well maybe they just havent thought about it thouroughly, I mean my initial reaction was making it legal is a massive thing and I wasnt sure about it, but im swaying massively towards it should be about personal choice and if thats the case then it has to be regulated and made legal

Doctors in the UK already take part in assisted suicides in a way, it is just that it is in the grey area of the law. I know of people that have died as a result of very large doses of morphine rather than then being killed by the condition causing the pain the morphine is prescribed for after the Doctor has talked to the patient and sort their views on what they want to happen at the end.

Wouldn't it be better to have some kind of law to give the Doctors protection and allow the patents protection against Mangers trying to cut NHS budgets who then put pressure on Doctors because the Mangers want a fast turn around of hospital beds?

I take it this is directed to my post to you earlier asking for a link that backed up your point of view. I ignored it because it didn't back up what you said. I find it disingenuous of you to argue your point using that faux logic when what really is motivating you stand points are you religious beliefs. Which is fine sticks...I'm religious too but clearly not as conservative as you.
Your view was
"This should remain illegal and it's time they started enforcing this law, like in the case of the parents wgo took their son to Dignitas
Legitimising assisted suicide will put the elderly and disabled at risk by relatives pressurising them in to dying for financial gain.

I asked if you had proof of a systematic failure in the health system that could be evidenced by clear convictions in the courts. That link goes now where to prove your case for families in collusion with doctors fabricating documentation in order to murder loved ones for financial gain... which was your point... do you stand by that point yes or no? The stats in that article are include everything from abortions to cases where there was 100% brain death .... these are examples of NVE are they? And that backs you point up how exactly?

Angiebabe you said you liked the link as it backs up your opinion. How so? I can't see how it does nor did you point to anything in the article that backed up you arguments... in fact you didn't even mention which of your many and varied "points" were backed up by parts of that article. Please let me know.

You also mentioned you were interested in the statistics from Australia.... do you mean the statistics of illegal euthanasia by doctors on patents in the gay community who are presumably dying a long slow drawn out and painful death due to the AIDS virus. Thought that would have caught your eye. Yes euthanasia is illegal in Australia... the fact that it still happens and none are convicted ought to tell you something. And anyway that surely can't be classified as Non Voluntary Euthanasia and puts a question mark on the validity of the whole article You don't think the lovers of those dying AIDS patients who have nursed them for sometimes up to 8 months before death have never talked about the ill persons wishes regarding Euthanasia? Yet this gets classed as Non Voluntary Euthanasia somehow ... some strange stats in that article form the "International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care"
You keep saying lets have a "balanced approach" and keep the laws as they are. That's not balanced, that's you being conservative and immovable ... as it stands euthanasia is illegal.... that's not balanced no matter how hard you try to sound moderate and flexible by repeatedly saying the word "balanced".
Angebabe you said
"I've met and spoken to people who would wish to be assisted and relatives who would assist a person in taking there own life. For them it is the right and proper thing to do"
great so you agree with us thanks. ....lol then you say those people would like the laws to remain as they are...!!??!. what.?!!

"Angiebabe you said you liked the link as it backs up your opinion."

No, I did'nt I said I found the article interesting reading and gave the reasons why as it confirms concerns I have over assisted suicide.
That is nowhere near liking an article because it backs up my argument.
My post also answers the question you left in that same opening paragraph.

"You also mentioned you were interested in the statistics from Australia.... do you mean the statistics of illegal euthanasia by doctors on patents in the gay community who are presumably dying a long slow drawn out and painful death due to the AIDS virus. Thought that would have caught your eye"

You presumed wrong, therefore with respect its not worth making additional comment to your views left in this paragraph.

You keep saying lets have a "balanced approach"

Again no I did'nt, indeed nowhere near what I actually said.
I said what we have now in the UK (IMO) A FINE BALANCE ENOUGH, (maybe you can go back and read that part again, that will help you with the rest of the erronous judgement you made in that paragraph also)

Angebabe you said
"I've met and spoken to people who would wish to be assisted and relatives who would assist a person in taking there own life. For them it is the right and proper thing to do"
great so you agree with us thanks. ....lol then you say those people would like the laws to remain as they are...!!??!. what.?!!

Again this is a completely unfair representation of what I actually wrote.
To further explain what I actually wrote.........
The people whom I've spoken to in favour of assisted suicide (although I DISAGREE with the principle of assisted suicide) I would morally support there action as the right thing FOR THEM to do, without ever judging them as "murderes"
However, (and based on my own personal circumstances coming into contact with patients suffering terminal illness) because there view is a minority within the group I meet, I use those people (the majority) as the people who would not wish the law to change on assisted suicide.
Obviously those patients whom I meet and disagree would still wish the law to change, but do appreciate that they still can, and will take whatever actions they may wish, without personal fear of prosecution (they will be dead) or the likelehood of the assistant being prosecuted based on a, being found out... b, whether the prosecution would be in the public interest baring in mind the common view (amongst ALL including myself) that deaths in this manner should be treated sympathetically.

"The stats in that article are include everything from abortions to cases where there was 100% brain death .... these are examples of NVE are they? And that backs you point up how exactly?"

Good point Ange I didnt think about what was included in those stats but your right and none of the stats prove a progression from Legal Euthanasia to more cases fo NVE from what I see. which I think is what they are saying would happen. And Reds right, I've worked in a hospital and high doses of morphine are given to ease patients suffering even though they might be too weak and die from such doses. But having seen when those instances occur I would not be angry if it was any of my family being given them. The more you look at it, the more reasons there are to legalize it.

I think that practice in hospitals is referred to Double effect

There is also a back door to euthanasia. It is perfectly legal for the NHS to withdraw medical treatment so euthanasia can be done in the way of unplugging a life support machine or not giving treatment that will eventually lead to death. But that happens to some people and it doesn't work. For example there was a case a while back where the family of an old woman who was suffering from a terminal illness and was at the end said it was OK to withdraw medical treatment in hope that she would die quick and be free from pain etc, but her body took a while to pack in and she died weighing under three stone a week or so later because she was barely conscious and couldn't eat, couldn't even open her eyes etc. In cases like that where people have no quality of life I think it is very important that euthanasia is legal. Why prolong suffering of both the patient and the family when clearly there is no way it can improve?

Yeah that's how my uncle went out ... doped on morphine. At the end he was so weak that he couldn't lift his own head off the pillow. When the back of his head got sweaty and uncomfortable he'd motion for us with his eyes to adjust it. I remember as I did my fingers felt how incredibly hot and wet the back of his head was. It shocked me how vital that feeling seemed compared to his wasted tiny body. He was a huge giant of a man with a booming laugh but the way he went out makes me angry. It was long and full of misery and due to the morphine it was hard knowing when he was conscious or when he was hallucinating or out of it. At one point he came to, his eyes focused on me and the rolled back in his head again... He died the following morning and the idea that his last conscious memory was of being in terrible pain and wishing he was dead while looking at my face is something that still haunts me.

From this point on the post has been edited for the content tat was edging on a personal attack, however because the issue has been personalised I have left the posters questions within the post as much as possible.

I don't like editing posts in this way and I will try and show where content has been removed if I can. A copy of the original has been kept in TiBB Towers, along with the rest of the thread for reference only.

Red

[cut 1]

Angibabe. You seem to keep trying to short circuit the whole debate by suggesting that you know better than the rest......

[cut 2]

Do us all a favour and outline you position clearly...

with no guilty tripping,
with no "I thought better of you stu"
with no " you make me want to die your so nasty boohoo"... with no wild shipman and baby p or NHS meltdown tangents....
with no using the symathy card eg "I now have a cold, which could mean a death sentance in itself...each and every day I wake up in excrusiating pain"
with no short circuiting of the whole debate by trying to again claim a greater knowledge "hey I know some people who are dying and they agree with me so there!!".

Just give us your position "I'm against voluntary and assisted suicide because....."

I'm against voluntary and assisted suicide because

It is a slippery slope to the kind of things that happened under the NAZI regime in WW2.

People with disabilities were exterminated as they were not perfect. It is feasible that someone could say the same of some people with disabilities, as in the long run they could save money on providing care.

Proof of this is around already where parents have to fight to get certificates of special needs. My sister with her first child has had to.

I'm against voluntary and assisted suicide because

Old people could be pressurised by either relatives or administrators of care homes who care more about money.

So Sticks did you read my last post to Angiebabe about disliking how she tries to be emotive and sidetrack an argument by attacking the credibility of those she argues against via falsely associating their views with the likes of Shipman. So you go her one better and add the NAZI?. wow!!
So is that who your fighting against.... Nazi sympathisers? You dirty our name and motives with a nazi reference? So people like me who care about the respect and dignity of the one's we love are initiating a slippery slope that could lead to some kind of Orwellian Nazi dystopia ? How's that exactly? If the thing is regulated as Tom said or even over regulated with lots of checks and balances as I've said ( multiple doctors plus a shrink) then surly that would mitigate those possibilities. Why do you and Angibabe keep ignoring that point? Anyway you made this point before but you couldn't back it up.... yet here it is again in a new form ..." it could lead to" instead of "in Holland it has led to". ps you didn't reply to my last post...

Hypothetically Sticks if they could guarantee instances of abuse of the like you've mentioned would you then support euthanasia? I know that kind of guarantee is impossible but I think your answer would still be no. Would it?

Ange7

In the news today, they are talking about screening for autism. They have a test for Downs already

The real purpose of these tests is so mothers to be can be advised to terminate the foetus.

That is the hidden under-current in these tests, that people with such disabilities should be exterminated as soon as possible.

I realise I have complied with Godwin's law by refering to the Nazi regime, but that was not in relation to the classic case of the OAP with a terminal illness, I thought I covered that sort of in the OAP pressurised to die scenario.

The reference to Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 1940's is in relation to the disabled, where those who were mentally ill or had downs and such the like were considered not fit to live and were so exterminated. This is not unlike the philosphy behind the screening tests for autism and downs.

As resources get scarce, or costs rise, it is easy to imagine someone considering that a disabled child in their care is too costly, and then claiming that their quality of life is poor as a pretext for a timely and cheap extermination. History tells us that it happened before.

Also I did give a link to a study. It was just one of many I found by using google. The experience in Holland is that there have been some non voluntary euthenasia. The so called perfect system, has been abused.

Sticks I understand the point you are making with regards to testing for Autism, and downs etc... however I think it is a step forward to a certain extent. Why shouldnt pregnant mothers have the right to choose if we have the ability to know and understand. It isnt really euthanasia its a form of choice. I know a lot of women who would still choose to conitnue with pregnancy or would in fact refuse the testing so I am unsure of how your argument relates to this particular discussion.

Ange7 - I am with you all the way here, we really should allow people the choice about what happens to them as they approach the end of their lives, if they choose to live great, if not well I am sure it would not be an easy decision to reach. I hate the thought of having to watch another person suffer that does not want to.

I think with the right legislation, euthanasia should be made legal in this country.

Everyone should have the right to choose should they wish. I would hate to be in pain and not able to live my life the way that I want.

God forbid that I am ever in that situation but I would want the right to die with the people who I love around me.

If I can have a pet put down because they are in too much pain I surely should be allowed to do the same for myself?

But my point is, that with legalised euthanasia, people who would not elect to die, will either be pressurised into it, or someone will, for financial gain pervert the system to get an inconvenient relative bumped off.

In the article I posted a link to it alludes to this happening in Holland, and I vaguely remember hearing, possibly on a radio programme that this was rumoured to happen.

Alludes to and rumoured to does not mean it ACTUALLY does happen though, its all just specualtion to be honest and that means little if anything to me,.

Those people were sentenced to death against their will. There is no such relation.

We're talking about terminally ill patients. Disabilities are not the same thing. We're talking about people who are suffering a long painful death.

its open to abuse.

But look how anti terror legislation has been used to spy on people to see if they are putting bins out on the right day, if they are living where they say they are living when they are applying for a specific school for their child.

Laws made for one thing have been subverted to achieve something else.

A disabled child will need a statement of special needs, so it is not against the bounds of possibilities that such legislation could be used to terminate disabled children to "ease their pain and suffering" in order to safe money should they be allowed to live.

Graeme, I'd like to respond to this part of your post:

I refused those tests with both my pregnancies, because they would not have affected my decision to continue to term.

However, I support the rights of expectant mothers who choose to have the tests, and furthermore choose to terminate based on the results of such tests.

For me it's all about choice. I'm pro-choice. Therefore, I'm pro-euthanasia.

You can then apply that logic to everything. You make the law as detailed and as strict as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I am listening to what you're saying. I'm not attacking or anything.

Pro-choice is not pro-euthanasia. It is not yet a human being up until a certain stage in the pregnancy. Pro-choice also means having the right to choose or choose not to have an abortion. It's a person's right to their own body, and thus, can be applied to have the right to die.

Pro-choice = I support the right to choose.

This applies to both scenarios.

Heres the way that you should assist them.
Step 1. Give them a nice cold beer
Step 2. Take `em to a phychiatrist
Step 3. Tell em its pointless killing themselves, Life goes on no matter what happens :D