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)