Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Should voluntary euthanasia be legalised?

Should voluntary euthanasia be legalised?


  • Total voters
    131


Albumen

Don't wait for me!
Jan 19, 2010
11,495
Brighton - In your face
High court rejects the right of a man to not die a slow agonising death. The UK still has a way to go to be civilised. I ask the mixed political sea of NSC: do you think voluntary euthanasia is murder?



https://www.theguardian.com/society...rt-rejects-challenge-to-ban-on-assisted-dying


A terminally ill former lecturer has lost a high court bid to change the law so that he can be given assistance to die at home surrounded by his family.

Noel Conway, 67, from Shrewsbury, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in November 2014. His condition is incurable and he is not expected to live beyond 12 months.

Supported by the organisation Dignity in Dying, he has instructed lawyers to seek permission for a judicial review of the ban on assisted dying, which, he says, prevents him ending his own life without protracted pain. Assisted dying is prohibited by section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 and voluntary euthanasia is considered murder under English and Welsh law.

Conway, who plans to appeal, was not in court in London on Thursday to hear Lord Justice Burnett and Mr Justice Jay rule that – by a majority decisions – of two judges to one – he did not have an arguable case to go forward. A third judge, Mr Justice Charles, found for the applicant.

Responding to the judgment, Conway said: “I am very disappointed in the court’s decision not to grant my case permission to proceed. Though this is a setback in my fight for rights at the end of my life, I will not be deterred and will be appealing [against] this decision.

“I am going to die, and I have come to terms with this fact. But what I do not accept is being denied the ability to decide the timing and manner of my death. I am not prepared to suffer right to the end, nor do I want to endure a long, drawn out death in a haze of morphine.

“The only alternative is to spend thousands of pounds, travel hundreds of miles and risk incriminating my loved ones in asking them to accompany me to Dignitas [in Switzerland]. This would also force me to die earlier than I would want.

“The option of an assisted death should be available to me, here in this country, in my final six months of life – this is what I am fighting for. It would bring immense peace of mind and allow me to live my life to the fullest, enjoying my final months with my loved ones until I decide the time is right for me to go.”

Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: “We are disappointed with the outcome of the hearing and of course will be supporting Noel in appealing this decision.

“The current law simply does not work and Noel would like the courts to examine the evidence in detail. Parliament has so far ignored the pleas of dying people like Noel and the overwhelming majority of the public who also support a change in the law on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in their final six months of life. And that is precisely why we will continue to fight for it.”

Conway and his lawyers have set up a crowdfunding website page to help cover legal costs. It has so far raised £75,000.

Yogi Amin, the head of public law at solicitors Irwin Mitchell, who represented Conway, commented: “The world has changed phenomenally in the past few decades with many medical advances, but the law on assisted dying for those who are terminally ill hasn’t changed for more than 50 years. Naturally we are disappointed, that by a split decision in the court, Noel has not been given permission to put forward his case in court but we will seek permission to appeal.

“Noel wants the law changed so that it respects an individual’s choice about dying with dignity. This situation is clearly traumatic for the individuals involved and their families who are often torn between not wanting to see their loved one suffer and also not wanting to lose them and we commend Noel for his bravery in bringing this important legal case.”

A separate decision on the case of a man identified only by his first name, Omid, who sought permission to join Conway’s case, is expected to be given at a later date. Omid is incurably but not terminally ill.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,467
Gloucester
Perhaps someone could set up a poll on this? Anyway, it's a yes from me. It would need to have a lot of safeguards built in, but yes, it should be allowed.
 




Having seen first hand the pain, misery and suffering on a number of occasions including parents of terminal cancer I would vote yes.

As above though, It would need to have a lot of safeguards built in.
 






Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
Safeguards start off being adhered to, but gradually get eroded.
When abortion was first legalised, it had a lot of safeguards, like two doctors signatures, health of the mother, etc etc, but now it is well known that abortions take place simply because the foetus is the wrong sex.

Palliative care is improving all the time, so terminally ill patients should be cared for, in the best possible way.
 


Albumen

Don't wait for me!
Jan 19, 2010
11,495
Brighton - In your face
Safeguards start off being adhered to, but gradually get eroded.
When abortion was first legalised, it had a lot of safeguards, like two doctors signatures, health of the mother, etc etc, but now it is well known that abortions take place simply because the foetus is the wrong sex.

Palliative care is improving all the time, so terminally ill patients should be cared for, in the best possible way.

It's never simple.
 


Safeguards start off being adhered to, but gradually get eroded.
When abortion was first legalised, it had a lot of safeguards, like two doctors signatures, health of the mother, etc etc, but now it is well known that abortions take place simply because the foetus is the wrong sex.

Palliative care is improving all the time, so terminally ill patients should be cared for, in the best possible way.

The best possible way is in some instances to end the suffering.
 




Frutos

.
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
May 3, 2006
35,493
Northumberland
Yes, as long as safeguards are in place.

If someone of sound mind is terminally ill and makes an informed choice that that is the route they wish to take, that should be respected and supported.
 




Alba Badger

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2016
1,533
Straight outta Felpham
e74cea6c90ba9291fa074c6f195cd249.jpg

But seriously folk should be aloud to make their own choice if terminally ill.
 








hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,088
Chandlers Ford
My take on it is this - committing suicide is NOT against any law - all that is being asked is that those with good reason, and of sound mind, are able to take that step with dignity, and without unnecessary suffering / anguish / danger to others (family and friends / the poor random who finds them / the train driver / etc, etc, etc. )
 




Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Apr 30, 2013
13,763
Herts
My take on it is this - committing suicide is NOT against any law - all that is being asked is that those with good reason, and of sound mind, are able to take that step with dignity, and without unnecessary suffering / anguish / danger to others (family and friends / the poor random who finds them / the train driver / etc, etc, etc. )

But that's not what this case is asking. "...lost a high court bid to change the law so that he can be given assistance to die...". Taking your point about the train driver, the equivalent is not that since he can jump in front of a train, he should be allowed to commit suicide at home (which, as you correctly say is not illegal anyway), it's that he can take someone along to push him in front of the train...
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,088
Chandlers Ford
But that's not what this case is asking. "...lost a high court bid to change the law so that he can be given assistance to die...". Taking your point about the train driver, the equivalent is not that since he can jump in front of a train, he should be allowed to commit suicide at home (which, as you correctly say is not illegal anyway), it's that he can take someone along to push him in front of the train...

Yes, understood. If he requires assistance in order to take that step in a dignified and painless manner, that part is a given.

My point is that, without that dignified option being available and legal, it can drive people (out of fear of incriminating a loved one) to take far less dignified steps, putting others in the way of danger and trauma.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,264
in principle, absolutely yes. how we insist on keeping people in their very old age or with terminal illness hanging on, with no quality of life, is borderline cruelty.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,467
Gloucester
Safeguards start off being adhered to, but gradually get eroded.
When abortion was first legalised, it had a lot of safeguards, like two doctors signatures, health of the mother, etc etc, but now it is well known that abortions take place simply because the foetus is the wrong sex.
That doesn't make an argument against abortion per se though, it's only an argument against relaxing the laws. The safeguards are still adhered to, but our lawmakers relaxed them - wrongly in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there.
Voluntary euthanasia, with safeguards, yes - but if anyone wants to start relaxing the safeguards, send 'em packing straight away.
 




Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
That doesn't make an argument against abortion per se though, it's only an argument against relaxing the laws. The safeguards are still adhered to, but our lawmakers relaxed them - wrongly in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there.
Voluntary euthanasia, with safeguards, yes - but if anyone wants to start relaxing the safeguards, send 'em packing straight away.

That is my point, safeguards are relaxed. There will always be an exception and then the exception becomes the rule.
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
I will sign a living will, which is different. It means I don't want to be resuscitated, or treated if I have a terminal illness. That is different, in that you are dying anyway, so treatment will only prolong it. One case being if I have cancer, which is untreatable, then get pneumonia, I would refuse antibiotics, because pneumonia is a kinder death.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here