In Britain two years ago there was a landmark ruling that a woman who was suffering from the advanced stages motor neurone disease had been refused the right for someone to help her to die, specifically her husband.
She is paralysed from the neck down, but is cogent and responsible.
Assisted suicide is illegal in Europe.
Holland is the exception where doctors only are allowed to carry out this 'service'.
But in Britian, doctors have been killing patients for years.
When a patient is in pain the doctor administers morphine to alleviate the pain.
The body gets accustomed to morphine, so bigger doses are needed.
Finally the doctor consults the family and informs them that to alleviate the pain the necessary dose will be lethal.
So we've been 'assisting suicide' quietly for many many years.
The lady in question with motor neurone disease cannot kill herself and requires assistance to carry out the act.
The judgement was based on the following concern
'If there were no sanctions against assisted suicide, it would be a charter for people to dispose of burdensome relatives. Furthemore, doctors would come under intense pressure to administer lethal doses.'
In Britain we have an increasingly ageing population. People need 2.2 kids per couple just to maintain a steady population. Only one of my friends Britain has more than two children.
Our population is falling, and as the population also ages, the tax burden on our children will rise, and rise and rise. And as medical science advances we will live longer and longer and longer in our increpitude.
Look forward thirty years and is there a danger that people will feel pressured by society to commit suicide? To stop being a burden on expensive resources?
When we draw any line in the sand that line will shift.
Many people when discussing this subject leap to defend the right of the individual.
But they neglect to mention the rights of those that are affected by an individuals decision. Family, friends, children, society as a greater whole....in fact one of the factors in the judgement against assisted suicide was that this poor woman had greatly publicised and furthered the cause of those in such a terrible dilemma, and had therefore contributed to society.
Ten months ago she was given two months to live. She is still alive, cogent , not in severe pain (pain killers are still effective). She is a great ambassador for courage, resolve and her feeling of justice.
But she might be dead right now if she had been granted the right to die in an original judgement.
Some while ago in Australia, a cancer ridden woman took the illegal option to terminate her life.
Being a typical Australian she decided to celebrate her death with a bit of a knees up, so while she consumed her cocktail of barbiturates and champagne, her friends and supporters were next door enjoying canapes and champagne, to celebrate her imminent death and freedom from pain.
A week later it emerged that her original cancer had been long in remission and when she actually commited suicide she was actually cancer free.
Her supporters were complicit in this event because they had fore-knowledge that she was about to attempt suicide, and did nothing to prevent it.
However she was not actually ill.
Pro-euthanasia laws have since been suspended because the authorities are worried that having gone so far, she felt obliged to 'carry out' the act even though she was not ill.
Euthanasia, a right to die or a crime?
Postscript:
The lady suffering motor neurone disease and the subject of the ruling died a few months later.
Her husband was by her side in a hospice where she was taken after complaining of breathing problems. She subsequently slipped into a coma.
It is reported that her death was "perfectly normal, natural and peaceful'
yechydda,