Assisted dying

[Redwurzel]

Every disability group was against the bill. They have to deal with the realities of these issues on a daily basis. Their wishes have now been dismissed.

In the future when abuses of vulnerable people arise, I hope the MPs who voted will admit what they have done.

 

[theboydom]

It's important that people actually understand what the bill is offering:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10123/

It only applies to those estimated to have 6 months to live. It wouldn't apply to people with dementia because they wouldn't have capacity (by definition). Having POA is irrelevant because again (by definition) the patient would not have capacity to request it if a POA was needed. By the time anyone with dementia only has 6 months left they'll not have capacity to request it. They have to be physically able to take the substances themselves. Don't see how it can be refused on principle, if anything IMO it should be more widely available.

"Don't see how it can be refused on principle" - the problem being, principles can be debated until the cows come home, but someone has to write a law that prevents abuse. This Bill ain't it, not by a long chalk, and the ramifications of the State assisting suicide will be far reaching. One of the unanswered questions in Scotland was from the paramedics who would be dispatched in the 7% of cases with complications. They just asked - legally, are we allowed to treat them, and where do we take them? Cue long silences...

 

[BoroMart]

Well in this example, Anna Turley MP was minded to vote yes as long as she felt the safeguards in place were strong enough, but committed to read all the communication she was sent from constituents. Obviously she didn't read mine carefully enough but we go again. You cannot allow a tyrrany of the majority, no matter the cause it is exercised in.

Tyranny of the majority

Sorry but it’s a personal choice to live through pain or not. Put aside the process side of it for now, that obviously needs to be water tight, but a government shouldn’t force someone to live a short remaining life in pain.

 

[BoroMart]

Every disability group was against the bill. They have to deal with the realities of these issues on a daily basis. Their wishes have now been dismissed.

In the future when abuses of vulnerable people arise, I hope the MPs who voted will admit what they have done.

There are plenty of groups that are for it, if terminally ill, sound of mind, and in massive pain, why should a government deny someone the right to end it?

 

[Caracticus]

Isn’t it only if you are judged to have less than 6 months to live so it could be refused no matter how poor your life quality is. As an example care is provided free of charge if you only have 6 months to live we applied for with both my dad and mother in law and it was refused in both case but both of died within a month of our application .
Also there is the matter of life insurance to consider

 

[Redwurzel]

BM ....................Because it will be abused by some.

Others will ask for it because they don't want to be burden, they may not be in massive pain, in fact most will not be.

For everyone you describe there will be a lot more 85 year olds told in subtle ways its time to go and the same for those with severe/multiple disabilities. The needs of the vulnerable have to be balanced with the needs of those in massive pain who I do feel for. However there are several million over 85s and 20% of UK have a at least one disability - its a big group that need protection. I am sorry but I don't trust the professionals to be able to do it in 100% of cases or even close to it.

I have a friend in her 70s and she had a stroke 18 months ago and it meant she is no longer independent and she used to be very independent, helping others. She will not recover to the old self and will need to use a wheelchair, her main hobby was belly dancing. I asked her when she was in a special recovery strokes unit and asked did she need anything and she said she wanted me to go out and get her a pair of sharp scissors (i.e. she wanted to kill herself and probably would have at that time) which was totally out of character. Now I see her and she is more positive and wants to live. She now goes to exercise classes and goes to the theatre and cinema and doesn't want to go shopping for scissors.

 

[Redwurzel]

There are plenty of groups that are for it, if terminally ill, sound of mind, and in massive pain, why should a government deny someone the right to end it?

Not according to BBC News Channel.



I was watching this morning they clearly stated every disability group was against assisted dying. Are they are all wrong?

 

[InglebyUTB]

I’m absolutely for this.

Recently had a close family member die from cancer. Fought bravely for years but in the end it was horrible to watch. Just existing in pain for weeks in a hospital room as the cancer was everywhere, eventually obstructed her bowel, wasn’t able to eat or drink, just in excruciating pain with every breath as it was in her lungs and waiting to do die for weeks.

Even when the consultant signed off for her to have more morphine the nurses wouldn’t do it, as they basically didn’t want to be sued if she overdosed on it. Though she’d have been quite happy to do that, she just wanted to go and a big dose of morphine would have been a relief.

Even when my Grandmother passed a few years back, they knew she was never going leaving that ward but she spent 3 weeks in agony, bed sores, unable eat/drink, soiling herself.

I understand it’s an emotive subject and why disability groups are concerned, but at the minute there’s just zero dignity for many people in their end of life and it’s cruel what we make people go through when we have the tools to make it pain free and dignified.

 

[Redwurzel]

Ingelby sorry to her about your relative, but some of the symptoms you describes such as incontinence and bed sores, people do live with for many years, even cancer, Ok maybe not the level of the pain. I have been in a nursing home several times today and there is limited dignity for many residents, but I believe the vast majority still want to live.

The new law opens up a whole spectrum of problems and required protection that could involve millions of individuals. What happens for example if an individual say wants to die, but all the relatives say they don't want them to put to sleep? Would the courts have to decide?

I am also not happy with doctors taking lives, even of severely sick people, it would be interesting to get the view of any Board members who will be in the frontline of putting people to sleep. I know vets have to do it, but is it different for doctors of humans?

 

[InglebyUTB]

Ingelby sorry to her about your relative, but some of the symptoms you describes such as incontinence and bed sores, people do live with for many years, even cancer, Ok maybe not the level of the pain. I have been in a nursing home several times today and there is limited dignity for many residents, but I believe the vast majority still want to live.

It’s not those symptoms on their own, nobody is suggesting helping someone die because they soil themselves. It’s when you combine them all together. The person I described with terminal cancer lived with it for 6 years, knowing she was dying and in varying levels of pain. But when she was told she had 6 months to live, she should have been able to decide how she wanted to leave.

Even when she was in hospital and they knew this was it, just give her a dose of morphine and put her to sleep. Instead of was drawn out in agony for weeks.

I watched Clarkson’s Farm recently and one of his pigs fell ill. The doctor came out and assessed it, and determined it had cancer. They decided the most humane thing to do would be to peacefully put it to sleep. Watching it I found it incredible that we give a pig more dignity in death than a human.

 

[BoroMart]

Isn’t it only if you are judged to have less than 6 months to live so it could be refused no matter how poor your life quality is. As an example care is provided free of charge if you only have 6 months to live we applied for with both my dad and mother in law and it was refused in both case but both of died within a month of our application .
Also there is the matter of life insurance to consider

My wife’s life insurance paid out when she was terminal not at death. I don’t think that’s a real issue

 

[BoroMart]

The new law opens up a whole spectrum of problems and required protection that could involve millions of individuals. What happens for example if an individual say wants to die, but all the relatives say they don't want them to put to sleep? Would the courts have to decide?

Easy it’s not the families life it’s the ill persons. By the way, the current law has persisted with a whole host of problems, that’s why a new law is desired by most of the population. The idea is the new law is less problematic than the status quo, which to be frank is cruel, barbaric, and rooted in removing personal choice and dignity away from people based on religious influence and dogma. Luckily most of the people vehemently against this law haven’t experienced what I’ve experienced.

I am also not happy with doctors taking lives, even of severely sick people,

It’s not how it works in dignitas, the doctors give non lethal stuff that will send them to sleep, the patient has to take the lethal tablet themselves, that will stop their heart. If they don’t, they’ll just wake up again. The doctors don’t kill anyone. If a patient is unable to take the pill themselves then they’ll aren’t eligible for dignitas assisted dying

 

[Redwurzel]

I fully understand its a combination of factors and did mention all three. Dignity unfortunately many of us will lose in our very old age.

When we as a country are changing the law and I would say psychological approach to death for me we need to consider the full spectrum of those that could be affected and I have serious concerns the very large number of vulnerable will be fully protected.

 

[Chemicalworker]

Tyranny of the majority

Sorry but it’s a personal choice to live through pain or not. Put aside the process side of it for now, that obviously needs to be water tight, but a government shouldn’t force someone to live a short remaining life in pain.

You can’t vote in something as huge as this and then say you’ll sort out the details later

 

[TeaCider]

You can’t vote in something as huge as this and then say you’ll sort out the details later

Why not?

It's not law yet, if MPs don't like the details, they'll vote it down at the next step and it won't be law.

Specifically on Anna Turley, just because you disagreed, it doesn't mean that she should vote against.
I'm surely dozens to hundreds of constituents gave her their opinion.

 

[Chemicalworker]

Why not?

It's not law yet, if MPs don't like the details, they'll vote it down at the next step and it won't be law.

Specifically on Anna Turley, just because you disagreed, it doesn't mean that she should vote against.
I'm surely dozens to hundreds of constituents gave her their opinion.

Because it’s irresponsible
You’ve started a snowball down a hill that would be hard to stop even if you realised the details weren’t sufficient to protect the vulnerable

 

[BoroMart]

You can’t vote in something as huge as this and then say you’ll sort out the details later

I’m not saying that luckily