campaigners regard as the minimum level at which they would be prepared to live. By setting a precedence which states the minimum level which is “acceptable” for people to live at you are setting the context for the following. You are saying:
·that these thousands of people’s lives are not worth living. What
might that imply?
·that it is legally acceptable to both remove resources that maintain
those people’s lives (how can you justify expenditure on
maintaining people’s loves at an “unacceptable” level?) and
·you can legally justify ending any lives below a given minimum
standard.
What’s the next step?
Seeking legal rights in such a context assert the rights of a few at the expense of threatening the rights of many. This is not how legislation is normally and reasonably developed in this country. It is badly thought through, short sighted, intrinsically selfish and deeply damaging at a community as well as a personal level.
as someone who has recently faced the diagnosis of cancer, I hope that if my situation becomes terminal (as it will for all of us) I have time to prepare, myself and my loved ones, and that I am helped in my departure with dignity and as little pain as possible, but when my life has taken its natural course.
There are many more important issues to deal with first, around the way we care, or don't care for the most vulnerable in our communities, particularly the elderly and sick, before we take the Scrooge option "they had better die, and decrease the surplus population".
Assisted suicide nearly always seems to me to be the easy way out usually for a friend or relation. Palliative care is not an easy option but is there to help a person have a good experience of death which is a uniquely human process. If we bring in God there is the belief that he is the creator and he should 'control' both the beginning and the end of life because that is his right and responsibility. We are co-workers with God and should be doing all we can - as we are - to research and improve the dying process. We don't take over the Boss' job but work with him. Once assisted suicide comes in then it will become mandatory I think - either to ask for it or to be given it!
So encouraging to see the many comments upholding the inalienable value of human dignity, even in the face of pain and suffering over the mistaken 'kindness' of assisted dying.
Assisted dying is not a recognition of the person's right to self determination; it introduces a right to the state's assistance to end one's life under certain circumstances. The common argument, 'Who are you to say how long I should live?' thus entirely avoids the issue. The person who demands a right to assisted suicide doesn't ask to be left in peace to live and die according to his own lights, but rather claims a right to state sanction and medical assistance to die at a time of his choice. The medical profession would be radically compromised by the responsibility to administer death- a concientious objection clause to protect individuals would not go far enough to safeguard the integrity and trustworthiness of the profession as a whole. Every doctor diagnosing a patient as terminally ill would at once be providing that patient with an implicit offer of death. It might seem to be scaremongering to suggest that a right to assisted suicide could quickly lead to a perceived responsibility to die (to save resources, for the good of the family, society, the planet). Unfortunately, experience suggests otherwise- one need only consider the weight of respectable opinion which condemns parents who choose to allow an unborn child with Down's syndrome to live as 'irresponsible.'
The state and society would, by signing up to the philosophically suspect notion that an individual is, given the existence of certain preconditions (i.e. terminal illness), the ultimate arbiter of the value of his own life, weaken respect for all human life, especially vulnerable life. If the state recognises that the means to die should be provided to those who are ill and suffering, then the state must subscribe to the view that life marked by terminal illness and suffering has less value than the life of the healthy.
Finally, how are we ever to allow assisted suicide and at the same time provide protection for the right to life of the dying? Even apart from the obvious pressures which might be brought to bear by loneliness, fear of 'being a burden' and unscrupulousness, how can we be sure that choices made in the face or pain, fear or depression are free choices? Would ill and elderly patients be provided with full counselling to fully explore their wishes and motivations? Or would requests to die be taken at face value?
I think 'assisted dying' is very misleading and many people misinterpret its meaning. READ THE FACTS CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR VOTE. We are not talking about whether its ok for nurses and doctors to treat someone as if they are ready to die or pull the plug... we are talking about those people who are suffering and ready to die but incapable to do it themselves. I think it is inhumane to see a loved one suffering and ready to die but be unable to help them. Financial position should not determine whether or not one can kill themself... and currently it is... those who want to die go to north european countries where it is legal and do so. So what we are really saying is... if you cant afford the trip... its illegal.
There are 60 year olds ready to die and 80 year olds living strong and fighting... it should be illegal to infer whether someone should end there own life... but legal to help them if they decide that is what they really want. Its their life... and regardless of financial position, it should be their choice.
This poll has clearly been jumped on by a christian group. It's a shame the results will represent a more biased sample than initially.
I accept that differing views regarding the value of human life exist. I am so grateful to those who truly value their own life - and would not wish to undermine the value of others. The danger of dehumanisation, desensitisation etc as illustrated by people, organisations and culture is that the very proposals that a vocal minority propose - should even come to light! Please - may those who want to enforce their views on the rest of us - remember what happens to so many of the unborn and the vulnerable. It all seems very dark to me - and should have no place in any civilised society. Indeed I believe the Police should be involved where the anti life attitude exists. We are all incredible acts of creation - and should most certainly be respected, loved, cherished and cared for irrespective of the harmful minority views that are expressed in this World. Millions of people have died in war for their country so that others may live peacefully. What kind of World are we creating when people actively try to kill the vulnerable? There is no dignity in that.
I believe we are facing not a piece of legislation but more a paradigm shift in how we perceive the frail and terminally ill. Rather than protecting the vulnerable we will be judging their productivity and influence rather than their nature. For the sake of a few the majority must be safeguarded.
Having said that, I have no notion of how I may react in a terminally ill situation or whether I would change my mind faced with a life and death illness.
Ease the suffering of patients - give them a choice. it's not defeitist - it's allowing patients to have the choice.
I notice that all the comment are from those who are not in , and may not ever be in the position for a terminally ill person and so harp on about various ethics and likenings to Hitler.
Firstly being both gay and jewish I find that hitler based arguement both stupid and offensive. We are not talking about wiping out millions of people deemed unfit for a single view of society, but however letting those for whom life is more painful and burdenful than otherwise may be.
My view is that if the person involved will die from their illness, and that medical science can provide no hope or respite and that they can convey this wish ratioanlly of their own will and that their life is more of an existance than a life then I would not object to this. It would have to be quite tightly controlled however.
The main reason I say this, is that I am also HIV+ and although currently well and healthy it is 99% likely I will end up in an ICU as a "terminally ill person". Given that, I would like the choice to end my life when it becomes both too painful and not worth living for myself, and possibly those around me.
The same way as we cannot decide to kill someone; we cannot enforce the choice of living upon them. As healthy individuals it is easy for us to decide against euthanasia but it's really those who are terminally ill, in severe pain that really needs the bill. True enough, the bill may be misused by ill-meaning people, but that is not a sufficient reason for us to deny the people who truly need it. Death is not unnatural - in fact it is the most natural thing of human life. The manner in which euthanasia may be conducted is questionable and debatable, but not the idea in itself. It is really up to the regulatory boards to minimise its abuse.
I Wouldn't want anyone to suffer like my relative did, She was in a home and hated it, She wanted to die and had no pleasure from life at all. This is when to give dignity to the old by giving the old their final rights as to what they want and not what we think they want. Religous people should think about living in the real world and help those suffering to have their final say.
Thankyou.
We have legalised this in my home country (the Netherlands). I think that it is of the essence that a family in cooperation with professional doctors can make such a decision. Please don't forget that it can be a very selfish decision to keep someone alive. Let me illustrate this by the example of the Italian girl who was in coma for 22 years and fed via a tube for all those years. Why would such a person need to stay alive? Would you want to be that person? I would prefer to die, as that would allow my family to grieve rather then to look after someone which doesn't respond to anything any more. I know it might sound harsh, but by keeping alive people at the final stage of an illness is a very selfish thing with no interest for the patient itself, but only for its relatives or friends. Please note that this process is being looked at by many specialists and all "suicide" requests are being rejected. It only applies for those who are suffering deeply from their illness or for those where their brains stopped working.
Life is very precious. It is a sad state of affairs when we want to "get rid of" ourseleves in this manner, with the excuse that it's "better for " the patient. I can never understand how anyone can say that death is better than life. And yes , I have faced the care of relatives at the point of death - sometimes prolonged. Each time was a very moving and lasting experience. But it seems to me that we are more worried about our own suffering at seeing them suffer and want to end it for ourselves rather than really making it better for them.
Let's take on our responsibiliy of taking really good care of ourselves at this point in our lives and not shy away from the inevitable difficulties.
It is not human to want to kill ourselves!!!
If I were terminally ill and in pain, I would want the right to decide when and how I die. While I am physically able then I could act alone to achieve this. However, if the illness/pain left me physically unable to carry out the actions necessary to end my life then I would want those who love me to be able to assist me in achieving my objective without fear of prosecution.
Having voted against legalising assisted suicide, I highly advocate palliative care to make the person's life as dignified and comfortable as possible with constant encouragement and support from the family, friends and professional carers (in hospital, hospice and home environments). From my personal experience care at home, with all the necessary professional input and support required, to the person and their family, is the best when circumstances permit. Carers also need help and support to sustain their caring role. The cost for care in the home by family members combined with adequate professional support is no higher than maintaining someone in a nursing home or other types of institutional care where inevitably the desire to continue living is diminished.
"Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm."
I'm confused. Are we talking about the fate of an individual who is terminally ill being decided by someone else, or are we talking about that particular individual's right to end their own life (or rather, if they want it but are physically unable having someone legally help them)?
If the former, I can understand the gut 'no' reaction. If the latter, I don't see the problem.
I've watched for 10yrs my partner's dad die a little every day with the technically non-terminal illness of Multiple Schlerosis. MS in fact doesn't kill you, but like AIDS it ensures that eventually one of a million things will, be it liver or kidney failure because of the pills he has to be on, or because he catches a particularly nasty flu. His pain is NOT "managed effectively" at all, because he is not dying.
Oh and incidentally I recently watched the last days of my mother dying from cancer. Indeed, she was on morphine and everything they could give her (they acknowledged it was the end so pumped her full of painkillers that would have caused long term liver damage had she continued to live). They gave her everything available for 'pain management', and I have to say that her being unable to communicate for sake of screaming in agony, the eyes wild like an animal, her thrashing about the hospital bed when conscious and wimpering in pain while sleeping, and the face of a woman's soul tortured beyond belief is not an experience I will quickly forget. When she found out she had cancer, she wanted to die before it got to that. If I could have, I would have done it for her. Unlike those of you who have your high horse blocking the view I *saw* the pain and I allowed myself to empathise.
Incidentally those who claim only God can give and take life might want to think about this: God has been trying to kill the terminally ill and disabled for centuries, and humans have been fighting against it. Whether or not that is the right thing to do in all cases is arguable. Just because a human cannot find food or cloth themselves doesn't mean they can't contribute to society or have a meaningful existence and be happy, so if we can help them and care for them and take pleasure in seeing them live out a full life then I say "Up yours" to God and fight the fight. However keeping people on drugs and machines chained to a bed waiting for 'God' to win and let them die is wrong.
My partner's dad has wanted to die for a decade or two, and he purposefully finds ways to hurt people and himself (therefore his wife too) because he has been prevented from doing so. He is not happy by any means, and lives in constant pain, when he's not tossing uncomfortably in his sleep. Tell me, is this good for him?
Assisted suicide changes the relationship between health professionals and patients - medicines are intended to relieve symptoms and cure illness not take away life. As a pharmacist I consider I have a duty of care for patients which is incompatable with assisting people to die. We need to invest more in good standards of palliative care which has reduced suffering enormously for people.
Already I have experience of elderly people refusing to go into hospital because they are afraid of 'what might happen to them' - someone might tick the boxes on the piece of paper, sedate them, withdraw fluids so that they would be dead within 36 hours - and this without consultation to either them or their family. This is murder.
Life is sacred from the womb to the tomb. Suffering and dying is part of all this but not the end. Despair is. We can refuse to be given medication if it seems it is not helping us. There are far better pain relieving drugs now and each moment of our lives even if we are dying is a means for salvation. Whether we believe in God or not we will meet Him in the next life and while in this life He is merciful and forgiving in the next He will be our final judge.
We are not made for this life here on earth but for eternal happiness but it is our choice not God's . Say the Our Father each day and dont be bullied by others in white coats
I am very disappointed with the comments against assisted dying. Keeping me alive against my will when I am suffering is a torture. We are not talking about murder here. Please keep your religious views to yourself. If you wish to live when you are in pain I will respect that wish. However keeping me alive against my will has no moral justification. It is not that you are killing me. You are helping me to kill myself which is my right. If I could I would but I cannot because I do not that capacity. Please be a little more humane and less dogmatic about this issue.
I think pain releif and palliative care allows people to live as long as they can with quality the problem is not ending peoples life but making good quality palliative cars available to everyone. Sometimes I can understand the desire to end suffering and as a nurse have seen a great deal of suffering However I think legalising assisted suicide is a mistake. End of life care exists in a legal grey area which makes every practitioner consider carefully what they are doing administering pain releif and suppressing heart and ling function which will mean that a person dies a bit quicker and without pain. Practitioners should always be in the position of considering very carefully what they are doing and why. I think this is right and that legalising assisted suicide would take that element away a little which would be a mistake and could lead to a lack of confidence in patients who may wonder if they will be helped to die when they go into hospital even if they don't want that particularly among the elderly population.
good opportunity for debate which can often be v emotive. We need to everythng we can to listen to those who are struggling and respect their wishes yet still value life. The question should also be about responsibilities as well as rights. Respnsibilitites to those who are vulnerable, to protect society from dangerous assumptions that those who are weak and frail as less valuable, that the rights oif the individual overcome the responsibility to protect and care for those most in need we must ensure doctors can be trusted not to end the lives of their patients prematurely as this trust relationship is under enough prssure already. This may mean some people feel they dont get the help they are asking for but we need to hold this tension and offer all the high quality person centred care we can. We have a right to die but not a right to be killed.
Palliative Care doctor UK, India and now Uganda
There should be better care afforded to terminally ill patients, in terms of the medication(s) they need to help them remain pain free. Assisting someone to take their own life is not right and is not dignified and it shows how far we have come as a human race when we can talk about assisted suicide as being a dignified act. Life is a gift, and it should be cherised. It is sacred and therefore we should be looking at how we can help people to die in peace, naturally, free from pain by giving them the care they deserve.
Assisted dying is open to horrendous abuse and the possibility of this Bill being passed makes me shuuder with fear. No human being has the right to decide when and how anothr human being dies and to think otherwise is supreme arrogance and a Mortal sin in my opinion.
Increasing palliative care is of the optimum and allowing new drugs to ease suffering must be made available and cost should not be the primary concern.
If I was terminally I would not want my loved ones to have the option of assisting my death the burden is too great and the long-term consequences are terrifying!
I could not send my loved one/s to their death with assisted dying and suicide.
we must never allow this fearsome Bill to be passed!
The idea of free consent by those who are faced with being a burden to their loved ones and prolonging the vicarious pain of thsoe around them is a myth. There will be all sorts of pressures to consent, at a time when most vulnerable. The choice between being a burden and electing to die will be no choice for many elderly people, who hate being a burden anyway. Just creating a legal choice is cruel, as it then makes terminal suffering effectively self-inflicted, on oneself and others, as one has the choice to end it all. Nothing brings out the mercenary in nice people more than prospective inheritance, and we can all kid ourselves that we are really acting in the best interests of the relative in helping them to die rather than waste money on care and erode inheritances. Are we really going to not prosecute but disinherit those who assist, just to make sure they had no financial incentives (as per the current DPP guidlelines)? If not then abuse will inevitably be widespread.
The law should give maximum protection, not expose the most vulnerable to pressure and risk. Think about it: who is to give evidence as to free consent and requests etc, when the victim is dead.
I have much sympathy with the diffculties of thoe who suffer, but a change in the law would add to rather than detract from the pain to be faced at the end of life. And areas of grey are always a problem, so more questions will be created than answered. Hard cases always make bad law. I write as an experienced lawyer.
A society should be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Allowing the stronger ones licence to effectively kill (ineffective consent + assistance = killing) would be a terrible measure, though logical for a society of evolutionists - the survival of the fittest after all.
When a suffering human being is loved they do not want to dye as love is stronger than pain.
When someone is affectionately caring for a loved one in pain, they receive more than they give.
These are basic facts.... but selfisheness turns them up side down and we get an inhuman being.
The natural human tendency will always be to protect life. When a society fosters the opposite there is something really seriously going very wrong with its members.
The one fate worse than death of whatever other sort, is suicide. So the procurement, or collaboration in the procurement, of death neither is, nor is complementary to, palliative care, whose function is entirely to assist, again, not death, but LIFE in its last moments.
This would lessen respect for life and pressurise other vulnerable people.
With good Palliative care no one need die in pain.
We put animals down when they are in distress and have reached the end of their natural lifespan. Thank God, my family and friends see me as a person with a God given right to live until such time as He decides to take me to Him and not as an animal who we take to the clinic to be put down. My mother died recently; she had dementia and it was a privilege to care for her.
So often we hear of someone who, for a short time, wishes to die and changes their mind. This is one argument against assisted suicide but there is a greater - God gives life and only God should decide when it is time for us to die.
investing in palliative care is the real answer
Erm, this is a University of Bath poll? why is it on a catholic blog site? this is totally biasing the results, they want to now what people at the university think.
Although I have cancer and do not know how my actual death will work out in the end, I am totally against assisted dying. It would make so many people really vulnerable. Instead of all this campaigning, the pro-lobby would do better to put its effort into improving palliative care, which is already good but, as always, could be better. I am horrified at the way our society is going.
This is an issue of choice and of quality of life. I have looked after people who were enduring great suffering whilst dying from some of the most upsetting and debilitating neurodegenerative diseases. Each time they had any sort of infection they were put on antibiotics and kept alive to continue their suffering. This seems wrong to me, this is quantity of life over quality of life, which seems to be such a common approach in the medical profession. However, the problem of the matter is, who should decide if somebody else should die? People have the choice to end their own life if they want to and some are unable to do this without help, therefore I think if a person has the mental capacity to make this decision, their choice should be respected and they should be assisted if necessary. If a person is not considered to have the capacity to make this choice, then is it right that somebody else decides whether their quality of life is so lacking that they should die? Probably not. This is such a complex issue, I'm not sure it can ever be resolved. We should never assume that another person has little quality of life because it's impossible to see things from somebody else's perspective. But if someone really wants to die, I believe they should be granted this wish, we are supposed to have freedom of choice after all.
My Mother is slowly dying of Motor Neurone Disease, it is dreadful seeing her suffer and we do our best to make her as comfortable as possible, along with the nurses and carers who come to help at home who are fantastic. There are so many opportunties to care. Yes, it is very hard to see someone suffer, but these are precious moments when we can show so much disinterested love. Human beings are so rich and complex, we cannot treat them like simple animals - "putting them out of their misery"-. When people say they want to die, they often mean 'I don't want to be such a burden on you', 'I don't want to suffer like this', and of course it is not necessary to prolong life indefinitely, but yes, to nurture, love, feed and water it for as long as we can! Palliative pain control is superb, it just takes some expertise, application and love. Then those final days are days you will never regret, but always be grateful you had. No one lives forever on this earth.
This idea of assisted suicide seems to have been inspired by some admittedly hard cases. But, unfortunately, hard cases make bad law!
i believe that a patient who is terminally ill is more than often not of sound mind and cannot make a serious decision - i also believe that a suffering patient shoudl be given whatever medication is available to make them as comfortable as possible but they should die in a natural way and not be drugged to death. often the suffering is just as hard for the family and no doubt this might influence the patient's decision. god should be the only one who has the right to end our earthly life
People do suffer - that I do not disagree with. But assisted dying is NOT the answer. I have so many great conversations with the elderly and dying in my work as a doctor and realise that they have plenty to contribute. I would hate it if these folk or even my own nan felt any pressure to "opt" for death. I think a good deal of elderly will feel pressured to end their lives.
Also many folk would start to calculate their own worth, and may well feel that they lack. Sometimes I myself feel like life isn't worthwhile but realise that I am loved and needed INDEPENDENT of my ability to lift shopping or play football- assisted dying simply tells people that their worth depends on what they are physically able to put into this world (which for ill folk may be small). By allowing one or two people to be helped ending their lives would impact on thousands or millions of others.
Finally it would NOT help advances in medicines for MS/MND if us docs had to just give up on the treatments and kill off the patients rather than trialling new meds.
This would be an awful awful direction for humankind to take.
In the light of comments made here I have been given pause for thought. I have long believed that as the ability to prolong human life extends, the issues this raises are not being given sufficient scope for consideration. We seldom really hear this discussed in the media or by many TV radio programs.
I have never personally met anyone whose pain is such that they find continuity of life unbearable, but I have read this does happen. Whilst I share the concerns of those who may have to make these decisions I personally fear being faced with that state of pain myself, with no solution other than long drawn out massive pain. Nor would I wish that state on anyone I loved and cherished.
So I am left now as a 'Dont Know' where I would have been a 'Yes'.
Killing, by any name, whether it be abortion, mercy-killing, suicide or other, is MURDER. There is a law of the land that states it is a punishable offence, a crime. Let those who have forgotten, or are trying to change it to suit their own fallible views, remember that man was not given that prerogative. Individual choice, yes indeed, but let us also not forget that the consequence of our choice will be met by the Highest Authority, who commanded:
"THOU SHALL NOT KILL"
What do we have to do to stop this relentless march of this abhorent topic?
We have but one life, which is God given, and we are accountable to God for our conduct with that one life. We are clearly discouraged from committing murder and surely acting to assist suicide is inviting someone to commit murder.
Having spent 10 years working in the Hospice Movement I am truely convinced that the majority of pain can be eased and the emotional aspects of dying can be eleviated, such that patients can have a fruitful and fulfilling end of life. I do not speak only of cancer but of all terminal conditions. I often think that the emotional problem is more for those left behind than for the dying, and is often a feeling of guilt........did I do enough?
I am not a member of the Medical profession, just a manager.
If a person is terminally ill, suffering and in pain but of sound mind it is their life, their decision.
My experience of watching a loved one die, in pain, soiling the bed, etc with no quality of life - it was very cruel.
Nobody hesitates to put an ill animal down, they are Gods creatures too but that does not get labelled murder.
English is not my mother language, so you may find my sharing may not be clear enough somewhere.
First of all, I would like to change the issue as: "Should the terminally ill have the choice of assisted dying?" It makes me feel more comfortable because I am not an object whose right to be discussed and decided by others, but my right of choice was the main concern, not only of others, but of myself especially.
Second, I agree that assisted dying is consistent with palliative care of terminal patients. So why not?
Finally, I think if a terminally ill person has the right of access to assisted dying, he/she may find it more bearable with his/her own choice of endless suffering till death.
If the public still cannot understand and thus support the right of assisted dying for terminal patient, I would urge my God to grant me a timely death if I suffer a terminal illness in the future.
Assisted suicide is the thin end of the wedge. Where does it stop? One could envisage government encouraging it to save money on the NHS. We need respect for people and life whatever their age and look after them with care.
I say "No!" My children are in their late-20s; I am 58. I'm quite sure that by the time of their 80s (probably not my own ... but who knows?) people who are very sick/immobile, and have no money, will be terminated by some medical means. People who are presently arguing for the "right" of "assisted suicide" are laying the foundations for this. They may not intend to, they may have honourable intentions, but the road to hell is thus paved. And let's hear no more of this spurious word "dignity" - it's just an excuse to assume power over people, to legitimise termination - a real politician's word.
A very dear friend of mine died last year aged 100 at her own home and under the care of those who loved her - four friends - as no relatives were alive (found). She firmly refused to go to a home or hospital and wanted to die at home, and so she did. This is an example of what the power of love and a little sacrifice will do for others. We need a culture for living not for killing.
Why are people wishing to commit suicide? We, as a society, are failing to support them emotionally and medically. We are alll going to die in God's good time - well cared for the approaching end of life can be a time of great blessings - life was never meant to be easy and who's to say taking your own life (with help or not) is an easy option
As someone who has MS I would say a definite no to this. There are times when I have been very low and have thought about death but now am very happy to be alive. I know some people are a lot more progressive than I am but I really think we need to support people better and make life worth living, not just end it.
If you must legalise killing, keep it away from the medical profession: apoint Lord High Executioners if you wish, but do not ask those of us who work every day to try to make each moment valued, to turn our hands to destruction and the complete negation of all that we do.
Killing a loved one is the ultimate denial of the value and meaning of life.
It is not man's role to play God and be the arbiter of life. Accordingly, death should be natural, not unnatural.
Sean
19/10/2009
Ill or dying patients may fear abandonment. Assisted suicide as an integral part of Palliative Care would feed this fear and should never be considered. Appropriate and true care means concerted efforts of dedicated, skilled carers and other appropriate people who can address the spiritual, physical, psychological, social and thereby the emotional needs of patients.
As a GP in Bath, I want NOT to have permission to prescribe drugs for my patients to kill themselves with. Allowing me to do so would undermine the trust my patients have in me and is against the ethical codes of medicine from Hippocrates onwards. No amount of legislation could prevent situations where vulnerable sick individuals are pressurised by their families to "do the decent thing and end it all".
The only time I have ever been asked to prescribe drugs for suicide, I gently refused, and the patient later thanked me for doing so when she felt better. She went on to die naturally and peacefully, not artificially and with a bad conscience.
I don't think assisted dying should be legalised. It is immoral and it will open the floodgates to abuse particularly of the elderly in Nursing Homes.
Iam a Public Health Nurse and part of my work is with terminally ill people.Ive seen that with good palliative care and good support patients dont ask for assisted suicide.
I share Lord Joffe's concern for those who suffer, including those who would suffer, if his bill became law, from uncaring and greedy persons who might hope to benefit from their deaths.
This would be in direct contravention of the sanctity of life and no matter what safeguards were to be put in place there are bound to be cases where the elderly were pressurised to agree to it by unscrupulous family members because they have become a nuisance or in order to obtain the benefit of their will.
I find it sad that the value of life can have a £ sign attached to it. Assisted dying is just a cheap alternative rather than offering true palliative care. How long I wonder, before the sci-fi drama "Logans Run" becomes a reality?
If our doctors and nurses are given the resourses and are allowed to practice good medicine and care of the terminally ill they will help patients have a good death as part of the oath they make to do all they can for their patients, ' which does no harm'. Sadly , dying, even assisted dying can be hard and undignified but with kindness and commited care, the suffering, wether physical or mental can be eased. As a nurse 45 years ago we were trained to see that the care of the dying wth dignity was as important as any other aspect of hospital treatment. but then we had enough staff and administraters were not urging the 'emptying of beds' to meet government goals.Let Lord Joffe and those who think like him be the ones to face the patient and administer the dose that will kill them. Let doctors and nurses continue to do their best to ease patients in their dying moments and care for not kill them. Another of the answers is more and better hospice care away from hospitals.
We abolished capital punishment because, in spite of very stringent safeguards, innocent people died. However sympathetic we are to the minute number of sufferers who have a settled determination to die and could not kill themselves, we must not put large numbers of the elderly and disabled at risk by changing the law which protects them. No "safeguards" could be sufficient.
If the legislation is changed I fear for the many elderly and disabled people who might feel that they are a burden to friends, relations and carers and consequently might decide to end their lives. As a society we need to recognise that every human life is valuable. We surely should be devoting more resources to palliative care.
LIFE and DEATH is in the hands of GOD (the giver and the taker of life) and should always remain so.
I know that I have no right to decide when I leave this earth!
Made by God, in His image, I belong to Him, not only by creation but because I was bought back through His self-sacrifice in Christ on the cross.
I'm 70+ and can readily see the self benefits of removing pain through controlled dying, but cannot God do a better job than me?
As the Lord's prayer says, "Your will be done."
I do not work in the medical profession but have heard the following statement from a doctor who specialises in palliative care:
85% of all pain can be controlled
13% can be managed by drugs and
2% can be regulated by sedation.
I have also heard that extreme pain is more likely to shorten your life than the side-effects of the painkillers used to control it.
I thoroughly disagree with assisted dying. It leads to abuse and intimidation of very vulnerable people by relatives who may be beneficiaries and carers, especially, the terminally ill. Todays attitude to old and vulnerable people is downright disgraceful. It will lead to wholesale murder, just like the abortion bill and used for social reasons. Where money is concerned, every beneficiary becomes a potential murderer, if it becomes law, which will be made easier by a legal veil.
I vote that it will never become law.
If assisted dying is legalised for the terminally ill, I think our society would be heaping guilt and worry on some of the most vulnerable.
Palliative care is about enabling patients to live as actively as possible until they die, naturally and peacefully and, whenever possible, with their families around them. The UK leads the world in palliative care, but the reality is that the service remains poorly funded. The numbers of specially trained health and social care professionals who could do this work effectively and give all those suffering from life limiting illness the opportunity to die with dignity, are seriously deficient in numbers. It seems easier and cheaper to bring in laws that enable people to kill themselves, rather than investing sufficient monies in these services. One of the main burdens of those with a life limiting illness is the burden it places on friends and family. By encouraging debate and promoting understanding of how people can achieve comfortable and natural deaths we can encourage government to consider more investment in services rather than taking an easy way out by legalising assisted suicide.
Refusing a suffering, terminally ill person's wish to end his life on his own terms is tantamount to torture. What right is it of yours to decide how long someone else must suffer?
I wonder how many people who voted NO on this poll have euthanized dying pets.
Never mind the religious morality of this issue I feel it is the start of a slippery slope. I am now fairly sure that some human person will decide when I die and I am CERTAIN that some human person will decide when my children die.
If any changes are needed then it is possible that more money and research should be applied to hospice care.
As we watched in sorrow at the decline of our dear mother; losing all OBVIOUS recognition of her family, we constantly wondered "why"? How could we know just what she understood or why she gave no OBVIOUS responses?
Did her mind respond but was prevented from using her speech or body movements to show us?, we will never know. We kept hoping though that one day; maybe one day!
After 5 years the curtain was finally drawn to end our sorrow and allow us to grieve.
We will never know how much mother knew or understood, but we loved her to the end and have our memories of happier times to help us.
Even at the darkest moments none of us could have considered taking her life from her. It was not ours to take. It was hers.
If not considered murder it would be "Grand Theft".
Add to this, the belief that it is God who gives life at conception, then to take it would be to rob God: A very dangerous activity.
Some of the worst actions are done out of the best motives. There can surely be no better motive than to help someone who is in great pain, but that does not in any way make it acceptable to act in a way to end their life.
The compassionate act is to show love, the kind of love that says (in the words of Gilbert Meilander) "It is good that you are here." The right response is to invest in the caring services of palliative treatment and to treat what John Wyatt describes as the 'total pain' of isolation and meaninglessness.
This is best done within the context of a medically competent religious environment that sees life as ultimately valuable and meaningful, even to the extent of seeing value and significance in suffering. This is good for the individual, and says to the vulnerable in society that "you are precious, and not expendable".
We must at all costs resist with all strength the momentum behind Lord Joffe's actions that would inevitably say to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, "It would be better if you weren't here." It would not be long before those whose illness makes them a financial burden on their family would feel a duty to end their life. No series of safeguards would be able to prevent this seismic shift in morality, and there is plenty of precedent to demonstrate this.
As a nurse I know that so much can be done to help the terminally ill therefore more reasearch and money should go into improving palliative care not killing patients off.
It has been found that countries, e,g, Holland which have legalised assisted dying have reduced palliative care. My mother died of cancer, but the care she received from Macmillan Nurses was excellent and I would hate to see that less available for those, like me who believe in the sanctity of life.
Would you trust a teacher who harmed children?
Would you trust a chef who poisoned customers?
Would you trust a nurse who killed? Would you
trust a doctor who helped to kill patients?
Would you trust a hospital
administrator/accountant seeking to reduce costs?
WOULD YOU TRUST A POLITICIAN WHO VOTED FOR
EUTHANASIA?
Euthanasia is a deliberate act or omission
undertaken with the intention of ending a person s
life to relieve their suffering. Assisted Suicide
is the act of intentionally killing oneself with
the assistance of another who provides the
knowledge, means or both. Neither consent nor
motive changes the reality. Killing the patient
should not be the treatment for suffering.
A friend told me of her mother who was ill and
down to 85 pounds. She wanted to die. Six months
later she weighed 120 pounds and was back in her
own home. If euthanasia was available she would
have welcomed it. Now her and her family are
enjoying each others company. She loves life
again! Let's care for people, not wish them dead.
Many terminally ill people do not want to die before their appointed time but the vulnerable may feel under pressure to end their life if this becomes legal. Also I had a friend who decided he wanted to die when he was diagnosed as terminally ill, but later he changed his mind. If his first wishes had been acted upon, there would have been no second chance.....
Were we to allow such a thing, it would not be long before the dying person is pressured into dying quickly for the convenience of others, or of the NHS budget. Human life is precious and must be respected totally, full stop. What we need is more assistance to help the dying person actually live as full and comfortable a life as possible until he/she dies naturally. Anything less is an abdication of our social responsibility and a grave injustice to others.
No one can give or take life but God and man should stop trying to play God.
I do understand some of the feelings in favour of assisted dying - though I appreciate my understanding must be limited - BUT I believe that the answer for those in a position where they might consider this alternative is not suicide but palliative care. We must as a nation put far more effort into developing this. Wonderful palliative care is sometimes available and it can be vastly developed if there is a will to do so. Apart from my beliefs in the sanctity of life, I also fear greatly for those who may feel under some sort of moral pressure to cease being a burden.
Life is sacred from conception to natural death. The elderly will feel pressurised to die before their time as they will be perceived as a burden to society.
Alas, I fear that Lord Joffe and many others underestimate human weakness, human evil, human corruptibility and human ingenuity in getting round obstacles and safeguards. Just as the abolition of capital punishment can be justified by the saving of one innocent life, so the prevention of euthanasia can be justified by the saving of many lives from greed, impatience and sheer desperation.
This is a very difficult subject, but the overall issue is that life itself is valuable and important, each person is unique and valuable. Care, support and pain relief should be organised so people can continue to have a quality of life that reflects their value, irrespective of whether they are elderly, sick, or infirm.
The danger with this is that in a Western cultre which over-values youth and health so much, anyone not conforming to a standard of perfection will be written off and expected to die.
I know it is excrutiating to watch a person slowly and painfully die. I had this experience with my own mother. But there were incredible times of laughetr and happiness, reflecting on the lives we had lived together and memories we had. All of that time was valuable and precious to all of us and I resist this pressure to just end it all when it gets tough. The beginning and ending of life should not be in our hands.
I believe our laws are not there to protect the strong but to protect the weak and introducing assisted dying would remove some of that protection. The law would no longer provide protection for the easily swayed or depressed and those most vulnerable in our society. Please do not allow this to happen.
Hello, thanks for this opportunity to make a comment. Its great to see public debate and understanding being encouraged by this event. But as one on the opposite side of the argument might I plea that you will give opportunity for the opposite point of view to be put.
As for me the guiding principle is clear, God gives life and only He the right to take it away. There is very much that can be done to alleviate the undoubted terrible suffering that many suffer and more effort needs to be put in that direction.