Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
Does the term "informed consent" mean anything at all to you? People who are terminally ill will usually make their plans well before they even start on "heavy medication and pain killers". They know everything that will happen to them in their illness and they decide that when they get to a certain point, they would like to end it. It gives them the choice and also allows them to not have to face months, weeks or days of absolute agony while awaiting a "natural death".
That may very well be so. But at least I would respect a dying person's wishes and not force them to stay alive on painkillers because of some misbegotten notion that is somehow better for me.
I would not deny someone their final dignity if that is what they so choose.
You don't think forcing someone to exist in agony and pain against their wishes is cruel? It is the ultimate cruelty and denies the individual any form of dignity, autonomy and control over their lives.
If you have ever been unfortunate enough to watch a love one die of a terminal illness, to see them beg you to end their pain and suffering and to let them die, then you might have some idea of where I and others in this forum happen to be coming from.
Do you have any idea of the rigorous testing, psychological and physical tests that must be performed before such a decision is allowed per patient? You don't just go and see your GP and say I want to die, give me the drugs. If there is any inkling that a relative who may be persuading them to commit suicide during their time of illness, the persuading individual would end up in jail.
The possibility of a signal that the patient would be able to make to ensure they allow the doctor to know that they had changed their mind could be done.
The severely handicapped infant or the senile woman would not be allowed to ask or request voluntary euthanasia because they would not be deemed competent to give an informed consent.
And it is not designed for the severely handicapped or for people who are senile. Assisted suicide is basically for people who are in the terminal stage of a disease and they are required to make their wishes known before they get to the point where they are no longer able to give informed consent.
If they are persuaded by any person to kill another person (a third party), then murder or manslaughter charges could result. What you can't seem to grasp is that assisted suicide is when a person, diagnosed with a terminal illness, states that they do not want to die naturally of it in pain and agony, but would prefer to live their lives to a point in their disease and end it before it gets to that final phase. It is their choice and anyone who may persuade them of it would be deemed criminally liable.
Yes. The question is, have you?
I have a right to be protected against social experimentation, especially one with a sinister 20th century track record starting with Eugenics. You may take it on a one case basis, but I see what happens down the road once this becomes routine. Very similar to abortion, at first strictly applied, now its on demand. Im sorry your reasoning leads to a very slippery slope from which their is no return, when you dont respect birth, life and death society implodes.
Informed consent?
What happens when patients who, once having signed a request to die, later change their minds, but, because of their conditions, are unable to make their wishes known?
We only have to look at The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 NT Australia clearly has none of those stringent safeguards.
- A patient had to be over 18 and be mentally and physically competent to request his or her own death.
- The request had to be supported by three doctors, including a specialist who confirms that the patient is terminally ill and a psychiatrist who certifies that the patient is not suffering from treatable depression.
- Once the paperwork was complete, a nine-day cooling-off period was required before the death could proceed.
Yeah I have.
Do you even know what Eugenics is about? I'll give you a hint. Terminally ill patients don't do much reproducing.
I see no reason to torment other to supplicate your paranoia.
But feel free to suffer before death as much as you care too.
Bells
Staff member
Hello Mr Foley. I would like you to meet a new friend. His name is Mr Foil Hat.
What social experimentation? Who is conducting said experiment?
How can we respect "birth, life and death", when we force someone to give birth, to live and to not die, against their wishes. The very basis of respect for "birth, life and death" stems from a respect of individual autonomy and individual human rights. By telling a woman that she has to give birth, you are taking away any rights she may have over her body. By forcing a terminally ill person to live in pain, against their wishes, you are taking away that person's autonomy and their rights to their own body.
Usually, with patients who suffer from a disease that would render them immobile and unable to communicate or do anything else, they tend to want to kill themselves before they get to that stage.
Look up choosing to die with dignity and get back to me.
You really have little idea of the tests involved, don't you?
Look up the definition of what would constitute "mentally and physically competent".
Now, to get that, the stringent bit comes with the fact that they need to get 3 doctors to confirm that the patient is terminally ill, which involves 3 sets of independent tests. After that, they then need to see a psychiatrist who will run tests and evaluations to see if the individual is "mentally competent" and not suffering from depression. And once that is done, they then have to fill in the paperwork. Think many many forms. And after the cooling off period, then that individual can choose when to end their own life.
It is a long and convoluted process.
No. I really do not think you have. You don't even seem to understand what dying with dignity even means. You do not seem to realise what constitutes being competent to give consent to ending one's own life. Hell, you can't even seem to grasp what suicide is.
you have no idea who your arguing with do you? ask bells what her proffession is if she wishes to tell you. my background is health as is alot of my families. my studies include both ethics and law and as i said one of my assignments was to asses and comment on the bill. how mych experance do you have?
Okay, I realize that this is somewhat off-topic, but what does cloning have to do with respect for life? It's a way to create life. I'd think pro-life people would be in favor of it.
Prematurely ending life for a supposed greater good of society.
And in Criminal cases it takes the opinion of 3 Psychiatrists to deem an individuals competency to stand trial. Yet here it is one Psychiatrists opinion, that’s where it gets
Again I ask you, what happens when patients who, once having signed a request to die, later change their minds, but, because of their conditions, are unable to make their wishes known?
My concern as I keep writing from the start:
That’s where ‘good intentions’, such as yours ends up, if assisted suicide is allowed within a matter of years, as with abortion, it will be on demand.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
Hippocratic Oath
It is this whole idea of interfering with the natural process of life and death by Frankenstein doctors. Cloning as I see it would eventually lead to a Freemarket programme of purchasing children on demand. You that book about that wanker Dr Mengele and his experiments at Aushwitz on twins and cloning, makes me feel uneasy. Medicine is about life not death and artificial birth.
Is medicine also about forcing people to stay alive even when they want to die?
Curious, Brian, if we can keep a person alive by using machines, would you require that doctors and hospitals use such devices for anyone and everyone who is about to die naturally?
Baron Max
I keep reiterating my reasons about this subject:
Thats why I cant go with assisted suicides.
Everyone dies when that time comes to die naturally nothing can prevent that event from happening.
If we allow assisted suicides to proceed, can you guarantee society that this process will not be expanded in the future to include persons with mental retardation or senility who cannot make that decision? Can you guarantee that this decision will not be left to the next of kin to decide? Can you guarantee that the bar will not be dropped to allow assisted suicide simply by patient consent?
All you do here on this thread is take extreme medical cases and say 'here is this right said individual has to suffer pain', absolutely no thought or consideration as to the future consequences on other human beings of your actions. Society already had a 25 year horror story in the years 1920 to 1945 of eugenics, euthanasia and eventual genocide, stand for once and see what would happen.
Bells
Staff member
A person facing a horribly slow and painful death with no chance for a cure will not give a crap about "the greater good of society". That you wish to force them to endure such pain with a couple of painkillers until they die naturally 'a few days later' is selfish and cruel. You have this insane desire to force what you think is right down people's throats, even if it means denying them their autonomy and dignity, yet you complain about the actions of countries like Israel? Do you see the hypocrisy?
Gets what? Where?
So you would prefer if someone needed 3 psychiatrists to make sure they knew what they wanted?
A question that has been responded to already.
So you don't think women should have the right to abortions either?
Assisted suicide is suicide on demand, for people who face a terminal illness who wish to die with dignity before they get to the final and most painful phase of their disease.
Doctors prescribe lethal drugs all the time. Cancer treatments, certain pain killers, all have the potential to be lethal. I guess if we were going to follow your train of thought, we should stop treating everyone immediately.
Okay then. Next time you are sick, go into your backyard, find some leaves and grind them up and consume it.. medical treatment the good old fashion and natural way.
Answer the questions I gave Asguard
If we allow assisted suicides to proceed, can you guarantee society that this process will not be expanded in the future to include persons with mental retardation or senility who cannot make that decision?
Can you guarantee that this decision will not be left to the next of kin to decide?
Can you guarantee that the bar will not be dropped to allow assisted suicide simply by patient consent?
If the requirement is 3 doctors to confirm the terminal nature of the illness, why cant you have 3 psychiratrists? As I stated 3 Psychiatric opinions are necessary for a conclusion of legal insanity.
No it was not answered all you gave was this evasive response.
So what is this technology that could be implemented to get a response from the patient?
brian there is an assumption that someone is compitant unless proven otherwise. this exists in both law and med and thats how it SHOULD be. its compleate idocy to make laws assuming people are incompitant.
you say it takes 3 shrinks to prove compitancy. that just shows how little you know, it take 3 shrinks to prove INcompitance.
if a person choses to die because they dont want to live with the pain or even just the degrading way there illness is progressing or even GOING to progress.
THATS why multiple MEDICAL opinions are needed, to make sure the pt has all the facts about there illness. the shrink consult shouldn't even be in the bill.
you say it takes 3 shrinks to prove compitancy. that just shows how little you know, it take 3 shrinks to prove INcompitance.
if a person choses to die because they dont want to live with the pain or even just the degrading way there illness is progressing or even GOING to progress.
THATS why multiple MEDICAL opinions are needed, to make sure the pt has all the facts about there illness. the shrink consult shouldn't even be in the bill.
Psychiatrists are very strongly opinionated on it.
Your unwittingly playing the health INSURANCE companies card here. Health INSURANCE companies, already make life and death decisions by denying patients expensive therapies or not qualifying them for medications and procedures, etc.
The thing no one talks about is the impact health INSURANCE companies can have with this law. What happens when a patient wants to keep living, to keep fighting, but it's cheaper to have a medically assisted death then to continue taking prescription medication and getting treatments. I don't like the potential that the insurance companies now have to basically give someone a death sentence by refusing to continue care even if someone wants it.
Assisted suicide is going to be treated like regular suicide, as far as medical and life insurance benefits and death benefits for assisted suicide are paid out. So they won't pay for the medications or any other "assistance" and life insurance isn't paid at all.
bullshit, actually READ the SA bill. for god sake, you really are stipid arnt you. if the bill is passed the bill states catagorically that:
a) the cause of death will be listed as the underlying illness
b) NO INSURANCE COMPANY can denie payment based on a persons decision to either use or not use doctor assisted suicide
c) the details of a pts choice to use doctor assisted suicide will be kept compleatly confidential and only releaced to certain people, ie the registra and the corronor
a) the cause of death will be listed as the underlying illness
b) NO INSURANCE COMPANY can denie payment based on a persons decision to either use or not use doctor assisted suicide
c) the details of a pts choice to use doctor assisted suicide will be kept compleatly confidential and only releaced to certain people, ie the registra and the corronor
That is the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill from 2006 which was not passed, and wont get passed either.
I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised when I read that. Usually Conservative Christians are against voluntary assisted suicide.