BBC Film to show TP watch man commit suicide

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby Cheery » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:27 pm

Really sorry to hear that, raisindot... :(
User avatar
Cheery
Member
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Postby Tonyblack » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Me too. In cases like that, it's very difficult for those left behind to come to terms with.
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28673
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby janet » Sun May 01, 2011 8:52 am

The subject has been tackled on TV before a few years back. The film 'A short stay in Switzerland' stars Julie Walters as a doctor whose husband has recently died of an incurable neurological illness when she discovers that she has a similar condition. Her decision to opt for assisted suicide and the effects of this on her friends and family as they come to terms with it, or not, results in the inevitable ending. It was not an easy film to watch but handled the subject with great sensitivity rather than melodrama. I could watch it as I knew it was drama, ie. 'only acting', based closely on a true story. Not sure if I could cope with knowing I was watching a human but I'm probably just being precious about it since I've held many of my pets as they died and rationalise that it can only be the same.
PS Very sorry to read about your friend Raisindot.
Doctorum Adamus cum Flabello Dulci
janet
Member
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: North East England

Postby snowballs » Fri May 06, 2011 7:57 pm

I totally agree that if you are suffering that it is up to you to decide when the suffering should stop. Who has the right to deny you the right to take your own life?. The laws against it are just wrong.
ADHD isnt a problem it's like having another gear when you need to go faster
User avatar
snowballs
Member
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Delsbo, Sweden

Postby snowballs » Sat May 07, 2011 4:22 pm

I've been thinking alot about this all day.

Questions,

What is the more moral view? To allow euthanasia or to force someone to suffer?

My view is that morality in the view of those opposed to euthanasia is warped by religion.

What is right about forcing another person to suffer because of your own views about what is right and wrong?, it's not you who is suffering.

If euthanasia is wrong then why use euthanasia on animals that are suffering with no chance of getting better?

That the BBC is going to show another view point is right otherwise freedom of speach means nothing at all.

If Terry did get arrested because of this I will personally come over to the UK and break him out of jail.
ADHD isnt a problem it's like having another gear when you need to go faster
User avatar
snowballs
Member
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Delsbo, Sweden

Postby spideyGirl » Sat May 07, 2011 4:30 pm

snowballs wrote:I've been thinking alot about this all day.

Questions,

What is the more moral view? To allow euthanasia or to force someone to suffer?

My view is that morality in the view of those opposed to euthanasia is warped by religion.
I agree, i think this is where its history lies in the minds of the populace now, and by that I mean I'm not sure this would have always been the case before Christianity made it so.
snowballs wrote:What is right about forcing another person to suffer because of your own views about what is right and wrong?, it's not you who is suffering.

If euthanasia is wrong then why use euthanasia on animals that are suffering with no chance of getting better?

This is because in the Christian teachings God has placed Humans above the other animals
snowballs wrote:That the BBC is going to show another view point is right otherwise freedom of speach means nothing at all.

If Terry did get arrested because of this I will personally come over to the UK and break him out of jail.
I thnk you may get help too! :D
User avatar
spideyGirl
Member
 
Posts: 3548
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Postby deldaisy » Sat May 07, 2011 5:11 pm

I have very strong feelings about this.

In no way am I a Christian or religious. From personal experience I had two elderly parents one of who was extremely ill from when I was nine to when he died when I was 23, and to his last breath he spoke about the value of life. (It was because both Mum and Dad both lost the majority of their friends in the second world war and felt blessed that they had been spared).

My mother was very ill at one stage and three of my sisters advised a doctor to turn off her life support machines. Somehow, and completely against all odds she hung on (by a thread) until her specialist came in to see her a day later (he had not been advised). He turned them back on amidst much shouting. My mother recovered completely (again, against all the odds) and lived on for another 6 years.... 5 of which she had a very good quality of life). Even in the last year she had documents drawn up that all life saving measures were to be used no matter how bad it got.

For the last two months we must have been called up to the hospital almost every day for her "last moments"... we spent alot of time talking amongst ourselves as we sat with her (not morbid, just normal stuff people talk about). There is NO dignity in dying... it happens.

We sat with her, we talked with her, we tended her when we needed; my children learnt what it was to die but Mum still whispered to me she was so glad she had those 6 years to get to know her grandchildren. The little ones never balked at the machines, the tubes... it was just Nanna... and they were part of her. Death isn't easy for anyone... its a certainty that you learn from.

I had a close girlfriend who's Grandmother (quiet well at the time) just decided NOT to use her medicines anymore. She didn't want to "rot" as she put it. They could do nothing to stop her and th family, 20 years on, still grieves for her and what she did. They belive to this day she was just VERY depressed about her situation at the time and should have been treated for that first and foremost. I agree... I knew very well and it was not like her to do this. She could have lived a very high quality of life for another ten years.

Major medications and illness CAN trigger depression. My father always urged us to attend teaching hospitals and it was during a university trial on him that years of massive pain and debilitating symptoms were relieved by medical research into adverse reactions to regular medications.

Where do you draw the line.

I have a huge family. What happened the night Mum's machines were turned off tore our family apart. Who do you give the authority to. If you have three children and one of them disagrees intensely with the timing or the views of the others, how do you handle that. Its all very easy to say you can do it, but CAN you take your parents life? What if your child doesn't want that responsibility? Most elderly people don't have that large support group to guide them through a long illness.

Although there is a ground swell for the right to die, OUR country went ballistic when a parent here ended her vegative daughters life. Courts tried to intervene to stop her, mobs gathered. Do children have different rules?

There is also the laws that say when someone gets to a degree of illness another person may take over their authority (can't remember what it is called)... and that person has every right to recind anything you may think you have in place as far as making decisions goes.

Most illnesses don't go on for years and years like my fathers; he had an amasing will to live. Most illnesses will kill you soon enough. People have to learn how to deal with their loved ones dying. Most civilisations do.

Would you give up your career and life for a year to tend your parent or partener? Can you afford to? Or do you believe you can't afford to.. Aren't hospices and hospitals supposed to do that?
The Collective Brain: The synoptic serendipity that comes when interesting thoughts from interesting and interested people get together. And the whole is always more than the sum of its parts.
User avatar
deldaisy
Member
 
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:04 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby spideyGirl » Sat May 07, 2011 5:54 pm

deldaisy wrote:Even in the last year she had documents drawn up that all life saving measures were to be used no matter how bad it got.


Good for her. Assisted suicide is about helping those who want to die though isn't it?

deldaisy wrote:Where do you draw the line.
...Do children have different rules?


I've wondered this myself.
User avatar
spideyGirl
Member
 
Posts: 3548
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Postby deldaisy » Sat May 07, 2011 7:00 pm

Spidey wrote:Good for her. Assisted suicide is about helping those who want to die though isn't it?


Thats true.
The Collective Brain: The synoptic serendipity that comes when interesting thoughts from interesting and interested people get together. And the whole is always more than the sum of its parts.
User avatar
deldaisy
Member
 
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:04 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Sat May 07, 2011 7:47 pm

The whole point with the procedure Terry's advocating is that it is wholly down to the individual as to whether they want assisted death (not suicide) as an option. The person who is dying. Nobody else.

The system he wants to adopt is one where a Tribunal will determine whether this desire/decision is made rationally and presumably inherent in that is a legal 'failsafe' dealing with people who may be temporarily influenced unduly by depressive ailments will be part of the criteria that they consider when passing or failing the application. This system would also make ratifying someone's wishes 'safe' by having recommendations from medical as well as legal advisers in the frame as well. The situation where a third party relative (or selected administrator of the person's affairs and property that will form their eventual estate on death) brings in 'power of attorney'. This is the area where most people fear for mishandling in the 'best interests' of an individual who is too incapacitated to deal with their daily lives and responsibilities whether that's mental or physical. For instance, the decision where the family is asked for permission to turn off life support under this system, would not necessarily mean that this is done if the individual has already stated, quite clearly that they do not want life support to be used in the event that they cannot survive without it. This is the situation my father opted for when he was admitted to a hospice for palliative assessment - in other words if he'd arrested, or suffered a massive stroke, they would not have taken steps to revive him and simply 'let him go'.

Having a Tribunal ratifying a decision made whilst that individual is still capable of deciding what they want to happen is what makes the difference and would HAVE TO BE DONE before power of attorney is needed. In other words this would NOT be done when a person was past the point of meaningfully giving their assent to be assisted into ending their life. So in the end it's about your choice and the closest thing to that at present is what is known as a living will, which is ambiguous in English law and cannot cover assisted death or suicide without leaving doctors and relatives open to prosecution. Living wills are used in the Netherlands where assisted death is legal (probably in Switzerland too or something very similar I believe).

Terry (and people in similar situations) knows that there may come a point where he isn't going to be capable of giving his consent and this is why he's talking about this now and putting the case for the law to be changed so that people can decide if they want this option whilst they're still capable of making an informed choice. He also points out that in places like Oregon, where they have a similar system of legal procedure to authorise assisted death, people are actually given the drugs immediately after permission is granted, to be used when they themselves decide it's time. The example he gives in several interviews now, is of a man who has had the drugs for 2 years and counting and still intends to use them eventually... In the end this is about empowerment and your right to go when you are ready. Your decison - no one elses.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10474
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby spideyGirl » Sat May 07, 2011 8:06 pm

My question remains though. I still don't see that we have a coherent process of how we 'apply' this right, if it comes to pass, to children?
User avatar
spideyGirl
Member
 
Posts: 3548
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:15 pm
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Sat May 07, 2011 11:07 pm

I don't think it can be done for children as such (or for people who are not capable of making their own decisions for various reasons) . When I worked in the family courts we often got hospital social workers applying for life-saving surgery or medication to be given where parental consent was not obtainable for various reasons (for instance on religious grounds :roll: ) and the case was always decided on medical and ethical grounds as a one off and, where possible, the opinion of the patient was generally sought regardless of age or mental capability. More rarely the positions were reversed and the patient or parents and/or representatives were asking for treatment that was being denied to them by hospital authorities and the exact same criteria were applied on a case by case basis. This is sadly not an uncommon legal route to achieve a procedure to perhaps save life or to withold action/treatment and perhaps end it. It is also, very sadly, invariably extremely distressing to all parties involved in having to go to law, not to mention costly to the NHS, because the law is currently out of step with what constitutes unlawful death.

Those kinds of cases would never go away I expect. Again the answer stands - this is not something that is being sought as a standard solution that is to be applied across the board, but to de-criminalise what is actually being specifically asked for by people who are ready to die and their families who know this is inevitable, however regrettable, to end pain and suffering. It's already happening more or less legitimately, on a daily basis, in every cancer ward, in every hospital and care home in the UK, as standard practice when the patient's body is comatose and closing down, in the morphine that is given in greater and greater doses until life is extinct, as general procedure. That is a fact and it happens. If a legally responsible person can acknowledge their own mortality and wants to have the option to go on their own terms, in their own time then why shouldn't they have that right.

For those who are too young or cannot make their own decisions the case is different but there are measures already in place that can deal with the decision and, where possible, the patient's opinion will count for something. I'm pretty sure there was a 14 year old a few years ago whose parents went to law to stop her cancer treatment and they won the case - the hospital had taken legal advice and were told to officially oppose the application in view her age but in practice did not resist the girls wishes in court and the court found in her favour. But the law is different for every case and the route Terry's supporting could actually help to alleviate the heartache and the terrible emotional (and financial) costs of people fighting for a just cause to live or to die.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10474
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit » Fri May 13, 2011 3:27 am

http://expansions.com/death-drugs-on-reality-tv/

Is this the show you are talking about? It just got on a friend's FB page.
Aha! So, Bob's yer uncle... very clever.
User avatar
Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit
Member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Byron IL USA and The Quirm School for Young People ... it's genetic, you know

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Fri May 13, 2011 12:34 pm

Terry's show is on later this year and the person who dies is a motor neurone disease sufferer - I think that's similar to Dr. Stephen Hawking's condition, so it's a terrible illness that can severely effect and limit quality of life. The man was 71 and had lived with the disease for a long time.

The programme last night wasn't at all offensive and the person it centred on was fully co-operative and positive in lots of ways in that he'd lived a satisfactory life. On the narration side of it, it was done on a scientific basis in a balanced, factual manner and I fail to see what the fuss was about as wasn't insensitive in any way. :roll:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10474
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Cool Middle Name » Sat May 14, 2011 12:51 pm

According to the general laws of Headology, this documentary will be seen all the more for this controversy.

If they DON'T air it then it'll show disrespect for the man who died.
If they DO, then folks will get it in their head that drugs can be an escape. That is not good.

Either way, this is going to end in disaster.
Veni... Vici... Vetinari!
User avatar
Cool Middle Name
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:57 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

PreviousNext

Return to Terry Pratchett

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests