Corrie, the Croppers and The Right to Die?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Corrie, the Croppers and The Right to Die?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzNnA3ISOlo

On the British soap, Coronation Street, the storyline has been dominated by the death of the much-loved character Hayley Cropper who was diagnosed with terminal cancer and was slowly but surely dying. The programme over the past few months has slowly charted Hayley's demise to her final weeks where she was having to increase her medication to numb pain - but which also presented her with the dilemma over whether to die of natural causes (the cancer) and potentially have her body in a lot of pain but also have her mind jumbled up, or to take her own life at some point. She decided to take her own life and passed away on the 20th January 2014.

The storyline has opened up the debate over the Right to Die - not Euthanasia - in that, should a person ultimately be able to decide his or her fate? In the storyline, Roy Cropper (Hayley's husband) attempts until the very end to convince Hayley to not take her own life and other characters are kept in the dark also. After Hayleys death, Roy (her husband), Fizz (her friend) and to a lesser extent Carla (her other friend) are upset, baffled or angry at her decision to take her own life viewing it as a waste of the time that she had left. Others, like Hayley, would argue that it was ultimately her decision and that the extra few weeks she had left would not be worth remaining for due to poor health. Roy and Fizz would argue otherwise in that Hayley's decision was ultimately selfish and caused even more pain for them as they did not get to say the things they wanted to say to Hayley before she died.

So what do you think? Is it selfish to take your own life, or are you ultimately a sovereign being?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[Kardan]

I was going to say that the selfishness of taking your own life depends on the circumstances, but really, if you take your own life, you are being selfish by definition. You are primarily thinking about yourself. Either way, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Hayley's death in Corrie was probably one of the least selfish ways you could go about ending your life, I have no issue with that. I watched my grandmother die from lung cancer, and it was a slow painful decline over a few months. If someone wants to control how they die, so be it.

[GommeInc]

I've gradually come to support the right to die. The only way for it to be properly implemented is for all of those with the mental capacity and the understanding to consent to end their owns lives must state as soon as possible on a medical document somewhere that, when the time comes, they do not want to be resuscitated and/or they want to be clinically killed off if further treatment is impossible or are in a position where the right to die is possible (e.g. in a hospital under supervision knowing that there is medical evidence that their mortality is to be severely cut short. It would have to be done gradually rather than have the law immediately allow for a torrent of people to want their lives ended. People who want this decision must be in the right frame of mind when the legislation is passed, either not in a hospital, seeing a GP, just entering hospital where the intention is that they will not be leaving or learning about a terminal illness and beginning treatment - not people already in hospitals unable to decide for themselves and dependent on another, because it is not the one whose life is in the balance that is making an informed and clear choice for themselves. It would be harsh at the beginning, but gradually when people are offered it they would consider it. It will deal with the arguments against it that people will be forced to make the decision, because if they're not in the right frame of mind then they won't be able to. Of course people will slip the net, but nothing is ever certain.

Only problem then is determining when the nod is given - would it be too late when painkillers slowly zap the mind like with Hayley, when chemo- is stopped (which happens a lot - they stop treatment entirely and just rely on painkillers) or learning of the terminal illness, or either of them?

There's a lot of scope for debate and ideas.

[despect]

This is a debate that i'm struggling with.. I'm not sure what I believe until I'm in the situation myself or a loved one. I think personally I'd say if they are terminally ill they should be able to decide when they die simply because they aren't going to live anyway. I know if it was a loved one and they asked me to help them die I think i'd rather them out of pain.

[GommeInc]

Also, adding to this. It's not a crime to commit suicide. It's just a crime to assist in the suicide or be part of a suicide pact. It was decriminalised in the 1960s. It's also a selfish act that shows you are sovereign of your own mind and body. It need not be either/or - it can be "and".