New technology=right to die?

[thir]

Right-to-die hearing of man with locked-in syndrome gets go-ahead

A high court judge has ruled that the right-to-die case of a man who can only communicate by blinking and wants his "suffering to end" should be allowed to proceed.

His wife, Jane Nicklinson, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, that death is the only way out for her husband. "We are asking for it to be legal for someone to end his life. The only way to relieve Tony's suffering is to kill him. There's nothing else that can be done for him," said the former nurse.

"He can't do anything. He's completely paralysed and he can't speak. If he has an itch I have to scratch it for him," she said.

"She added that the law had to change to keep up with advancing medical practice. "Twenty years ago Tony would have died. But people are being kept alive with such terrible conditions. Medical practice has become so much better but the law has not progressed with that. He says now if he had known what life would be like for him now, he would have just laid down and died and would not have called for help."

I think this arguments is very valid - new conditions, new deliberation.

Comments?

[Thorne]

I'm a firm believer in the right to die. In this particular instance, since the man is able to communicate, even if only by blinking his eyes, he can be interviewed by a neutral party (a judge, for example) to make certain that this is HIS decision, and if so to allow the procedure to go ahead. I can think of nothing worse than forcing someone to live in such a condition against their will. It's worse than prison, and for no reason.

And I would suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you make a Living Will, allowing your spouse, or someone designated with Medical Power of Attorney, to prevent any "heroic" measures from hospital staff being performed against your, or their, will.

[denuseri]

Yep having a DNR and living will on file is very helpful and saves oneself and one's loved ones from a lot of hassle later.

I am 100% in support of the right to die for those who wish to do so.

[MMI]

I think it's a profound shame for the man concerned that he should be forced to seek a court ruling through the High Court, and eventually through the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court, just to find out what the law is.

Surely the question has been raised often enough by now for politicians to realise that this question is being asked more and more frequently as modern medicine enables people to survive things that would have killed them before, and to keep them alive for longer. For some it is a living hell. Whatever the courts say ... and I suggest, even before they say it ... Parliament should make the law perfectly clear so that everyone can know if doctors are allowed to terminate lives lawfully or not.

What the doctors will make of any such powers remains to be seen, as will the way doctors will be regarded by their patients.

[thir]

I'm a firm believer in the right to die. In this particular instance, since the man is able to communicate, even if only by blinking his eyes, he can be interviewed by a neutral party (a judge, for example) to make certain that this is HIS decision, and if so to allow the procedure to go ahead. I can think of nothing worse than forcing someone to live in such a condition against their will. It's worse than prison, and for no reason.

You might say the reason in this case is the unintended result of more technology. More people survive, but in some cases in a state they do not want to live in. And since I also think that you have a right to die in a way that is dignified and with as much support for family as possible, official assisted suicide is neccesary. This could be used as an argument to taking up assisted suice again.

And I would suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you make a Living Will, allowing your spouse, or someone designated with Medical Power of Attorney, to prevent any "heroic" measures from hospital staff being performed against your, or their, will.

I do not know how how it is in US, but in UK and, I think, in DK as well, there are only two options: one is that if you are living only by the help of mashines, you, or you family, can decide to shut them off. Two, if you are you are terminally ill, you can say no to any or all treatment. In principle, you can always do that. But in praxis, it can sometimes be difficult with non-terminally ill people.

But as for a person living, as the person in the OP, you have no rights, whatever you might say or write in any will. That is why he needs to go to the courts, and start with a case deciding whether or not he can go to the courts at all.

[thir]

I think it's a profound shame for the man concerned that he should be forced to seek a court ruling through the High Court, and eventually through the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court, just to find out what the law is.

Surely the question has been raised often enough by now for politicians to realise that this question is being asked more and more frequently as modern medicine enables people to survive things that would have killed them before, and to keep them alive for longer. For some it is a living hell. Whatever the courts say ... and I suggest, even before they say it ... Parliament should make the law perfectly clear so that everyone can know if doctors are allowed to terminate lives lawfully or not.

What the doctors will make of any such powers remains to be seen, as will the way doctors will be regarded by their patients.

The thing is, there is no law right now that says that assited suicide is legal, they are slithering out of taking the decision for fear of the fundamentalist Christians - who will try to impose their ideas on other people as always! I do not know what legal grounds they will use for this case, or have used up to now, it would be very intereting indeed to find out if possible. Possibly they are going for a Human Rights Act to argue for assisted suicide, leaving it to the courts to find a law against that. But if this case is won, I am sure it will put the discussion about AS on the agenda again. It is only a matter of time, but, as you say, a living hell for the people who have wait and wait and fight it out this way.

[lucy]

I've heard that Brits coming to Switzerland (Switzerland used to be a "hotspot" for AS, but I am not sure whether that's still the case) for AS can be prosecuted. Well, apparently not the ones who ended their lives, but their relatives, on the grounds that they helped someone to kill themselves, even if all they did was by the plane ticket.
Not sure whether anyone has been indicted, but the mere idea that, say, a spouse of someone terminally ill can be prosecuted to help them fulfill their last wish is totally wrong on every conceivable level.

[denuseri]

The thing is, there is no law right now that says that assited suicide is legal, they are slithering out of taking the decision for fear of the fundamentalist Christians -

Most all Christian sects ( however opposed they may be to suicide in and of itself ) are also opposed to maintaining one's life beyond normal measures via what is termed as artificial and or heroic means. IE: if a machine is required to keep you alive beyond a certain point and one's quality of life is grossly affected due too such a condition (as in cases where one is determined to be brain dead etc) then its perfectly acceptable to discontinue such means of preserving the body unnaturally and let the patient die.

[MMI]

Christian fundamentalists in UK are too insignificant to sway Parliament. No, in my opinion, Parliament is indulging in cruel cowardice. Rather than make new laws (or confirm the existing laws will not be changed), they will let someone in such a state as Mr Nicklinson and his family undergo the stress and the expense of going through the court system until a Supreme Court ruling is delivered, and then referring that decision to the European Court of Human Rights for a ruling as to whether the Supreme Court's decision is in accord with Mr Nicklinson's human rights. If the ECHR rules in favour of Mr Nicklinson, then Parliament will have to change UK law ... something it will do in its own good time.

And until that happens, Mr Nicklinson must remain in his own personal hell. Assuming he can find a doctor who is prepared to kill him, that is.

[thir]

Most all Christian sects ( however opposed they may be to suicide in and of itself ) are also opposed to maintaining one's life beyond normal measures via what is termed as artificial and or heroic means. IE: if a machine is required to keep you alive beyond a certain point and one's quality of life is grossly affected due too such a condition (as in cases where one is determined to be brain dead etc) then its perfectly acceptable to discontinue such means of preserving the body unnaturally and let the patient die.

I am not talking about most Christian sects, but the core of fundi Christians who have views on other people's behalf, and will do what they can to enforce them. Some of them (bishops) are in the House of Lords - automtically! - and can vote on many of these issues, but they cannot loose an election. What a system!

This is UK I am talking about, of course. They are Church of England, no other religious group has this kind of influence, including Catholics.

They are the ones who oppose the laws of assisted suicide, as they did laws of more religious freedom, because they thought it would limit the power of Church of England privileges.

[MMI]

Granted, the Church of England Bishops can speak and vote in the House of Lords. Five have an automatic right to sit in the House: after them, the 20 most senior within the Church sit.

Considering that there are 25 CofE bishops sitting in the HofL it is somewhat reassuring to note that the Church is very liberal compared to (say) the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), or the Church of Rome. But even so, it has an agenda, and 25 members could amount to a significant force within Parliament. However, as there are some 824 members of the House of Lords, the Lords Spiritual combined have just 3% of the voting power, and would need considerable support from the other Lords before they could impose their will on the House.

And it must be remembered that the House of Lords is the second chamber. Any legislation it proposes or amends is subject, ultimately, to the consent of the House of Commons, where the CofE has no representation at all.

Furthermore, bishops of the Church of England are appointed by the Prime Minister, who isn't, but might be, a lesbian atheist in a civil partnership! Or a moslem or jew. Such are the idiosyncrasies of the English Establishment.

It is true that the Lords Spiritual are likely to oppose laws that permit assisted suicide or same-sex marriage, but they won't be the only ones in Parliament to do so. Just as powerful voices outside Parliament will oppose them too. The way I see it, the bishops will raise issues that need to be debated, but they will not prevent a change in the law if that is Parliament's will.

Unfortunately, Parliament is unwilling to make its will clear on these issues.

[MMI]

<Duplicate posting deleted>

[MMI]

Granted, the Church of England bishops can speak and vote in the House of Lords. Five have an automatic right to sit in the House: after them, the 20 most senior within the Church sit.

Considering that there are 25 CofE bishops sitting in the HofL it is somewhat reassuring to note that the Church is very liberal compared to (say) the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), or the Church of Rome. But even so, it has an agenda, and 25 members could amount to a significant force within Parliament. However, as there are some 824 members of the House of Lords, the Lords Spiritual combined have just 3% of the voting power, and would need considerable support from the other Lords before they could impose their will on the House.

And it must be remembered that the House of Lords is the second chamber. Any legislation it proposes or amends is subject, ultimately, to the consent of the House of Commons, where the CofE has no representation at all.

Furthermore, bishops of the Church of England are appointed by the Prime Minister, who isn't, but might be, a lesbian atheist in a civil partnership! Or a moslem or jew. Such are the idiosyncrasies of the English Establishment.

It is true that the Lords Spiritual are likely to oppose laws that permit assisted suicide or same-sex marriage, but they won't be the only ones in Parliament to do so. Just as powerful voices outside Parliament will oppose such laws too. The way I see it, the bishops will raise issues that need to be debated, but they will not prevent a change in the law if that is Parliament's will.

Unfortunately, Parliament is unwilling to make its will clear on these issues.