Justice‎ > ‎Rights‎ > ‎State sanctioned death‎ > ‎

Assisted suicide

What is assisted suicide/dying?

It is committing suicide with the help of another person.

Wider meaning of assisted suicide

  • If the suicidal person took a taxi to the place of death, or bought a knife, are the driver and shopkeeper assisting them?
  • "Assisted Dying" does not make the important distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Suicide is when you kill yourself, and euthanasia is when you kill someone else. Until this is understood there will never be any clear thinking on the subject.
  • There's living, and then there's just begin alive 
  • DNR- do not resuscitate , is that assisted suicide?
  • Is giving morphine assisted suicide?
  • Does stopping feeding the subject qualify as assisted suicide?

What's wrong with Assisted Suicide?

  • A legitimate concern is it would legalise killing. There are then questions around:
    who can do it?
    under what circumstances?
    how can it be abused?
  • Others worry that it is immoral to take a life given by god.
    Can these people point to the passage in the bible or Koran that explicitly states this?
  • Others worry that the people wishing to die, have made a mistake, or just need to wait.
  • Others say there can be more done to alleviate the symptoms of sufferers?
    In that case, they should make their case to the person that wishes to die and see if they want to give it a go.
  • It can change perceptions about people being a burden
    Some people are seen as burdens they just don't commit suicide, all that changes is the ability and legality of doing something about it.
  • There may be a chance of a cure
    There may not be - what then
  • Should the law be vaugue so each case can be judged on its complicated merits?
  • Those who want to die must be weighed against the suffering of millions of elderly, disabled, and sick people who, once euthanasia becomes legal, will be made to feel guilty about going on living.
    This assumes there are no protections for these vulnerable people and that those that who want to die have not this right.
  • Who is to make the judgement whether these people die?
  • No-one but the people themselves
  • Doctors should not carry this out
    Yes but like executions prison wardens should. (doctors on standby in case something goes wrong).
  • The law cannot be made to protect those at risk
    We are intelligent enough to create a law that would protect vulnerable people

Disallowing assisted suicide is futile

If people cannot rely on the assistance they would need should the circumstances arise, they will to consider dying earlier than necessary, while they am still capable of acting on their own.

Everyone is born to die,but it is a fundamental human right to choose the time and place to depart when one knows the future is suffering & indignity

Case for assisted suicide

"Stephen Hawking said refusing terminally ill people the right to die was 'the ultimate indignity'." -- daily mail
  • Mercy
  • Its not consistent with humane ideals to ban assisted suicide
  • One can imagine several medical situations where we would rather die than continue living.
  • Being able to choose to die when we want to is the ultimate expression of free choice/will. To deny this ought to be against human rights. That we may need assistance in carrying out this wish due to physical incapacity should not interfere with this right.
  • If assisted death is simply murder then enforced living is simply perverse and persistent torture and that certainly causes harm.
  • A kind and caring society should allow people to choose when they die
  • When my dog reaches the end of his life and I can see that he is distressed, I shall take him to the vet and he will be put to sleep. My wish is that I should be able to have that service available to me because the thought of a slow painful end fills me with horror. There is nobody alive on this earth that has the right to tell me how I should make my exit.
  • Allowing healthy people to die with help(practical or knowledge) would save a lot of delayed trains, which is unfair on passengers and drivers alike.
  • Banning assisted suicide made more sense when we didn't live so long and there were less elderly. Also medicine/technology keeps us alive longer when we are sick.
  • Is denying a disabled person the choice to have assisted suicide discrimination and demeaning?
  • The person who wishes to die is not the only one suffering, the family of these people also suffer the torment of watching their family member suffer.
  • Where does a persons conscience fit in all this?
  • Where is public opinion on all this?
  • If the person is rational, or made a wish while being rational, is that not enough?
  • It's the 21st century. Why haven't we got a society that prepares us for the inevitable and grants us the means to control the manner of our passing on?
  • The government that claims to protect the weakest, is denying them their right to die.
  • Most people know that there is a point where death becomes an acceptable option, each application for suicide should be reviewed as they do at Dignitas.
  • The law is punishing the victim rather than protecting them.
  • Its not only the quality of live of the sick person that you need to think about. Its also their partner, children, other members of the family and close friends.
  • No assisted suicide = legalised torture
  • In reality it is only delaying the inevitable, we will all die some day
  • To let someone else suffer for your beliefs shows neither compassion ,solidarity, humanity or care
  • If human rights mean anything, the right to end your own life must be among the most basic.
  • Doctors are supposed to do no harm. Keeping someone alive against their will in agony is harm.
  • There is a distinction made in law between mercy killing and murder
  • We should leave it to the mother to dictate when life begins and the individual to dictate when life ends with safeguards.
  • The politics of euthanasia is really a question of property rights, since if you own your own life, then you have a right to dispose of your property/life in any way you see fit. It's not murder if you ask someone to dispose of your property/life on your behalf, it's murder if someone disposes of your property/life without your consent. People need to be rational (not emotional) about this issue.
  • The alternative is - kill yourself whilst you're still healthy enough to manage unassisted and strong enough to try several times.
  • Palliative care does not always reduce suffering


  • If you would rather live in those situations, that is your choice. But don’t rob me of my dignity, just to make yourself feel better.
  • Banning assisted suicide is a sign of a lack of empathy.
  • Is it because politicians cannot accept that the world they have created is not perfect that we ignore the "rights" of a person who has had enough of life?
  • Government hates being undermined, and people opting out undermines the system.
  • The only people to benefit from the law as it is are, the drug companies and care industry investors
  • The government tends to think 'protect' means ' we own you'.
  • On god not wanting assisted suicide, Why would anyone want to go to a heaven ruled by a god who punishes compassion?
  • some people imagine they have the right to decide how others should die.
  • Not allowing assisted suicide not only hurts the victim but also the families.


Who's life is it? Is it the governments life, or the suffer?

Is this a decision for :
  • Society first and then not doctors.
  • Individual
  • Doctors
This is primarily a decision for the Government, and not the courts, but once the Government has decided what are your rights, then it should be decided by the courts.

How can strangers make this incredibly powerful decision for another individual?

Where does the government the authority to make this decision?

Should children be given this right?

The mental capacity act allows people with capacity to make 'unwise decisions'. If they lack capacity then there is a legal obligation to act in their best interest.

So we're supposed to be accountable for actions throughout life, such as stealing, murder and so on, but when we simply wish to end our own life due to terrible suffering, we are finally not allowed to account for our own actions?

the government tends to think 'protect' means ' we own you'.

The mental capacity act allows people with capacity to make 'unwise decisions'. If they lack capacity then there is a legal obligation to act in their best interest. 
A number of these cases would never have arisen if invasive and aggressive medical care had not been given in the first place.


  • Its legal to commit suicide
  • Its legal to help people (usually seen as a good thing)
  • Its illegal( you can't do it without the court giving the OK ) to help someone commit suicide
The subject matter is even less contentious than abortion, since the life has awareness and choice

As things stand, I'd rather be treated by a vet if I contract a terminal illness.  Animals get better treatment.

We already conduct euthanasia by turning off life support systems. If this is legal, why not assisted suicide?

So it is not allowed for people to be assisted to die if they wish
But it is quite OK to put them into 'care' homes where they are abused by their 'carers'.

If you personally would stop someone from assisting another to die, why should the government do it on your behalf?

Murderers are put to death in some countries without their consent when they themselves should be forced to live in solitude and discomfort for the rest of their lives, as punishment. Yet, a law abiding man who wishes to end his pain and suffering is forced to live the rest of his life in a living hell.

A right to die, needs to be added to the right to live to be consistent.

If you can't assist someone to die, are you compelled to be their keeper, and keep them alive?

You can sue for mental distress, if you are distressed to be kept alive, can you sue for that?
You would not bury someone alive and that’s how this person feels

Disabled can starve themselves to death and die in pain but he can't allow a willing doctor to put them out of their misery in a quick, humane and pain-free way

Put a cat - a useless predator, killing our valuable wildlife - into a dustbin and the might of the law descends on you.
Live a life of hopeless despair and misery and the law says tough sh**, keep on suffering.

It is legally acceptable to withdraw food and water from a patient (this happened to my father). It is legally acceptable to administer an ever increasing dose of morphine (this happened to my mother)

Criminals can cry to the European Court of Human Rights about how their quality of life can be affected but assisted dying cases do not qualify for similar rights.

Netherlands ans Switzerland + some US states allow assisted dying.

You can choose to join an army with a near certain chance of death. But cannot ask someone to kill you.

For believers, God sent his child to dies for us.

Suicide is legal and that can be done for reasons like a breakup or debt, yet assisted suicide cannot be done for reasons far more serious than this.

We don't allow torture, why allow someone to be tortured as in a living hell.

Putting down an animal is called humane, unless it is a human?

We seem to accept more willingly the suicide of an able bodied person, who, in theory, should have less reason to kill themselves

You can kill yourself slowly by eating badly and smoking but not by quicker methods.

People are being forced to live and costing the system money
Then there are people who want to live and the system does not have enough money to fund their drugs.

People are all different and respond differently
People are all different and they get enjoyment out of their lives in different ways. It is very easy for someone like Stephen Hawking to carry on as his life is all about thought, mathematics and particle physics. 
But for someone who enjoys sports and the outdoors the change to being totally passive can be too much. Not to mention being fed and taken to the toilet.

uk claim they want to live in a world were there is no suffering but yet we are allowing a man to suffer by not granting his wish
Strange that they are keeping this guy alive against his wishes and in a nightmare situation , but they allow folk to die who want to live because they cannot afford the drugs that are available ?

Surprising that we are allowed to kill babies with (almost) impunity but not ourselves.
We can kill millions overseas for wars with almost not reason, but not kill ourselves when life becomes unbearable.

In Netherlands/Swiss assisted suicide is fact.


 How do you change the law to allow assisted suicide?
Will this apply to babies, children, young adults, middle-aged or just the elderly?
At what age/disability/state of mind do you decide when a person's life is not worthy of treatment or life?
Should disabled people be allowed to use assisted suicide or is there a risk of abuse, but it would be discriminatory not to allow them to have the same rights.
And there is the central issue. Where are the lines drawn? What criteria are needed? Who makes the decisions? 

The solution
Thats what a judge is for

If this law ever does gets changed I plead for one thing - ending life is a not a task ever given to doctors. When I see the person in the white coat I want to know that he or she is always striving to save my life. 
 our laws are loosely based upon Xian theology which says the body is not ours - it is gods, therefore to kill ourselves is a sin against god who gives and takes life. 
So long as the Suicide Act 1961 remains on the statute book, anyone who helps another person travel abroad to kill themselves should be prosecuted and face the full force of the law. 
Assisted suicide uis a victimless crime.
Assisted suicide or palliative care? We are all individuals and what would suit one may not suit another. It is a personal decision and there should be choice in the UK.
Modern problem  We can keep people alive long past when they would have succumbed in the past.
The fact that our society denies me the right to dies as I wish says more about society than I ever could.
Of course a naturalist Darwinian sees physical death as the end, and ultimate way out of suffering, this is the ultimate expression that god does not exist (dying for their faith of no god) and why so many Christians hate suicide.
Is this a personal or state choice?
I think is what of concern is that there seem to be a number of policies, or loopholes, present and deliberately created within the NHS which leave patient rights in a very ambiguous state. There then appear to be people who use this vagueness, along with the drive some people want towards euthanasia, to override the patients right to decide their own future.
This is a simple civil rights issue. Do I or does the state own my body and my life?

Other thoughts 

“There should be a safe, legal way for people suffering terminal or irremediable illnesses to choose the time of their own death. It should not be left to groups like Exit International to import drugs illegally and administer them in potentially unsafe conditions with no doctor present.

“Like the Supreme Court of Canada called it, there is a ‘cruel choice’ between a violent amateur suicide, and ongoing suffering for dying people under our current law. Our own High Court admitted that individuals in these circumstances are often forced to end their own lives prematurely, for fear of being incapable of doing so at the point the suffering becomes intolerable."

"It's a deeply personal issue that affects all of us and our families and all of us individually as we approach the end of our lives,"

Criteria for assisted suicide

  • Incurable illness
  • Disability 

Protections from assisted suicide

How to protect vulnerable citizens while respecting their rights and choices at the end of life.
  • Minors
  • Mentally ill
Conscience rights of healthcare providers, providers who may choose to refuse to provide medical assistance in dying for personal reasons or personal convictions.