Comments on: Kailash Chand on Tony Nicklinson and the right to die

By: j farrington-douglas

j farrington-douglas — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:18:00 +0000

Given Phil Berry’s comments below, could Dr Chand (for whom I have the greatest respect) be given the opportunity to amend his article to reflect the factual issue of NT’s terminal illenss?

By: Alessandro

Alessandro — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:20:00 +0000

Who can decide that life is no more worth living? I think a doctor should try to guarantee the right to live and not the right to die. Death, even if is a regular companion in doctor’s everyday practice, remain the enemy to defeat anymay and definitely not a cure.

By: Simon Kenwright

Simon Kenwright — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:19:00 +0000

Few quibbles with Kailish Chand but I would change the “severe pain” to “severe distress not responding to treatment”. I support a change in the law but what makes the present position so awful are those doctors who still feel that it is their decision whether a patient can be obliged to have life prolonging treatment. As Tony Nicklinson has died so quickly , perhaps we should have recognised that he had a terminal condition – but then he might not have been allowed to die if he had remained in hospital.

By: vespacat

vespacat — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:11:00 +0000

I am deeply concerned by this. Why? Well, I work with the elderly and too many times I have seen where granny, mum, dad, aunty, whoever, is made to feel a burden because the family really would much rather have its hands on the money value of what the elderly relative has in his or her will. After years/months of pressure day-in, day-out, said elderly person truly no longer enjoys life and thinks he or she really should end their suffering and do everyone a favour by dying. Change the attitudes of those around the old and the sick and what I see is a much more humane situation where that pressure to end it all is not there and life is still more than mere ‘existance’ and definitely not a burden.
Plus, I see our truly horrible attitude to the elderly, sick, disabled that is being pushed by this current government and the media, in the form of ‘benefit scroungers’ ‘lazy’ ‘worthless’ ‘drain on hard-working,law-abiding, tax payers’ and I really do see we are going down a slippery slope that was followed back in the early-middle 20th Century… and we know how that ended.
Nor I am I entranced by the thought of a doctor deliberately ending life: again, we’ve been there when we have docs playing god with the lives of the elderly & the sick.
I am truly, truly, sorry for anyone who is in the situation where they feel their life is so miserable and worthless that they want to die. I would not wish that on anyone, I really wouldn’t.
But there is no easy route to the answer in this. If we bring in euthanasia, despite safeguards, there will be people killed who should not be. Due to the things I describe at the top of my post, I am of absolutely no doubt in this. I despair at our society’s attitude to the vulnerable.
Thre are no easy answers which is why, in a way, our current ‘fudge’ on assisted dying is perhaps the best of a bad job all round.

By: Christo

Christo — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:05:00 +0000

I support any adult of sound mine who seeks to end their life’s to do so be they sick, disabled, terminal or not. Sound mind should be the determinator.
Well controlled end of life help should be made legal and freely available.

By: Dr N kumar

Dr N kumar — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 05:31:00 +0000

Dr Chands article on Tony Niclinson Right TO Die is thought provoking and merits serious consideration at the highest level. It is the basic right of every person to live with dignity and honour if this is compromised irrevocably and for ever,the person concerned, his near and dear ones feel so and express their well informed desire and give consent . A group of independently appointed individuals by the legal system should look at such a case and decide. I strongly support a well meaning and legally controlled CHOICE OF RIGHT TO DIE.

By: j farrington-douglas

j farrington-douglas — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:36:00 +0000

He is neither dying nor being kept alive artificially, as far as I understand.

By: royaldock

royaldock — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:06:00 +0000

“I accept that assisted dying is not like any other clinical decision and
if society is to offer this solemn choice it must build in safeguards
that not only rectify the inadequacies of the current situation, but
protect the vulnerable, the weak”
Lovely opinion but Parliament has looked at this twice and has twice concluded that there is no way we can protect the vulnerable and the weak in this system. There is no ‘human right to a dignified death’. There is a human right to dignity in life.

By: Garcliffe

Garcliffe — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:31:00 +0000

The case for a law to legalise the choice of physician-assisted dying for mentally competent people with terminal illness, who have expressed a settled wish to die, is very ably made by Kailash Chand.I hope BMA stop opposing and at least adopt a neutral stance on this highly cgarged debate.

By: Jonathon Tomlinson

Jonathon Tomlinson — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:36:00 +0000

There are important lessons to be learned about how doctors (and I am sure other ‘empowered’ (wealthy/ educated) people die, described in two essays by Ken Murray. Doctors choose less intervention and are much more likely to die they way they wish. http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2012/07/23/doctors-really-do-die-differently/read/nexus/
They are also more likely to take their own lives that the rest of the population.
Doctors ought to let their patients have the same level of control at the end of their lives that they would wish for themselves.

By: Dr kumar kotegaonkar

Dr kumar kotegaonkar — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:25:00 +0000

Dr Chand has very well defended the right to have a dignity and a quality in living.Just existence is not a life,and in that if no CHOICE,then it is more painful.One Tony Nicklinson has no choice .another Tony Scott could jump of the bridge as he had a choice.
Unfair world we live in.

By: AB

AB — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:03:00 +0000

Assisted death in terminally ill must be seriously considered, I support the article

By: Guy Chapman

Guy Chapman — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:55:00 +0000

One might legitimately point out that we would not do this to a dog. It is quite extraordinary cruelty to a man who has consistently and eloquently stated that he has no wish for others to continue to artificially prolong his life. Surely this verdict is a reversal of the principle of informed consent, as he has by any meaningful test withdrawn the consent for others to keep him alive, and is plainly unable to survive without such intervention.