Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

The Meaning of Death

Religion and Philosophy
Forum rules
we are introducing this on a trial basis and that respect for other's views is important e.g. phrases like "your imaginary friend" or "you will go to hell" are not appropriate
taken2often
Lemon Slice
Posts: 382
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 79 times

The Meaning of Death

#380646

Postby taken2often » January 25th, 2021, 4:35 pm

The big answer to climate change, two taboo subjects. Massive Birth Control and Self Deliverance (Death). Whatever pain we inflict on ourselves and usually the poor working section of society, by making minuscule savings to the planet and will make little difference. The rest of the world is racing forward to increase their consumption by amounts never seen before. Which is fair enough as all they are trying to do is catch up. That's another story as well.

I had a heart attack in my forties, have ongoing Angina and have been kept alive by the NHS, and a bit of common sense. The problem is that my risk factor has increased and I now have to consider Cancer and Dementia as possible end games. Which brought me to Self Deliverance. This then raised the spectre of very bad people presenting themselves as good and believing it.

I will move to Part 2 I have lost work before here

Moderator Message:
Pejorative terms removed from this post - Itsallaguess
Last edited by Itsallaguess on January 26th, 2021, 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

taken2often
Lemon Slice
Posts: 382
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380668

Postby taken2often » January 25th, 2021, 5:58 pm

To continue. Sorry about the two part ones.

In 2013 Lord Falconer presented a Assisted Dying Law to the Lords. You can dispute this or not but over the years the Polls indicate that perhaps 70 to 90% of the public wish to have a good death. The remainder either Masochists or have no thoughts at all. No surprise there. I watched the whole debate. He tried hard pandering to the opposition.(This was a free vote), but they would not have it. The laugh is what he wanted was nothing, decent people would have had no hesitation in agreeing to allow Terminally ill patients to have assistance to die on request and at their convenience. The nasty people with no real humanity drag out the usual claptrap as reasons to deny this. We had the Church, who were unusually humble. Possibly in recognition that their power has been draining away and this was a more political and humanitarian question. The days of making people suffer through religion is past, well may be the Christian/Jewish sections. Then we had a Baroness so proud that she had dragged a patient back from death three or four times. No natural death on her watch. She was representing the disabled with the assistance of a disabled lady in a wheel chair. Who declared her self interest in that many times over the years she had been in great pain and very low, If this had been available she may have done it and what a loss that would have been to the world. She then brings up one of my favourites "The Slippery Slope" loved by many. In that someone may use this to dispose of the disabled. So these poor people will just have to suffer. Then we have the eloquent very well know QC uses the same arguments a lot of that, but serious gravitas by telling us about a close very elderly relative, who appeared to be in extremis, who may have used this service. Made a stunning recover and lasted a few more years. So we should not have this. Then we get the Doctor who represents The Palliative Care Industry or Association whatever. So that was vested interest. Cant have people dying without extracting the last drop. He also implied that no one was really dying distressed now a day's. Tell that to those lying in hospital beds for their last five or six weeks, with all sorts rolled int to see you saying how are you (Er Dying). The medical Profession who are torn. Everyone has a vote even if they are not on the Front Line, but feel they must have their say. The public know that they have help out, but Shipman screwed up the works to a more formal arrangement is now required. You would need a bit of luck as to whether your doctor would or would not help. So that's not really a goer. Then you have the odds and sods. Well named. They come out with final big gun. Your family might do you in for your money. Persuade you to do the decent thing and pop off. You do no that there is queue waiting for this law. No one is ripping off the relatives in a 101 other way's. So that sets the scene will follow on with Part 3

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4350
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380689

Postby GoSeigen » January 25th, 2021, 6:56 pm

So that sets the scene will follow on with Part 3


Brevity is the soul of wit. - W. Shakespeare.

GS

taken2often
Lemon Slice
Posts: 382
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380691

Postby taken2often » January 25th, 2021, 7:00 pm

All the opposition could not use the words Assisted Dying. They wanted to use the word Suicide to dirty the concept as good religious people like to do.
There old one of not being able to be buried in consecrated ground has gone to the wall with cremation, other wise that would have been dragged out and dusted down.

So this got me thinking what is so strong that can override human decency, how can you be conditioned to resist this and it is usually much older people

I have a theory. I think it goes back to power. From the beginning when people started to gather in groups there would be slavery. The strong killed the neighbour who may have offended them take their women and youngest children. Either integrated them or abused them. They were assets. As time went on we had lords and kings. They in turn had to keep their Serfs in line. Along comes another group and they have a great story of life after death and all the goodies that you are due. The problem is that you are one of their assets as well and they can have you sliding off into the sunset early and avoid all the misery they have in store for you. The Lords,Barons and Kings like the story as well and the new rules of the game. So they provide land and funds so that the serfs are constantly reminded of the rules. Especially the one about going to hell. The Fear of God had real meaning in those days. So you could have a choice go with the king to war and get chopped up or go to hell and your family is damned. Over centuaries this concept is very deep seated and may not even be appreciated by those who oppose Self Deliverance or Assisted Death.

But then this brought out another problem.How do get round this with serious infirmity, injury and pain, where some one knows you are unlikely to recover or no longer an asset but a liability and holding back others. Theory number 2 Blood letting. The logic of this was all ways a bit iffy, but Barbers and Doctors had little knowledge, but understood the social norms of the times. At least they were dong something. The public were more than willing to believe that evil was being released and peace would come for all with death say within a week. God has taken them to heaven and the lucky sods beat us to it. Brilliant.

Will continue on Page 4

taken2often
Lemon Slice
Posts: 382
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380724

Postby taken2often » January 25th, 2021, 8:26 pm

Hopefully this is the last. 2013 Lord Falconer tried it, 2015 Margo Macdonald in Scotland tried it 2021 they trying again in Scotland and it will probably fail again. The reason being that they will not address the main problem. It is all to little and they are not prepared to address what the public want.
The public want a comprehensive system that addresses a wide range of problems which they see developing before them. Take my fear Dementia. I do not wish to be a burden on any one, but without a system in place I would have to Self Deliver perhaps months before I need to. It should be my right to predetermine my time and point of death. It is none of your business to stop me. Say I am over 75 in very poor health, incontinent needing continuous care. Have no friends left, relatives to busy with their own life's. I want to contribute my little bit to society and decide the time has come. Why should you stop me. You have no compunction to sending youngsters to be maimed and die in wars. The sanctity of life goes right out the window then.

What is the answer. A Tribunal system. No Doctors, No Clergy and No naysayers. Pre Registration where possible. Documentation, short Video interview approval of registration by say 3 out of a 12 person Tribunal. This is to ensure that you have not been coerced. You can change your mind at any time

In the event you have not registered but need the service, two operatives would visit either in the home or hospital carry out a recorded interview with doctors and patient or relatives. This application would required to be viewed by all 12 member of the Tribunal. When termination is approved The Tribunal has a legal authority to write a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. The operatives take it to the patient and record either the patient drinking it, pressing a plunger, flicking a switch or as a last resort an operative injecting it. Criteria would have to be created for Dementia and Depressed patients. Depression is frequently used a a reason not to have this service, but that is not viable as there is a very wide range of depression.
For example depression in the elderly is nearly impossible to fix if it covers many of the problems of old age. Just because we can keep people alive due to the advances in medicine does not mean we should and against their will.

That is It, could go on and on. Stopping the will of the people is arrogance, an elite who think they know best, but in fact are anti social

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380743

Postby ursaminortaur » January 25th, 2021, 9:46 pm

Could you not have posted all these in one thread rather than starting 4 threads ?

Watis
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1404
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 489 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380754

Postby Watis » January 25th, 2021, 10:48 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:Could you not have posted all these in one thread rather than starting 4 threads ?


T2O said in part 1 that they were afraid of losing the lot due to a glitch of any sort.

One solution would have been to post the subsequent posts as replies to the OP.

Another would have been to type the full post into a text editor, saving regularly, then copy and pasting the finished post into TLF.

Watis

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380778

Postby Itsallaguess » January 26th, 2021, 6:28 am

Moderator Message:
Split posts merged into a single topic - Itsallaguess

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380793

Postby Dod101 » January 26th, 2021, 8:13 am

I am probably very slowly coming round to taken2often's point of view, not that I have any health problems (yet anyway).

The difficulty not for the individual but for society is that it is still, correctly, I think, wedded to the sanctity of life. Without that as a bedrock, society could fall apart with unscrupulous relatives, doctors, and even individuals wanting to depart this life for no very good reason.

You only need to go into care homes to see dementia cases to see that there is no real life in many cases and meanwhile relatives see any remaining assets being paid out month by month for what looks like no good reason. I would not allow Assisted Dying for dementia cases though.

Where there is surely a case is for those who on the whole have a clear awareness of their predicament such as those suffering from say Motor Neurone Disease. I am glad to say I have no personal experience of that but I can understand the frustration and anguish that they must suffer and there seems to me to be a case for somehow fulfilling their perfectly rational wish to be allowed to die, but you still have the dilemma of how?

I have had two wives die on me, one from the very long term effects of diabetes and who spent the last 20 months or so of her life on dialysis when amongst other things her kidneys failed. She got very little out of life in that period before the inevitable happened and would occasionally say to me 'Just take me out and shoot me' or sometimes a more plaintive 'Why should I have to live like this, let me go'. The strain on the main carer (me) was considerable without going in to the details. And yet there were times when despite all she could enjoy the occasional day out with someone else. That made the whole thing worthwhile and if I had any say in the matter I would not have allowed Assisted Dying for her.

My other wife died of an incurable blood cancer and I am quite sure that she would never have wanted Assisted Dying to be in place and we can leave that one to one side.

I think it right that society argues and discusses the matter in great detail, looks at what other countries do and eventually may decide to go with it but like the death penalty it will take time to work through. I am slightly surprised that, in what has been quite a liberal few years of governance, it has not come about yet. Part of me says 'And a good thing too' and yet when I see those poor people who are suffering and are pleading for it I feel there maybe ought to be agreement in principle.

Another problem is the mechanism for it to happen but I guess if society agrees the principal the rest will follow.

Dod

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380858

Postby 88V8 » January 26th, 2021, 11:01 am

Dod101 wrote:The difficulty not for the individual but for society is that it is still, correctly, I think, wedded to the sanctity of life. Without that as a bedrock, society could fall apart with unscrupulous relatives, doctors, and even individuals wanting to depart this life for no very good reason.

I would not allow Assisted Dying for dementia cases though.

Where there is surely a case is for those who on the whole have a clear awareness of their predicament such as those suffering from say Motor Neurone Disease.

I have had two wives die on me.....

Another problem is the mechanism for it to happen but I guess if society agrees the principal the rest will follow.

You have had an experience none of us would wish and I admire the positivity you display on these Boards every day.

In my view, a society wedded to the sanctity of a life that the liver with good reason considers no longer worth living is not a compassionate society, quite the opposite. Liberal fascists need to be recognised for what they are........

Dementia... once they no longer know who they are or even what they are, death is a kindness. Are we kind or cruel?

Switzerland manages the process.
Switzerland manages the process.
While we, in contrast, put sufferers through an experience that would be a crime if inflicted on any other animal.

So are we cruel or just squeamish?

V8

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#380927

Postby Dod101 » January 26th, 2021, 2:25 pm

V8

Thanks for your comments. I looked after a mother in law after my first wife died. After her daughter died (relatively young at 59) she at the age of about 88 or so went downhill mentally very quickly and ended up in a care home with dementia. I visited her once a week and we went through the same routine every time. Anyone who has been in that situation will recognise it. MiL : 'Hello, do I know you?' Once we have established that I have come to see her and that I know her quite well things settled down into a conversation of sorts . We could certainly argue that she got nothing out of life but I always felt that whilst it seemed like an awful waste of money to keep her there, it was not my money and it would be outrageous for me or any doctor to say she should not live. That would be like the nazi's of the Second World War so I would set that completely aside. I also felt/hoped that she got something out of life. I had a suitable P of A but and even if if it were legal I could never have exercised it in these circumstances. Anyone who says dementia cases should be 'put down' needs to live through looking after someone they know/knew. MiL died in a couple of years, essentially of old age and that was fine.

As I said it is those who have a clear mind in cases like MND that I feel for but again the problem is you cannot have someone just saying 'I want to die' and it must be a mighty ethical problem for any doctor to authorise what amounts to a legal killing. Set aside sanctity of life if you like; there is a matter of degree. When is the time ripe, not surely when the individual decides, but when?

Just because the Swiss seem to be able to manage it does not necessarily make it right.

Funnily enough, my first wife used to say just what you have said, 'If I was a horse you would just shoot me' , implying that is what she wanted. She was at least half serious I think.

Anyone who thinks about it can surely see the ethical dilemma.

Dod

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381034

Postby 88V8 » January 26th, 2021, 7:54 pm

Dod101 wrote:....I know her quite well things settled down into a conversation of sorts .....When is the time ripe, not surely when the individual decides, but when?..... Anyone who thinks about it can surely see the ethical dilemma.


In 2006 my mother was terminal with breast cancer, resurgent after 33 years' remission. A dour northerner, she doggedly rejected all thoughts of a home ..'waste of money ' but eventually it became unavoidable.
We began looking. I was seeking I suppose, a clone of the home my granny went into in the late 60s, Edwardian house, comfy old armchairs, turkey carpets, tea at three.
No such luck. Progress or is that 'progress', had swept them away.
I remember one place in particular, a bland soulless monument to health n safety, as we were shown around what passed for a lounge, a ... person .... shambled past.. the staff member set off in pursuit. A resident, a lady, engaged us in conversation.. our mother.... 'These people', she said, 'some of them have forgotten how to use a knife and fork, or the toilet, or even how to talk. It's terrible, they should be...' she paused. 'Don't bring your mother here'.

We didn't. We found a better place, they had dementia cases but in a separate block. So other ...guests... were not exposed to people who had forgotten that they used to be people.
If and when they reach that stage - thankfully not your mil - keeping them alive is not kindness, it's cowardice.

In the case of physical illness, I think exactly the time is ripe when the individual decides.
I see our parliamentarians using ethics as a figleaf for their cowardice.
One day this attitude will seem as reprehensible as ... slavery, let's say. I wonder whose statues the revisionists will tear down.

V8

taken2often
Lemon Slice
Posts: 382
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381068

Postby taken2often » January 26th, 2021, 11:17 pm

Thanks for the response and the suggestion how to do longer posts, hopefully not that long again.

The first thing is that it is not what we think. It is about the person who would consider it if it were available. This kind of relates to grieving. I consider this a understandable selfish emotion. It is your loss, how it effects you. There is even a social expectation of how you should react. By not appreciating this I have known of people who have ruined their lives grieving for years.

With regards to Dementia my suggestion of pre-registration could eliminate many of the problems. The problem with Dementia is you are no longer a person, but a unit to be treated as such.

I think the public do understand the future. That Dementia unless a cure is found will not be sustainable and the government will have to act. It will be brutal so a good system being in place before this could save a lot of heartache. This is a situation never been faced by humanity before. Sanctity of life is a laughable concept when you consider the death and destruction though out time.Just think of the deaths on the front line during the first world war. Modern Society do you want your operation or do we use the funds to keep an ancient Dementia patient. What do you think.

Another interesting concept. A racist Evil Empire with millions of citizens, many old and no longer productive create a virus that targets the old and infirm and ethnic populations. Where a loss of 10 million would not even make them blink.. No way how daft can you get.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381076

Postby Dod101 » January 26th, 2021, 11:59 pm

I rather uncharacteristically opened my heart earlier but I cannot do so again, because for one, I am not sure what taken2often is saying. He seems to think that people, just because they have dementia, are no longer people. That is simply an unacceptable premise. To follow that through as I said is following the tenets of Nazi Germany.

They cannot think like us and so are an inferior race. Let's eliminate them. That is sadly exactly how the holocaust came about, with just a modest extension in thinking.

Dod

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381090

Postby Itsallaguess » January 27th, 2021, 6:35 am

Dod101 wrote:
I rather uncharacteristically opened my heart earlier but I cannot do so again, because for one, I am not sure what taken2often is saying.

He seems to think that people, just because they have dementia, are no longer people. That is simply an unacceptable premise. To follow that through as I said is following the tenets of Nazi Germany.

They cannot think like us and so are an inferior race. Let's eliminate them. That is sadly exactly how the holocaust came about, with just a modest extension in thinking.


I think it's important to understand what the OP is suggesting here.

Whilst it's clearly difficult to disagree with your thoughts above, the OP is trying to make it clear where he's coming from with the following -

With regards to Dementia my suggestion of pre-registration could eliminate many of the problems.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=27497#p381068

He's suggesting a situation where a 'current you' might be able to pre-register into a scheme whereby you 'instruct' someone to terminate your life humanely where a specific level of severe dementia can be proven in the future...

It's clearly a very difficult subject to discuss, but it seems that he's trying to align severe cases of dementia with the more common 'termination of life' situations such as some vegetative states, etc., where early-terminations are carried out more commonly even at the current time, but I think the key thing that the OP is trying to suggest here is that it's not someone 'external' deciding about an early-termination of severe dementia cases, but an earlier 'version' of the same person deciding, via the 'pre-registration' process...

At the current time, organs can be donated when we die. That used to be a 'pre-registration' process, and if someone had done that, then once they died, the medical profession were within their rights to use the organs of a body to help others if it was beneficial to do so.

I think the OP is trying to suggest a similar 'pre-registration' process for cases of severe future dementia, but where the result, once a certain 'dementia threshold' might be crossed, would be the humane termination of life...

Of course that doesn't fully explain how such a process might work in practice, or what 'test' might be carried out for someone else to then decide that any 'severe dementia' criteria might 'trigger' that pre-registered wish, or how it could be guaranteed that someone would not end up 'on the register' without them actually applying for the proposed scheme, and I don't think the OP has fully explained how such a pre-registration process might fully remove all the many other stark risks within that overall process which would clearly still remain, but I just wanted to point out that it's the 'pre-registration' part of the process that I think the OP is trying to specifically discuss here, and which, on the face of it, might clearly and distinctly allow the discussion to then step away (even if only slightly...) from the more brutal historic path that you're describing above, where, as far as I'm aware, no 'pre-registration process' was ever part of those brutal schemes...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381158

Postby Dod101 » January 27th, 2021, 10:42 am

Thanks IAAG. Your comments would put a slightly different complexion on it but I suspect that it would never get past the starting blocks. What we currently have is a 'Do not Resuscitate' notice which is of course consent not to continue with what is probably a pointless attempt to sustain life, but what you are saying is the register would be an active instruction to dispatch the individual in certain circumstances. I suspect many of us would be prepared to sign such an instruction for different reasons, but who would judge the time right and who would carry it out? Who would speak to the families and sort out the inevitable disagreements? It is a non starter.

It is though an area that ought to be discussed I have no doubt about that. Whether any of us like it or not it is almost the fundamental issue of living.

Dod

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381162

Postby 88V8 » January 27th, 2021, 10:59 am

Yes, it is difficult. At what stage is a human being adjudged to have become a dumb animal.

I guess that few of us have been exposed to people, or former people, in that terminal condition. If we had, we might take a more practical view.
Because it is difficult does not mean it should not be done.

On the allied matter of terminal physical conditions, Parliamentarians evince a lack of compassion, a want of imagination, and a general cowardice in failing to pass appropriate legislation. Easier to wring their hands and do nothing; why should they care, few of them will suffer at life's end.

V8

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381165

Postby scrumpyjack » January 27th, 2021, 11:11 am

Dod101 wrote:Thanks IAAG. Your comments would put a slightly different complexion on it but I suspect that it would never get past the starting blocks. What we currently have is a 'Do not Resuscitate' notice which is of course consent not to continue with what is probably a pointless attempt to sustain life, but what you are saying is the register would be an active instruction to dispatch the individual in certain circumstances. I suspect many of us would be prepared to sign such an instruction for different reasons, but who would judge the time right and who would carry it out? Who would speak to the families and sort out the inevitable disagreements? It is a non starter.

It is though an area that ought to be discussed I have no doubt about that. Whether any of us like it or not it is almost the fundamental issue of living.

Dod


I have personal and very very painful experience of this issue, and it is agonisingly difficult. There are situations where a ‘best interests’ decision can be made to withdraw ‘treatment’ (which can include no food or water) to let the patient die. There are a lot of checks and balances and formal procedures to go through, which is unavoidable but means the agony for relatives can drag on for many months. If it ends up going to the Court of Protection, that can further draw out the process. Often in these circumstances, those suffering are the relatives as the patient is not really aware of what is happening. In my experience the NHS professors and consultants really handled the whole matter as best they could, apart from a dithering NHS trust medical director.

In principle I share the outrage of the OP that clerics lords and self important ‘do-gooders’ take it upon themselves to force people to live and suffer because of some abstract principle of the sanctity of life. But it is an incredibly difficult area. We should move nearer the position of those countries that allow assisted dying, but I don’t know in practice what is the right balance.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381219

Postby dealtn » January 27th, 2021, 1:41 pm

Dod101 wrote:Thanks IAAG. Your comments would put a slightly different complexion on it but I suspect that it would never get past the starting blocks. What we currently have is a 'Do not Resuscitate' notice which is of course consent not to continue with what is probably a pointless attempt to sustain life, but what you are saying is the register would be an active instruction to dispatch the individual in certain circumstances. I suspect many of us would be prepared to sign such an instruction for different reasons, but who would judge the time right and who would carry it out? Who would speak to the families and sort out the inevitable disagreements? It is a non starter.

It is though an area that ought to be discussed I have no doubt about that. Whether any of us like it or not it is almost the fundamental issue of living.

Dod


I'm not sure the current situation and the resulting decisions having to be made by Doctors and medical practitioners is an easier "judgement". I have yet to be involved personally in any such family situation, and respect the views of any who has. No doubt that day will come to pass at some point.

Knowing many nurses, and fewer doctors, I am aware of the huge difficulties this presents in practice, with a law enshrining the sanctity of life (almost exclusively), and wishing to do the "right thing".

taken2often
Lemon Slice
Posts: 382
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: The Meaning of Death

#381259

Postby taken2often » January 27th, 2021, 3:37 pm

Much appreciate the effort to clarify my thoughts. In section four of my post I lay out as clearly as I can within limited space the only way that Self Deliverance and assisted death could work. Keep the medical profession out of it.

Regional Tribunals with volunteer's start small 12 members 2 Paid operatives. They do the administration, interviewing, recording. After getting approval for the registration by the Tribunal have the Ref number and NI number recorded on a national data base. As time goes on they would take the medication to the patient and record the demise and ensure that all was done according to protocol With Dementia a range of action points would be possible. The advantage of pre-registration. Without this the criteria would have to be different, excessive pain, violence towards staff and relatives, very deep and un-treatable depression, self harm and PEG feeding etc. Would have to be agreed by three parties. Where there is a will there is a way.

I have an Advanced Decision in place but it will not cover Dementia.

Some clarification. You are no longer the person you were, so depending on the quality of care you may just become a unit to be cleaned and fed and no guarantee of that.

I just cannot see how society can provide for the growing numbers


Return to “The Meaning of Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests