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

'assumed', rather than did any serious research into how many illegal abortions were being carried out. And how many more were sought after.
...presumably.

always be wary of the much-vaunted slippery slope; things are rarely that simple.

They estmated that there would be 4 abortions per year under section (I think) C of the abortion act which states that

"Is permissable if to continue the pregnancy would cause greater damage to the mothers physical or mental health, or to that of existing children, than it would to terminate it"

Bloody hell! You seriously have to wonder what these guys were using for brains. Didn't they do any RESEARCH?

B

Well I suspect it was a polical underestimation to get the right result through parliement.

It would be interesting to see the actual numbers - they might have been pretty close to the mark in the year after the law was changed, but as things became more accepted and as women started to understand the legalities it probably escalated pretty quickly.

Or am I just a stats

So far as the rest of the debate goes I do have a few more comments to add (they've been running through my head for the last few days) but I'm feeling pretty happy right now and don't want to get all maudlin again by choice...I will be back though

Does anyone know why the couple that sparked this conversation went to all the trouble of going to the euthanasia clinic? From what I can gather neither of them were particularly ill or incapacitated so why were they in need of this service? If they were that motivated to end their lives together why didn't they just go ahead and commit suicide?

If this option were not available to them would they have eventually got on with it themselves?

Well, suicide is pretty messy stuff. Pills often make you throw up, guns are hard to get hold of and very bloody, fast acting poisons are usually painful, and again are hard to get hold of. Carbon Monoxide, which is apparently painless, is probably the 'nicest' option in the UK. But all in all, I have no idea of the most painless and aesthetically pleasing way to do it, and I *certainly* have no idea how to do it in such a way that I would be found reasonably swiftly so that funerals and stuff could be put in motion, but not so swiftly that I would be revived.

Maybe they went to the clinic so that they could have as comfortable a death as possible, and so that the formalities would be as simple as possible for their relatives.

I still want to know if they bought return air-fares though. I don't see the Swiss being comfortable with single tickets to Switzerland.

B

Immigration officer: "Purpose of visit?"

Traveller: "To commit suicide"

Hmmm...

*quells a giggle* I nearly had a DNR slapped on me when I was in coma, all the doctors gave up on me anyhow.... I think they thought I was taking the mic when I came back in after hte coma with a nice 'little' hemorrhidge and demand some immediate brain sugery... You could almost imagine them muttering 'thought I told you to deal with this guy last time he was here' At least someone, my Father had faith in my surviving, as the doctors would have probably just let me die.

Hmmm. You are probably right, its just that I tend to think of euthanasia/assisted suicide as a requirement for people that are physically unable to end it for themselves. For anyone else, isn't it unreasonable to expect some other person to carry the responsibility for your decision when you could carry it for yourself?

I think that people with terminal diseases should be able to choose their own time to go and they mustn't be rushed into it by the thought that they have to end it by their own hand while they are still able. On the other hand, how do you allow this while protecting the vulnerable? Is it possible to have both?

The most vociferous opponent I have ever seen of the 'right to die' movement was a severely disabled man. He doesn't think it should be legal because he believes that it would devalue the lives of the disabled - make them seem disposable. He thought it would result in all disabled people being encouraged to exercise their 'right'.

This is a powerful arguement, and one I find difficult to refute. I would say it is a right that should only be available to the terminally ill, but this is difficult to define, do I mean a disease process, do mean extreme old age? After all, we all have a terminal condition. It is called being alive. I might have a think about this - see if I can come up with some better way of phrasing what I mean by a terminal condition.

Glad they didn't 2legs.

Thanks for that kelli

*crosses we're all dying every day arguement off list, and re-underlines "one person making a value judgement on another person's quality of life"*

As I said before I'm not opposed to a change in the law...I just don't think we as a society are able to create a *good* law at this moment in time, I think we need to grow a little bit more as people first.

Exactly, and I'm also glad they didn't, which is one vital point; it has to be the patients choice. Which sounds nice and easy. But would I, had I said I wanted to be assisted to die, been taken seriously whilst having a brain hemorrhidge? I hope not. So many safeguards would need to be put in place to allow such voluentary suicide, that there would just be so many flaws in the system for unscrupulus people to take advantage of. Weather those people are relitives to advantage financially, or useing death of a family member to get someone they don't like out of th e way, or to benifit the Doctor themself. The laterof coure we had a insight into how it might work, curtasy of the Manchester-way doctor in teh UK (who's name has completely excaped me now...).

Harold Shipman

Yep... I really worry about my brain sometimes

Mmm. But Shipman was not performing euthanasia, he was a serial killer, there was something as wrong with him as there was with Peter Sutcliffe or Nillson or any other serial killer.

Interviewer at Medical School: Why do you want to become a doctor
Applicant: Well, these voices in my head tell me I should

Hmmmm

B

But, think how easier his job would have been if euthenasia was legalised.

Ben did you see the "talking point" on this last month?
There is alot of good discussion there.

Good point, 2legs. But would he have got the illicit thrill?

No, Abbi, I missed it. I keep on forgetting the Front Page.

B

me to ben. that's why I started a thread on the feedback page to try and get talking point and new edited guide entries announcments pages which can be subscribed to. the italics response seems to be "why can't you just visit the front page?" see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F615?thread=269039