I think we need to look at this again.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-32881161
He should have been able to avail himself of some form of assisted suicide if he'd become paralysed.
He's had to go early, just in case, which isn't right IMO.
|
It's a matter of time I expect, but it needs strong legislation from a strong political consensus to bring this activity to these shores.
I don't have a great ethical dilemma with assisted suicide as long as it is well thought through and implemented.
|
A desperately sad situation.
I despair about these debates because I know so many money grabbing, conniving so and sos that my fear is that they would persuade their people to pop off before their time!
Something is clearly needed but it needs to be well thought out with a great deal of oversight (we don't want another Liverpool Care Pathway).
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 26 May 15 at 20:27
|
There was never anything wrong with the LCP - the problem was in its implementation and the level that the Pathway was allowed by some to become the focus of end-of-life care more than the patient themselves.
It was basically an attempt to make a roadmap for what the better practitioners have been doing for many years, but no pathway can replace being a thinking/caring/well-trained doctor/nurse in the first place.
|
I read the Dutch law regarding euthanasia and the law has been well thought out in Holland Lygonos.Two thirds of requested suicide assistance is refused by doctors.
It is not the legislation but political consensus in this country which would be the obstacle in my opinion.
|
>> He's had to go early, just in case, which isn't right IMO.
What does 'go early' really mean? He had an incurable condition that could have rendered him quadriplegic tomorrow. Or in two year's time but with little if any chance of escape.
He had a mortal fear of being unable to hold a cup or use a phone. Provided he was compos mentis and fully understood the consequences of his actions, and there's no doubt about that, what's the problem?
|
>>what's the problem?
The problem stems from being pestered and pestered by family that they don't want to look after you and you are better off gone because we need your money, house, home or just don't want to look after you any more.
If you are senile they will lie to the authorities to say that assisted suicide is what you wanted.
|
>> >>what's the problem?
>>
>> The problem stems from being pestered and pestered by family that they don't want to
>> look after you and you are better off gone because we need your money, house,
>> home or just don't want to look after you any more.
>>
>> If you are senile they will lie to the authorities to say that assisted suicide
>> is what you wanted.
Whilst its a possibility, it really isnt that common or likely.
|
>> The problem stems from being pestered and pestered by family that they don't want to
>> look after you and you are better off gone because we need your money, house,
>> home or just don't want to look after you any more.
>>
>> If you are senile they will lie to the authorities to say that assisted suicide
>> is what you wanted.
>>
I agree there needs to be decent safeguards.
|
>> What does 'go early' really mean? He had an incurable condition that could have rendered
>> him quadriplegic tomorrow. Or in two year's time but with little if any chance of
>> escape.
>>
>> He had a mortal fear of being unable to hold a cup or use a
>> phone. Provided he was compos mentis and fully understood the consequences of his actions, and
>> there's no doubt about that, what's the problem?
>>
I think he should have been allowed to 'go' if or when he became paralysed... not having to 'go' now, at a time he wasn't yet paralysed, but realised he could well be in the future.
He obviously didn't know when, or even if, he'd be paralysed.... but knows he couldn't end his life himself in those circs.... and others are not allowed to do it for him.
So in that sense he's booked early, which is a shame for him and his family.
|
Thanx for that, Dodge. I wonder what the, um, death by detergent is all about.
^_^
|
|
I suspect it won't be long before the unelected Lords Spiritual will give their view on this matter. I would boot them all out.
|
>> I suspect it won't be long before the unelected Lords Spiritual will give their view
>> on this matter. I would boot them all out.
Why? It's exactly the sort of subject the Lords (both Spiritual and Temporal) do well. I doubt the voices or votes of the Bishops will be decisive and wouldn't be unduly surprised to find one or two of them supportive of Charlie Falconer's bill.
|
>> >> I suspect it won't be long before the unelected Lords Spiritual will give their
>> view
>> >> on this matter. I would boot them all out.
>>
>> Why? It's exactly the sort of subject the Lords (both Spiritual and Temporal) do well.
>> I doubt the voices or votes of the Bishops will be decisive and wouldn't be
>> unduly surprised to find one or two of them supportive of Charlie Falconer's bill.
Its about time most of the Lords were shipped off to Dignitas
|
|
It's my life. I can end it any time I chose.
|
>> It's my life.
If you were a hermit it would be, Trouble is you are not so its not. You are only how you exist in other peoples lives.
|
>> It's my life.
>>If you were a hermit it would be, Trouble is you are not so its not. You are only how you exist in other peoples lives.
"...conscience doth make cowards of us all" as the man said and I wonder if we worry too much that our departure will affect others. Camus points out somewhere that it will bring elements of relief, even if balanced by grief in some cases.
My vote is for *un*assisted suicide and better access to it. (I believe the "Peaceful Pill" mentioned in a link above refers to Nembutol.)
|
|
If you are terminally ill un assisted suicide is likely to be impossible. Lying in a hospital bed at the very minimum you need someone to bring you the pills.
|
|
Of. Ourne you can. Suicide is not illegal. What is illegal is assisting someone to commit suicide and therein lies the problem. If you make it illegal to assist someone in committing suicide how do you ensure that the old and frail are not put under any sort of pressure to prematurely end their lives?
|
>>Lying in a hospital bed at the very minimum you need someone to bring you the pills.
I would not expect to leave it this long.
|
>> If you make it illegal to assist someone
>> in committing suicide how do you ensure that the old and frail are not put
>> under any sort of pressure to prematurely end their lives?
First of all you assess the real risk of the old/frail being put under pressure. Some of the coverage has suggested there is research pointing to the probability of such pressure being far less than intuition etc tell us. The issue in play now is not the act of suicide itself but the provision of assistance.
Having done that you put proportionate controls in place.
Are people who wouldn't dream of suggesting to Granny that she 'top' herself more likely to do so 'cos the law, subject to controls, allows Uncle Bill to fetch her the pills?
|
>>First of all you assess the real risk of the old/frail being put under pressure
It will happen. In fact, some old people will be murdered and then it will be claimed that it was assisted suicide. Wasn't there some court case recently about some male nurse poisoning people? What would stop hm claiming he was helping?
However, will it be 1 every year, 100, or 10,000? How many is acceptable?
What are proportionate controls? Because proportionate controls do nto stop extreme cases, and these will be extreme cases.
People should be able to end their lives if they wish. They should be able to receive assistance for that. But I have no idea how you can conceivably oversee that with safety..
|
One problem would be defining exactly what "assistance" meant.
If the postman delivered your death-kit but someone else brought the parcel to you in bed, that would be assistance by that person, but not by the postman?
If it came by recorded delivery and the delivery man needed your signature and brought it to you, would that be assistance?
If you were advised to inspect the contents before signing, and someone helped you cut the packaging, would that be assistance?
What about fetching a glass of water?
|
"People should be able to end their lives if they wish. They should be able to receive assistance for that. But I have no idea how you can conceivably oversee that with safety."
That neatly sums up the problem. I'm not sure that it can.
|
>> It will happen. In fact, some old people will be murdered and then it will
>> be claimed that it was assisted suicide. Wasn't there some court case recently about some
>> male nurse poisoning people? What would stop hm claiming he was helping?
The nurse in that case poisoned standard drips by adding insulin to them. It's a bit difficult to prove that he meant to 'help' anyone.
Lord Falconer's bill doesn't allow people to claim justification retrospectively - it's about assisted dying not Euthanasia.
www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/01/lord-falconer-government-assisted-dying-legal-mess
In order for a death to be legal there would need to be approval from Doctors and the consent of a High Court Judge - presumably under the auspices of the Court of Protection.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 19:33
|
>> The nurse in that case poisoned standard drips by adding insulin to them. It's a bit difficult to
>> prove that he meant to 'help' anyone.
The insulin injections went into random bags of saline.... who got poisoned was therefore random. If he poisoned/killed people as some sort of mercy killing - then I'd not agree but there'd be logic behind his madness.
Isn't one of those he poisoned now severely brain damaged but alive?
In the real world, medical staff can and do help people escape where there is little hope and lots of pain... They don't necessarily stand and watch someone die suffering. But it's not legal in the sense of Dignities is it.
|
>>In the real world, medical staff can and do help people escape where there is little hope and lots of pain
In terminal care the relief of symptoms trumps pretty much everything: if a required dose of painkillers is likely to hasten the end, so be it.
Actively ending someone's life by an action is currently illegal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Cox_(doctor)
The prosecution I think took the pragmatic option here - if he had been charged and convicted of murder the judge had one option - life imprisonment - by going for attempted murder it left the judge able to use his discretion on a guilty verdict (in this case a suspended sentence - the GMC did not suspend him from practice either).
|
>> I would boot them all out
>> Lords shipped off to Dignitas
etc etc ad nauseam.
What fascizing garbage. Why don't people think before they post? Little Hitlers abound here sometimes.
|
>>I would boot them all out.
>
>Why? It's exactly the sort of subject the Lords (both Spiritual and Temporal) do well
Totally agree.
|
>> >>I would boot them all out.
>> >
>> >Why? It's exactly the sort of subject the Lords (both Spiritual and Temporal) do well
>>
>> Totally agree.
Ok what do they actually do? Have they ever actually completely overturned or prevented government legislation?
No. Its just stuffed full of overblown windbag wafflers placed there to stuff them out of harms way.
|
>>Have they ever actually completely overturned or prevented government legislation?
They frequently influence, and sometimes quite a lot.
|
|
And even if they visibly change nothing, anything put before them would be drafted in the knowledge that they could, so would usually be appropriately drafted in the first place. They are an invaluable check and balance.
|
>> Ok what do they actually do? Have they ever actually completely overturned or prevented government
>> legislation?
You've no idea really have you. The words above are just there for provocation.
They're a revising chamber. Since they acted undemocratically in the past, blocking budgets etc various Parliament Acts have constrained and eventually removed their ability to block (as opposed to considerably delaying) government legislation. There are however many, many examples of them removing the worst excesses in legislation that's been whipped through the commons. Government bills that need time and thought and on which Ministers are prepared to adopt a constructive/pragmatic approach might start out in the Lords.
An example would be the Public Bodies Bill in the last Parliament. As a result of arguments put forward by peers several bodies, including the Youth Justice Board and the Office of the Chief Coroner were saved from abolition. The powers and responsibilites of the Canals and Rivers Trust (successor to the Waterways Board) were better defined and refined as were those of S4C. So called 'Henry the Eighth' powers giving Ministers powers to abolish or reorder bodies by Statutory Instrument were curtailed and a special scrutiny (enhanced affirmative process?) imposed for those that went on.
I expect similar activity when (if?)Cameron and Gove manage to get a bill together to modify the Human Rights Act. That though may be difficult because of his vulnerability to constitutionalists and libertarians on his own benches.
|
At the end of they day, they have no power. They can waffle and delay, but when push comes to shove, a government with a majority can bulldoze anything they want right through them.
And its as well they can because they are unelected.
|
>> At the end of they day, they have no power. They can waffle and delay,
>> but when push comes to shove, a government with a majority can bulldoze anything they
>> want right through them.
Even governments with landslide majorities (qv Thatcher and Blair) could and did accept Lords' amendments to legislation, even key stuff straight out of manifesto. The Lords has a real function.
>> And its as well they can because they are unelected.
The government is elected though you have to go back a very long way to find one with a majority of the electorate. Ministers are appointed. Nobody voted for Michael Gove to be the Lord Chancellor.... In any democratic system there are checks and balances over the power of elected governments.
Ours are a lot weaker than they should be but they're by no means ineffective.
|
>> Ours are a lot weaker than they should be but they're by no means ineffective.
It will be utterly ineffective when the Investigatory Powers Bill just passes straight through it.
We need a second chamber, but it needs powers and it needs to be democratically elected, not there because of right of birth, religion, money, bribery or gerry maundered in by a government.
|
>> It will be utterly ineffective when the Investigatory Powers Bill just passes straight through it.
Regrettably, the same is true of most second chambers when 'National Security' is invoked. I think even the USA's checks and balances get trampled on in those circs.
>>
>> We need a second chamber, but it needs powers and it needs to be democratically
>> elected, not there because of right of birth, religion, money, bribery or gerry maundered in
>> by a government.
How? If it's democratically elected then it's inevitably party political and becomes a rival to the Commons. Devising something elected that works better than the status quo is a very tall order indeed.
There are relatively few hereditaries left in the Lords now and only a handful of Lords Spiritual. While there have undoubtedly been dark deeds on the peerages for donations front under both watches the overall number is small. The vast majority, and I've met a few, are dedicated and capable people with far more commitment and tons more thoughtfulness than their counterparts in the Commons.
Baroness Ashton was a much, much better Minister and EU Commissioner than her image in the press suggests. OTOH Jonathan Djanogly's defenestration back to the rearmost benches after two years as a 'PUSS' amply reflected his capability.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 27 May 15 at 16:04
|
An elected second chamber with powers to overturn legislation passed by the Commons would de facto be more powerful that the lower house. Even if it only had the powers given to the Lords at the moment the very fact that it was elected would lead to constitutional problems in the event of a a conflict of view between the two houses.
At the end of the day a second house with appointed members and limited powers seems the best option.
|
>> Have they ever actually completely overturned or prevented government legislation?
>>
If I remember correctly from Constitutional Law lectures in the mid seventies, they are not allowed to prevent Commons legislation, they may send it back twice to be debated or whatever in the commons but MUST pass it thereafter.
If a government, with a commons majority insists, they cannot prevent it passing at the third attempt even unaltered from the first time.
Maybe one of the real lawyers around here can confirm this or otherwise.
|
|
The second chamber should be selected like a jury. Picked at random from the electoral roll.
|
|
Or better still just be rid of the whole second chamber. We elect a Govt. to create legislation, we do not need any other groups interfering.
|
>> Or better still just be rid of the whole second chamber. We elect a Govt.
>> to create legislation, we do not need any other groups interfering.
Do you really want an elected dictator?
Most states have found they need a second chamber to act as a check on the first. Even a government elected by more than 50% of the electorate might need constraints, indeed it may need them more than one wobbling on the support of 25%.
|
|
Not all though. There are significant exceptions like Sweden and New Zealand who seem to manage OK with just one chamber.
|
|
There even a word for it. Unicameral. Denmark too apparently.
|
>> There even a word for it. Unicameral.
Thank you, that was the word I was struggling to recall when posting. I suspect those nations with unicameral systems have other constitutional checks/balances though.
|
> I suspect
>> those nations with unicameral systems have other constitutional checks/balances though.
>>
Those that have been mentioned as examples are all constitutional monarchies.
|
Even on the Dark Web it's become pretty nigh impossible to buy Nembutal.
Plastic bag and helium anyone?
|
|
I feel sure that if y'all can buy white and brown, then yellow jackets would be available too.
|
>> The second chamber should be selected like a jury. Picked at random from the electoral roll.
I used to think the government should be chosen like that, at random to reflect the population at large.
The more I thought about it and the more I examined my fellow-citizens, the less it seemed a sane idea. You can't trust the so-and-sos, no way. This convoluted ancient roundabout stuff is just as good or better. Dunno why, but it is seems to me.
|
Assisted suicide - Lygonos
