MS woman wins right-to-die fight

MS woman wins right-to-die fight

news.bbc.co.uk

A woman with multiple sclerosis has made legal history by winning her battle to have the law on assisted suicide clarified.

Debbie Purdy wanted to know if her husband would be prosecuted if he helped her end her life in Switzerland.

Five Law Lords ruled the Director of Public Prosecutions must specify when a person might face prosecution.

Ms Purdy, 46, from Bradford, said she was "ecstatic" at the ruling and she had been given her life back.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir

(visit the link for the full news article)

For some reason I always thought that Britain had a sensible "right to die with dignity" provision. Apparently not, as Ms. Purdy has to travel to Switzerland to end her pain and suffering with dignity. Pity. I think it's time for the governments of the world to stay completely out of their citizens private lives. Be it in the bedroom or the doctors office. I know, it will never happen as the control issue is front and center of most governments.

It seems obvious to me that when the pain gets to bad and there is no hope of getting better; there should be physician that comes to the home and delivers the cocktail so a person can die peacefully in their own bed if they so chose. Or also if they so chose; to check out in a hospital so their healthy organs could be harvested to help others.


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 30-7-2009 by whaaa]

Ms Purdy said the Law Lords' decision was "a huge step towards a more compassionate law".

"I'm ecstatic - I feel like I've been given a reprieve. I want to live my life to the full but I don't want to suffer unnecessarily at the end of my life.

"The decision means that I can make an informed choice, with Omar, about whether he travels abroad with me to end my life because we will know exactly where we stand."

In a summary of their decision, the Law Lords said: "Everyone has the right to respect for their private life and the way that Ms Purdy determines to spend the closing moments of her life is part of the act of living.

"Ms Purdy wishes to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life. She is entitled to ask that this too must be respected."

I realise that this issue inspires a great deal of passion and division among us; I stand on the side of allowing ill individuals to choose the way in which their life ends. Death exceeds all else as a matter of personal liberty, of privacy, of dignity--it is the most basic of rights. We regard murder--the imposing of death upon someone who does not want it, who has not chosen it--as criminal. But to similarly dictate someone's death by forcing them to extend suffering beyond their own tolerance--that is somehow noble? That is moral? In both instances, the dying individual is forced to die in the way that suits someone else; their own voice is muffled, their body treated as if it does not belong to them. Surely this is immoral! It is as if to say,"Your body does not belong to you; we will decide how much discomfort you can tolerate." or, more succinctly, "Your death must not make society uncomfortable."

ahahahahaha and the irony of the year award goes to.........


" Ms Purdy, 46, from Bradford, said she was "ecstatic" at the ruling and she had been given her life back. "

Thank god! Now she can go kill herself. Hahah... come on, easily the funniest thing I've seen all month.

EDIT: Does anyone know why her husband didn't just catch a flight across the country while the wife pulled the car into the garage, ran the hose from the tailpipe into the car and revved up the engine? That's a gg and a solid win for everyone. And on top of that, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than two tickets to Switzerland and a legal battle.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by king9072]

Originally posted by king9072
ahahahahaha and the irony of the year award goes to.........

" Ms Purdy, 46, from Bradford, said she was "ecstatic" at the ruling and she had been given her life back. "

Thank god! Now she can go kill herself. Hahah... come on, easily the funniest thing I've seen all month.

Read the article. She feels she has been given her life back because she no longer needs to worry about death at the mercy of a degenerative disease; she can now live with the understanding that, should it become too much to handle, she can lawfully choose to go peacefully and quickly with her husband at her side.

Can you fathom the burden one might feel at the prospect of death by a disease that slowly takes away your most fundamental functions? Can you understand the terror of watching your life dwindle down in slow motion, only to be asked to rely on the mercy of nature or a loaded gun to not make your death too painful or too undignified?

There is nothing ironic or contradictory about feeling relief and freedom to finally live fully and peacefully following a reassurance that, yes, you will not have to suffer more than you wish to during the last throes of your disease.

Does anyone know why her husband didn't just catch a flight across the country while the wife pulled the car into the garage, ran the hose from the tailpipe into the car and revved up the engine? That's a gg and a solid win for everyone. And on top of that, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than two tickets to Switzerland and a legal battle.

May awareness, understanding and empathy find their way to your soul.

What I find detestable is that there are governments out there that have and use the death penalty yet will not allow people the right to end their own suffering. In my eye's that is a misuse of the lethal injection.

I have always been a little confused by the people who want to have a doctor end their life. You can easily do it yourself painlessly. It seems to be odd to beg for death but not be willing to be responsible for your own.

I think a terminally ill person should be able to decide to end their life in such a way, and it not be deemed suicide. I do not think that anyone else, especially a doctor, should be able to actively terminate a human life, with the exception of the death penalty.

I am sure many will see that as a double standard, but the argument for or against the death penalty can be in another forum, I wont get into it here.

Originally posted by Wolf321
I have always been a little confused by the people who want to have a doctor end their life. You can easily do it yourself painlessly. It seems to be odd to beg for death but not be willing to be responsible for your own.

Many people attempt suicide and screw it up; then they are in worse shape than before. Perhaps they just need help with the details they are unaware of, thus the doctor.

Originally posted by Wolf321
You can easily do it yourself painlessly.

Really, as I understand it, it is quite hard to do in the UK. I mean pills.

Anyway, what a shame such a vibrant person has this illness. I agree she should have the right to die in dignity rather than die a humiliating and inevitable death.

Originally posted by whaaa
Many people attempt suicide and screw it up; then they are in worse shape than before. Perhaps they just need help with the details they are unaware of, thus the doctor.

Yes, but that is part lack of knowledge and part poor planning. Because of the internet, you can find a million and one ways to kill yourself, and not in a messy way that is bloody or disfiguring.

I just read some reports of common over-the-counter chemicals that can be mixed and it produces a toxic gas that stops your heart in minutes.

Likewise, pills and booze have been killing people painlessly for ages.

For me the only issue at that point becomes classifying it as a suicide and negating any benefits or life insurance policies.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Wolf321]