Forums

Posted: 05-01-2012 23:10 Post subject:

Shocking as it may sound, I think anybody who wishes to do so should be given the means to self-terminate in a dignified fashion. That is to say, I think it should not be restricted to people who are terminally ill.
With the world's population expanding so fast, I think it may eventually become widely accepted, regardless of the objections of the religious people.

If this happened, I think there would be fewer people who would kill themselves in crazy ways (i.e. jumping in front of a train, jumping off a building).

Posted: 05-01-2012 23:26 Post subject:

Posted: 06-01-2012 00:49 Post subject:

Posted: 06-01-2012 01:48 Post subject:

Posted: 06-01-2012 11:35 Post subject:

Posted: 06-01-2012 12:07 Post subject:

Posted: 06-01-2012 12:22 Post subject:

Posted: 06-01-2012 20:42 Post subject:

Better to eat tons of tomatoes.

Posted: 07-01-2012 09:57 Post subject:

A short, poignant and to the point, article, by Terry Pratchett, on assisted dying, from the Huffington Post UK, ed.

Posted: 07-01-2012 10:41 Post subject:

Posted: 07-01-2012 12:09 Post subject:

Posted: 13-03-2012 08:40 Post subject:

'Locked-in syndrome' man to have right-to-die case heard

A paralysed man who wants a doctor to be able to lawfully end his life can proceed with his "right-to-die" case, a High Court judge has ruled.
Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, has "locked-in syndrome" following a stroke in 2005 and is unable to carry out his own suicide.
He is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life.

The Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder and change the law governing it.

"Locked-in syndrome" leaves people with paralysed bodies but fully-functioning minds.
The judge's ruling now means that Mr Nicklinson's case will go to a full hearing, where medical evidence can be heard.
Following the judge's ruling that his case can proceed, Mr Nicklinson's wife Jane read out a statement from her husband on BBC 5live.

It said: "I'm delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today.
"It's no longer acceptable for 21st Century medicine to be governed by 20th Century attitudes to death."

Mr Nicklinson, who communicates through the use of an electronic board or special computer, said before the ruling that his life was "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable".
During the radio interview, Mrs Nicklinson passed on questions to her husband, using his letters board to spell out his response.

When asked what he hoped would happen next, he replied: "I will be able to access a doctor when the time is right."
He went on to spell out: "I can just about cope with life at the moment, but not forever."

Mrs Nicklinson said she was "really pleased" with the judge's decision. "It's been quite stressful waiting for this decision.
"It's really good to know that the judge thinks that we have a case that needs to be argued."

Earlier, Mrs Nicklinson said that her husband "just wants to know that, when the time comes, he has a way out".
"If you knew the kind of person that he was before, life like this is unbearable for him," she added.
She said she did not know when her husband might actually want to die. "I suppose just when he can't take it any more," she said.

Mr Nicklinson has two grown-up daughters and had his stroke while on a business trip to Athens.

The High Court heard Mr Nicklinson's first statement in the proceedings, in which he said his stroke "left me paralysed below the neck and unable to speak. I need help in almost every aspect of my life."
"I cannot scratch if I itch, I cannot pick my nose if it is blocked and I can only eat if I am fed like a baby - only I won't grow out of it, unlike the baby.
"I have no privacy or dignity left. I am washed, dressed and put to bed by carers who are, after all, still strangers.

"Am I grateful that the Athens doctors saved my life? No, I am not. If I had my time again, and knew then what I know now, I would not have called the ambulance but let nature take its course."

His legal action was launched to seek court declarations that a doctor could intervene to end his "indignity" and have a "common law defence of necessity" against any murder charge.

But David Perry QC, representing the Ministry of Justice, told the High Court that Mr Nicklinson "is saying the court should positively authorise and permit as lawful the deliberate taking of his life".
He added: "That is not, and cannot be, the law of England and Wales unless Parliament were to say otherwise."

Following his ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Charles said the case's issues "raise questions that have great social, ethical and religious significance and they are questions on which widely differing beliefs and views are held, often strongly".
He said the issues before him only related to whether Mr Nicklinson's arguments "have any real prospect of success or whether there is some other compelling reason why these proceedings should be tried".

Mr Nicklinson's solicitor, Saimo Chahl, said the next step was for the courts to examine "in great detail what the individual circumstances of the case are before authorising any steps to be taken".
"It would all be extremely carefully controlled and vetted before any doctor were given permission - were we to be successful.
"And you have to bear in mind actually that this is a case which is likely to go further, which is likely to end up in the Supreme Court one way or another, before the law is changed."

"Right-to-die" campaigner Debbie Purdy, who has severe multiple sclerosis, said Mr Nicklinson was an intelligent, vibrant man who should be able to make his own choices.
She said he was not asking to die "tomorrow" but to improve the quality of the life he's living at the moment by "knowing that if it becomes too much for him, he will be able to... to end it".

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the case went beyond assisted suicide as Mr Nicklinson's paralysis is so severe it would prevent him from receiving assistance to kill himself and he would have to be killed - and that would amount to murder.

He said Mr Nicklinson was seeking a court declaration based on his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention - in effect saying that in his circumstances, his right to life included the right to end his life in a humane manner of his choosing.

---------------------

Analysis
Clive Coleman, BBC News

Tony Nicklinson's case goes to the heart of the conflict between the sanctity of life and an individual's right to self-determination in ending it.

The law currently draws a crucial distinction between doctors deciding not to provide or continue treatment, which might prolong life, and acting to end a life, by for example administering lethal drugs.
Whilst the former may be lawful, the latter is murder and Mr Justice Charles said Mr Nicklinson was inviting the court to "cross the rubicon".

Mr Nicklinson's case is not one of assisted suicide, like that of the multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy who won a clarification of prosecuting policy where a loved one assists a person to die.

His paralysis is so severe that he cannot be assisted in taking his own life, for instance by swallowing lethal drugs. He would have to be killed by someone else.
He is seeking a court declaration that a doctor who ended his life would have a defence of "necessity" to any murder charge.

"Necessity" was argued in the case of two conjoined twins when doctors, faced with the choice of losing two lives or saving one, separated the pair.

Mr Nicklinson's case is a leap on from there. Here doctors would be acting to end a single life. That would open the way to voluntary active euthanasia, and is a step too far for many.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774

Posted: 27-03-2012 08:06 Post subject:

MPs to debate assisted dying laws

MPs are to debate whether the law on assisted dying needs to change to take into account recent changes to the way prosecutions are handled.
Rules brought in by the director of public prosecutions in 2010 must either enter fully into law or be thrown out, Tory MP Richard Ottaway argues.
Assisting a suicide is illegal and the issue is highly controversial.

The Commons Backbench Business Committee allowed the debate, which is due to start at about 13:30 BST.
It is the first time the House has discussed the law on assisted dying for more than 10 years.

The existing rules are the result of a case brought by Debbie Purdy, a terminally ill woman, who in 2009 won a ruling from the Law Lords requiring the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to set out whether her husband would be committing an offence if he accompanied her to the Swiss assisted-suicide organisation Dignitas to end her life.

In 2010, the DPP produced guidance to prosecutors on cases where someone had encouraged or assisted suicide, listing factors which should weigh for or against prosecuting.
Mr Ottaway argues that the guidelines more or less amount to law - but that such a change must be decided either by Parliament or judges.

In January, the Commission on Assisted Dying - set up and funded by campaigners who want to see a change in the law - said there was a "strong case" for allowing assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill in England and Wales.
But the report had a mixed response, with critics calling it biased.

The government indicated there were no plans to change the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17516998

Posted: 28-03-2012 18:22 Post subject:

Posted: 02-05-2012 08:01 Post subject:

'Living wills' need to be completely clear, rules judge
'Living wills' that stipulate exactly how a person wants to die should be drawn up with absolute clarity, a judge has ruled after concluding a 67-year-old man with motor neurone disease had made a "valid decision" to refuse treatment.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
6:39PM BST 01 May 2012

The man, referred to in court only as XB, communicated his desires with relatives and lawyers through eye movements on a number of occasions.
Last November, documentation of the "advance decision", as living wills are now called, was drawn up in front of witnesses, including his wife, a doctor, a social worker and a carer.

However, another carer questioned whether XB had actually "communicated his agreement" and thereby given consent, the Court of Protection heard.
Consequently the carer's employer, an NHS trust, applied to the court to ask for clarification on the matter. It is the first such case to come before the court, part of the High Court.

After hearing evidence, Mrs Justice Theis said she was "entirely satisfied" that the man had the capacity to make the decision himself.
She told relatives: "I hope the next stage proceeds as well as can be expected."

But she emphasised that total clarity was needed when advance decision documents were drawn up, and said health authorities should investigate any issues about the validity of advance decisions as a "matter of urgency".

During the two-day hearing, XB's wife said he "wanted to be allowed to peacefully end his life", after suffering from motor neurone disease for a decade.
The condition attacks the nerves in the brain and spinal cord, progressively stripping a person of their physical abilities, leaving them wheelchair-bound and eventually total paralysed.

The man's wife had found a template for an advance decision on the internet.
She said the question of "what life-sustaining treatment he would receive" had been discussed with him a number of times in 2010 and in 2011 he had indicated that he wished such treatment to be withdrawn.

Lawyers also determined that the carer who raised concerns was not present in the room when the advance decision was agreed.

Yogi Amin, a partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell, which represented the family, said: "The law allows a person to prepare an advance healthcare decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment at a future date.
"This case illustrates the importance of preparing the advance decision document properly and carefully."

Mr Amin described XB as a "proud and intelligent man" from the south of England. He said his condition had now deteriorated to the point where "he can no longer confirm his needs".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9239559/Living-wills-need-to-be-completely-clear-rules-judge.html