TV company defends suicide film

[belfastuniguy 18]

TV company defends suicide film

Craig Ewert explains his decision in a clip from the Sky Real Lives programme

The makers of a documentary on assisted suicide have defended their decision to film a man at the moment of his death.

Motor neurone disease patient Craig Ewert, 59, from Harrogate, died in Switzerland, having been helped by the controversial charity Dignitas.

Sky Television said its film gave an "educated insight into the decisions some people have to make".

However, campaign group Care Not Killing said the show was a "cynical attempt to boost television ratings".

Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the Commons he was personally opposed to assisted suicide.

Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, he said: "I believe that it is necessary to ensure that there is never a case in this country where a sick or elderly person feels under pressure to agree to an assisted death or somehow feels it is the expected thing to do.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programme

"That is why I have always opposed legislation for assisted deaths."

American father-of-two Mr Ewert died in September 2006 after drinking a mixture of sedatives and using his teeth to turn off his ventilator.

The former academic allowed his death to be filmed for a documentary, Right to Die?, made by Oscar-winning director John Zaritsky, which is due to be shown on Sky Real Lives later.

Barbara Gibbon, Head of Sky Real Lives, said: "This is an issue that more and more people are confronting and this documentary is an informative, articulate and educated insight into the decisions some people have to make.

"I think it's important that TV broadcasters, and particularly Sky Real Lives, can stimulate debate about this issue through powerful, individual and engaging stories and give this subject a wider airing."

Dr Peter Saunders, director of the campaign group Care Not Killing, said the show was a "cynical attempt to boost television ratings".

He said: "The danger is that we start to believe in a story that there is such a thing as a life not worth living."

Parents speak of son's suicide Should suicide be televised?

Lady Finlay, a professor of palliative care, said: "This programme is broadcasting something which is very private, which is someone dying and which is illegal in this country.

"I think it also perpetuates a myth that, somehow, to have a good death you have to end your own life and that is just completely untrue."

But Mr Ewert's wife, Mary, defended the programme, saying it was about "facing the end of life honestly".

The prime minister conceded that the debate involved "very difficult issues".

He said: "We should all remember that at the heart of any single individual case are families and people in very difficult circumstances who have to make for themselves very difficult choices.

"None of us, none of us would want to go through that."

But he added: "On specifically the programme itself, I think it's very important that these issues are dealt with sensitively and without sensationalism.

HAVE YOUR SAY

Life is precious but I also believe that if this is shown, hopefully it will start an informed debate

Lynda, Edinburgh

Send us your comments

"I hope broadcasters remember that they have a wider duty to the general public and of course it will be matter for the television watchdogs when the broadcast is shown."

Although suicide is no longer a crime in England and Wales, aiding and abetting suicide is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

There have been no prosecutions so far of relatives of more than 100 UK citizens who have gone to the Dignitas clinic.

On Tuesday, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that prosecuting the parents of a 23-year-old Worcester man who killed himself in a Dignitas clinic was "not in the public interest".

Paralysed rugby player Daniel James died in Switzerland in September. Julie and Mark James travelled to the clinic with their son.quote>

[belfastuniguy 18]

I personally feel the United Kingdom should legalise this, the current laws are an absolute disgrace and I personally believe people should have the right to choose to end their life, especially if suffering from unbearable pain or from condition that they believe renders them less than human.

Some will suffer from such illnesses and not choose to die early, but why should others that want to be denied that right and then risk having their loved ones questioned like criminals and possibly brought before trial. Its all utterly ridiculous.

[saltandsauce 0]

belfastuniguy: the reason we ban assisted suicide is because of a case involving Dr. Harold Shipman who gave old people lethal injections and claimed it was euthanasia when he was fiddling with wills, it is just too open for abuse

[panthersimcity4 162]

I think it's morbid to watch someone die on TV. Are they really THAT desperate for ratings?

[belfastuniguy 18]

belfastuniguy: the reason we ban assisted suicide is because of a case involving Dr. Harold Shipman who gave old people lethal injections and claimed it was euthanasia when he was fiddling with wills, it is just too open for abusequote>

Last time I checked everyone in the UK wasn't a homicidal doctor. The Netherlands is a very good example of where this exists and where it is NOT abused, with proper guidelines it would operate perfectly well.

I think it's morbid to watch someone die on TV. Are they really THAT desperate for ratings? quote>

I disagree, this issue is incredibly sensitive in the UK at the minute. I saw a little of the film on Channel 4 News and it was actually incredibly moving.

[Meg 368]

He said: "The danger is that we start to believe in a story that there is such a thing as a life not worth living." quote>

News flash:   there are many people with painful, incurable medical conditions who believe that their rest of their lives are not worth living.   Who are we to tell them they are wrong?   We aren't the ones who have to live with the condition.

Yes, its can be a slippery slope.  When I was a kid, there was no legal "right to die" in many states here.  The "right to die" usually involves refusing medical treatment.   These days, it's routinely recognized, as long as you fill out the right paperwork.

But refusing medical treatment is not the same thing as actively taking steps to die.   Are there circumstances when I think it's appropriate?  Yes, there are.   A friend of mine watched his mother die from cancer.  Towards the end, she was begging him to kill her, just to put her out of pain.  These days, she would probably be doped up but what is the purpose of spending (what certainly is) your last days totally doped up?

Medical science has managed to prolong life but there is a point where the quality of life needs to be considered.

As to that guy dying on TV, that just seems a bit morbid. 

[fukuda 351]

I totally agree with belfast

[patriots_1228 51]

they have shows where you have to outsmart 5th graders, shows where you have to go on a japanese game show, but this by far, is the worst idea ever. A show where you watch people dying. and i thought fox was bad at TV...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 I think it's morbid to watch someone die on TV. Are they really THAT desperate for ratings?quote>

It is rather morbid. And I can see where it would be in poor taste. But then again, they're not doing it for shock value, they're doing it to prove a point - which changes things somewhat.

As for euthanasia itself... well, I personally am perfectly fine with it so long as the person being euthanized has actually specifically made the decision. Next of kin can make the decision to passively cease treatment but may not make the decision to actively kill.

The problem, of course, comes with the issue of provoking and encouraging people to do it. In a National healthcare system, there would certainly be cause for doctors to do that since it would save them the bother of having to continue treating the patient and would save the government money. In a system where if they die, the doctor stops getting paid by them/their insurance company... then it's not so much of an issue since there's incentive for them not to do it and in fact is incentive for them to encourage patients not to die.

[JanYpe 17]

It's certainly morbid, but it's not like it's a gameshow being used to pump up ratings. I don't think shedding light on this with a documentary is such a bad idea.

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem, of course, comes with the issue of provoking and encouraging people to do it. In a National healthcare system, there would certainly be cause for doctors to do that since it would save them the bother of having to continue treating the patient and would save the government money. In a system where if they die, the doctor stops getting paid by them/their insurance company... then it's not so much of an issue since there's incentive for them not to do it and in fact is incentive for them to encourage patients not to die.

quote>

Unsubstantiated sillyness. There is still such a thing as the Hippocratic oath, and the fact that doctors aren't actually refraining from killing patients left and right just because they might get into billing issues. This isn't so much a hypothesis as the beginnings of a loony conspiracy theory.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

As for euthanasia itself... well, I personally am perfectly fine with it so long as the person being euthanized has actually specifically made the decision. Next of kin can make the decision to passively cease treatment but may not make the decision to actively kill. quote>

For the most part, I agree with you.  But, in some cases, passively ceasing treatment can result in a prolonged painful death, by dehydration or starvation for instance.   If it was me, I'd rather just be injected with something that induces unconsciousness and death.  I'd rather die quickly than to have it be prolonged and painful.  We don't torture horses like that but somehow see it as moral to torture people in this way.

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem, of course, comes with the issue of provoking and encouraging people to do it. In a National healthcare system, there would certainly be cause for doctors to do that since it would save them the bother of having to continue treating the patient and would save the government money. In a system where if they die, the doctor stops getting paid by them/their insurance company... then it's not so much of an issue since there's incentive for them not to do it and in fact is incentive for them to encourage patients not to die.

quote>

Unsubstantiated sillyness. There is still such a thing as the Hippocratic oath, and the fact that doctors aren't actually refraining from killing patients left and right just because they might get into billing issues. This isn't so much a hypothesis as the beginnings of a loony conspiracy theory. quote>

Actually, it's experience with HMOs.  (Health maintenance organizations)   Time was that insurance plans over here provided patients with a large range of options and very little red tape in choosing doctors.   Then came HMOs.  The idea behind them isn't so bad.  There is some logical in having a medical professional manage your care and determine what kind of doctor you need and so forth.

In actual practice, most HMOs are perceived as being incompetent at best and downright evil at worst.   The primary care doctor decides whether or not you can get a referral to go see a specialist or not.   Nice concept but the HMOs set limits as to how many patients each doctor can refer in a given time period.  If the doctor's limit is X and you happen to be patient X+1, too bad for you.

A doctor in an HMO does have to carefully weigh how much the treatment will cost and whether or not it is "worth it".   A doctor in a traditional insurance plan has much wider parameters to work with. 

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem, of course, comes with the issue of provoking and encouraging people to do it. In a National healthcare system, there would certainly be cause for doctors to do that since it would save them the bother of having to continue treating the patient and would save the government money. In a system where if they die, the doctor stops getting paid by them/their insurance company... then it's not so much of an issue since there's incentive for them not to do it and in fact is incentive for them to encourage patients not to die.

quote>

Unsubstantiated sillyness. There is still such a thing as the Hippocratic oath, and the fact that doctors aren't actually refraining from killing patients left and right just because they might get into billing issues. This isn't so much a hypothesis as the beginnings of a loony conspiracy theory. quote>

Actually, it's experience with HMOs.  (Health maintenance organizations)   Time was that insurance plans over here provided patients with a large range of options and very little red tape in choosing doctors.   Then came HMOs.  The idea behind them isn't so bad.  There is some logical in having a medical professional manage your care and determine what kind of doctor you need and so forth.

In actual practice, most HMOs are perceived as being incompetent at best and downright evil at worst.   The primary care doctor decides whether or not you can get a referral to go see a specialist or not.   Nice concept but the HMOs set limits as to how many patients each doctor can refer in a given time period.  If the doctor's limit is X and you happen to be patient X+1, too bad for you.

A doctor in an HMO does have to carefully weigh how much the treatment will cost and whether or not it is "worth it".   A doctor in a traditional insurance plan has much wider parameters to work with. quote>

It's a pretty big leap from the poorly set-up system that you mention to the the "provoking and encouraging <euthanasia>" that duke pulled out of the air. They're not suddenly going to throw the patient's interests out of the window entirely.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

It's a pretty big leap from the poorly set-up system that you mention to the the "provoking and encouraging <euthanasia>" that duke pulled out of the air. They're not suddenly going to throw the patient's interests out of the window entirely. quote>

 

It's a leap, yeah, but not that big a leap.   If they took a poll, I imagine they would find that the majority of Americans know someone whose health has been adversely impacted by how an HMO was being run.   and I believe you could find a majority would agree with the statement "A doctor in an HMO would easily just let a patient die".

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: JanYpe

It's a pretty big leap from the poorly set-up system that you mention to the the "provoking and encouraging <euthanasia>" that duke pulled out of the air. They're not suddenly going to throw the patient's interests out of the window entirely. quote>

 

It's a leap, yeah, but not that big a leap.   If they took a poll, I imagine they would find that the majority of Americans know someone whose health has been adversely impacted by how an HMO was being run.   and I believe you could find a majority would agree with the statement "A doctor in an HMO would easily just let a patient die".quote>

Yeah, unless your HMO's are truly on a third world level, I don't buy that you'd find a majority of people who would say "Yes, my insurance company is the only thing that's keeping my doctor from killing me." The incentives example duke gave assumes that : A. the doctor in the national system is only concerned with the governmental budget. and B. the doctor in the national system  wouldn't see an adverse financial response to a high mortality rate. It's bare nonsense.