Assisted Dying

[The Picnic Wasp]

Lucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

I accept Lucy Letby is a poor example to suggest. Just a bit of tabloid behaviour on my part, but I do like part of one of the sentences you used, James, "A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career". For anyone. How could you ever sufficiently analyse the intellectual workings, mentality and conscience of those elected for such a position. Nick made the point earlier of if you want to do it, do it yourself which I understand even though I have personal beliefs which contradict suicide as an option. I just can't ever align myself with the possibility of humans given the authority to extinguish human life. We all know that this happens to a degree at the moment.

Morphine administration in increasing dosages is routinely used to reduce consciousness to minimum levels in an attempt to improve the comfort of the dying. It's horrible and a dreadful experience for patient and loved ones but it is measurable, controllable and as ethical as it is possible for it to be. If you gave that patient nitrogen instead of oxygen they would survive for a short period, then experience a state of euphoria and then die. But you are directly killing that person. Should anyone in our medical profession retire in a couple of decades from now with the fact they turned on that tap dozens or hundreds of times recorded on their notes? Macabre in the extreme. The stuff of Nazi governments and the like.

[Slim]

Lucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

If you gave that patient nitrogen instead of oxygen they would survive for a short period, then experience a state of euphoria and then die. But you are directly killing that person. Should anyone in our medical profession retire in a couple of decades from now with the fact they turned on that tap dozens or hundreds of times recorded on their notes? Macabre in the extreme. The stuff of Nazi governments and the like.

I don't know if the Nazis had an ethically managed assisted dying programme intended to alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill at their own option, but if they did that could only be to their credit.

Not every terminally ill person can have a comfortable and peaceful death, even with attentive palliative care - or so I understand from a discussion on 5 Live involving a physician a few days ago.

As for a retired medical professional, looking back over his career with the knowledge that they had compassionately minimised the suffering of dozens, or hundreds of helpless people who might otherwise have suffered a painful or protracted death, in line with their own wishes - how could he or she not glow with pride and contentment in that knowledge?

[Matt2112]

Ì do worry about the possible element of coercion or feeling you should go to stop being a burden,  but if you have 6 months left to live and those 6 months are set to be pretty miserable then why not?

In terms of the religious side, Sam Wells, vicar at St Martin in the Fields, was on thought for the day this morning and was very balanced and compassionate on the argument.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0k78vjg

'Thought For The Day' almost always consists of a three minute stream of pious platitudes and vapid deepities masquerading as insight and Sam Wells' address this morning was no exception.  He seemed determined not to show his hand on the matter and played hide-the-ball instead - it wasn't so much balanced as frustratingly equivocal.

[dom]

I was expecting him to pronounce his opposition to the bill so was pleasantly surprised when he took a more balanced approach.

I thought the angle he took from the perspective of the person supporting the individual having to choose was an interesting one too

[The Picnic Wasp]

Lucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

If you gave that patient nitrogen instead of oxygen they would survive for a short period, then experience a state of euphoria and then die. But you are directly killing that person. Should anyone in our medical profession retire in a couple of decades from now with the fact they turned on that tap dozens or hundreds of times recorded on their notes? Macabre in the extreme. The stuff of Nazi governments and the like.

I don't know if the Nazis had an ethically managed assisted dying programme intended to alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill at their own option, but if they did that could only be to their credit.

Not every terminally ill person can have a comfortable and peaceful death, even with attentive palliative care - or so I understand from a discussion on 5 Live involving a physician a few days ago.

As for a retired medical professional, looking back over his career with the knowledge that they had compassionately minimised the suffering of dozens, or hundreds of helpless people who might otherwise have suffered a painful or protracted death, in line with their own wishes - how could he or she not glow with pride and contentment in that knowledge?

I believe it was called Aktion T4. Granted there weren't any options available to the recipients but the results wouldn't be any different to the UK government's considerations. The society our generation was born into is collapsing at such a rate that the current proposals would quickly degenerate into something much more monstrous. Our population appears to me to be much more callous these days. If this becomes law we can't go back, therefore there's only one direction such activity will go in.
Also, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief. I get what you mean but I think you chose the incorrect words which is rather unexpected.

[David L]

Lucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt,

If not Letby, who? Or what?

[Slim]

I believe it was called Aktion T4. Granted there weren't any options available to the recipients but the results wouldn't be any different to the UK government's considerations. The society our generation was born into is collapsing at such a rate that the current proposals would quickly degenerate into something much more monstrous. Our population appears to me to be much more callous these days. If this becomes law we can't go back, therefore there's only one direction such activity will go in.

Also, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief. I get what you mean but I think you chose the incorrect words which is rather unexpected.

Well I had to look it up but Aktion T4 doesn't appear to have been the same thing at all. I think it's a lurid comparison that just doesn't apply here.

[The Picnic Wasp]

I believe it was called Aktion T4. Granted there weren't any options available to the recipients but the results wouldn't be any different to the UK government's considerations. The society our generation was born into is collapsing at such a rate that the current proposals would quickly degenerate into something much more monstrous. Our population appears to me to be much more callous these days. If this becomes law we can't go back, therefore there's only one direction such activity will go in.

Also, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief. I get what you mean but I think you chose the incorrect words which is rather unexpected.

Well I had to look it up but Aktion T4 doesn't appear to have been the same thing at all. I think it's a lurid comparison that just doesn't apply here.

I think it's two entirely different forms of government who may both go down in history as licensing the killing of human beings who are not criminals. We'll never agree on this.

[Matt2112]

I was expecting him to pronounce his opposition to the bill so was pleasantly surprised when he took a more balanced approach.

I thought the angle he took from the perspective of the person supporting the individual having to choose was an interesting one too

It struck me as a bizarre and even callous angle, displaying more sympathy for those affected by another person's suffering, rather than sufferers themselves.

And of course, Wells can only see this and indeed everything else through a prism of his own personal introspective theism; that's being blinkered, not balanced.

[dom]

Who knows how he personally sees things ? He is a representative of the church so his pronouncements have to reflect that

[Matt2112]

Who knows how he personally sees things ? He is a representative of the church so his pronouncements have to reflect that

Well, the church is not a monolithic bloc, as, for example, internal, interminable, ever-raging arguments about the status of people who happen to be gay has demonstrated for years.

There are devout religious believers arguing against the AD bill on the basis of the "sanctity of life" - and other devout religious believers, often within the same sect, arguing for it for precisely the same reason.

Where a church member in the public sphere has views that don't converge with official church doctrine, what is that person meant to do?  Bear false witness?

[The Picnic Wasp]

Was just thinking as I make my way to bed at a ridiculous hour, that as perhaps two of us (maybe less) approach Advent, maybe we should remember that we are all friends on here. Belittling descriptions such as, sects, sky fairies and misplaced scriptural references such as bearing false witness may seem like a harmless poke in the ribs in support of the overwhelmingly growing world population of non believers, who think that the elimination of religion will stop war, famine and the inevitable totalitarian Chinese State Of Earth And Its Satellites. Be nice, cycle if you must, listen to Rush (old and new are both good). Put up the tree and try not to cry when suddenly the whole thing reminds you of what it really means to be human.

Late Edit: My favourite atheist, Christopher Hitchens when interviewed  drunkenly, told of the time he horrified Richard Dawkins, saying that if he had convinced the entire world that there was no God and only one believer remained, he wouldn't attempt to to convince him. Wonderful man. Probably the only real testament of pre deathbed faith ever broadcast by such intellect in a time before his cancer diagnosis. As I've always said and thought, if it's good enough for Boris and Chris, it's good enough for me.

[Slim]

We belittle your belief, not you. You may think it's good enough for you, but it's foolish and false. Rational people should never be inhibited from describing belief in gods in the terms it deserves; this misplaced reluctance to do so is part of the reason it persists.

[Slim]

Interesting discussion last night on LBC about the influence of religion in this and other issues. The question posed (paraphrasing) was: should MPs with a religious belief allow said belief to influence their decisions as legislators?

Simon Jenkins came on and he was quite angry about it; he found it "intolerable". Why should someone else's delusion be allowed to affect the freedoms of others? By all means if you're terminally ill feel free to suffer for as long as your sky fairy dictates; don't force suffering on others who don't share your fantasy.

My own view is that it's just unrealistic to expect MPs not to be guided by their faith; these ideas are just too deeply embedded in their heads. What's important though is that they should declare to their electors, as candidates, that they are likely to be led by a religion in their decision making. Then rational people can make an informed decision to do our very best to make sure these people are never allowed to get near any sort of legislative responsibility.

[Matt2112]

How is the word "sect" belittling?  It's a statement of simple fact.  As I said, Christianity is not a monolithic bloc; it has sects - just the 45,000 of them according to a quick internet search.  All, by the way, mutually exclusive - and therefore mutually blasphemous - by definition.

It seems a common characteristic of the religious that they think automatic deference should be given when discussing their beliefs; in other words, in the arena of discourse there should be a hierarchy of protection of ideas, with religious ones at the top. 

It's telling that almost all responses when religious ideas are attacked are not slam-dunk rebuttals in return, but only righteous indignation they're being attacked at all.