Edit: I agree 100% Kiya. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Do you know any more about the Christopher Reeve example Spick? He clearly wasn't brain dead, so what were the circumstances surrounding a possible switch off? Was he involved in discussions, or was he in a coma for a while and it was talked about by next of kin? I didn't read anything about it.
Either way, it's another example of how hard it is to organise these things by laws - because each circumstance is different.
I don't belong to a Euthanasia group, but I believe that in some cases members will draw up a request (to their friends, relatives and supporters) that sets out the exact circumstances in which they would wish to be helped to die. Usually this would cover times when they become physically incapable of ending their own lives unaided. A much more tricky one to write up (or carry out) is the case of Alzheimers or dementia where someone may not wish to end their days as a mindless dribbling wreck. In these cases, by the time the person is ready to die they are no longer capable of rationally making the decision.
We went through the business of my wife's mother dying of Alzheimers and it was a distressing and pitiful business to watch. Long before she died, her entire mind, character, and personality had gone, and the physical shell that was left bore no resemblance to the person she had been. Neither the doctors or the relatives had the right to say "OK, enough is enough, time for an overdose" but the doctors can (and in this case did) discreetly ask the family what level of care is suggested. In other words, if the patient gets pneumonia, or organs begin to fail, then don't administer additional treatment, attach life support devices, etc. This seems reasonable to me.
The law here still forbids assisted suicide but there do seem to be ways around it if people are keen enough. As far as I know, law enforcers seem less zealous than they were about trying to prosecute people, particularly if the one who dies administers the fatal dose themselves and the suppliers of any drugs or equipment are not directly involved with the death. Technically they can still prosecute the friends and relatives who gather at the "farewell" but they seem less inclined to follow through with that now.
I can't really say too much about the decisions of others, but I would certainly hope that if I get to a position of dying from something painful and terminal that I be allowed some choice in the matter.
Anybody got any strong convictions one way or another - or can say if there are any situations where they would like a push over the line??
