大象传媒

God bless Chantal. This is a terrible, terrible condition and this lady has carried herself with amazing grace and dignity. Future generations will marvel at our inability or unwilingness to help patients like Chantal. She knows she is dying and she knows that the natural progression of her condition means she will die either painfully or completely unconsciously (because of drugs). In any case, she will die. All she is asking is that she be allowed to die at a time of her choosing, under conditions that protect her sense of self and dignity, and in a manner that is respectful of her family's need to grieve. How can anyone stand in the way of that request? Our courts are only interpreting the law. Those we elect need to change the law so that Chantal and those in conditions such as hers can be set free from pain and suffering. This is the Christian response to her situation and to her request. as a Christian, I support her wish that she be allowed to die painlessly with the support of her doctors and family. God will receive her into a future without pain, where there will be no more sorrow, no more tears, and no more abuse from the thoughtless public. I wish she could be cured. I wish she could have her full life back. In the absence of that possibility, I wish that she could be given the chance to die. I pray for that.

Q: "Is it time to change the law to give doctors the legal freedom [to assist a patient's suicide]?"

A: Yes. Without reservation. And it's also time to change the silly law which makes normal suicide a criminal offence.

John,

The Suicide Act (1961) decriminalised the act of suicide, with the result that those who failed in their attempt at suicide would no longer be prosecuted. This applies throughout England and Wales, and similar provisions have been applied in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I'm not sure what the situation is in the United States, but I expect that in most states a similar change of law has already been passed.

In your reply to Will's question you have shortened his original question with square brackets. I understand why you would do that, for the sake of brevity, but I also think that Will's original question was very carefully put to avoid a liberalisation of the law for all cases of assisted suicide. His original wording is very precise and careful: assisted suicide in cases of (1) terminal illness and (2) suffering. I agree that assisted suicide should be permitted when BOTH of these conditions are met, but I disagree with liberalisation in other cases (e.g., when the patient is depressed but not in physical pain and not terminally ill).

Bernard- Observant! Thanks for that. If I may allow myself to be critical of your position on euthanasia, though:

"I disagree with liberalisation in other cases (e.g., when the patient is depressed but not in physical pain and not terminally ill).."; thus you make someone other than the individual themselves the arbiter of whether or not they should be allowed to die, regardless of their wishes. Do you advocate for those people who are certain that they wish to die, then, (perhaps even after much counsel) that they go and do it themselves? Find a piece of wire? Find a razor blade? Or a bottle of pills?

All i can see is a beautiful soul who eminates confidence and love. Let God gives you peace and love.

All i can see is a beautiful soul who eminates confidence and love. Pls dont leave your courage of living. Let people to run. But always believe that there are people who love you for what you are. We need you.

Doctors are already assisting suicide by witholding life sustaining treatments. I dont see any logic behind this ruling by the French courts. Agree totally with John Wright, the law needs to change as does peoples attitudes.

No, we shouldn't allow this. Whether criminal or not, suicide is always wrong. Once more we see where confusion takes us. I was at a conference and someone said we need to remove the taboo about suicide to prevent all these suicides. How absurd! I said we need to remove taboos about mental illness, and feeling suicidal so people can talk about it - but the taboo is there for a good reason.

Though, ultimately, I think arguments about suicide always require belief in God but it is the belief that He is the author of life that means we ought not to end our own life. You can come up with good arguments about the pain a suicide causes family and friends and they are strong arguments in themselves. As for assisted suicide. Never.

Smasher- Your mind is addled by bad ideology. You mention belief in God as a factor discouraging suicide, but isn't it considerably more likely that a true belief in God would have just the opposite effect? Spending eternity with the Creator sounds so nice compared with life on earth I might just want to go there rightaway....

Oh, that's right, you believe in a God who'd use the technicality of the means by which a good Catholic exited life on earth to deny them heaven forever and instead send them to a pit of eternal torment.

Nice! :-)

John, why such anger and bitterness? One would almost think you were a lapsed Catholic.

I didn't say that God would send someone to hell for committing suicide - that may happen, or, to use that phrase favoured by corononer's court - "while the balance of his mind was suspended" may mean the person didn't act freely in committing suicide.

The same can hardly be said for those doctors who kill their patients. By judging which life is valuable or not, doctors are doing precisely what the Nazis did over 60 years ago. The Nazis even had a phrase for this, which translated means 鈥渓ife not worth living鈥濃�攁nd not because of the individuals鈥� suffering, but because of their burden and cost to society. Some people will see Chantal as a monster to be put down - I prefer to see her as someone made in the image and likeness of God and if nothing else I will keep her in my prayers.

I don't understand how anyone could see someone in such a position and refuse them the means to have some control over how their own life ends.

The usual objections refer to slippery slopes and people feeling pressured into avoiding hassle for their relatives, but it must be possible to frame a law that can help this minority of tough cases without fear of it turning into Logan's Run.

It would help if access to the best of palliative care was more reliably available to all terminal patients, not just those lucky enough to get into a hospice. The knowledge that expert pain management will be available and that they can get help to die when it gets too much could, in some cases, lengthen lives. Some currently arrange a DIY suicide earlier than necessary to ensure that they do it before their progressive illness prevents them.

The last time this proposal came before Parliament it was defeated by a concerted campaign by religious pressure groups and the Lords Spiritual. If such people want to stick it out until the bitter end then they have every right to do so, but they should not inflict their morality on others. Telling the sick they must endure the unbearable for someone else's idea of a greater good (or god) is callous.

Not all pain can be managed. Some say euthanasia runs counter to the doctor's tenet of "First, do no harm" but, on the contrary, I can see nothing but harm in leaving a terminally ill patient in uncontrollable pain.

John Wright widens the issue to the much less clear-cut situations beyond terminal illness. In the case of depression, the desire to commit suicide might be a consequence of a treatable condition. Can someone suffering depression give informed consent? If their condition can be treated then their decision on living might well change so it may be reasonable to override a patient's wishes in the short term. However, if all treatments have failed and the patient's life cannot be improved to what they consider a bearable condition then the situation becomes much closer to that of the terminal illness.

I guess the ultimate tough case is the person who has simply had enough, but is not suffering an illness. My life is mine alone and I should be allowed to decide whether to continue living it. I might well reach a point where I look at the prospects left ahead of me and decide that I don't fancy hauling myself through them. Again, improving social care will improve the prospects for many, but it may just postpone the point where death is preferable to life. People should have the autonomy to make this decision, but it is much harder to see how a law could be framed robustly enough to prevent abuse. If the medical profession is being asked to assist in such cases there must be safeguards so the doctors can be assured that they are only assisting someone's informed, rational, unpressured and settled decision. That's a difficult standard to meet with the certainty required to take an unreversible action.

Smasher. One small difference you seem to have overlooked is that the Nazi鈥檚 victims were not queuing up asking for their punishment. No one here is seeking to put down monsters. The woman in this case, and many others, are asking for help to end their lives on their own terms in very distressing circumstances.

It is undeniable that this raises difficult ethical issues for those being asked to help. It hardly does the issue justice to polarise the options into either 鈥淏iblical鈥� or 鈥淣azi鈥� and conclude that the only possible outcome is to leave such people to their fate.

I suspect that Chantal would prefer that people did not require her to suffer so they can keep their moral certainties in tidy black and white boxes.

Comment 12- spot on! Bringing up the Nazis is such a red herring in these cases. It exactly the same when people criticising Peter Singer immediately raise the spectre of the Nazis when they have absolutley nothing to do with the argument.

The reason I brought up the Naziz is that they began their descent into hell via euthanasia and it wasn't begun wearing jack boots and swastikas but white coats and stethescopes. Once you give a doctor the right to kill someone the slope does become slippier and slippier. It starts with Chantal and moves quickly into anyone suicidal, the elderly, the depressed, babies born with abnormalities - think of what Dutch doctors do with their disabled children - they kill them. Why do we care about suicide if it's such a good choice? Why are we alarmed by rocketing rates of youth suicide if it's an acceptable moral choice? Why would we rush forward and cut someone downs who has tried to hang themselves? Why do we call the hospital if someone overdoses.

Vintage Will & Testament stuff;-

Progress the liberal agenda by focusing on an exceptional emotive human interest story (and photo!) but strenously avoid an objective analysis of all the facts.

I have no easy answer for this lady and wouldnt make any knee jerk pronouncements.

But, as ever, what worries me is that the people who rush headlong for liberal legislation appear to give little consideration to the implications of such legislation down the line.

Think of seriously ill patients (not necessarily terminally ill) who are feeling very vulnerable and whose family are quite keen to get their hands on their loot.

It is not hard to imagine a depressed person thinking thinking "what is the point, even my family dont want me here, I am just a burden."

So they sign the form to get it over with.

In Holland you may not even be asked, according to the Times article below.

If we took all potential candidates for euthansia in the UK and added sufficient counselling for depression and adequate pain relief and home care if necessary how many would be left wanting a speedy exit?

It is not hard to see the NHS accountants voting for mass euthanaisa instead.

Now out of all those people whose condition can be managed, we are left with a minority who are still determined to end it all.

The practical question is, how can you frame the law to ensure it is not easily abused for involuntary euthanasia?

My understanding is this has never been shown to be possible.

Thoughts?

PB

//////////////////////////////
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

from: The Times 2-16-99

The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.

British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths.

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.

But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.

Michael Howitt Wilson, of the Alert campaign against euthanasia, said: "A lot of people in Holland are frightened to go into hospital because of this situation."

Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.

Dr Peggy Norris, chairwoman of the anti-euthanasia group Alert, said: "We need to learn from the Dutch system that euthanasia cannot be controlled."

"I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die. People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment."

Is it actually possible to grant this poor lady her wish without inadvertantly causing the deaths of thousands more who do not wish to suicide?

(Vintage W&T Liberal agenda pushing emotive human interest story to exclusion of sensible analysis methinks)

PB

////////////////////

from: The Times 2-16-99

The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.

British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths.

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.

But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.

Michael Howitt Wilson, of the Alert campaign against euthanasia, said: "A lot of people in Holland are frightened to go into hospital because of this situation."

Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.

Dr Peggy Norris, chairwoman of the anti-euthanasia group Alert, said: "We need to learn from the Dutch system that euthanasia cannot be controlled."

"I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die. People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment."

Ah! Joined by PB. This is now a party!

Nonplussed- "My life is mine alone" is the most foundational thought you posted, below which all other considerations must come (such as the unease of 'society' at the idea that someone may not want to live).

Smasher- I wasn't being angry, I was being expository.

Smasher lagru,

"It starts with Chantal and moves quickly into anyone suicidal, the elderly, the depressed, babies born with abnormalities - think of what Dutch doctors do with their disabled children - they kill them."

Oh really? I'm from the Netherlands, lived there for the first 30 years of my life, before moving to Belfast a few years ago. I'm in the Netherlands at this very moment. And what you say is news to me! Sounds like the dishonest sort of statement from a certian group of zealous believers that we see here more often on W&T. Would you care to back up that ludicrous statement please? And not with the rantings of some anti-euthenasia group, but with Dutch laws, medical guidlines or dates and texts of decisions in the Dutch parliament about this etc. It's a pretty proposterous thing to say. Let me guess: you will come up with an examle where A doctor was involved in letting A disabled child die rather than suffer terribly, knowing the child would soon die anyway, and from this you then say 'Dutch doctors kill disabled children'. I'll eagerly read your response.

Oh and pb my sweet, I see the article you posted on an anti-euthenasia website, but I can't find it in the UK Times archive anywhere. Reminds me of the time you posted comletely made-up stuff attributed to evoltion professor Prum and then tried to hide behind AiG for posting that falsehood. If your Times article turns out to be another made-up falsehood, who will you blame it on this time?

Peter

Nazism isn鈥檛 an inevitability at the bottom of a slope marked euthanasia. Germany didn鈥檛 free-wheel down any slope, it was propelled by repugnant ideological motivators such as racial purity. And motivations matter. The Nazis also did a big line in rocket technology which the Americans exported wholesale after the war. We may not like the resulting ICBM鈥檚 but most people seem pretty happy with their SatNavs and SkyTV.

Engaging with this issue requires the fortitude to tolerate ethical uncertainties. If we permit assisted suicide in some circumstances then we take on the burden of enforcing a fuzzy, messy border that will throw up all manner of tough cases. If we prefer to avoid the challenges and responsibility involved then we may escape some difficult decisions, but our simpler life is bought at the cost of the suffering of others.

It is much easier to ignore or excuse the consequences of our inactions than our actions, but we are equally liable for both. In refusing to help these people we are still responsible for the suffering they endure if we choose not to help, but find it easier to put this down to their bad luck. Why is withdrawing treatment from a DNR patient acceptable but assisting suicide isn鈥檛? That the passive option makes us feel less responsible for the outcome does not mean there is any great ethical distinction.

Invoking Nazis, slopes and greedy relatives is basically saying that we cannot, under any circumstances, trust ourselves to grapple with this issue and so have no choice but to leave the Chantals to their fate and hope it never happens to us. This seems unduly pessimistic, but if the debate remains cast in such stark, extremist terms it may be a self-fulfilling argument.

Chantal Sebire died today. The cause of death is not yet known. How many more have to share her fate before we have the courage to face this need?

John Wright. It is interesting that you highlighted the phrase 鈥淢y life is mine alone鈥�. When I originally wrote it I had preceded it with qualifiers that I realised were redundant and that the bald assertion was sufficient to express my position. This is a pivotal thought as many objections stem from an assumption that my life is a gift I have no right to destroy or that my duty to god/society/relatives is greater than it. Who has the right to insist that I keep on living against my will?

The tricky part is where enabling my right requires the co-operation of others. They also have a right to insist on informed consent, which necessitates some form of assessment of those asking for help to die and the inevitability that some requests will be denied.

Nonplussed- Appreciate your reply. I don't believe that the phrase "My life is mine alone" needs qualifying, unless in my living of that life I am infringing on the equal rights of others to do the same (in the case of suicide I am not).

On the other hand of course you're right to say that the tricky part of this discussion is in the "assisted" part of "assisted suicide"; consent must be clear and you're right to say that requires outside assessment, and in places where euthanasia is legal there are procedures set up to deal with that. (Though it's worth noting that in cases of 'normal' suicide, consent is sometimes never explicit and yet we still seem fairly confident that we can determine whether there was consent or not.)

oh ye of little faith Peter!

;-)

Here is the same report on 大象传媒 online;-

* Euthanasia controls 'failing'

Euthanasia controls are failing in the Netherlands, where the practice is regulated and tolerated, according to a report.

The 大象传媒's Gillian Sharpe: Researchers say guidelines are effectively being ignored
The finding has led campaigners to warn against decriminalising the practice in the UK.

Voluntary euthanasia has not been a criminal offence in Holland since 1984, when courts and the Royal Dutch Medical Association drew up strict guidelines for doctors.

Dr Michael Irwin: "We have voluntary euthanasia in the UK"
However, a survey into medical practice regarding end of life decisions carried out in 1996 suggests some doctors are ignoring these safeguards.

Its findings are presented in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Unreported cases

It found that in 1995 almost two thirds of cases of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide went unreported.

One in five cases of euthanasia occurred without the patient's explicit request, and in 17% of such cases, alternative treatment was available in contravention of the guidelines.

Dutch law requires patients to experience "unbearable suffering" to justify euthanasia.

But more than half the doctors surveyed said the main reason given by patients for the request was "loss of dignity". Almost half said they took action "to prevent further suffering".

Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study.

They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked.

"Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

Legal inconsistency

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably.

Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder.

Twelve hypothetical cases were presented to 47 legal assessors. Two of them would have dismissed nine of the cases from further investigation, while two would have recommended a summons in six cases.

The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands.

The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.

Euthanasia fears

Dr Peggy Norris is chairwoman of the anti-euthanasia pressure group Alert.

She said: "We need to learn from the Dutch system that euthanasia cannot be controlled.

"I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die.

"People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment."

'Working well'

A spokeswoman for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society said: "We would dispute some of these findings because it depends upon how you interpret the statistics.

"In Holland the majority of the public feel the system is working well."

She added: "We accept there is a problem with the levels of reporting, but that is because at the moment voluntary euthanasia is decriminalised but not legal.

"The onus is on the practitioner to prove his innocence and that does stop doctors from reporting."

Dr Michael Irwin, of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said the figures in the study were "old hat".

He said: "We have voluntary euthanasia in this country. I bet you anything you like we have a higher percentage in this country (than in Holland) where there is absolutely no control whatsoever."

Well PB given your highly dishonest record you cannot blame anyone for doubting your sources! ;-)

DD

ps. Still waiting on an apology or at least an acknowledgement of all the many dishonesties that you have told in the past about science....

Peab my sweet,

I see that you leaving me to run off with all those muscled men of Ulsters gay rugby team hasn't improved your ways anything. You wrote

"oh ye of little faith Peter!

Here is the same report on 大象传媒 online;-

Oh ye of little honesty pb! I accuse you of probably posting a scare-mongering piece of anti-abortion propaganda and you duly show your dishonesty by saying that the 大象传媒 had put out the same report. While the story you link to on the 大象传媒 is a very different one that has none of the outrageous claims in it that that rubbish report you posted earlier on has in it. Like one in five assisted suicides supposedly being involuntary.

This is 'Prof. Prum made-up sources by peab' v2.0 then.

And DD, I am deeply disappointed in you. Your post #23 in this thread seems to suggest you didn't see peab was putting out another falsehood. Didn't you check his link to see if the linked article bore any resemblance to the anti-abortion propaganda peab had quoted earlier? You of all people should have know to do so!

greets,
Peter

Peab my sweet,

I see that you leaving me to run off with all those muscled men of Ulsters gay rugby team hasn't improved your ways anything. You wrote

"oh ye of little faith Peter!

Here is the same report on 大象传媒 online;-

Oh ye of little honesty pb! I accuse you of probably posting a scare-mongering piece of anti-abortion propaganda and you duly confirm this by saying that the 大象传媒 had put out the same report. While the story you link to on the 大象传媒 is a very different one that has none of the outrageous claims in it that that report you posted earlier on has in it. Like one in five assisted suicides supposedly being involuntary.

This is 'Prof. Prum made-up sources by peab' v2.0 then.

And DD, I am deeply disappointed in you. Your post #23 in this thread seems to suggest you didn't see peab was putting out another falsehood. Didn't you check his link to see if the linked article bore any resemblance to the anti-abortion propaganda peab had quoted earlier? You of all people should have know to do so!

greets,
Peter

Peter,

I am terribly sorry! I was blinded for a moment-I should have checked as I have had my fingers burned badly on these matters before- please forgive me!

On another subject I wonder if PB has ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?

DD

Peter:

Smasher is obsessed with the Nazis but misunderstands the nature of their regime (he thinks that the Catholic Church opposed the Nazis 聽鈥� see the Abu Ghraib thread). He takes a word like 鈥榚uthanasia鈥� and assumes that it is all the same, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Sure, death is the result. But 鈥榚uthanasia鈥� simply means 鈥榞entle death鈥�. There is a world of difference between a death that is at a time and manner of our own choosing and a death that is imposed on us, whether by nature or other people. It is both illogical and cruel to assume that we shouldn鈥檛 have a right to a 鈥榞entle鈥� rather than a painful death if we choose.

The slippery slope argument could be made in almost any context. Should we ban all marriages because of wife beating? Should we ban trade unions because some workers might be bullied into joining them? Let鈥檚 ban the Irish and British armies because they might kill people.

Smasher also assumes that everyone who strongly disagrees with him is angry and bitter. Perhaps he is projecting his own state unto them.

John Wright is indeed right. The right to life is meaningless unless it includes the right to end it when we choose. Logically, there can be no right unless we have a choice about our use of it. So choosing to live or not to live is part of the right to life. The person who makes a genuinely free and rational choice to die is exercising his or her right of self-determination. As he says, it is we who own our lives and bodies, not the state or the churches or even doctors, and the last right in our lives should be the right to end it the way we want. It looks as if Chantal made this choice. Good for her