[Politics] Assisted dying

[beorhthelm]

imo the safeguards are too restrictive, that'll change in time. in the future we'll see people leave living wills for their end, setting out criteria for end of life. bypass many issues around dementia. view it like being a donor, have the conversation with the family and written down what one's wishes are at or near the end. it's not for everyone, those who dont want to be assisted dont have to sign up for it.

 

[ozzygull]

It appears that way, at the moment, but exceptions start being made, and then it broadens, as it did in Canada. I can visualise an elderly person, with their own home, ‘being persuaded‘, once diagnosed with dementia. No law is watertight.

I understand and sympathise with this dilemma. Having seen what my mum went through in the last months of her life, I would not have wished it on my greatest enemy. I am not a brave person and I fear going through that more then actually dying. The day she passed away was more a relief then grief, which made me feel very guilty. I had nothing to gain finically, the house belong to the council and any saving she had, was already used up paying or her care.

I don't know how the new law would work, because by the time we really understood what was wrong, she would not have had the mental capacity to give a decision about ending her own life. so I don't think the new law would of made a difference to the utterly cruel disease dementia that killed my mum.

But I am sure there are families that may not have great relationships with their parents and see them as a cash cow and that needs to be guarded against.

 

[birthofanorange]

Like many, I am also torn on this. Whilst I think that (in principle) people should have the right to choose, I find myself equating it to capital punishment (which I strongly disagree with), simply because errors can and will be made.
It's certainly a difficult one.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I am firmly in favour of it . I see it as a human right to be able to put an end to one’s life , with help if necessary.
I am hoping for a change in the law buy not confident that MPs will have the courage to do it

 

[fly high]

I'm in favour in principle, it's the safe-guards which I worry about.

The safeguards worry me as well. I'm not sure there is any law we could write which will 100% protect the vulnerable & although, as it stands, it will be approved by two doctors & a judge will any of those three have an in-depth knowledge of the patient & how soon does it become a box ticking exercise.

 

[lost in london]

100% yes, I can't really understand all the hand wringing. Just think of all the poor sods who have been made to live in pain or indignity way longer than they ever wanted to because of our outdated, squeamish thoughts on this.

Also, the argument about being being coerced into it or feeling a burden is overblown in my opinion - if I get to a situation where it's an option, being a burden is possibly a big reason I'll want to go. If I've got MND or another terminal illness and likely less than six months left to go, and my wife and kids' lives are on hold looking after me, I'll quite happily slip off to relieve them of that burden.

 

[lost in london]

Also also - if this goes through there will be inevitably be horrible cases of people dying who didn't want to die and who were coerced into it. Unfortunately that comes with the territory and the greater good of giving relief to desperately ill people must be persuasive. No regime can be perfect and I think it's unreasonable to expect it to be.

 

[fly high]

I have read several comments like this, which was why I used Canada as the example.
Everybody agrees dying painfully is appalling but can any law be 100% regulated? Are there enough safeguards for the future?

Safeguards can be changed, extra categories added as has happened in Canada & I understand in the Netherlands.

 

[Me Atome]

I am firmly in favour of it . I see it as a human right to be able to put an end to one’s life , with help if necessary.
I am hoping for a change in the law buy not confident that MPs will have the courage to do it

OK, but can we expand on that "help if necessary" bit. Who does that? Is it added to the doctor's many roles? Or a part of the palliative care nurses role? I think we'd find rather a lot of medical staff who would not do it.

 

[Han Solo]

Sooner rather than later, death and birth will always be assisted. Just a matter of time.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Safeguards can be changed, extra categories added as has happened in Canada & I understand in the Netherlands.

That’s my worry. When abortion was legalised in the 60s, it was if the mother was in danger, or the baby had massive handicaps, requiring two different doctors to sign. This was changed gradually over the years. Boiling frog syndrome.
Once the door has been opened , it is impossible to shut it.

 

[fly high]

OK, but can we expand on that "help if necessary" bit. Who does that? Is it added to the doctor's many roles? Or a part of the palliative care nurses role? I think we'd find rather a lot of medical staff who would not do it.

Doctor in Australia was interviewed on BBC, said she carried out injections to end lives.

 

[chip]

OK, but can we expand on that "help if necessary" bit. Who does that? Is it added to the doctor's many roles? Or a part of the palliative care nurses role? I think we'd find rather a lot of medical staff who would not do it.

I certainly don't want to die in a hospital or hospice and I think that confusing this with a "medical procedure" only clouds the water. The one thing we can all control is our death because we can chose to end our lives at any time. For me, the laws around assisting a suidide need to be repealed so you can get someone to fill the syringe for you if needed.

Perhaps because I went to college when the idea of "a woman's right to chose" was in vogue I think that we should all have agency and autonomy over our body, life and death choices.

 

[Mustafa II]

Assisted dying should be a human right in the modern age.

If anything, I think the safeguards proposed are far too extensive.

If I am in so much pain that I want to die, having to convince two GPs and a judge, with the possibility of having it all denied, just seems excessive and unnecessary.

Besides, there could be many other reasons I would want to die, besides physical pain. I understand that there is a risk of coercion - but the same applies all aspects of life, not just death... but the decision to die is a personal choice and if there is a painless, dignified way to do so, then it should be available to all that want it.

 

[birthofanorange]

Assisted dying should be a human right in the modern age.

If anything, I think the safeguards proposed are far too extensive.

If I am in so much pain that I want to die, having to convince two GPs and a judge, with the possibility of having it all denied, just seems excessive and unnecessary.

Besides, there could be many other reasons I would want to die, besides physical pain. I understand that there is a risk of coercion - but the same applies all aspects of life, not just death... but the decision to die is a personal choice and if there is a painless, dignified way to do so, then it should be available to all that want it.

The solution for that already exists.
Suicide.

 

[drew]

I'm for it and have been for some time. My mother died in hospital using the Liverpool Care Pathway. She had terminal cancer and then broke her hip. She actually decided she'd had enough and stopped eating. Fortunately, both my brother and I were there.

With regard to this bill, I believe there are many, not all but many, who are totally against it on religious grounds but are using the supposed lack of safeguards as a reason to scuttle the bill. That said, two separate doctors, a judge, you have to be terminally ill and believed to be within 6 months of death. That's a few hoops to jump through. Also, you listen to some of the debate and it's almost like some think as soon as your prognosis is 6 months you are going to immediately use the law to top yourself whereas the reality would be that it would still carry on till your 6 months are nearly up and it would depend on the deterioration in your condition as well.

I know some have mentioned mental health issues well they person would still need to be signed 'off' by two doctors. The current system doesn't require someone with mental health issues to see a doctor before they commit suicide!! There would also have to be a terminal prognosis which, as far as I'm aware, mental health doesn't meet that criteria.

At the end of the day, it's about quality of life. Doping someone up to the eyeballs with morphine is, in my view, disrespectful to life.

 

[UnhingedSeagull94]

Vote is on Friday.

Hugely difficult and emotive subject.

Thoughts?

Not against it. Everyone is unwillingly born into this world with no input on whether or not they actually want to be born; I guess you could also say that having children is potentially unethical? Everyone should have the choice on how their life ends and when that happens. That decision should be up to no one but the individual in question.

 

[Mustafa II]

The solution for that already exists.
Suicide.

Exactly, and it's difficult, barbaric and undignified... and often causes severe emotional trauma to those exposed to it.

 

[The Clamp]

I'm for it and have been for some time. My mother died in hospital using the Liverpool Care Pathway. She had terminal cancer and then broke her hip. She actually decided she'd had enough and stopped eating. Fortunately, both my brother and I were there.

With regard to this bill, I believe there are many, not all but many, who are totally against it on religious grounds but are using the supposed lack of safeguards as a reason to scuttle the bill. That said, two separate doctors, a judge, you have to be terminally ill and believed to be within 6 months of death. That's a few hoops to jump through. Also, you listen to some of the debate and it's almost like some think as soon as your prognosis is 6 months you are going to immediately use the law to top yourself whereas the reality would be that it would still carry on till your 6 months are nearly up and it would depend on the deterioration in your condition as well.

I know some have mentioned mental health issues well they person would still need to be signed 'off' by two doctors. The current system doesn't require someone with mental health issues to see a doctor before they commit suicide!! There would also have to be a terminal prognosis which, as far as I'm aware, mental health doesn't meet that criteria.

At the end of the day, it's about quality of life. Doping someone up to the eyeballs with morphine is, in my view, disrespectful to life.

You don’t “commit” suicide. It’s not a crime and hasn’t been since 1961.

 

[drew]

You don’t “commit” suicide. It’s not a crime and hasn’t been since 1961.

You know bloody well what I mean. Bit pathetic to nit pick on this thread! Besides, marriage isn't a crime but you can commit to marriage.