Editorial and Blog Responses

Note: Opinions expressed below do not necessarily reflect those of Death with Dignity National Center's board of directors, staff or supporters.

Today [May 12, 2006], religious voices in the House of Lords will try to stifle debate on a basic human choice - to die with dignity

My Lords temporal, today is the day to rise up against the regiment of Lords spiritual and proclaim the values of enlightenment, compassion and common sense. All you peers of sound and rational mind, delay your weekend plans and turn up to vote this evening.

Today at 5pm a cabal of bishops, rabbis, imams, Catholics, evangelicals and other believers is organising a coup against the assisted dying for the terminally ill bill. Civil-rights lawyer Lord Joffe's bill would allow the dying to be given drugs to end their lives. But the religious are trying to shut down this debate, to deny the Commons a chance to discuss it. The right to die is a popular cause, so killing it off quickly on a Friday evening is their best chance.

Today is not the day when the issue itself will be decided. Today is the day when the forces of superstition will try to cut off any further debate. But then democracy never was an ecclesiastical habit, which is why no religious leaders should be given seats, ex officio, in any reformed House of Lords. Today's behaviour may help focus on that anomaly, as the 26 bishops and the collective of other faiths try to stifle discussion of a reform that has for years had overwhelming public support.

Through virtually unprecedented procedural shenanigans, unless enough sane lords turn up to vote to keep the bill alive, the religious will kill it off. By convention, private member's bills such as this are never voted out at second reading. (The last time was eight years ago on the welfare of pigs. Since then 105 private member's bills have had second readings without a division.) The Lords select committee on the bill agreed unanimously that it should proceed to a joint committee of both houses. Shamefully, some on that committee have reneged - the Bishop of St Albans, Lord Carlile and Baroness Finlay. Having lost the argument with the public, they prefer to shut it down.

In the polls, over 80% support the right to die and have done for the last 25 years. Even 80% of practising Catholics and Protestants support it, plus 76% of Church Times readers. Take with a pinch of salt that vote by the Royal College of Physicians claiming 76% of doctors oppose the bill: only 3,741 voted against it out of an electorate of 16,000. In any case, doctors don't know best. When the end comes, each of us knows best.

So many bills come and go through parliament with great sound and fury signifying nothing much. But here is one that could relieve untold suffering and much fear. As people grow old and their friends die one by one, they see so many needlessly bad endings. Most people come to fear not death itself, but the many terrible ways of dying. So much more attention and campaigning has been given to the idea of the "good birth", with all those classes to prepare. Yet the good death is rather more important: it lasts longer and, as with birth, the worst suffering is largely avoidable.

The small but vociferous campaign Dignity in Dying (once the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) is up against the Care Not Killing alliance, which has an annual income of £11.8m, not counting large subventions from both Anglican and Catholic churches. The Catholics boast that this is their biggest campaign ever. They have sent out 500,000 DVDs, claiming the old will be slaughtered in their thousands by greedy relatives while the NHS dishes out suicide pills to purge aged bed-blockers. There will be no more palliative care, they claim, when doctors can simply kill people off instead. Yet still public opinion has not budged. People want the right to die at a time of their own choosing. Too many families have watched helplessly as a relative dies slowly, longing for death.

Virtually every speaker against the bill in the last Lords debate was religious. The devout Catholic Baroness O'Cathain gave the game away when she blurted out angrily: "I have been advised not to mention the Christian faith. I regard that as almost unbelievable." The whole tenor of the debate was coloured by the Bishop of London's mantra that "we are not autonomous beings". Only God can dispose of life and death. We must await His call in what may be His torturing antechamber.

Jane Campbell, writing on these pages this week against the bill, is severely disabled, but she not only loves her life, she is one of social care's most effective advocates. No one who has met her could fail to admire her vitality and sharpness of brain. But she regards the assisted dying bill as a social threat on a slippery slope towards extermination of the inconvenient. She is dead right about everyone's right to the best care possible at every stage and condition of life. But she should be in there supporting this bill too. For the right to have control over your own body and your own life that is at the heart of disability campaigns is the same principle as the right to die with dignity as you wish. The best care on earth cannot prevent us all dying in the end. In the final months each person finds out for themselves what they can and can't tolerate. Thresholds of pain, indignity and incapacity are entirely personal. It is not for officious doctors, let alone cardinals and bishops, to deny us that last right to choose when enough is enough.

Lies have been told by Care Not Killing about Oregon, where a Death with Dignity Act allows assisted suicide. They claim palliative care has withered, but evidence to the Lords committee showed that, on the contrary, it has become the best care in the US, with an absolute right to it for every citizen even in the most remote areas. Openness about death has led to greater care about all aspects of dying. Research suggests Oregon now has no illegal help with dying, unlike the blurred medical distinctions here: a transparent law makes everything clear for doctors too. Of the first 240,000 deaths, only 246 of the dying actually used the Oregon law, but knowing there is an escape in extremis takes away much fear of death.

This bill has strong safeguards. It is not euthanasia, not an advance directive in case of future mental incompetence. It only allows those within six months of death who are of sound mind, as certified by two doctors, to request self-administered drugs, once they have had a palliative care consultation.

My mother begged doctors to end her life. She was beyond the physical ability to swallow enough of the weak morphine pills she had around her. When she knew she was dying I promised to make sure she could go at a time of her choosing, but it was impossible. I couldn't help. Since writing about it, I have had so many stories from others appalled to find that even the best palliative care (which my mother certainly had) may not end pain. Don't imagine death comes gently on a cloud of morphine: often it is slow, with the indignity of excruciating morphine-induced constipation. (Bishops never mention that.)

Palliative-care doctors tend to be against this bill, claiming they can fix everything. But often they can't. I don't know if, like Mother Teresa, those who choose to work with the dying may be religious-minded. But it worries me if they think that they are the best judge of what is bearable for each of their patients. Infantilisation of the dying is one reason why people facing the end want to choose when to go, with their sanity and dignity still intact.

So, you Lords, rise up! Give us a universal right to a good death - or at least the chance to debate it.

polly.toynbee [AT] guardian.co.uk

Bloggers Respond

ghotso
May 12, 2006 05:52 AM
Spot on as usual Polly. I want to have control of the way I die when the time comes; not to have my life needlessly prolonged. I don't want my wife or children to suffer my suffering. By what right do these unrepresentative, superstitious clerics frustrate a calm and reasoned response to death?

berrowboy
May 12, 2006 06:01 AM
We would all wish to have a painless death. The issue is what you call an individual's "right" to die, then imposes on others an obligation to murder - legally sanctioned of course. Your own mother's circumstances and your own "helplessness" is not sufficient evidence of this need - especially as today palliative care offers extensive pain relief methods beyond oral medication administration. Those who choose to kill themselves for whatever motive - despair, rejection, or pain are able to do so whilst they have the ability to self- destruct. But we too - have the "right" as a society to say we do not wish to collude with another's murder. We must all resist the seductively "rational" voices like yours to wrap up this heinious act as both a "right" as a noble act. In any case - those like you who advocate increasingly cranky ideas should reflect that socialist relativism is itself destructive of us all - just look around you Polly - look at the society your ideas have generated.

Michael01
May 12, 2006 06:51 AM
Polly Toynbee wants people to have the right to die, just as the low-paid workers she writes about elsewhere are in have the right not to be forced to work on Sundays. See where this is going?

maverick125
May 12, 2006 07:18 AM
The right to die is a further sign of the liberal society we must aspire to becoming. The intolerant bastions of old society, such as gender inequality, death penalty and homophobia, have been tackled by the legislature to the vast benefit of millions. This is the next step forward. The Christian right will use their tired old complaint against relativism, but it is our ability to adjust to relative circumstances that is our greatest strength. We might once have believed in certainties such as female inequality or the evil of abortion, but as a society we have matured. We are now capable of dealing with the issue of death in a rational, compassionate way without sliding into the right's scaremongering vision of the future.

brenzone
May 12, 2006 07:28 AM
The Bishop of London's mantra is that "we are not autonomous beings". Only God can dispose of life and death. We must await His call in what may be His torturing antechamber. Yet the vast majority seems to be trying to subvert God's calling when it comes. A time may come when somebody is simply clapped out and should be allowed to move on. Yet armies of esp. doctors try to prevent this, administering drugs and carrying out operations, to try to get an extra mile out of the wreckage. Some even want their heads preserved in nitrogen in the hope that they can be brought back to life at a future date. Now I don't begrudge the latter their little vanity if the cost is to their account, and I wouldn't begrudge the wrecks their desire to get a few more miles out of their age-ruined bodies if they can afford it. Where I would be inclined to draw the line is where they turn to the NHS for their salvation. Priests and the like can do their thing - religion is their business; they have to live it and propagate it in order to eat. But ultimately it is up to each person to make decisions on his/her fate independently, not relying on the word of the priest, nor the NHS, nor some well-meaning (or otherwise) relative but on what they themselves want to do.

annetan42
May 12, 2006 08:03 AM
Berrowboy the society around us is emphatically not the result of socialist thinking. It is the result of 30+ years of me me me greed is good, there is no such thing as society consumer capitalism. I do confess that some of the fears generated by this bill may be a subconscious recognition that the logic of our economic system is the complete abandonment of the poor the old and ecconomically inactive. Whereas I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of the bill which are humane and have much to say about human dignity, I do have to confess that in the present circumstances those who oppose it may just have a point.

Karl123
May 12, 2006 08:27 AM
When human beings become more liberal and tolerant, the church comes along and tries to change it all and make it a worse world.

Stujam
May 12, 2006 08:39 AM
Excellent article,more temperate on this subject than I've seen before. The bill is very specific, only 6 months or less to live, in sound mind, 2 requests & doctors. There are no great horror stories coming from places where a similar system is in place much to the annoyance of the people who are against this bill. Do they have no mercy? Why would you insist on prolonging the time of someone in intolerable pain (and no matter how good palliative care is it in many many cases becomes a cycle of pain & nausea & incoherence)But for some people it is not the pain that would be only reason but the dependence on other people for some of the most imtimate things - this is something you would put up with if you were going to recover but if you're going to die anyway do you want your bottom wiped by strangers. Do you want you children and loved ones to remember you in pain or drug induced ramblings? Some people with terminal illnesses are in a position to make the most of their final time and good luck to them, everybody should be so lucky but for those who are left with no quality of life why deny them chance to die with some dignity at a time of their choosing.

monachos
May 12, 2006 08:58 AM
Everyone deserves the dignity of being a human being. That's first and foremost and should inform every thought and action around and for human biengs. Every human life is a human person and without regard has the intrinsic right to be treated with compassion and fairness from the moment it first begins to the moment it ends. The arguments about choice, about compassion and the harrowing pain towrads the end of life are not lost, indeed as one who watched a relaqtive waste away unitl she was but a shell, it was very upsetting. I try to deny it, tried to concentrate on the former times, on the happy memories, but none of them would erdicate the image of a hollowed out woman nearing the end and barely aware of the people around her. It was upsetting, but nothing as upsetting as to remove from her the dignity of being a human being. She was a human being still. Now, we want to hurry the whole thing up at the end, dispose of the old (there going to die anyway, NHS resources etc etc). That's a parody but one that has a certain truth in it, namely that our society is one of production and consumption and in this moral point, because above all other economic or societal ones, it is, when we consume more that we produce then we become a burden. Forget about growing old with grace. Tonybee's point that the supersition of religion and those who would "peddle" it is a retrograde step even more so in our civil society. Civil, really? Is our society civil? Removing the beishops and the cardinals as she derisorily says will create a egalitarian society? the truth is that the bishops and the cardinals are acting in the defence of the dignity of human beings and pointing to the facts of the huamn condition most of the tme we'd like to ignore- that pain and suffering are a part of who we are as humans and in its treatment and care we are judged, not firetly in front of a creator God, but in front of ourselves.

Stanleywt
May 12, 2006 09:33 AM
Well said Polly, why do we permit these perveyors of exploitive nonsense to rule over us. The House of Lords is as an Augean Stable - time it was cleansed very thoroughly.As Robert Burns aptly puts it " Ye see yon birkie caud a laird hae struts and stares an all that!!!!!

MrPikeBishop
May 12, 2006 09:46 AM
Good stuff Polly. Although I don't think it's quite that clear cut - I can indeed see situations where patients may be coerced into this, I can also see situations where doctors may sway the argument, and that's not great, for patients or doctors. There is also the question of children - who decides, for a terminally ill child? Doctors? As a parent I have to say NO WAY. Or parents? Oh god... Or the poor child? Riddle that. However, on balance, each of us should have control over our life, and that includes how and when to end it. I will develop a terminal neurodegenerative disorder, probably in my mid-fifties. It will kill me, in just about the worst way, if something else doesn't first. My dad was lucky, his heart gave out before he'd advanced too far. I have already selected the right hillside, the right single malt, the right music, and the right shotgun - it would be nice if I could dispense with that last item, so at least the poor bugger who finds me doesn't encounter such a mess.

billstickers
May 12, 2006 10:06 AM
Polly Toynbee attempts to force support for what she calls a "right" by ridiculing and morally outlawing an existing right. Her entire diatribe would have us believe that "religious" people are somehow morally corrupt and not entitled to consult their beliefs before making a vote. I wonder if Polly consults her beliefs before she votes - or does she just stick a pin in the ballot with her eyes shut - doing whatever she does for England? I wouldn't have a Lord's if it was up to me (which it isn't), but while it exists, I recognise the right of the individuals who comprise it's membership to vote freely - according to their beliefs or with a pin. That's their right. They also have the right to consult with other members and to attempt to influence their votes. It's no secret conspiracy, it's called democracy (even the bit about the Lord's actually existing). Polly Toynbee has the right to write whatever her editor will let her get away with. However, in writing this piece, she shows us what she would get up to given any real power. I'm personally getting a bit tired of the propaganda in lieu of journalism - or even comment - that daily graces these pages. Present the evidence for your side, Polly, and spare us the floor-stomping tantrums on the way up to your room....And don't slam that door!

Passaro
May 12, 2006 10:11 AM
Thank you Polly. Couldn't agree more.

blacknorth
May 12, 2006 10:11 AM
a good friend of mine is currently in the last stages of terminal cancer...originally she was given 9 months....that was well over 2 years ago now and since then she has consistantly shown courage and example the like of which it was a singular honour for me to witness....i aint getting into an argue about this because there are others out there who will by their sheer knowledge beat me right or wrong....all i am saying is this despite being religous i could never support this by the very acts of courage i witness from my friend on a daily basis...no matter that others may view the result of her illness as "undignified"....i have nothing but admiration in the way she has carried herself through this difficult time. even after 16 months she decided to climb a hill on crutches just to see the view and its these "special things" as she names them which keep her going....she once told me something as simple as grass showing through the snow after winter made her day worthwhile....simple pleasures hold more and more meaning for her. i dont mean to preach but maybe what we view as undignified would not be such a big issue if we did not project our distaste of certain things onto the afflicted. tuppence worth

Szwagier
May 12, 2006 10:30 AM
Is 'the right to die' synonymous with 'the right not to be kept alive'? Because I'm not sure it is, although I can't yet articulate why.

mediod
May 12, 2006 10:36 AM
Polly I followed your article about your own mum last year with great admiration and respect. It triggered discussions with my own folks! Just as I was disgusted about the Church's interference last year in Italy over the referendum on stem cell research and related matters, how dare our own establishment allow the Church to interfere in the House of Lords over the right to die. It has taken Europe 500 years to become the enlightened place it is: it used to be run by Cardinals and Bishops and then Galileo, Darwin and other helped us to see the light. Bless them. This may well be a secular society de facto but let us not forget we have technically not (yet) split Church and State. Time to do so and quickly.

Diotima
May 12, 2006 10:52 AM
The dying person must be able to give (or previously have given)clear consent---or this is murder. In a case known to me, in another European country, a friend was given massive amounts of injectable morphine to deal with her moribund father's extreme pain. He gave no assent to assisted suicide, but he died nevertheless. He had as far as I know expressed no desire for rapid death, merely relief from pain, but the latter led to the former.

Freddeejones
May 12, 2006 10:55 AM
Billstickers I agree. You call yourself "liberal" Polly but have no respect for or understanding of people disagree with you. You cannot classify the whole of Christianity as the religious right nor the view that human life should be protected as mere superstition.

IanIRL
May 12, 2006 10:55 AM
billstickers - The Lords is about as far away from democracy as you can get. What these church folk are trying to do is deny the opportunity for the elected Parliament to discuss and vote on this issue - probably because they will realise that they would lose since it is laregly the wish of the electorate that this issue is dealt with. If they truly believe they can win and their position is right, then send it to the Commons and lets have a good old scrap

Suzon
May 12, 2006 11:04 AM
I spent one of the most harrowing nights of my life in a hospice room with four dying cancer patients. It took two or three hours to calm down my distraught husband who was (for the only time) out of his mind with the terror of dying. He was lucky and died peacefully within days. However, anyone with a pinch of compassion would have wept for two of his companions. One had been comatose for several months, only occasionally rousing himself to manage a weak cry of "Help me..." whilst the other was throwing off the sheets and his clothes and carrying on a naked dialog with God ("Don't punish me, I'm a good little boy!) in his troubled sleep. If the medical establishment is not allowed to prevent prolonged dying, then people who have seen the "permissable" distress of the terminally ill will themselves opt to top themselves whilst they can. Religious people, take note.

JohnN1
May 12, 2006 11:06 AM
I guess the anxiety and fear of conscientious doctors and the 'religious' is that this is the thin end of the wedge. Look at the Abortion Bill. It was supposed to be only allowed if abortion would benefit a mother's health. In an age of evidence based medcine I doubt there have been many clinical trials of abortion for the thousands of 'social cases' that occur - and what of the unmeasured guilt, and shame of what can only be a negative act? I think soon, if people don't stand up, there will be thousands of elderly and disabled, facing nothing but rejection and devaluation by the secular society so desired by Polly Toynbee. In a world where humans are just machines, and there is no hope beyond death no meaning to suffering - no hope of a higher purpose in it, then mass graves will soon pile up with the spiritually disenfranchised. Alternatively I can look at the Cross Of Christ and say that a man's death - even in great pain and anguish - can be the embodiment of dignity and wonder, and a source of infinite hope. And a sure guarantee, in the face of society's deepest cynicism, that God does Love us after all.

MrPikeBishop
May 12, 2006 11:12 AM
"And a sure guarantee, in the face of society's deepest cynicism, that God does Love us after all. " Does he f***. A god that loved us wouldn't put a gene in me that will eat my brain from the inside out, and that will do it to my children too. A god who loved us wouldn't put cancers leaping up our throats like poisoned crows feathers. A god who loves us wouldn't... oh f*** off. Just f*** right off.

MrPikeBishop
May 12, 2006 11:17 AM
sorry - actually I'm not sorry john but I guess you deserve an explanantion, but I'm not really prepared to give it - other than perhaps you should read Suzon's post above yours, and peraps reflect on the level of misery in this world. yes, it's a great universe, in more ways than it is a crap one, but given the horrific suffering inflicted on the innocent every day, there is no WAY that there's a kindly god up there.

altrui
May 12, 2006 11:18 AM
What the hell are Bishops doing in our legislature anyway? Human dignity demands that we control our own lives, and deaths should we choose. What right do others have (usually the religious) in compromising that dignity? None whatsoever. Time for disestablishment, I think.

theprayingatheist
May 12, 2006 11:19 AM
The Christian argument that it's wrong to assist death because only God can choose when it's time to go is absurd. By the same logic this would mean that to treat a victim of an RTA etc is wrong, in fact, any treatment that prolongs life is wrong. Man, I despise religion.

Paulinebrown
May 12, 2006 11:19 AM
Absolutely, Polly. The right to choose what we do with our own bodies has never been more under attack from the religious than it is now — just look at America and the the erosion of women's reproductive rights. I really resent the fact that people who care more about a person's 'life' before birth or after death than about the bit in between are allowed to have a say in how my life is to be lived. I may be way off the mark here, but am I right in thinking that come 'judgment day' there are points to be scored for souls saved? I wouldn't dream of forcing someone with deeply held religious beliefs to have a painless, dignified but sinful death if what they what they would rather have is a painful, undignified but virtuous one. Why should they be allowed to force me into the latter?

thegrouchybeast
May 12, 2006 11:23 AM
It always seems strange to me that the people who are supposed to believe in an eternal afterlife are often the ones who make the most strenuous demands that no one must be allowed to choose to pass on to it even a day before their 'appointed' time, and that all lives must be preserved at any cost. Why are they so afraid of death?

mariagorgeous
May 12, 2006 11:25 AM
Consider this example . . . a person has a terminal illness. They feel relatively comfortable, lucid and in good spirits. However, they know that at a certain point of deterioration they will become doubly incontinent, confused, frightened and will suffer great pain (without a way of letting anyone else know how much). Were they to have the option of deciding at what point they want to die, all legal and above board, they can relax and enjoy the time *they* have decided to have left with their families and friends. However, as this right does not exist, their only option - if they want to 'die with dignity' - is to take their own life while they still have the capacity to do it themselves, and far sooner than they would have if others were responsible for administering the fatal dose . . . . I wonder how often this scenario has happened. I wonder how many suicide notes say "I'm sorry I didn't warn you, but I know that if I didn't do this now, you would not be able to help me in the future without falling foul of the law . . ." I believe the arguments about relatives or health workers bumping people off for convenience, or that people will be faced with the choice of 'palliative care or quick death, not both', or that palliative care quality will suffer, are spurious. And as for the 'religious' element - "only God can decide" - is it possible for God to say "yes, it's your time", only for the distraught relatives to beg the health staff to make this not so? Medicine has advanced too far for God to get a look in.

Szwagier
May 12, 2006 11:25 AM
Not even prolonging life, prayingatheist. Don't give your kid a measles vaccination. If God thinks your child should die of measles, who are you to disagree?

getuplate
May 12, 2006 11:26 AM
I only have one request. Please let’s put our house in order before we consider this Bill. I have been fortunate not to have gone through what Polly and others have been through (yet) but I firmly beleive that if the resources are available to care for people as they reach the end of their natural lives, we would not have to consider this Bill. This is not a religious arguement this is common sense. Leave people in pain, take away their houses and insist on means testing - no wonder they want this option. Don't forget though, you will still have to swollow your potion yourself. Jane Cambell is looking at this from a disabled person's point of view which is where most people will be in when they need to make this decision. If my parents had taken doctor's advice, I would not be here writing to you now. Is that to say that all Doctors are wrong? No, it means that there is always the element of chance when it comes to living things. I still cannot understand how you can have a safeguard that a person has only six months to live when that very act of assiting them destroys that evidence.

bambo
May 12, 2006 11:29 AM
Given that the church is in favour of prolonging excruciating suffering, it manifestly is morally corrupt. The sooner its influence evaporates from politics the better.

Corcagiensis
May 12, 2006 11:44 AM
Is the existence of suffering the thing that tells us whether there is a loving God or not? Did your parents always make life as easy for you as possible? Suffering and death are inescapable aspects of life. The question is: do we (individually and as a society) value that life until the end?

Stujam
May 12, 2006 11:46 AM
JohnNi, surely people who belive there is no hope after death have more of an inclination to preserve life (well their own at least)Why are people who are convinced they are going to a better place so desperate to cling onto life at any costs and make anyone else do the same. The praying atheist, good point. Why do these people against the bill have no compassion, why would you want to make someone suffer when there is an alternative. I can admire people who faced with a terminal illness find joy in the smallest of things and face bravely all adversity but I want the option to end my life if I find it intolerable (and am to infirm or 'far gone' to do the necessary myself) I once read somewhere 'it is only the thought of suicide that enabled me to endure the difficult night'

myword
May 12, 2006 11:46 AM
I agree with you 100%, Polly. How typical of those who fear rational argument to use every procedural device to avoid it. How typical of those great 'compassionate' institutions - the churches - to coalesce in a cocoon of ineffable smugness to impose their doctrinal values on the rest of mankind. How typical of those who wish to impose doctrinal values to distort and devalue empirical evidence that is inconvenient. No, indeed we are not autonomous beings if we are to be subject to the Bishop of London and his like requiring us to walk their line. I absolutely agree that in a revised upper chamber there is no place for churchmen qua churchmen. As to the merits of the Bill, it is a modest but very welcome proposal, with in-built safeguards against undue pressure etc. One would have thought that in any society that purports to be civilised it would be axiomatic that respect and compassion for the dying would embrace the right to die with dignity. If Polly's statistics are right, the overwhelming majority of the public agrees. It would be a scandal therefore if a collection of unelected clerics, representing only a very small and narrow section of society, were able to impose their will on the rest of us, by voting out this bill at second reading on a Friday evening.

bobbellinhell
May 12, 2006 11:47 AM
Does this mean, Polly, that when you urged us to hold our noses and vote New Labour at the last election, you were merely supporting Iraqi civilians' right to die shock-and-awe style?

PRECON
May 12, 2006 11:51 AM
I am against this Bill and suicide. I note above the pragmatic reasons of pain avoidance and as with many others I have some personal experience. However the proposers are the supporters of the 'something for nothing society' and display the bad facets of having the Welfare State. The UK Government has failed in very many areas to regulate, sometimes it has legislated without realistic examination of the effectiveness of the regulatory system it is thinking it will be putting in place. The safeguards will be thin to non-existent. I would also appreciate the difference between a 'physical pain' and the incurable mental illness that also makes life unbearable- perhaps you'd say that the mentally ill can throw themselves in front of a train, your car or off a bridge in front of you. Would you help them over the edge? I remember my shock being told at 50 years that 'lucky to have Private Medicine' because the NHS doesn't support the removal of a 'bone like' tissue growing in a damaged leg muscle. Let's be straight the NHS is ageist. It is ageist within, very obvious now the NHS, so well managed/regulated by the Government, is cutting staff- 'the old' should go is noticeable. The staff is being dumbbed down, been there seen it, as has the Ombudsman. Have you ever had to show a nurse how to give medication? Ask a doctor for a diagnosis then explain bit by bit their incompetence? Hospitals are dangerous places, one of the dangers for the elderly is much as they wanted to live on entry after a series of errors they won't; diamorphine's pretty cheap these days. Readers might note that doctors in the USA refuse to act as functionaries in executions using 'lethal injection'. Doctors apart from "the Shipmans" may quite correctly refuse to participate in suicide- workers in emergency services, train drivers etc are often traumatised by sudden death and require extensive therapy. There's a lot of differece between death after pallitive care and assisting suicide. Perhaps Polly Toynbee and her ilk should retrain to become experts in dispatching people and move to Switzerland, there maybe a financial disadvantage of course. Vote in this Bill and on the NHS the old will go- there will be no need of expensive operations, particularly if they'd blot the competitive hospital league tables of effective operations, operating on the elderly carries a higher risk. That will save the State a lot of money starting with the Pensions. Regimes unable to afford to care for their worn out workers have killed them- that was a solution in Nazi Germany. The article above is self serving and I am afraid awfully myopic- typically in an ivory tower and really not in the real and evolving world.

Natmandu
May 12, 2006 11:54 AM
That the Catholic church that would oppose assisted dying is the same church that so far refuses to sanction contraception in Africa, leading to the decimation of that continent through AIDS, says to me that it has no moral authority whatsoever in this case - and never mind their policy on abortion. Anachronistic, hopelessly confused, and rightly withering away in a modern secular society, religion has nothing useful to contribute to the debate - but that won't stop the 'moral minority' screwing this and everything up, unless rational people get their act together.

billstickers
May 12, 2006 11:54 AM
IanIRL, the Lord's isn't far away from democracy. It exists because we let it exist. Also, the issue that you say the Lord's shouldn't prevent from going to Parliament was presented by a Lord, not an MP, (or is Joffe an MP) I really don't know). The Lord's then os peer-reviewing the rubbish that is spewing from its bowels. What's wrong with that?------Christianity (is that what you mean by "religion" here eveyone?) does not preach that a person should not have the free will to kill himself or that a person should not have the free will to kill another. It only preaches that there will be consequences if they do. Christianity does not preach that either it or its tenets should be forced upon anyone. Amyone who tries to force you "not to sin" is not a Christian (not to be confused with upholding civil laws). You can do what you want and believe what you want - and that's straight from the top. We believe that there will be a judgment. You don't have to believe that. However, we reserve the right to vote (whenever we get the chance) our conscience (as, I'm sure, do you and Polly). We don't expect to be ridiculed or called names for doing so. I definitely don't expect respected journalists to do so. So much for expectations.-------Now, in this democracy, if more people on one side of an issue vote (or get off their behinds and organise themselves into a bloc and vote), for one thing, there should be no "democrats" whining because they lose the vote. All I hear on here is, we want our democratic rights, but we don't want anyone we don't agree with to have any, and we'll scream blue murder if they so much as look like they have any -slagging off the nearest grouping we can pen them into. You should be ashamed of your hypocritical selves. If they vote in a law that allows any level of killing, I'll respect that law - although I won't indulge it myself. I thought that's what democracy was supposed to be all about. I knew all that refereed football I used to play would come in handy one day. Play the whistle.

mboy
May 12, 2006 11:57 AM
Now that the Local Elections are over - a good article from Polly T. Good to see her back to her more rational self, as opposed to the laughable "vote Labour despite what they've done" nonsense we see every election. Part of me hopes the Lords Spritual do kick up a fuss on this, because it will be the final nail in their coffin when Lords reform comes. If the bishops are seen to use religious grounds to clearly scupper a bill that has popular support they will be out on their ear when the devoutly-Christian Blair family is in retirement.

GrampaJoe
May 12, 2006 11:59 AM
As usual Polly turns this debate into an attack upon the influence of Religion within society. It is nothing of the sort. I an not religious but am against the bill. I'm afraid the issue of coercion has not been addressed. People die in horrible ways every day without any paliative care. Death is sadly a part of life.

Peppermintpig
May 12, 2006 12:06 PM
I'd be very interested to know how many of the above blogger's who are arguing against Polly have actually experienced seeing a terminally ill loved one/friend suffer in agony. I'll wager not many of them. If, god forbid, any of them suffers like Polly's mum I wonder if they will still want to live on in agony. I think not. And isn't it about time we kept the shaman's influence out of politics once and for all?

altrui
May 12, 2006 12:09 PM
thegrouchybeast - very good point. I note the God Squad hasn't argued your point yet. Is it because they can't?

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 12:10 PM
Debate about it freely and openly - we must - but please let us do so with caution. The potential to abuse this and take people's lives unnecessarily, unscupulously - makes my blood run cold. I'ev had someone very close to me comit suicide. He was 29, a brilliant doctor and he left a young family behind. I have also covered a story of an elderly woman (87) who was "accidentally" given an overdose of morphine by a daughter (67) who in turn inherited £450,000 plus property and just weeks before the death had complained bitterly about how her mother was draining her.

Freddeejones
May 12, 2006 12:15 PM
I am against this bill not because "only God has the right to decide" but because six years ago my father was diagnosed as being terminally ill, with less than 6 months to live, and for around 2 years he was extremely ill and suffered incredibly. Now he has virtually recovered and leads a very happy life, albeit using a wheelchair. Our faith kept us going through that horrible time but that is beside the point. No doubt most of you will dismiss this as the ramblings of the insane religious.

freepoland
May 12, 2006 12:16 PM
I sincerely wish all the claptrap from Catholics would go away, because while I agree with Polly's drift, there is a real debate behind this about and among doctors - and it's about professionalism, the Hippocratic oath, and what counts as 'humane'. There are some doctors who, confronted with a patient in pain and in terminal decline, could still never bring themselves to deliberately end a life. And others who can recognise their own power as positive, bringing about an end to continuing and useless misery for patient and family / friends. Perhaps this is stage II of the debate, which can only be had when the religious baggage gets heaved overboard; but if the bill becomes law, the pressure increases on doctors to become guardians of 'dignity' in ways many of them didn't foresee when they trained.

Carolingian
May 12, 2006 12:18 PM
Precon: Polly's article states: "it only allows those within six months of death who are of sound mind, as certified by two doctors, to request self-administered drugs, once they have had a palliative care consultation;" is not a paper-thin safeguard to me... I echo most of the sentiments here about Polly finally returning to some sanity after the elections and this is her back, also, at her finest. The 'attack on religion' mentioned by a few commentors/readers is not what it seems; it is an argument by people for choice. Choice at the time of their highest need - if, that is, you agree that people should be spared ignomy, distress and pain. Death may be a part of life, that is undeniable, but the manner of that death is not part of that same thing. Taking this emotive issue further, would these people also say that those people who jumped out of the World Trade Center windows in New York on 11th September to escape the raging fires were also morally wrong (for that is the implication). You cannot say - with any moral or argumentative consistency - that one is possible and the other is not. Either both are or both are not. And if you imply that roasting alive in an inferno not of your making is something that should be endured in the end because of your 'non-right' to take your 'god-given' existence away, then frankly that says all I need to know about your state of mind and sanity. Just because the inferno can take 6 months or more to consume you, it does not imply that you should have to endure it all. Some of these unthinking reactionary comments disgust me.

bambo
May 12, 2006 12:18 PM
Hear hear, Peppermint Pig. Suffering may be part of life but that is no reason to promote the prolongation of excruciating suffering and humiliation. The Church disgusts me.

Gobstar
May 12, 2006 12:35 PM
How come the same people who oppose capital punishment are the same people who promote euthenasia? Isn't it still state murder? Sure, it may or may not be "right", I'm not arguing for or against either, I'm simply suggesting that state murder is state murder. Any biters on this juicy bait?

bambo
May 12, 2006 12:37 PM
I'm pro capital punishment.

JonathanWest
May 12, 2006 12:40 PM
This has always been a tough issue. If you are faced with a loved one who is terminally ill, in extreme pain that cannot be relieved, and who asks for assistance in ending that pain in the only way available, can you in all conscience say that they should be denied that help? I cannot. But on the other hand, I'm not at all keen that the accepted medical treatment for certain conditions should be the death of the patient. As far as I'm concerned that is not what medicine should be about. Accepting that as a principle reduces the incentive for research to find new ways of relieving pain or to cure presently incurable conditions. In addition, this could be regarded as the thin end of the wedge - society might progressively widen the circumstances where assisted dying is considered appropriate, to the point where the elderly and infirm may be pressured into believing that it is their duty to go in order to cease being a burden on society. I don't want to go any distance at all down that road. I find those arguments against assisted dying to be extremely strong. But even so, you may still find your loved one in extreme distress and asking for help dying. There is no good answer.

deus
May 12, 2006 12:46 PM
thegrouchybeast and GwashaBaby - The fact religious people believe in an after-life doesn't mean they will be desperate to avoid it because they also believe that life is a gift from God and they do not want it to be rejected by suicide, assisted or otherwise.

Stujam
May 12, 2006 12:48 PM
Gobstar - choice

deus
May 12, 2006 12:51 PM
Also, to those who say "Have these people ever had to stand by and watch a loved one suffer?" - I don't think anyone has to have experienced something to be able to express an opinion, or indeed vote on it.

johnBScotland
May 12, 2006 12:51 PM
The point 'billstickers' is that a small minority within this undemocratic outfit called 'The Lords' is deliberately distorting the sytem even more, in order to pander to their own religious biases. Bad enough that we still allow people who wish to peddle religious mumbo-jumbo to have a special voice in Governmnet without having them distort the system even more. It has one benefit. The churches are once again shown to be arrogant, hypocritical, dictatorships. The prophets and holy men on whose teachings they are variously supposedly based would disown them with distaste. The Catholic church in particular yet again leads in demonstrating it is at the forefront of the drive back to the dark ages of ignorance, fear and cant rather than truth, open-ness and light. The torture irons will be heating again in the dungeons ! Talk to any doctor about terminal pain relief. It's not a s good as easy or as complete as some simplistic views here suggest. I wish it was. As an earlier comment said, the side effects can be horrible, and the patient is no longer in a condition to make people aware of these. Not a pleasant prospect

rennie
May 12, 2006 12:55 PM
For the attention of Jonathan West. If you are pro capital punishment than you are prepared to allow the state to terminate your life or the life of a loved one. I am not so prepared. If faced with a loved one in extreme distress than I would take steps to terminate their life and then inform the appropriate authorities that I have done so. The idea of placing such a dreadful responsibility on the shoulders of someone else is abhorrent to me. That the state should condone that action is even worse. Should that undesriable state of affairs ever become law the pressure of young needy children on their parents to terminate their lives will become unbearable.

austint
May 12, 2006 01:00 PM
Having watched my father die of cancer in his allotted hospice, slowly, in obvious distress and incapable of communicating anything, was probably the most harrowing moment of my life. The fact that he was left to die "naturally" with only a minimum of palliatives -- the nurse assigned to him at the time was forbidden to give him any more because any more was "potentially fatal" -- made it immeasurably worse. Our cat was put down in a more humane way. How sick would it have been to gather round its last agonies and merely watch? Polly, stick to your guns. No religious "reasoning" or interference will ever sway or prevent me from choosing whatever method I may choose for leaving this mortal coil.

johnBScotland
May 12, 2006 01:01 PM
'Freepoland' is right. Behind the religious claptrap there is a serious ethical debate. This is not an easy prospect for any doctor. Their inclination is naturally towards curing and alleviating sickness, not assisting the end. Do they have the support of the people at large? It seems so, but as so often the quiet majority is being drowned out by the noisy few. A good debate would be helpful both for us, the public, and I imagine for many in the health professions.

deus
May 12, 2006 01:02 PM
altrui, not Gwashababy... apols. Complain about the make-up of the Lords by all means, but since the bishops are there, don't expect them to sit down and shut up. Everyone votes according to what they believe.

freepoland
May 12, 2006 01:03 PM
Informal friends of the dying have included pneumonia, and the doctor or nurse who ups the dose of morphine at the appropriate moment; and that might have continued without too much legislative energy needed. But then along came Shipman. Which is why on balance I think law is needed to define the conditions under which assisted dying should take place. For those interested in death and professional standards, a viewing of the film Pierrepoint is constructive. He carried out the law punctiliously. After the abolition of the death penalty he said he thought capital punishment had contributed nothing to the reduction of crime, and that it was merely state or public revenge. But there is an astonishingly poetic moment when he puts the noose around Ruth Ellis's neck and she gives him the sweetest of smiles. Laws rarely improve human behaviour, and some doctors will worry about the impact of this bill on what they do; I fear the responsibility it gives them, and the increased necessity of 'detachment' which it imposes.

Gobstar
May 12, 2006 01:03 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about abortion as well. So, basically, we're saying it's all right to kill perfectly decent human beings, or embryos who are going to become decent human beings, but it's not right to kill convicted criminals? I just wanted to make sure of our priorities on this one... Either way, if it's not the state deciding when we die, then it is "God", and "God" is merely some establishment voice pretending to speak on "God"'s behalf and therefore we will never know what "God"'s will is, so we may as well ignore the "God" argument altogether as a red herring. Far more important is the duplicity between allowing state murder of embryos and the terminally ill, but not allowing state murder of convicted criminals. Are we just saying that life is only "good" or "worth it" when we live according to how society thinks/the majority of people think it should be lived (i.e. free from pain, within the law, without disabilities, without terminal disease, whenever the parent(s) choose)? Doesn't that just mean that we are playing God? Doesn't that mean that all those people ranting about how evil religion is should include themselves in their diatribes, because you are pretending to be your own religion? All belief is a belief, whether it's in Theism or Atheism, whether it's in the state as regulator of life, or as in a fairy in the sky called "God" who regulates life. At least we can vote for state regulators, we can't vote for "God" - who speaks through a chosen Pope or clergy or whoever. But let's at least agree that if we think it's fine to kill embryos and the terminally ill, then we're ignoring why we don't think it's right to kill convicted criminals.

Gobstar
May 12, 2006 01:09 PM
Hmmm. So an embryo has no choice whether to be good or not, yet parents and the state can choose to end its life. A criminal has a choice whether to be good or not and the state can choose to end his or her life. A terminally ill patient has the choice to end his or her life with the state as mediator. Is there a pattern here? I'm confused.

StChad
May 12, 2006 01:29 PM
"Take with a pinch of salt that vote by the Royal College of Physicians claiming 76% of doctors oppose the bill: only 3,741 voted against it out of an electorate of 16,000. In any case, doctors don't know best." I like the way Polly Toynbee rubbishes any poll that comes up with a conclusion she doesn't agree with. What proportion of the electorate were polled for the polls that she did like, I wonder? Presumably significantly less than the proportion of doctors (almost a quarter of that particular electorate). While I agree with the theme of this article, I don't approve of the way that it was expressed.

mattcitizen
May 12, 2006 01:30 PM
Gobstar - there is a big difference between the state actively taking a life (capital punishment) and the state allowing an individual to take their own (VE). Abortion is a bit of a red herring as embryos aren't people. So let's please deal with the issue at hand rather than throwing into the mix any incident that we can think of in which someone may or may not kill a person; becasue that's not helpful or conducive to a good debate.

Loradean
May 12, 2006 01:31 PM
I assume that the force-feeding of the hunger strikers at the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp is an American version of palliative care.

Adamastor
May 12, 2006 01:36 PM
"Is 'the right to die' synonymous with 'the right not to be kept alive'? Because I'm not sure it is, although I can't yet articulate why. " It isn't. The right not to be kept alive is the right to refuse treatment that will keep you alive. The right to die is the right to insist on treatment that will kill you. We accept that people who are physically able to do so can kill themselves. Why not grant the same right to people who are physically unable to do so?

freepoland
May 12, 2006 01:55 PM
Adamastor (many times): we don't accept that 'people who are physically able to do so can kill themselves'; we have to accept that they Do kill themselves, and often enough they have done so because their balance of mind is disturbed. The point about doctors' responsibility is that it will need to take into account the patient's mental stability. The 'hospice' argument is that pain and distress can be relieved to the extent that the wish to die is not caused simply by a wish to remove pain. That will still leave people who make a rational decision to end their life, because of what they know about their illness (mostly from information provided by doctors) but do not have the means or the know how. This is where doctors come in, and they need guidelines which are the most intelligent and humane that can be devised. And still there will be room for them to have doubts. So granting the right to die is all very well, but the responsibility in legal terms will lie with the doctor.

JonathanWest
May 12, 2006 02:22 PM
For the attention of rennie - I hadn't expressed any opinion on capital punishment. I dont really see why you needed to make a guess as to my opinion and then post accordingly.

Gobstar
May 12, 2006 02:27 PM
Churchy types wouldn't agree that embryos aren't people. And anyway, who says I can't expand the realms of debate? I think it's perfectly helpful. I'd rather people expanded them, than get all haughty and defend their right to confine parameters of debate.

mbe2
May 12, 2006 02:29 PM
I firmly reject Polly's views on this subject. If someone is terminally ill and wishes to die with dignity - perhaps they should go ahead and commit suicide without involving anyone else while they still are capable to do so. A Living Will is also available to all who do not wish to prolong their lives when terminally ill!

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 02:32 PM
DEUS...................Firstly, it never ever truly matters until it's personal. Secondly, mixing religion and legal matters pertaining to the right to life is dangerous - im my opinion.

monachos
May 12, 2006 02:40 PM
There is a lot of hystery getting into this argument. It serves no purpose to call religous thinkers as "biots" or "mubo-jumbo". It only serves to lower the tone and abused the writers own intelliegnce. The Catholic Church is favour of medicine that promotes and saves human life. It believes, as most would take to natural and proper, that medical and sugical intervention is important and necessary. Human life should be made to prosper and be saved where and whenever possible. The Catholic Church does not wish that people suffer unnecessarily. It is not nasty, sadistic or takes pleasure in the pain of others. Catholics, and I'm not speaking for each of the 1.1 billion, that suffering can have a redemptive nature, that is it can have a purpose. Pain and suffering can, a lot of the times be futile and absurd and nililistic, but nonetheless we can learn about ourselves when we suffer, learn about others and learn about the human condition. To remove someone from pain is what we all want-even bishops want - but at the price of ending their lives? The Catholic Church is not in favour of the prolongation of human life to the nth degree, simply because it is a life. The Catholic Church does not support what is call vitalism. After ordinary means of medicine and surgery have been exhausted then, it is time to stop. Take an afternoon, if you're serious about attacking the Catholic Church to read the documents and if unhappy then do so, but leave the hurrahs and boos to the children. This is a evolutionary democracy-one which brings from the past customs and traditions which give the nation its stability and identity. The bishops in parliament represent an uncomfortable aspect of modern life in Uk for those who proclaim a modern Uk, namely that people of faith are still around and wish to contribute to questions properly addressed to morality. Who is to decide? When to decide?

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 02:54 PM
It wont end there though. First it will be "Let's kill those who are terminal". Then it's "Those with severe disabilities" Before you know it "Those with defective genes. Oh and "Get rid of the ginger haired, freckled ones" Dont forget "We can't allow the one with the sixth digit on their left toe to live"

freepoland
May 12, 2006 03:01 PM
Monachos; that is a restrained and intelligent contribution, and I can accept that bishops and presbyters who often attend the dying have useful views and experience to bring to the discussion. But I am not clear what morality has to do with this, nor if this morality has something to do with a belief system. The need for a law is to provide those who wish, in the event of being terminally ill, and in pain and despair at the prospect of continuing pain and incapacity, to have the means of assistance with ending their life sooner rather than later. And the law is needed to provide doctors with the means of legal support for their actions and decisions. No more Shipmans please. It seems to me that while bishops can debate that area in the Lords, they are also likely to bring in beliefs which transcend the human sphere, but which many of us do not recognise. I find those ideas uncomfortable exactly because they are not 'modern', and while suffering can be a great teacher, I suspect that a bedridden and intelligent 75 year old whose physical properties have wasted away won't want to learn too much more.

Peppermintpig
May 12, 2006 03:18 PM
Hi Gwasha. How you doing today, sweet thing?

duzzit
May 12, 2006 03:24 PM
While I sympathize with the individuals involved, I am tired of reading about the final sufferings of Alan Rusbridger¡¯s and Polly Toynbee¡¯s parents. My own parents died, slowly, separately, horribly, fearfully and in front of my eyes (in the last years of her life, I was my mother¡¯s only carer). Nor do I have any religious faith or, as it seems, any likelihood of acquiring it. At the same time, the fashionable view of religion as some kind of disease, as expounded by Toynbee, is contemptible to me. I don¡¯t see any confusion in this. To borrow from T.S. Eliot, critical values (that we apply to issues like these) must derive their validity from the hypothesis of there being supernatural values. A society that wholly repudiates religion seems to me a nonsense. As for assisted death, I don¡¯t think that capital punishment is entirely unrelated; they both seem absurd, and abominable. Life is all there is. Would I have ¡®ended¡¯ my mother¡¯s suffering, if I¡¯d had the choice? Certainly I would not have prolonged it, but that's as far as I could go. Should we always act as if the right is entirely ours? The implications seem bleak, somehow.

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 03:29 PM
Peppermint.............. It's such a beautiful day in London and I've been enjoying the sunshine. Saw yours and MrPikeBishops comments and that's what I was thinking about just now to be honest. How're you doing?

Peppermintpig
May 12, 2006 03:33 PM
Good, ta Gwasha. I bet it's perfect weather for you miniskirt. I've been enjoying cider shandy and lunch in a lovely pub in the cotswolds. Yum. I don't normally agree with Polly, but she's spot on today - and you're right about mixing politics and relegion. Keep the shaman's out!!

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 03:46 PM
Hey.....It's just such a touchy subject this and I think all our reactions - just staying with the 3 of us - are based on very personal experiences or lack of them. It really broke my heart reading MrPikeB's contribution(s).

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 03:47 PM
Wow Peppermint......Just looked up Cotswolds on the net. It's beautiful!!. You really do have s muddy sty somewhere there doing you?

peterNW1
May 12, 2006 03:48 PM
In 1967 when church leaders condemned the Abortion Act, supporters of the Act said no way would there ever be abortion on demand because the Act only permitted an abortion if a mother's health was in danger. Once the Act was passed, "health" was reinterpreted as "mental health" and we had abortion on demand. Since then 8 million unborn babies have been killed in the UK. In much the same way, the "right to die" bill will be the thin end of another massive wedge. If it passed, it will one day be our "duty to die" once we've become too old and too expensive to look after.

arthur001
May 12, 2006 03:49 PM
Great stuff Polly, See Cameron is jumping on the 'Life is Sacred' bandwaggon. Funny doesn't seem to mind having Boris the aborionist in his Shadow cabinet.

Szwagier
May 12, 2006 03:49 PM
Peppermint, Gwasha, really, can't you take your flirting somewhere else? Please?

Peppermintpig
May 12, 2006 03:52 PM
Swagier, it's Friday afternoon after all, but ok. Join me and MrPikeBishop on the Jeremy Pikser thread about big brother snooping, Gwasha.

GwashaBaby
May 12, 2006 03:59 PM
Szwagier.............. I meant to say "don't you" not "doing you" and I was going to add that in the whole of the UK, that's (Cotswolds) one place I'd love to end my days. After having to re-examine life and death, Polly's article made me think deeply about my own immortality............... But point taken. Apologies if you were offended. It wasn't my intention.I've said my piece/peace in this discussion. Bye.

Szwagier
May 12, 2006 04:09 PM
Not offended, Gwasha, it's just a bit exhibitionistic, isn't it?

Freddeejones
May 12, 2006 04:27 PM
Duzzit - so relieved to see your balanced and sensitive view.

PRECON
May 12, 2006 04:29 PM
Carolingian: May 12, 2006 12 We will have to differ in our views. I may be more cynical about human nature than you and perhaps I'm more than aware of the abilities of the medical profession. For better or not there are a large range of poisons available for those so motivated- suicide was decriminalised many years ago.

>> back to top

home | search | site guide | contact us | privacy policy