Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reiser99" data-source="post: 1203688" data-attributes="member: 72977">The one caveat I have is that this is all or nothing. If you get it wrong then people die wrongly.I&#039;m all for people who are suffering and terminal to be given the right to choose. Nobody should be able to choose for them. But you need to be 100% certain it&#039;s what they want.I haven&#039;t had time to read up on the bill, but for me there should immediately be a conversation with a psychiatrist or counsellor when a person is diagnosed as terminal as to what their wishes would be. Especially if the illness will affect their mental capacity in future. The decision made in the past needs to be clear, unambiguous and free of any undue influence. Then the family only has to honour the wishes, not make the case for them.However, as I&#039;m thinking about it,that wouldn&#039;t cover everything. What about people in a sudden accident who are left in a coma...I don&#039;t know.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reiser99, post: 1203688, member: 72977"] The one caveat I have is that this is all or nothing. If you get it wrong then people die wrongly. I'm all for people who are suffering and terminal to be given the right to choose. Nobody should be able to choose for them. But you need to be 100% certain it's what they want. I haven't had time to read up on the bill, but for me there should immediately be a conversation with a psychiatrist or counsellor when a person is diagnosed as terminal as to what their wishes would be. Especially if the illness will affect their mental capacity in future. The decision made in the past needs to be clear, unambiguous and free of any undue influence. Then the family only has to honour the wishes, not make the case for them. However, as I'm thinking about it,that wouldn't cover everything. What about people in a sudden accident who are left in a coma...I don't know. [/QUOTE]

Verification