Of the ideas that I have chanced my mind about as an adult, this is near the top of the list. Doctor assisted suicide is one of those issues where the theory and the practice just don’t align at all. It is so easy to imagine (or even come up with real life examples of) sympathetic people who are harmed by the forced continuation of their lives and would benefit from these bills. But in real life those examples are (tragically) not representative.
I believe that the people who advocate for these changes to allow dr assisted suicide are genuine and want what is good. They are good people. There just needs to be more education and awareness of the reality of how these policies are implemented.
I doubt whether any of those who are so adamantly opposed to assisted dying have ever witnessed it. I have and it was the best solution. It was a dignified end to a life well lived. You speak of a cloak of euphemisms but you are as guilty of this yourself. You would make people with no hope suffer until nature takes its course or until they starve themselves to death by refusing food. This type of death pushes man away from civilisation and into a state of nature, where life is needlessly poor, nasty and brutal. In all your concern about life you have forgotten about the person.
Medical decisions are no longer for an individual to make, as we've witnessed in the past 5 years. But in this case, you can make your own decision. Strange times.
Wrong. The critical word here is choice. At the very least there should be a legally binding forward contract/ agreement, whilst the individual has the mental ability to choose. Those against have clearly never seen or been involved with individuals in excruciating pain, suffocating and also vomiting their own faeces.
It is truly awful and can’t all be managed successfully within a hospice setting...which is not available for all.
"if someone chooses to die at home...after death ‘could be the first time [the family] are hearing about it’. A chilling line."
Usually, when someone dies, the fact that they're dead is the first time we hear about it. Actually you seem to be desiring that families all go and participate in the death. Extremely ghoulish.
you misread it. The citation follows Tugendhat's elaborations: "This new bill doesn’t just hide the reality of its actions; it hides the decision from the family". So what the sentence expresses is not trivial as you try to frame it. It's not about death itself. It is that family will hear only after death from
1. the persons suicide wish and
2. the execution of the suicide.
Two things completely different from the occurrence of a natural death and not so trivial at all. Why? Because social and psychological attention and care can undo a death wish in most cases (see data from palliative care).
Thanks, I see what you mean. But this doesn't change how I feel (which I did not elaborate above).
1. Medical decisions are for an individual to make. Your family gets a say in your medical treatment if and only if you desire that to be the case. There is no particular reason for this medical decision to be different.
2. You seem to be imagining a situation in which the family wants to provide social care, but for some reason hasn't been doing that until the possibility of an assisted death is raised. That's... possible, I suppose. But it's only one possibility out of many.
We can all imagine ghoulish scenarios where assisted suicide could go wrong. If the media is to be believed, then some of those scenarios have already come to pass. But that has to be balanced against the benefits that assisted suicide could offer.
I would like to see elected officials using data to make decisions, not imagined horror stories.
Brilliant and moving essay Tom
Great essay.
Of the ideas that I have chanced my mind about as an adult, this is near the top of the list. Doctor assisted suicide is one of those issues where the theory and the practice just don’t align at all. It is so easy to imagine (or even come up with real life examples of) sympathetic people who are harmed by the forced continuation of their lives and would benefit from these bills. But in real life those examples are (tragically) not representative.
I believe that the people who advocate for these changes to allow dr assisted suicide are genuine and want what is good. They are good people. There just needs to be more education and awareness of the reality of how these policies are implemented.
Thankyou. Language is so important. We are losing the collective ability to tell the truth.
Wonderful essay. Would you like to reproduce it Tom as a guest essay on Guerre and Shalom Substack?
I doubt whether any of those who are so adamantly opposed to assisted dying have ever witnessed it. I have and it was the best solution. It was a dignified end to a life well lived. You speak of a cloak of euphemisms but you are as guilty of this yourself. You would make people with no hope suffer until nature takes its course or until they starve themselves to death by refusing food. This type of death pushes man away from civilisation and into a state of nature, where life is needlessly poor, nasty and brutal. In all your concern about life you have forgotten about the person.
Medical decisions are no longer for an individual to make, as we've witnessed in the past 5 years. But in this case, you can make your own decision. Strange times.
Orwell turns in his grave…
Wrong. The critical word here is choice. At the very least there should be a legally binding forward contract/ agreement, whilst the individual has the mental ability to choose. Those against have clearly never seen or been involved with individuals in excruciating pain, suffocating and also vomiting their own faeces.
It is truly awful and can’t all be managed successfully within a hospice setting...which is not available for all.
Better to have the choice, with family present and to die peacefully...not in desperation travel alone to dignitas and die alone.
This is really bizarre writing.
"if someone chooses to die at home...after death ‘could be the first time [the family] are hearing about it’. A chilling line."
Usually, when someone dies, the fact that they're dead is the first time we hear about it. Actually you seem to be desiring that families all go and participate in the death. Extremely ghoulish.
you misread it. The citation follows Tugendhat's elaborations: "This new bill doesn’t just hide the reality of its actions; it hides the decision from the family". So what the sentence expresses is not trivial as you try to frame it. It's not about death itself. It is that family will hear only after death from
1. the persons suicide wish and
2. the execution of the suicide.
Two things completely different from the occurrence of a natural death and not so trivial at all. Why? Because social and psychological attention and care can undo a death wish in most cases (see data from palliative care).
Thanks, I see what you mean. But this doesn't change how I feel (which I did not elaborate above).
1. Medical decisions are for an individual to make. Your family gets a say in your medical treatment if and only if you desire that to be the case. There is no particular reason for this medical decision to be different.
2. You seem to be imagining a situation in which the family wants to provide social care, but for some reason hasn't been doing that until the possibility of an assisted death is raised. That's... possible, I suppose. But it's only one possibility out of many.
We can all imagine ghoulish scenarios where assisted suicide could go wrong. If the media is to be believed, then some of those scenarios have already come to pass. But that has to be balanced against the benefits that assisted suicide could offer.
I would like to see elected officials using data to make decisions, not imagined horror stories.
Isn't that the fantasy? To die surrounded by your loved ones?
It’s the fantasy if the dying person wants it. Tugendhat seems to be suggesting something else: that the family has some kind of a right to be there.