Tag: physician-assisted suicide

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 28: Full Transcript of House of Lords Debate on Assisted Dying

Assisted Dying Bill: 2nd Reading on July 18, 2014
United Kingdom House of Lords Hansard (Published July 21, 2014)

The UK’s House of Lords has now published a full transcript, or Hansard, of its July 18, 2014 debate on assisted dying.

You can read more about that day’s debate here.

You can also catch up on all 5+ years of Death Ref’s posts on assisted dying here.

Just remember, the July 18 debate took 9 hours and 43 minutes to complete and involved 133 speakers.

The transcript is a bit long. That’s all we’re saying.

Categories
Death + Popular Culture Death + the Law Death + the Web

Day 20: Patrick Stewart Campaigns with Assisted Dying Supporters

Actor Patrick Stewart joins campaign for ‘assisted dying’
BBC News (July 18, 2014)

Somehow, and I don’t entirely know the reasons, I completely missed these interviews with actor Patrick Stewart on the recent House of Lords assisted dying debate.

He’s got clearly articulated personal reasons for supporting Lord Falconer’s bill and understands how the proposed legislation would work. I also give him credit for supporting a cause that I can imagine some talent agents might suggest you avoid.

That said, he’s the kind of actor (and big name movie star) who doesn’t flinch when it comes to supporting causes he believes in.

Good interviews to watch.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 18: The House of Lords Approves Assisted Dying Bill for Committee Review

Assisted Dying Bill [HL] 2014-15
Private Members’ Bill (Starting in the House of Lords)
Sponsor: Lord Falconer of Thoroton (July 18, 2014)

It’s an over used expression, but today was an historic day in the UK’s House of Lords.

After 9 hours and 43 minutes of debate, 133 speakers (although I’ve seen the number pegged at 129), and a deluge of extremely well spoken 4 minute speeches, the House of Lords approved Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying bill for Committee review.

The graphic at the top of the page shows where Falconer’s bill now stands, in the Committee Stage. You can also download the bill and read it in full here.

It’s hard to tell whether or not the assisted dying bill will make it out of committee and onto further debate and voting, but I’m going guess no.

The popular support for an assisted dying law remains strong in the UK (around 75%-80%) but the political will in both houses of Parliament is low.

You can read the Death Reference Desk’s complete coverage of Assisted Dying issues over the last five years here.

The Guardian also ran a really interesting infographic piece today on the numbers of people who use assisted dying laws where it’s legal to do so.

Here is a link to the House of Lords video from today’s debate. I’ve also embedded the entire debate below.

It was thrilling and exhausting to watch today’s debate. I commend all of the speakers for their professionalism and delivery. More than a few times I wondered if this kind of respectful discussion could ever occur in the US Senate.

Per usual, the Death Reference Desk will keep the updates coming.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 17: Moral Maze Radio Programme on Assisted Dying

Moral Maze: Assisted Dying
BBC Radio 4 (July 16, 2014)

The Moral Maze programme on BBC radio is a long-running show dedicated to debating and understanding complicated issues.

Yesterday’s guests heatedly discussed assisted dying, suicide, euthanasia, human autonomy, the sanctitity of life, the list goes on and on.

Well worth gving a listen before Friday’s debate in the House of Lords on the assisted dying bill for England and Wales.

Here the programme’s description:

The issue of assisted dying is the moral discussion of our age and the latest effort to get it legalised comes before the House of Lords this week. The debate has been given new energy by the intervention of two former Anglican archbishops, Desmond Tutu and George Carey, who’ve now come out in support of the right of terminally ill people to end their lives – flying the face of the teaching of their church. There are a plethora of moral principles at stake and at the heart of them, which all sides acknowledge, the terrible suffering that some people go through at the end of their lives. What are the moral, ethical, philosophical and religious principles at stake in this debate? What happens when two moral principles collide and both sides could be right? What moral calculus can you apply to decide how to choose between right and wrong?

Featured speakers include Dr. Iain Brassington, Dr. Kevin Yuill, Professor Raymond Tallis and Professor Margaret Somerville.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 16: UK Prime Minister David Cameron Answers Assisted Dying Question

David Cameron ‘not convinced’ over assisted dying bill
PM speaks of worry about legalising euthanasia, but says he would be very happy for Commons to debate issue
Rowena Mason and Agencies, The Guardian (July 16, 2014)

Today saw another interesting development in the lead up to Friday’s debate on assisted dying in the UK’s House of Lords.

Prime Minister David Cameron was asked about the upcoming debate during the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). The Prime Minister is asked everything and anything by members of parliament during the PMQs and, in theory, has to quickly formulate some kind of response.

His answer to the assisted dying question was intriguing. He made it clear that he thought the debate should move forward but that he personally didn’t support a change to the law.

He used the word ‘euthanasia’ in his response, which is a key word choice. The House of Lords is debating an assisted dying law, not a euthanasia law. Assisted dying laws usually mean a person is given a lethal dose of a drug and then that person has to physically administer and ingest the drug in order to die. Euthanasia occurs when one person puts another person to death, i.e., person A injects person B with a drug so that person B will die.

The words make a significant legal difference for any kind of death with dignity law.

You can watch video of the entire (relatively short) exchange starting at 28:20.

I also suggest watching the faces and reactions of the other MPs. It seems that right now many MPs would rather debate anything other than a law on assisted dying. This could change after Friday.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 15: New Developments in the UK Assisted Dying Debate

Assisted dying: leading doctors call on Lords to back legalisation
Twenty-seven leading figures write to every peer urging them to back Lord Falconer’s private members bill on assisted dying
Denis Campbell and Dominic Smith, The Guardian (July 15, 2014)

 

Church of England split over assisted dying as debate looms
Consensus on women bishops set aside as Lords examine Falconer’s bill, after support from Desmond Tutu and Lord Carey
Andrew Brown, The Guardian (July 15, 2014)

Yesterday’s 31 Days of Death post focused on the upcoming UK House of Lords debate on legalising assisted dying in England and Wales.

This entire week might become about Friday’s debate, so I’m turning today’s post into an update.

Two interesting developments.

A group of 27 medical authorities wrote letters to every House of Lord’s member encouraging them to support the proposed bill. This kind of letter writing campaign has happened before but this time it’s part of a larger shift in which slowly but surely religious leaders who support a change to the law are now speaking out. I focused on religion, in particular, yesterday.

The religious debate brings me to the second of today’s articles. The Church of England currently finds itself in a debate that I’m not entirely sure it expected before Friday’s debate. Before the week is out, I think that more Anglican supporters of assisted dying might make their support known. As I said yesterday, this theology discussion is extremely important to have in order to facilitate as a discussion about religious beliefs.

On the upside for the Church of England: women can now be Bishops, so at least that’s something.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 14: Important Week for Assisted Dying in England and Wales

Religious activists have too much say over our right to die
The question of assisted dying needs to be discussed rationally and not held to ransom by minority zealots
Catherine Bennett, The Observer (July 05, 2014)

 

Former archbishop lends his support to campaign to legalise right to die
Carey says assisted dying proposal is way of preventing ‘needless suffering’ and helping terminally ill ‘not anti-Christian’
Nicholas Watt, The Guardian (July 12, 2014)

 

Church of England seeks inquiry over bill to legalise assisted dying
Bishop of Carlisle says church was ‘surprised’ by former archibishop’s support for Falconer Bill
Nicholas Watt and Shane Hickey, The Guardian (July 12, 2014)

 

Why I’m in favour of assisted dying
I have spent my life working for dignity for the living. Now I wish to apply my mind to dignity for the dying
Desmond Tutu, The Observer (July 13, 2014)

 

Assisted dying: change the law so that the terminally ill die with dignity
If the assisted dying bill becomes law, it will put an end to prolonged suffering
Observer Editorial, The Observer (July 12, 2014)

 

Parliament turns back to the question of assisted dying
The House of Lords is to debate Lord Falconer’s bill aimed at clarifying the law on the right to end one’s life
Daniel Boffey, The Observer (July 13, 2014)

 

Assisted dying has been legal in Oregon since 1997, but it remains surrounded by taboos
One woman described her husband’s death as ‘beautiful’, but many still believe it is morally wrong
Andrew Gumbel, The Observer (July 12, 2014)

 

Assisted dying bill must not stall in Lords, urges former lord chancellor
Lord Falconer of Thoroton calls on supporters to vote down any attempt to pass wrecking amendment on sensitive issue
Nicholas Watt, The Guardian (July 13, 2014)

This is an important week for Assisted Dying in England and Wales.

A bill brought forward in the House of Lords by Lord Faloner, and modeled on the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon will be debated this coming Friday, July 18, 2014.

The backstory on this proposed law is long and arduous. It’s also something that Death Ref has been closely following since 2009.

You can catch up on those stories with the Assisted Dying and Death with Dignity tags. You can also look through the Death + the Law category

What is most interesting about the upcoming debate is the sudden inclusion of religion into the discussion, and by individuals who support the bill based on religious beliefs. The articles at the top on former Church of England Archbishop Carey and the personal essay by Desmond Tutu threw significant theological weight behind support for the assisted dying bill.

One of the major differences between the US and UK when discussing assisted dying is the role of religion. In the US, I know quite quickly if a person opposes assisted dying for religious reasons. Interestingly enough, a number of libertarian leaning US Conservatives strongly support assisted dying, but it’s the fundamentalist Christian Conservative community that most vocally opposes it.

In the UK, the theological reasons aren’t that obvious even though religious beliefs often inform how a person thinks. The very first op/ed column by Catherine Bennett highlights how some UK Christian groups that oppose assisted dying make a point of setting aside their theological language in the hopes of not alienating non-religious (or Christian) people.

It’s important to know and understand if an individual is opposed to assisted dying for religious reasons so that you can then have a discussion about theology. Otherwise the discussion is about the law, which is a secular, human invention. The statements of support by former Archbishops Carey and Tutu have made that necessary theological conversation possible.

I’m not entirely sure what will happen this week but the Death Reference Desk will follow the events and post updates.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Day 6: UK Assisted Dying Debates Go On. And On. Again.

Top doctor says people who are dying need equivalent of midwives to help ease, and possibly end suffering and pain
Denis Campbell, The Guardian (July 1, 2014)

 

My work as a palliative care nurse inspired me to write The Top 5 Regrets of the Dying – I welcome Prof John Ashton’s call for end-of-life midwives
Bronnie Ware, The Guardian (July 3, 2014)

 

Terry Pratchett, Discworld author, diagnosed in 2007 with Alzheimer’s, has announced that ‘the Embuggerance is finally catching up with me’
Alison Flood, The Guardian (July 2, 2014)

Throughout this past week a series of news articles appeared in The Guardian newspaper about end-of-life decision making and assisted dying in the UK.

One of the very first posts that I ever wrote for the Death Reference Desk was on assisted dying in the UK. Over the past five-years, I’ve written countless variations on that same post. Again and again.

During the coming 31 Days of Death, I’ll spend time focusing on some of the specific reasons for the UK debate.

This week saw the coming together of different but related events. Professor John Ashton, who is president of the Faculty of Public Health in the UK stated that individual’s should be helped to die if and when they’ve decided a terminal condition is no longer worth fighting. This led Bonnie Ware, a Palliative Care Nurse, to say that she agreed and that more people should pay attention to the growing Death Midwife movement.

The entire week was capped off by author Terry Pratchett saying that he couldn’t attend an event in his honour because his Alzheimer’s Disease was finally stopping him. Pratchett personally entered the UK’s assisted dying debate in 2010 when he called for the creation of a tribunal to review a person’s request to end their life.

More on this in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, I recommend checking out The Guardian’s assisted dying page, the Death + The Law page here on the Death Reference Desk, and our Bioethics tag.

Categories
Death + Biology Death + Technology Death + the Economy Death Ethics Suicide

Radically Extending Life and Choosing to Die

Living to 120 and Beyond: Americans’ Views on Aging, Medical Advances and Radical Life Extension
Pew Research Center (August 2013)
If new medical treatments could slow the aging process and allow people to live to age 120 and beyond, would you want to? A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that most Americans say “no” – they personally would not want a radically extended life span. But roughly two-thirds think that most other people would.

 

Dying with Dignity and the Final Word on Her Life
by Michael Winerip, New York Times (August 05, 2013)
Those closest to Jane Lotter recalled her as spunky, self-aware and wise beyond her 60 years. So when she told her family that she planned to write her own obituary, they weren’t surprised.

 

Fatal Mercies
by Frank Bruni, New York Times (August 11, 2013)
The assisted-suicide prosecution of a Pennsylvania woman who allegedly gave her father the morphine he requested seems both imprudent and inhumane.

 

Nurse Charged with Assisting in Her Father’s Death
by Richard Knox, National Public Radio (July 31, 2013)

 

Pew Research Center Reports on Life Extension, Bioethics, Religion, and Ethnic Groups
To Count Our Days: The Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Radical Life Extension

Religious Leaders’ Views on Radical Life Extension

Racial and Ethnic Groups View Radical Life Extension Differently

 

Some Further Articles on the Pew Report
Slate: Fear of Immortality
Americans don’t want to extend their declining years. But what if you could stay young?
by William Saletan, Slate (August 06, 2013)

 

The Atlantic: Cheating death and being okay with God
Among the widespread coverage of the Pew Research report on radical life extension was this piece in The Atlantic, which highlights the fact that one-in-four Americans believe that, by the year 2050, the average person will live to be at least 120. The article also looks at some religious leaders’ reactions to that possibility.

 

The Associated Press: Aging America: Living to 120? No thanks, many say in new survey
The Associated Press highlights several findings from the Pew Research survey on radical life extension, including that most Americans say they want to live to be 79 to 100 years old; the median age to which survey respondents want to live is 90 years.

Over the last few weeks, a series of death-related articles overlapped. One series of stories focused on a recent Pew Research Center report on Life Extension. The other stories discussed assisted dying. The overlap was interesting because if and when radical (or even medium-ish) life extension is achieved, then an entirely new kind of assisted dying debate will ensue.

For those not up to speed on the life extension arguments, I suggest reading through the Pew materials. What’s key with any plausible life extension model is that it increases human lifespan while significantly decreasing (or stopping) human ageing. In other words, if you live to be 500 years old, you do not want a body that is physically 500 years old. For most life extension arguments to succeed, then the human bodies biological systems will have to be augmented or changed to prevent ageing.

Assisted dying and suicide debates have followed alongside life extension discussions since individuals with radically longer life-spans (where physical ageing is stopped) may choose to simply end their lives as opposed to waiting another 100 years for death.

These are all speculative points, but worth contemplating now as really important thought experiments.

Here is another way to think about the connections between human mortality, death, and ageing. All of the health problems we humans associate today with old age (arthritis, cancer, alzheimer’s disease and dementia in particular) might also be ways of saying ‘ageing.’

So, if you want to live forever then you better stop the body’s physical breakdown, otherwise death will become preferable to life at all costs.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Bioethicists and Bioethics at the End of Life

A Life-or-Death Situation
by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times Magazine (July 21, 2013)
As a bioethicist, Peggy Battin fought for the right of people to end their own lives. After her husband’s cycling accident, her field of study turned unbearably personal.

 

For Bioethicist With Ailing Spouse, End-Of-Life Issues Hit Home
Fresh Air with Terry Gross, National Public Radio (July 25, 2013)
In 2008, a cycling accident left bioethicist Margaret Battin’s husband quadriplegic and dependent on life support technology. The accident forced Battin, a right-to-die advocate, to reflect on the positions she’s taken in the past and decide whether she still believes in them.

Last week, the New York Times and the radio programme Fresh Air with Terry Gross ran really good stories on US Bioethicist Peggy Battin. Both pieces are linked to above, and both are worth reading/listening to.

Peggy Battin has written about and been involved in end-of-life and right to die cases for thirty years. Her writings have always focused on individual autonomy when choosing to die. What makes Battin’s work (which is good) all the more compelling is this–five years ago her husband Brooke had a bicycling accident that resulted in him becoming a quadriplegic. He also relies on life support machinery for assisted breathing and to keep him fed.

Both the Times article and the Fresh Air interview focus on how Battin’s ideas about the right to die have changed since her husband’s accident. She freely discusses her own desire to see her husband continue living, even though he may ultimately decide to finally end his life. And her thinking on all these issues opens up the nuance and complexity of discussing what kind of death and what quality of death, a loved one wants.

I highly recommend both the article and the radio interview.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Melvyn Bragg: I would seek Assisted Death

Lord Bragg: I would seek assisted death rather than suffer Alzheimer’s
By Shiv Malik, The Guardian (May 05, 2013)
Writer and broadcaster reiterates wish to end own life rather than face severe mental degeneration and calls for change in UK law

For those keeping up with the UK’s ongoing Assisted Dying debate, this news item will certainly generate further discussion. Melvyn Bragg is a UK institution and well-respected across the board.

I was particularly struck by the article’s lead:

The veteran 73-year-old arts critic, novelist and broadcaster was deeply affected by watching Alzheimer’s take its toll on his 95-year-old mother for five years until her death last year, and said assisted suicide was an issue for people his age. “It’s happening to my generation – they see what happens when people get close to death, and we’re saying, ‘We don’t want that.'”

Bragg is right about his generation and the end of life control many of them want.

Death Ref hasn’t run a long(ish) update on the UK Assisted Dying debate in a while, so I will start pulling items together.

Until then, keep listening to In our Time with Melvyn Bragg. It’s the best programme on the BBC Radio 4.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics Suicide

Choosing Death for Pets. Choosing Death for Humans.

Weighing the End of Life
Louise Aronson, New York Times (February 3, 2013)
How can we measure the quality of life, for our beloved pets or for older, infirm people?

The Old Gray Lady (also known as the New York Times) has been on quite a death-dying-end-of-life-dead body streak of late. In today’s Times, gerontologist Dr. Louise Aronson writes about determining when to put her elderly dog “to sleep” and how that decision-making process gave her pause when thinking about her own human patients.

I am frequently asked about the pet-human relation when it comes to choosing death. So, for example, if a family can choose to humanely end a pet’s life, then why can’t that same family go along with a loved one’s decision to die? The distinction(s) between non-human animals (particularly pets) and human beings are fairly well entrenched in the twenty-first century first world, so I do not see that changing soon.

That said, given the human impulse to make sure that pets do not suffer at the end of life and that a pet’s death is ‘a good death,’ the same philosophical, ethical, moral (dare I say), and practical principles will also be applied to human beings.

The application of these principles and questions will persist. How the law and the modern nation–state decides to view a citizen’s choice to die is a different story altogether.