[S4B]

So Sky are showing an assisted suicide tomorrow and it hits all the papers in the morning.

I have every sympathy with people in this man's state who want to die but was his widow right to allow the cameras in and what benefit do you think it will it bring, if any, to the cause of euthanasia in this country?

[foot-loose]

Like abortion, I think it should be legal, but only in certain cicumstances. I think it should be an option for the doctors. They shouldn't have to worry about the consequenses.

On one hand, this sounds like sensational media shite, which is something I may have mentioned I dislike. On the other, it may prompt people to discuss it. Thats not a bad thing.

[MK Chris]

I guess there are two issues at stake - firstly, is euthanasia right and secondly, are they right to film and broadcast this programme. Presumably if your answer to the first question is 'no', there's no point asking the second one.

I am strongly, strongly in favour of voluntary euthanasia (obviously with the proper systems in place to ensure it's not abused by potentially malicious people). I think that if someone is in such pain discomfort, why on earth should we prolong their suffering? We don't do it to other animals like pets, so why humans? I can't believe that people go abroad to help people do this and actually have to risk being prosecuted to assisting suicide - it must be heartbreaking enough to go through with it and help their loved one, let alone be tried for it afterwards.

As for the programme, well, it's not a decision that woman will have made lightly and she obviously feels it'll help the cause for euthanasia - I'm not sure it will, but if she thinks or even just hopes it does and someone is willing to provide help for her to do that, why not? I wouldn't watch it myself and that's the point: people don't have to.

[foot-loose]

I think if she wanted to help the euthanasia cause, she could have chosen a better channel than Sky.

[MK Chris]

Could she have done though? Would any of the others take it? Fair enough Channel Four may have done, but I'm not sure the others would.

[foot-loose]

I was thinking that as I posted it. I just feel when people agree to do programmes like this on channels like them, there is a financial element involved.

[MK Chris]

Such a cynic... but I would like to think that any money given will go straight to charity - if I was that woman (apart from the fact I wouldn't be doing the programme anyway), I would be naming a charity.

[S4B]

Well she didn't get the "treatment" for free, maybe it's a way of paying for it.

[foot-loose]

It cant be that expensive to stick too much adrenaline into someone. Or gunpowder, or whatever they use.

[S4B]

They had to take a dying man abroad though, that can't have been cheap!

[foot-loose]

Bung him on Ryanair. You dont need to worry about the expensive return ticket - £8 to anywhere in the world.

[S4B]

Doubt they needed travel insurance for him either!

[Yudster]

I have been thinking about this issue since I saw the trailers for the programme. I find myself totally conflicted to be honest. I simply can't pretend that I could ever support euthanasia, for a whole bunch of varied reasons. But on the other hand, what would be my response to someone who genuinely felt that they had to do it? I don't think I could reasonably oppose them, assuming as I would that they had reached their decision after a hell of a lot of thought and (presumably) discussion with their family.

If it becomes legal in this country, well, it would be a piece of legislation that I didn't agree with - but presumably the word "voluntary" is key (there are many people who feel that legalising voluntary eutanasia would open the way to more sinister practices - I don't know about that, and as far as I know it doesn't happen in Switzerland).

I think the only resolution I can come to for myself is that I have no right to oppose anyone doing anything legal, whether I agree with it or not. I wouldn't support legislation legalising it in the UK, but I am not a law-maker, so my position can only be personal. I have no direct say in the making of this or any other law (and I can't see a referendum on this subject being offered), that is the remit of others.

A big test would be if (for instance) my mother were in a position where she felt that she was likely to die slowly and painfully, with no quality of life. I happen to know that she supports voluntary euthanasia. If she asked me to help her - well, I couldn't. I would, however, move mountains to make sure that she had the best care possible and that all the palliative care available was used to make sure that her fears of pain and "half-life" were negated. My brother, on the other hand, would probably help her - I couldn't support that either, but as long as they were not doing anything illegal, I would have no right to oppose them. I hope I never have to test the theory.

[MK Chris]

I can say with some degree of certainty that if I were ill to the point that the quality of my life was non-existent, or if I were in constant pain, I would absolutely not hang around. I would find some way of killing myself, whether the state supported it or not.

[Zoot]

I can say with some degree of certainty that if I were ill to the point that the quality of my life was non-existent, or if I were in constant pain, I would absolutely not hang around. I would find some way of killing myself, whether the state supported it or not.

Do you have my phone number? I can be there in an hour...

[MK Chris]

Am I being really slow if I say I don't totally understand that?

Are you offering to kill me?

[foot-loose]

Yes, he is.

[MK Chris]

I thought so.

Luckily (for me, at least) my quality of life has not degraded to the point where I would rather not live any more.

[foot-loose]

... which is quite surprising considering you're from the ol' MK.

[MK Chris]

If I may borrow your own image (and if I may not, tough):

[Munki Bhoy]

I'm all for it. Abortion is one of those issues where you can debate til you're blue in the face about when it's a life and who should have the right to decide if that life is terminated. However, in this case we're talking about people choosing to end their own life. No one elses, their own. If they need help to do that, fair enough. The only dodgy bit is proving that they were of sound mind to request the help and they weren't just bumped off.

Euthanasia I'm happy with my stance on. I don't think I'll ever work out where I stand on abortion.

[ladbroke]

Never have I been in two minds regarding a subject as much as I am with this. Do I want it legalised? No. If I were terminally ill and able to end my own life would I? Yes.

If i could end my own life whilst teminally ill I'd make sure that (a) I wouldn't fail and (b) my family weren't the first to find me. A huge dose of heroin would probably do the trick and be fairly pain free (I would imagine as it is essentailly morphine with other acetyl groups added).

Legalising it, would in my opinion, open the door for some element of foul play in a small number of cases (forged consent forms, persons not being of sound mind etc.)

[foot-loose]

If I may borrow your own image (and if I may not, tough):

That only works if I had said the same as you. Which I hadn't. Which means your use of the picture falls flat on its arse.

[MK Chris]

No it doesn't - you had a go at Milton Keynes, which, considering you're from the land where men wear skirts, was a bit rich.

[foot-loose]

An dae you hae a problim wie tha?

Thae men in 'skirts' wid crush you. Awa and steal a car ya dobber. Drive it roon yer roonaboots.