Margo MacDonald calls for legal right to end her life
Independent MSP Margo MacDonald last night called for the law to be changed to allow her to end her life if her Parkinson's disease becomes unbearably painful.
In a moving contribution to a Holyrood debate on assisted
suicide, she said she did not want to be a burden.
The Lothian MSP told the Scottish Parliament: "As you know I have a degenerative condition, and I would like to have the right to determine by how much my capacity to fulfil my social function, my familial functions, my personal functions is going to be truncated.
"And I would like to have the ability to take that decision. I don't want to burden any doctor. I don't want to burden any friend or family member.
"I want to find a way in which I can take the decision to end my life in case I'm unlucky enough to have the worst form of Parkinson's near the end of life."
She said that palliative care, providing pain relief and a range of support for those with terminal conditions, was not always effective: "I am mindful of that, and I may be unlucky." Urging MSPs to change the law, she said: "There are many, many people who have a lot less time than I have."
Ms MacDonald said: "We're just accepting now that it its possible to make that decision when you are in sound mind and it can be taken in a measured capacity."
The outspoken politician first discovered she had Parkinson's disease 13 years ago.
In an interview last year, she said one side of her body was affected more than the other which caused her to walk "in a lumbering way".
Speaking last May when she had put her hat into the ring to be appointed as Holyrood's new Presiding Officer, she said she didn't see her condition as a stumbling
block. "I wouldn't have made the offer if I didn't think I could do it and once I'm back into my routine of regular exercise, I'll be a lot better."
The debate yesterday was part of a campaign to change the law being led by Jeremy Purvis, LibDem MSP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. In the first Holyrood debate on the issue since 2004, he called for a parliamentary committee inquiry into the case for a new law.
The strongest resistance came from Catholic MSPs. The SNP's Roseanna Cunningham warned of Dutch precedent that showed the intent to use the law in exceptional circumstances has become routine, saying the proposal was "profoundly mistaken and leads us down a very dangerous road".
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Supershug, Eaglesham on 12:30am Thu 27 Mar 08
Margo MacDonald need have no fear. She will not wake up one morning and find herself so debilitated that she is unable to commit suicide.
She is not the first - and will certainly not be the last - person to use a degenerative illness to tug on the heartstrings to exert influence over lawmakers to create a bad law.
She may not want to be a burden but then again the introduction of euthanasia to relieve the indignity of being a burden seems to have value in theory. In reality, validating "mercy-killing" on those grounds merely presents the chronically ill with a deeply unpleasant and demeaning choice - to be a bother to relatives or ask for a lethal injection.
Ms MacDonald should feel reassured that she will have ample opportunity to assess her prognosis and opt for unassisted suicide should she so wish. I sincerely hope that she does not take that option. I also hope that such crucial decisions in parliament are not taken around a box of Kleenex.
Margo MacDonald need have no fear. She will not wake up one morning and find herself so debilitated that she is unable to commit suicide.
She is not the first - and will certainly not be the last - person to use a degenerative illness to tug on the heartstrings to exert influence over lawmakers to create a bad law.
She may not want to be a burden but then again the introduction of euthanasia to relieve the indignity of being a burden seems to have value in theory. In reality, validating "mercy-killing" on those grounds merely presents the chronically ill with a deeply unpleasant and demeaning choice - to be a bother to relatives or ask for a lethal injection.
Ms MacDonald should feel reassured that she will have ample opportunity to assess her prognosis and opt for unassisted suicide should she so wish. I sincerely hope that she does not take that option. I also hope that such crucial decisions in parliament are not taken around a box of Kleenex.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 12:33am Thu 27 Mar 08
There's the lobby who protect the unborn but not the living. There's the lobby who protect the living but not the unborn. And there's those who would interfere with death ... but not a soldier's.
There's the lobby who protect the unborn but not the living. There's the lobby who protect the living but not the unborn. And there's those who would interfere with death ... but not a soldier's.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:39am Thu 27 Mar 08
tough one this. having seen a relative die in great pain basically exploding from the inside i wish he had not had to endure that final week.
i see both sides of the argument, and i am trying to remove religion from the argument which i accept is hard for some people.
to me it is like the question on capital punishment, essentially a good idea, but what if someone is innocent, or in this medical example makes a miraculous recovery or their life was not as bad as we thought?
i am concerned that public hospitals will be emptying a bed more often as a result of any changes to ease pain.
perhaps the question needs to be asked;
if you would not put a dog through this misery with the same problems, and the person themselves preordains their own circumstances in a proven state of sanity then why should a human suffer more than the dog?
tough one this. having seen a relative die in great pain basically exploding from the inside i wish he had not had to endure that final week.
i see both sides of the argument, and i am trying to remove religion from the argument which i accept is hard for some people.
to me it is like the question on capital punishment, essentially a good idea, but what if someone is innocent, or in this medical example makes a miraculous recovery or their life was not as bad as we thought?
i am concerned that public hospitals will be emptying a bed more often as a result of any changes to ease pain.
perhaps the question needs to be asked;
if you would not put a dog through this misery with the same problems, and the person themselves preordains their own circumstances in a proven state of sanity then why should a human suffer more than the dog?
Posted by: Carnwarth, Carnwarth on 12:51am Thu 27 Mar 08
Good on you, Margot.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 1:12am Thu 27 Mar 08
She still has a lot of fight in her for Scotland. I wish her well.
She still has a lot of fight in her for Scotland. I wish her well.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 1:26am Thu 27 Mar 08
Looking at this from another angle those who do not believe in the human ability to suffer and be able to releive that suffering are in fact sickos. Religion does not come into this at all any catholic that has to experience a fatal death after weeks of pain should be allowed to kill themselves without feeling they have commited a sin. Any god that believes in suffering as an essential of life is basically a death cult god and should be outlawed in any right thinking country. Do I really live in a country where I am not allowed to die if I am suffering too much to live. Lets hope I still have the ability to climb a tall building if it comes to it but wouldn't we be spared the onerous cleanup of hundreds of jumpers if we allowed them to be euthinised.
Looking at this from another angle those who do not believe in the human ability to suffer and be able to releive that suffering are in fact sickos. Religion does not come into this at all any catholic that has to experience a fatal death after weeks of pain should be allowed to kill themselves without feeling they have commited a sin. Any god that believes in suffering as an essential of life is basically a death cult god and should be outlawed in any right thinking country. Do I really live in a country where I am not allowed to die if I am suffering too much to live. Lets hope I still have the ability to climb a tall building if it comes to it but wouldn't we be spared the onerous cleanup of hundreds of jumpers if we allowed them to be euthinised.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 1:27am Thu 27 Mar 08
I'm sad that someone who has led such a public life - or anyone for that matter - finds themselves in a position where they must make this argument. Even sadder that some use it as an occasion to insult her family.
I have no answer. Philosophically I'm against suicide but I'm not walking in her shoes and I don't know if I'd have the courage to stick it out if I were.
I'm sad that someone who has led such a public life - or anyone for that matter - finds themselves in a position where they must make this argument. Even sadder that some use it as an occasion to insult her family.
I have no answer. Philosophically I'm against suicide but I'm not walking in her shoes and I don't know if I'd have the courage to stick it out if I were.
Posted by: Carnwarth, Carnwarth on 1:44am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]JBlackley[/bold] wrote:
I'm sad that someone who has led such a public life - or anyone for that matter - finds themselves in a position where they must make this argument. Even sadder that some use it as an occasion to insult her family. I have no answer. Philosophically I'm against suicide but I'm not walking in her shoes and I don't know if I'd have the courage to stick it out if I were.[/quote] Has the FSM spoken on the issue?
JBlackley wrote:
I'm sad that someone who has led such a public life - or anyone for that matter - finds themselves in a position where they must make this argument. Even sadder that some use it as an occasion to insult her family. I have no answer. Philosophically I'm against suicide but I'm not walking in her shoes and I don't know if I'd have the courage to stick it out if I were.
Has the FSM spoken on the issue?
Posted by: britfree, camelon on 1:46am Thu 27 Mar 08
anyone who could use such a story , to bandy about phrases such as "bawbag husband " is lacking in human decency . glasgow jim . find a little heart
anyone who could use such a story , to bandy about phrases such as "bawbag husband " is lacking in human decency . glasgow jim . find a little heart
Posted by: Carnwarth, Carnwarth on 2:00am Thu 27 Mar 08
Ms MacDonald is a politician so I am sure she will be philosophical about such references to her husband - she needs to be, he is a pretty awful specimen.
Ms MacDonald is a politician so I am sure she will be philosophical about such references to her husband - she needs to be, he is a pretty awful specimen.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 2:05am Thu 27 Mar 08
Please state wether you agree with the right to die in your inane posts so we know to ignore your opinion is the church credo.
Please state wether you agree with the right to die in your inane posts so we know to ignore your opinion is the church credo.
Posted by: Supershug, Eaglesham on 2:46am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote:
The bbc are reporting that Cardinal Keith O'Brien has had a pacemaker inserted in a cavity. Where in the bible does it say that's ok - sounds liek the devil's work to me. In fact, my religious feelings are upset so there should be a law to stop this. [/quote] An utterly moronic contribution.
Carnwarth wrote:
The bbc are reporting that Cardinal Keith O'Brien has had a pacemaker inserted in a cavity. Where in the bible does it say that's ok - sounds liek the devil's work to me. In fact, my religious feelings are upset so there should be a law to stop this.
An utterly moronic contribution.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 3:18am Thu 27 Mar 08
Carnworh spelled '' liek '' wrong. What an utter moron as Supershug said.
Carnworh spelled '' liek '' wrong. What an utter moron as Supershug said.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 3:39am Thu 27 Mar 08
Every human is born with the right to live and the right or wrong to die its their choice or do you intend to take away choice. How exactly do you stop suicide when just a mention of the word in the papers was enough to start a craze among the young freakazoids of wales was it recently.
P.S. sorry five above four were in a row go away and practice your rights nameshifter.
Every human is born with the right to live and the right or wrong to die its their choice or do you intend to take away choice. How exactly do you stop suicide when just a mention of the word in the papers was enough to start a craze among the young freakazoids of wales was it recently.
P.S. sorry five above four were in a row go away and practice your rights nameshifter.
Posted by: mcgeachy, Calgary, Canada on 3:49am Thu 27 Mar 08
It is proper that individuals have the right to maintain their lives even although they have become unbearably painful. It is, nevertheless, an outrage that the same individuals should interfere with the right of others to terminate their lives when these lives, in their terminal stages, have become intolerable. How dare anyone dictate to me that I must force my incurably frail, pain-ridden body to languish at the end of a tube when the terminal illness is irreversible and increasingly insufferable!
It is proper that individuals have the right to maintain their lives even although they have become unbearably painful. It is, nevertheless, an outrage that the same individuals should interfere with the right of others to terminate their lives when these lives, in their terminal stages, have become intolerable. How dare anyone dictate to me that I must force my incurably frail, pain-ridden body to languish at the end of a tube when the terminal illness is irreversible and increasingly insufferable!
Posted by: Peter Stanway, Kilcreggan Scotland on 6:09am Thu 27 Mar 08
[bold]Dying Grace[/bold]
[bold]Luke 23:46 ……. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.[/bold]
Recently, a dear old saint from our church in Glasgow was promoted to glory. At 90 years old she was our oldest member. After a brief time in hospital she passed away peacefully in her sleep.
During my visits to her she maintained a strong and steadfast Christian faith, often proclaiming her love for Jesus. On my last visit she said that she would probably not see me again.
I have come across this before. People often know when their time has come and the end of their life on earth is near. When this happens to a Christian it is often a wonderful time of celebration and rejoicing. It is not uncommon for them to praise the Lord with their last breath. For non-Christians, however, this is often a fearful time as they confront death full-on.
In the closing moments of life on earth we are privileged with what I call, ‘dying grace’. This is a special type of grace that is only given for such a crucial time. It is the amazing grace that prepares those who receive it for the next step into eternity.
God’s love for us is so great that right up to the last moment He wants to save us from eternal separation from Him. It is therefore of the utmost importance that these last moments (sometimes days, sometimes seconds) are not cut short; that we do not pre-empt God’s perfect timing (He knows the number of our days ….. Job 14:5).
We cannot take our lives into our own hands, by doing so we will rob ourselves of the awesome gift of God’s dying grace. Life is a blessing from God and He wants us to live it to the max right up to the last breath. As long as our hearts still beat God’s grace is reaching out to us.
[bold]Lord Jesus, thank you for spanning the gulf between life and death at Calvary’s cross. Amen
[/bold]
Dying Grace
Luke 23:46 ……. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Recently, a dear old saint from our church in Glasgow was promoted to glory. At 90 years old she was our oldest member. After a brief time in hospital she passed away peacefully in her sleep.
During my visits to her she maintained a strong and steadfast Christian faith, often proclaiming her love for Jesus. On my last visit she said that she would probably not see me again.
I have come across this before. People often know when their time has come and the end of their life on earth is near. When this happens to a Christian it is often a wonderful time of celebration and rejoicing. It is not uncommon for them to praise the Lord with their last breath. For non-Christians, however, this is often a fearful time as they confront death full-on.
In the closing moments of life on earth we are privileged with what I call, ‘dying grace’. This is a special type of grace that is only given for such a crucial time. It is the amazing grace that prepares those who receive it for the next step into eternity.
God’s love for us is so great that right up to the last moment He wants to save us from eternal separation from Him. It is therefore of the utmost importance that these last moments (sometimes days, sometimes seconds) are not cut short; that we do not pre-empt God’s perfect timing (He knows the number of our days ….. Job 14:5).
We cannot take our lives into our own hands, by doing so we will rob ourselves of the awesome gift of God’s dying grace. Life is a blessing from God and He wants us to live it to the max right up to the last breath. As long as our hearts still beat God’s grace is reaching out to us.
Lord Jesus, thank you for spanning the gulf between life and death at Calvary’s cross. Amen
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 6:59am Thu 27 Mar 08
One helofawoman, has fought all her life for the rights and dignty of others.
Now facing death, she's still fighting, for to choose the manner in which she dies.
At this time I'm so glad I'm not an MSP.
As prior to this, I have always felt that people should have the right to ask doctors not to prolong their suffering, but here seeing Margo leave will be like the end of an era
Supershug Great 1st post, but I'm afraid I've got the kleenx out already
One helofawoman, has fought all her life for the rights and dignty of others.
Now facing death, she's still fighting, for to choose the manner in which she dies.
At this time I'm so glad I'm not an MSP.
As prior to this, I have always felt that people should have the right to ask doctors not to prolong their suffering, but here seeing Margo leave will be like the end of an era
Supershug Great 1st post, but I'm afraid I've got the kleenx out already
Posted by: Richard Davis, Vienna, Austria on 7:16am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Supershug[/bold] wrote:
Margo MacDonald need have no fear. She will not wake up one morning and find herself so debilitated that she is unable to commit suicide. She is not the first - and will certainly not be the last - person to use a degenerative illness to tug on the heartstrings to exert influence over lawmakers to create a bad law. She may not want to be a burden but then again the introduction of euthanasia to relieve the indignity of being a burden seems to have value in theory. In reality, validating "mercy-killing" on those grounds merely presents the chronically ill with a deeply unpleasant and demeaning choice - to be a bother to relatives or ask for a lethal injection. Ms MacDonald should feel reassured that she will have ample opportunity to assess her prognosis and opt for unassisted suicide should she so wish. I sincerely hope that she does not take that option. I also hope that such crucial decisions in parliament are not taken around a box of Kleenex.[/quote] I don't think anyone chooses to end their life without giving serious thought. Like Margo McDonald I too have a debilitating disease (MS)and yes I would like the option to end my life with e degree of dignity. Unless you are in that position how can you comment on someone wishes. I would like to die pain free and with dignity.If I am unable to live my life as I wish rather than being reduced to a life as a baby, with everything needing to be done for me then I am just existing not living.
Supershug wrote:
Margo MacDonald need have no fear. She will not wake up one morning and find herself so debilitated that she is unable to commit suicide. She is not the first - and will certainly not be the last - person to use a degenerative illness to tug on the heartstrings to exert influence over lawmakers to create a bad law. She may not want to be a burden but then again the introduction of euthanasia to relieve the indignity of being a burden seems to have value in theory. In reality, validating "mercy-killing" on those grounds merely presents the chronically ill with a deeply unpleasant and demeaning choice - to be a bother to relatives or ask for a lethal injection. Ms MacDonald should feel reassured that she will have ample opportunity to assess her prognosis and opt for unassisted suicide should she so wish. I sincerely hope that she does not take that option. I also hope that such crucial decisions in parliament are not taken around a box of Kleenex.
I don't think anyone chooses to end their life without giving serious thought. Like Margo McDonald I too have a debilitating disease (MS)and yes I would like the option to end my life with e degree of dignity. Unless you are in that position how can you comment on someone wishes. I would like to die pain free and with dignity.If I am unable to live my life as I wish rather than being reduced to a life as a baby, with everything needing to be done for me then I am just existing not living.
Posted by: Edwin, Glasgow on 7:49am Thu 27 Mar 08
A hard, hard one not helped by some of the graceless comments heer. I have to agree with Supershug for a change. While respecting Margo's opinion that she doesnt wnat to be a 'burden', if the law is changed then that 'burden' argument is going to be used to subtly persuade peope that maybe they and their families would be better off if they took the exit door by themselves.
Anyone who thinks Margo's proposed legislation would not be abused is living in a different Scotland from the one I inhabit.
A hard, hard one not helped by some of the graceless comments heer. I have to agree with Supershug for a change. While respecting Margo's opinion that she doesnt wnat to be a 'burden', if the law is changed then that 'burden' argument is going to be used to subtly persuade peope that maybe they and their families would be better off if they took the exit door by themselves.
Anyone who thinks Margo's proposed legislation would not be abused is living in a different Scotland from the one I inhabit.
Posted by: TommyK60, Ayr on 9:07am Thu 27 Mar 08
In an ideal world no one would be allowed to die without dignity, scientists would be ethical and only use hybrid embryos for research and posters on this site wouldn't post crass remarks about others views.
But we don't live in an ideal world and any legislation on euthanasia would be abused. Once we got used to the routine killing of the terminally ill, what would the next step be? Euthanising the severely mentally or physically disabled?
I'll now be accused of scaremongering, but all I'll say is I know human nature.
In an ideal world no one would be allowed to die without dignity, scientists would be ethical and only use hybrid embryos for research and posters on this site wouldn't post crass remarks about others views.
But we don't live in an ideal world and any legislation on euthanasia would be abused. Once we got used to the routine killing of the terminally ill, what would the next step be? Euthanising the severely mentally or physically disabled?
I'll now be accused of scaremongering, but all I'll say is I know human nature.
Posted by: Allan, Londonistan on 9:10am Thu 27 Mar 08
It's not that hard to take your own life if you really want to - the law doesn't necessarily come into it. I always thought it's a bit barking to say it's against the law to top yourself - what are you gonna do? Hang me?! Anyway, it is everybody's right to live - and to die - the way they want to and when they want to. I can't say I've ever had anything much in common with Margo but on this occasion she is talking common sense. I watched my own mother go through a protracted and unnecessarily drawn-out and painful demise and I wouldn't wish that sort of end on anybody.
It's not that hard to take your own life if you really want to - the law doesn't necessarily come into it. I always thought it's a bit barking to say it's against the law to top yourself - what are you gonna do? Hang me?! Anyway, it is everybody's right to live - and to die - the way they want to and when they want to. I can't say I've ever had anything much in common with Margo but on this occasion she is talking common sense. I watched my own mother go through a protracted and unnecessarily drawn-out and painful demise and I wouldn't wish that sort of end on anybody.
Posted by: alicmurray, Glasgow on 9:11am Thu 27 Mar 08
I dont have family left here now. Why should I be left to the mercy of some labour controlled council home? Did you read the article yesterday about the children in care in Glasgow? Some of the care is barbaric. Why should we have to put up with that at the end?
I dont have family left here now. Why should I be left to the mercy of some labour controlled council home? Did you read the article yesterday about the children in care in Glasgow? Some of the care is barbaric. Why should we have to put up with that at the end?
Posted by: Prof. Dean, Forres, Highlands on 9:40am Thu 27 Mar 08
Margo is out of order, and so is the media for reporting this. Inside every illness is the person, and people are very different
My wife has advanced Parkinson's Disease and long ago said if she becomes demented or in any other way a hopeless case she simply doesn't want to know. Margo's 'courage' is hurtful to some people, making them feel inadequate when at their most vulnerable
Margo is out of order, and so is the media for reporting this. Inside every illness is the person, and people are very different
My wife has advanced Parkinson's Disease and long ago said if she becomes demented or in any other way a hopeless case she simply doesn't want to know. Margo's 'courage' is hurtful to some people, making them feel inadequate when at their most vulnerable
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:45am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Peter Stanway[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Dying Grace[/bold] [bold]Luke 23:46 ……. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.[/bold] Recently, a dear old saint from our church in Glasgow was promoted to glory. At 90 years old she was our oldest member. After a brief time in hospital she passed away peacefully in her sleep. During my visits to her she maintained a strong and steadfast Christian faith, often proclaiming her love for Jesus. On my last visit she said that she would probably not see me again. I have come across this before. People often know when their time has come and the end of their life on earth is near. When this happens to a Christian it is often a wonderful time of celebration and rejoicing. It is not uncommon for them to praise the Lord with their last breath. For non-Christians, however, this is often a fearful time as they confront death full-on. In the closing moments of life on earth we are privileged with what I call, ‘dying grace’. This is a special type of grace that is only given for such a crucial time. It is the amazing grace that prepares those who receive it for the next step into eternity. God’s love for us is so great that right up to the last moment He wants to save us from eternal separation from Him. It is therefore of the utmost importance that these last moments (sometimes days, sometimes seconds) are not cut short; that we do not pre-empt God’s perfect timing (He knows the number of our days ….. Job 14:5). We cannot take our lives into our own hands, by doing so we will rob ourselves of the awesome gift of God’s dying grace. Life is a blessing from God and He wants us to live it to the max right up to the last breath. As long as our hearts still beat God’s grace is reaching out to us. [bold]Lord Jesus, thank you for spanning the gulf between life and death at Calvary’s cross. Amen [/bold] [/quote] What if you're an athiest?
Peter Stanway wrote:
Dying Grace Luke 23:46 ……. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. Recently, a dear old saint from our church in Glasgow was promoted to glory. At 90 years old she was our oldest member. After a brief time in hospital she passed away peacefully in her sleep. During my visits to her she maintained a strong and steadfast Christian faith, often proclaiming her love for Jesus. On my last visit she said that she would probably not see me again. I have come across this before. People often know when their time has come and the end of their life on earth is near. When this happens to a Christian it is often a wonderful time of celebration and rejoicing. It is not uncommon for them to praise the Lord with their last breath. For non-Christians, however, this is often a fearful time as they confront death full-on. In the closing moments of life on earth we are privileged with what I call, ‘dying grace’. This is a special type of grace that is only given for such a crucial time. It is the amazing grace that prepares those who receive it for the next step into eternity. God’s love for us is so great that right up to the last moment He wants to save us from eternal separation from Him. It is therefore of the utmost importance that these last moments (sometimes days, sometimes seconds) are not cut short; that we do not pre-empt God’s perfect timing (He knows the number of our days ….. Job 14:5). We cannot take our lives into our own hands, by doing so we will rob ourselves of the awesome gift of God’s dying grace. Life is a blessing from God and He wants us to live it to the max right up to the last breath. As long as our hearts still beat God’s grace is reaching out to us. Lord Jesus, thank you for spanning the gulf between life and death at Calvary’s cross. Amen
What if you're an athiest?
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 9:52am Thu 27 Mar 08
Rosemary Cunningham's views on the Dutch laws on euthanasia are misguided and wrong. The system in Holland has allowed my people to make their own autonomous and free choice as to how they end their lives. There has been one or two high profile cases which have called into question the wisdom of allowing euthanasia but the vast majority of cases have been dealt with very appropriately.
In another atricle Nicola Sturgeon is quoted as saying that the focus has to be on pallative care, but this missed the point that allowing ethanasia and/or assisted suicide (not quite the same thing by the way) is care. It is uncaring to extend life beyond its natural cycle through medical treatment against the wishes of the dying person.
There is no reason why religious views on this matter should be given any higher status than secular humanist ethics which are supportive of this practice.
Rosemary Cunningham's views on the Dutch laws on euthanasia are misguided and wrong. The system in Holland has allowed my people to make their own autonomous and free choice as to how they end their lives. There has been one or two high profile cases which have called into question the wisdom of allowing euthanasia but the vast majority of cases have been dealt with very appropriately.
In another atricle Nicola Sturgeon is quoted as saying that the focus has to be on pallative care, but this missed the point that allowing ethanasia and/or assisted suicide (not quite the same thing by the way) is care. It is uncaring to extend life beyond its natural cycle through medical treatment against the wishes of the dying person.
There is no reason why religious views on this matter should be given any higher status than secular humanist ethics which are supportive of this practice.
Posted by: msallen, Home on 10:07am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Peter Stanway[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Dying Grace[/bold] [bold]Luke 23:46 ……. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.[/bold] Recently, a dear old saint from our church in Glasgow was promoted to glory. At 90 years old she was our oldest member. After a brief time in hospital she passed away peacefully in her sleep. During my visits to her she maintained a strong and steadfast Christian faith, often proclaiming her love for Jesus. On my last visit she said that she would probably not see me again. I have come across this before. People often know when their time has come and the end of their life on earth is near. When this happens to a Christian it is often a wonderful time of celebration and rejoicing. It is not uncommon for them to praise the Lord with their last breath. For non-Christians, however, this is often a fearful time as they confront death full-on. In the closing moments of life on earth we are privileged with what I call, ‘dying grace’. This is a special type of grace that is only given for such a crucial time. It is the amazing grace that prepares those who receive it for the next step into eternity. God’s love for us is so great that right up to the last moment He wants to save us from eternal separation from Him. It is therefore of the utmost importance that these last moments (sometimes days, sometimes seconds) are not cut short; that we do not pre-empt God’s perfect timing (He knows the number of our days ….. Job 14:5). We cannot take our lives into our own hands, by doing so we will rob ourselves of the awesome gift of God’s dying grace. Life is a blessing from God and He wants us to live it to the max right up to the last breath. As long as our hearts still beat God’s grace is reaching out to us. [bold]Lord Jesus, thank you for spanning the gulf between life and death at Calvary’s cross. Amen [/bold] [/quote] Do you have anything other than superstitious drivel to add to the discussion?
Peter Stanway wrote:
Dying Grace Luke 23:46 ……. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. Recently, a dear old saint from our church in Glasgow was promoted to glory. At 90 years old she was our oldest member. After a brief time in hospital she passed away peacefully in her sleep. During my visits to her she maintained a strong and steadfast Christian faith, often proclaiming her love for Jesus. On my last visit she said that she would probably not see me again. I have come across this before. People often know when their time has come and the end of their life on earth is near. When this happens to a Christian it is often a wonderful time of celebration and rejoicing. It is not uncommon for them to praise the Lord with their last breath. For non-Christians, however, this is often a fearful time as they confront death full-on. In the closing moments of life on earth we are privileged with what I call, ‘dying grace’. This is a special type of grace that is only given for such a crucial time. It is the amazing grace that prepares those who receive it for the next step into eternity. God’s love for us is so great that right up to the last moment He wants to save us from eternal separation from Him. It is therefore of the utmost importance that these last moments (sometimes days, sometimes seconds) are not cut short; that we do not pre-empt God’s perfect timing (He knows the number of our days ….. Job 14:5). We cannot take our lives into our own hands, by doing so we will rob ourselves of the awesome gift of God’s dying grace. Life is a blessing from God and He wants us to live it to the max right up to the last breath. As long as our hearts still beat God’s grace is reaching out to us. Lord Jesus, thank you for spanning the gulf between life and death at Calvary’s cross. Amen
Do you have anything other than superstitious drivel to add to the discussion?
Posted by: stanislav, scotland on 10:13am Thu 27 Mar 08
Self, self, self; these politicians, what are they like. Its just not fair that they have to die like everybody else; a vain, posturing, pampered, grandstanding, mouthy layabout like McDonald should be exempt from such indignities, eh?
Too many here have fallen for her own press releases, dreadful old crone. Over-salaried, over-pensioned, over provided for, the least McDonald could do is make a decent death, but no, change the law, so she can die with dignity, a quality totally absent in politicians during their miserable, grasping, posturing lives.
Dying is, for many if not most, a disagreeable and difficult process, she should just be a bit mediaeval about it, and make the best one she can. What is for absolute certain is that if the "choice" that these worthless cowardly wretches demand becomes legal it will swiftly - given the utter, contemptible worthlessness of the jumped-up tossers in Holyrood and the gangsters in Westminster - become "desirable" in " a mature democracy," "helpful," to "hard-working British families," for the old and sick to make "the right choice."
The McDonald dynasty, of course, will be in the prized and valued citizen category, their every breath a national treasure; the poor, as ever, will be shat upon.
Even for stupid people like politicians it is the easiest thing in the world to top yourself; people do it all the time. McDonald's vain, grandstanding plea for legislation is another thing entirely; quite Blairite, superficially caring and compassionate, pragmatic and pious, yet rank, selfish wickedness.
Let her kill herself, let her family kill her, who cares ? But let not the State issue edicts about the quality of life and it's duration for we all know where that will lead, for the many but not the few.
Self, self, self; these politicians, what are they like. Its just not fair that they have to die like everybody else; a vain, posturing, pampered, grandstanding, mouthy layabout like McDonald should be exempt from such indignities, eh?
Too many here have fallen for her own press releases, dreadful old crone. Over-salaried, over-pensioned, over provided for, the least McDonald could do is make a decent death, but no, change the law, so she can die with dignity, a quality totally absent in politicians during their miserable, grasping, posturing lives.
Dying is, for many if not most, a disagreeable and difficult process, she should just be a bit mediaeval about it, and make the best one she can. What is for absolute certain is that if the "choice" that these worthless cowardly wretches demand becomes legal it will swiftly - given the utter, contemptible worthlessness of the jumped-up tossers in Holyrood and the gangsters in Westminster - become "desirable" in " a mature democracy," "helpful," to "hard-working British families," for the old and sick to make "the right choice."
The McDonald dynasty, of course, will be in the prized and valued citizen category, their every breath a national treasure; the poor, as ever, will be shat upon.
Even for stupid people like politicians it is the easiest thing in the world to top yourself; people do it all the time. McDonald's vain, grandstanding plea for legislation is another thing entirely; quite Blairite, superficially caring and compassionate, pragmatic and pious, yet rank, selfish wickedness.
Let her kill herself, let her family kill her, who cares ? But let not the State issue edicts about the quality of life and it's duration for we all know where that will lead, for the many but not the few.
Posted by: Carnwarth, Carnwarth on 10:22am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jonny bond[/bold] wrote:
Carnworh spelled '' liek '' wrong. What an utter moron as Supershug said.[/quote] A typing error in which one character was in the wrong place - you must have been very drunk to think that of profound significance - I shudder to think that people like you have a vote.
jonny bond wrote:
Carnworh spelled '' liek '' wrong. What an utter moron as Supershug said.
A typing error in which one character was in the wrong place - you must have been very drunk to think that of profound significance - I shudder to think that people like you have a vote.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 10:43am Thu 27 Mar 08
Only one who has watched their parent or child die in pain or distress should be allowed to offer an opinion on this subject. I can guarantee that after such an experience anyone who witnesses it will promise to themselves that they will never ever allow it to happen again.
To use “moral argument” to justify condemning a fellow human to struggle with death in fear pain and torment is frankly appalling. To suggest that your moral standpoint is more valid than mine is the utmost conceit. That one human can interfere with another’s fundamental choice to life or death is completely unacceptable.
Only one who has watched their parent or child die in pain or distress should be allowed to offer an opinion on this subject. I can guarantee that after such an experience anyone who witnesses it will promise to themselves that they will never ever allow it to happen again.
To use “moral argument” to justify condemning a fellow human to struggle with death in fear pain and torment is frankly appalling. To suggest that your moral standpoint is more valid than mine is the utmost conceit. That one human can interfere with another’s fundamental choice to life or death is completely unacceptable.
Posted by: GlasgowJim, Glasgow on 10:46am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]britfree[/bold] wrote:
anyone who could use such a story , to bandy about phrases such as "bawbag husband " is lacking in human decency . glasgow jim . find a little heart[/quote] I'm prepared to accept that Margot didn't [italic]choose[/italic] to have Parkinson's (although she always did have one eye on pblicity).
Choosing to marry Jim Sillars is as unforgiveable as choosing to live in Camelon.
britfree wrote:
anyone who could use such a story , to bandy about phrases such as "bawbag husband " is lacking in human decency . glasgow jim . find a little heart
I'm prepared to accept that Margot didn't
choose to have Parkinson's (although she always did have one eye on pblicity).
Choosing to marry Jim Sillars is as unforgiveable as choosing to live in Camelon.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 11:28am Thu 27 Mar 08
[o incorrect, as i said above this is not easy. i slightly changed my views after seeing my relative die, due to his intense suffering, but i do not trust the medical profession to always do the right thing when beds are at a premium.
if i thought they would do right for the patient i would be more comfortable in heading towards euthanasia. but i do not.
[o incorrect, as i said above this is not easy. i slightly changed my views after seeing my relative die, due to his intense suffering, but i do not trust the medical profession to always do the right thing when beds are at a premium.
if i thought they would do right for the patient i would be more comfortable in heading towards euthanasia. but i do not.
Posted by: tris, scotland on 11:33am Thu 27 Mar 08
Politically incorrect man @ 10.43.
I agree with the second part of what you say. I can't see how we can allow religion to decide this. It's a minority interest these days and it seems to poke its nose too often into political debate. Whilst I have total respect for an individual's right to follow his religion whatever it be, and for it to dictate every single moment in his life, I reserve the right personally to disgard it completely for anything to do with my life.
I don't agree with the first part of your post. I think people can make this kind of decision based on intelligent reflection. They don't need it to have happened to them. They just need to be able to imagine what it would be like if it were them, or their mother, son, granny.... or themsleves
Just imagine living for years with terrible pain, having to be taken to the bathroom, fed, washed. Imagine the indignity; imagine how you feel about the burden you are to your family, and finacially to the state (if you have a conscience about that). Imagine all the different miseries of your life all piled on top of one another, day in, day out, night in, night out, for years.
Then imagine that that was happening to your dog. You'd never allow it. You'd cry and cuddle him, and then you would ask the vet to put him out of his misery.
Well, I would. I'm not entirely sure what kind of god would have a problem with that.... but then as we are always told, he works in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform......
Very mysterious sometimes.
Politically incorrect man @ 10.43.
I agree with the second part of what you say. I can't see how we can allow religion to decide this. It's a minority interest these days and it seems to poke its nose too often into political debate. Whilst I have total respect for an individual's right to follow his religion whatever it be, and for it to dictate every single moment in his life, I reserve the right personally to disgard it completely for anything to do with my life.
I don't agree with the first part of your post. I think people can make this kind of decision based on intelligent reflection. They don't need it to have happened to them. They just need to be able to imagine what it would be like if it were them, or their mother, son, granny.... or themsleves
Just imagine living for years with terrible pain, having to be taken to the bathroom, fed, washed. Imagine the indignity; imagine how you feel about the burden you are to your family, and finacially to the state (if you have a conscience about that). Imagine all the different miseries of your life all piled on top of one another, day in, day out, night in, night out, for years.
Then imagine that that was happening to your dog. You'd never allow it. You'd cry and cuddle him, and then you would ask the vet to put him out of his misery.
Well, I would. I'm not entirely sure what kind of god would have a problem with that.... but then as we are always told, he works in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform......
Very mysterious sometimes.
Posted by: TommyK60, Ayr on 11:55am Thu 27 Mar 08
I have seen people waste away through degenerative illnesses and have wished that something more could have been done for them to alleviate their suffering and the suffering of their families.
But I still wouldn't like to see euthanasia become legal in this country. I fear that it would start with the terminally ill and then it would be those who were deemed to not have a high enough quality of life, then who next?
Those who are genetically prone to a terminal illness?
Those who live too long?
Those who commit serial crimes?
You may think this far fetched, but human nature being what it is, it could all too easily happen.
I have seen people waste away through degenerative illnesses and have wished that something more could have been done for them to alleviate their suffering and the suffering of their families.
But I still wouldn't like to see euthanasia become legal in this country. I fear that it would start with the terminally ill and then it would be those who were deemed to not have a high enough quality of life, then who next?
Those who are genetically prone to a terminal illness?
Those who live too long?
Those who commit serial crimes?
You may think this far fetched, but human nature being what it is, it could all too easily happen.
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 11:57am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]stanislav[/bold] wrote:
Self, self, self; these politicians, what are they like. Its just not fair that they have to die like everybody else; a vain, posturing, pampered, grandstanding, mouthy layabout like McDonald should be exempt from such indignities, eh? Too many here have fallen for her own press releases, dreadful old crone. Over-salaried, over-pensioned, over provided for, the least McDonald could do is make a decent death, but no, change the law, so she can die with dignity, a quality totally absent in politicians during their miserable, grasping, posturing lives. Dying is, for many if not most, a disagreeable and difficult process, she should just be a bit mediaeval about it, and make the best one she can. What is for absolute certain is that if the "choice" that these worthless cowardly wretches demand becomes legal it will swiftly - given the utter, contemptible worthlessness of the jumped-up tossers in Holyrood and the gangsters in Westminster - become "desirable" in " a mature democracy," "helpful," to "hard-working British families," for the old and sick to make "the right choice." The McDonald dynasty, of course, will be in the prized and valued citizen category, their every breath a national treasure; the poor, as ever, will be shat upon. Even for stupid people like politicians it is the easiest thing in the world to top yourself; people do it all the time. McDonald's vain, grandstanding plea for legislation is another thing entirely; quite Blairite, superficially caring and compassionate, pragmatic and pious, yet rank, selfish wickedness. Let her kill herself, let her family kill her, who cares ? But let not the State issue edicts about the quality of life and it's duration for we all know where that will lead, for the many but not the few.[/quote] I hope this is tongue in cheek, otherwise it is sick.
stanislav wrote:
Self, self, self; these politicians, what are they like. Its just not fair that they have to die like everybody else; a vain, posturing, pampered, grandstanding, mouthy layabout like McDonald should be exempt from such indignities, eh? Too many here have fallen for her own press releases, dreadful old crone. Over-salaried, over-pensioned, over provided for, the least McDonald could do is make a decent death, but no, change the law, so she can die with dignity, a quality totally absent in politicians during their miserable, grasping, posturing lives. Dying is, for many if not most, a disagreeable and difficult process, she should just be a bit mediaeval about it, and make the best one she can. What is for absolute certain is that if the "choice" that these worthless cowardly wretches demand becomes legal it will swiftly - given the utter, contemptible worthlessness of the jumped-up tossers in Holyrood and the gangsters in Westminster - become "desirable" in " a mature democracy," "helpful," to "hard-working British families," for the old and sick to make "the right choice." The McDonald dynasty, of course, will be in the prized and valued citizen category, their every breath a national treasure; the poor, as ever, will be shat upon. Even for stupid people like politicians it is the easiest thing in the world to top yourself; people do it all the time. McDonald's vain, grandstanding plea for legislation is another thing entirely; quite Blairite, superficially caring and compassionate, pragmatic and pious, yet rank, selfish wickedness. Let her kill herself, let her family kill her, who cares ? But let not the State issue edicts about the quality of life and it's duration for we all know where that will lead, for the many but not the few.
I hope this is tongue in cheek, otherwise it is sick.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:18pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Donnelly it isn't any sort of point he is making. I'm opposed to the research you're on about on moral grounds. The mixing of human and animal is unacceptable to me, as it is to many. I think there should be boundaries. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to medicine and to interpret my view as such is ludicrous.
As for your further point that catholic politicians could have stopped the invasion of Iraq, how on earth do you figure that out? The church opposed the invasion as hundreds of thousands of us did.
Donnelly it isn't any sort of point he is making. I'm opposed to the research you're on about on moral grounds. The mixing of human and animal is unacceptable to me, as it is to many. I think there should be boundaries. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to medicine and to interpret my view as such is ludicrous.
As for your further point that catholic politicians could have stopped the invasion of Iraq, how on earth do you figure that out? The church opposed the invasion as hundreds of thousands of us did.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:20pm Thu 27 Mar 08
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want.
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want.
Posted by: ubergeek, glasgow on 12:37pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Imagine what the elderly would think should euthanasia be legalised and if they were hospitalised : terrified about gettin ill, mistrustful of hospital staff or guilty of being a burden on their families. Legislation can only go so far - in Holland there remains concerns that rules are not stringent enough or broken easily.
Where do you draw the line? Terminal illnesses, chronic debilitating problems, psychological diseases? Its a slippery slope in my opinion. There are a significant number of cases of involuntary euthanasia too - where patients do not offer explicit consent. Im sorry but I want my healthcare service to look after my life, not tend to my death.
Imagine what the elderly would think should euthanasia be legalised and if they were hospitalised : terrified about gettin ill, mistrustful of hospital staff or guilty of being a burden on their families. Legislation can only go so far - in Holland there remains concerns that rules are not stringent enough or broken easily.
Where do you draw the line? Terminal illnesses, chronic debilitating problems, psychological diseases? Its a slippery slope in my opinion. There are a significant number of cases of involuntary euthanasia too - where patients do not offer explicit consent. Im sorry but I want my healthcare service to look after my life, not tend to my death.
Posted by: ubergeek, glasgow on 12:40pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Imagine what the elderly would think should euthanasia be legalised and if they were hospitalised : terrified about gettin ill, mistrustful of hospital staff or guilty of being a burden on their families. Legislation can only go so far - in Holland there remains concerns that rules are not stringent enough or broken easily.
Where do you draw the line? Terminal illnesses, chronic debilitating problems, psychological diseases? Its a slippery slope in my opinion. There are a significant number of cases of involuntary euthanasia too - where patients do not offer explicit consent. Im sorry but I want my healthcare service to look after my life, not tend to my death.
Imagine what the elderly would think should euthanasia be legalised and if they were hospitalised : terrified about gettin ill, mistrustful of hospital staff or guilty of being a burden on their families. Legislation can only go so far - in Holland there remains concerns that rules are not stringent enough or broken easily.
Where do you draw the line? Terminal illnesses, chronic debilitating problems, psychological diseases? Its a slippery slope in my opinion. There are a significant number of cases of involuntary euthanasia too - where patients do not offer explicit consent. Im sorry but I want my healthcare service to look after my life, not tend to my death.
Posted by: tris, scotland on 12:40pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote:
Donnelly it isn't any sort of point he is making. I'm opposed to the research you're on about on moral grounds. The mixing of human and animal is unacceptable to me, as it is to many. I think there should be boundaries. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to medicine and to interpret my view as such is ludicrous. As for your further point that catholic politicians could have stopped the invasion of Iraq, how on earth do you figure that out? The church opposed the invasion as hundreds of thousands of us did. [/quote] Yes Clare, the Church did, and the Pope spoke out against it, as did the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for all I know the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland., and all the other factions of the Christian Church in the UK.... Methodists, Baptists, 7th day Adventists, Mormons, Pentecostalists, Wee Frees, etc, etc...
The point is that few if any of the religious MPs seemed to take a blind bit of notice of that particular bit of teaching. Even the ultra religious Blair. And certainly not one of them said that they would resign from a government post over it. (I know Robin Cook resigned, but I don't think he attributed it in any way to a religious teaching.)
Clare wrote:
Donnelly it isn't any sort of point he is making. I'm opposed to the research you're on about on moral grounds. The mixing of human and animal is unacceptable to me, as it is to many. I think there should be boundaries. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to medicine and to interpret my view as such is ludicrous. As for your further point that catholic politicians could have stopped the invasion of Iraq, how on earth do you figure that out? The church opposed the invasion as hundreds of thousands of us did.
Yes Clare, the Church did, and the Pope spoke out against it, as did the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for all I know the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland., and all the other factions of the Christian Church in the UK.... Methodists, Baptists, 7th day Adventists, Mormons, Pentecostalists, Wee Frees, etc, etc...
The point is that few if any of the religious MPs seemed to take a blind bit of notice of that particular bit of teaching. Even the ultra religious Blair. And certainly not one of them said that they would resign from a government post over it. (I know Robin Cook resigned, but I don't think he attributed it in any way to a religious teaching.)
Posted by: bob mckay, glasgow on 12:41pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote:
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want. [/quote] I agree but Margo doesnt currently have the right Clare. It is still illegal. The current top story of a borders headteacher found dead illustrates the central dilemma here. Completing ( not committing remember no sin is committed in the opinion of most scots) suicide is devastating to family community and society. We should do all we can to stop suicide. Foreshortening agonisingly slow death isnt suicide . Its a planned ending, a relief and i believe that right should be enshrined in scots law. Mago isnt doing this for herself , she is using herself as a lightening rod for public debate.
Clare wrote:
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want.
I agree but Margo doesnt currently have the right Clare. It is still illegal. The current top story of a borders headteacher found dead illustrates the central dilemma here. Completing ( not committing remember no sin is committed in the opinion of most scots) suicide is devastating to family community and society. We should do all we can to stop suicide. Foreshortening agonisingly slow death isnt suicide . Its a planned ending, a relief and i believe that right should be enshrined in scots law. Mago isnt doing this for herself , she is using herself as a lightening rod for public debate.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:00pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote:
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want. [/quote] That is precisely what the problem is. Whilst I respect the right of someone to control their own death, even if that means that their wishes are carried out after they have lost the capacity to ask for help, how do you prevent abuse ? I am in favour of allowing people to die with dignity but I don't know how you legislate to ensure it cannot be misused to put people to death when they are too old or sick to matter any more.
Clare wrote:
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want.
That is precisely what the problem is. Whilst I respect the right of someone to control their own death, even if that means that their wishes are carried out after they have lost the capacity to ask for help, how do you prevent abuse ? I am in favour of allowing people to die with dignity but I don't know how you legislate to ensure it cannot be misused to put people to death when they are too old or sick to matter any more.
Posted by: Waitamin, Fife on 1:05pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote:
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want. [/quote] Clare,
I've been keeping up with your posts over the last wee while and whilst I don't agree with some of them you always come across very well. How does the above opinion sit with your beliefs? Your church says 'no-way, under any circumstances is it ok to commit suicide (I think?)'. I am genuinely interested in how you manage to reconcile this stance with your own thoughts?
[bold]Ubergeek 12.37[/bold]
[quote]Imagine what the elderly would think should euthanasia be legalised and if they were hospitalised : terrified about gettin ill, mistrustful of hospital staff or guilty of being a burden on their families. Legislation can only go so far - in Holland there remains concerns that rules are not stringent enough or broken easily.
Where do you draw the line? Terminal illnesses, chronic debilitating problems, psychological diseases? Its a slippery slope in my opinion. There are a significant number of cases of involuntary euthanasia too - where patients do not offer explicit consent. Im sorry but I want my healthcare service to look after my life, not tend to my death..[/quote]
Well my 87 year old grand-mother is FAR more terrified of going through the 6 weeks of completely unnecessary agony that HER mother went through at that age after being resuscitated following a stroke. My great-gran was unable to eat or drink without assistance, crying in pain every day and eventually died after 'treatment' was withdrawn (basically left to die of thirst) - how humane is that?
Or my aunt who was operated on with weeks to live because the cancer was eating her pelvis and it could have collapsed any day. She got another three weeks in the hospice before dying. Again, unnecessary, unnecessary, unnecessary suffering.
This is SUCH an important issue as medical science advances and we are able to keep people alive for longer. But keeping people alive at whatever cost?
Clare wrote:
I don't grudge Margo her right to go when she wants to. Where I would want safeguards however is when it comes to decisions being made on behalf of individuals who aren't able to express a specific view on what they want.
Clare,
I've been keeping up with your posts over the last wee while and whilst I don't agree with some of them you always come across very well. How does the above opinion sit with your beliefs? Your church says 'no-way, under any circumstances is it ok to commit suicide (I think?)'. I am genuinely interested in how you manage to reconcile this stance with your own thoughts?
Ubergeek 12.37
Imagine what the elderly would think should euthanasia be legalised and if they were hospitalised : terrified about gettin ill, mistrustful of hospital staff or guilty of being a burden on their families. Legislation can only go so far - in Holland there remains concerns that rules are not stringent enough or broken easily.
Where do you draw the line? Terminal illnesses, chronic debilitating problems, psychological diseases? Its a slippery slope in my opinion. There are a significant number of cases of involuntary euthanasia too - where patients do not offer explicit consent. Im sorry but I want my healthcare service to look after my life, not tend to my death..
Well my 87 year old grand-mother is FAR more terrified of going through the 6 weeks of completely unnecessary agony that HER mother went through at that age after being resuscitated following a stroke. My great-gran was unable to eat or drink without assistance, crying in pain every day and eventually died after 'treatment' was withdrawn (basically left to die of thirst) - how humane is that?
Or my aunt who was operated on with weeks to live because the cancer was eating her pelvis and it could have collapsed any day. She got another three weeks in the hospice before dying. Again, unnecessary, unnecessary, unnecessary suffering.
This is SUCH an important issue as medical science advances and we are able to keep people alive for longer. But keeping people alive at whatever cost?
Posted by: Carnwarth, Carnwarth on 1:18pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]donnelly[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Supershug[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote: The bbc are reporting that Cardinal Keith O'Brien has had a pacemaker inserted in a cavity. Where in the bible does it say that's ok - sounds liek the devil's work to me. In fact, my religious feelings are upset so there should be a law to stop this. [/quote] An utterly moronic contribution.[/quote] Would tend to disagree Shug ....it is a very salient point Carnwarth is making here ...and shows somewhat the hypocrisy of the arguement ...in that if God in his wisdom dictates when you should pop your cork ... and as such ..creates the rule on how long you should linger in pain before you die ... then shurely by that same equation ..QED .... as in Card OBrian case he has a medical
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (117)
