• "Agree. But the issue is at what point do we decide? Could it be a little like an organ donor registration system, where those who WANT to have assisted death (should x, y or z happen) make it publicly known. You then can have the space and time to discuss with your family, peers, medical representatives etc should you be faced with a terminal illness etc. You also set out criteria - you only want assisted death if a, b or c events happen should I have a terminal illness. It's a massive issue, but one that might also make the concept of death (which we ALL know is inevitable) a real, living thing - we embrace it and see it as part of life and therefore we make life all the more incredible and important. I'd like to see some serious debate around this. And I'd go for the registration card-carrying system. "

  numerouno - 5 months ago

• "This is a very complex issue that crosses all areas of human intellect and emotion- politics, religion,morals/ethics, family love/relationships, you name it, it's got a take on the issue. It's easy to say the choice should be down to the individual alone but as powerful as that argument is in all areas of our life these days- the individual is supposedly all knowing- it's obviously not that straightforward. As we are considering here people being aware of their terminal illness, rather than removed people having to decide to turn a machine off or not, it does of course make it all the more an individual decision and it would be churlish to suggest such people are only concerned with themselves when making such a decision. However we have to be careful about where we draw boundaries and set precedents. We clearly don't want to go down the road where depressives- who may recover in time, or even those who have been mis-diagnosed- are able to sit down and flick a switch because at that moment in time, they think their situation is hopeless. Personally, I've had experience of people suffering senile dementia and it is awful to see what were clearly once lucid, proud people reduced to what I would hardly call 'life,' and I have half joked to my family that if I ever were to end up like that, I'd rather be taken out the back and put down. Whether my close family would themselves would want to do that though when push came to shove, is another variable in the mix... it's such a complex issue although on balance I would wholeheartedly support Terry Pratchett in his campaign to have a reasoned debate about it and to find a sensible, societal approach to it."

  Skemster - 5 months ago

• "Like Skemster, I've joked about being taken out to the field and shot should I get to a mental (or physical) state of no return... yet it's incredibly difficult to apply that to someone else who might want that done to them. What if it were your son or daughter? What if it were your wife or husband? How do we manage the pain of not acting in order to do the thing that the sufferer wants? I'd have trouble putting a cat to sleep... let alone seeing one of my family actively pursue it. Depression - I agree with you. That's why the debate should happen. Depression could lead to suicide - and assisted death is not suicide. It is totally different. There is a distinction, and we need to work out and get clarity on the distinctions. "

  Whitstable1 - 5 months ago

• " For my part, a man who gave us the 'Discworld' novels can do as he pleases! Seriously, though, there are two ways of looking at this. You can apply a moral code that finds its origins in the infancy of our species and argue that there is a god who does not want us to die until he says we can. Or you can be rational about it and argue that as rational creatures we have a right to choose our own end. I think it should be clear which side I'm on!"

  Yoghourt - 5 months ago

This article has no eyewitness yet.