

Terry Pratchett has Alzheimer's, and is becoming an assisted suicide advocate. - timr
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/coming-to-terms-with-the-final-chapter/2010/02/11/1265477648911.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

======
camccann
Tch, show proper respect. That's "Sir Terry" to the likes of us.

And I don't think "becoming an advocate" is perhaps worded strongly enough. A
few choice quotes from something he previously wrote on the subject (the link
in philk's comment):

 _"I live in hope - hope that before the disease in my brain finally wipes it
clean, I can jump before I am pushed"_

 _"I am enjoying my life to the full, and hope to continue for quite some
time. But I also intend, before the endgame looms, to die sitting in a chair
in my own garden with a glass of brandy in my hand and Thomas Tallis on the
iPod - the latter because Thomas's music could lift even an atheist a little
bit closer to Heaven - and perhaps a second brandy if there is time.

Oh, and since this is England I had better add: 'If wet, in the library.'"_

 _"I have met Alzheimer's sufferers who are hoping that another illness takes
them away first. Little old ladies confide in me, saying: 'I've been saving up
my pills for the end, dear.'"_

As terrible as death is, interminable, futile suffering with no hope of
respite until the bitter end isn't necessary and isn't what most people want.

~~~
Groxx
Much less to inflict that and the costs associated with it on the ones they
love.

I've always sided for the ability to choose in this because I really do think
there are things worse than death, especially when you're assured there's no
recovery before the end.

~~~
dbz
I'm (also) pro everything. Pro Choice. Pro Abortion. Pro choose your own
death. Pro Gay Marriage. Why?

 _I don't give a fuck what anyone else does._

If I have to, I will die while living off of a tube because my religion
doesn't allow me to commit suicide. I also won't tattoo myself for the same
reason. (I do choose not to follow some laws, yet I follow others)

Just because I personally believe anyone who commits suicide is going to hell
(Note: I don't actually believe that previous statement), doesn't mean I'm
going to stop him or her. Not my place.

=]

~~~
pyre
The only issue with assisted-suicide, is at what point does the line get drawn
between assisted-suicide and murder. If we do 'make it legal' I think there
needs to be some clear definition in this area so that it doesn't end up _too_
grey (i.e. the method of assisted-suicide has to make it clear that the person
wanted it; legal documents must be signed or something similar).

Also the question of "What happens if someone changes their mind at the last
minute" needs to be answered or at least have some sort of legal context to
it. I haven't spent a huge amount of time pondering the issue, but the opening
of legal loopholes is the only thing that I could possibly see blocking this.

Well, I guess the other thing might be some sort of required counselling to
prevent impulsive emo teens (or similar) from using such a thing (i.e. make
sure that people are in a rational frame of mind when making the decision, not
just running off to die because of a break-up).

~~~
electromagnetic
Well the real question is has DNR orders already crossed the line into
euthanasia? I'm sure there have been many people allowed to die who would have
made a complete recovery from their injuries.

As far as I know where euthanasia is currently legalized the person has to
pass a psych test to see if they are of sound mind and that they're not being
coerced into making the decision. If the psychiatrist feels something is off
then the euthanasia isn't performed (at least in theory). The person also has
to suffer from a terminal illness that the doctors at the euthanasia place can
verify.

Emo kiddies aren't going to pass the psych evaluation or the terminal illness
evaluation. However there should be a chicken clause that the person getting
euthanised still has the ability to back out right until the end.

However with legalised euthanasia the state would be required to cover
terminal illness costs in all people who refuse euthanasia for various
reasons, because it's unlikely that these peoples families will voluntarily
cover the costs when there's the option that they don't have to.

~~~
Groxx
I'll play devil's advocate here, and point out that a lack of DNR orders have
probably imposed torture on many more than have been possibly been euthanized,
because the family _can't_ respect their unwritten wishes without huge legal
battles.

Though I do see where you're coming from, and the last part is a good point.
It'd certainly be abused that way, but that'd hardly be a first for a
gov't-supplied service. That's part of why things with high abuse potentials
are handled by the government, though; no private industry wants to touch
them, and they're nearly guaranteed to lose money. As it's "for the greater
good" though, it's worth the taxes (arguably).

------
plinkplonk
So from what I read (thanks ot this submission) about terminally ill people
killing themselves the consensus for people to kill themselves would be some
kind of morphine/opiate overdose. Sounds like a decent way to go.

I always thought I should get a gun (Possession of firearms is largely illegal
where I live so this would involve some shady dealings and a lot of money) if
I am ever diagnosed with something painful and/or terminal.

As a programmer who is used to working with his mind I am horrified at the
thought of staying physically alive but slowly losing my mind. Getting enough
morphine to overdose should be easier than buying a gun from a criminal.
Damned if I'll stay alive in constant pain just so some religious nuts can
feel elevated.

~~~
andrew1
I think a preferred option for many people in this situation would be to go to
an assisted suicide clinic like Dignitas in Switzerland where you can choose
to die at a time of your choosing, without pain, surrounded by your loved
ones, with the 'operation' performed by a medical professional. A problem with
trying to kill yourself is the risk of getting it wrong - shooting yourself in
the head but not managing to kill yourself, not taking enough of your drug of
choice - and leading to a possibly lengthy agonising death, or permanent coma
etc.

The problem people in the UK have with going to somewhere like Dignitas is
that the law around assisting someone with suicide is vague, so if someone's
family goes with them to Dignitas, they risk arrest when returning to the UK.
In practise I think prosecution has never happened, but people have certainly
been arrested on returning to the country.

Personally I think assisted suicide should be legal (although not as something
that can be a spur of the moment decision) so that people can choose to take
their own life, without the risk of pain or error, and with the support of
their families.

~~~
pyre
> _I think prosecution has never happened, but people have certainly been
> arrested on returning to the country._

How would they know _why_ you left/re-entered the country unless you told
them? Do the UK authorities track anyone the enters/exits a Dignitas facility?

~~~
andrew1
I presume it comes about through reporting the fact that the person has died.
'arrested on returning to the country' probably should have been 'arrested
after reporting the suicide and having stated their own whereabouts at the
time of death'.

There's an example of it happening here:

[http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/right-to-
die_lists.opn.or...](http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/right-to-
die_lists.opn.org/2009-July/003495.html)

------
simonjoe
Actually, alzheimer's can't be diagnosed premortem. It's only diagnosed by
characteristic neural striations during a necropsy. Before death, the only
conclusion that one can draw (along those lines) is some kind of dementia, not
the particular kind. (citation: Dr. Corballis, GT PSYC 3020 - Biopsychology)

------
epochwolf
I have to agree with him to some degree.

Modern medicine allows us to extend life far beyond circumstances that would
normally kill us. If someone is old, unhealthy, and no longer wishes to live
they should be able to choose to end their life. The medical resources that
would be used to keep them alive could be devoted elsewhere.

I certainly don't advocation allowing a healthy person to end their life
because they have a chance at things getting better.

~~~
koningrobot
_I certainly don't advocation allowing a healthy person to end their life
because they have a chance at things getting better._

This is gambling with other people's lives. If such a healthy person is forced
to stay alive, things might never actually get better, and they will have
suffered needlessly by staying alive. (And if things do get better, that is
merely relief from suffering.)

On the other hand, if such a healthy person is allowed to end their life,
that's all there is to it. They'll never regret it.

Besides, if you deny people professional help with ending their lives, they
will try to get the job done themselves, often with bad results.

------
danw
Listen to his Richard Dimbleby Lecture to understand his viewpoint
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qmfgn>. There are text versions and
recordings floating around. Here's a shortened one:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/02/terry-
pratchet...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/02/terry-pratchett-
assisted-suicide-tribunal)

------
philk
It's good that Terry Pratchett is advocating for this (although it would be
much better if he was healthy).

This article reminded me of an Op-Ed he wrote in the Guardian last year, which
I posted as another article (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1128224>)

------
jimmyjim
There was a healthy discussion on this issue just two days ago on Reddit:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/b1n8h/i_remember...](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/b1n8h/i_remember_when_i_was_younger_hearing_about_dr/)

------
pmccool
Terry Pratchett writes movingly and convincingly that assisted suicide should
be allowed. Coming up with some general rule about how and when will be the
hard part.

I can't see any legal reforms in this area being anything except controversial
and problematic. I fear it will be a long time before the legal system can
accomodate the mature, considered decision to end one's own suffering.

I'm referring, btw, to the Australian legal system. From the sounds of it, the
UK system is in more or less the same position.

