A little bit of the interview here, though they cut it off at the wrong point.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/assiste...rland/44104056

A bit more of his interview on the Beeb website.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-44...-continue-life

And he died today at 12:30.

Heck of a life he's led, it's too bad he had to travel all the way here to go out on his terms.

Yes, really sad. Hopefully he's in a better place now whatever that might be.

Spent his last full day viewing the botanical gardens at Basel uni with some of his grandchildren.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44069885

Doctors in Germany were charged with not having tried to save the lives of patients who had begun their suicide process. These doctors have now been acquitted. The judge ruled that not intervening is not the same thing as actively killing.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-c...ide/a-49465051

From my reading it was more than ‘not doing anything’ one of the Doctors provided the drug.

Very positive signal from the German courts.

In 2016, a 66-year-old psychiatric patient, suffering greatly, chose to end her life. She appealed to Exit for help.

Exit has very strict rules, one of which is that a psychiatrically ill person wishing to end their lives must always be assessed by an independent psychiatrist, who should determine whether or not the person really can make a clear judgment on death. This particular patient said she couldn’t face any further psychiatric examinations, so Exit turned her away.

She then appealed to a Basel doctor Erika Preisig who used to work for Dignitas and who later founded her own right-to-die organisation called Lifecircle / Eternal Spirit. Dr Preisig provided fatal medication to the patient – without first requiring of her to submit to a psychiatric assessment. The patient ended her life.

The doctor was charged with culpable homicide.
The court has now (July 2019) acquitted Dr Preisig of this charge, although it found her guilty of contravening the law on how to deal with medication. She was given a suspended sentence of 15 months, and fined Fr. 20’000, and subjected to a 4-year ban on her in assisting any psychiatric patients to end their lives.
https://www.msn.com/de-ch/nachrichte...cid=spartanntp

EDIT:
Both the prosecutor and the defendent have announced that they will appeal against the result. Dr Preisig aims to be found not-guilty of the charge of wrongly dealing with medicines, and/or to have the 15-month suspended sentence dropped. The prosecutor finds that the Court ought to have pushed through a judgment for homicide.

However, this will take some time to trundle along. Neither side can proceed until the judgment is in writing, and this can take weeks or months.
https://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/baselbi...iter-134728117

I do agree with the decision of the court, however I think the law should be changed to facilitate assisted suicide in all cases. I would also like the law to recognize “living wills” allowing me to EXIT even though I am gaga in cloud cookoo land.

Here's an article about the frustrating situation in Germany.

A Court determined that the right to die exists and the means should be made available to those who wish to do so. However, the Minister of Health at the time that the Court ruled, was against it, and did not get the laws drawn up as he was ordered to do. Moreover, he inofficially told all his staff to decline every application, of which there were nearly 200. Those people, ill, made the effort and spent the money on getting together all the assessments and reports, for a purpose that was, unbeknown to them or to the public (let alone to the Court!) hopeless before it started, because the Minister said no, against the order of the Court.

The current Minister of Health has also not produced the necessary laws, afraid that there will be negative feedback. So people wait. And suffer unnecessarily.

https://taz.de/Debatte-um-Sterbehilfe/!5724744/

You posts seem quite coherent to me.

I understood it to mean as, if and when one day, perhaps. Yes, same here.

The massive discussion for all EXIT members at the moment. Currently, anyone diagnosed with Dementia or Alzheimers has to make up their mind quite quickly, and often far too early. I have discussed it with our adult daughters and of course OH, who feels the same- and that if ever- I (or he) would make the choice early- as the alternative is just unbearable. We have to find a solution to this. Two of my sils waited too long to make the decision, and had to 'live' to the absolute bitter end, with increasing loss of cognition and all the increasing, awful loss of dignity. NOT FOR ME.

Temps en temp oui. Temps on temp non. Hey I’m coherent in two languages.

I was referring to the future. I don’t want my body to continue after my soul has departed.

My wife has already agreed to trip over the cables if I find myself in that situation, but I don’t really want her to be suspected of gaining from my demise.

I find the irony here that a person can give clear instructions when totally compos mentis, but at the point they lose this their wishes from where they were coherent can be ignored because maybe they changed their mind.

So the thought process of the same person is considered more relevant when damaged than when undamaged?

In what other situation would we say "yes, we know the new evidence is very suspect, and we have really good evidence from earlier, but we're going with the suspect evidence just because it's newer"? Particularly in court - for anything other than mental checks a judge would laugh at this argument.

Exactly, a point I and many others have been trying to make to EXIT to fight to get things to change.


You should be able to make advanced directives with this in mind, make sure you discuss your wishes with next of kin and close relatives and your GP, and share with EXIT - and then confirm those at the time of diagnosis, when still clearly able to confirm and explain exactly when, with about 5 clear criteria.

The point is that, in Switzerland, euthanasia is illegal, while assisted suicide is legal.

The assistance includes such things as making the arrangements possible (including obtaining and transporting the drug), but not, not ever, putting the drug into another person's body.

The person who wishes to die has to

• take the drug themselves. A wholly paralysed person cannot do this.
• know what he/she is doing. A demented person cannot do this.

A person who is of clear mind and able enough body can take the drug themselves.

Exit tries to provide for the possibility that one may wish to die but no longer be of sound mind. They do this with an option in the Living Will. The closest option they provide is that anyone of clear mind can specify, in advance, that if ever they become demented, food and fluids should be stopped, and they should be given whatever permissible non-lethal medication(pain-killiers, tranqulisers, opiates) necessary to keep them out of pain while dying, over a period of days or weeks, of starvation and thirst. Hopefully, they don't actually feel the suffering.

Yes, fully aware of all this. But what many of us are saying, that it is wrong, and a way has to be found to make advanced directives so that someone who is clear and yet shows some confusion- can make a choice.


Because the way things are now, if Dementia or Alzheimers result in refusal for assistance to die- there are only 3 options


. - make the decision very soon after diagnosis, when the person may well have months or years of quality, albeit acceptably impaired life. Which is so wrong.


.- commit suicide in a very unpleasant and shocking way (my lovely neighbour jumped from the 3rd floor window- others even worse)


.- wait too late and be forced to 'live', if you can call that living (we experienced it first hand with my mil and several close relatives) through all the awful indignities, a pointless, cruel, awful charade of a 'life'- for the person and for their spouse, partner, children and grandchildren. NO, NOT FOR ME, ever. Seen it close- and I don't want it- ever.

Thanks, good post - made me realise my post didn't say what I intended. I meant the person could not clearly communicate, rather than had changed their mind.

I think the issue is the level of communication and understanding required.

If someone has made a clear advance directive, then the test should be whether they have now changed their mind, not whether they fully understand in depth the implications of the choice.

The whole point is that they planned the decision when they did understand, in the full knowledge that this would be a problem later on and wanting to stay as long as possible but no longer.

Many people with dementia are clearly distressed with their situation, and still capable of understanding that taking some pills will end it. I don't think at this stage requiring them to show they understand the legal and moral implications of suicide is useful.

There is no law that permits assisted suicide, but nor is there a law that prevents it.

The rules have been established by court decisions.

I do think that a law allowing euthanasia, under specific conditions, should be adopted.

No actual user reviews?

Well I might use them one day, so I decided to dig in a bit and update myself!

Key info-

- Most Swiss associations request that patients drink sodium pentobarbital, a sedative that in strong enough doses causes the heart muscle to stop beating. Since the substance is alkaline and burns a bit when swallowed. A professional prepares the needle, but it is up to the patient to open the valve that allows the short-acting barbiturate to mix with a saline solution and begin flowing into their vein. (Tough! Permanent OFF switch for life!)

- It usually takes about 20 to 30 seconds for the patient to fall asleep (Longest 30 seconds of one's life)

- Total cost, 7,500 francs without funeral and administrative services and 10,500 francs with those services, usually payable in advance.
(When dying money will be worthless anyway)

Ok, that was all definitely depressing!

Source-
What you need to know about assisted suicide in Switzerland (The Local)