"Or if wet, in the library."

[spanambula]

Author Terry Pratchett wrote a very moving article about 'assisted suicide' (a term he objects to) procedures in the UK, in light of his own condition. It's not terribly long, and like most of his writing, worth your time:

"Life is easy and cheap to make. But the things we add to it, such as pride, self-respect and human dignity, are worthy of

Comments

[westmarked]

I've enjoyed much of Pratchett's writing, even if in recent years he's gone from subtly preachy to overtly preachy. But this is just idiotic:The author rejected the idea that allowing assisted suicide would amount to legalising euthanasia, in which those unwilling to die would be killed off. ...

Sir Terry added: ... 'I very much doubt [that a formalised approach to assisted dying could lead to it somehow becoming part of national health policy]. We are a democracy and no democratic government is going to get anywhere with a policy of comor even recommended euthanasia.

'If we were ever to end up with such a government, we would be in so much trouble that the problem would become the least of our worries.'
Apparently Sir Terry fails to realize that his government rations health care to the point where those able to pursue private options are punished for doing so. The UK regularly blocks treatment options deemed "unnecessary" in an attempt to keep down costs, particularly for those elderly enough to "not be worth it." (This, of course

[spanambula]

I'm not saying your points are invalid, or that Pratchett isn't being naive in his thoughts of how easily such legislation and the formation of such "gentle tribunals" he mentions could be established. But you did say practical issues aside. I think there's a difference between making a god of autonomy and wanting to be able to do something about terminally ill patients in extreme cases

[westmarked]

My religious upbringing rails against it, crying that any form of suicide is a declaration of rebellion against God where one says "there is no way I can any longer serve God in any capacity by continuing to live," which of course seems the highest level of hubris.

On the other hand, take God out of the equation. Remove such thoughts of A Better Place, Heaven, Eternity etc., and really what motive is there for remaining alive when in constant high levels of pain, or enduring the slow, inevitable degeneration of one's brain functions? Even with God back in place, I sometimes fail to see the point. Are there heavenly bonus points awarded for having sucked it up for a few extra years in agony or a vegetative state?I'm reminded of one set of mass readings where the New Testament passage is on becoming "perfect through suffering." I mainly remember this because the Old Testament and Gospel readings are on marriage, which seemed quite appropriate, but that phrase "perfect through suffering" stuck with me. That is a very, very alien thought

[westmarked]

While Mr. Pratchett and others are in the position to make "furiously sane" decisions, and decide when they've had enough, how do we safeguard those who aren't? Or those who only think they are. Autonomy is critically important, but at the expense of setting legislative precedents with possibly terrifying ramifications?

But what if autonomy isn't critically important? What makes us think that autonomy outranks life, in any circumstance? My main objection to Pratchett is that his stated position denies any value life might have on its own; life is defined as worth living only if it meets certain attributes, conveniently decided here by Pratchett. But deciding what lives are worth living are not the sorts of decisions I want anyone--individuals, doctors, HMOs, or governments--to decide. In fact I deny that there is is a legitimate decision to make

[westmarked]

Just read this--it wouldn't have fit in the first post anyway:The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)* is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.
Imagine a government that allows the elderly the "choice" of suicide, but denies them pain medication.

*It seems that some people need to brush up on the C.S. Lewis method of using acronyms.