Mollieme,

What do you have to back up your dogmatic statements though?

You seem to lump all mentally ill into the same basket and discount their suffering.

Do you imagine that the terminally ill would always be disposable elderly - hey, might as well top yourself fella and save the health budget for the young deserving - or do you believe that the suffering from mental illness is lesser, or is easily controlled to deliver some reasonable quality of life?

I am not arguing either way, just interested to know the ethical rationalisation that would encourage and assists some to die but not others. Because it does seem that the principles and ethics are very relaxed where the subject is old. BYW, how would you define old?

Hi onthebeach,

I think you misunderstand what I wrote. The extreme suffering of the mentally ill is very relevant indeed, and it is this mental suffering/personality disorders that could lead them to commit suicide. I think it's wrong to assist them in suicide. It's better to offer them support, counseling and medical psychiatric help, because with help they can have the opportunity to live a long life. Whereas with suicide, they have no future whatsoever. It's more humane to offer hope for the mentally ill, than to offer suicide.

The terminally ill people who wish to die are a totally different matter. They will die soon anyway. They have no hope whatsoever of a future life regardless of anything. They are going to die soon anyway --- end of story. It matters not whether they are 20 years old or 90 years old -- death is soon going to happen. I think it's humane to offer these people assisted suicide, under medical supervision. It enables them to die without extended pain and suffering that they would otherwise have to go through. Death under these circumstances is painless, almost instant and humane

God almighty.

The slide from:

* suicide to

* 'assisted' suicide to

* 'assisted' suicide of the mentally ill to -

What the hell next ?

'Assisted' suicide ? No, absolutely not. Can't some of you understand that the presence of another person at a person's death immediately raises questions of complicity, and possible culpability ? What's the matter with your brains ? Are you buried so deep in your latest-design arm-chairs, sipping your south-side 1976 Chardonnay, that you understand nothing of the actual, living world, you think living forever is an option ?

Lesson 1: death is forever. There is no return. There is no 'other' life. Do not pass go, do not collect $ 200.

Lesson 2: if you are anywhere near someone at the moment of their death, you - quite reasonably - may be suspected by police of being involved in that death, perhaps even causing it. ESPECIALLY if you are a family member. i.e. ESPECIALLY if you stand to gain from that death.

Christ, have some of you got two brain cells to rub together ?

Joe

Joe, "Christ, have some of you got two brain cells to rub together ?"

Unnecessary.

Death happens to us all at some stage. This is about timing, not about either dying or not dying. Personally at this point in my life I'd prefer a not dying option if it was available and on my terms.

I can though imagine circumstances where that would not be the case. Suicide rates under our current legal system indicate that far too many people reach such circumstances in their lives, often without feeling that they can safely turn to anybody for help or support. Sometimes meaning that other options may not be covered which might have given them an alternative.

Safeguards won't be perfect but again I point out this is not green fields, people suicide now. Often traumatising those left to deal with the event itself or the aftermath. Others who would prefer to end their lives lack access to the means to do so and live on in great suffering.

Joe why not engage with the topic in a more constructive manner. You are to bright and decent for the kind of comment about those with a different view such as the one I highlighted.

As a start, which do you think is the greater evil or greater risk? For people to have the option of an assisted suicide under controlled conditions after counselling or the current situation where they have to improvise with often uncertain methods and likely trauma for those dealing with the aftermath? Loaded question I know but that to me seems to be the basics of the case for and against.

R0bert

Two hundred thousand innocent people killed in an Iraq war, and possibly another two hundred thousand will be euthanised in a new Iraq war, of course this is legal, Governments and the media are all in favour of this type of euthanising, but when we come to a person suffering in pain and loss of dignity with a terminal illness and wanting to end their suffering, the Government intervenes and says "no you cannot do that
it is against the law"
Every one must have the choice to end their lives at end of life as they see fit, it should as mentioned have nothing to do with Governments, it is my life, not yours, if you want to die in pain that is your choice, I am happy for you, but don't expect me to die in pain like yourself.
A person bombed has no choice or say in their end of life choices

Robert,

Neither. False dilemma. I can appreciate that in a situation where someone is dying, with obviously only hours to live, and in pain or distress, that palliative care nurses or doctors may administer some form of relief which may hasten the final hour. But let's not call that 'assisted suicide' or anything like that.

As for 'assisted suicide' of anybody with perhaps months or years left, or in reasonable health but of a downcast mind, who can't bring themselves to do the deed alone but needs a 'friend' to do it: no. That's likely to be classified as murder.

As for this cosy scenario in which someone is helped by loving relations to end it all, surrounded by so much love and concern: bullsh!t. No. By definition, one's 'loved ones' may stand to gain financially from one's death, so all concerned could be charged with murder, even more so.

So let's not let this 'discussion' slide ever closer to the knocking off of Alzheimer's patients, the elderly, the mentally ill, and perhaps the deformed. Who's next, the left-handed ? People with red hair ?

Let's draw the line under suicide - with nobody else involved - and leave it at that. Legalise suicide, or at least attempted suicide. But wait: when was the last time anybody was charged with attempted suicide, even though it may still be on the books as an offense ? Of course, anybody contemplating such an end should be counselled to the nth degree, supported warmly by their 'loving family and relations', embraced by friends, given examples of limbless people striving to live the best lives they can, etc.

On the other hand, maybe there is some value in developing different laws for Green voters ........

Joe