Medical dilemma of suicide law
I have the greatest possible respect and admiration for Margo MacDonald. I like her. Conversation with her always pays a dividend, either in terms of gossipy chat or, more commonly, serious political analysis.
By now, I feel sure you can hear the caveat coming. Here it is. Personally, I think she is wrong with regard to her bill to enable assisted suicide.
Margo argues this is about autonomy; allowing an individual, not a clinician, to decide when to instigate such a process.
However, is that not to overlook the fact that it would potentially place a new responsibility on our clinicians - and one that runs counter to their core life-preserving principle?
In other words, enhanced autonomy for the individual might mean an unwarranted constraint on the medical profession.
For myself, I would prefer to think that our clinicians were striving endlessly to keep us in this world - not, occasionally, to despatch us from it.
Would it not open the door to unscrupulous relatives to place pressure on the elderly? Would it not, of itself, exert emotional pressure on the elderly to consider whether they are a "nuisance"?
I feel certain Margo will have answers to offer to these. I think I can guarantee that she will collar me at the very earliest opportunity in the Garden Lobby to put me right. I look forward to it.
In addition, I look forward to all your views on this site. Margo, too, if she feels like it.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is one of those questions that can only bring out the deep felt feelings that one has on the subject of assisted suicide. The problem with this question is that all sides are right in their assumptions and stands. I can only say that as a matter of principle I would find it hard to allow this to be brought into law when we should strive to keep another human being alive for as long as possible. But, what if death is certain? Nobody gets out of life alive and I can see the point that one would like to go in a manner that suits them instead of being forced to undergo the supreme indignity of being forced to hang on to a life that has no meaning for them.
This is a difficult subject and I do not envy the politicians having to debate this topic.
On a lighter note however, an assisted suicide of the Rangers team would give us three points this Saturday which, I suppose is the only way we are going to win. :)
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Funny how things work out - you have greatest respect and admiration for Margo McDonald - I have exactly the opposite, but I strongly agree with her that she should have the right to decide whether she dies with dignity or lingers on in suffering.
I strongly suspect that in the past many excellent doctors who had the best interests of their patients at heart, provided the means for those suffering from incurable and painful diseases to exit this life when the appropriate time arrived, without the general public and media becoming aware of it, having done their best to keep their patients alive until it became the case of 'you wouldn't treat an animal like that' and every time people with your views voice them I would resond with that last sentence!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
you may not have noticed from a news item on the BBC website of 26 September 2007, but it rebuts some of your fears thus:
"Legalised "physician-assisted death" has not been used to kill people who may be "a burden to society", US research suggests.
Some argue that allowing doctors to help people die could lead to the most vulnerable members of society being coerced into ending their lives.
The Journal of Medical Ethics reports no such evidence in Oregon, US, and the Netherlands which allow assisted dying."
Furthermore, I am surprised you do not balance your argument by considering the not inconsiderable social pressure on the terminally ill to continue to suffer at all costs, which is the stance you effectively take. Why is promoting the suffering of others ethically justified?
I think Margo is right to raise this matter for debate. There are considerable ethical dilemmas and practical problems on BOTH sides of the argument. Would that you recognised that.
Complain about this comment
No. greenockboy
I would remind you and all those like you that Michael Martin has no relationshipwith the Gorbals at all and was I believe born in Shettleston.
In addition your insult to the hundreds of thousands of decent people born in the Gorbals, and to the vast numbers of us with some Irish blood in our veins is bitterly resented
A genuine Gorbals Boy
Complain about this comment
Come on yourself greenockboy - think this most emphatically *is* worth reporting and discussing; it's always a bit disapointing when people harrangue Brian for not following their preferred agenda, and all the more so in this case. Do you lack an opinion on this subject, or just not see its relevance?
Surely we can get back to bellowing in to our respective party political buckets next time?
For what it's worth, I personally support Margo MacDonald's stance on this wholeheartedly. To keep alive those who no longer wish to live (or to keep alive those incapable of making their preferences known, having done so prior to their decline) strikes me as considerably more barbaric than a well-regulated scheme to permit those in such circumstances to make informed and free decisions.
Complain about this comment
While it's sad that Margo has come to this , she does not have the right to change laws which might impact detrimentally on the lives of others. She must accept that to do otherwise is a selfish act, however well meaning she may be. No one has the right to decide when someone else should die, and that in effect is what she wants to happen; when she is no longer capable of deciding rationally, then someone else is to be required to make the decision. This is open to abuse where the situation may be expediant, and, is not a decision that should be imposed on a friend or relative anyway however merciful the decision may be.
Complain about this comment
I'd prefer to think that in carefully controlled circumstances - long term, disabling illness and loss of independence - and where I had made my own wishes clear in advance, my doctor was able to help me if I chose to end my life with dignity, rather than "striving to keep me in this world" at all costs.
Complain about this comment
I agree there are many interesting subjects to discuss and I cannot believe I am saying this but I agree wholeheartedly with your post.
Euthanasia is a subject that needs discussion, not only because of the danger to the public. Doctors with less than intended integrity could easily save the NHS a few million with any law brought in to support this.
It is not our job to decide when we die.
I do believe that all possible help should be given to help with pain and independence that is requested by the patient but not to the extent of ending life. Too deliberately, end life would be very easy but it takes away the very precious meaning of life itself.
If a person decides to refuse treatment that is a very different discussion. Too purposely, end life for a doctor should be against the oath they swore as a doctor.
Complain about this comment
After reading some of the comments, I think a huge difference exists between striving to keep a person alive at all costs and deliberately killing them. The steps in-between are huge. The balance is difficult to achieve but possible.
When my 34-year-old son was dying of cancer, the staff gave him a great deal of help with pain. They did not give him unnecessary procedures.
In the beginning every waking moment was about finding a cure and praying that they find a cure, eventually we all realised that the time was near and everything changes.
Then all your time is about loving him and giving him what he wants and praying for a quick end to a terrible time for him but not asking someone to take his life.
I do not suppose the staff will ever know how grateful I felt for the help they gave my son.
Margo McDonald is a determined person who has spent her life in service to a Scotland she loves. A person I have long admired for her outspoken personality, her ability to see people as just people. She reminds me of a saying from my Dad he used to say to us "even the queen goes to the toilet"; "it may be gold plated but performs the same function". So even with that level of admiration I can disagree with her, not for giving people the chance to talk about the subject but for her views on the subject.
Complain about this comment
Kaybraes:
#8.
I do believe you are wrong.
"No one has the right to decide when someone else should die, and that in effect is what she wants to happen; when she is no longer capable of deciding rationally, then someone else is to be required to make the decision."
First, no one has suggested we allow another person to decide whether an individual should be allowed to live or not. The individual has the right to choose themselves, and I do expect many people who suffer from diseases or other problems have made their decision already, about whether or not they would choose to continue living or to die.
I do not speak for Margo, but I believe that the woman has already to decided to end her life when she believes her time has come.
Is Margo a person who is, "no longer capable of deciding rationally"?
A person capable of making the decision should be allowed to do so. A person incapable should not be allowed, and should be protected.
It's like people who choose to donate organs. Just because once they pass away, and their organs become available they have already gave their consent that doctors can take their organs. However, just because the person is in no position to give their consent (being dead and all, they might have changed their mind in the end!) at the time, does that mean we should not allow their organs to be given to those who need it?
Consent can be given to those who choose to die once their problems become to difficult to control.
Back to Topic:
I do believe individuals should be allowed to decide whether to die from their problems, or by assisted suicide.
Democracy is about giving the people the choice. This is one of those choices. However terrible one may find it, what right do you have to stop someone who may see this as the 'only way'? Some people can live with their problems. But some people can not cope and what are we to reject them their choice of assisted suicide? They may consider living-on worse then hell itself.
I would. I am an independent person, I can't stand help, especailly when I require being dependent on someone else. If I were in a position that would put me into the positon of being dependent on someone else then I would at least prefer the choice.
I may change my opinion of course, but right now I would never be happy as a burden to my family or the state.
Also consider that someone may choose to end their life by other means. Which is worse? To find your loved one at the end of a rope, or to find out that they went in the most pain free way possible? At least if they were open about what they want they could be encouraged to continue living.
Complain about this comment
The ultimate goal of the medical profession cannot simply be to prolong life at any cost. Since this will sometimes mean that they are deliberately causing terrible suffering to occur.
Not being religious, I can't agree that the role of doctors may sometimes be to do everything they can to keep humans alive, so that they continue to suffer agony and degradation.
Complain about this comment
No 6:
My use of the phrase 'Gorbals Mick' is not in reference to anyone who lives in the Gorbals as well you know.
It is a well used phrase used to describe the speaker, not I admit a flattering phrase, but it refers to him alone.
This misrepresenting of someones comment is something I complained about a week ago after Reluctant - Expat did exactly that.
I was informed by the mods that because he hadn't used any abusive language they would allow the comment.
I now see you have employed the same tactic and have attempted to suggest that I am insulting those of Irish descent.
My own comment drew attention to the fact that there are many more important happenings right now (MAG court case, BBC bias towards the SNP according to Foulkes and a freedom of information request into Glenrothes)
You are twisting a comment (now removed) in order to give a completely false impression and have introduced a sectarian element into the thread that was never there !!
I have little respect for posters who seek to do this.
Complain about this comment
Np. 14
I refute your denial that the phrase 'Gorbals Mick' is an insult to the speaker alone - it is a nickname conned by Letts of the Daily Mail deliberately designed to imply that Mr Martin is thick beause he comes from the Gorbals and is of Irish descent - I accept that you might not have meant that, but your opinion does not change the facts.
I have a number of former workmates from Greenock which, I am aware as a family historian, also has many people of Irish descent, who would be most unhappy if someone from Greenock was described by an asinine hack as 'Greenock Mick'
Complain about this comment
As the law stands, it is already affecting people's 'right to choose' in that - they can't.
If I become incapacitated in some way and wish to end my life (not someone else's) at a time and place of my choosing, and in a place of my choosing, then I would rather have been able to fill a prescription given to me by the doctor than have to take to one of these ghastly hood things off with me to die heaven knows how in some dark little corner.
Complain about this comment
1. We really need to have a debate about this. Go Margo! It is terrible that so many people are suffering because of scruples over the taboo of death. Thankfully it is still a minority of people that are directly affected by this issue, but numbers are increasing all the time. I really hope something is sorted before I get old. Go Margo!!!
2. About physician assisted suicide - why are you so scared? If doctors are given a licence to help people die, it does not mean that they will forget the hippocratic oath and knock people off for kicks! Tell me I'm not naive or I'll never visit the doctor again.
Complain about this comment
14.
I made no complaint to the moderator regarding your comment - he/she has taken it upon himself/herself to examine your post in the light of my response to your post - I had no intention that your post should be removed by the moderator as I believe such action stifles debate nor did I say state that your post was abusive in any way.
Complain about this comment
Brian says
"For myself, I would prefer to think that our clinicians were striving endlessly to keep us in this world - not, occasionally, to despatch us from it."
That would imply you support biological immortality, Brian. It could be mere decades away, given the rapid advance of biology in recent years.
Complain about this comment
I agree entirely with your thoughts, Brian. I cannot speak for Doctors generally but two with whom I have discussed this subject are totally opposed to them being involved, no matter how peripherally,in any decision making on this issue and prefer the certainty of their present obligation to maintain life.
(And we all know that that allows the latitude to stop maintaining life artificially when that existence has become mindless or meaningless and from which no return or cure is possible, when it can only be done by adminstering medicine ).
Complain about this comment
“I would prefer to think that our clinicians were striving endlessly to keep us in this world...”
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person...
What's happens when Doctor's can't stop the torture of a debilitating disease; when the care required goes beyond current medical abilities; where the only outcome is the agonising wait for natural death.
Why, when the outcome is inevitable do we force people to endure this?
Under the right circumstances, I believe an individual – and only that individual – has the right to decide to end their own life.
Complain about this comment
In this very difficult area, it may be worth bearing in mind "Good Medical Practice" as defined by the GMC
You may also wish to look at their Guiding Principles on "Respect for human life and best interests".
Complain about this comment
To Thomas_Porter
What you have forgotten in your post is that it is possible to remove organs from people who may survive, and that is the basis for objections to doctors alone making the decision without discussion with the relatives who would seek to protect them.
The danger lies in the doctor being more concerned with harvesting organs than saving the person on the bed.
In short, they may recover.
The danger lies in doctors making a decision on who will live and who will die without absolute guidelines to follow. Unfortunately, we produce doctors and no doubt very educated people, but they are people, with faults like a lack of honesty, a lack of ability, impatience, and many more, which can affect the life, or death of a patient. They also have nights out or a row with their partner or just a bad day, they are people. I think we are luckier than most countries and have many that are the best but they are people.
If we had euthanasia, would people die that other wise might live to lead even a semi enjoyable life?
Results have shown that a section of the people seeking euthanasia abroad would benefit from a simple treatment of pills for depression. For instance, many people who receive treatment for cancer suffer from very serious but treatable depression.
Complain about this comment
To the poster 'Sheneval'
Firstly, I have no intention of continuing to explain the meaning of my first post to you. Your attempt at injecting a sectarian anti Irish theme into both this thread and my comment is beneath contempt, especially if you knew my background.
I am all too aware of the prejudice suffered by those of an Irish catholic persuasion in Greenock and Scotland, more aware than you think.
Second, I did not suggest you reported me to the moderators. I have however reported your second comment to the mods as you again have attempted to conflate my post with anti Irishness.
Third, my original post was a protest at what I believe to be a rather insipid and benign topic, notwithstanding the seriousness of Margo's condition and that of others.
In my opinion there are far more important issues happening within Scottish politics today. My comment was deleted by the moderators and that is that.
This is my last comment on this thread as I don't want it to descend into a tit for tat with 'Sheneval'.
Complain about this comment
Who'd want to die early when you could watch the blog tennis between sheneval and greenockboy! Makes life worth living!
Complain about this comment
This basically comes down to whether or not you've watched someone die in sever pain and distress.
Anyone who has, and can still not fervently wished the law was changed to allow assisted suicide has basically left their common humanity at the door - and unfortunatly it's usually the door to the church.
And if you honestly think that the medical profession are not doing everything *at the moment* this side of assisted suicide you are sadly mistaken. The "life-preserving principle" is already compromised. Unfortunatly because of the sensibilities of those sick people who insist on preserving the status quo countless thousands of people are forced to endure days of unspeakable agony.
Every vote against assisted suicide is a vote for torture.
I personally watched a close relative die over several days with lungs so scared that they were gasping for air even with the maxiumum additional oxygen that could be given and we just waited for heart failure.
The nasty little secret is there's still lots of ways that you personally might die in torment - and it can go on and on for days, or even weeks.
Complain about this comment
LYDIA-REID:
#23.
Of course there are situations we have to look at while we allow the right to assisted suicide.
Who do we allow? Who exactly will give the go-ahead? How will the process of those who seek to end his/her own life work?
Right now, we should decide for ourselves if assisted suicide should be legal or not, how it will work exactly should come later. That's a whole different debate.
"If we had euthanasia, would people die that other wise might live to lead even a semi enjoyable life?"
Every case should be treated differently. The individual should be looked at, as I said earlier, some will choose death over life. There are bound to be people willing to live with their problems while others can't ever be happy.
Depression is something that I believe should be attempted to be tackled. However if a person does not want help, then they'll never bother to work to improve their problems and assisted suicide may well be something that they want in the end.
But then like I said, how we implement the right to die, would I hope also consist of councilling before their final days or at least proven consent that this person does not want to live (if they are incapable of making that decision themselves at the time).
Complain about this comment
Greetings from North Carolina, USA
I've been away from the UK for a while now - are "Living Wills" allowed? Here in NC (a God-fearing state if ever there was one - the "Buckle on the Bible Belt") Living Wills are encouraged by the medical profession. You can (before the event and whilst of sound mind) say something like "If X should happen, I direct that the doctor should not seek to prolong my life." A physician must sign off on the LW to make it effective and, in particular, must state that the person is of sound enough mind to make the will.
I think the prevailing mentality in the UK is different to the prevailing mentality in, say, the USA. In the USA the prevailing thought is that the individual directs their own medical care, albeit under the guidance of a team of physicians. In the UK, I recall medical care being clearly directed by the profession. Now, if you can accept that an individual should direct their own medical care, it is not much of a leap to believe that an individual should be able to discuss with their doctor, rationally, the point at which medical intervention should cease.
I am not convinced that doctor-assisted suicide is the answer. I am convinced that Margo MacDonald is right to initiate this discussion. Here's hoping the politicians can keep it sensible.
Complain about this comment
we are putting the cart before the horse here brian.
until palliative care is delivered at the same high standard and in the way that you as the patient require it, no matter where where you live in Scotland we are not in a position to contemplate Margo's law.
until health boards understand that their budgets are spent on more district nurses, more palliative care experts , more funded hospice places and more specialist nurses to deliver palliative care instead of managers, auditors, spin doctors and executives this won't happen.
when my cancer returns ,which it will i would like to be seen by a nurse not an auditor in case i don't tick all the boxes.
Complain about this comment
Speaking as someone who has had a very close relative take their own life rather than die a slow, painful death, I must say I fully support Margo. My relative was lucky enough to be able to take this decision and act upon it whilst they were still able. Others are not, why should they be made to suffer?
Make it legal, quick and painless. If I were to find myself in such a position I would like the choice, and if I were not in a position to communicate my desires, I would trust the medical profession and my relatives to make the right decisions.
Complain about this comment
#28 Skip_NC
The discussion may never take place, as 17 MSPs are required to support the Bill going forward, for it to reach the discussion stage.
Btw, my son is moving to Lexington NC - that any son of mine should move to a "dry" county - words fail me!
Complain about this comment
#26
I am Catholic and proud of it but you may be surprised to know that most people can be Catholic and have a mind of their own. The reason I did not mention my religion is that it is far from being the only contributing factor to the fact that I do not believe in euthanasia.
My father also died of cancer, lung cancer and yes he died a terrible death but asked is that worth putting other lives in danger, my answer would be no.
#27
If we allow this and sort out the details later, will we have the elderly made to feel guilty about living at all? Will we have people who are dependant made to feel they are using resources that could for instance be used to help children with cancer? How easy would it be to persuade a person with depression to ask for euthanasia?
Above I dealt with the medical profession, now for relatives who care for the dependant and the elderly, the people who are fed up waiting for their inheritance, are fed up looking after the dependant.
For me just too many ifs and buts can put life in danger.
Also, remember just how easy it is to change the future and not realise how much damage we do. How our actions can change the world, we live in.
Many years ago, this country set down a law that allowed women who doctors judged were in danger of losing their life to have an abortion. Now some woman to date have had 8/9 abortions people have sex in the street outside of nightclubs. They have no concern about getting pregnant because either they can have the morning after pill or if they were so drunk and have forgotten, they had sex they can go to an abortion clinic to have an abortion no questions asked.
Would any of the MPs who campaigned to have that bill, those who probably did this with the best possible intentions, believe it would change the sexual habits of a country in the way that it has.
Complain about this comment
This is certainly a topic that we need, as a society, to debate.
My father has recently been taken into care as he can't look after himself. Physically he is fine but his memory is failing badly and he is aware of it failing. He finds this very depressing and distressing - you only need to see his expression as he desperately tries to remember his grandchildren's
names to realise that.
I think that this is one of the most cruel aspects of life that we can live long enough to witness our own mental and physical deterioration with the associated diminishing of self-respect and self-worth. In these situations is it so wrong to say "I've had a good life, now it's time for me to go at a time and place of my choosing"?
Medical advances have undoubtably prolonged our lives and made us healthier. But we need to ask ourselves:
Is it right that doctors can prolong our lives but not prolong our quality of life?
Is it in the patients best interest to be kept alive while their self respect diminishes? One could argue that to diminish someones self respect is a form of abuse.
I also think that we need to look at cases such as the removal of life support when someone is in a persistant vegetative (sp?) state. Rather than using some form of
medication to end someones life, we chose instead to remove support - effectively starving someone to death. How can that be right?
It is a very difficult area and we need to ensure that it is not abused by (say) relatives putting pressure on the person involved. I also don't think it should be up to the Doctor's to decide since they are motivated in the best way to keep their patient alive.
I would suggest that some form of legal request is made, to a Fiscal or Coroner, who would then investiagate to ensure that it the person's free choice and that other possible courses of action have been tried (eg treatment for depression). Also we should allow for this in living wills so that people like Margo can make this decision before they get to the point where they can't
Complain about this comment
Given my rare political commentaries, I must say this is a topic which fills me with personal dread, but a topic on which I feel so completely compelled to comment.
I have in my time been in the employ of the NHS, and my time spent there was occasionally filled not only by much humour and hard work, but also by holding the hand of the dying, or hearing the final words of those whose time on this plane was fading. Staying by the side of the dying holds many memories for me; that of great priviledge (of being there to offer comfort) , of distress, of heartbreaking sadness, of joy even. There are so many ways in which I've witnessed my fellow humans die. Nothing however, can ever describe the frustration I have felt to hear the words of another asking that I somehow, in some way, in any way, just help their pain to end. It is the most heartbreaking request that one human could ever make of another, and something which I do not miss.
When one's instinct, one's education, indeed ones skill is to prolong the life of another, then it would seem a treachery to subscribe to the notion of a preferred death. It was ever a horror however, for me to witness the throes of those who were, in particular, consciously aware of their great suffering, and for whom nothing medically more could be done to ease their distress. This considered, I would never allow my animals to suffer such ill, and subsequently, I could no longer watch a human die in agony either. No longer therefore, could I ever remain in the medical profession.
I have heard countless arguments in support of, and railing against preferred death options. The cruellest repudiation must be that the vengeance of some perceived creator will prove greater than the pain which one suffers in life. It offers little comfort to the weak and pained. How convenient for those who can hide behind a mask of righteousness.
I have a friend of many years medical expertise who lies dying, very slowly, as I write, in a UK hospital. Fully aware of his condition, his mind remains keen whilst his body fails. His suffering is to put it mildy, umimaginable. His request that I somehow help him was delivered with a wry smile, and a knowing nod that my reply would contain the refusal that it did. My own morals dictate that I could not harm a friend and teacher, and my heart pains that I am such a coward in the face of the criticism of others, especially those critics for whom I have nothing but contempt for their oft religiously inspired ignorance.
Margo is to be commended. I can't begin to imagine her courage and determination. She's a special person for daring to bring this topic to the fore. Her considered choice and the research associated with this choice is surely worthy of admiration. I'm not even sure that my own experiences as mentioned, will help anyone decide if life is worth limiting or extending. Watching another die in needless pain is a harrowing and hideous thing to behold. It remains a trauma for the audience for years to come. To endorse this as a moral code, seems to me somehow narcissistic. I wish Margo well in her endeavour.
As a footnote, might I say to those who may at this time have to live with the slowly dying, that though they may seem unaffected, those doctors and nurses right there beside you are hurting too. Behind the calm facade, there's often a well of tears just waiting to burst once you've left. It's important people know that. It's important for you to know that they care.
Complain about this comment
I am in total support for Margo MacDonald. These self righteous idiots who preside over the most painful of deaths for their own self satisfaction disgust me no end. We treat dogs better in these circumstances. All the guff about unscrupulous Doctors is a smoke and mirrors act by stupid insensitive people who'd prefer we stayed in the dark ages.
Complain about this comment
#32
If only it had have been lung cancer. There are worse things.
So, you would decree that some people must suffer and die in torment so that you can have absolute rules? You're quite happy to let people suffer because you can't envisage saying 'in these circumstances suicide is ok, and in these others it's not'?
Now if chance degrees that you will die a long slow death in unspeakable agony then I see no reason why you should be deprived of it if that is your wish. However it is pure evil that the religiously delusioned should impose what passes for a 'morality' on the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
Brian, can you please explain how it is that you, as a BBC journalist, are permitted to completely abandon your impartiality in respect of a contentious public debate? You have entered the political argument itself here by stating that you think this MSP is 'wrong' in bringing this Bill as she has done.
I am confused. The BBC editorial guidelines require that you do not state your personal views while reporting a story.
Why have you done so in this case?
Complain about this comment
All, except the most religious of us (who embrace ‘God’s will answers all’) would object to the idea that a person enduring tremendous suffering, where this same suffering will only continue, should do so for a prolonged and indefinite period. Is it not cruel?
We would not want it to befall ourselves and therefore do not accept that others should have to live through it either.
So while it can be understood that, through not causing the suffering, we can be devoid of all blame that it has happened, if we do something to help prevent it, we cannot say the same.
(From memory) in ‘The God Delusion’ the author informs us that in a scenario where an unstoppable train was travelling at speed towards points which split the track in two (A and B), set for track B, and on line A stood one adult and on line B stood five, the majority of those asked, if they had to make a split second decision, said they would pull the lever to change the points to line A, so the train killed only one adult (they’re all the same gender), rather than do nothing. (This is of course a question about the value of human life and suggests that humans consider five lives more valuable than one.) I think this is odd and I would not pull the lever - as that way I have caused no deaths.
It is this cloud of blame that seems to be troubling the decision makers analysing assisted suicide.
(I think) it is accepted that, in cases of terminal illness, where a patient lying in hospital in unmanageable pain and only facing increased pain and death, is given a ‘larger’ dose of painkiller (morphine or whatever) to hasten their death. This is seen as merciful, a blessing, and as such honourable - the line between administering medication and deliberately ending suffering is adequately disguised.
But what about situations where this distinction is all too obvious?
(I’ve just read DrLecter’s post and through appreciation of his/her writing I am going to bow out and not attempt to cover the other side of this argument. Suffice it to say that I agree with his/her sentiments about the dubious convenience of the religious argument – I rather wonder if it constitutes a handy excuse not to think about these terrible, difficult issues, and I would question the morals in that.)
Complain about this comment
#37 Augustine_of_Clippo
Different rules apply on blogs - journalists can express their own opinions there, as opposed to when they are broadcasting.
#30 Richard_the_Rogue
I suspect that I have an experience similar to your own. That's a guess, and I've deliberately never asked. If I'm right I support their decision.
In general, I would want to have my doctors accept a "Living Will" that I had made at a stage before terminal decline, stating that I wanted to have a painkilling regime sufficient to avoid my suffering, regardless of how much that shortened my life by. I think that should be in accord with the GMCs "Good Practice" - especially if my wishes were subsequently, and regularly, monitored by an appropriate person (hospital almoner?).
I'm less sure about whether this should apply to a degenerative disease which reduced my quality of life to zero, unless pain was involved.
Complain about this comment
On this most sensitive subject we can do without abusive posts like 35.
Complain about this comment
My earlier post was heading (via views about living with acute chronic pain and with progressive degenerative illness not dominated by pain) to roughly equal oldnat's (end #39).
I'd add that it can be amazing what individuals can come to terms with.
Hopefully I never have to find out.
(I'd guess I'd pin my hopes on being thankfull for the life I've already had, to avoid going crazy?? No way to know.) All this makes you count your blessings anyway...
Complain about this comment
It goes without saying this is an emotionally charged subject which will polarise opinion across any society.
For myself, I would rather see the individual empowered with the right to decide on their own dignified deatrh than be forved to watch the painful, upsetting and degrading sight, which I have witnessed more than once, of elderly relatives or friends suffering to the end.
Perhaps the medical profession, rather than being placed in a difficult or awkward position, should undertake to preserve life, or the quality of life, with equal dedication.
Complain about this comment
My post isn't abusive. I bitterly resent all people who delude themselves that they have rights over another human's body and mind.
Complain about this comment
We already have a form of legalised euthanasia. It is found in large red letters in a patients hospital notes.
D N R - Do Not Resuscitate
Probably acceptable if discussed openly with the patient and family, but too often hidden away and only discovered by chance, as in the case of my late father in law.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, DrLecter, for post 34.
Complain about this comment
45.
I echo your sentiments re 34's post
He has spelt it out beautifully
'You wouldn't treat an animal like that'
Complain about this comment
Greenockboy has a very valid point; borne out by the subsequent posts.
No-one is going to change their stance on this issue by debating it. It shall remain polarised and splintered, depending on one's beliefs of the sanctity of human life, however life may be limited and their personal experiences.
In a journalistic sense, it's a red-herring.
My conscience knows what my feelings are but I'd rather not share them, as it is not a straw-poll.
Complain about this comment
Provided there are proper safeguards in place, how can anyone justify whether another person wishes to end their life or not?
If no one else is harmed, the person is mentally capable of making the decision and there is no evidence of coercion, then that person is perfectly entitled to end their life. And giving them the facility to do so would make things less distressing for all concerned.
And please keep religion out of the debate. Everyone has their own beliefs and we cannot base a law on religious morals.
Complain about this comment
I am tired of the whole business where so many people are negative and believe another human being, whether he be a clinician, aunt or uncle, son or daughter, has the right to make decisions for someone else! Provided the person involved is of sound mind and has made his/her wishes known to friends, relatives and the clinician in advance, I see no reason for anybody else to interfere. As a member of EXIT my doctor has on my file my wish not to be kept alive on machines and in the event of a terminal illness, I wish to be helped to end my life with dignity. I do not believe anybody has the right to override my wishes regarding my own end of life. As regards religious zealots, dying has nothing to do with the church or any other religious movement. I believe in a life after this one. I also am adamant that no other person is going to either delay my arrival there or prevent me from going there when I DECIDE. Nobody has such a right over another and nobody should be so pretentious as to believe they have such right of decision on my departure. Dying is a human right! It is not the dying that concerns me so much as the process! And surely if anybody has a right to make a decision on my behalf, I should be in agreement. And I do not trust a single soul more than myself. Its my life. Its my death. I tread that milky way myself and all alone. I am unafraid. But I would be filled with fear if anybody believed they had absolute right over my own mind and wishes. Joy
Complain about this comment
Brian,
What we have to remember is the situation that Margo has found herself in. She has been diagnosed with an illness that at present has no cure and the long term prognosis terminal. She won't get any better and nothing the doctors do will relieve her suffering in the final stages of the disease. All she is asking for is the opportunity, when the time is right, to say enough is enough and end her life with a bit of dignity. As a husband and a father, I would not and could not watch either my wife or any of my children suffer a slow and lingering death, I'm sure that you would not want a family member to suffer needlessly?
Complain about this comment
oldnat it is simply not the case that BBC journalists are permitted to abandon impartiality in blogging. The BBC rules are clear that the same impartiality is required of reporters online as on air.
Brian, can you please clarify the rules on this for us, otherwise I will feel obliged to make a formal complaint to the BBC Trust.
Simple question: Are you, as the BBC's political editor, permitted by BBC editorial guidelines to defend your personal view in relation to a contentious moral and political topic?
You have clearly don so in this post, and have personally entered a debate about a Bill before the Scottish parliament.
Complain about this comment
As regards the doctors, I'd like to hear if they really would have a problem, given that their real intention is to aid their clients, not simply to be super-doctors and save life as long as they can.
As regards those who would like to end their lives, I believe that Lord Joffe's Bill for this sort of thing had a very strong set of protective rules. That is for the terminally ill who have a short prognosis anyway.
For those such as myself who can see that at some point life will be too painful, or if palliated, too limited, to bother with continuing to live: well, let us be the ones who decide if we are under pressure, by the heirs or others, to end our lives. If our dearest don't want us, why would we wish to live anyway? When we are dead, we won't know if we made an error, and while we live, why would we stay when they don't want us?
And if the family do want us, but we feel we are a burden on them, why should we be required to hang about and feel bad, at the end of our days?
Complain about this comment
Oops, my #47 should not say polarised AND splintered. These are incompatible. Should have been one or the other, take your pick!
Complain about this comment
51. I think only political impartiality is required from broadcasters and this is not a political debate.
Furthermore, this media counts as 'the printed press' and clearly no such requirement for political impartiality exists here anyway.
Complain about this comment
43
"stupid idiots" and "selfish self-righteous people" isn't abusive? News to me.
I am neither a stupid idiot nor in the slightest self-righteous, nor am I driven by any religious sentiment on this issue but I disagree substantially with your position.
On this particular question stupid idiots are those who fail to realise that it is a very complicated and sensitive issue with very considerable implications in a whole range of areas and who typify all those who are actually very aware of the complications as "stupid idiots"
Complain about this comment
I work in social care. I work with a multidisciplinary team to support people who have complex medical and psychological needs, and we come across similar dilemmas all the time.
Medics are not gods. They are not the source of all knowledge, they do not always make good decisions. Neither are social workers and social care workers. What we have to work with every day is the tension that exists between two different models of care: the medical model; and the social model.
The social model of care does not have much to say, for instance, about living with diabetes. That is a medical issue, and we let the medics deal with it. The medical model does not have much to say about the amount of contact someone should have with their family: that is for social care staff to address.
There are conflicts, however. A chronic alcoholic with liver failure needs to give up drinking or they will die. The medical model says they need to give up smoking at the same time, because smoking is bad for your body.
The social model acknowledges that if the person has to give up both their major pastimes, there may be a significant loss of quality of life. Smoking is undeniably bad for your health, but if the pleasure of smoking, and the social bonding with other smokers is all you have left, then I for one would not deny them it.
The medical model of care says that you should preserve life until the body is on the verge of expiring, and only then passively assist the body to die. What consideration there is for the dignity and wishes of the patient are at best secondary.
The social model empowers people to make decisions about their life, their care, and asks them to define their aspirations and goals. If your aspiration is to die with dignity at a time and place of your own choosing, you should be supported in that decision. Medical opinion may be against you, but that does not make the medical opinion right.
Complain about this comment
- 54 ...
You say this is not a political debate so impartiality is not required. But this debate is about a new Bill on End of Life Choices that Margo McDonald hopes to introduce. A Bill in Parliament makes it a political debate as well as an ethical one.
In any case, the BBC editorial guidelines are clear that a reporter's impartiality is not limited to political matters. I quote:
"our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters."
Brian Taylor has clearly borken that rule.
Complain about this comment
Editorial guidelines:
"It is not normally appropriate for BBC staff or for regular BBC presenters or reporters associated with news or public policy related programmes to present personal view programmes on controversial subjects. Online we may provide people with information and a place to meet and campaign on specific issues including matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However it is important that we observe the following:
the BBC cannot endorse or support any personal views or campaigns ..."
Complain about this comment
I write as someone who feels outraged and helpless that at the moment I don't have the right to decide to end my life if it feels unbearable to me - but I have read with sympathy about the fears expressed, and would like to point out how much thought has gone into work on the very necessary safeguards.
In countries where assisted suicide is legal it has been welcomed, and the searchlight thrown on conditions at the end of life has led to important improvements in palliative care. Medical staff, as well as being very closely monitored, should of course be able to choose whether or not to provide a requested assisted death as the final act of care.
Complain about this comment
Poor Brian!
Whether or not he's boobed, he still writes awfully nicely. ;-)
PS Could he not post on his own blog with his view, even argue with himself?
Complain about this comment
Freda
I strongly support Margo and her Bill and am certainly determined to exercise 'my' own decisions about 'my' life. Why should I deny others? Brian objects, saying Margo's proposals would "place a new responsibility on clinicians -that runs counter to their life preserving principles".
I dont accept the implication of that statement. Margo is not trying to substitute "life" for "death"...she is trying to substitute a "good death" for a "horrible, mean, nasty, often degrading and painful death"
Margo! I read that 80% of the public support you. I do hope that that is true.
Complain about this comment
Brian ... ? No response?
Complain about this comment
#56
"The medical model of care says that you should preserve life until the body is on the verge of expiring, and only then passively assist the body to die. What consideration there is for the dignity and wishes of the patient are at best secondary"
I wouldn't as a matter of course, choose to indulge in internet ping pong with a colleague, but I must address the points you have made regarding the intentions of medics.
Your assertion above that the dignity of the patient is in someway irrelevant to the medical profession is as offensive as it is clumsy. It is certainly a monument to professional stupidity. I would suggest you present your commentary to the local CHCP project or perhaps the university faculty of the GRI (only a hop, skip n' a jump from you in Royston), and see just what sort of response you illicit. I imagine a complaint against you would ensue.
On what evidential base are your assertions made that your medical colleagues have little regard for the wishes of the dying? Was this a blind survery you'd conducted on behalf of GCC Social Work Dept, or has some academic literature detailing this miracle claim escaped my eye in recent times? I was desperately unaware that the medical profession was deemed to hold such a cold and uncaring attitude to the sick and dying. Our instincts to protect, nurture, heal, encourage and love must surely, according to you, all be drilled out of us by the various university faculties within the purview of the Scottish NHS. Certainly in my time within the NHS I have never encountered any doctor, nurse, physio or counsellor who ever held such a dismissive and disgusting view of the patients in our care. Such views would never be aired or tolerated during a multi disciplinary team meeting or ward shift duty handover by nurses or doctors, and I am frankly appalled that you have suggested to the public in general this behaviour is somehow common practice for your medically trained colleagues.
I am very well versed in medico socio and psycho social policy and I would never suggest that the ethics of a profession should be questioned as a point scoring tool on a public debate. Misinforming the public regarding the purported intentions of your colleagues is a disgracefully unprofessional act in itself. You should hang your head in shame. As a social care worker, you should be more aware than most of the consequences of your words, given their intellectually diminished content.
Complain about this comment
Some people need to be offended sneckedagain.
Complain about this comment
34. DrLecter
Total support and I wish Margo all the best in her endeavors.
Complain about this comment
Since the age of majority, my life and my body has been my own. I chose not to smoke, but if I had chosen to do so, knowing that it might well kill me, that would have been MY decision and choice. Would anyone of the objectors to assisted suicide be trying to stop me? No! Some of us eat too much, drink too much, smoke too much... often impairing our mental ability by physical or psychological addictions. Still, the Church and the State allow us to make our own choice. It seems ridiculous and irrational to me, that a perfect sane, rational, well considered decision cannot be taken about how we chose to die. We are making choices each and every day that impact upon our method of death. Those who are dogmatic and righteous in their opinions about this, should examine their own behaviour. Do they use too much salt? Smoke? Drink? Overeat? Overstress themselves? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone! To objectors I simply say "Look after your own business and I will look after mine!" I watched my neice take 11 years to die from a brain tumour, gradually losing each of her faculties, with fear and confusion in her eyes. Each person has the right to govern their own destiny, with the appropriate safeguards to vertify their mental capacity and freewill.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who wishes to make a formal complaint to the BBC about Brian Taylor's breach of the editorial guidelines can do so online at this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml
The BBC requires that its journalists avoid taking sides in any moral or political debate. Brian has crossed the line in this post. He has stated that the MSP is 'wrong' in bringing this Bill before the Scottish Parliament. That is certainly not impartial journalism. I feel strongly that we need to maintain the BBC's reputation for impartiality in reporting. That means challenging these kinds of breaches when they occur. I encourage you to click on the link and make that point to the BBC complaints department.
Complain about this comment
We always operate out of presuppositions. One that seems to be prevalent in many comments is that suffering or pain is needless. That thought is then linked to a concept of dignity. So we say, "Because suffering is senseless, people who suffer great pain and distress unto death are without dignity." But pain is a part of our experience, and there is no guarantee that someone should not have to suffer pain. Does that mean I would want to suffer it, or one of my loved ones in such a situation? Absolutely not! But I'm not sure it would rob me or them of dignity. Of course, this depends on your definition of dignity. I tend to think of it as "being worthy of respect." When someone is suffering, it does not make them any less worthy of respect.
Another presupposition is that of personal autonomy. Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions. But that isn't true, is it? There are many decisions we do not allow people to make, or at least we punish them if they do. The reason is that their decisions often impact the lives of others. So, for everyone to enjoy freedom, there must be boundaries. The question in this debate is about what those boundaries are.
What would be the defining line for allowing assisted suicide? Is it physical suffering? Mental suffering? Depression? Disenchantment? Feelings of guilt? Many would say that I was being silly, and of course, only those with physical, debilitating illnesses should be assisted in committing suicide. But then, you are imposing your will and your morals on those who aren't in that condition but want to die. There are some absolutes. No one can be a faithful relativist.
I watched Margo's film the other night and was filled with a great sadness. This isn't an easy debate, and at the center of it are people with real emotions and real pain. I hope that, whatever the outcome, people are treated with dignity in the process.
Complain about this comment
Shame there's no button to press to complain about the complaint about Brian Taylor's blog...
To my mind, he was generating discussion around an important issue. He did offer his personal opinion on the matter, but there was no point at which I did not think that I could differentiate between the factual reporting and Brian Taylor's opinion; from the comments generated, I don't think anyone (well, with one possible exception...) did either, nor that his opinion has unduly influenced anyone else. Indeed, the array of comments saying 'actually, I think you are wrong...'
If Brian Taylor had *broadcast* his opinion on Reporting Scotland, I could see the problem; if his opinion had evidently influenced anyone, I could see the problem; if it was difficult to tell that this was his opinion, I could see the problem. All I see, though, is someone trying to make a problem where one need not exist.
In fact, Brian Taylor (jeez - I'm supporting him, and I didn't think I could call him by his first name; funny how those with an axe to grind can be so informal) offers his opinion on a regular basis (how the party leaders did at FMQs, week in, week out, springs to mind) in this blog. It's half the point.
I'm glad Brian Taylor posted the entry he did (even though I disagree - and I wonder whether someone else would have been complaining if BT's opinion had tallied with his own?).
Luckily, for all the baiting ("Brian... No response..?" - bleurgh, what sort of creep are you?) it seems no one else was half as offended as Mr Easily Offended, so this can all blow over...
Complain about this comment
DrKF77, you can insult me al you like. I will describe Mr Taylor without mentioning his first name if you prefer. This is not a matter of offence. I am not offended by Mr Taylor's comments. In fact, I support assisted suicide legislation. But I am a strong believer in the BBC's tradition of impartiality and I do not want to see the corporation turn, by degrees, into the opinionated, politically biased media they have in the United States. It is as a strong support of the highest standards of balanced and impartial BBC reporting that I have raised my concern here.
When I asked Mr Taylor if he would like to respond, it was to find out if he has any reason to give for breaking the BBC rules on impartiality. These rules, I have checked, also apply to blogs.
Since you have challenged me on this, Dr KF77 with claims about limited impartiality applying to blogs, I have decided to submit a formal complaint to the BBC about this blog and Mr Taylor. I understand that I am not the only person who is doing so.
If anyone is concerned about whether the BBC's standards of impartiality are being applied to blogs, this is likely to be a test case on that principle. I encourage others to submit a request for clarification to the BBC at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml
Complain about this comment
66.
How right you are. We ARE in charge of our own bodies and minds. We must stick to our guns over this initiative and never allow others to interfere with our wishes.Gordon Brown's view is no more important than mine or yours! He is only a simple man like many others and entitled to his views. But he is not, repeat not, in charge of what I decide to do about the end of MY life any more than I give one hoot how his ends.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just where is the freedom of choice in our society?
Why is there no respect for those of us who are terminally ill, to whom the medical profession keep apologising for being unable to help in any regard, and for those of us who have made a clear Advance Directive and need the peace of mind of a dignified exit at home when we decide we've had enough.
Choice also extends to health professionals who should have the option to opt out.
Health professionals should seek to minimise harm and suffering – if a dying patient feels they are in unbearable suffering it does them more harm to keep them alive against their wishes.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS