Both you and Fraser miss the fundamental point: the state simply does not have the right to take life or to approve the taking of life. That is the biggest single extension of executive power imaginable. (And yes, war is an exception to this rule).

The answer, as always, is simple (and pretty close to what we had in the past before the whole Dignitas unpleasantness).

If a patient wants to bring their life to an early end but is unable to do so without assistance they can communicate this to a doctor. Said doctor, if amenable, would typically administer a lethal dose of morphine. This was normal practice for decades. If, for whatever reason, it ends up as an issue then the state shows clemency.

Sure there is no legal certainty, but that’s what you get for operating in such a grey zone as this. This is a relgious/ethical question, and one that should be resolved by individuals. That said, the State simply cannot be seen to official condone the taking of life.

@ Shaun PilkingtonShaun, youâ??ve added 2+2 to get 5 based on what iâ??ve said. I never said that people should be forced to live against their will. See point about prosecutorial discretion

Sorry, FLS. If you don’t think people should be free to get an assisted death then you believe that people such as I should live on as an immobile husk in pain, suffering, because we cannot actively kill ourselves.

Shaun, all I think this does is demonstrate the difficulties of life. Being a libertarian I think that the only right you have is to not interfere with other people’s rights. If someone asks you to kill them then because they want to die but are unable to kill themselves then you have a choice, but I think you have to face the consequences of that choice. In a very practical sense it is something that Doctors have to do every working day. Ultimately I think you have to accept that life is not fair!

The ‘point’ about prosecutorial discretion only makes the whole matter more uncertain, increasing (for example) the stress on me in case my wife is prosecuted for travelling with me and wiping my bum/changing my colostomy bag. Since our Labour DPP lacks the courage to spell out the circumstances in which he would prosecute and equally lacks the courage to take a case to court lest the Judiciary decide those circumstances for him. In short, the status quo simply adds to my suffering through legal uncertainty.

However, if it comes down to a choice between protecting rights to take such action (made of free will) or protecting the rights of those unable to make such a choice (for whatever reason), then my choice is to favour the protection of those unable to do so.

OR, to put it another way, you are happy to put *hypothetical* (potential) suffering ahead of *actual* (happening now) suffering. Someone who actually wants to die but can’t do it on their own is, therefore, less important to you than a potential person who may not want to die but gets murdered. Real v potential. I get that, I just happen to put reality ahead of possibility and resent the fact that people with your point of view will make me endure suffering because of their fears of some other hypothetical person possibly suffering.

Finding that out was my point.

So if in one case an intention can transform an accident into a suicide, why is a disabled person’s intention to die insufficient for you to consider giving effect to?

Sorry, FLS. If you don’t think people should be free to get an assisted death then you believe that people such as I should live on as an immobile husk in pain, suffering, because we cannot actively kill ourselves.

The ‘point’ about prosecutorial discretion only makes the whole matter more uncertain, increasing (for example) the stress on me in case my wife is prosecuted for travelling with me and wiping my bum/changing my colostomy bag. Since our Labour DPP lacks the courage to spell out the circumstances in which he would prosecute and equally lacks the courage to take a case to court lest the Judiciary decide those circumstances for him. In short, the status quo simply adds to my suffering through legal uncertainty.

However, if it comes down to a choice between protecting rights to take such action (made of free will) or protecting the rights of those unable to make such a choice (for whatever reason), then my choice is to favour the protection of those unable to do so.

OR, to put it another way, you are happy to put *hypothetical* (potential) suffering ahead of *actual* (happening now) suffering. Someone who actually wants to die but can’t do it on their own is, therefore, less important to you than a potential person who may not want to die but gets murdered. Real v potential. I get that, I just happen to put reality ahead of possibility and resent the fact that people with your point of view will make me endure suffering because of their fears of some other hypothetical person possibly suffering.

Shaun, you’ve added 2+2 to get 5 based on what i’ve said. I never said that people should be forced to live against their will. See point about prosecutorial discretion.

‘…free of heart and mind, are incapable of proposing adequate safeguards for the vulnerable’

Frankly, yes.

‘I will have to live in that circumstance (should it arise) because they believe my suffering is in some way necessary. Perhaps you will have the courage to do that… ‘

I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that I think your suffering is in some way necessary. Be assured though, if i did think that, I would have no qualms about telling you straight.

However, if it comes down to a choice between protecting rights to take such action (made of free will) or protecting the rights of those unable to make such a choice (for whatever reason), then my choice is to favour the protection of those unable to do so.

As i said, i believe that prosecutorial discretion provides a framework that best balances the two competing rights.