Wednesday, 10 December 2008

More on PMQs

Was slightly surprised today that Gordon said he'd, on balance, always been against assisted suicide. I belong to the All-Party Group on Assisted Dying. I accept there would be a huge need for safeguards, especially to stop people taking the decision simply because they feel they've become a burden on their family, but I remember my grandmother, who died a prolonged and painful death from lung cancer asking 'how long does it take to die?' She'd had enough but had to endure an undignified, drugged-up decline.

9 comments:

Dick the Prick said...

It's a religious thing - you can't change that, seriously, you can't. Turn your head, welch on the vote, chat to your priest and end your loved ones but the fact that you're going to hell in the full knowledge that you acted out of love is irrelevant. This isn't an English law thing - it's a bit higher than that.

One cannot ever condone murder and dressing it up as assisted suicide is pointless - it's murder. State sanctioned murder. What about the dudes in Gitmo who had their guilty pleas revoked?

Sometimes government should just shut up, give lenient instruction to the CPS & GMC and leave the hell alone. Is that too difficult to comprehend or do you need to regulate when I kill my mother? Like anyone could get in my way when i'm going to hell. Get over it.

Kerry said...

And for the atheists amongst us?

Dick the Prick said...

Gordon's not an atheist though. I'm not against people believing in it - it's an act of love. I was surprised that you were surprised about Gordon. Nah, atheists can do what they want - the lucky blighters. To get a classification enshrined in legislation though is a thankless task and doesn't need to be done. Give the GMC greater authority to supply 'self' dose (cough, cough - nothing to see here) morphine drips and job done.

It has to be through the GMC not the CPS.

Glenn Vowles said...

I certainly agree with you about assisted dying, with huge safeguards, Kerry. I've experienced the prolonged suffering of two close family members before death in the last 14months. We need much more debate and more openness about this issue - and some new legislation to follow.

Miller 2.0 said...

"State sanctioned murder"

Outside of international law, the state defines the boundaries of murder, just as it defines the boundaries of theft.

Guthrum said...

I own myself, the State does not own my body anymore that it has any right to harvest my organs, therefore should I determine to end my life because the quality of life has already ended, that is my decision. The State has no role, nor should it persecute those that help me.

My nine month old son lingered in agony for two weeks after being given two days to live. In the end I was shown the quantity of morphine, I consented and signed that I understood the consequences, his breathing tube was removed and he died peacefully. Does that make me and the medical staff murderers ? According to some yes, we had to wait for the 'will of God'

He was loved by his family, he was loved by the medical staff, this was the final act of love for him. I hope that I would find the same courage for myself should the need arise as did the medical Staff for him.

pagar said...

Kerry,

Sorry to say Dick's been living up to his name and I'm delighted to tell you that we have at last found a policy area where you are entirely in tune with we libertarians.

Now that we have established that the individual has the right to end his life as he chooses we only have to work on changing the policies that stop him living it as he chooses.

Not a big step surely......

Kerry said...

It's one thing to say that it's a matter for the GMC not the CPS, and we should just turn a blind eye, but that still puts people through unnecessary stress and agonising as to whether what they are doing is wrong. Many will choose to let the suffering continue rather than take the chance.

Dick the Prick said...

Where does it begin though? I certainly and whole-heartedly support assisted suicide when medical opinion supports it. But what if it doesn't? Which court or council can arbitrate - if at all?

The case of the rugby lad is perhaps the most recent of such cases when the chap decided that his quality of life had diminshed to such an extent that he'd had enough - fair play - his own choice. No medic would have supported it on clinical grounds alone yet the chap couldn't end it himself. Ofcourse it should be up to his family, inalienable that one which I assume we're all agreed.

I just can't see how legislation would be able to support this unless it operated as some kind of living declaration of consent witnessed and counselled by named officials to prevent co-ercion and also to give advice. It's a bloody minefield which will still have to be considered on a case by case basis.

I'm not saying avoid it because it's too complex - although it is, I think it should be avoided in order to prevent generalities. By its nature it will be incomplete and a bad law.