5 days to go!
We have assisted death in Canada and as far as I can see, itās a good thing. Someone close to me chose that option two years ago. He had Lewy body dementia and was losing his cognitive ability and mobility and ability to do any of the things that had been important to him. He didnāt want to live to the bitter end so while he was still mentally able, a few years before he left us, he registered for medical assistance in dying (MAID). He had to chose a day in case he wasnāt able to consent when that day came, but as time went on he could move the date as he wished.
Another acquaintance with ALS also chose to end her life early with the help of medical staff. She knew where it was headed and chose not to see it out to the end.
I donāt know why people would be against someone choosing to end their own suffering. If I was to have a debilitating stroke and end up dependent on others to live, I would want to end it. Others would choose to let nature or God decide and I fully support their choice.
These days though, people can be kept alive for a long time with life support. I personally witnessed an 80-something yr old woman in a coma for 7 months. She was in the coma in ICU when my loved one arrived there and still in it when my loved one died there 7 months later. Her family said that God would take her when it was time but God would have taken her already if the family hadnāt chosen artificial life support.
I do understand that disabled people are afraid that it will be used by others to end their lives against their wishes. And also that there is an argument that the health care system is allowed to deteriorate to the point where people canāt get the care they need to make life livable and so might choose to die early to escape suffering.
Itās complicated for sure but I support assisted dying with the right rules to protect vulnerable people.
2 Likes
hi Jackie
Thanks for you sharing your thoughtful comments. I do agree with you on this. I would like to reserve the option to end my own life should I come into similar circumstances to those you describe. I think it is important to have an open discussion on the topic, and what protections should be put into place.
Thanks
a
2 Likes
I agree with both sides up to a point. I would want this right for myself. OTOH you have to question the motivation of governments not known for acting out of compassion. The worst practices seem to be emerging from supposedly liberal Canada (as the articles states), Iām not sure why the UK (with a carbon-copy leadership) should be expected to be any different.
If itās not already an adage that evil powers are best opposed until the evil is removed, then it could be. The UK government donāt seem to care about anyoneās health! I doubt the Canadian one is any better, or they wouldnāt be suggesting euthenasia to people who are a bit fed up.
Remember the Goodies sketch with Thatcher and the āWorkers Cullā? Canāt find it, described here.
Just my thoughtsā¦
Cheers
1 Like
My dad died of MND/ALS. Theyād only just learned how to diagnose it. It was known as the disease that killed David Niven. Iām very familiar with it (which is why I know Hawking was fake). My dad fought to the end ( itāll be 34 years in 7 days).
After watching this, I became a support of assistance in death. But I was a teen and a lots changed since then.
If they truly cared, then suicide and assisted suicide would be decriminalised. But you canāt makemoney from that, can youā¦
1 Like
This issue reminds me of the āHannibal Directiveā which, as Iāve banged on about before, should more properly be called the āGoldin Directiveā, the difference being that Hannibal acted on his own initiative whereas. . .
Anybody can end their life if they choose to do so. Some make it more obvious than others - for instance, how many accidental drownings are not accidental? how about fatal car crashes involving just the driver and no other vehicle? Hypothermia on a mountain in winter anybody? Or you can send a message by your staging of the event.
Somebody has to tidy up afterwards but then isnāt that the case with most ānaturalā deaths?
Anyone who commits suicide is doing it on the understanding that their pain, distress, whatever, is more important than anyone elseās so they may not consider the real life consequences for those left behind. Or they may prime people in advance. . . but however its done its done alone with no abdication of responsibility.
The thing about āassisted suicideā is that the initiative, though it may well originate in the mind of the (what can you call them?), is then shared with others in a way that makes them complicit (āassistedā is a pretty strong word when weāre talking about ending a life). Responsibility for ending your own life is yours alone but participating in ending someone elseās life is a heavy burden for a human being, whatever the circumstances, and that is what makes the big difference between Hannibalās end and the end that is put to others in his name.
Whether they want it or not.
Given the extraordinary mass manipulation of minds that we have seen implemented in recent times it cannot be possible to rule out the merging of āassisted suicideā with good olā murder in the same kind of way with the name of the process obscuring the reality.
I respect peopleās wish to end their own lives, Iām not taking this issue lightly - it took me many years to come to terms with the ending of his own life by my dad - but Iām not minded to approve a process by which other people are drawn in to sharing the decision and the responsibility.
I know the argument that someone could wish to die but may lack the means/ability to kill themselves by themselves so gain assistance from whoever. In those cases, traditionally seen as āmercy killingsā the starting point for judgement of those responsible is that the taking of life is wrong. Individual cases can be argued and compassionate outcomes can be arrived at but to deny the basic āwrongnessā of taking life is, to my mind, well down the slippery slope of moral relativism.
Harold Shipman just sprung into my mind - Iāve ejected him now.
2 Likes
Useful insights about passing responsibility and complicity AlanG, thanks for sharing.
Time to lighten up a bit.
āSir Keir Starmer has explained there is no economic reason for his partnership with BlackRock, just like there is no moral reason for his support for genocide. Heās just evil. This explains why he plans to replace the welfare system with assisted dying vouchers. Who would want to stay on this wretched island a second longer anyway? The brilliant thing about the free market is it gives us a choice. This is why disabled people who refuse to work will be given the choice of benefits sanctions or euthanasia.ā