The Last Ditch by Tom Paine

16 responses to “A Right to Die? Or a right to be killed?”

1. 

   james higham

   July 4, 2012

   Well you said it yourself – about coercion felt by the individual and older people do tend to feel those things.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Peter Whale

   July 4, 2012

   I believe that “care pathways” are used in the NHS whereby life sustaining food and medicines are not given so as to induce death faster. When this kind of decision is made to invoke one of these “care pathways” why not use something more painless and quicker?

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Moggsy

   July 4, 2012

   Tom, “Which would lead to many undetectable murders”… “would lead to many more murders”
   Really? Do you have any actual evidence to back that up, or is it just what you happen to believe and fear?Paranoia speaking?
   With no idea of what laws, or safeguards any possible legislation might have how can you really say?
   Are you maybe making this massive rise in crime up up based on your own worries? I am not saying you are wrong to worry about it, but really?
   Peter I agree, and probably they don’t want to get arrested is why.
   Unless there is pain, then they can increase the painkillers till they kill you, otherwise it is pathways of starvation and thirst. They will tell you there is no distress. I don’t guess they tried it for themselves to find out. I do hope they are right.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Tom

   July 4, 2012

   Tut tut. Rather personal that. Lowered the tone somewhat, I thought. No, neither paranoia nor concern for my own circumstances. Just common sense. Any safeguards will be box-ticking exercises to begin with and will then be steadily eroded.
   I am afraid practising law makes a man cynical. Not that I had any trust in authority to begin with.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Moggsy

   July 5, 2012

   Well I wasn’t meaning to be mean or “personal”. I was not thinking of any personal circumstance of yours. I am not sure why you would think so. I was not even completely disagreeing with your concern. I think your “lowered tone” remark is a bit unjust.
   What I was trying to say was you had no (or didn’t offer any) evidence for what you said there, as if it was an established fact, but was not. You might suspect or believe it may be so but you just can’t say it as if it really is, or you are treating your belief as fact.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   JMB

   July 6, 2012

   I’ve weighed in on this topic before so won’t again but it made me sad on reading this that you felt there would be an increase of “murders” if that law were changed. Not only cynical Tom, but with a low opinion of your fellow man. Do you seriously think that it is only the law which prevents that scenario you envisage? You don’t think that others, besides you, believe those things are just plain wrong and would never contemplate them?
   With regard to Peter’s comment I do not know the reality of the situation in the UK but in my long working experience in hospitals in this country, I found that often too much effort was put into trying to save people who often would have preferred to be left to die in peace. Perhaps because it was a teaching hospital but we also had a 300 bed extended care facility as part of the complex and the bottom line, for both facilities, was always keep people as comfortable as possible, especially if no more active treatment would be beneficial.
   I had legal care of an elderly friend with Alzheimers for nine years. He was in a facility toward the end of his life and he had difficulty swallowing, as they do, and it was hard to maintain his weight with food by mouth, even on a soft diet. The medical personell and I talked about a feeding tube for the near future although we knew he would probably pull it out. Fortunately, in one way, he died of a viral infection before we had to make the decision but there was never a question of we wouldn’t try this.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Tom

   July 7, 2012

   I am an optimist about the human race. Most are kind, at least to their own. However there is a significant minority of people ready to commit crimes. Around the temptation of an elderly person close to death, some already take the opportunity to tip them over. For every case detected, there are probably several who get away with it. Given that it is so hard to distinguish lawful from unlawful killing when the principal witness is dead, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the number of such wicked people “brave” enough to risk prosecution would rise. In an atmosphere where mercy killings and assisted suicides were banal, many murders would be concealed as such. Maybe with kind intent in some cases, but without the necessary consents or with them forged or obtained under duress. I think you and Ms Moggsy are being quite naive about this.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   JMB

   July 7, 2012

   I can’t speak for Ms Moggs. I know you think I am quite naive, not only on this topic, but we shall have to agree to disagree in this case. Even if the law were changed I do not believe assisted suicides would ever be considered banal by society. Frankly the right to own and carry guns is far more of a risk to society than legalizing assisted suicide. But that’s not going to become illegal any time soon in this part of the “civilized” world. Yes, yes. Apples and oranges. Just saying.
   Oh by the way. You state: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the number of such wicked people “brave” enough to risk prosecution would rise. Do you believe that would be from zero to …..? Or are you suggesting people are already “offing” the vulnerable in measurable numbers? If so do you have reliable sources for this?

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Tom

   July 7, 2012

   Of course it happens now. There’s even a textbook on geronticide (not a “how to” guide, thank goodness or I would not link to it)
   http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/book/9781853027093
   Getting a confused old person to sign something indicating a wish to die is unlikely to be more difficult than getting him or her to change a will. That quite often happens too – despite legal safeguards.
   A Polish proverb applies here. Prawo to prawo a zycie to zycie. The law is the law, but life is life. Enact all the safeguards you want; someone willing to murder is unlikely to balk at forgery, bribery, coercion, undue influence or tricking a doctor, lawyer or judge into approval.
   Why btw do you liberals always assume that laws will be observed? Law is a crude and clumsy hammer, not a magic wand. Even more puzzling is why you think the solution to people breaking one law is to pass another. The best way to have people respect the law is only to have a limited number of essential rules based on widely-agreed ethical principles. A crime a respectable and intelligent passer-by would not recognise in course of commission is too complicated. A crime he would walk by rather than intervene to prevent is too trivial.
   I thought I had moved towards your position in the original post, but it seems that nothing short of the outright ability to “off” a relative will do. Perhaps I am a weakling but I could never do it. I would dread being asked for such “help”. I also like to think I would not ask others to kill.
   I don’t know which I find more disturbing; the coldness of those “libertarians” who say it’s ok to kill with the victim’s consent, or the “warmth” of those caring left-liberals who, as usual, want the right to commit what would otherwise be crimes for the “greater good”.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    JMB

    July 7, 2012

    Actually I thought the discussion was about assisted suicide, not mercy killing. And also that the request is for “law” to be changed or struck down, not another added to the many already in existence.
    No, we “liberals” do not assume the law will be observed. Well not this liberal at least. I’d have to be truly naive and unobservant to believe that, stupid in fact. But I for one, believe that no matter what the law, the vast majority of people will respect society’s “widely agreed ethical principles”. And also no matter what the law there are others will not respect them anyway when it suits them to do otherwise.
    I guess my problem with the denial of a law legalizing assisted suicide with all its provisos and checks is the assumption that mass slaughter of the weak and elderly would follow. That’s not unknown despite the current law, according to your link.
    Nothing is simple is it? But ask yourself this. In your libertarian Utopia with a minimum of laws based on society’s widely held ethical principles, would the current law against assisted suicide be part of the package you would put into place?
    Incidentally the law against physician assisted suicide has just been struck down in British Columbia Supreme Court.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/06/15/bc-assisted-suicide-ruling.html
    No Tom, like you I could not actively assist someone commit suicide and would dread being asked for such help. But I’d like to think I would be strong enough to be with a loved one who asked it of me and had chosen a physician assisted suicide while of sound mind. May it please God that never happens, for either of us.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    JMB

    July 7, 2012

    Incidentally attempted suicide was only decriminalized in Canada in 1972.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Moggsy

    July 10, 2012

    I do get fed up with people just making up what I say to suit whatever their current argument happens to be maybe?. I am quoting your “I think you and Ms Moggsy are being quite naive about this.” here.
    Just exactly why do you think I am being naive about your being unclear about the difference between what you are imagining might happen and what you have actual evidence actually happens??
    I said several times I was not arguing you were wrong in your conclusions, just saying you were wrong to claim as fact what you were just conjecturing.
    You would absolutely make a point about it if Mark had done what you did there on some subject and would be right to do it.
    If I point it out then I am being personal and naive.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Tom

    July 10, 2012

    As I pointed out to JMB, there is ample evidence of the elderly being murdered by a criminal minority of relatives and carers. I referred her to a textbook on the subject. As to what will happen if a further defence to murder and/or an amendment to the Suicide Act is introduced, that is by nature a prediction. Absent a time machine I am in some difficulties to adduce evidence. If you have such a device, perhaps you can adduce yours that would-be geronticides will not embrace the new possibilities?
    Even as we discuss this, the UK papers are full of allegations that NHS hospitals are already abusing the chillingly euphemistic “Liverpool Care Pathway” to clear hospital beds. In that context, can you not see how naive it is to assume a new legal framework would not be abused?
    As to your being personal, that was in relation to your calling me paranoid and implying my concerns were not abstract but personal. It was rude, but I know you are a kind person and I am sure you had no hurtful intent. I am therefore sorry I reacted even more strongly to it than you are to the inoffensive suggestion that you are being naive.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Tom

    July 10, 2012

    “Assisted suicide” is a euphemism for a subset of “mercy killing”. It is killing by another person, so it’s not suicide. I am wary of people proposing legal changes on the basis of warped language.
    You are right in suggesting this law would not be high on the agenda of libertarians starting from a legal blank page. Fortunately the Common Law evolved over centuries to adapt the law to changing needs. Most of “the good stuff” is judge made. A new libertarian government in England, Canada or the USA could simply abolish all statute law and still have a workable legal system. Since suicide was legalised by statute, we would revert to it being a crime. That would clearly have to be addressed and I hope in that discussion the right view would prevail.
    I know that some libertarians see this as an open and shut case. If I enter into a contract with you to kill me, then you commit no crime in doing so. To say otherwise is to deny my ownership of my own life. It’s morally the same as hiring a demolition company to knock down my house. It would be a crime if not permitted. It’s fine if it is. For me, however, human life is special. I do not ever wish there to be other defences to murder than those offered by Common Law. I even worry (while sadly acknowledging his right to do so) about someone taking his own life. How many would-be suicides have stayed their hand out of fear or to avoid hurting family and friends and been rewarded with wonderful moments in their later life they were glad not to have missed?
    The only good argument for gun control (though not a compelling one in my view) is the higher suicide rate in the USA because so many Americans have the equipment to act swiftly on a suicidal impulse. There are also higher rates among doctors and dentists in the UK because, like Americans with guns, they have the means to hand. It is far, far easier to say you want to die than to kill yourself. I would guess that the phrase “I want to die” is said millions of time (and thought tens of millions of times) more often than it is acted upon.
    As I said in my original post, anyone who is capable of expressing a desire to die is now capable of using a computer to drive a motorised syringe. There is now no need to ask someone else to kill you. The only reform necessary is to amend the Suicide Act to permit others to set up the equipment if the would-be suicide is of sound mind and has made his intentions clear. Safeguards would be necessary to prevent the new law being used as a cover for murder.
    I have concerns about, but ultimately no ethical objection to, the “right to die.” My concern is that it is being used as a deceptive (sometimes self-deceptive) euphemism for a right to kill. Why would anyone want to push the button on a loved one’s life- or want a future medical profession composed of people who knew killing would be a routine part of their job when they applied to medical school?

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Moggsy

    July 11, 2012

    I just used the word paranoid with a question mark, short hand for “is it a bit of too much suspicion speaking?”. It is like a turn of phrase not a suggested clinical diagnosis that I am not qualified to give.
    If you had said I am concerned that x will happened… instead of just that x will happen I would not have even mentioned it.
    I agree with you about the so-called Liverpool Path. To me it is cruel murder by starvation and thirst of those who can’t stand up for themselves.
    These NHS consultants seem, to many, bullying and maybe anxious to clear a bed and save money.
    I am not saying (tho why I bother to tell you as you won’t pay any attention) I feel any different. I could even quote you examples of how they try to use leverage on relatives.
    BUT… That is not assisted suicide whatever else it could be.
    If you want to post on euthanasia then you should say you are posting on it, but you said the post was about assisted suicide that is absolutely some other thing.
    What I am saying and I am saying ONLY this, is that if I make some claim that FACT the sky is blue I better be able to point to a link that proves it or quote someone recognised who said it also, or it better be clear to everyone who looks out the window.
    If I THINK it is… then I better make it clear it is an opinion not a fact.
    You seemed to be stating verified knowledge of a hypothetical thing, plus conflating (great word) assisted suicide with the Liverpool neglect “Pathway”.
    Now go ahead and have fun beating me up for believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden or something. I am finished on this. I am at the point that I figure there is just no point in commenting anywhere.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    JMB

    July 14, 2012

    Hello, back from vacation and catching up.
    Just one quibble about what you said above.
    or want a future medical profession composed of people who knew killing would be a routine part of their job when they applied to medical school?
    Just as any physician has the right to refuse to perform an abortion if it is against his/her conscience, any physician has the right to refuse to assist someone who requested help to commit suicide should it offend his/her beliefs.
    It’s funny how the elderly Catholic lady holds more liberal views on this topic than the younger Libertarian. I have noticed aging brings increasingly more conservative views for the most part. I must be an anomaly as I seem to have become more tolerant as the years have passed. However no change in my values as such I don’t think.

    LikeLike

    Reply