Yeah.
There'd have to be all kinds of conditions met, but the broad claim stands, I think. Note, too, that merely being mentally ill doesn't render you incapable.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 12:32,
Reply)
Case in point: Alzheimers. In that case if the person can't make the decision, then it's down to the family.
On the other hand, someone with Chronic Depression might feel, at their lowest of lows, that their life is worthless and want to die. The danger is that it'd be too easy for them to do so, even if suicidal tendencies is merely a symptom, and 90% of the time they're perfectly happy.
It's alot more complicated than just writing a bill saying "yes, you can assist in suicides"
(, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 12:39, Reply)
That's not quite right.
With incompetent adults, there is no proxy. The law states that medics have to act according to the patient's best interests; and the patient's desires may help determine best interests. Consulting the family might help determine the patient's desires.
But this Bill is about voluntary assistance, and the picture you're painting concerns non-voluntary death. That may or may not be acceptable in some cases, but it's a different question.
As for the suicidal - well, the Bill does include a cooling-off period, and requires assessment that the request is valid. The Bill would serve to permit assistance - not to mandate it. And that seems correct.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 12:49,
Reply)
I'm in favour of euthinasia etc.
I do worry about people taking that route unnecessarily, so hopefully this bill would take a lot of precautions against that, (Im listening to it now, I'm a bit of a geek about select committees love listening to them)
Glad something its got to this level of discussion, its a stupid situation currently. I know a retired doctor who has admitted to helping terminaly ill patients in pain along their way. I think my grandad should have had that option in the end. Its ridiculous that it does happen, but those who involved are at risk of prosecution, and those that want that option in most cases dont.
I do think there should be a line though, I'm not sure whether some one with a viable life ahead of them should be aided? My other grandad was a doctor, he suffered a number of heart attacks and ended up have a major stroke. He refused treatments knowing he'd get pneumonia (something he'd always said was the best way to go) In a way he took that option there was no way of stopping him, and its something I really respect. But given that he did have a viable life ahead of him if he'd taken treatment I'm not sure if it was a case of a doctor coming in and aiding him, whether that would possibly be beyond the remit of a law I'd like to see?
edit- really interesting this, will watch it all. A lot of sense being spoken especially by your good self.
(
Jorvic, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 14:21,
Reply)
Thanks for the final line!
As for the rest - I just can't help but to think that if a person decides that they don't want to be alive any more, and there's no reason to suppose that that's not a genuine sentiment, then assistance isn't so big a deal morally speaking. I don't see what a viable future adds to things - it is, after all, your own future...
(For sure, there may be times when we would prefer that someone stay alive, but I don't really see how it'd be acceptable to enforce that.)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 14:50,
Reply)