A Dignified Death?

[Brian Peacock]

My daughter's dog, who I've walked 4-5 times a week for the last 10 years, was put down today after suffering a stroke in the night. It was the kindest thing to do. I walked him yesterday and he was fine. Today my walking pal is gone. He died by lethal injection with those who loved him, and whom he loved, around him. He felt nothing; just relaxed, and exhaled, and that was it. It was very calm; very discrete; it was dignified. It's what I would want for myself.

over_syreford.png (710.05 KiB) Viewed 2170 times

Why do we see the good sense, the kindness, and the compassion in doing this for our pets, and yet we don't seem to want to do it for ourselves or each other?

[JimC]

Certainly I did that with one of my two cats last year, and the other one, who is skin and bones no matter what she eats is getting a little feeble, and I will (with tears in my eyes) go down that path again when the time comes...

However, it is a much less complicated decision to take that final step for a pet than it is for a human being, whether it be yourself or others. I certainly support assisted death in certain well defined circumstances, but the decision making process needs a lot of oversight...

[Sean Hayden]

[pErvinalia]

[Woodbutcher]

[Brian Peacock]

I certainly support assisted death in certain well defined circumstances, but the decision making process needs a lot of oversight...

I understand there needs to be some oversight. Even as far as animals go, outside of horse racing I don't think many vets are going to be happy to euthanise an animal just because the owner has had enough of it and we shouldn't, and wouldn't, allow a person to be euthanised for same reasons.

But why can we not make this choice for ourselves or for our relatives who are incapable of rational choice but are in obvious distress and, importantly, on behalf of those for whom the prospect of continued existence represents a fate worse than death? It seems such a simple, honest matter to me.

I also have a very dear friend who is embarking upon a third round of chemo in as many years. We've talked about this. She's prepared to go as far as she can with treatment, but she's aware that it will only offer a holding pattern as far the progression of her disease is concerned. She is prepared philosophically and emotionally for the possibility that at some point she might want a shortcut to the inevitable. It seems stupid to me--and more than that, wilfully harmful--that the law will seek to deny her and/or her friends, family, or physician the possibility of achieving a dignified death in accordance with the rational choice she has already made. If she changes her mind later nobody is going to complain, but if at some point she takes that final decision the law will be obliged to step in.

By the way. Thanks for the hugs guys.

[JimC]

The oversight is mostly necessary to prevent either spur-of-the-moment decisions when severely disturbed, or by relatives making decisions for others with muddy motives involving inheritance...

These issues aside, which a competent oversight program could address, ultimately it should be possible to have a dignified assisted death when that is clearly the best option.

[Brian Peacock]

The only people who still seem to be using the spectre of euthanising granny for her money are the church and it's various hangers on.

[JimC]

I know that's an argument they use, but they do so with the intention of banning it completely. The best answer to such an argument is to say "we think it is unlikely, but our legislation to allow assisted dying will contain safeguards against such possibilities"