friends have told The Daily Telegraph of his determination to help change the law
I not only think your right to ask the question - but to open up the debate.
Was it right for the death scene to have been shown?
In my opinion, most definitely.
Why? Because on so many levels, it was the whole POINT of the documentary
Documentaries are often heavily edited, to avoid 'warts & all' events.
In this case, it was important - not because it made 'good TV' - but because if nothing else it makes ALL
self righteous individuals sit up and take notice.
Finally it was right because I believe Peter Smedley and others like him have the right to choose a dignified death
(not SUICIDE) - and in the end - although clean and a seemingly painless one - this was not entirely so - because he wasn't allowed this final palliative act, to take place 'at home
There ARE other issues surrounding this whole subject - but in the Smedley case, I'm sure many people will relate to the predicament he found himself in
The other case however - was DEFINITELY suicide (IMO). I personally do not believe the 42 year old was of sufficiently sound mind (having attempted to take his own life twice before). He should have been rejected.
I think the two things are NOT the same - assisted DYING for compassionate reasons - is just that - assisted suicide is a WHOLE different ball game.
Lets face it - NONE of us want our loved ones to SUFFER at the end - or even towards the end.