Should assisted dying be legalised for the terminally ill? (Poll Closed)

Murder is murder. Reduce their suffering, yes. But by killing them? NO.

That was Hitler's solution. Can't you come up with something better?

This is NOT a debate about free choice as some would have it.

It is about the kind of civilisation and society we want to have, and about our ackowledging of the true intrinsic dignity of every human life.

Being in a diminished or/and dependant condition does not make one's life less dignified. THis IS real life, and maybe we live in too aseptisized environments, so we tend to ignore it.

It is not caring enough for our fellow neighbors and refusing human solidarity that is UNdignified.

I just spent 10 days of watching how a friend's dear husband was treated at a local hospital. He was 89. The immediate mind set was "he's old, he's finished, let him die."
How is that attitude right in any way?
There are 70 year olds ready to die. There are 90 year olds going strong. We do not have nor should we have the right to assume when anyone is due to die. Beause a person looks old, or poor - does not entitle anyone the right to assume they are finished. I just hated the treatment he didn't receive. And yes, he died - no wonder!! We need advocates for seniors in all our hospitals.

terminally ill people should be provided optimum palliative care. In almost all cases, pain can be effectively controled. If, as a result of providing adequate pain control, the person's death is hastend, that could be acceptable, as long as the intent is not to end life but to control unbearable pain.
Doctors should always be seen as healers not as killers. It would definitely, affect the doctor/patient relationship adversely and greatly erode trust on part of the patient. All initially touted "safeguards against abuse" would quickly "fade away" and give way to "routinely dispatch" modus operandi, in case of cost or other pressures.

Facing up to life's challenges, including medical ones, is a key part of sound human growth and character development. It is the "Olympic" way. Modern Palliative care, can usually control pain well; and the depression from loneliness, can be minimized by personal friendliness, from others. C.S.Lewis offered some comforting thoughts, on "The Problem of Pain", in human life.
Modern Science has shown that we live in a complex, digitally-programmed Universe. The dominance of Mathematics, a transcendental, personal science of the Relations of Quantity, of everything, from before Time onwards, confirms the Eternal Existence, Nature, Powers, and Prerogatives of a Supreme Mathematician / Programmer / Lawyer / Scientist / Engineer / Artist Creator, whom humans call "God".
Creation is a vast, long, symphonic DVD, with a dynamic beautiful Natural, Park-like, background, in which there is the Stage, on which each human is called on cue, to be Instructed, then to perform, and then Adjudicated, on each ones competence, in the knowing, willing Moral issues in our lives.
Each human has been specifically created, and uniquely endowed with semi-Divine powers of mind, will, conscience and "heart", as talents, backup systems, assignments for credit, opportunities, and periods on duty; with accountability to each other, and finally to the Creator, at our bodily death.
Such a noble origin, nature, and destiny must preclude our falling back on the "Veterinary" approach, of "putting the poor thing out of its misery", when adversity hits. Compassion means sharing our friend's difficulties, not helping him / her to end their bodily life.
Our body is only on loan, from the Creator, per Nature ;we cannot order, buy or own it!. Like a loaned vehicle, our duty is to take good care of it, so that it is in as good a condition as possible, when recalled.
The ultimate purpose of our lives, is to prepare well, for our merciful Final Oral Exam at bodily death, that will decide our fate for the major part of our existence, in Eternity, in happiness or misery.
Hence, it is very unwise and very unkind, to send our soul, or push those of any one else, to Judgement early, and ill-prepared. We need all our assigned lifetime, in the Lab-part of the Course, for our deeds, to possibly finish our work well. And busy Professor God, will not be pleased with students who "gatecrash" his Appointments schedule, or with others who send them into his Office early, in a similar state!.

The Hippocratic Oath was instituted long ago in ancient Greece, to isolate the role of Caring, from the killing of patients, by Physicians. About 80 years ago, Germany abandoned this, and when Hitler came to power, he soon greatly expanded the killings, with little opposition. The "Quality of Life" slogan soon justified the slaughter of millions; and it will do the same for us, if we let it over-ride the intrinsic dignity and worth of everyone. None of us, are at the disposal of others, as property!.
Once Physicians become involved in killing patients, directly or indirectly, the crucial trust between them and their patients will be shattered; with tragic effects for all of us. Control becomes impossible; even children are now being killed in Holland!.It is an admission of failure by the Physician; and hopelessness by the patient. It will brutalize human relationships, like mass Abortion has. And will deter R&D on ameliorating human medical and other problems, for which good solutions may still be possible.

So it is time again, to think with our "heads", not just our emotions, to find rational, moral, truly helpful solutions to our problems, that sustain the noblest traditions of Medicine, and human kindness.

Sincerely Dr Reg Gallop

Our Christian God who is the only true God, is the only one who can give and take life.

The current poll results (Oct 16) show 5% for 95% against. I can't believe any sample would be so one-sided - has a pressure group got hold of this poll and tried to rig the result?

It is a dangerous step as it legalises killing.
However, where doctors are keeping someone alive with drugs or machinery, if the person wants to die and there is NO hope of recovery according to the doctors, then that should be considered. Non-assisted dying.

When a person is old or very ill and needs a lot of nursing/care they might feel that they are a burden and would be better out of the way. Although nobody might exert pressure the person might still feel that they don`t want to be a burden.

Also when a person is very ill or facing life with a disability they might wish to end it but later could well come to terms with their situation and find fulfillment.

It is possible that new treatments and cures may become available.

Better nursing care needs to be given to people with painful illnesses so that they can be kept comfortable as is done in hospices.

I feel the people who promote assisted dying and euthanasia are pessimists. Where people really care for the dying there is love and palliative care. Lets have more good hospices and help for those dying at home. For those who are depressed let us have positive care for them too.

This opens a door to the next step of deciding for others whether their life will be worth living. We already do this for children still in the womb if we feel there is a chance (not even a certainty) that they may be not 'normal'. We need to help more people to enjoy more of life in the difficult times. I pray churches and others who have a strong view on this will put as much effort into helping those in distress as they put into opposing these measures. Both are important.

Dying should be an organic part of living; suicide destroys the integrity of the life thus ended. Our task is to provide better and better palliative care and emotional support.

As a GP I feel that instead of assisting dying, we should be investing in better care for those who are terminally ill-ie more macmillan nurses, hospice care etc, to allow people to die in dignity and peace.

I find it rather absurd that as a society we (rightly) do all we can to prevent young people who are troubled from committing suicide, while at the same propose that we should assist someone a bit older to do the same.
Where would we draw the line. its the terminally ill now, would it be the depressed next, then the profoundly disabled.

Before long we'd be as bad as the Nazis. Hitler is well remembered for his crimes against the Jews. We must never forget he committed even grewater crimes against disabled people, homosexuals and anyone else not thought 'fit' for his vision for Germany's future.

The scary thing is he almost succeeded.

Britain take note!!

Although everything possible should be done to assist suffering people in the latter stages of their lives by way of palliative treatment and tender, loving care and support for the dying person and relatives etc. I oppose the so-called 'assisted dying programme' knowing that this is no more than euphamism for assisted suicide.

Life is sacred, From the first moment of conception to natural death' it must be protected

To me, this is in principle similar to the issue of abortion - nobody is in favour of of killing their spouse, parents or children, and nobody actively wants abortion, but there are occasions - and too many of these - where assisted suicide (as with abortion) can be the least bad option. And don't let your religion get in the way - it is not for you or me to decide how other people want to live, or how other peiople want to die.

I believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death!

I think that there is a good case to be made to allow those who are truly terminally ill, with no possible chance of redemption, and who are suffering beyond description, to be able to make the request to be allowed to die, immediately or preemptively. HOWEVER, we do not have the safeguards to prevent unscrupulous professionals, or uncaring relatives from misusing such a possibility. We are far from living in a Utopian society in which everybody can be implicitly trusted absolutely, and therefore I believe that assisted dying would be an extremely dangerous road to embark upon. Euthanasia would be only a few steps away.

It is of paramount importance that we develop a more humane attitude towards the terminally ill. A vitally important part of this involves ensuring that their physical suffering is minimised by medication and nursing care. However, it is also crucial, if British society is to aspire to any kind of civilised standard, that citizens and legislators alike should think much more seriously about the philosophical implications of ending a human life. If the disposibility of a life is judged to be a function of the individual's perceived capacity to cope with it- itself a very questionable assumption- must we not ask ourselves if our own unexamined attitudes are perhaps influencing our friends and relatives in this perception, persuading them that they represent to us a burden or a reproach? Only death is the end of life: being ill, even gravely so, is still part of life, and many of us who have looked after people we love until they died have reason to cherish that time in our memories. Life involves suffering and illness of all kinds, and people do not become less human as they experience these things. Being the person who suffers does not give one the moral right to demand that dignity should be defined according to solipsistic notions about being in control.The human person is dignified in herself, however helpless she may be, and her dignity is enhanced as she enables other people to provide the help she cannot give herself. This is what society is for, to bear each other's burdens, to understand need as a property of humanity rather than a cause of resentment, whether we encounter that need in others or in ourselves.

a dangerous and frightening idea with horrific implications for those who feel they are a burden on their loved ones but would essentially choose to live

Legalised suicide presents a serious risk to disabled and elderly persons, which together constitute a much larger group than those few who say they are unable to benefit from the extensive palliative care now available.

I would like to see much more palliative care available for sick or terminally ill people - not a law which encourages them to kill themselves.

We have the most propfound sympathy for those who are in a "terminally ill" condition - and indeed have 2 friends who are locked-into what appears to be just such a condition - and would wish to do whatever were in our power to assist. However, we do not believe that legislating for such an "exit route" is a correct solution and believe that legislation could never be sufficiently tight to protect vulnerable nor to cater for the wide range of conditions which would present nor to be sure that such a course would remain acceptable to someone whose initial intent might have been to seek assisted suicide but whose view might have altered but be unable to express it in their debilitated condition. A definition of "terminally ill" is also tricky and indeed we could all be said to be terminally ill. Scientific invesigation also progresses quickly and its future benefits cannot now be anticipated by those (and their families) who might currently be said to be in extremis. In conclusion, could it not also be argued that "assisted dying" is yet another expression of a Society which seeks the easy, comfortable "quick-fix" solution without accepting the weightier and demanding consequences of caring for the sick and the lessons which we can all learn in the process - though, as we said at the outset of this note, this is not to minimise the challenge and sadness of sufferers and families caught in such a situation.

Murder is murder no matter how you dress it up as humane!

When by assisted dying it is actually meant that death is hastened it is wrong, and would be dangerous to allow the medical profession to practice this in any way. Once this replaced the proper care of dying patients the flood gates would be opened and life would be increasingly devalued.
I lady at my exercise class was diagnosed with 4 brain tumours; she had been in a coma for some time and her medics wanted to switch off her support system. Her husband refused and she has since made a good recovery and is now back at her exercise classes.

I am a surgeon and as a doctor who often cares for dying patients - it is unthinkable to take a person's life but we must make sure the patients are given the best care to help them through the dying process without pain and with their families around them

I firmly believe that voting for assisted dying would be another step on the slippery slope to unnecessary killing. We have seen how the number of abortions quickly rose when it was legalised. Who knows where it will end once we start this kind of lawful killing?
I shudder to think!

Civilised medicine is not compatible with killing. The Hippocratic Oath enjoins the doctor never to kill even if asked to do so
Our task is to respect life from conception to natural death and to serve the sick not to kill them

No because no one has the right to terminate another's life.
No because there is no guarrentee any change made to this law will not be abused.
No because any change to the law that protects the Right to Life will engender fear in those who are vulnerable and whose life may be terminated for personal advantage eg anyone who may benefit from Insurance or bequest.
If the will to live has died, the person will die without any help, this I have experienced in Medical Practice.

I do not believe that life should be prolonged on life support systems but nor do I believe in assisted suicide. To legalise suicide represents a fundamental shift in our understanding of human life and perhaps dehumanises it. More resources should be put into hospices and alleviating human suffering through first class palliative care.

Let nature run its course. Don't interfere with super drugs to prolong life but keep the pain minimal and palliative care going.

As a GP of 20 years experience, I have never been asked to help a patient die. I have talked, listened, supported,prescribed when needed for pain and other symptoms, treated depresseion effectively in the terminally ill. All of these enalbe people to be cared for with compassion and given dignity in the final phase of their lives. I believe the insidious pressure of legalising this move would have a negative effect on vulnerable and frail elderly and ill people. I shudder to think of those who, knowing it could be performed legally, may request death as they feel a burden on society and their loved ones. How would we police and check this?

As a parent of a severely and multiply disabled young woman, the thought of assisted dying terrifies me. If it were legalised, how am I to know that some time in the future when I'm no longer around to speak up for her, someone won't decide that my daughter's life isn't worth living and she would "prefer" to die? She is happy, albeit very limited, and has a normal life expectancy. The only way to be certain of protecting people like her is to continue to make assisted dying unlawful.

The provision of palliative care sends out a strong message as to the dignity and worth of human life, even at its most vulnerable. Palliative upholds the dignity of the person, proclaiming him or her worthy of our care, our respect and our expense.
On the other hand, moves towards the legalisation of euthanasia, whether it be apparently voluntary or otherwise, expresses a belief that some life is not worth living: is not worthy of our care, our respect of our expense. If we are to legalise euthanasia (for that is what assisted dying is), then it will not be the individuals themselves who set the ciriteria of when a life is no longer worth living/ respecting/ defending. Someone in parliament will have to do this. Someone else will decide - and in shaping our laws, they will form public opinion.

Do yuo really want to live in a society in which the government decides when your life is worthy of protection or not? I prefer to uphold the dignity and value of ALL human life, and to pledge myself to provide as best I can the support and care, palliative and personal, that is needed to make life worth living.

Life is God's gift and only he can rightly take it away - when he considers it correct so to do. Miracles do occur with recovery from'incurable' illness. Give miraCLES, AND PRAYER, A CHANCE.

I absolutely oppose assisted dying. Although the proposed law may help some people it would put many, many more people under pressure to 'do the right thing' and request help to die so that relatives could be freed from having to care for them. This proposed law is not a good one and, like the abortion law which was supposed to be for a limited number of cases but which has led to abortion becoming a form of contraception, could lead down a slippery slope. While a small number of cases are heartbreaking, the law should not be changed to accommodate them while at the same time putting many thousands of other people at risk.

I am totally opposed to legally allowing assisted dying. If Someone you love is suffering, and you feel that compassion calls you to end their life, you should be willing to bear prosecution.

no human being has the right to take another ones life and should not be placed in that position

The legalisation of assisted dying would increase pressure on the vulnerable to 'do the honourable thing' by committing suicide, it would impair the doctor-patient relationship and erode familial trust, and it would adversely impact investment, training and research in palliative care. It is unethical, unnecessary and dangerous.

I am a senior and if I were terminally ill, I like to think that my family would want the best of care given to me until I died naturally. I like to think they would love me so much that they would like me to be with them as long as possible to share my years of acquired wisdom etc. To want to hasten my death so there may be more of my $$$ left for them would hurt my feelings.
Also, to hasten death with passive euthanasia and starve/dehydrate someone to death as is done now, but not properly admitted to by institutions is torture and mean as well as evil. Flowers at a 'dying' person's bedside rate water, but the dying person can be uncomfortably parched & that is accepted??????
Not in my books. Also, if I am 'dying' (we are all on the road to death from the moment we are born) and in some discomfort, or loss of some dignity, according to someone who deems for me what MY loss of dignity is according to THEIR values is not right.If I am not comfortable, I could be a wonderful example to those around me of how to cope when life hands one a lemon. Often people who are not dying have sufferings & cave because of them...perhaps I could show them in the midst of my 'sufferings' if I can cope, so can they. If I take my life, I am taking the easy way out & cannot show anyone anything about how to cope. Also, I would want to be with my loved ones as long I I possibly could.

On a subject such as this, I am going to keep my points brief and hope the reader uses their head to put their own colour to the picture.

With 'assisted suicide', the protection of the state for the most vulnerable is diluted or, indeed, legislated out, and the vulnerable really are on their own.

Paliative care would be under threat as the cost of euthanasia will always be cheaper than a hospice - please don't think assisted suicide legislation won't affect the existence of paliative care in the UK.

Today we see that, with hospital waiting lists and the 'postcode lottery', healthcare is already being seen as "What Is Affordable?"

My sister has had MS for 21 years and she feels angry that her disease is being seen as such a good example of questioning if the life of a sufferer from disease is worth living.

While I'm sure there must be cases up and down the country and going back through the years of 'assisted suicides' it is a dangerous situation when there is no protection of the state, the society we all share.

Forgive me if I am historically wrong but a few years ago a jewish refugee from WWII said to me: "Never forget, the 1st law Hitler passed was euthanasia!"

Here in the UK, in 2009, we live in a comfortable democracy where intellectual debate can make everything acceptable, not happen, scaremongering; but none of us know who will be in power twenty years from now.

The State, society, you and me, have a duty to protect the huge number of sufferers who choose to live with hope, with pain relief, amongst friends, experiencing tomorrow. Laws should remain to protect; without these laws it would be very dificult for the state to bring a case against someone such as Dr Shipman - indeed, who would care enough to question and report him?

I think it's wrong to focus the debate on the individual 'Assisted Suicide'. Any legislation will dilute the delicate, protective membrane of law for the vulnerable. Please do not just listen to the intellectual debate but ask those who would be affected by any 'Assissted Suicide' legislation and see the bigger picture.

Thank you.

If passed this would lead to a loss of trust in doctors.
A much better way is to improve Palliative Care services

Don't block the blessings of God

God alone has the right over life and death. For the Christian, all pain and suffering is not without great value, which united with the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, is an opportunity to make reparation for past sins, satisfy his temporal debt, and to gain abundant graces unto life everlasting.

For the non-Christian, however, assisted suicide is an act of despair and goes against the natural instinct for survival and life. It will take away any hope of conversion and eternal salvation for that person. No one can say with absolute certainty that God does not exist; in scripture it is said: "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God". Let us have compassion and love, therefore, for the terminally ill and help them to come to terms with their illness rather than encourage them to end their lives prematurely.

It is a pity that there will not be a speaker taking part at Lord Joffe's lecture on the legalisation of assisted suicide to present the other approach to this question. I recommend a paper by the Baroness Professor Finlay FRCP.,FRCGP published in the November edition 2005 of the Catholic Medical Quarterly. She is a renowned expert on palliative care and caring for the termnally ill and discusses the many aspects of euthanasia and asisted suicide. Link www.catholicdoctorsuk/AlphabetNdxFrame.htm I suggest that she could be asked to speak on these topics, and perhaps Archbishop Vincent Nichols Catholic Archbishop of Westminster would be able to make a valuable contribution also.

I fundamentally disagree with assisting the advancement of death.
However, even if I didn't, it is still clear to me from history that when man allows something like assisted dying into his society as acceptable, it will not be long before it is abused and begun to be used in a way that was never intended. For that reason alone, we simply should not even think of legalising assisted dying, because by doing so, we would cease to protect the manipulated innocents.

Life is a gift from God so precious to behold from conception to old age or until God call us to die in the manner that pleases Him alone. We do not have the right to take our own life let alone another. Life is God given and Only God has that right.

Whilst I do see the attraction of 'assisted suicide' - I have attended enough terminally ill patients in my medical career - it violates the age-old principle that human life is 'sacred', and for me crosses a humanity-defining line in the sand.

Regrettably it seems only a matter of time before this passes into law, and the prospect makes my heart sink. Yes, palliative care is far from perfect and assisted suicide is a quick and convenient fix. But what's that old saying - 'hard cases make bad law'?

Am I alone in finding it utterly incongruous that we have (rightly) condemned Shipman, yet some doctors will probably go on training courses to be taught the best methods of efficient killing?

'Thin end of the wedge' arguments are invariably pooh-poohed, but twenty years on I guarantee the debate will have moved on to include new categories beyond terminal illlness - see if I'm not right.

Then, there is the matter of the doctor-patient relationship. If you're sick, vulnerable and elderly, will you be wondering if your doctor is *really* acting in your best interests? What's this injection *really* for? It may be irrrational, but it will happpen, and it will be erosive.

As a practising doctor I find the prospect of assisted suicide (or other euphemism du jour) profoundly disturbing. It runs counter to every medical instinct, not to mention my entire motivation for doing the job. I for one will resign from medicine if conscientious objection is disallowed. Blow the pension - I never went into medicine for the money anyway.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD!!!! NO ONE I REPEAT, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PLAY OR PRETEND TO BE GOD. TO DO THIS IS AGAINST GOD'S COMMANDMENT . THOU SHALT NOT KILL.!!!!!

All human life is beautiful and a great gift, and remains so even when someone is terminally ill. Life comes from love and is maintained and cherished by love. Without love we are like a plant that has been refused water and so dies. The 1967 Abortion Act's 'safeguards' to prevent huge numbers of abortions have been flouted and at present there are 200,000 abortions annually. In the same way, the safeguards for protecting the seriously ill from being co-erced into taking their own lives with assistance will be ineffectual and large numbers of people would fall into categories, marking them out for having their lives ended, the sick, depressed, handicapped, etc. The Judaeo-Christian civilisations have always rejected assisted suicide, knowing full well that this would undermine the respect for life as a gift from God and would decimate their communities. To legalise assisted suicide would destroy the relatiionship a patient has with his or her doctor, and would be a total rejection of the Hippocratic Oath, which stipulates that a doctor should not harm any sick person. Which doctor could then be trusted ? There is also the fear that some political party or grouping would endorse assisted suicide, as a means of saving money on medical care. In caring for others, who are very ill, we can claim to be a civilised society; to no longer do this would turn us into barbarians, human beings who have lost the very essence of their humanity, which is best expressed in our love and compassion for the vulnerable in our midst. Palliative care and hospice-type living accommodation, for short or long-term breaks, make a most positive contribution to looking after the verty sick and dying and should be invested in by the Government and people. All people from conception to the grave should be protected fully by law.

Who makes the decision? The patient, their relatives or the doctor? All have vested interests that may well make their decision subjective rather than objective. Current legislation gives the doctor enough authority to decide when symtom relief, that may shorten life, is indicated.

As a medical professional working in various Intensive Care Units, I
have some experience caring for critically ill patients. In my
experience assisted suicide is a completely unnecessary entity. With
good palliative care, relieving suffering and pain, no one need ever
experience the kind of torment and indignity they fear in the latter
stages of a degenerating or terminal illness. There is a vast moral
difference between relieving someone's suffering and aiding their
self-murder.

The legalization of assisted suicide would inevitably lead to those
individuals who sense they are a burden feeling under pressure to end
their life. Further, as we have seen in other jurisdictions where
assisted suicide has been permitted, there ensues the slippery slope of
other forms of euthanasia being gradually introduced. So there are now
instances of the suicide of physically healthy but depressed persons
and the culling of disabled children. Laws should not be made to govern
for the exceptions and moves to legalize assisted suicide should be
stopped for the good of society as a whole.

Lastly, I resent the implications assisting suicide would mean for my
profession. Doctors are inevitably the ones asked to perform this
assistance and, as an anaesthetist, it is likely that my skills would
be desired to be employed for this purpose. And yet assisting suicide
goes against the underlying ethics, the moral basis, and the ethos, the
very reasons for the existence, of our profession.

I urge anyone reading this to firmly oppose any attempts to legalize assisted suicide within these shores.

Let's work towards finding ethical cures or at least ethical ways of reducing or eliminating pain for people who are suffering, rather than seeking ways to end their lives. With the unravelling of the human genome bringing many new opportunities to increase the number and speed of medical breakthroughs, it is just a matter of time before all suffering can be alleviated or cured. Each person is a unique entity and their living lifeforce in the world is uniquely special.

Most of us, if we see an animal that is critically injured and suffering, would wish to see that suffering ended because we believe that nothing remains for it beyond that suffering but death. That is the issue that lies at the heart of this question of assisted dying.
If we are just animals that die and have no future, then why not die as quickly and conveniently as possible? But if we believe we are more than that and have an existence beyond death, then death cannot be an opt-out and every moment of human existence potentially has a value that will endure far beyond the grave.
By fighting for better palliative care of the dying (including the right to refuse excessively invasive attempts to delay the onset of death) we affirm the value and dignity of that person's life.
But by saying that a person would be better off dead we are, at best, affirming that this person's human existence has no further potential for good and, at worst, that it never really had a value greater than that of any other animal. Either view is a message of despair to those who most need hope, and an open invitation to others to despise and dispose of that 'useless' life at the earliest convenient opportunity.
As a Christian, when my time comes to die, I certainly have no wish to unduly delay my departure. I have heaven to look forward to. So, were I to become terminally ill, I could easily become the most avid supporter of assisted dying - except for the potential consequences such a stance would have for others.
For many the last days of their lives, even though painful, can provide more hope and healing than many a previous year. And many a terminal care worker has observed how easily those who previously struggled against bitter pain to cling on to the one existence they knew, once having found real peace in this life, are then able to let go without further struggle or medical intervention, in full mental composure and with complete dignity.

If assisted suicide became lawful many handcapped, elderly and comotose people would be in danger. Their lives could be cut short without their consent. The elderly and handicapped people have something to contribute to life. From them we can learn compassion, empathy and inspiration. This has been shown throughout history. I am keenly aware of the suffering that many people have to endure. A comprehensive palliative care is the better route to go. Pain can be allieviated with drugs. Noone has to endure pain edlessly.

Fund research, hospice care and other care support.

assisting death is wrong in itself and would also lead to intolerable abuse of the vulnerable

We do not have the necessary wisdom to decide when it is the right time for another human being to die and many mistakes will be made

Life is a gift from God and is time for us to prepare for eternity. It is sacred and should not be taken away by a person. The Bible teaches us that murder is wrong - and although done with good intentions to take a life is still killing a person.
We all know there are times of stress and difficulty when life seems not worth living and yet we later change and are glad to be alive. We should not take that opportunity from someone but encourage and support them for as long as their days last giving them all the pain relief and medical care possible to help them. I believe that with God's help we can complete the days He gives us and every one of thos days - even if difficult - has great importance and value.

As a society we need to value everyone especially those who are vulnerable through illness. This means protecting them, not adding pressure on them to consider themselves a burden which requires their suicide to alleviate the situation.

We are not at liberty to write our own exit lines, however much we might wish to do so. Our Creator alone is the One who has the right to determine when we depart this life.

I firmly believe in the sanctity of life. I also recall the saying that I learnt as a child, "Thou shalt not kill nor yet should strive needlessly to keep alive." This I also believe provides necessary guidance.

I am a district nurse and I care for dying patients at home. There are times when I feel that the family are suffering watching their loved one dying or the patient may have difficult symptoms but I still feel that if I society offered assisted suicide to people it would put people in this very vulnerable situation under pressure to consider it when it may not be what they really want. People already feel a burden when they need a large amount of care so imagine if they felt that everyone was hoping you would ask to end it all sooner. As a nurse I would not want my role to involve any part of assisting patients to die, I want to care for them until they die and treat symptoms until they die not have any part in speeding up the process it does not feel morally right to me. I think society has to consider the fact that somebody is going to have to administer the drugs to end someones life and many nurses and doctors will end up feeling that they do not have an option. Are we going to be able to opt out?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No one can give or take life but God and man should stop trying to play God.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

If any changes are needed then it is possible that more money and research should be applied to hospice care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

LIFE and DEATH is in the hands of GOD (the giver and the taker of life) and should always remain so.

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.

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 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.

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?

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Killing a loved one is the ultimate denial of the value and meaning of life.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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'.

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.

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

This idea of assisted suicide seems to have been inspired by some admittedly hard cases. But, unfortunately, hard cases make bad law!

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 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.

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.

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.

investing in palliative care is the real answer

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.

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.

This would lessen respect for life and pressurise other vulnerable people.
With good Palliative care no one need die in pain.

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

"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."

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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 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.

Ease the suffering of patients - give them a choice. it's not defeitist - it's allowing patients to have the choice.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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!

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".

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.

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.

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

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

God gave us life only he can take it away

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!

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.