# Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide.



## mosaix (Feb 1, 2010)

He's lecturing on death.

Because he has difficulty reading, he's just handed over to Tony Robinson to read the lecture.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 1, 2010)

It's just finished.

He was lecturing on his belief in the legalisation of assisted death.

He touched on the death of his father from cancer. I found it quite moving as it brought back memories of my own father's death, also from cancer, a few years ago.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Feb 2, 2010)

I heard a snippet on Oz ABC radio news just as I was leaving work - perhaps they'll broadcast it in full at some point? Would love to hear it. May have to resort to podcasting, if its podcast.

I am already pro judicious euthanasia, myself. Dementia/Alzheimers runs in my family, and I really do think people should be given the choice where it comes to incurable brain melt or terminal illnesses such as cancer.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Feb 2, 2010)

The problem I have with this.

TP might well be a well known author of some repute however, the the fact I may have bought some of his books does not give him the right to claim to be a popular fellow supported in his personal political ambitions. He's just a guy that has some money (however gained) who wants a certain thing to happen.

I don't care if he has a terrible disease and is just trying to help himself at the end. What he is attempting is to change the whole basis of the society we live in. A society in which, if he succeeds, he will play no further part in. If he feels the need to end it all (prematurely in every sense of the world) he can find himself a cliff, or some lead weights and a deep ocean.

I have no objection to him running a campaign about a particular issue but would he have been given this opportunity if he was just some wealthy recluse who fancied a bash at social change. I doubt it.


----------



## Montero (Feb 2, 2010)

The lecture covered both Alzheimer's and assisted death.

One of the points he made in the lecture, is that he gets kudos because he is well known.  There were a whole group of Alzheimer's sufferers sitting at the front in the lecture, who are people who go round the country talking about their disease but don't make it in the papers - TP drew eveyone's attention to them.  
The way our society functions, is that well known people get publicity.  No, he would not have had the opportunity to make this point if he were not famous - but he chose to make the point, to put across not just his views but the views of many who are not famous, and because of that don't get heard.  More credit to him, he didn't have to do it.

I disagree that he has personal political ambitions, or indeed is claiming to be a popular fellow supported by many.  I watched the lecture, I watched the documentary last year and at no point have I heard him say that.  Indeed, as he said in his talk, he was deeply infuriated by his treatment, or the lack thereof, by the current medical system for his rare version of the disease and he is doing something about it.  He has the money to do it just for himself.  He is spending some of the precious time he has left on helping others.  Arising from the treatment of his disease, came the topic of assisted death, which he said many people had raised with him.
He was proposing a tribunal, which people with terminal diseases could approach, to effectively sign a power of attorney for their future selves, to end it when that future self no longer has any quality of life.  This is entirely voluntary, and undertaken by a person of sound mind.

He raised the point that in places where there is already legal assisted death - Oregon for one - there is no evidence of people being coerced into dying.  

He made it very, very clear he wants to live for much longer, he is hoping for a cure.  But when the time does come, it won't be a cliff - he will sit in a chair in his garden, with a brandy, a cocktail of drugs and Thomas Tallis on his ipod.

He is not the only person trying to use their fame for other reasons to change society.  Joanna Lumley for the Gurkhas,  JK Rowling for Gingerbread, and there are probably others who have not caught my attention.

It seems to me that our society is flawed in that many people can speak out regarding something, but they are rarely widely heard unless they have a celebrity as part of their cause. 

I have on occasions signed petitions on the Number 10 website on several different topics.  Every single petition received the reply to the effect "we see no reason to change the current system".


----------



## Allegra (Feb 2, 2010)

Hope it'll be on YouTube soon. As for 'personal political ambitions', ook, I think it has as much weight in Sir Terry's mind as it in the Librarian's.

Just found a short news of pTerry speaking about assisted suicide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU-KdxrJj74


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Feb 2, 2010)

Perhaps personal political ambition wasn't the right phrase.

By it I meant he has a personal ambition to change the politics of assisted suicide in this country (and perhaps the world next)

For me his idea is badly thought through. 

When we have some faceless committee of people deciding that some people can end it all then it will not be long before we have a committee of people deciding who *should* live and die.

Logan's run probably started this way and that isn't meant to be flippant.


----------



## Montero (Feb 2, 2010)

I understand that you are concerned, but I do not agree that the suggestion would lead to Logan's Run. 

What TP suggested, was that there should be a way, in which people who know they have a medical problem which will get worse, can actively choose their fate - in advance.

He was NOT talking about a committee that looked at say people on life-support then pulled the plug.  He was talking about people who are ill, but do not want to die NOW, being able to make their wishes felt and acted upon at a point in the future where they are no longer able to act upon those wishes themselves.  Also, that the people who help them, would not be then open to prosecution.  It is optional.

It is already possible to make a living will saying "if such and such happens I do not want to be resuscitated".  People with beliefs such as Mormons can elect not to have blood transfusions - even though that endangers their lives.  This is indeed one step further - but I think it is one that is necessary.

Any system is open to abuse.  It is up to society to try and set it up with sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuse and to monitor to ensure that it is all working.  We must indeed avoid Logan's Run - but we must also respect people's right to choose, where such choice does no harm to others.  (As in I can choose to die, but I cannot choose to kill you - or at least not without severe penalties.)

Furthermore - TPs very practical suggestion - was that the committee should consist of at least a Doctor - experienced in chronic and terminal conditions, and a lawyer, experienced in family law, all over 45.  So that they are people who have seen many people, and families, in such extreme circumstances and will smell a rat if there is one.  (My own phrase.)

I watched my mother die slowly and painfully - after a series of operations which helped for a while.  She had earlier told me that if she deteriorated again, she did not want a further operation even if it was possible as the operations themselves took so much out of her.  As it happens no further operation was possible.  What killed her, quicker than the cancer, was pneumonia and septicaemia.  It literally took days as her lungs clogged up and her circulation shut down.  On the last day we watched first her fingernails, then her fingers, turn mauve/blue.  Eventually her breathing stopped.  My suspicion is she basically drowned, very, very slowly.

My fear is the opposite of yours.  I want there to be a properly, and humanely, regulated system where I can elect to end my life far less painfully should I be facing similar circumstances.


----------



## Montero (Feb 2, 2010)

And not being flippant either.  In one sense we do already have a committee that makes life and death decisions - the government.  They send out the army, and soldiers are killed.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Feb 2, 2010)

Montero:

My point exactly.

Give someone power over the life and death of others and pretty soon they start to wield it.

How long before the salt, air and drugs you need is weighed against the productiveness of your output.


Just look at the raging debate on personal care costs that happening at the moment. How long do you think it will be before someone thinks of another solution.

"Oh why don't we let the committee decide. No one will notice if 20,000 old age pensioners with no relatives suddenly *opt out*"

"Fantastic idea," say's the faceless bureaucrat " I'll fill in the applications this afternoon"


----------



## Pyan (Feb 2, 2010)

I've just tweaked the thread title, to avoid confusion...


----------



## Montero (Feb 2, 2010)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> "Fantastic idea," say's the faceless bureaucrat " I'll fill in the applications this afternoon"



You have decided to ignore the information I provided regarding TP suggestion - it was as far from faceless bureaucrat as you can get.  It was to give THE INDIVIDUAL the CHOICE to go to a committee of experienced lawyers and doctors.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Give someone power over the life and death of others and pretty soon they start to wield it.



Life and death decisions are made by committees, and individuals, every day, and half of them aren't even directly thought about as life and death decisions.   A car manufacturer may decide to go for the economy component.  You may decide to buy cheap tyres.  You may decide to get a few more miles out of your worn tyres.  There may be injury or death as a result and it might not even be your death.  It could be the pedestrian on the wet road that you kill because your tyres had a poorer grip than if you'd replaced them sooner.

 Others decisions are very clearly life and death decisions.  For example:

Councils have so much in their budget each year for road improvement schemes.  Local groups will go to the council and say "my road is dangerous".  The council looks at all the applications and says "This road has the most accidents, we'll fix this one."  And by that decision, the roads that are not fixed this year, may lead to a death.

Transplant committees - all I know about this comes from the odd documentary and medical dramas.  However, as I understand the process, there is a committee with decisions to make about which of the many people on the list gets the organ that is available.  On what do they base their decision?  The age and lifestyle of the recipient.  A slim non-smoking 30 year-old beats the smoking overweight 50 year old.  

TP proposition was very clear in its limitations.  You are concerned that it will be used as a foot in the door to other things.  In particular, you are afraid that all the old people with no relatives to care for them will be killed. Many die from neglect already.  Twenty years ago a white paper came out regarding old people STARVING TO DEATH IN HOSPITAL - because they were unable to feed themselves and no-one had the time to feed them.  Or were even tracking how much food they ate.

I experienced that directly.  My mother was in a small local hospital (which on a different visit nearly killed her with food poisoning).  She was semi-conscious and unable to feed herself.  Her eyes were open but she was not functioning.  My father was late visiting a couple of days after she was admitted and arrived as lunch was finishing.  Mother was slumped in bed with an untouched plate of food in front of her.  The care assistant (not a nurse) arrived and picked up the plate saying "Oh weren't you hungry?" and was about to leave with it when father stopped her.  He tried finding someone to tackle about it to get care for her and met with shrugs.  It wasn't part of their job to feed the patients.  After that, father went in twice a day at meal times to feed mother, who remained unable to feed herself.  Without father, she would have died of starvation, many years sooner than the death I described earlier.
(I would also like to make it clear that there were some excellent hospitals, doctors and nurses involved in my mother's care.)

The CRUCIAL thing here is for assisted deaths to be by a process which is open, accountable and trackable.    Yes, it is a life or death decision.  That is the whole point.
I do not think that this will lead to the deliberate mass slaughter of the allegedly useless (as opposed to the current "system" which includes the failure to prevent death through lack of resources or willpower and the decisions taken as part of that).  In any case, it is up to us, as a country, and AS INDIVIDUALS, to make sure it does not.    To me, it is just as ethically important to support the individual's right to choice, and that choice should, under the criteria already discussed, include the right to end one's own life.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 2, 2010)

I personally have great sympathy with your argument. Montero.  But I think the point TEiN is making is the fact that every time we have an extension of something of this kind, its proponents refuse to accept the slippery-slope arguments which are advanced against it, but almost inevitably things change, and very soon the unthinkable becomes not only thinkable but part of the process.  The classic example is abortion.  I am in favour of a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that a law which was brought in with supposed safeguards in order to help vulnerable women has now led to a situation where abortion is available effectively on demand, and is used as a means of contraception with some women having multiple terminations, which no one could possibly have wanted.  

There are three things which should be in everyone's mind in discussing matters of this sort.  The first is the precept 'hard cases make bad laws'.  The second is the law of unintended consequences.  Lastly, human nature being what it is, the easier it is to do something, the more often it will be done, and the harder it is to resist extensions of its principle.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 2, 2010)

I would like to say that the problems of assisted suicide here in Switzerland don't stem from encouragement to die, just the contrary. There's the NIMBY group – I agree with it in principle, but don't want it anywhere around me, the religious block; my morality says I shouldn't do it, and I am morally obliged to enforce my opinion on all who may disagree, the "death tourism" group – since we're the only country around offering this service, people are flying in from all over to die, what will this do to our reputation? but no slightest suggestion of families disposing of excess, expensive relatives.

No, I don't expect to take that way out; but I totally support the freedom of the individual to choose it.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 2, 2010)

Good post Chris.

For those that didn't hear the lecture, here's the iplayer link. It's worth listening to the opinions of someone who is actually dying of an incurable disease. As Dimbleby says "For Pratchett it's not an academic debate".

BBC iPlayer - Richard Dimbleby Lecture: Shaking Hands with Death

BTW can anyone remind me of the title of the music that opens the program, I did know but I've forgotten.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 2, 2010)

Glazunov *The Seasons *"L'Automne (Bacchanal)" opus 67.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 2, 2010)

The Judge said:


> Glazunov *The Seasons *"L'Automne (Bacchanal)" opus 67.



Many thanks TJ


----------



## Montero (Feb 3, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

I do agree that "the End" is picturing one possible outcome.  It is possible.  However what I disagree with is the idea that it has to be inevitable, or the other idea that it would be a new thing.  As I understand it, for example, medical research has ethics committees to stop researchers going to far, and as far as I am aware, this system is working.

The points I am making is that

1.  Checks, balances, monitoring and openness.
2.  There are already many life and death decisions being made, not all of them done well, or openly.

This is where we have the chance to set up a new system, learning from the mistakes of our past, and to set it up well.  The point TP made (Oregon), that Chrispenycate has implied (Switzerland), is that where assisted death is already legal, it has not lead to a cascade of convenience killings.

Regarding assisted death - if I were terminally ill with something slow and lingering, whether physical or mental, I would want to make as much as I could of what I had left.  This would mean that at the point where I was able to make an end of myself would be too soon.  I wouldn't want to die until I was too far gone to do things - such as kill myself.  Therefore assisted death would be the route I would want, and I would not want those who assisted me to be punished.

There are other moral questions also to be debated here:

1.  The right of the individual to chose their own fate
2.  Suffering.  As I have made very plain I have seen a lot of suffering - why should that be allowed when there could be a voluntary alternative?

Judge - regarding your point on abortion.  I agree with you that it should not be used for contraception.  However,  I then see the situation you described as one where changes should be made.  Education of the women and men, provision of free contraceptives to those unable to afford it.  The system needs review and adjustment.  Every system needs periodic review and adjustment - that is not to say that in some cases a gradual change would not then be endorsed - but that change would be openly debated.

Yes, there is a possibility of assisted death leading to Logan's Run BUT it is something we should monitor and control.  The alternative "system" we have at the moment is extremely cruel and that needs fixing.  The trouble is, it is what we are all used to and many don't find it shocking, (or are not aware of the details)  Yes, being used to something is the argument of how we could slide into Logan's Run - it cuts both ways.  So there are people all over the UK currently suffering, who might have liked to have chosen an assisted death by this point, who do not have the option.  
Because it is the status quo, some people are scared of changing it in case something else bad happens.  That is a possibility, but only one possibility.  Looking at all possible outcomes is important before changing things, but that does not rule out all change.
At present legal assisted death is only available to those with sufficient money to go abroad.
I would like to point out one other thing regarding my mother's death - the hospital was not giving her much treatment - I do not know what she was being given. However, she was not in intensive care, surrounded by machines and tubes.  She was in a large single room in a cottage hospital, with no equipment that I can recall, certainly no heart monitor.  In a previous visit to the hospital she had already pointed out the room to me as "the dying room".  The system at present is technically not assisted death - what the system is, is withdrawal of the assistance for living.  And that can be slow and cruel, but it is all that is legally allowed.  Shouldn't we change this?


----------



## Rahl Windsong (Feb 4, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

My father died of Alzheimer's a few years ago now. And for several years before that my Mother spent almost every minute of her day at his bedside. When he finally did die her life changed so much it almost killed her as well, because she no longer had anything to do, she was completely lost for a very long time. An assisted death would have been preferrable to that senario because for the last several years of his life he was just laying in his bed and not cognisant of life what so ever, however having said that I do not believe I ever could have talked my Mother into helping him to die. At the very end they finally did basically give him an overdose of morphine so why could they not just do that once he was bed ridden in the first place? It makes no sense to me at all. The doctor pulled my older brother aside and said, "We can make his passing a little easier for him if you say so" He looked at them with tears in his eyes and said, "Please do it then, I beg you" I only wish they had made that offer a lot sooner because them dragging it to the bitter end almost took my Mother with him....


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 4, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*



Montero said:


> It is already possible to make a living will saying "if such and such happens I do not want to be resuscitated". People with beliefs such as Mormons can elect not to have blood transfusions - even though that endangers their lives. This is indeed one step further - but I think it is one that is necessary.


 
I believe you mean the Jehovah's Witnesses, Montero.  The LDS church (Mormons) doesn't have any problem with blood transfusions or other medical procedures.

I generally agree that there should be some procedure in place such that someone who has expressed their wishes in advance can have their life ended if they have a terminal illness for which there is no hope for a cure.  But I don't think it should be an option in cases where the individual him or herself hasn't left a clear expression of their wishes in that regard, just as a DNR has to be a clear wish of the individual in question, and not just of the relatives or the doctors.  There is a possibility of abuse there.

I am a huge proponent of hospice care, in which positive steps, such as withholding of food and water, are not taken to hasten death, but a DNR order is in place and the individual is given whatever necessary to make that transition as painless as possible.


----------



## Montero (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*



littlemissattitude said:


> I believe you mean the Jehovah's Witnesses, Montero.  The LDS church (Mormons) doesn't have any problem with blood transfusions or other medical procedures.



Thanks



littlemissattitude said:


> But I don't think it should be an option in cases where the individual him or herself hasn't left a clear expression of their wishes in that regard, just as a DNR has to be a clear wish of the individual in question, and not just of the relatives or the doctors.  There is a possibility of abuse there.



Absolutely.  Needs to be very clear that it is the individual's wishes.



littlemissattitude said:


> I am a huge proponent of hospice care, in which positive steps, such as withholding of food and water, are not taken to hasten death, but a DNR order is in place and the individual is given whatever necessary to make that transition as painless as possible.



Not seen hospice care in action.  Sounds like my mother was in the wrong place.


----------



## thepaladin (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

In the 1960s abortion was illegal in the US. Then Row Vs. Wade came before the Supreme Court.  There were voices warning that if abortion on demand were found legal there would be millions of abortions. The answer was, oh that's just the old "slippery slope argument" it'll never happen, abortion will never be considered a primary form of birth control. 

Today we have millions of abortions for the purposes of birth control....yearly. The same voices warned that the next steps would be infanticide and euthanasia. The same answering voices again shouted the warnings down with it'll never happen.

We now have "full term" or "partial birth" abortions where full term living babies are killed and pulled from the womb. The "law" goes so far as to specify that if it is botched and the child is born alive, it must be allowed to die.

Now we are being asked to allow "assisted" suicide. There are already cases where individuals who have been determined to be "unable to make the decision"  have had the matter decided for them by "a doctor" or a family member.

I just went through a situation where I had to make the decision of when to "disconnect" my wife of 34 years. She had been in awful pain for a couple of years. The last six weeks of her life were in intensive care. But it's wasn't (I originally type "not present tense here..shows I haven't completely dealt with it I suppose)my right to end her life. As long as I could see "she was in there" I refused to allow the respirator to be removed. When she finally failed all the tests and was in a comma so I was assured she would never come back...her organs were failing she would not recover, I gave permission. The "doctors" had assured me she wouldn't live very long after she was disconnected...only at most a matter of hours. She lived over a week, continuing to breath on her own after the respirator was removed. 

Life is something special and while pain may make it almost unbearable I admit I don't believe I or any third party has the right to decide it should be cut short by suicide or assisted suicide (a euphemism for "killing" someone). Assisted suicide is not the same as removing or withholding life support nor is the same as deciding not to take "heroic measures". I also had to specify that my wife not have resuscitation and CPR when her heart finally stopped. It would only have caused her more pain (there's the "P" word) , broken ribs etc.for no purpose. I do hold the view that while there is life there is hope. 

Doctors are supposed to take an oath that says "First do no harm". Allowing doctors to make decisions about whether a person shall live of die is opening another door to another slippery slope and to close ours eyes to it doesn't change it. Denying it, doesn't make it "not so". Simply saying "it'll never happen" won't prevent it, that's happened before, over and over. It is only a short step from "you are allowed to die" to "you ought to die". We need to learn from history.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Feb 6, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

TP, I'm really sorry for the pain you endured. No one who hasn't been through what you endured can imagine what it must be like.

But...I know women who've had abortions and they didn't do it as a form of birth control. They also didn't make the decision lightly. I strongly believe in freedom of choice. This is a sensitive and emotional topic so I'm hesitant to say much more, for fear of upsetting people. All I can say is that abortion, just like many other very personal and heart-wrenching decisions, should be left up to the people involved. I certainly wouldn't want others to make such life-changing decisions on my behalf.


----------



## thepaladin (Feb 6, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

I wasn't using that in an argument for or against abortion (though I have my own thoughts) I was pointing out that what was at one time considered unthinkable became common place. The idea that we would even consider "assisted suicide" shows how much our thought processes have changed. We are moving toward euthanasia, toward a time when limited resources and a lessened respect for the sanctity of life will make  the idea of "you ought to die" common. 

Just saying "Oh it will never happen" doesn't mean it won't.


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Feb 6, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

I agree that saying "oh it will never happen" is no defence against something happening. But I don't think that's what many people are saying. And it's not what I'm saying either. 

I don't think that assisted suicide is a modern concept at all. I'd wager that putting someone out of their misery - whether with their consent or not - has been around about as long as the human race has been on this planet. 

I'd also argue that a lack of respect for the sanctity of life is already firmly entrenched, condoned by the law and in many cases, approved and lauded by certain sectors of society. Just one example - think of insurance companies that routinely deny cover for life-saving care. Profit is what counts, not the lives that could be saved. 

TP, I hesitate to get too deeply involved in this discussion. Text conversations are very limiting in that it is very hard to accurately convey emotion and nuance. Also, the topics under discussion are so sensitive, and so personal, that I am wary of accidentally saying something that could deeply hurt someone. The longer I continue the discussion, the more likely that will be.


----------



## thepaladin (Feb 6, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

I understand and pretty much have made my argument. I'm referring to "our" history. Other societies and civilizations have passed through their own cycles. All I'm saying is that we are looking at an incremental "break down" of societal norms and morals. Some who are making the arguments realize this and endorse it. I just think it needs to be acknowledged. We are changing our societie's entire outlook on life and the roll of doctors when we speak of "assisted suicide".  While I touched on other topics as examples the point I'm trying to make is a simple one. As little as 20 years ago the idea of a doctor actually taking a life (as opposed to turning off life support) was almost un-thought of. I have my own stand and belief on the moral rights and wrongs of the subject. My argument isn't whether it is or isn't right or wrong, moral or immoral. ( I do have a belief, that I suppose comes through. I apologize if it muddies the water or obscures my point. ), my point is that it is a (another) major change in our society and what we will accept as "normal".


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 8, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

This was a popular programme amongst the teachers at the college where I work - General Studies, Religious Studies, Philosophy, Health & Social Care...


----------



## mosaix (Feb 8, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*



thepaladin said:


> my point is that it is a (another) major change in our society and what we will accept as "normal".



Interesting point TP and I hope I'm not going off topic when I say that the older I get the more I realise that each generation has it's own definition of 'normal'.

I was born immediately after the second world war and I fondly imagined that the relative peace that I lived through in my youth was the norm. It's only in later life that I've leant that war seems to be the normal state of affairs - at least as far as the UK is concerned anyway. 

This bit is definitely off topic and certainly not to be taken as having any bearing on the thread but I think that we, as a race, imagine that the world has always been the way that we experienced it as we grew up, whereas it is constantly changing. Not accepting this and trying to resist these changes is, in my view, a constant source of misery and unhappiness.


----------



## thepaladin (Feb 8, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

As long as we're civil I think the discussion can run. Your point is taken, but in the alternative I don't think of these changes as some form of wave or current that sweeps over history. The changes come because the people involved gradually come to accept something. Usually over the course of history it seems (to me at least) that these changes come as succeeding begin to choose what's easy over what "is" or at least has been "perceived as" right. I think the very act of recognizing that we are relaxing accepted standards at least may cause it to be looked at. Admittedly it usually changes little. The Roman Empire, The British Empire and the rest of history tend to back that up.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 9, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*



thepaladin said:


> The changes come because the people involved gradually come to accept something.



That is absolutely right, TP. Two things happen. One, a proportion (not all) of the  current generation accept the change. Either because they agree with it or because they can't be bothered to resist. And two, the next generation accept the change as the norm. Gradually the current generation (both those for and against the change) dies out and the change becomes established in the new generation.

A prime case of this is the decimalisation of the currency and the weights and measures system in the UK.  My generation, whilst largely accepting the decimalisation of the currency, has to a certain extent resisted the decimalisation of the weights and measures. This represents itself as resistance to 'Europeanisation' of the UK. Political parties have sprung up to represent this view. My children however, educated only in the decimal system, think it is bonkers to have any other system than decimal and I think that is the general view of their generation.


----------



## Window Bar (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*

This all hits quite close to home for me. Both of my parents had long been believers in the so-called Right to Die -- mostly because they had watched three out of four of their own immediate parents go through long, heart-rending declines, complete with years of dementia, bedsores, round-the-clock nursing "care" and the rest of it.

About a year ago, my dad (mid-80s) went through a series of small strokes that left him relatively witless. He has totally forgotten his old vows that he would "end it" if such afflictions ever faced him. He doesn't know where he is, who his family members are, or what profession he followed. He's fully incontinent and miserable through every waking moment. He bewails that no one will take him on "overseas holidays," though no airline would take him aboard. If he has a visitor in the morning, he has forgotten it by afternoon, and so he weeps that he's been abandoned.

In the midst of all of this, my mom also had a stroke. She lost the ability to speak and to walk; but she did _not _lose her will. After two months of unsuccessful rehab therapy, she set her chin and refused all food and water. Of course she died within days.

Her exit, though somewhat slow, was vastly better than his: a death sentence that could easily drag on for another decade. How much better if there had been something more civilized.

Slippery Slope? To where? One can't go any lower. Our aged ones already have been consigned to hell by a medical industry that can keep the heart pumping for months and years longer than the mind survives.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Terry Pratchett: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Alzheimer's and assisted suicide*



			
				paladin said:
			
		

> As little as 20 years ago the idea of a doctor actually taking a life (as opposed to turning off life support) was almost un-thought of.



Um - I think that not only was it not inconceivable, it happened a lot more often that you might think, with doctors easing the passing of really hopeless cases to avoid further suffering.

Remember, the rules of certification have only (relatively) recently been changed, due mainly to the Harold Shipman case - before that, a doctor could certificate a death with no check or second opinion. It would have been easy to help someone with incurable pain and suffering out of this life, and I'm sure that a lot of genuinely compassionate doctors did so.


I'm not saying I'm in favour or against the idea  - just that I don't think the concept was as inconceivable as you might think.


----------

