(Dec. 9) - A documentary that shows the deliberate act in which a terminally ill man takes his own life at a Swiss euthanasia clinic will be shown Wednesday night on British television.
Craig Ewert, a 59-year-old retired professor, suffered from motor neuron disease, more commonly known in the U.S. as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease.

The progressive, degenerative disorder destroys the cells that control voluntary muscle activity such as talking, walking, breathing and swallowing, according to the National Institutes of Health. There is no cure and no standard course of treatment.
Britain's Daily Mail newspaper reported Tuesday that Ewert, a married father of two grown children, died Sept. 26, 2006, just five months after he was diagnosed.
His suicide was aided by the Swiss group Dignitas, the Mail said. Switzerland is the only country where assisted suicide is legal for nonresidents. Under the law, the patient must take the final action.
'The Suicide Tourist,' by Canadian director John Zaritsky, shows Ewert swallowing a dose of sedatives and then biting down on a mouth-operated switch to turn off the ventilator keeping him alive.
The Mail said Ewert, an American who lived in Harrowgate in northern England, paid the Dignitas 3,000 pounds, or more than $4,400, to cover the assisted suicide, his cremation and to ship his ashes back to Britain.
His wife of 37 years, Mary Ewert, is shown by his side, the Mail said. As he is slipping away, she asks,"“Can I give you a big kiss?"


Then she adds: "I love you, sweetheart, so much. Have a safe journey and see you some time."
In the Point Grey Pictures documentary, to be aired on the Sky Real Lives channel, Ewert discusses his reasons for choosing suicide.
"I have death or I have suffering and death," he says. "This way makes a whole lot of sense to me."


http://news.aol.com/health/article/british-tv-will-show-assisted-suicide/272690

I'm not entirely convinced this is appropriate for TV, as I sort of feel this should be a private family moment, not used as entertainment. But I can understand why he made the decision to take his own life. I think motor neurone disease is one of the most horrible ways to die. (That said, I am currently not for or against physician assisted suicide... I think it's a far more complex issue than many people realise)

I don't get the impression he wanted it to be 'entertainment' though. He said he wanted to lift some of the taboo around death. And it is true there is such a taboo around death in the UK. Am not quite sure whether airing this guy's suicide will help though - I think it will be seen as a sensationalist thing, and a lot of people will view for that reason.

Gosh, I am watching it on YouTube, and it does feel weird to watch. They don't actually show the moment when he dies though. They just show him drinking the stuff, and then the screen goes black and they say 'He's gone'. They don't show him being dead. I think they are not allowed to show dead people on public TV in the UK. So it doesn't really lift any taboos.

I definately agree it shouldn't be aired on tv

People have an off button. I shan't be watching this though. Our country has turned into a bunch of moaners with no sense of humour and no realisation that they don't have to watch something just because it's on TV!

I think that it's a fantastic way to shed light on a dilemma I am sure many people have faced. If people are interested, they will watch it. If they aren't, they won't. End of.

The family being taped had to sign something giving the producer permission to film them and their ordeal. So it was the family's decision to allow their personal life be broadcast on television. And I highly doubt the producer thought of it as entertainment, but rather as a documentary into a rather misunderstood issue.

The producer probably didn't intend it as entertainment. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people watching were probably going to be doing so out of some morbid curiosity at watching someone die.

I suppose the idea behind that (or the way I would do it) is that you tune in because you're curious, but it gets you talking. You're watching it because it interests you, and you walk away from it going, "Hrmm."
If it gets the conversation going about assisted suicide in a very real way, then I think it's a great idea.

I think that they should allow assisted suiscide everywhere for ppl who are suffering so bad like that.. these ppl have a choice to live or die.. i mean if you wer ein the same situation wouldnt you want to not live anymore when you know the end is quite near anyway? instead of suffering and wathcing your family cry beside you everyday and have them watch you in horror .. I think this is a good idea to air it although im sure its not for entertainment its for documentary reasons to help people understand what is really going on in the world...

I agree with Pretty Mess in terms of making assisted suicide an option for people with terminal illnesses. If someone is in constant pain and want to die, let them have what they want. I think there should be standards as to who is applicable for assisted suicide, maybe even more counseling before hand, but I still think it should be an option.

It's interesting that Switzerland's law states that the patient must take the final action. Does this mean there's less liability for the hospital?

I also think there's a difference between turning off a machine that's keeping you alive and say, taking poison to kill yourself. Lots of gray areas in this issue, but my general feeling is that each person should be accountable for his or her own decisions.

I agree. Lots of people seem to think this is a black and white issue. And it isn't. Personally I have many issues with making assisted suicide legal...

1) In many cases, the focus should be on improving palliative care (as services are currently very underfunded... and for many people with terminal illnesses, death does not have to be painful if they recieve the right care)... BUT, that said, for others, with diseases such as motor neurone disease or Huntingtons disease, the later symptoms can be awful, and difficult to control... so I can understand why some people would seek death rather than suffer any longer.

2) There's a risk that if assisted suicide became widely available it would be percieved as the norm, and of patients requesting to die, because they don't wish to burden their family. Even with very good psychological screening, there is still a high chance of people choosing to die out of a sense of duty, rather than because they feel their pain is unbearable.

3) Is it fair to expect doctors to perform euthanasia? When it goes totally against our hypocratic oath. Personally, I do not feel I am in a position where I am comfortable taking another life.

4) As recent news stories have shown, when assisted suicide becomes freely available, there is a risk of it being used as a way out not only for those who are terminally ill, but also people who are disabled. Recently a 23 year old British boy, paralysed while playing rugby, travelled to Switzerland to die. On the same page as the article in the paper written by his mother was another article by another boy of a similar age who had also been paralysed during sport. Unlike the boy who died, this one chose to fight, to find ways of adapting and accepting his new life and it's challenges. It could be argued that perhaps the boy who died didn't take enough time to come to accept his condition... perhaps with time he may have seen things differently.

5) Similarly, some patients who request assisted suicide may be depressed. Should their depression be treated before allowing them to go ahead?

I'm not saying I'm against physician assisted suicide, and I can certainly understand why some people would request it. However, I think most people don't realise the practical difficulties and problems associated with making it legal.

There's a risk that if assisted suicide became widely available it would be percieved as the norm, and of patients requesting to die, because they don't wish to burden their family. Even with very good psychological screening, there is still a high chance of people choosing to die out of a sense of duty, rather than because they feel their pain is unbearable.

I know you're a doctor and not an insurance agent, but do you think this will greatly impact the life insurance industry? I know that in many policies, a suicide is considered a breach of contract.

I don't know. I hadn't really thought about it. There's a reasonable number of British people who have travelled to European assisted suicide clinics to end their lives though, and I've never heard of the impact on their life insurance. However, a lot of people here don't have life insurance anyway (although it's recommended if you take out a mortgage), so it maybe doesn't affect that many.

What about when doctors give many non-lethal doses of painkillers such as morphine to end someones life?

Firstly if a doctor gives a dose which ends someones life then it was NOT a 'non-lethal' dose. There's no such thing as a standard safe dose for morphine. And in terms of palliative care, doctors generally give the amount of morphine which is required for that particular patient, to control their pain. The intention is to treat the pain, not to kill. However, one of the side effects of morphine is respiratory depression, and so it is possible that high doses of morphine may hasten death, even although that is not the intention when the drug is prescribed.

So it is very different to giving barbiturates and muscle relaxants (effectively an anaesthetic! But without taking over the patient's breathing when the patient stops, as we would with an anaesthetic) with a clear intention to stop the patient breathing and kill them.

(Again, I'm not saying I'm absolutely against assisted suicide... just trying to clarify the issue, as it's very poorly understood)

Thats why I said many non-lethal doses, which my grandma had to end her, they aren't meant to but with my grandad they just did the one dose when my mum asked them to 'do' something.

Obviously I can't comment on a situation when I wasn't there, but I don't know many doctors who would deliberately give a drug with the intention of killing a patient, so I would guess it was more likely that the doctor's intention with your grandad was to ease his pain, but with the knowledge it could also kill him.

I know that there's been several occassions where I've prescribed pain relief for someone nearing the end of their life, and they've died soon afterwards. It doesn't mean the pain relief I prescribed killed them, or that I intended to kill them... but it's always possible that the pain killer hastened the death. It's a fine line, but there is a difference between that and assisted suicide (where the intention is clearly to cause death).

It also so that the person family cannot claim that it was against the patients will, plus I doubt there are many people out there willing to kill somebody.

that...is so sad...

i am not sure something like that SHOULD be aired, just out of pure respect for the family...but damn if that isnt one of the saddest stories i've read in a long time...

I can only see this as a good thing...if it makes even ONE person more aware of what options are available.
I have always said if I had a terminal illness I hope someone loves me enough to end suffering for me before I get too ill to make the decision. Here in Australia though, they would be up on charges of quite possibly murder. We have a doctor here who is a huge advocate of euthanasia ( and assisted suicide) and I just believe it gives a person some final dignity.
I also think tho...that we have more control over ourselves than we know.