I did not, and will never, advocate a program of eugenics for those who are mentally and/or physically disabled. There was enough of that in the Western world in the 20th and none of it was good.

My argument is solely about what someone – who was neither mentally or physically disabled – wanting to die in the event that they become dependent on others in order to live. A personal choice, not one made by anyone else. A living will that says in the event of ‘x’ happening then I would consider you suffocating me with a pillow to be a mercy.

Yes, if such a thing happened, there would be an investigation but so long as evidence of such a request could be produced (signed and witnessed statement, recording etc kept with a solicitor in order to minimise the chances of an unscrupulous relative doing something) then it would be an investigation which goes no where – or even if it did I can’t see a conviction, let alone any serious punishment.

Only by making it a decision that can only be thought about by the person themselves when they are capable of making it can we possibly stop family members being faced with such choice unknowing of their relative’s wishes, doctors deciding to unilaterally put someone on the Liverpool ‘care’ pathway or government deciding that it is a great idea regardless.

I’ll finish, for the moment, on a personal anecdote. My Nan’s best friend (J), the best part of 90 years of age, developed dementia. Her daughter (S), my mother’s best friend (and my godmother), watched her mum vanish from her, leaving behind just the shell. This shell lived for about another year, 18 months before dying of natural causes. Few tears where shed when J passed away simply because the grieving had all been done by then. S, if I recall my mum’s words correctly, did confess that she had at times considered doing something to ease J from this world but in the end chose not to. I don’t envy her her dilemma and, frankly, if she had chosen the other way I could not have condemned her for the decision.

Would it not have been easier for J to have left something behind for S saying that she wanted to die rather than live in such circumstances? I’m not saying that S or her family would have done it. Indeed I’m not sure I could do it if it were my mother (even given how much she infuriates me at times). Taking a life is surely no easy thing to do even if the person has given you permission – but that is an entirely different dilemma.

As someone who has studied Aktion T4 (well read a few books) I’m struck by the similarity between what some of those calling for voluntary euthanasia and their families in the current debate are to the old letters to the office of the Reichsfuhrer from relatives of the severely disabled asking if it would not be possible for their relative to be peacefully eased out of life.

I’d be in favour of voluntary euthanasia if I didn’t worry what would happen if the state got hold of it and you ended up with involuntary euthanasia or euthanasia by government incompetence.

Agree that it is a good rule of thumb that if the Nazi’s did it then maybe we should not do the same or similar.

Such cases will need to be looked into, whatever changes are made to the law. Therefore, who should look into such matters? An appointed panel? I prefer a jury to do this. In cases of genuine mercy killings, there is little appetite for dishing out harsh punishment, and, though the fact be often obscured, a jury can acquit even when they think the defendant guilty.

This is a moral question. Morality is important in determining the just punishment for a crime, but not whether a particular act is a crime. Killing someone, unless in self-defence, is indeed a crime and should remain so, in my view, even if someone is convinced of the morality of the act. If they are so convinced, then they should be prepared to face the consequences, which as I say above are unlikely to be harsh.

Na ja. Assuming that he has the mental/physical capability to give that consent.

Difficult question, and I tend to agree with the way you think.

However, Nürnberg decided that to “Put them out of their misery” was a crime against humanity. (T4)

That has left us in the “Godwin trap”*. Ie “The nazis did it, it must be bad.”

You can NOT, and SHOULD not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The “Godwin trap” has been stifling this coversation for decades.

YES! We NEED to discuss it. And we need, on “Government” level a descision!

* MOMENT!!! I claim copy right onm that! ….. ))) )