Terry Pratchett has Alzheimer's, and is becoming an assisted suicide advocate.
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
And I don't think "becoming an advocate" is perhaps worded strongly enough. A few choice quotes from something he previously wrote on the subject (the link in philk's comment):
"I live in hope - hope that before the disease in my brain finally wipes it clean, I can jump before I am pushed"
"I am enjoying my life to the full, and hope to continue for quite some time. But I also intend, before the endgame looms, to die sitting in a chair in my own garden with a glass of brandy in my hand and Thomas Tallis on the iPod - the latter because Thomas's music could lift even an atheist a little bit closer to Heaven - and perhaps a second brandy if there is time.
Oh, and since this is England I had better add: 'If wet, in the library.'"
"I have met Alzheimer's sufferers who are hoping that another illness takes them away first. Little old ladies confide in me, saying: 'I've been saving up my pills for the end, dear.'"
As terrible as death is, interminable, futile suffering with no hope of respite until the bitter end isn't necessary and isn't what most people want.
I've always sided for the ability to choose in this because I really do think there are things worse than death, especially when you're assured there's no recovery before the end.
I don't give a fuck what anyone else does.
If I have to, I will die while living off of a tube because my religion doesn't allow me to commit suicide. I also won't tattoo myself for the same reason. (I do choose not to follow some laws, yet I follow others)
Just because I personally believe anyone who commits suicide is going to hell (Note: I don't actually believe that previous statement), doesn't mean I'm going to stop him or her. Not my place.
=]
Also the question of "What happens if someone changes their mind at the last minute" needs to be answered or at least have some sort of legal context to it. I haven't spent a huge amount of time pondering the issue, but the opening of legal loopholes is the only thing that I could possibly see blocking this.
Well, I guess the other thing might be some sort of required counselling to prevent impulsive emo teens (or similar) from using such a thing (i.e. make sure that people are in a rational frame of mind when making the decision, not just running off to die because of a break-up).
As far as I know where euthanasia is currently legalized the person has to pass a psych test to see if they are of sound mind and that they're not being coerced into making the decision. If the psychiatrist feels something is off then the euthanasia isn't performed (at least in theory). The person also has to suffer from a terminal illness that the doctors at the euthanasia place can verify.
Emo kiddies aren't going to pass the psych evaluation or the terminal illness evaluation. However there should be a chicken clause that the person getting euthanised still has the ability to back out right until the end.
However with legalised euthanasia the state would be required to cover terminal illness costs in all people who refuse euthanasia for various reasons, because it's unlikely that these peoples families will voluntarily cover the costs when there's the option that they don't have to.
Though I do see where you're coming from, and the last part is a good point. It'd certainly be abused that way, but that'd hardly be a first for a gov't-supplied service. That's part of why things with high abuse potentials are handled by the government, though; no private industry wants to touch them, and they're nearly guaranteed to lose money. As it's "for the greater good" though, it's worth the taxes (arguably).
I've seen some relatives die slow, lingering deaths and others fairly quick ones. Neither is ideal though it's bloody obvious which way is less unpleasant.
Enough time to tick off everything on your bucket list and properly say goodbye to those you care about is the best we can hope for.
My father died of a sudden heart attack, a day after his birthday and two days after mine. We had never talked that much about death, but I remember he once said that he wasn't interested in living to any ripe old age.
I'm glad I didn't have to watch him suffer.
I've been thinking a lot about euthanasia lately. And my position is that if I were ever in a position where I couldn't take care of myself, and saw no hope that my condition would change, I would want to die.
I don't remember his name but a year or two ago, a famous British composer and his wife decided to on Euthanasia after one of them was diagnosed with a terminal illness. They died together, holding hands I think, with their favourite music playing. There's something noble about this that appeals to me.
If I get to choose, I'd like to die to the strains of Barber's 'Adagio for Strings'
What has Thomas Tallis got to do with the Tallis Scholars' rendition of Allegri's 'Miserere'?
I always thought I should get a gun (Possession of firearms is largely illegal where I live so this would involve some shady dealings and a lot of money) if I am ever diagnosed with something painful and/or terminal.
As a programmer who is used to working with his mind I am horrified at the thought of staying physically alive but slowly losing my mind. Getting enough morphine to overdose should be easier than buying a gun from a criminal. Damned if I'll stay alive in constant pain just so some religious nuts can feel elevated.
The problem people in the UK have with going to somewhere like Dignitas is that the law around assisting someone with suicide is vague, so if someone's family goes with them to Dignitas, they risk arrest when returning to the UK. In practise I think prosecution has never happened, but people have certainly been arrested on returning to the country.
Personally I think assisted suicide should be legal (although not as something that can be a spur of the moment decision) so that people can choose to take their own life, without the risk of pain or error, and with the support of their families.
How would they know why you left/re-entered the country unless you told them? Do the UK authorities track anyone the enters/exits a Dignitas facility?
There's an example of it happening here:
http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/right-to-die_lists.opn.or...
Someone also has to clean up your mess...
Through the mouth the bullet is likely to bounce off the hard palette, any further back and it's exiting the back of your neck and unless you get really lucky and hit the right bit of your spinal cord to stop your heart and lungs, you'll be in extreme pain.
Gun against forehead, poor angle to hold the gun at and potential ricochet again. Holding at the temple is a good way for the bullet to penetrate, however the bullet isn't likely to cause catastrophic damage to the areas of the brain you want.
From what I've read the best place is actually above the rear of the ear (where the elf-ear spike would be). Most people get a pretty good angle, which means the bullet is likely to penetrate, also the bone isn't quite as thick as everywhere else and also if you're using hollow-points you've got a high chance you'll hit the centres of the brain you want to hit.
If you're going to end yourself by a gun, get a shotgun, use buckshot and build a rig so that you can get it to impact your skull from the rear. It guarantees virtually everything, you'd also be able to arrange it so that your family isn't the first to find you by calling the emergency services first. Also shotguns are typically legal in most countries with limited restrictions placed on their ownership.
However, if you're going this route you might as well go down to a street corner in a shady area and buy a huge wack of heroin and have an illegal opiate overdose. If you want to guarantee the end, ingest a large quantity of rat poison pellets (preferably encase them in gel capsules) before you shoot up and you'll be a gone long before you re-enter comprehension.
Suicide is a messy business, and it appears as though the human body is designed to be incapable of offing itself easily as the weak-parts on our skull (top and back) can only be self-hit using the elbow joints for force and not the stronger shoulder muscles. Although I've read that an aluminum baseball bat has a higher success rate than gunshot. However, it's hard to beat a rope and a fast stop for the most effective method of death (over 3-feet has a good chance of snapping the spine causing cessation of heart and lung function, so over 6-feet of drop would likely guarantee it with a sturdy rope).
Easy, effective, and clean.
The idea here would be to get the concentration percentage as high as fast as possible.
Modern medicine allows us to extend life far beyond circumstances that would normally kill us. If someone is old, unhealthy, and no longer wishes to live they should be able to choose to end their life. The medical resources that would be used to keep them alive could be devoted elsewhere.
I certainly don't advocation allowing a healthy person to end their life because they have a chance at things getting better.
This is gambling with other people's lives. If such a healthy person is forced to stay alive, things might never actually get better, and they will have suffered needlessly by staying alive. (And if things do get better, that is merely relief from suffering.)
On the other hand, if such a healthy person is allowed to end their life, that's all there is to it. They'll never regret it.
Besides, if you deny people professional help with ending their lives, they will try to get the job done themselves, often with bad results.
This article reminded me of an Op-Ed he wrote in the Guardian last year, which I posted as another article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1128224)
I can't see any legal reforms in this area being anything except controversial and problematic. I fear it will be a long time before the legal system can accomodate the mature, considered decision to end one's own suffering.
I'm referring, btw, to the Australian legal system. From the sounds of it, the UK system is in more or less the same position.