I was watching a health and safety video today at work, not one of these "Lift with your knees" videos that we've all seen, but a video by a guy called Ian Whittingham who was paralysed from the waist down because of an accident at work. He was talking about how your life degrades, how your families life degrades, how one minute a perfectly fit and healthy twenty something year old can be running around, and the next be paralysed from the neck down. What life do these people have after the accident? Often many can't afford to make their homes accessible, so they are moved into old peoples homes which have wide doors for wheelchairs, etc.

We cheat death everywhere we can, reading a book the other month I learnt that the Romans would kill a child if it was born disfigured, we have prolonged our lives and continue to do so, the best of us stay fairly fit and active, like the late Tony Phillips of Wiltshire/Somerset, who at the age of eighty odd was still cutting down trees and doing his gardening, but in the worst case, people in their forties and earlier are struggling the ailments of old age, suffering with a lack of memory which could see them ending up in a vegetive state.

Is this humane? What are your thoughts?

For me personally, I would prefer to die and rest, but it entirely depends on the situation. I have already made it clear that I won't be kept alive on life support once I am "brain dead" or whatever the temr is nowadays, I want to be kept alive just long enough that any and all udeful organs can be harvested and then it's check-out time.

In the case of paralysis I guess it would depend on the circumstances, complete paralysis like Stephen Hawking where I couldn't speak or look after myself at all then I'd rather die, but in any circumstance where, with a bit of support I could take care of myself (anything less than quad I guess) then I'd judge it based on quality of life.

My own personal view is that nobody has the right to tell me whether I ought to live or die, no one else has to live my life, go through what I go through every day, therefore my life = my choice. I uphold anyone elses right to make that choice for themselves also.

That said, emotional ties complicate matters, perhaps I wouldn't feel the same if I had kids, but I would hope that any and all of my loved ones would respect me enough to trust my judgement and not force me (emotionally or physically) to continue in an impossible or painful existence for their own selfish need.

YMMV

I'd rather suffer and live - who knows what medical marvels await around the corner? They may even be able to cure my asthma one day.

I'm all for the 'die and rest' option. If my life degrades to such a point that I'm completely reliant on somebody else for my care, then switch me off please. It's no life at all.

As an adjunct to your first point that goodness knows what lurks around the next bend, I'd direct you all to the link in my sig.

If asthma is all you have to worry about then yes, living would be the best option. But try this - lie on a bed, don't move a muscle even if you have an itch, pee yourself a few times...see how long it takes to become tiresome, frustrating, soul destroying and thoroughly depressing.

+1.

I think it would be difficult to say whether I would rather live or die but it would be dependent on the situation. I think just as with any other serious/significant condition, I would be depressed initially and later accept it. I thought about what it would be like to be amputated (after watching Paul Robinson on Neighbours undergo an amputation to save his life).

The human mind can overcome many remarkable obstacles and accept things that one might not initially accept.

Well yes that's fair. I haven't been in that position so can't comment on what I'd want to do, but I can understand if anyone found it intolerable and wanted to die.

I am quite clear on this, but it would depend on certain circumstances. For me to want to live, I would have to have-

1. Quality of life
2. Hope.

It's hard to define quality of life, but if I was still capable of experiencing many of the great things that life has to offer, then I might be happy to live- to watch my kids grow up and hopefully make me proud would be more than enough reason to want to live, but even this could be marred by constant, and/or considerable pain for example.

Hope is the hope that one day medical science could improve my lot before I lose quality of life, a cure or at least a treatment that would reduce or eliminate some or all of the worst symptoms.

Without the first, I would probably want to die but could be sustained by realistic hope. With the first, but little or no hope of a cure, then I would want to endure. With neither, I would want to die.

If, for example, I am diagnosed with dementia, there will probably come a time when I won't know anyone or anything. That is probably not going to be a problem for me, as I won't care, but it will be torture for my family. I plan to consult a solicitor and make it clear that I am not to be treated for any illness that is likely to end my life before the dementia does and I've told my wife that she should not visit and to move on with her life if that time ever comes. I know she probably would visit, but that will be because she wants to and not out of a sense of guilt. That will be her choice.

In the "paralysed from the neck down scenario", I'd be getting someone to book me tickets to a Swiss clinic faster than you could say "life ain't worth livin".

As soon as I lose controlled movement & rational though. Kill me.

Well that's rational thought down, one to go

Ha Ha (where's that banhammer gone?)

Oh noes! *bows down before the mighty Saspro and his ban hammer*

If you were any more cocky I'd make you a mod (& yes I'm pissed again)

What do you mean again? It's only "again" if you've sobered up in between drinks