To think people with terminal illnesses should be allowed to choose assisted death?

What about the inconvenient ethical problems of keeping people alive against their will, or of prosecuting loved ones who help them to end their lives with dignity? The problem with ethics is that they have no conclusive answers. They are opinions and nothing more.

Best ignore the inconvenient ethical problems then.

I'm a huge believer of this , after watching someone I loved so dearly die In horrific pain that went on from months the last weeks were absolutely awful and having to live with the self disgust that one of your first feelings of hearing it was finally over for them was thank god is something I'll never get over , of course I was devastated, but there was a feeling of relief they weren't suffering anymore , even say that makes me feel ill but it's the truth , I loved them too much to just feel devestated they had passed , I couldn't in my full heart want them to still be here, like that , even writing this has reduced me to tears, of course most of me would have done anything to keep them here but for what ? Woudlnt that be the most cruel and selfish thing of all , I find it disgusting tbh that a pet can be 'put to sleep ' as it's cruel to keep them alive but a human being has to suffer horrifically, or end up so high on all sorts of drugs that their last days they aren't even there , like they know it's that bad they give them all sorts let's be honest so why not the decency to not have to go through that in first place , as if it isn't horrific enough to be told your going to die but to have to live with the fear of what the ending might be because this isn't a option is really cruel , sorry this topic actually makes me a bit mad , having witnessed a death of a loved one who truly truly deserved to live the most beautiful happy life because she was truly beautiful, my opinion on it is such a strong one , I truly believe it should be legal

But pressure can go both ways. Sometimes people can be pressed into continuing to live in what for them are intolerable conditions, by relatives who don't want the pain of losing them, or by relatives or medical professionals who think that one must obey the Will of God when it comes to one's life and death.

A friend once told me that if I tried to kill myself because of an intolerable (to me) medical prognosis, she would come along and forcibly prevent me from doing so. This frightened me beyond belief (though obviously, if I'm ever in that position, I will make sure that she doesn't know in advance).

I realize that, especially in these days of shortages of medical resources, it's necessary to guard against people being pressured to die to relieve a financial burden on the NHS or on their families. But it's also necessary to guard against pressures in the opposite direction.

My greatest fear is of locked-in syndrome or advanced motor neurone disease, so I realize that these may not be covered by the assisted dying bill, and I continue to be afraid).

My main hope in bringing this bill is that there will also be a major review of palliative care and that it is available to all and not just those who live in the right parts of the country

And this article from The Times is fascinating!

POLITICAL SKETCH
The assisted dying debate should not be happening like this
For the first time, a bill introduced by a backbench MP requires evidence from expert witnesses at committee stage. The technicalities might be tedious but this is a mess

Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill on assisted dying is already not like any other private member’s bill there’s ever been

The not-uncontroversial Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has reached what’s known as “committee stage”, which means that a small group of specially selected MPs meet to carefully scrutinise the legislation line by line but woah woah woah hang on a minute, isn’t that Professor Sir Chris Whitty? What’s he doing here?

You remember him, right, the Covid guy? Hands, face, space, bald head, occasional death stares at Matt Hancock? Yep, that’s the one. But he’s not an MP is he, never has been, never will be, so what exactly was he doing, up in the Grimond Room in Portcullis House, trying his hand at scrutinising legislation?

Admittedly, some people care more about this sort of thing than others, but the scrutiny of legislation at committee stage has been, until now, an MP’s job, and that’s how it should be. The backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill on assisted dying is already not like any other private member’s bill there’s ever been. For the first time, a bill introduced by a backbench MP has required evidence from expert witnesses to be given at committee stage. Whitty was the first such witness, across three full days.

The technicalities might be tedious but — whatever one’s view on assisted dying — this is a mess. The reason it’s never happened before is because legislation this potentially enormous has always been introduced by governments not backbenchers. That a change in the way we live of this significance may be passed into law without the government of the day expressing a view is abnormal in the extreme. A more experienced government, frankly, would have contrived a way for this not to be happening, but it is, and it’s wildly controversial.

Leadbeater has been accused, and not unfairly, of “stacking the decks” on assisted dying, chiefly by calling a range of witnesses who are, by and large, in favour of its introduction. There are doctors and public health officials in, for example, Canada, who now advocate against assisted dying because of the unintended consequences of its introduction there. None have been called.

But if the idea was that this was to be three long days of polite agreement then it didn’t quite happen. The first thing the legislation would have to do is come to an agreed definition on who was and wasn’t “terminally ill”. That’s the easy bit and it’s not easy.

“If you’re diagnosed with breast cancer most people live at least another ten years,” Whitty said. Other people may have only months to live but that is because they are simultaneously afflicted with what he called a “constellation” of illnesses, none of which are strictly terminal, some of which may even go away again. Working out who qualifies for assisted dying and who doesn’t is the bill’s first unresolved mess.

The other is who is going to do the assisting. Medical professionals are members of society too, Whitty explained, arguably unnecessarily. They are entitled to strong views of their own. They also tend to go into the profession to save lives. They may not wish to do a shift on the assisted dying wing, which is not like any other medical service, and that is their right.

We heard from Dr Andrew Green, the chair of the British Medical Association’s ethics committee, who put it rather bluntly. “I do not believe it is ever appropriate for a doctor to recommend that a patient go through an assisted dying process,” he said.

Leadbeater is, of course, a member of the committee herself. When things weren’t going her way, she naturally had a good line in passive-aggressive disagreement. “We should be able to embrace a holistic approach that happens in other countries,” she told Whitty at one point. He did not appear altogether sure what this meant.

At the end of the day came Dr Rachel Clarke, who has become something of a celebrity doctor in recent years after writing about working on Covid wards during the pandemic. She is, first and foremost, a palliative care doctor and what she had to say was rather damning.

“The patients who will beg me to end their life”, she said, “it is not from the cancer, it is because they have not received proper palliative care.”

People will choose to die quickly, in other words, to be spared the misery of dying slowly with the NHS. She went on: “It doesn’t have anything to do with assisted dying, but if we do not address that simultaneously, then people will choose to end their life because we as a society don’t care about them enough to give them the care that might make life worth living.”

This is a debate of unimaginable complexity, wrought with intense strength of feeling. It’s not a subject on which a government can possibly be neutral. It shouldn’t be happening in this way.

Interesting comment from Prof Allan House, emeritus professor of psychology at the committee hearing today:

'If Leadbeater's Bill passes, we would need to change our national suicide prevention strategy … at the moment it includes identifying suicidal thoughts in people with severe physical illnesses as something that merits intervention, and the intervention is not an intervention to help people proceed to suicide.'

My MIL had fantastic palliative care. Can’t fault it. But she knew she was dying, it was literally a given and she wanted to go. She said so, many times. The last 6 weeks of her life, even with excellent palliative care, were brutal. Had assisted dying been an option for her, she would have grabbed it with both hands. She asked for it daily.
At that stage in her illness, the only option for pain relief was massive doses, so she was asleep a lot of the time. But she would wake up, frightened and in pain. For weeks? In the end she was 4 stone when she died. That is not living. It was beyond awful for her, awful to watch and I absolutely do not want that for myself. I wouldn’t do that to my dog.

There was a case in the UK a few years back about a lady with BPD, who, after repeat suicide attempts, was allowed to deny treatment and die from the method she chose. The hospital basically made her comfortable, and she died.

The findings of a BMA survey are also interesting:

70% of palliative care doctors surveyed believe the BMA should remain opposed to assisted suicide, whilst just 7% were in favour.

• 54% of doctors surveyed said they would not be willing to participate actively in the process of administering life-ending drugs. Only 26% said they would be willing.

x.com/danny__kruger/status/1884330731872346341?t=x-ghyUpscr9QM8ZL18_8ZQ&s=19

This thread on X is a really interesting overview of the discussions happening in the committee discussing the bill.

That's not the reality though. When my Nana had advanced dementia they wouldn't force her to take her medication as it was her choice. I can't imagine doctors taking the decision to "end" someone based on a decision they made years ago. It's the stuff of nightmares.

Stop infantalizing people! The fact that some people with terminal illnesses feel that their life is worth fighting for doesn't mean that everyone shares this view. They have to live the extra time you seem desperate to force upon them, not you.

There was a thread recently where many people acknowledged that they were done with life. Not in a feeling suicidal way, but more a complete feeling. They said they wouldn't mind not living anymore. It is too much for you to insist that these people must go through months if not years of pointless agony in order to live longer when they expressly have stated that they don't want to. We have to believe that humans are capable of having different perspectives on the value of life and that it is totally normal for someone to get to the point where they make an assessment that it simply isn't worth it anymore.

Agree. My friend is dying and this painful decline is just so hard for everyone. Made worse by cancer in the brain which is impacting behaviour etc. Only diagnosed 4wks ago.

But he could have consented at the point he still had capacity, early on in the disease. I don't think anyone is arguing for the right to die when the patient lacks capacity to make the choice themselves.

I would not let a family member suffer in such pain, I would end it for them, even if that meant me going to prison

If I get ill, there are various ways that I can end it myself before it gets too bad, no need to rely on the Gov to help

This is a heartbreaking read.

I would say in the context of the current bill being passed through parliament, that the case of this woman would never be considered for assisted dying in the UK.

In her case - I do understand that there are some people that find the emotional pain of being alive far too much to take and therefore would like to end their lives. I do not blame these people if that is what they choose to do. But I absolutely do not think the state should help in cases like this.

She was young. As the article mentioned, people with BPD often find their symptoms much more manageable as they get older. I am convinced that she would not have tried absolutely every single treatment available to get better before making this decision. Including illegal ones (I am referring to psychedelic treatments here but these are probably legal in her country). I would not agree with assisted dying for someone with her condition(s) as I truly believe that she lacked the mental capacity to make the decision for herself. Suicide risk is literally a feature of the condition she had. It makes no sense. It’d be like allowing someone with alcohol addiction to get free alcohol provided for by the state, surely?!

I disagree. In the first place, people have been changing their minds - there has been a massive social shift towards assisted dying over my lifetime. Secondly, it should be discussed openly - the kinds of concerns people may have are not ridiculius and should be listened to to ansure that what happens is the best possible outcome. Thirdly - you are naive if you think it isn't already happening, but people should not have to risk their freedom to support the wishes of the terminally ill.

But in the end, this should be a choice for people. You don't have to agree and you don't have to opt for it. But you also shouldn't have the right to deny me the choice of the dignified death that I choose for myself.

Cancer kills some people.

And chemo kills others.

Some people keep fighting on chemo until the very end, desperate to live. And I here for them, completely.

Whilst there is that glimmer of hope, they should be given the best chance they can of fighting it.

But once that hope is gone and they have no hope of regaining any quality of life, the drugs are available to spare them a final few days or weeks of pain and misery. And I think they should absolutely be used.

Dying isn't peaceful. Or dignified. Or quick. Maybe for a lucky few.

A few days or weeks of pain, confusion, distress, end of life agitation, fear, lack of dignity, doesn't sound much to some. "Only a few days / weeks".

But to the person dying, time stands still. They feel every single minute of it. And for the family, watching them suffer, having time off work, having to juggle childcare and other commitments, while sleep deprived as caring around the clock....a few days or weeks is a long time.

Of all the people I have known you have died of cancer (or similar) I don't know a single one who wouldn't have chosen to bow out a few weeks earlier, if the choice was there.

YANBU. Having watched a parent die in agony from cancer due to sepsis infection, where the pain was so horrendous even the strongest painkillers couldn't make a dent to allow them to pass quietly in peace, I thought at the time we wouldn't watch an animal suffer like this, why are we subjecting those we love to it.
Safeguards should always be robust but there should be dignity and choice in death as there is in life.

You only have to read posts from people with a cancer diagnosis- their lives feel precious to them and something worth fighting for, their lust for life is palpable
we need better services not the best offer being death

My grandparents are both in their 90s, they don’t have carers and live quite independently. Mentally they are 100% there.

My grandad has various health issues with his heart and I think he knows he’s not long left in this world, but otherwise he is quite sprightly and enjoys his life.

My Nan, has lots of mobility problems and is near enough bed bound. She has had spinal surgery numerous times over the last few decades but it’s a condition that can’t be cured and she is clearly deteriorating. She depends on my grandad to help her move position in bed, and help her to get to the bathroom etc.

As a result of the chronic pain she’s had over the years she’s got a stash load of morphine hanging around the house, bottles and bottles of it, and she says she’s saving it for when she “needs it” - and by that she means end her life.

I think when my grandad unfortunately passes (probably within the next few years), if she is still alive she will overdose herself on morphine.

She said she will 100% not go into a care home and not does she want to be a burden to others (her words).

I know it’s not the same as assisted dying, but it’s just another example of people having the right to choose how and when they want their lives to end.