This link describes the case of one English woman identified as "B", and at the end mentions a similar-seeming case involving a woman named Diane Pretty. The Similarities: 1. Both are permanently paralyzed. 2. Both are conscious and articulate. 3. Both wish to be allowed to die. 4. Both have been denied that wish, until B won that right today The Differences: 1. "B" needs a respirator to survive, but may survive for many years if she is kept on it. 2. Diane needs no direct medical treatment for immediate survival, but is terminally ill. Presumably, in the not too distant future, she will need such treatment for survival. 3. Diane needs external intervention to die painlessly. 4. "B" can be "switched off", more or less. In legal terms, "B"s victory was based on the right of refusal to consent to medical treatment. The hospital has been ordered by a court to obey "B"s demand to remove the respirator. Diane, who has bleaker long-term medical prospects, is requesting an assisted suicide. So far, apparently, she has not won that right. If British medical law were similar America's, she would not be allowed to starve herself to death. American courts have consistently held that the provision of minimal hydration and nutrients is NOT medical treatment. So when she faints, they can stick an IV in her to deliver it. Are these two really so different? Is the medical tech who switches off "B"s respirator (and perhaps gives her a sedative so her hast few minutes aren't a suffocating agony?) doing anything more or less than what Diane requests her husband be allowed to do (presumably, provide her with an overdose of something to give her a painless death)? I'm also reminded of Karen(?) Quinlan 30 or so years ago, in a persistent vegetative state and on a respirator; Everyone expected she would die quickly when it was removed, but she breathed on her own for several years to come. "B"s death may not be the quick one she hopes for. Peace.
I agree with Oregons "right to die in dignity" law. I feel humans have the right to decide if they want to die when faced with a life that is painful or as in their cause ,as a minimum full of suppression in being who they are. I feel a religious argument is moot as many have their own belief's and it isn't right to force the worlds opinion on others. The simplest way to describe that is heaven versus hell. If there is "any truth" to heaven why would any of us want to not to go there. I know many religous people will show versus that say things against that but I can show many versus that show God says we should be happy when someone dies and that his plan isn't about earth but is about heaven. So that debate is moot. It's a personal belief or opinion.
