A button for the over 90's

[lazybloke]

Three buttons surely? Ctrl-Alt-DELETE

If your post is meant to be taken literally I would fundamentally disagree with your mother. I'm not necessarily against assisted dieing but the idea that all a 90 year old has to do is press a button is both dangerous and ridiculous.

Yes, that would be ridiculous/dangerous, which is why there needs to be a process with appropriate hoops to jump through before you can gain access to the 'button'.

I believe Dignitas has an application process that involves a written request by the individual with disclosure of medical records, and additional medical consultation(s?) in Switzerland to rule out the possibility of other treatments. The application has to be assessed and approved, and even then, the majority of applicants never proceed - they only want to have that choice if life becomes intolerable.
The minority that do decide to proceed have to apply and then wait for a mandatory cooling-off period before their final appt. A spur-of-moment decision shouldn't ever be possible.

 

[Andy in Germany]

A good idea, as long as it was not compulsory.

I'd go for a lower age limit for the start date. 18 seems about right to me.

If you want out, then you should be allowed to bail.

You aren't considered an adult until 26 in Germany for the purpose of standing trial for a criminal offence, on the basis that people's brains aren't fully developed until then. In that context, 18 seems a bit young, but I see the counterpoint: where do you draw the line?

 

[Andy in Germany]

For something as final as dying, I would expect an assessment/follow-up period of 3 months (to gain a baseline of what the persons cognitive function, moods, quality of life, coherence is), and then the "3 button" consent process could follow. On the 3rd press of the button, if they are assesssed and found to be in the same mental state as the previous 3 months then they could go ahead and end their life.

I think that would give enough time to rule out any false/snap decisions and to prove to the professional "case worker" that it is a considered action with no other influence other than that of the patient. It does seem like a long and drawn out process, but there might be insances where the patient does not have sufficient cognitive ability to give informed consent. i.e they could be mentally/physically/neurologically challenged for a number of months during consent, but had they lived, their quality of life might have improved to such an extent that they would not want to end their life any more.

My guess is they'd have to have something like that in place for everyone, to cater for the minority cases they wish to protect from unnecessary euthanasia

This by definition excludes people with mental/learning/psychological disabilities, (a disability being defined as a permanent condition from which people won't recover) which is probably advisable in the context. However, I can imagine people otherwise cognitively capable who have psychological issues would also want this "option", or more possible, to paraphrase @lazybloke, the option of this option.

Again it's a question of where we draw the line; I'm not saying there's a correct answer...

 

[Electric_Andy]

it's a question of where we draw the line

The line is, IMO, between that of assisted Euthansia and assisted suicide. How old do you have to be before it's considered "kinder" to let you die. What if someone is 65 and in constant pain, but also has been clinically depressed for 20 years - do you let them die becasue they are in pain or do you not assist them because their depression might be the more prominant factor than their physical pain? Given that the life expectancy in the UK is roughly 85 years, one could say that this would be a sensible age cut-off. But then you risk refusing someone a dignified death if they are 75 and they've got to put up with it for potentially another 10 years or longer. It's a tough one

 

[Andy in Germany]

The line is, IMO, between that of assisted Euthansia and assisted suicide. How old do you have to be before it's considered "kinder" to let you die. What if someone is 65 and in constant pain, but also has been clinically depressed for 20 years - do you let them die becasue they are in pain or do you not assist them because their depression might be the more prominant factor than their physical pain? Given that the life expectancy in the UK is roughly 85 years, one could say that this would be a sensible age cut-off. But then you risk refusing someone a dignified death if they are 75 and they've got to put up with it for potentially another 10 years or longer. It's a tough one

Exactly. And of course there would be no way you could legalise this for anyone with cognitive disabilities, except that what if they're in pain and unhappy and can't express it? It opens a can of wriggling, multiplying worms.

 

[Marchrider]

this dude (who can't be that shy of 90) has the best button

 

[All uphill]

Exactly. And of course there would be no way you could legalise this for anyone with cognitive disabilities, except that what if they're in pain and unhappy and can't express it? It opens a can of wriggling, multiplying worms.

I also question the assumption that people with learning disabilities are unable to make major decisions about their lives.

Ms AU works as an independent advocate for people with reduced capacity and makes reports to the Court of Protection; something like that role would be needed for end of life situations.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I also question the assumption that people with learning disabilities are unable to make major decisions about their lives.

Ms AU works as an independent advocate for people with reduced capacity and makes reports to the Court of Protection; something like that role would be needed for end of life situations.

It's a legal nightmare as it is, and to be honest it's one reason I don't work with people with a mental disability. I remember a colleague telling me their clients have to be able to vote on things happening in the protected workshop where they work, but how can we make this work? The clients also have to do it the "official" way by putting a cross on a piece of paper, which some can't read, and some don't understand what "voting" is anyway, but we can't just decide for them...

The other side of this is that if you can make a decision, you are responsible for your decision; freedom comes with responsibility. Small example: at work, we have a client with learning difficulties. He wants to work in the workshop. The law says he must wear safety boots. He doesn't want to wear safety boots. We, the staff, are responsible if he doesn't wear safety boots and gets injured because of this. So we have the responsibility, we need to make the decision. He doesn't understand this.

I've heard of a client with severe cognitive issues meeting a partner, and wanting to have children, and the next week her carer added "another pill" to her daily routine... this is morally highly sketchy, but again, she can't be responsible for a child, should she be able to make the decision?

I'll stick to addicts and unemployed people, it's simpler...

 

[lazybloke]

The line is, IMO, between that of assisted Euthansia and assisted suicide. How old do you have to be before it's considered "kinder" to let you die. What if someone is 65 and in constant pain, but also has been clinically depressed for 20 years - do you let them die becasue they are in pain or do you not assist them because their depression might be the more prominant factor than their physical pain?

An irreversible descent into an unbearable medical condition might be a reason for someone to desire an assisted 'exit'.
I don't see age being particularly relevant.

Given that the life expectancy in the UK is roughly 85 years, one could say that this would be a sensible age cut-off. But then you risk refusing someone a dignified death if they are 75 and they've got to put up with it for potentially another 10 years or longer. It's a tough one

In some/many cases it shouldn't be a tough one.
We seem to be much better at mercy, and keeping a sense of perspective when the sufferer is a pet rather than a human.