Want to end it all? You'll need to be vaccinated.

[d000hg]

I happen to be of the opinion that keeping someone alive, despite them having appalling quality of life, is grossly inhumane. Life at any cost is not life.

I don't disagree with that, I think our modern health system has gone too far down the "everything possible to keep you alive" route. But Keeping someone alive and helping them to actively kill themself is different. We might all have different views on where to draw the line, but I think we can all agree there are differences.

[d000hg]

Nope they are killing themselves, its very clear.

I assume this varies from country to country but thanks for the clarification. However "oh I'll just leave this poison here and look over there for a bit" would surely be the legal definition of an accessory?

[vetran]

I assume this varies from country to country but thanks for the clarification. However "oh I'll just leave this poison here and look over there for a bit" would surely be the legal definition of an accessory?

In Swiss law this is considered a special case. We could do the same in the UK with 2 doctors & a court order. Abortion is freely permitted and I see that as worse where the child has no choice and frequently the 2 doctor rule is bypassed.

[Whorty]

Of course someone is killing them. Like putting down a sick dog, someone has to do the deed.

Maybe educate yourself first on what happens before you start preaching. No one kills anyone else ... the person who is chronically ill and is at end of life and is suffering so much that they no longer want to suffer any further are choosing when their own suffering ends. They administer whatever the drug is themselves.

But hey, if you'd rather see your loved one continue to suffer, in pain and no dignity, when they know they have little time left anyway and they know that their time is already near, then crack on. Guilt them into staying around longer to appease you and watch them die a painful, horrible death.

[Gibbon]

This is too heated a debate, based on personal ethics experiences and/or beliefs, to ever be resolved satisfactorily. I do sometimes wonder though why the terminal person doesn't just abstain from hydration. Apparently quite painless with adequate pain control. It also has the advantage of absolving anyone else having to facilitate it.

[ladymuck]

In Swiss law this is considered a special case. We could do the same in the UK with 2 doctors & a court order. Abortion is freely permitted and I see that as worse where the child has no choice and frequently the 2 doctor rule is bypassed.

You could also argue that children have no say in being born either. Other people decide to procreate and bring them into the world.

[Whorty]

This is too heated a debate, based on personal ethics experiences and/or beliefs, to ever be resolved satisfactorily. I do sometimes wonder though why the terminal person doesn't just abstain from hydration. Apparently quite painless with adequate pain control. It also has the advantage of absolving anyone else having to facilitate it.

They do .. this is an option open to them. But it's not an easy option believe me. If the person wants pain control they have to have multiple psych evaluations to prove that they are of sound mind and making their own decisions, else they will be force fed against their will. You also need local medical teams who are willing to provide the pain relief etc during the process. There is also the psych support and counselling for the partner of the person.

And trust me, abstaining from liquid is not easy and many who try it fail (if fail is the correct word to use). The process is called VSED (voluntary stopping eating and drinking). It can take weeks to die via this route, even if the person refuses all food and liquid from day 1 .... 4 weeks is not uncommon, and to watch a loved one die like that is not easy on the partner.

The partner has to offer food and drink every day and it is up to the person doing the VSED to refuse. The patient will be on morphine syringe drivers that will need to be administered at least twice a day by district nurses and/or GPs. Without taking in liquid the patient will have a dry mouth and is at risk of blisters and sores so the partner will need to be constantly helping them stay well (yes, ironic isn't it!). Pressure sores due to being immobile is also a major risk that needs to be managed.

When the patient goes to the later stages of the process they will become delirious and will still have discomfort and pain due to the body breaking down - seeing and listening to your loved one delirious is heartbreaking and rips you apart. The partner of the patient will sit with them 24 hours a day, for that whole 4 weeks, and provide all the love and comfort that they can but cannot do anything to save their loved one.

The patient needs a strong will, needs to be single bloody minded and have pain relief and personal care support from the hospice, GPs, district nurses and carers, as a package of support is needed, but everyone struggles watching someone die like this.

The process is not painless for anyone who is part of it, but at least the patient can legally choose when their suffering ends and can die on their own bed without having to fly to a foreign country and die in a souless hotel room surrounded by strangers.

[vetran]

You could also argue that children have no say in being born either. Other people decide to procreate and bring them into the world.

oh Totally, having seen some parents many kids would be better off without them!

I was just equating abortion laws with right to die. To me there are similarities.

[NotAllThere]

the usual sanctimonious bible-thumping pish i see.

The usual hate filled bile I see! But whatever makes you happy.

The staff want to be protected from suicidal idiots who don't get vaccinated.

I was only going for the pun on suicidal.

On the serious subject, I think there reaches a point where people have started the process of dying. The humane and compassionate thing to do is to ensure they can do that with minimum pain. If that involves gives an above lethal dose to control the pain, then I don't see there's an issue.

It's rather more problematic when the person seeking assistance to die is suffering from e.g. depression. Between the two extremes there is a whole sliding scale. Dignitas et al. operate in a loophole in the Swiss constitution,rather than a right to die enshrined in law. It's carefully controlled, and some doctors have been prosecuted when they've failed to follow the correct processes.

The author of the original Call the Midwife books in later life worked on a terminal ward. She documents her experiences in the book In the Midst of Life. I recommend it.

[d000hg]

Maybe educate yourself first on what happens before you start preaching. No one kills anyone else ... the person who is chronically ill and is at end of life and is suffering so much that they no longer want to suffer any further are choosing when their own suffering ends. They administer whatever the drug is themselves.

But hey, if you'd rather see your loved one continue to suffer, in pain and no dignity, when they know they have little time left anyway and they know that their time is already near, then crack on. Guilt them into staying around longer to appease you and watch them die a painful, horrible death.

You seem to be the one angrily preaching. I have shared my opinion, unlike you I'm not making personal attacks making anyone who might think differently that they are idiots for being wrong.

If someone wants to stop taking their medication or remove themself from medical care, that is their choice. And I've already said I think the medical people go too far to preserve life when sometimes it would be best to let it go. But to repeat, anyone with sense can see there's a big difference between not keeping someone alive, and actively helping them die. I lean towards that being the line I draw, but I am happy to disagree.