h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Effers - yes I have and fantastic it has been too!

Only 3 episodes!

The lead scientist's sheer joy when the caterpillar chrysalis opened to reveal a moth (ep 2.) was unmistakably genuine and wonderful.

Thanks for the Terry Pratchett link Clive!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8270571.stm


~jwf~

anancygirl

This is in the UK where we have the NHS and very few people have/need private health care....although for termimal cancer etc private care may be required however there are cancer charities who can help with end of life care.

I don't think there is the private health care lobbying against this sort of thing in the UK that there would be/is in the US cf Obama's push for national health care (or in Canada?). Would be interesting to see which Lords and MP's may be linked to private health care companies...hmmm...

>The lead scientist's sheer joy when the caterpillar chrysalis opened to reveal a moth (ep 2.) was unmistakably genuine and wonderful.<

Yes Clive, and I could so relate to it. As a child I regularly bred moths and butterflies...getting the eggs from a butterfly farm in Kent. And to my shame I would collect the adults from the wild and pin them out in boxes.

What a lovely childlike man he is, the professor of entomology...so full of excitement and humour.

Have yet to watch the 3rd episode when they go into the crater of the volcano, which is like an island cut off from the rest of the area for 200,000 years, because of its steep sides.

I hope this series wins awards and gets widely distributed. I so love the infectious enthusiasm of all the people involved and the setting up of their jungle labs in such difficult terrain.

perplexing:

In what rway is The Right To A Good Death incompatible with The Right To Life? I simply don't get the conflict. Yes...care *must* be available for the terminally/painfully ill. Yes, they should have the option of opting out of this care.

We all have a stake in this, so I'll not mention my various relatives who have suffered unnecessarily in their final days. We all have those. My other stake is that our family GP is a leading Exit campaigner who, last year, was suspended for six months, having dispensed barbiturates to a patient who ised them to kill herself. As he knew she would. The outpouring of support he received from his patients was touching.

You should check the facts in Holland ans Switzerland before you indulge in a too optimistic view of "it will not happen!"...IT HAPPENS!

In times where all the money spend to secure the bonus gamblers...where do you think,will the money gets cut of..you tell me!.I guess,the social,education and culture like usual.So...next steps are logically..?

How free is a "free decision",when you get the message to be "a burden!"

I wouldn't want to waste millions on the last six months of my life when the same money could be spent preventing some agony for several people in the middle of theirs, but, realistically, it would be best if society were willing to come up with money for both. Euthanasia really should be about ending suffering where there is no hope, but there is the legitimate risk that some will be asked (directly or not so directly) to end things just to preserve resources for those with a lot of years left to enjoy.

Edward..I hear you,I am not for artificial life prolongation behind decency and I think...the awareness about pain prevention should rise, but...knowing the machine from the inside and having cared for my mother who had Alzheimer during years at home...I think...the limits are a need to protect us from very evil social 2 class society scenarios.

The neglect of death in our society tends to be hidden behind pseudo social "hygenism" preferring to not face it..and getting fast rid of the situation.
I wished more end of life hospices, where people can get support in that situation ,not comforted avoiding it...but facing it with all emotions involved.

The "help to suicide" is a wrong debate hiding the true issues.

help to suicide???

why not a live organ transplant order

after they whip out all the useable bits and transplant them into others

the loved ones could flip the switch on the life support machine

So...I wanted to thank you for this discussion in here,who appeared the one left where the cabal of a mobbing "empowered" clique acting out their petty "witch hunt" on me,had left a space of intellectual fair reflection....before this good impression of what the bbc used to stand for, disappears too,I greet you farewell for now!I might use my time&life energy to write about this phenomena, who seems to impact theses days many public spaces with the nepotism of the attention greedy violent "hungry souls" .much courage to you!

don't go

i wanted to debate as equals

after all I am a Moron!!!!!!

Hi pA,

>You should check the facts in Holland ans Switzerland before you indulge in a too optimistic view of "it will not happen!"...IT HAPPENS!

Hmm. You should check the facts you're checking before making too-bold assertions. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself - what facts are you referring to?

Gif

pApollonia:
>>You should check the facts in Holland ans Switzerland before you indulge in a too optimistic view of "it will not happen!"...IT HAPPENS!


I have no doubt whatsoever about that. I must point out, however, that a similar phenomenon is...er...not unknown in jursidictions where assisted suicide is *not* legal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/the_shipman_murders/news_and_reaction/default.stm

It's a question of checks and balances and the risk of abuse - as per *any* risk - can never be wholly eliminated. Certainly a blanket intolerance of assisted suicide is a sledgegammer to crack a nut and one which perpetuates the grievous wrong of keeping people alive who are desperate for a pain-free end.

pA hasd also mentioned the Class issue.

Well...to those at the lower end of our society curently enjoy good deaths in care homes and geriatric wards? Not in the ones I've seen!

Now where was that link where a church minister was caught misrepresenting the Dutch euthanasia statistics, implying that there were thousands of cases per year where people were killed without their permission?

Gif

In fairness...I think pA's point that it's the place of death in society, rather than assisted suicide per se that's the issue.

Well...maybe. But we can't always tackle The Big Issues as a one-er. We have to untangle them and deal with them in tractable chunks. To say, in effect, 'It's all a lot more complicated than you think!' is, I feel, somewhat avoiding the issue. It's somewhat unhelpful - and patronising - to chastise people fror dealing with parts as best they can rather than solving the whole.

Duh! *Of course* it's complicated. Who said life (or death) were easy?

The fact is that if you provide really good amelioration of suffering, in most cases euthanasia is essentially undesirable down to very near the end, in my opinion. So long as a person is interacting with other people on some reasonable level and is not consuming an extraordinary quantity of resources (technological and in terms of dedicated people-hours), I really don't think an option to die is all that good. Let's just say that I have an aversion to it.

J:
>>in my opinion.

That's the key phrase, isn't it? Yes - palliative medicine has made great strides, albeit hampered by the USFDA's bizarre refusal to licence diamorphine. (and it hardly helps that a ridiculous war has handed control of the unlicenced diamorphine trade to criminal elements, resulting in severe world shortage).

*BUT*...surely it's the choice of the *individual* what is tolerable and what is not? The recent UK ruling has largely refered to the case of a young man who was paralysed from the neck down. While he was pain free, he was no longer able to play rugby - the game he lived for. That would be of no consequence to me. For my part, I felt somewhat uncomfortable with his particular reasons. But would I be able to tolerate...not being able to have sex?...not being able to stroll around Glasgow and pop in somewhere promising for lunch?...being dependent upon others for my bodily needs?...

The point is *I Don't Know.* What I do know, however, is that this particular young man made his choice and his loving parents helped him to carry it through - with regrets.

Do we want to curtail this sort of freedom of choice by law? We're on a hiding to nothing if we simply duck the issue and say 'Life shouldn't be like that...we should be better at helping such people lead fulfilling lives.' etc. etc. Sure, sure - that's all petrfectly true and obvious. But how are we going to do it? And who has final say about whether we've succeded?

'Pro Choice' is the phrase.

I'm gonna disagree with Ed there. I think the key phrase in Julzes' post was 'down to very near the end'. When a patient is clearly dying - let's say of advanced lung cancer - in extreme pain and choking with every breath, yet mentally aware and capable of consent, is it not the kindest option to allow them to die, rather than to force them to struggle on until they eventually choke to death (a very unpleasant end, I'm told)?

Yes, I accept that raises all sorts of issues, and that there need to be safeguards - but should than prevent us from doing what is best for the patient?

Gif