I live in Maine, one of the 10 U.S. states that have legalized Death With Dignity. My mother belonged to the Hemlock Society and although she died 8 years before the law was passed, I'm convinced she "offed" herself with the comfort kit that a nurse surreptitiously put within her reach. We also have very specific Living Wills/Medical Directives and DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders). My family appreciates being able to make informed end-of-life decisions. It helps us face the reality of our mortality. We even dig our own gravesites in the family plot (with a permit) and hold family picnics in the cemetary. If we learned anything from Covid, it's that unless dying alone is a choice, it's utterly barbaric and inhumane to be forced to die alone. I love your writings and illustrations, Ragged Clown!
I have several friends who have chosen assisted dying now and they all found great relief from pain and appreciated the chance to share their exit from this life with their family.
Beautiful piece Ragged, and I’m still not sure. It just seems so out of kilter that we get to control so much of our lives and yet so little of our deaths. I watched a documentary that followed a couple to Dignitas a few years ago and it filmed the end itself which I’ll never forget. Despite it being awful, the patient’s wife was serene and content with it all, which said so much I think. Perhaps it summed up that feeling of control and decisiveness which was the one thing they both had, despite the awfulness.
Thanks Ragged. I’ve been debating in my head with myself on this one. A good death I think, is a choice everyone should have assuming you have the mental capacity, and that it should be shared (if that is the right word) with your loved ones. That said, my mother died with Dementia a few years ago and I absolutely know that if she knew she would end up as bad as she was, she would prefer a good death - I understand that in the cases of mental illness and dementia though, the area can be grey. This subject is one that my friend group is talking about openly and there are some very different opinions. Thank you for the article.
I feel that we get thru life by assuming that we'll never be in that position. Even discussing it causes distress cos we're forced to face our delusions. But at the root our delusions and unproven assumptions are all we have and you investigate too deeply at your peril.
I wouldn't choose the 'Good Death' facility - sounds creepy to me. Like those cells in Death Row in the USA where they strap you down and give you a lethal injection. I'd go for the pain relief and leave it up to God. I think allowing the State to sanction killing is the iciest of slippery slopes.
Yes, because who really chooses? Is someone who is terminally ill making a balanced decision? I used to be a medical defence lawyer and studied this topic in depth for my Masters recently - I think I actually argued in a debate in favour of the Assisted Dying Bill that was commenced in the Lords (before the current one), and I was sincere in being on that side of the debate. However, I have changed my mind over the past couple of years because of what has been happening in Canada. I know there have been some terribly upsetting cases of people with diseases like motor neurone disease, unable to end their life, and consequently suffering so much that they have resorted to starving themselves to death. I do not think giving the state the power to grant a licence for euthanasia is the answer though. We know very well that once there is a crack in the door for state sanctioned anything then that door is pushed wider and wider - look at taxation! I would put money on a century of “assisted dying” becoming Soylent Green at the end of it. Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Haha! I doubt we'll be turning people into Soylent Green! Technically, it's only euthanasia if the doctor kills the patient, not if the patient kills themself. And anyone can poison themself now, even without a change in the law. They have to die alone though.
The law in Canada is a mess because the Supreme Court has supremacy over the parliament (as in the USA). The court forced parliament to change the law to allow more people to access it. The slippery slope in Canada was all the court's doing. As I am sure you know, that is not the case here and Parliament has the final word on what the law says.
I find it odd that you want to give The State power over life and death, Bettina. I'd rather choose for myself.
Well you can choose for yourself - as you say: anyone can commit suicide. I do not see how a law allowing medical professionals to inject death (or set up a suicide) moves anything forward. It simply gives power to third parties to potentially incite someone to end their life and / or facilitate suicide. It's just icky! My point is certainly not to give the state any power at all - it is that I wouldn't give the state an inch because, even if you can't see it, I can foresee Soylent Green "for the greater good" just like the jabs of doom were pushed. The predator class is very open about wanting to reduce the world's population to half a billion.
The law forbids anyone (doctors or otherwise) from coercing someone to end their life.
I would be fine with a law that allows me to buy my life-ending drug but having a doctor restrict access makes it less likely to be abused by vulnerable people and the people who wish them harm. Your fear that the state will have doctors cull the population is pure fantasy.
The most important point though is that my wife can keep me company in the final hours without her facing prosecution for attempted murder.
Paracetamol is a life ending drug you can buy in a supermarket. Or yew tree berries from the garden. Why would your wife be prosecuted? Sorry Ragged, I've lost the thread of your argument.
And yet millions of people suicide every year, a small number of those would be terminally ill or have intolerable physical suffering. Self inflicted harm can go horribly wrong and have unintended consequences.
Medication prescribed by a clinician is peaceful and effective.
What you call state sanctioned death is, for the majority of people, grace and mercy.
Trained to do what? Qualified in what? If you read my earlier comment you would see that I used to work as a medical defence lawyer……………
Emergency doctors and surgeons apart, most doctors are simply pimps for Big Pharma - trained monkeys with no principles. The Hippocratic oath has really been put in the bin now, has it not?
Thanks for this Ragged. I’m thinking about writing on this subject myself. This is very helpful.
The scenario you describe is ideal. And I would support it. I’m just worried about change over time. Your point about Oregon not changing is important. I’m not sure our government would resist the pressure to alter and expand the criteria.
I think there are good arguments against it but many of them are simply lies.
The argument that I find most persuasive is that it makes death acceptable so people will be more likely to choose it. I don't know if that is a bad thing though.
Thank you, Mr LSO. If a future Parliament decides to change the law, there's not much we can do about it. But it took them 63 years to change this one.
Wow what can I say this is one of the most emotional posts I’ve read here.
My mother suffered a long and hard death, she had a rare form of dementia so rare doctors could never get to the bottom of it.
20 years earlier my father committed suicide in a car in on a country road.
He had the better death and there is something so wrong with that.
I'm sorry for the loss of your parents. We should all have the choice to choose how we die.
I live in Maine, one of the 10 U.S. states that have legalized Death With Dignity. My mother belonged to the Hemlock Society and although she died 8 years before the law was passed, I'm convinced she "offed" herself with the comfort kit that a nurse surreptitiously put within her reach. We also have very specific Living Wills/Medical Directives and DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders). My family appreciates being able to make informed end-of-life decisions. It helps us face the reality of our mortality. We even dig our own gravesites in the family plot (with a permit) and hold family picnics in the cemetary. If we learned anything from Covid, it's that unless dying alone is a choice, it's utterly barbaric and inhumane to be forced to die alone. I love your writings and illustrations, Ragged Clown!
Thank you, Kitty!
I have several friends who have chosen assisted dying now and they all found great relief from pain and appreciated the chance to share their exit from this life with their family.
Beautiful piece Ragged, and I’m still not sure. It just seems so out of kilter that we get to control so much of our lives and yet so little of our deaths. I watched a documentary that followed a couple to Dignitas a few years ago and it filmed the end itself which I’ll never forget. Despite it being awful, the patient’s wife was serene and content with it all, which said so much I think. Perhaps it summed up that feeling of control and decisiveness which was the one thing they both had, despite the awfulness.
I'm certain that I would like the choice but I worry that other people’s choices will be easily swayed
Thanks Ragged. I’ve been debating in my head with myself on this one. A good death I think, is a choice everyone should have assuming you have the mental capacity, and that it should be shared (if that is the right word) with your loved ones. That said, my mother died with Dementia a few years ago and I absolutely know that if she knew she would end up as bad as she was, she would prefer a good death - I understand that in the cases of mental illness and dementia though, the area can be grey. This subject is one that my friend group is talking about openly and there are some very different opinions. Thank you for the article.
Thank you, Matthew. It's such a difficult topic and we don't talk about it enough.
I feel that we get thru life by assuming that we'll never be in that position. Even discussing it causes distress cos we're forced to face our delusions. But at the root our delusions and unproven assumptions are all we have and you investigate too deeply at your peril.
Life sure is complicated!
I wouldn't choose the 'Good Death' facility - sounds creepy to me. Like those cells in Death Row in the USA where they strap you down and give you a lethal injection. I'd go for the pain relief and leave it up to God. I think allowing the State to sanction killing is the iciest of slippery slopes.
Would you forbid citizens from choosing it for themselves, Bettina?
Yes, because who really chooses? Is someone who is terminally ill making a balanced decision? I used to be a medical defence lawyer and studied this topic in depth for my Masters recently - I think I actually argued in a debate in favour of the Assisted Dying Bill that was commenced in the Lords (before the current one), and I was sincere in being on that side of the debate. However, I have changed my mind over the past couple of years because of what has been happening in Canada. I know there have been some terribly upsetting cases of people with diseases like motor neurone disease, unable to end their life, and consequently suffering so much that they have resorted to starving themselves to death. I do not think giving the state the power to grant a licence for euthanasia is the answer though. We know very well that once there is a crack in the door for state sanctioned anything then that door is pushed wider and wider - look at taxation! I would put money on a century of “assisted dying” becoming Soylent Green at the end of it. Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Haha! I doubt we'll be turning people into Soylent Green! Technically, it's only euthanasia if the doctor kills the patient, not if the patient kills themself. And anyone can poison themself now, even without a change in the law. They have to die alone though.
The law in Canada is a mess because the Supreme Court has supremacy over the parliament (as in the USA). The court forced parliament to change the law to allow more people to access it. The slippery slope in Canada was all the court's doing. As I am sure you know, that is not the case here and Parliament has the final word on what the law says.
I find it odd that you want to give The State power over life and death, Bettina. I'd rather choose for myself.
Well you can choose for yourself - as you say: anyone can commit suicide. I do not see how a law allowing medical professionals to inject death (or set up a suicide) moves anything forward. It simply gives power to third parties to potentially incite someone to end their life and / or facilitate suicide. It's just icky! My point is certainly not to give the state any power at all - it is that I wouldn't give the state an inch because, even if you can't see it, I can foresee Soylent Green "for the greater good" just like the jabs of doom were pushed. The predator class is very open about wanting to reduce the world's population to half a billion.
The law forbids anyone (doctors or otherwise) from coercing someone to end their life.
I would be fine with a law that allows me to buy my life-ending drug but having a doctor restrict access makes it less likely to be abused by vulnerable people and the people who wish them harm. Your fear that the state will have doctors cull the population is pure fantasy.
The most important point though is that my wife can keep me company in the final hours without her facing prosecution for attempted murder.
Paracetamol is a life ending drug you can buy in a supermarket. Or yew tree berries from the garden. Why would your wife be prosecuted? Sorry Ragged, I've lost the thread of your argument.
And yet millions of people suicide every year, a small number of those would be terminally ill or have intolerable physical suffering. Self inflicted harm can go horribly wrong and have unintended consequences.
Medication prescribed by a clinician is peaceful and effective.
What you call state sanctioned death is, for the majority of people, grace and mercy.
Doctors are not God
No, but neither are you.
Doctors are trained and qualified.
You and me, not so much.
Trained to do what? Qualified in what? If you read my earlier comment you would see that I used to work as a medical defence lawyer……………
Emergency doctors and surgeons apart, most doctors are simply pimps for Big Pharma - trained monkeys with no principles. The Hippocratic oath has really been put in the bin now, has it not?
Thanks for this Ragged. I’m thinking about writing on this subject myself. This is very helpful.
The scenario you describe is ideal. And I would support it. I’m just worried about change over time. Your point about Oregon not changing is important. I’m not sure our government would resist the pressure to alter and expand the criteria.
I will think on. Best.
I think there are good arguments against it but many of them are simply lies.
The argument that I find most persuasive is that it makes death acceptable so people will be more likely to choose it. I don't know if that is a bad thing though.
Thank you, Mr LSO. If a future Parliament decides to change the law, there's not much we can do about it. But it took them 63 years to change this one.
They change things quickly when it suits them. And drag their feet when it doesn’t. But another good point.