NationStates Jolt Archive

Please check out the new proposal I have made on page 17 about legalising euthanasia. Before making harsh judgements please read the proposal and please vote if you agree so that it can become a resolution
:?

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Legalise%20Euthanasia

Legalise Euthanasia

Category: Human Rights; A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Grande


Description: A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this? That someone has no right to end suffering?

I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact.

Why should carers waste time in looking after those who are certain to die, when there are people who have a chance of life waiting for that care?

And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?


Approvals: 1 (Tuesday Heights)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 136 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 1 2004

This is a double-edged sword. Yes, it would make it legal, but on the other hand, people may be taken advantage of. The sort of people who are not in a fit state of mind to make a decision of this magintude.

Euthenasia: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

1) Is it killing the patient or is it allowing the patient to die? Can a doctor "pull the plug" or does the patient physically have to do it?

2) Can the next of kin of a terminally ill patient decide to pull the plug? What if the patient is in a state that prevents him or her from communicating with the world (in the case of paralysis or coma)? What if there is a conflict of interests between kin? Where is the mercy there?

3) How do we define "hopelessly sick" with modern medicine? Nearly 100% of lung cancer cases result in the death of the afflicted (either directly from the cancerous lungs or indirectly through metastasis). So should we just go out and shoot anyone with lung cancer out of mercy? They are "hopelessly sick," after all.

4) Ultimately, the purpose of medicine is to preserve life, not harm it. "Do no harm" has been the foundation of medical ethics for millenia; why now must we violate this rule? To lessen the pain of the hopelessly ill, to numb the mind against the agony of the body, these are ethically superior alternatives to euthanasia.

And let all voting members remember that euthanasia kills in 100% of cases, moreso than any of the diseases or ailments from which those who are euthanized suffer.

Salliston cannot support such a poorly-worded proposal and urges all other nations not to even consider it.

There are quite a few people who support euthanasia in the abstract, but the devil is always in the details. Clear consent must be established -- and then what of the people in comas? At what age can someone make the decision to die? What are the criteria for having a clear enough state of mind?

I notice that this proposal says people would be allowed to make the decision "at a certain age." That's nice and vague.

1) Is it killing the patient or is it allowing the patient to die? Can a doctor "pull the plug" or does the patient physically have to do it?

A pointless distinction, unless you were asking who could decide to initiate the action, not who would carry it out.

2) Can the next of kin of a terminally ill patient decide to pull the plug? What if the patient is in a state that prevents him or her from communicating with the world (in the case of paralysis or coma)? What if there is a conflict of interests between kin? Where is the mercy there?

That question is irrelevant to this proposal; this proposal, if you read carefully, only establishes the power of the patient to choose to end their own life. The proposal specifically allows a person to decide to end their life in event that certain conditions arise, but does not directly address the issue of a patient's options once they are already ill or injured.

3) How do we define "hopelessly sick" with modern medicine? Nearly 100% of lung cancer cases result in the death of the afflicted (either directly from the cancerous lungs or indirectly through metastasis). So should we just go out and shoot anyone with lung cancer out of mercy? They are "hopelessly sick," after all.

A 100% death rate isn't "hopeless?" I think you picked an interesting example. Neither will the state be in the practice of murdering citizens without explicit consent; this is the patient's decision.

4) Ultimately, the purpose of medicine is to preserve life, not harm it. "Do no harm" has been the foundation of medical ethics for millenia; why now must we violate this rule? To lessen the pain of the hopelessly ill, to numb the mind against the agony of the body, these are ethically superior alternatives to euthanasia.

The answer is simple: This is not a medical decision. This is the patient's choice.

However, I feel that this proposal is far too vague in its provisions, which would inevitably lead to problems if it is passed, and so I cannot support it.

4) Ultimately, the purpose of medicine is to preserve life, not harm it. "Do no harm" has been the foundation of medical ethics for millenia; why now must we violate this rule? To lessen the pain of the hopelessly ill, to numb the mind against the agony of the body, these are ethically superior alternatives to euthanasia.

The answer is simple: This is not a medical decision. This is the patient's choice.

Just this one point I thought I'd jump in on. If this is not a medical decision at all, but is made purely by the patient, why do we call it "euthanasia" at all? Its merely suicide. The whole idea of euthanasia requires a doctor or otherwise competent authority to decide whether or not it is acceptable in a particular case.

Just this one point I thought I'd jump in on. If this is not a medical decision at all, but is made purely by the patient, why do we call it "euthanasia" at all? Its merely suicide. The whole idea of euthanasia requires a doctor or otherwise competent authority to decide whether or not it is acceptable in a particular case.

First off, welcome to the forums. Have fun.

I admit I'm using something of a double standard here. In my own version of the concept, the doctor is not so much approving euthanasia as they are judging the medical condition of the patient and stating the chances for recovery, etc.. I believe the ultimate decision should be the patient's. You could make a good argument to call that suicide, but I would still say that, so long as the medical justification (if that's a good word... you probably know what I mean) is present, it's euthanasia.

Before making harsh judgements please read the proposal

I wrote this for a reason as I do not think all of you have read it thoroughly as Santin pointed out.

Also I think there was a point made about 'state of mind'. However this would surely be overcome through it being the patients own decision and the fact that it would have to be approved by professionals.

Before making harsh judgements please read the proposal

I wrote this for a reason as I do not think all of you have read it thoroughly as Santin pointed out.

Also I think there was a point made about 'state of mind'. However this would surely be overcome through it being the patients own decision and the fact that it would have to be approved by professionals.

So what gives anyone the right to play God ? How do you know she won't get better ?

First off, hi. I'm new.

Second off, (sorry if some of this has already been covered, I sort of skim read the topic) I think Euthanasia should definitely be legal. It allows suffering people to die with dignity. However, to avoid it being used to get away with murder, the patient has to be able to indicate their will to die and there has to be recorded evidence of them doing so. If the patient is in a coma, the decision will be with their family, but only after they have not improved after ten years.

With these bounderies in place, I see no reason why Euthanasia should not be legal. Giving somebody the option to die is not forcing them. It doesn't lose us anything.

I'd prefer euthania over spending years in a coma if I'm never coming out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I support this proposal If a person is in extreme pain and that whatever disease they may have is terminal they ought to have the right to end the suffering sooner.

I think Euthanasia should definitely be legal. It allows suffering people to die with dignity. However, to avoid it being used to get away with murder, the patient has to be able to indicate their will to die and there has to be recorded evidence of them doing so. If the patient is in a coma, the decision will be with their family, but only after they have not improved after ten years.

With these bounderies in place, I see no reason why Euthanasia should not be legal. Giving somebody the option to die is not forcing them. It doesn't lose us anything.

My feelings exactly :!:

I support this proposal If a person is in extreme pain and that whatever disease they may have is terminal they ought to have the right to end the suffering sooner.

Catholic Europe will not support this resolution. Euthanasia is murder. Who are we to decide when somebody should end their life? That is murder and we must not allow it.

Well thankyou all opinions are very welcome :-)

Catholic Europe will not support this resolution. Euthanasia is murder. Who are we to decide when somebody should end their life? That is murder and we must not allow it.

Murder is a killing that is against the law. For this reason, a soldier being shot in battle is not murder. If euthanasia was legalised, as Xawadiland beleives it should be, it would not be murder. After all, we can put our sick pets to sleep, and do so frequently - so why do human beings have to suffer unneccesarily?

The right to life is inexorably tied with the right to commit suicide.

The right to free speech entails the right to remain silent, the right to privacy entails the right to publish things about yourself, the freedom of association entails the freedom of not associating, etc., etc.

Euthanasia should be legal if the person himself agrees to it.

Clearly there is a majority here in favour of legalising euthanasia, but with more specific restrictions. There are really two cases here: 1, when the patient has, before becoming ill and in a totally healthy, clear state of mind, legally (i.e. with a signed document, a bit like a will is a legal document) declared that s/he wants to be killed if x,y and z medical conditions apply (e.g. they might say kill me if I'm in a vegetative state with no hope of regaining full powers of thought). The second is when the patient has not expressed his/her wishes beforehand, but now, during their illness, says that they want to die.

The first case is far less controversial than the second - with the second, there is the question of whether, in a state of agony, the patient can really make a sane decision of this magnitude, and whether their request should be respected despite this other issue.

It would probably be a good idea to have 2 proposals - one specifically dealing with the first, and one with the second, and have more exact specifications.

I agree with Myopia.

All citizens should be killed at the age of 75 to reduce their burden upon society.

Clearly there is a majority here in favour of legalising euthanasia, but with more specific restrictions. There are really two cases here: 1, when the patient has, before becoming ill and in a totally healthy, clear state of mind, legally (i.e. with a signed document, a bit like a will is a legal document) declared that s/he wants to be killed if x,y and z medical conditions apply (e.g. they might say kill me if I'm in a vegetative state with no hope of regaining full powers of thought). The second is when the patient has not expressed his/her wishes beforehand, but now, during their illness, says that they want to die.

The first case is far less controversial than the second - with the second, there is the question of whether, in a state of agony, the patient can really make a sane decision of this magnitude, and whether their request should be respected despite this other issue.

It would probably be a good idea to have 2 proposals - one specifically dealing with the first, and one with the second, and have more exact specifications.

Personally, I think even with (1) as long as there is life there is hope.

Clearly there is a majority here in favour of legalising euthanasia, but with more specific restrictions. There are really two cases here: 1, when the patient has, before becoming ill and in a totally healthy, clear state of mind, legally (i.e. with a signed document, a bit like a will is a legal document) declared that s/he wants to be killed if x,y and z medical conditions apply (e.g. they might say kill me if I'm in a vegetative state with no hope of regaining full powers of thought). The second is when the patient has not expressed his/her wishes beforehand, but now, during their illness, says that they want to die.

The first case is far less controversial than the second - with the second, there is the question of whether, in a state of agony, the patient can really make a sane decision of this magnitude, and whether their request should be respected despite this other issue.

It would probably be a good idea to have 2 proposals - one specifically dealing with the first, and one with the second, and have more exact specifications.

Personally, I think even with (1) as long as there is life there is hope.

I agree with you point 'myopia' but i think that this proposal should be handled with first containing the basic plea for legalising euthanasia, then the other issues can be brought up in later proposals once the decision has been made.

Clearly there is a majority here in favour of legalising euthanasia, but with more specific restrictions. There are really two cases here: 1, when the patient has, before becoming ill and in a totally healthy, clear state of mind, legally (i.e. with a signed document, a bit like a will is a legal document) declared that s/he wants to be killed if x,y and z medical conditions apply (e.g. they might say kill me if I'm in a vegetative state with no hope of regaining full powers of thought). The second is when the patient has not expressed his/her wishes beforehand, but now, during their illness, says that they want to die.

The first case is far less controversial than the second - with the second, there is the question of whether, in a state of agony, the patient can really make a sane decision of this magnitude, and whether their request should be respected despite this other issue.

It would probably be a good idea to have 2 proposals - one specifically dealing with the first, and one with the second, and have more exact specifications.

Personally, I think even with (1) as long as there is life there is hope.

I don't. Sayings like that are hardly ever true, they were invented to sound good and make people better. Anybody can churn them out as much as they like, and other people can sound wise by repeating them a lot, but at the end of the day they won't get anything useful done.

THE GLOBAL MARKET WROTE: "The right to life is inexorably tied with the right to commit suicide.

The right to free speech entails the right to remain silent,
the right to privacy entails the right to publish things about yourself,
the freedom of association entails the freedom of not associating, etc., etc.

Euthanasia should be legal if the person himself agrees to it."

i could not agree more. this argument establishes for me the legitimacy of Euthanasia in the abstract. (please someone tell me how to quote!). but the proposal put forward does not deal with the specifics. as myopia pointed out in his first case, there are cases that are easily dealt with. for his second i would propose this:

a patient who has not expressed such wishes beforehand (or has expressed wishes to the contrary) does so now. his/her case is put before a team of consultants with experience of whatever condition she is in, his/her family is informed and brought into the discussion, but all through this the patient's wishes are made paramount to the discussion - i.e. the doctors and family members can attempt to persuade th patient otherwise, make them aware of their previous wishes and what possible medical hope there is, but ultimately, after repeated requests for euthanasia, his/her wishes are honoured.

the problem i have with the proposal at hand is that it establishes no actual procedures for this sort of thing, just establishes it in principle.i won't support it as it stands.

Jixie

I would like to reinforce my earlier point: a lot of you are treating euthanasia as if it was forcing somebody to die. It isn't. It's giving them the option.

If you don't have Euthanasia, they don't get this option, so you are merely forcing somebody to suffer.

I don't. Sayings like that are hardly ever true, they were invented to sound good and make people better. Anybody can churn them out as much as they like, and other people can sound wise by repeating them a lot, but at the end of the day they won't get anything useful done.

Well, it is true. You just never know. Since when has anything anyone said gotten anything done anyway ? :)

I don't. Sayings like that are hardly ever true, they were invented to sound good and make people better. Anybody can churn them out as much as they like, and other people can sound wise by repeating them a lot, but at the end of the day they won't get anything useful done.

Well, it is true. You just never know. Since when has anything anyone said gotten anything done anyway ? :)

What if you're lying bleeding in a gutter, both legs smashed, intestined pouring out of your ruptured stomach, while rabid dogs are closing in on you?

I don't. Sayings like that are hardly ever true, they were invented to sound good and make people better. Anybody can churn them out as much as they like, and other people can sound wise by repeating them a lot, but at the end of the day they won't get anything useful done.

Well, it is true. You just never know. Since when has anything anyone said gotten anything done anyway ? :)

What if you're lying bleeding in a gutter, both legs smashed, intestined pouring out of your ruptured stomach, while rabid dogs are closing in on you?

If that happened, you'd probably be in shock. And probably will be dead in less than a minute.

I would like to reinforce my earlier point: a lot of you are treating euthanasia as if it was forcing somebody to die. It isn't. It's giving them the option.

If you don't have Euthanasia, they don't get this option, so you are merely forcing somebody to suffer.

Hold it, we're not forcing anyone to suffer. If they can and want to end their lives, then it's up to them whether they want to. If they can't, then tough. Do you force a homeless man to suffer if you don't give him food and shelter ? :)

I don't. Sayings like that are hardly ever true, they were invented to sound good and make people better. Anybody can churn them out as much as they like, and other people can sound wise by repeating them a lot, but at the end of the day they won't get anything useful done.

Well, it is true. You just never know. Since when has anything anyone said gotten anything done anyway ? :)

What if you're lying bleeding in a gutter, both legs smashed, intestined pouring out of your ruptured stomach, while rabid dogs are closing in on you?

If that happened, you'd probably be in shock. And probably will be dead in less than a minute.

The shock aside, if you encountered someone in a situation like this, you'd say "Yeah I know you're suffering horribly, but I'm not going to put you out of your misery, you'll be dead in a minute anyway so just keep up a straight upper lip!"

I would like to reinforce my earlier point: a lot of you are treating euthanasia as if it was forcing somebody to die. It isn't. It's giving them the option.

If you don't have Euthanasia, they don't get this option, so you are merely forcing somebody to suffer.

Hold it, we're not forcing anyone to suffer. If they can and want to end their lives, then it's up to them whether they want to. If they can't, then tough. Do you force a homeless man to suffer if you don't give him food and shelter ? :)

I don't think you understand. Being able to end their life when they want to, and it being up to them, is what happens when Euthanasia is legal. Which is what my arguments are for. Xawadiland is strongly Pro-Euthanasia.

This proposal now needs exactly 100 votes after a kind 37 people have voted. Thanks :)

Hold it, we're not forcing anyone to suffer. If they can and want to end their lives, then it's up to them whether they want to. If they can't, then tough. Do you force a homeless man to suffer if you don't give him food and shelter ? :)

What if they want to end their lives but can't because they're paralysed from the neck down? Then what? Are your really suggesting that we say "tough, stick it out there, paralysed and in agony in your bed for the remaining 2 years of your life"?

The only thing that should be in argue here is the reasoning capabilities of the person in question, if the person is capable of deciding wether to continue to live or not, then he should have the right to ask a medic for help instead of having to but a bullet in their head by themselves, which most people in terminal condition is not able to do.

The decition of the people of Bariloche in this matter: No one else but the individual in question has the right to decide to continue living or not, without taking into account (for the means of knowing if a person is able to decide) the physical state of the person, only the mental state. A person that is not able to take the decition cannot be by any means privated of their lives.

The only way Bariloche would support this is Euthanasia=Suicide, and not any other way.

Pablo B.
President
Community of Bariloche

I, too, support euthanasia, but you have to understand that the main secular argument against it is that, by many definitions, anyone who considers ending their own life is not in a sound state of mind. Many people would see euthanasia as akin to having the police tell someone jumping off of a rooftop, "Yeah, okay, go ahead and do it if you want. It's cool," or having lifeguards refuse to save a drowning man because, "Well, he wanted to die."

All citizens should be killed at the age of 75 to reduce their burden upon society.

I didn't go through and read the other pages of comments because the first post disgusted me so much.

A comment this utterly stupid hardly deserves a response. The Federation refuses to support anything this ludicrous.

What if they want to end their lives but can't because they're paralysed from the neck down? Then what? Are your really suggesting that we say "tough, stick it out there, paralysed and in agony in your bed for the remaining 2 years of your life"?

Just because you're paralyzed from the neck down doesn't mean you're going to be in your bed. Secondly,being paralyzed isn't painful. Paralysis numbs everything.. it's as if it didn't exist. It's not painful at all, it's just not there. So you're not in agony, and you're not in your bed. Paralyzed people can still make a contribution to society. They're admittedly depressed because of society's admiration of physical perfection, but that doesn't mean they can't make a positive contribution. They will be fine with counselling. They can speak, they can write. They can make a difference.

(OOC examples : Christopher Reeve, Stephen Hawking etc. are all paralyzed. But they have made a difference in the world.)

Euthanasia is certainly an issue i have considered several times (not commiting euthanasia, you understand; i mean considered the ethics of).
After reading the play "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" I adopted the viewpoint that Euthanasia should be made legal.
However, this poses one main problem: If a person is in a coma, how can they say whether they want to be "turned off" or not?
In the case of Ken Harrison, the main character of "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" this was not an issue. Ken was paralysed from the neck down and would require treatment for the rest of his life if he was to survive. His wish was to be left without treatment and be allowed to die with dignity. It is currently the right of any sane human to refuse treatment, but those trying to keep Ken alive thought that he must be clinically depressed just becuase he was asking to die. In cases such as this, I believe that it should be the patients decision alone as to whether they recieve treatment, be it medicine, breathing apparatus or anything.
But still there is the question of people who cannot make the decision because they have been registered permenantly unconcious.
Currently, when people are in a hospital, they can have their names put on a "Do Not Resuscitate" register, meaning that if they go into cardiac arrest, they are left to die.
I suggest that a register similar to this could be set up for Euthanasia. People who wish to be euthanised if such a situation were put upon them could add their names to a register, with certain conditions such as how long the doctors must wait after the last concious response was made by the patient before switching life support off. This would eliminate the risk of people abusing the system as patients could not be euthanised without their personal prior consent.

Please note that the above only refers to Voluntanry Euthanasia (someone asking to be euthanised). I still believe that Passive euthanasia ("turning someone off" without their consent when they are unable to make the decision) should be very tightly controlled if not outlawed, and Involuntary Euthanasia (forcing someone to be killed, becuase they are beleived to be inferior) should be completely outlawed.

I am not going to support this proposal because in its current wording it is far too vauge. Saying "A Certain Age" is not acceptable. If the proposal is to be passed, there need to be strict guidelines as to when this age is, and how the decision will be made.
Furthermore, saying "Euthanasia should be legalized" technically means that all three types of Euthanasia should be legalized, not just Voluntary Euthanasia. This needs to be reworded, or you are effectively making genocide legal.

What if they want to end their lives but can't because they're paralysed from the neck down? Then what? Are your really suggesting that we say "tough, stick it out there, paralysed and in agony in your bed for the remaining 2 years of your life"?

Just because you're paralyzed from the neck down doesn't mean you're going to be in your bed. Secondly,being paralyzed isn't painful. Paralysis numbs everything.. it's as if it didn't exist. It's not painful at all, it's just not there. So you're not in agony, and you're not in your bed. Paralyzed people can still make a contribution to society. They're admittedly depressed because of society's admiration of physical perfection, but that doesn't mean they can't make a positive contribution. They will be fine with counselling. They can speak, they can write. They can make a difference.

(OOC examples : Christopher Reeve, Stephen Hawking etc. are all paralyzed. But they have made a difference in the world.)

I mean people like Diane Pretty, the British woman who died in 2002 after being refused the right to die with dignity:



'It's not life. I'm already dead'

After spending a month with Diane Pretty, watching her waste away in the grip of motor neurone disease, Sarah Barclay questions the courts' refusal to let her die with dignity

Sunday May 12, 2002
The Observer

When Diane Pretty wants to tell you something, she makes a noise that is a cross between a grunt and a moan. Or makes a movement with her eyes to indicate what she is after. Someone to move her arm. Or scratch her eyebrow. Or wipe her eyes. Or suction the saliva out of her mouth because she cannot clear her own throat. Or change her catheter bag or her incontinence pad. Or - yes - light her a cigarette and hold it between her lips so she can enjoy one of her few pleasures in a life she wants to end as soon as possible. There are those who might wonder why a woman with chronic asthma smokes like a chimney, but they will be the people who are not in the terminal stages of motor neurone disease. In other words, most of us.
The following is from a transcript of a conversation between Diane and her husband Brian which we filmed for Panorama. A typical exchange.

Diane: 'Ahhh.'
Brian: 'Itch? Where? Nose?'
Diane: 'Ahh.'
Brian: Middle? Tip? Do the whole lot, get it all over and done with?'
Diane: 'Ahhh.'
Brian: Is that it? Have I got it?'
Diane: 'Ahhh.'
Brian: 'Oh, right down. Is that better?'
Diane: 'Mmn'

If no one can understand what Diane is trying to say, the grunt becomes a low-pitched scream. If you still cannot understand, it starts to get louder. Eventually, she opens her mouth wide and howls - a sound which makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. You can hear this cry from halfway down her street. If you did not know that Diane Pretty lived in that house, you would think it was an animal being tortured. It isn't. It's a 43-year-old mother of two who wants someone to help her die.

I heard this cry in its various guises many times over the month we spent with Diane and Brian. Although it began to shock me less as time went by, it never ceased to make me think that before we make up our minds about voluntary euthanasia or make sweeping judgments about other people's quality of life, we should listen to a cry like Diane's.

The only source of words for her is a machine called a lightwriter which she operates by pressure from her wrist on a keypad which rests on her knee. Every letter is an effort. A longish sentence can take up to 20 minutes to tap out. One day I asked her whether life, however awful, was not better than being dead. Ten minutes later, the electronic voice in her machine came out with an answer. It said simply: 'I am dead.'

She is paralysed from the neck down, doubly incontinent, fed through a tube in her stomach and unable to speak. Her brain, however, is untouched, her ability to think, to understand, to make decisions, completely unimpaired. Although she wants someone to help her die, she is, of course, already dying. Motor neurone disease is fatal and unrelenting. At best, she has a few more months. At worst a few more weeks. But they have been saying that since last November and Diane is still hanging on.

Now she's she is getting weaker by the day. Brian measures her decline by the sparkle in her eyes. He is with her 24 hours a day and he is watching that sparkle get dimmer as his wife of 25 years gets closer to the death she is so afraid of.

I asked Diane how they had met and how her illness had changed their relationship. She tapped out on the lightwriter: 'I met Brian on a coach trip to Clacton. Our relationship before and after the diagnosis, like everybody who's in love, you have your good times and your bad times. It's the same now but there's a lot more stress. Because of the illness we can't hold hands or walk arm in arm have a lengthy discussion or even cuddle but we still have a laugh, still talk and still love each other.'

Her death if she is lucky will mean that she goes quietly to sleep and never wakes up. If she is unlucky it could mean struggling for breath, choking on the saliva she cannot clear from her throat. Motor neurone specialists say only a handful of sufferers experience these symptoms. But there is, of course, no way of telling whether Diane will be one of them. That is why she wants control over when she dies. So she won't have to wait and find out.

Motor neurone disease was diagnosed in November 1999. She had noticed the first symptoms two years earlier. A tremor in her arm, which was initially misdiagnosed as a frozen shoulder. Brian describes her swift descent into severe disability.

'A month later we had a wheelchair, then we had a ramp, then we had a bathroom sorted out so a wheelchair could be used. Then we had to have a floor lift put in so we can get from one floor to the next. Now she's getting to the point where I can hardly understand what she's saying. It is absolutely heart-wrenching to see her some days.'

By the time the disease was diagnosed Diane's hands were paralysed. Picking up a pill and putting it in her own mouth was impossible. Then she started losing the ability to swallow food. Brian describes this: 'You start finding it hard to swallow. And then the swallowing gets harder and harder. You stop using knives and forks, you start using spoons. Then instead of using a teaspoon, you use half a teaspoon, then a quarter of a teaspoon.'

Assissted suicide carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years and Diane and Brian were determined to stay within the law. When I went to interview Cliff Dixon, Deputy Chief Constable of Bedfordshire, the force which would investigate if Brian decided to take matters into his own hands, he surprised me by saying he thought it was time to debate the complicated issues and family tragedies which underlie cases of assisted suicide. Diane, he said, had shown 'tremendous courage' in bringing the issue into the open.

One morning, while Diane was in her local hospice, Brian took us to visit her mother, Julie. You might expect a mother to cling to a dying child for as long as possible but this mother confounds our expectations. I asked Julie how she was coping. 'I've watched all her limbs gradually die,' she said, 'I've watched everything go and now I'm hoping she'll have a peaceful death. You know, I'd like someone to give her a pill or an injection.'

Diane can still laugh. A deep, throaty laugh accompanied by a mischievous smile. When she does this it stops you in your tracks. Several times I make a point of asking her if these are still moments she would rather not have had. She says yes every time. It is strange talking to a woman who would rather be dead. A woman the same age as me with two children.

I mean people like Diane Pretty, the British woman who died in 2002 after being refused the right to die with dignity:

I'm sorry, you can hate me if you want but I think she's just a spoilt kid. She screams for attention. And if she doesn't get it, she just screams louder. Stephen Hawking has motor neurone disease. He doesn't scream for attention -- he earns it. What's the difference between Diane Pretty and Stephen Hawking ? they both have the same disease -- but one is an eminent physicist. That alone proves that you don't necessarily have to go 'oh, I'm so disabled I want to die now' when you have motor neurone disease. They can make something of themselves, he's proven it. It would be remiss of us to deny them a chance to make something of themselves in spite of the condition they're in.

In order for this to work, a cynical approach to human nature should e taken.

Remember that there are people who would gladly see a wife or mother die; they may want to remarry, they may want her money. If she is unable to speak for herself, and has not expressed her wishes, should they be allowed to "put her out of her misery"?

What about hospitals or nursing homes in which the person's financial support has been exhausted? The death would improve their cost-benefit ratio.

Tread carefully here, please.

Where has the proposal gone? I cannot find it in the UN proposals....?

Actually spoiled.....hmmmmm

I knew a guy who said it out of pride.

Afcourse the funny thing is that you can't punish somebody for suicide. It is not like you can jail them.....or give capital punishment.

The message seems to almost be.... go out a bit earlier while you can still kill yourself.

And helping.....well there is helping and neglectance. "accidentally" creating a situation in which somebody can kill themselves. Or maybe not even accidentally. Very intresting, but I think you can go by the law and escape punishment.

I mean people like Diane Pretty, the British woman who died in 2002 after being refused the right to die with dignity:

I'm sorry, you can hate me if you want but I think she's just a spoilt kid. She screams for attention. And if she doesn't get it, she just screams louder.

Perhaps because she's incapable of coherent speech? Actually, she can't scream now, being dead.

Stephen Hawking has motor neurone disease. He doesn't scream for attention -- he earns it. What's the difference between Diane Pretty and Stephen Hawking ? they both have the same disease -- but one is an eminent physicist. That alone proves that you don't necessarily have to go 'oh, I'm so disabled I want to die now' when you have motor neurone disease. They can make something of themselves, he's proven it. It would be remiss of us to deny them a chance to make something of themselves in spite of the condition they're in.

You don't have to say that, but she wanted to, and isn't she perfectly within her rights? Just because some people choose not to exercise their right to vote, demonstrating that you don't need to vote, doesn't mean that we should take away the right to vote altogether and claim that people who demand the right to vote are just "spoilt".

I think Diane Pretty's case of the disease was worse than Hawking's case, given that it killed her only 3 years after diagnosis, whereas Hawking is still going after much longer.

You said that sufferers can still make something of themselves, which I believe to be beside the point (IMO if somebody wants to die, they should be able to, no matter if they could still contribute to society, and especially if they have a good reason such as the anguish Diane Pretty must have been going through). But in truth, the only career I can think of which is really open to somebody totally paralysed like that is one which is purely thought - I think we can forgive Diane Pretty for not having the mind of a scientific genius like Stephen Hawking.

This is my first post, so forgive me if I should be in character.

Life has a 100% chance of death. Everything will die. There is no escaping that fact. By giving a terminally ill patient the option of how and when it happens is not only the morally correct thing to do, but is also the greatest freedom that you could give someone.

I see this proposal not as giving options but as taking them away.
Do not let others decide when someone's life should end without clear
instructions from that person.

[quote=_Myopia_]I mean people like Diane Pretty, the British woman who died in 2002 after being refused the right to die with dignity:

I'm sorry, you can hate me if you want but I think she's just a spoilt kid. She screams for attention. And if she doesn't get it, she just screams louder.

Perhaps because she's incapable of coherent speech? Actually, she can't scream now, being dead.

Stephen Hawking can't speak either. He uses some sort of device.

Stephen Hawking has motor neurone disease. He doesn't scream for attention -- he earns it. What's the difference between Diane Pretty and Stephen Hawking ? they both have the same disease -- but one is an eminent physicist. That alone proves that you don't necessarily have to go 'oh, I'm so disabled I want to die now' when you have motor neurone disease. They can make something of themselves, he's proven it. It would be remiss of us to deny them a chance to make something of themselves in spite of the condition they're in.

You don't have to say that, but she wanted to, and isn't she perfectly within her rights? Just because some people choose not to exercise their right to vote, demonstrating that you don't need to vote, doesn't mean that we should take away the right to vote altogether and claim that people who demand the right to vote are just "spoilt".

People who don't vote don't prove that you don't have to vote. You can't prove a negative (i.e. you can't prove that something doesn't exist. But you can prove that something does.)

I think Diane Pretty's case of the disease was worse than Hawking's case, given that it killed her only 3 years after diagnosis, whereas Hawking is still going after much longer.

Both of them seem the same -- I've seen both. Doctors still do not know why it kill some people and not others.

You said that sufferers can still make something of themselves, which I believe to be beside the point (IMO if somebody wants to die, they should be able to, no matter if they could still contribute to society, and especially if they have a good reason such as the anguish Diane Pretty must have been going through). But in truth, the only career I can think of which is really open to somebody totally paralysed like that is one which is purely thought - I think we can forgive Diane Pretty for not having the mind of a scientific genius like Stephen Hawking.

We don't even know whether she had a good mind -- we never had much of a chance to find out. We can save these people -- show them that their lives still have worth. I think that's a better way.

Actually spoiled.....hmmmmm

I knew a guy who said it out of pride.

Well it's irritating :)

The message seems to almost be.... go out a bit earlier while you can still kill yourself.

I wonder if it's a control issue.

And helping.....well there is helping and neglectance. "accidentally" creating a situation in which somebody can kill themselves. Or maybe not even accidentally. Very intresting, but I think you can go by the law and escape punishment.

This has happened before. There was a case where a couple was gassed in a room. Turned out there were gas pipes behind the wall, and there was a small hole in it. Room was closed tight, so they ended up being gassed. Hard to find the real culprit in this case.

Stephen Hawking can't speak either. He uses some sort of device.

But, perhaps because she had a more severe case, she had more trouble operating it - it took her 20 mins to do a longish sentence.


People who don't vote don't prove that you don't have to vote. You can't prove a negative (i.e. you can't prove that something doesn't exist. But you can prove that something does.)

I meant that non-voters prove that it is not essential to vote, just as Hawking proves that it is not essential for motor neurone disease sufferers to choose to die.



Both of them seem the same -- I've seen both. Doctors still do not know why it kill some people and not others.

Surely a lethal case is by definition worse than a non-lethal one?


We don't even know whether she had a good mind -- we never had much of a chance to find out. We can save these people -- show them that their lives still have worth. I think that's a better way.

Actually we do know that she was capable of normal thought, as demonstrated when she managed to tap out sentences on her machine. She reached her late thirties before it was bad enough to be diagnosed - I think by then people would have noticed if she was a scientific genius. You're basically saying that we should ignore her sane decision to ask to die because (you think) we know better. And anyway, clearly we couldn't "save" her - all we did was prolong her suffering until she died naturally.


I wonder if it's a control issue

It's an issue over whether somebody should have the right to control when they die, which they clearly should.

I see this proposal not as giving options but as taking them away.
Do not let others decide when someone's life should end without clear
instructions from that person.

The proposal states clearly that it would be the person's own decision.

More to the point can someone explain where the proposal has gone!??

I was wondering that.

More to the point can someone explain where the proposal has gone!??

The voting period expired (on Thursday, January 1, 2004, if you look at the first page where the proposal was posted), and I don't believe that this one reached quorum, so it pretty much fell off the back of the hay truck.

And just since I'm posting already, I'll pester Calumnia and say that you can so prove a negative. It's harder, but you can. Say... I'll prove that you're not dead. If you ever post again, I win. :D

...I think, anyway. Feel free to punch holes in that if you see any.

I see this proposal not as giving options but as taking them away.
Do not let others decide when someone's life should end without clear
instructions from that person.

The proposal states clearly that it would be the person's own decision.

More to the point can someone explain where the proposal has gone!??

The proposal states in one paragraph that it is the person's decision, although under many curent laws such a decision may be implied by the courts from circumstances, which can lead to leaglized murder where there are no CLEAR instructions (such as a preexisring living will, signed and witnessed).

The next paragraph talks of how burdensome such lives can be to caregivers, which is exactly the situation that worries me. How will you prevent burdened caregivers from seeking, under the pretext of mercy, the death of the one they "care" for?

I do not agree that clear provision has been made to protect the free decision of the person in question.

Yeah lets have Euthanasia... get rid of hassle and gives us inheritance.

Stuff Euthanasia who cares what ppl do with their lives - its called suicide, much cheaper and easier :P

More to the point can someone explain where the proposal has gone!??

The voting period expired (on Thursday, January 1, 2004, if you look at the first page where the proposal was posted), and I don't believe that this one reached quorum, so it pretty much fell off the back of the hay truck.

And just since I'm posting already, I'll pester Calumnia and say that you can so prove a negative. It's harder, but you can. Say... I'll prove that you're not dead. If you ever post again, I win. :D

...I think, anyway. Feel free to punch holes in that if you see any.

darn really curious where the negative comes from. Sounds like an intresting topic. However since I can't it fast enough (impatient person :P) and it is note quoted I cannot reply.

afcourse there is this thing that you can't prove anything ;)

Excuse, expect mathamatical situations where you set the rules in advance.

So I guess god might be able to prove things :P

Murder is a killing that is against the law. For this reason, a soldier being shot in battle is not murder. If euthanasia was legalised, as Xawadiland beleives it should be, it would not be murder. After all, we can put our sick pets to sleep, and do so frequently - so why do human beings have to suffer unneccesarily?

Euthanasia is murder because, as we in Catholic Europe believe, it is killing when we do not have that right. God is the only one who can choose if somebody is to die. For us to commit euthanasia, goes against that making it murder.

Except in war, capital punishment, and when somebody is a non-believer :P

Finally something that in its simplisity is still arguable ;). But I still like you Catholic Europe :)

But when you start making exceptions you kinda open the door. I guess you should all have just promoted pacifics. Oh darn....some catolics actually have :-S.

Except in war, capital punishment, and when somebody is a non-believer :P

Finally something that in its simplisity is still arguable ;). But I still like you Catholic Europe :)

War is an exception but it's only when the war is justified, i.e: it complies with all the regulations for a war to occur, for example: WW2 would have been fought whereas WW1 would not have.

Capital punishment is an exception because the most grave of crimes must exact the gravest punishment - which is the death sentence.

We don't kill non-believers anymore.

INFIDEL!

The proposal has been submitted again with a much more detailed description. It is on page 16 so please read it and vote if you agree because it closes in three days :-)