Assisted Dying Laws

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The concept of enduring power of consent is fraught with risk and danger when it's an objective win for all parties that a dementia sufferer is euthanised, unless the person who is having their life ended doesn't want it.

The image of a person screaming no no no while they are sedated and euthanised is horrific but highly likely in circumstances of dementia. They regress, they become insular and intolerant of discomfort.

And I say this as someone who saw this first hand, and was relieved for everyone when nature came early for that person.

Dementia is like an alien parasite lodging in the brain slowly consuming the person and trying to cover for the shortfall in capability. Eventually they are just a shell.

It's not really them anymore. But I think you can make the case that at THAT point the person who consented to the medical intervention death is already dead and a new person is left who has their own perspective and feelings and desires.

I'd be curious how many cases of euthanasia would no longer be required if someone at that point could be declared legally deceased, not medically deceased, so their estate can be accessed, life insurance etc.
 
Taylor said:
The concept of enduring power of consent is fraught with risk and danger when it's an objective win for all parties that a dementia sufferer is euthanised, unless the person who is having their life ended doesn't want it.

The image of a person screaming no no no while they are sedated and euthanised is horrific but highly likely in circumstances of dementia. They regress, they become insular and intolerant of discomfort.

And I say this as someone who saw this first hand, and was relieved for everyone when nature came early for that person.

Dementia is like an alien parasite lodging in the brain slowly consuming the person and trying to cover for the shortfall in capability. Eventually they are just a shell.

It's not really them anymore. But I think you can make the case that at THAT point the person who consented to the medical intervention death is already dead and a new person is left who has their own perspective and feelings and desires.

I'd be curious how many cases of euthanasia would no longer be required if someone at that point could be declared legally deceased, not medically deceased, so their estate can be accessed, life insurance etc.
Click to expand...

the emotional diatribe that comprised most of your post is so familiar. mainly from religious zealots who have only one real interest and that’s inflicting their views on others. and your offensive last para not only illustrates how naive and uninformed (dare I say indoctrinated) you are about the issue at hand but so much about you as an individual.

for the more open-minded, it's reasonable to say that it's a more fraught area than someone with a terminal condition and in uncontrollable physical pain where progress with assistance has been made in every state. that said, a person while fully capable and having seen the ravages that dementia can afflict peeps should have the right to make the call in advance should that condition ever befall them. no one else has the right to inflict their values on them. we have choices over health matters during our lives but others want to take it away from us when it comes to the way our lives end. it's our life, no one else’s.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I often wonder if assisted dying was available 100 years ago how far would treatment for terminal diseases have progressed. Maybe some now curable cancers would still be a death sentence?

I think people should be kept alive as long as possible, if only for the purposes of science.
 
Not Important said:
the emotional diatribe that comprised most of your post is so familiar. mainly from religious zealots who have only one real interest and that’s inflicting their views on others. and your offensive last para not only illustrates how naive and uninformed (dare I say indoctrinated) you are about the issue at hand but so much about you as an individual.

for the more open-minded, it's reasonable to say that it's a more fraught area than someone with a terminal condition and in uncontrollable physical pain where progress with assistance has been made in every state. that said, a person while fully capable and having seen the ravages that dementia can afflict peeps should have the right to make the call in advance should that condition ever befall them. no one else has the right to inflict their values on them. we have choices over health matters during our lives but others want to take it away from us when it comes to the way our lives end. it's our life, no one else’s.
Click to expand...

Do I get to go after you personally now and make all manner of assumptions to validate any preconception I have or axe to grind? Respectfully, stick your attitude somewhere uncomfortable.

I saw dementia first hand. I lived in that home. I know it. I know the person before was nothing like the person towards the end. I saw the progression. I had the discussions with him before we started losing him about what he wanted, I watched the man who would do anything to protect me scream at me on my birthday and act like a petulant child because he got a bit wet in the rain - he swore he would long walk himself of a short jetty when the time came - well the time came and he wasn't who he was before anymore, he was a different person.

There's no religion here. There's no spirit considered. Just that the person who decides the course of action is not the person who will have that action inflicted on them and they will protest, they will not understand and you'll have to force it on them - it will look ugly because it is.

If you want to not be a burden for your family or other loved ones, you need to end your life while you are capable of making the decision.

If you want to ignore that advice from someone who has seen the process day to day, go for it.

Maybe where we have a disagreement is based on my perception that the issue is talking about right at the end of life and you're talking about prior to dementia taking over - because a person of sound mind can consent to ending their own life - I completely agree with that.

My point has been all along in this discussion that there is a point at which it has gone too far for the decisions made prior to be allowed to be enacted on a different person, which they are.

I suggested a legally deceased status to get around those who just wanted access to their family member's estate.
 
i called your initial emotional rant as diatribe cos that's what it largely was. and the contents were reminiscent of what you get from religious zealots. if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck it's a.....


and now you make a call on having seen alzheimers (which incidentally comes in many forms) as if it has more meaning to you than me or others. most peeps have experience to a greater or lesser extent. a greater extent in my case.

let's cut to the chase. if you make the decision while capable of wanting to live through the trauma of alzheimers then i'd wholeheartedly support you in your choice. as i would if you, unfortunately, are afflicted with a terminal physical illness that causes unrelievable suffering and your choice is to bear it. so don’t attempt to deny me the option in the law of the right of making a different choice in the matter of alzheimer's.

as journo pamela bone, who had a life-changing medical event afflict her wrote: "we have autonomy over every aspect of our lives. why then should we not have autonomy in the matter of how our lives end"

and there are protections built into euthanasia legislation. it's just that you lack knowledge.

my life, my choice
 
Not Important said:
i called your initial emotional rant as diatribe cos that's what it largely was. and the contents were reminiscent of what you get from religious zealots. if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck it's a.....


and now you make a call on having seen alzheimers (which incidentally comes in many forms) as if it has more meaning to you than me or others. most peeps have experience to a greater or lesser extent. a greater extent in my case.

let's cut to the chase. if you make the decision while capable of wanting to live through the trauma of alzheimers then i'd wholeheartedly support you in your choice. as i would if you, unfortunately, are afflicted with a terminal physical illness that causes unrelievable suffering and your choice is to bear it. so don’t attempt to deny me the option in the law of the right of making a different choice in the matter of alzheimer's.

as journo pamela bone, who had a life-changing medical event afflict her wrote: "we have autonomy over every aspect of our lives. why then should we not have autonomy in the matter of how our lives end"

and there are protections built into euthanasia legislation. it's just that you lack knowledge.

my life, my choice
Click to expand...

And I think you are denying a reality that elder abuse is a real thing, granting the families the ability to drag up a consent form from the past which is clearly and directly opposed by that individual in the present day will result in issues of abuse escalating to institutionalized murder.

But I agree that if you're of sound mind, you should be able to end your own life.

If you believe you don't want the indignity of suffering through a condition or putting your family through it you need to take responsibility for ensuring that while you're able - and I don't mean writing down your wishes, I mean handling your business.

That's my plan if I ever start showing signs.
 
nationalpost.com

Canada shouldn't deny assisted suicide if social conditions made life intolerable: bioethicists

Canada is right to let people with chronic conditions choose death when their living conditions make life intolerable, a new paper argues
nationalpost.com nationalpost.com

But a new paper by two University of Toronto bioethicists argues that, while the decisions may be “deeply tragic,” it would be wrong to deny medical assistance in dying (MAID) to people whose request is being driven most of all by poverty or other unjust conditions — “people who not only might, but have explicitly said” they would prefer not to die.​

I like this idea. Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
The rule of law & the ACT Government
Replies
0
Views
466
Kwality
K
Cap
New disinformation laws
2
Replies
25
Views
978
Northalives
Northalives

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top