Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide law

[The Grim Squeaker]

Pratchett would test suicide law

Sir Terry Pratchett says he is ready to be a test case for assisted suicide "tribunals" which could give people legal permission to end their lives.

The author, who has Alzheimer's, says he wants a tribunal set up to help those with incurable diseases end their lives with help from doctors.

A poll for BBC One's Panorama suggests most people support assisted suicide for someone who is terminally ill.

Sir Terry is due to set out his ideas in the Richard Dimbleby lecture later.

In the keynote lecture, Shaking Hands With Death, the best-selling author will say that the "time is really coming" for assisted death to be legalised.
“ We should look to the medical profession that has helped us to live healthier lives to help us die peacefully among our loved ones ”
Sir Terry Pratchett

His comments follow the acquittal last week of Kay Gilderdale, of Stonegate, East Sussex, who was cleared of attempted murder after helping her daughter, Lynn, to kill herself.

Ms Gilderdale admitted aiding and abetting her 31-year-old daughter, who had been battling chronic fatigue syndrome ME for years, to take her own life and was given a 12-month conditional discharge.

Lynn Gilderdale, who had been left paralysed and unable to swallow, was found dead at their home on 4 December 2008.

Sir Terry says he would like to see measures put in place to ensure that anyone seeking to commit suicide was of sound mind and not being influenced by others.

"At the moment if someone assists someone else to commit suicide in this country or elsewhere they become suspect to murder until the police decide otherwise," he told the BBC.

"I think it would be rather better if a person wishes to die, they could go see the tribunal with friends and relatives and present their case - at least if it happens, it happens with, as it were, authority."

A legal expert in family affairs and a doctor familiar with long-term illness would also be part of his proposed "non-aggressive" tribunals.

"It seems sensible to me that we should look to the medical profession, that over the centuries has helped us to live longer and healthier lives, to help us die peacefully among our loved ones in our own home without a long stay in God's waiting room," Sir Terry said.

More than 1,000 people were surveyed for the poll carried out for Panorama.

It found that 73% of those asked believed that friends or relatives should be able to assist in the suicide of a loved one who is terminally ill.

While there was clear support for assisted suicide for someone who was terminally ill, if - as in the case of Ms Gilderdale's daughter - the illness was not terminal, support for assisted suicide fell to 48%.

Responding to the Panorama poll, Director of Care Not Killing, Dr Peter Saunders, said: "To argue that if you are terminally ill you deserve less protection from the law than do the rest of us is highly discriminatory as well as dangerous.

"Many cases of abuse involving elderly, sick and disabled people occur in the context of so-called 'loving families' and the blanket prohibition of intentional killing or assisting suicide is there to ensure that vulnerable people are not put at risk."

Baroness Finlay, an independent peer who is a professor of palliative medicine, told BBC Radio 4's Today it was "hardly surprising" the Panorama poll had found public support for assisted suicide because "opinion polls reflect the way something is presented in the media".

ASSISTED SUICIDE LAWS
# The 1961 Suicide Act makes it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure a suicide or a suicide attempt in England and Wales
# Anyone doing so could potentially face 14 years in prison
# Law Lords recently issued new guidelines to clarify this law, spelling out the range of factors that will be taken into account when deciding on cases
# The law is almost identical in Northern Ireland
# There is no specific law on assisted suicide in Scotland, although someone could be prosecuted under homicide legislation

She said licensing assisted suicide would be a "very dangerous step" because it would remove protection and "suck all sorts of people in".

"Look at what happened in other countries, for instance in Oregon - the number of assisted suicide has gone up fourfold - if that is translated to Britain, we are not talking about a small number, we are talking about a thousand a year," she said.

Baroness Finlay said people had good days and bad days and changed their mind about assisted suicide.

"If you give someone a licence at one point of time, you don't know what will happen after that, there is scope for all kinds of things to happen, like coersion," she said.

If the UK "ever went down that road" it was important legislation fell under the Ministry of Justice, not the Department of Health," she added.

"The difficulty is, if healthcare is part of it, you are actually getting doctors to take shortcuts in care, and with financial measures that's going to mount."

Lynn Gilderdale was bed-ridden by the age of 15 and was admitted to hospital more than 50 times with a succession of serious illnesses over the next 16 years.

Her mother told Panorama: "I know I did the right thing for Lynn. She's free and at peace where she needed to be. Whatever the consequences, I would do it again."

The survey was carried out earlier this month and the figures are broadly in line with previous surveys.

Last year, the director of public prosecutions issued guidelines on when assisted suicide cases should be taken to court.

But campaigners have said there still needs to be more clarity in the law.

Panorama: I Helped My Daughter to Die is on BBC One on Monday 1 February at 2030 GMT.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/u ... 490062.stm

Fuck... I support legal suicide laws, but it's still depressing to think about the situation of people who would benefit from the law.

[Mayabird]

"Look at what happened in other countries, for instance in Oregon - the number of assisted suicide has gone up fourfold - if that is translated to Britain, we are not talking about a small number, we are talking about a thousand a year," she said.

The horror! It went from ten to forty terminally ill people a year! Fourfold! I also think her trying to use Oregon as an example is idiotic since it is tightly controlled and excludes people who have depression and so forth. It's not just, "Oh, I don't feel good, so kill me right now." There's a process with steps along the way so it doesn't come to that, and most of the people who go into it, even if they're approved, don't actually end up availing themselves of it; it's mostly for peace of mind for them. That's why Washington state a couple years ago approved the same thing.

I've heard bad things about the assisted suicide law in the Netherlands (I think it's the Netherlands), though, so that might've been a better example to use. But that might've been too much thinking for this Baroness.

[Atlan]

I've heard bad things about the assisted suicide law in the Netherlands (I think it's the Netherlands), though, so that might've been a better example to use. But that might've been too much thinking for this Baroness.

Please DO provide proof. I'm quite sure that if things were that bad, our resident (and currently in the government!) Christian Party would jump right at it to repeal our Euthanasia laws. It isn't like they were big fans of em when they were enacted...

[Broomstick]

Because "assisted suicide" and, yes, let's put "euthanasia" on the table, too, as it's closely related, deals with deliberately ending a human life it scares the fuck out of some people. Quite a few folks find it absolutely intolerable under any circumstance. Thus, ANY such program is going to get bad-mouthed.

My personal view?

1) It needs to be for an intractable, incurable problem
2) There need to be VERY tight controls to avoid abuse, as that is a real possibility
3) There must be absolutely NO coercion. Some people object to suicide on religion, moral, or other grounds and respecting their free will means allowing them to die as they choose as much as possible, including subjecting themselves to what you or I might feel is an unreasonable amount of suffering.
4) I'd prefer it NOT be offered as an option - the idea has to occur to the patient, who has to actively ask for it prior to approval. Yes, this will be a problem in some limited number of cases, at which point take it in front of a judge or an ethics committee or some such to make a best guess as to what the patient would decide.
5) Even when approved, there must NOT be a mandate to use it. As already pointed out, most people approved for assisted suicide do not use it. The mere fact that there is an "exit option" seems to alleviate some level of suffering and anxiety.

[Mayabird]

I've heard bad things about the assisted suicide law in the Netherlands (I think it's the Netherlands), though, so that might've been a better example to use. But that might've been too much thinking for this Baroness.

Please DO provide proof. I'm quite sure that if things were that bad, our resident (and currently in the government!) Christian Party would jump right at it to repeal our Euthanasia laws. It isn't like they were big fans of em when they were enacted...

Never said any of it was true, just that the rumor mills spread the stories, whereas nobody before now ever bothered with Oregon since Oregon's just far away from them and it's too small scale to cause any notice. Like even when the anti-whatever-they-call-themselves groups tried to campaign against Washington state's assisted suicide law, they didn't even try to claim that crazy terrible things were happening in Oregon, and Oregon is just to the south.

[Singular Intellect]

Personally, I think it's abhorrent that any society feels it has the right to prevent anyone getting legally assisted suicide for any reason whatsoever.

If someone wants to die, they should have every right to do so. Society's say in the matter ends at merely providing those who wish to commit suicide resources and whatever help possible (counselling, therapy, etc) to encourage not taking that option. But if the person is truly commited to the course, we should not stand in their way, merely show them there are other paths available and we're willing to help them through them.

[Oskuro]

Someone truly commited to suicide will eventually achieve it, even if it is by the legally simple method of jumping off a tall building, or into a train track. The issue with assisted suicide affects those who cannot kill themselves on their own, wich makes it shady in my eyes. I can't shake the feeling that the whole anti-euthanasia movement is exploiting the disability of those unable to kill themselves to further their moral agenda, I mean, I don't see them trying to force regulations to ban popular suicide methods, like tall bridges or bathtubs near razors or electrical equipement, yet people in such dire circumstances that they can't off themselves, circumstances that make their want to die actually justifiable, are used for their moral crusade.

There are already methods to counsel those with suicidal tendencies and try to help them, as well as legal tools to make sure they are not being manipulated or forced somehow, the whole assisted suicide issue is to allow people with massive disabilities, once they've gone through such counseling and decided they still want out, to be able to do what anyone in a cell can do with a shirt and a place to hang from.

[Alyrium Denryle]

"Look at what happened in other countries, for instance in Oregon - the number of assisted suicide has gone up fourfold - if that is translated to Britain, we are not talking about a small number, we are talking about a thousand a year," she said.

Circular reasoning. Assuming it is bad in order to argue that it is bad.

Baroness Finlay said people had good days and bad days and changed their mind about assisted suicide.

Which is why there ought be a process that takes time in order to complete, and that there not be a mandate to use it.

I wonder if this dumb-ass has ever seen someone suffering from a terminal illness or incurable intractable problem like end stage parkinsons who just wants to end their own suffering.

Selfish fucking cunt.

[mingo]

I've heard bad things about the assisted suicide law in the Netherlands (I think it's the Netherlands), though, so that might've been a better example to use. But that might've been too much thinking for this Baroness.

This it he same argument wingnuts use against Canadian style health care. They tell you how awful it is but can never produce anyone FROM that country to say so.

[Mayabird]

I've heard bad things about the assisted suicide law in the Netherlands (I think it's the Netherlands), though, so that might've been a better example to use. But that might've been too much thinking for this Baroness.

This it he same argument wingnuts use against Canadian style health care. They tell you how awful it is but can never produce anyone FROM that country to say so.

Goddamnit, it's like people don't read anything. This is just like being at work.

Never said any of it was true, just that the rumor mills spread the stories.

Of course you don't trust fucking rumor mills, but that's where the crazy examples are supposed to come from. All the crazy fucking stories come from untruths from the rumor mills, and the all the crazy fucking stories about scary bad euthanasia scaremongering stuff I've ever heard have been from the Netherlands. It says a lot for how well the system in Oregon was set up that until this Baroness showed up, nobody ever bothered to try to pretend things were going wrong. And even then she's just playing numbers games. Forty is four times that of ten! Scary!

Is that not clear enough to everybody? Must I assume for now on that none of you can ever understand what I'm implying?

[cosmicalstorm]

I always figured it would cause far less controversy to offer these people medically induced coma as an option for the time when the suffering becomes unbearable. Let them sleep until they die. Should also be a lot more compatible with the laws in most countries.

Are there any fundamental problems which makes this option unattractive?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I can't imagine how horrible it must be for such a brilliant man to want to die.

[General Zod]

I always figured it would cause far less controversy to offer these people medically induced coma as an option for the time when the suffering becomes unbearable. Let them sleep until they die. Should also be a lot more compatible with the laws in most countries.

Are there any fundamental problems which makes this option unattractive?

I'm failing to see the practical difference between this and regular assisted suicide. Except that your method is much more wasteful, drawn out and prone to far more complications. Someone with a disease like Terry Pratchett's can live for several years until it finally kills them. Also, Exhibit A for why this is a monumentally bad idea: Terry Schiavo.

[Broomstick]

I always figured it would cause far less controversy to offer these people medically induced coma as an option for the time when the suffering becomes unbearable. Let them sleep until they die. Should also be a lot more compatible with the laws in most countries.

Are there any fundamental problems which makes this option unattractive?

Not for me, no.

However, there are some people who object to it as inducing such a medical coma can hasten death. Personally, I don't see where it makes much difference but clearly it's important to some people.

This New York Times article on pallative sedation covers the issues pretty well.

[Bellator]

I've heard bad things about the assisted suicide law in the Netherlands (I think it's the Netherlands), though, so that might've been a better example to use.

Where did you hear that? Fox News?

[Bluewolf]

A question relating to this was put to the panel on Question Time last night. A Daily Mail Columnist brought up the whole Oregon case too. Also the term "Death Panels" was brought up once or twice. One of the main conclusions from the responses of the Question was that Britain is being weak stomached as there were at least two cases cited where the people taking care of those who had chosen to die had not been prosocuted. Despite this some argued it was a good idea to keep assisted suicide illegal.

Of course the whole slippery slope argument was brought up and I must ask those who have had this issue in different countries: How common is this fear that it will lead to a slippery slope?

[General Zod]

A question relating to this was put to the panel on Question Time last night. A Daily Mail Columnist brought up the whole Oregon case too. Also the term "Death Panels" was brought up once or twice. One of the main conclusions from the responses of the Question was that Britain is being weak stomached as there were at least two cases cited where the people taking care of those who had chosen to die had not been prosocuted. Despite this some argued it was a good idea to keep assisted suicide illegal.

Of course the whole slippery slope argument was brought up and I must ask those who have had this issue in different countries: How common is this fear that it will lead to a slippery slope?

It's not like people don't kill each other for insurance money and the like often enough already. If anything having an assisted suicide law with plenty of checks should make it harder to conceal a murder, not easier.

[Bluewolf]

Yeah. I am merely just summing up what was said on the the show. I don't agree with the whole slippery slope argument.

[Korgeta]

I heard about this, personally I don't approve of terry's idea, there are many conditions that are terminal or severe mental illnesses like Alzheimer's or Dementia are treatable and if the realtives of that person are well supported emtionally and fincially then it should be a last resort at best. Working with the NHS and with those with severe mental illness I dislike the idea of assisting suicide, it goes against ethical care and what the NHS is to stand for in my opinion. It also serves as a back door possiblity for bringing in a death penalty for the justice system.

Furthermore as it should be obvious those with terminal illness or degrading mental condition such as Dementia, Alzheimer's or classic autism cannot speak for themselves. That aspect has to be closely reviewed but there is too much room for misuse or bad ruling of the law to allow uneccsary and unethical termination of one's life.

Medical science is improving all the time, induced coma was seen as a brain dead status and a basis for enthusia, now it's possible to contact the brain and have it respond correctly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8497148.stm

Personally, I think it's abhorrent that any society feels it has the right to prevent anyone getting legally assisted suicide for any reason whatsoever.

There are some who think it's equally abhorrent that we should listen to a knee-jerk suggestion from a man, that till he was diagonised with it couldn't give two hoots about Alzheimer's.

[Broomstick]

Furthermore as it should be obvious those with terminal illness or degrading mental condition such as Dementia, Alzheimer's or classic autism cannot speak for themselves.

Where did you get that idea?

Temple Grandin is a woman with "classic autism" who nonetheless learned to communicate and is entirely able to speak for herself and support herself.

My mother suffered from vascular dementia for at least 5 years but my father did not acquire power of attorney for her until the final 18 months, and even a month before she died we still spoke to her about things and asked her opinion on matters.

Likewise, on another message board one of the member's has Alzheimer's but is still, at this time, able to "speak for himself" and still handling his affairs. Among other things, he is making arrangements for his wife to take over when he truly can't cope any longer.

These aren't binary on/off states but rather spectrums. One can have the condition but not be severely impaired, one can have the condition and be totally incapacitated. It has to be determined on a case by case basis, and for some conditions periodically reviewed. I suggest you educate yourself further about these disorders before making such statements in the future.

Medical science is improving all the time, induced coma was seen as a brain dead status and a basis for enthusia, now it's possible to contact the brain and have it respond correctly.

What the fuck are you talking about?

"Induced coma" has never been seen as "brain dead status" because, first of all, being artificially induced it can also be reversed and secondly because "coma" does not equal "brain dead" and never has. Comatose brains still have measurable electrical activity, dead ones do not. Again, please educate yourself further as at present you are making yourself look either ignorant or stupid.

As far as "contact the brain and have it respond" - if you're referring to the recent case of a man in a persistant vegetative state whose brain responded to yes/no questions I emphasize HE WAS IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE which is, in fact, a HIGHER state of awareness than a coma. In other words, even further away from "brain dead" than a coma is. Again, educate yourself. Please. If journalists can get the facts right YOU have no excuse.

Personally, I think it's abhorrent that any society feels it has the right to prevent anyone getting legally assisted suicide for any reason whatsoever.

There are some who think it's equally abhorrent that we should listen to a knee-jerk suggestion from a man, that till he was diagonised with it couldn't give two hoots about Alzheimer's.

Personally, I wish people who were so free and easy about suicide had a fucking clue HOW GODDAMNED PAINFUL IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND before they spout off with their bullshit. Tell me, it is justifiable for someone to inflict severe pain on their family and friends that at best will become a chronic, life-long ache? When you say suicide is OK you're saying it's OK to harm other people. Is that moral? Is that ethical? Is that OK? Do you think it's OK to force a parent to bury his or her child when that death was not necessary? Because that's what you're saying when you advocate permission for suicide for ANY reason "whatsoever".

Yes, for severe pain in an intractable, terminal illness it might be justified.... but for "just because"? What kind of a morally bankrupt advocate of pain are you? Don't we call that sort of thing "sadism"?

As for as Prachett not giving a hoot until he was diagnosed with Alzhaimer's... you know, that's actually pretty fucking common. You don't know and don't think about some sorts of shit until you are forced to deal with it. I certainly didn't think about spina bifida until I married someone with the problem. I never heard of "vascular dementia" until my mother had it. My sister never thought about asthma until she had a child hospitalized with it. Christopher Reeve never imagined he'd become paralyzed. I'm sure Stephen Hawking had never even heard of motor-neuron disease until he came down with it. You can't worry about everything, so you pick and choose, usually based on personal important to you. Unquestionably, Alzheimer's is very important to Mr. Pratchett, for very goof and valid reasons.

Now, perhaps his advocating for research and what not goes over the top... that is debatable. But it's hardly a crime that, upon being diagnosed with a terminal illness he suddenly becomes very interested in it, and what is and isn't being done to find treatments or cures.

[Molyneux]

I can't imagine how horrible it must be for such a brilliant man to want to die.

Indeed. I do hope that he manages to keep his mind intact, but I can definitely understand how death sooner could be said to be preferable to living dissolution later.
Pterry wants to die on his own terms. That is an admirable goal, as horrifying as it is for his fans to contemplate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I heard about this, personally I don't approve of terry's idea, there are many conditions that are terminal or severe mental illnesses like Alzheimer's or Dementia are treatable and if the realtives of that person are well supported emtionally and fincially then it should be a last resort at best.

What about the desires of the person to not go on living if their minds are not intact? There is more to life than a beating heart. The ability to interact on a meaningful level with your loved ones, engage in intellectual activities, and to have your fucking personhood intact are good examples. Who the hell are you to make that choice for someone else? Who are you to force someone's family to watch someone they love waste away?

Working with the NHS and with those with severe mental illness I dislike the idea of assisting suicide, it goes against ethical care and what the NHS is to stand for in my opinion.

And what standards of ethical care would that be? Please, do tell me. If it is something in the hippocratic oath I think i would take issue with the definition of "harm" you are implementing.

It also serves as a back door possiblity for bringing in a death penalty for the justice system.

And the risk of that, which can be dealt with legislatively is justification for removing agency from your patients?

Furthermore as it should be obvious those with terminal illness or degrading mental condition such as Dementia, Alzheimer's or classic autism cannot speak for themselves.

And how exactly does having one of these conditions at any stage or severity automatically remove someone's capacity to give informed consent?

[Broomstick]

Kortega decided to scold me in a PM, because "I have written with considerable restraint given some of the comments posted and am not going through the hassle of splitting up arguments into mini quotes and branching out new questions and answers. I took enough time answering to your comments as it is."

Buddy, you don't have to respond to ANYTHING I say. Ever. If you don't want to respond then don't respond. AT ALL.

This came across to me as you telling me to shut up because I wasn't polite enough. Now, you didn't exactly say that, but it's close enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Let me tell you, the one way to guarantee I go on a rant is to tell me to "shut up"

(unless a mod formally tells me to do so - in that case I shut up IMMEDIATELY)

I'm not sure he understands that "branching out new questions and answers" is what we do here. I think he didn't read the introductory threads where we talk about we is allowed in the way of responses to posts. I also do NOT appreciate being scolded not only by someone who is new, but someone who "You may not agree with [my ideas] but I expect a more appropiate responce from a mod nonethless."

Clearly, he's never seen Mike Wong on a rampage around here.

In the interest of fairness, I will quote the entire text of what he sent me:

Let's just clear this up:

brain death refers to death of higher brain functions: i.e. not the brain stem. So if the brain stem is still alive, then the person can still breath, digest, etc.

This is called persistent vegetative state, though.

If you disagree take it up with this site as well.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/suppos ... ains_37451

I stress again brain death is a generalised term, I don't know what your issue is, to see everything as literal, to ignore reasoning and go on a rampage over a comment that does not do the follwing:

A) support assisted suicide

B) Not write about yet another poltical gossip topic about how sarah palin is not paying her tax (apprently, not that i care. Quite frankly it's just a spam topic to me)

C) For not agreeing with what is in essence is a defeatist attitude.

I do have sympathy for your loss of your mother, regardless of how long ago, the memories of suffering never go away do they? Or do you think your the only one who has not lost someone to mental illness? I don't understand your high charged aggression into a neutral comment, unless it was intended to start a fight or to bully me into changing my opinion.

If you think the right to deny 'death' abhorrent to the terminally ill, then how do you view the right to abort an unborn life? Not because that child may face gross deformity but because you didn't want that child in the way of your career and is viewed as a contraception to some? Or that the tragedy that some have to deliver a dead baby regardless, but nobody here views the termination of life of the unborn as abhorrent but the 'abhorrent' denial of assisted suicide somewhat is.

Those like pratchett who do not look at the larger picture are giving off a knee jerk reaction by ignoring the issues relating to the idea of assisted suicide and it's consequences such as What about the rights of the person who may be bullied into assisting a suicide "if you loved me you would do this, and it's legal now" How would they feel?

Or if the law is changed and it is discovered that aged relatives are being pressurised to kill themselves, can we expect a Media campaign to stop this abuse? These are areas pratchett has not looked into hence 'knee-jerk' responce.

I have written with considerable restraint given some of the comments posted and am not going through the hassle of splitting up arguments into mini quotes and branching out new questions and answers. I took enough time answering to your comments as it is.

I replied to you because your responce was insulting, with no thought or respect to the post I made or to me as a person. If you are intending to piss me off with your hot headed approach, then don't; am not here for that and you wouldn't that kind of responce of me either. For the record I think Pratchett is a brilliant writer but I do not agree with his ideas. You may not agree with mine but I expect a more appropiate responce from a mod nonethless.

Thank you for your time reading.

I really didn't appreciate a wet-behind-the-ears newbie with poor understanding of our forum's culture shaking his finger at me in this manner. It's like someone pulling me aside and hissing at me "Be QUIET, your opinions are DISTURBING to me so you should not speak in public!" Since there was nothing said that there couldn't have been said here, and no request to keep it private, I've decide to drag this back into the light of day where I feel it belongs.

Again, in the interest of fairness, I think perhaps there was a little confusion on either side regarding the position of the other, and possibly mixing the viewpoints of more than one person. However, I really fell this was a PM with the intention of drawing a public argument into private because one of the two parties was butt-hurt because my language wasn't lady-like enough to suit him. I don't like that.

Here is my response, with appropriate reference to his PM:

Let's just clear this up:

brain death refers to death of higher brain functions: i.e. not the brain stem. So if the brain stem is still alive, then the person can still breath, digest, etc.

No. You are incorrect.

I have no clue where you live, however, I can assure you that in the United States, which is where I live, "brain death" has a strict medical and legal definition. That is not just cessation of higher functions but cessation of ALL functions. That is the legal definition. That is the medical definition that must be met prior to harvesting organs for transplant.

If you disagree take it up with this site as well.

That site is for laypeople and, I gather, "inventors". It is not a medical or legal authority. I used to be involved in a company that, among many other things, coordinated organ transplants. My sister is a medical doctor and director of hospice. Due to my mother's long illness this is an issue my family discussed with lawyers as well as doctors. You are just, plain, flat out wrong on this, as is that clumsy headline on that website. In fact, the headline is the ONLY place "brain dead" appears as a term, within the body of that article there are other terms used, with accurate explanations. In other words, your "proof" that how YOU define brain dead is accurate is crap.

I stress again brain death is a generalised term

No, it is a term with a very well defined legal and medical definition.

I don't know what your issue is

My issue is that you are WRONG on several points.

B) Not write about yet another poltical gossip topic about how sarah palin is not paying her tax (apprently, not that i care. Quite frankly it's just a spam topic to me)

That has nothing to do with the assisted suicide thread. Why the fuck are you bringing it up in this e-mail?

If it's a "spammy" topic why the hell did you bother to read it?

C) For not agreeing with what is in essence is a defeatist attitude.

Is this the Palin topic or the assisted suicide topic? Because when you mix up threads and then issue a laundry list of complaints it helps if you get specific which points you're referring to instead of spewing generalities. Or you could have just stuck to one topic in the first place.

I do have sympathy for your loss of your mother, regardless of how long ago, the memories of suffering never go away do they? Or do you think your the only one who has not lost someone to mental illness?

My mother did not die from mental illness, suicide, or her dementia. Maybe you should fucking ASK instead of assuming, jackass. You haven't been here very long, you don't know me, and you sure as hell don't understand me.

I don't understand your high charged aggression into a neutral comment, unless it was intended to start a fight or to bully me into changing my opinion.

Try this on for size, asshole: I've got very strong feelings on the subject. It's nothing personal to YOU. I stand up and express that exact same opinon to any other asswipe who shrugs and says shit that makes it sound like suicide - of any sort - is no big deal and A-OK and nothing to get upset about. The old term for suicide was self-murder, and most of the time that's what it is - when the murderer and the victim are one.

Why are you even so sure it was a family member who died? Or that it was even just one person. I have seen the horror of blood, gore, and body parts dripping down a window after some jackass suicide decided to kill himself with the train I was a passenger on - do you think that will ever leave my memory? I distinctly remember watching a tooth slide down the bloody mess on that window. Do you think the poor man driving that train is ever going to forget seeing another human being turn to mush in front of his very eyes? Do you think that's somehow alright for that to be inflicted on innocent bystanders? Is that fair to the people who have to shovel bodyparts off the tracks and wipe them off the train and dig them out from the wheels? Do you think that's fair to his parents, to have their child delivered to them in three small garbage bags? How about the kids playing next to tracks who were spattered with blood and shit? Do you think that's OK? Because that's how it usually is, it's not some romanticized bullshit of drifting off to endless sleep.

And, for your information, that was NOT the only suicide in my life. Here's another one - one of the pilots from the local airport, someone I've known for years, blew his head off with a shotgun while sitting on the toilet. The only one home besides himself was his 6 year old daughter. When she heard the scary noise she ran to daddy - to find daddy's headless body and his brains embedded in the bathroom walls and ceiling. Do you think that's alright? Do you think that's OK? Do you think that didn't hurt that little girl?

So shut the fuck up, you little toadstool. Clearly you know jack shit about the situation if you can't understand how fucking painful suicide is for those left behind, and you object to an honest expression of how abhorrent the delibrate infliction of unnecessary pain is to me.

If you think the right to deny 'death' abhorrent to the terminally ill, then how do you view the right to abort an unborn life?

I have no objection to sedating someone as much as necessary to relieve pain even if that hastens death. I can condone taking the brain dead off life support. I can't condone killing living people.

Unborn fetuses are not human beings. Therefore, not a problem. Well, of course there is a cut off, but let's not side track into that debate.

Not because that child may face gross deformity but because you didn't want that child in the way of your career and is viewed as a contraception to some?

I married someone with a severe birth defect, what does that tell you? I wouldn't say never, but my standard for "too fucked up to live" is considerably different than most peoples'. As for abortion for reasons other than deformity... as I said, a fetus isn't a person. I am pro-choice. Why a woman wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is her choice and none of my business. It doesn't matter if I'd make the same choice in her shoes or not. Choice means SHE chooses, not that I object to any choice but my own.

You are, of course, free to disagree with that position. That is your choice.

Or that the tragedy that some have to deliver a dead baby regardless, but nobody here views the termination of life of the unborn as abhorrent but the 'abhorrent' denial of assisted suicide somewhat is.

I have a lot of concern that it will become too convenient to murder people rather than actually maximize the value of their final days.

Let me clarify that I am not totally opposed to suicide in the face of a painful, protracted death. Aside from the dying person wanting relief from pain, watching a loved one suffer is also painful to family and friends. But "kill yourself" should not be the default option, and helping someone to die should never be made an easy choice.

I spent two months caring for my dying mother. I turned her, I fed her, I wiped her ass when she could no longer do it herself. I sat next to her and held her hand as she died, I felt her body grow cold. I know that her final days were as pain free and anxiety free as it was humanly possible, and in some ways less painful and frightening than the month in the hospital before we brought her home. I know it because I was part of making it happen. We did not need to hasten her death, we merely needed to let it happen.

My father in law died of bone cancer. He, too, died at home by his own choice. I also helped care for him. He was given adequate pain medication to ease his suffering. Granted, it made him comatose his final few days but, again, what would we have gained by forcing him to die sooner? He didn't want to die, even at the end, even in pain, and he was still able to speak and think and talk to people up until that final week.

Why are people so eager to dispose of the dying? They are inconvenient? Scared of death? Dying is a terrible thing, and it is frightening, but I do not run away from death. I have seen people die violently and die peacefully. I have held the hand of someone as they died. I do not run from it, no matter how frightening, no matter how terrible, no matter how awful... and it is painful. Even when death is a release from suffering it is painful to those left behind.

In order to justify suicide of any sort you have to have a reason sufficient to justify that pain - the pain not of the dead, but of those who go on living.

Those like pratchett who do not look at the larger picture are giving off a knee jerk reaction by ignoring the issues relating to the idea of assisted suicide and it's consequences such as What about the rights of the person who may be bullied into assisting a suicide "if you loved me you would do this, and it's legal now" How would they feel?

And if you had actually fucking READ THE ENTIRE THREAD you'd know that I had actually mentioned/addressed some of that myself. Most specifically, the post I made on Monday, February 01, 2010 delineates my complete personal view on end of life care, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. READ IT. Then come back to the argument.

I have written with considerable restraint given some of the comments posted

You haven't been here very long, have you? We do allow people to express themselves in pretty raw terms.

I replied to you because your responce was insulting, with no thought or respect to the post I made or to me as a person.

Oh please - you have not yet seem me insult you. I can do MUCH worse than that.

I refer you to Posting Rule #5:

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

For your further reading enjoyment, read this thread. You should have read that before you started posting, but in case you didn't, go back and read it now. Also, learn how to dress a link. The one you provide is naked and shivering with cold.

If you are intending to piss me off with your hot headed approach

It's inconceivable to you that I really feel that strongly about the issue? I've expressed that viewpoint before - which you wouldn't know, being new here - and in similar vitrolic terms. Because suicide really does make me that angry.

You may not agree with mine but I expect a more appropiate responce from a mod nonethless.

You are new around here. Go back and read the threads on what this board is and isn't about, and what we do and do not allow. And, by the way, I was not speaking as a moderator but as a member - if I HAD been moderating I WOULD HAVE SAID SO. In any case, I would not have moderated in this thread, as it is not my jurisdiction.

Thank you for your time reading.

Thank you for your input. If you wish to continue this discussion do it here. Don't clutter up my PM box because you're too cowardly to discuss the matter or defend your viewpoint in public.

[Singular Intellect]

Personally, I think it's abhorrent that any society feels it has the right to prevent anyone getting legally assisted suicide for any reason whatsoever.

There are some who think it's equally abhorrent that we should listen to a knee-jerk suggestion from a man, that till he was diagonised with it couldn't give two hoots about Alzheimer's.

Personally, I wish people who were so free and easy about suicide had a fucking clue HOW GODDAMNED PAINFUL IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND before they spout off with their bullshit.

Given the context here Broomstick, I take it you're responding to my quote and not Korgeta's.

Tell me, it is justifiable for someone to inflict severe pain on their family and friends that at best will become a chronic, life-long ache?

That's for the individual to decide, not others. One person and one person alone has the final say about suicide, and that's the person considering it. Society and even family cannot go beyond either offering support in trying to present alternate options or assisting the effort.

When you say suicide is OK you're saying it's OK to harm other people. Is that moral? Is that ethical? Is that OK? Do you think it's OK to force a parent to bury his or her child when that death was not necessary? Because that's what you're saying when you advocate permission for suicide for ANY reason "whatsoever".

I advocate a person has the right to end their life for any reason whatsoever, yes. Our obligation as a society or family is merely to support that person, one way or the other. Not tell them any particular decision is 'forbidden'.

Yes, for severe pain in an intractable, terminal illness it might be justified.... but for "just because"? What kind of a morally bankrupt advocate of pain are you? Don't we call that sort of thing "sadism"?

It's sadistic for any individual to argue that any person isn't entitled to determine if they want their life or not and act on that desire.

If someone wanted to commit suicide because they stubbed their fucking toe, I actually can't deny them that right. What I and others can do is offer alternatives to such a decision that ideally leads to them having a healthy and successful life as a productive member of society.

If they're unwilling to try that route despite our best efforts, I would consider it absolutely abhorrent to forcibly prevent anyone from commiting suicide. It's their life, and they have the right to end it if they wish. I'd insist that if we can't dissuade a person from suicide, we're obligated to give them the means to die humanely.

[Knife]

That's for the individual to decide, not others. One person and one person alone has the final say about suicide, and that's the person considering it. Society and even family cannot go beyond either offering support in trying to present alternate options or assisting the effort.

All well and good until you start talking about assisted suicide man. It's the thread topic. If you are relying on other people to do the deed, then it ISN'T the one person, and him/her alone making that decision.