TV Suicide...........?

[Shawn R. L.]

Just heard that there\'s going to be, or has recently been an assisted suicide shown on British TV..............all the way to the end.

Not looking for a fight, I can understand the feelings on both sides of the assisted suicide thing and will leave it at that.

I was more curious to see the thought\'s/opinions of televising it.

 

[ScottRadom]

Sensationalistic garbage at it\'s worst. Why televise this for anything othert than \"just because....\"

I understand when they televize executions of famous figures (Romania) so the public can gain closure, but a suicide? Awful.

 

[uberdark]

this is the most disgusting thing i can imagine watching. alas ratings will go through the roof.

and i thought maury povich was bad.


:cussing:

 

[PegaZus]

Read about this earlier. TV is such craptastic for entertainment anymore. Probably why I watch cartoons and DVDs.

As for the guy himself, I really felt pity for him. Were I in his situation, I might do the same. Not sure I would call in the BBC.

 

[Godlikebuthumble]

Yep, as George Carlin predicted: \"Suicide Central\"! And you have to admit, in a sick &!#%ing world like ours, you could make it a 24h channel and... ahem... make a killing. You think a world where having a hundred cameras pointed at some g-list celebrity has-beens/wannabes/trailer trash tards makes for a profitable round-the-clock programme (or ten), there was no viable market for serial suicide? There\'s all-GOLF-channels ffs!

\"And get Budweiser to sponsor it. They\'d be all over that in a minute.\"

Bet in the second season, they will do something more spectacular... like running into a chainsaw or something. Got to up the ante for the viewers, don\'t you?

Sad but true.

 

[Dragonsreach]

I can understand the knee jerk reaction over this issue, as a lot of people will see it as Crass Commercial expliotation, but the truth of the matter is that the man involved was suffering from Motor Nurone Disease an extremely degenerative disease which in his case would eventually cause him to slowly suffocate.

He and his wife wanted to put their story out in the world so that there could be a better understanding of the issues, dilemmas and impediments he and she faced. Therefore they invited the documentary maker to accompany them through all stages of this very difficult process.

The argument for a \"Death with Diginty\" has been discussed on here before and most people outside of the UK will not know that there has been a previous programme following the same process, about 7-8 years ago.

 

[ozymandias]

My gut reaction was that the programme is incredibly distasteful. However, from what I have read in the press there is a reason beyond sensationalism for its release.

Euthanasia in the UK remains illegal, irrespective of how sick the individual or their own wishes. However, in practice whether the individual\'s family prosecuted for murder depends upon the decision of the UK Authorities (the Department of Public Prosecutions). To date no one has been prosecuted for euthanasia. In each case the reasons given are either that: (a) there is insufficient evidence (normally because the body is cremated); or (b) public policy reasons dictate that it is not in the interest to prosecute the individuals. This is a wholly unsatisfactory state of the law. The families of the individuals are in a hard enough position as it is, without also having the possibility that they will be prosecuted.

The purpose of the programme was intended to highlight the dilema facing the individual and their family as part of a wider campaign to pressurize the government to change the law in England and Wales.

Whilst the media have inevitably sensationalised the story, I have to respect the individual in question for their decision to speak out on this incredibly difficult subject. I personally don\'t want to watch someone die on television. However, if that is what it takes to get this subject discussed, then so be it.

 

[Infidel Castro]

It\'s got to be better than endless soaps. At least there\'s an ethical tangle to work through. Proper telly. Huzzah!

 

[ScottRadom]

Sure, the issue is real and this may be a case of one persons story highlighting the cause, but to show the ACTUAL act of the suicide is horrible. Could the program not show us the plight of the individual and how this decision waqs arrived at and NOT throw the final, ultimate act in?

Or maybe that\'s the point. The only reason we\'re talking about this is because of the debate regarding the appropriateness of showing the suicide itself. So maybe the ultimate goal to raise awareness has been achieved through this means?

Still against it. It\'s just too much. The telivised act I mean.

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by ScottRadom
Sure, the issue is real and this may be a case of one persons story highlighting the cause, but to show the ACTUAL act of the suicide is horrible. Could the program not show us the plight of the individual and how this decision waqs arrived at and NOT throw the final, ultimate act in?

Or maybe that\'s the point. The only reason we\'re talking about this is because of the debate regarding the appropriateness of showing the suicide itself. So maybe the ultimate goal to raise awareness has been achieved through this means?

Still against it. It\'s just too much. The telivised act I mean.

agree.
He\'s taken the focus off of his condition/disease and refocused the issue to assisted suicide / tv spectacle.

As to his plight, I can understand - I can even understand his desire to end his suffering. It is sad what we will do for our animal companions out of mercy, yet we will not allow for our family members.

But I do not feel that it should be televised.

 

[supervike]

But the sensationalism is a double edged sword.

Sure there is the morbid factor, but what about the conversations that may now take place that wouldn\'t of before?

Loved ones discussing how, if a dibilitating disease or accident left them with no hope or chance....what should they do?

I think the potential for real discussion may actually outweigh the \'tackiness\' of having it shown on TV.

Maybe having it as a REAL show instead of a scripted drama will bring the reality of it to many viewers.

 

[Undave]

Personally I won\'t watch it as that kind of thing has no appeal to me whatsoever. However, whether it is crass sensationalism to boost ratings or a heartfelt message supporting euthanasia you can\'t deny that it has re-introduced the topic into the public consciousness.
Merely documenting the road of suffering that leads up to the final act has been done before and certainly doesn\'t carry the same impact as this program. It\'s a sad fact that greater and greater acts of sensationalism need to be done to retain the public interest. I certainly don\'t condone showing this man\'s moment of death on television but if it goes some way to changing the euthanasia laws in this country then maybe it is a necessary evil.

 

[cybersquig]

Originally posted by ScottRadom
Sure, the issue is real and this may be a case of one persons story highlighting the cause, but to show the ACTUAL act of the suicide is horrible. Could the program not show us the plight of the individual and how this decision waqs arrived at and NOT throw the final, ultimate act in?

Or maybe that\'s the point. The only reason we\'re talking about this is because of the debate regarding the appropriateness of showing the suicide itself. So maybe the ultimate goal to raise awareness has been achieved through this means?

Still against it. It\'s just too much. The telivised act I mean.

Newsnight did follow the story without showing the actual moment of death...anyone remember that? thought not.

I guess that seconds Supervike\'s position.

 

[Starks333]

what people forget, and it really makes me smile is the following:

you deny tv has an effect, or that tv can control you, and yet turn around and say they do things for attention....if you couldnt be controlled by how someone displays something you wouldnt react in a certain way

now that being said, they are not wholly responsible for your reaction, whether they played with the view/delivery to obtain a certain effect or not, because once emotion is topped reactions differ based on personal control

lastly, does it really matter if they show it or not? honestly, theres wars, economy crisis(supposedly as \"real\" as wars and death) gruesome murders, and so forth mentioned and bodies shown mangled...no one bitches, but thats a before and after

why is it so horrible seeing the process? oh righhhttt because it forces you to actually feel something...

 

[matty1001]

Originally posted by Starks333
what people forget, and it really makes me smile is the following:

What makes me smile is that you patronisingly shame anyone who doesn\'t follow your opinion.
And you seem to think you are some higher power who can see through the \'media\', and then laugh at anyone who cannot.

Peace and love...

 

[MPJ]

Can\'t say I feel all that much one way or the other from being \'forced to feel\' but blah, I put a fairly low value on human life, certainly less so than say an endangered species caused by us.

Who am I to dictate to someone else how they should live (or not live in this case) their life as long as it isn\'t hurting others directly.

Don\'t want to watch it on TV? Easy answer there... Don\'t turn it on. Why should any of us have the power to dictate what others want to watch. None of my business what the neighbors are tuned into, nor is it anyone else\'s business what their neighbors are tuned into.

 

[ScottRadom]

Originally posted by Starks333
what people forget, and it really makes me smile is the following:

you deny tv has an effect, or that tv can control you, and yet turn around and say they do things for attention....if you couldnt be controlled by how someone displays something you wouldnt react in a certain way

now that being said, they are not wholly responsible for your reaction, whether they played with the view/delivery to obtain a certain effect or not, because once emotion is topped reactions differ based on personal control

lastly, does it really matter if they show it or not? honestly, theres wars, economy crisis(supposedly as \"real\" as wars and death) gruesome murders, and so forth mentioned and bodies shown mangled...no one bitches, but thats a before and after

why is it so horrible seeing the process? oh righhhttt because it forces you to actually feel something...

Huh? Are you saying that without seeing the act of suicide the message and the viewer reaction/feelings would not exist or be totally different? I can get the message without having to see someone lose their life infront of a national telivised audience. I think your point of feeling something when seeing the act is valid, and for me it would be disgust at the network. Unless it\'s on PBS then the show is made to MAKE MONEY by generating ad revenue. This means that someone would have to sit down and say \"Let\'s go with this suicide thing because it\'ll generate viewers and income.\" I\'m NOT okay with that. I\'m also less okay with the fact that it feels to me like the news in this instance was manufactured by whoever made the documentary piece and not as much of a crew reporting world events as they unfold.

As someone pointed out they didn\'t actually show the suicide, so that does make me feel better. I prefer for us to NOT open the can of worms that telivised deaths would open.

And as for the aftermath of gruesome images on TV news and such I think it\'s different revealing the situation from war torn regions where the message is meant to shock us into realizing what\'s happening in these places. Also this is where the news is being reported, and not generated by the news agencies itself, so I am better with that.

As an aside I am all for self assisted suicide. People out there make this choice all the time for many different reasons and I think that if someone feels stongly enough about it and wants to go with some dignity then maybe we should open this topic up.

Here in Canada, and specifaclly out west the topic is always in the news. Some years ago a Man named Robert Lattimer killed his daughter Tracy who was young (I\'m trying to recall, early teens maybe) and was suffering from a very severe and uncurable disease. MS Maybe? Anyway he killed her, took the full sentence and was released not that long ago. If I recall he did the full bit as well as he would not show remorse for what he had done. He is adamant, as are other mombers of the family that when his daughter would have brief lucid moments she wanted death. So the Father made the most horrible of decisions I hope none of us ever have to face and took his daughters life.

Wow, heavy stuff. I think I\'m going to go by myself some Christmas gifts and listen to some crappy holiday music to get back in the mood.

 

[hestan101]

i think that if someone suffers from a disease and then they want to end their life, then so be it. i also think its a good idea to eductae people over what the individuals really go through. howvere, i have a horrible feeling that people arent going to watch it for that

 

[GreenOne]

Guess it would all depend on the way it\'s presented, I can imagine it being very distateful... prolly because I really don\'t trust TV.
But as I would never watch such a program I guess I will never have an opinion, too bad.

What I wonder is what kind of AD they will pass during the breaks, probably ads for alcohol or faster cars...

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by GreenOne

What I wonder is what kind of AD they will pass during the breaks, probably ads for alcohol or faster cars...

Well, if it were on Amercian TV it would be Viagra and Tampons....