To be very anxious about the assisted dying bill?

I think it's a sad reflection on society today that people are more worried about those who may be coerced into this choice rather than those in horrific pain wanting to end their days in a peaceful and calm way of their choice. 100 k people a year die in this country without access to any palliative care, and the palliative care that is available is a postcode lottery. Having experienced the system when my Dad died of cancer, I wholeheartedly give thanks for this bill.

@CorneliaCupp

this is about real people and real lives and real suffering, it’s not purely some intellectual philosophical debate. Suffering should be ended if that’s what the person wants. It’s the humane thing to do. END OF.

@CorneliaCupp

the bill is for people with a terminal illness with a limited time left to live. So im not sure why you think suffering for disabled people should increase? Surely as well they should be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else to end their life if they were terminally ill and wanted to put a stop to their suffering?

Honestly this seems like such a niche argument to impose a blanket prohibition on everybody from being allowed an assisted death.

It's argument seems to be that there may be a person who is assessed by two doctors as being terminally ill with only six months left and is suffering intolerably as a result of that terminal illness and who decides as a result they want to die but they also have depression or some similar condition and if the person didn't take an assisted death they might have cured the person's depression in the last six months of their life and they would want to wait to die of their terminal illness instead.

I can't deny it's an impossible scenario but I am dubious it's something that plays out enough to justify taking choice away from everyone without exception.

And, like so many other critics, they say there aren't enough safeguards but don't actually say what safeguards would satisfy them.

Of course not, which is why I would never say it in such a scenario. That would be heartless and massively inappropriate.
In an intellectual debate, such as this, it is factually accurate though.

@CorneliaCupp

Im sorry but this “It is not possible to completely eradicate suffering, it is a part of life” sounds incredibly flippant and heartless. If someone said that to you when you were in unbearable hideous pain and suffering, I don’t think you would like it.

I haven’t seen that. Can you link to it here please? Ta

I totally understand the anxiety and can never think about it without being conflicted.

On the one hand id never want a relative or loved one suffering if they could have peace and dignity.

But I do worry about a variety of scenarios. Most concerning is the idea a loved one may choose assisted dying, wrongly believing they're a burden. Id never want a loved one living in unending pain but id also never want them to feel that caring for them was in anyway a burden.

And I do worry some people may feel pressurised into it. I think it needs to be handled carefully to balance protection of the vulnerable with dignity and comfort for the ones certain its for them

Unfortunately there are some people who were so aggressively against this bill and there was someone trying to get everyone in our community to protest against it that quite a few of the vulnerable elderly were saying they wouldn't go into hospital as they would be bumped off as soon as they got through the doors. No amount of explaining the conditions of the bill and that it would take a few years to set everything up would persuade them otherwise

Not really. For some conditions, it is best to say goodbye to your pet before they have a very traumatic crisis such as a tumour rupturing or a cancer ridden bone breaking. There is the saying ' better a week too early than a day too late".
And some pets are just very old and no amount of meds can reverse that.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2025/05/13/the-rcpsych-cannot-support-the-terminally-ill-adults-(end-of-life)-bill-for-england-and-wales-in-its-current-form

This worries me - just remember about it. I’ve written something more balanced further up thread.

@XenoBitch

Sedation is often for what’s called terminal agitation, which you can look up. You’d look for slightly different signs for pain in someone who’s dying and can’t tell you. Frowning, grimacing etc. Sometimes if they’re a bit agitated and you’re not sure you can give them a little bit of both - pain relief and sedation, the sedation tends to be a benzodiazepine which would make them feel a bit more relaxed.
It’s for the patients benefit as in the last couple of days of life it’s likely they’ve lost consciousness for the majority of the time anyway.
It’s a slight tangent, and probably shouldn’t derail the thread.
I hope that helps.

Speak for yourself. When I had my beloved dog put to sleep it was because he was suffering, his eyes told me he'd had enough. It had nothing to do with money and I resent anyone suggesting that. I'd have remortgaged my house if there was any hope of saving him.

I feel less anxious about the future as a result. Having seen the way my mother died, and heard similar stories from friends, I am very happy to know that I will have the option of skipping that horrible final stage.

Sedating the patient until the end... whose benefit is that for?

Women of child bearing age who might seek an abortion of often (not always due to domestic violence, mental health etc) less vulnerable than people who are terminally ill. Those people (again often not always) rely on family or carers, are financially vulnerable, have associated physical and mental health challenges which come with their diagnosis and prognosis. So unless the process is watertight and people can’t be coerced by family etc. into making a decision to end their life especially when money is involved, and our social care system is on its knees and good palliative care is a postcode lottery.

In a past role have seen family coerce patients who needed a care home but didn’t quite meet the criteria for fast track / long term funding into going home with their ‘care’ and come back with what we would consider harm from pressure ulcers, so I don’t believe everyone has good intentions and can be financially motivated.

To answer sometime else somewhere in the thread, in a specialist hospice setting, patients can be given enormous doses of analgesia to manage pain if warranted.

I’m not necessarily against assisted dying especially in circumstances and some conditions spring to mind such as locked in syndrome and MND where I imagine there would be greatest need.

But a blanket carte blanche does nobody any favours. Some conditions like dementia / frailty it’s notoriously hard to accurately pin down last 6 months of life.

Disabled people, and others, are told over and over again that they are a drain on society, that they have nothing to offer, that they are weak, useless, a burden. They are made to jump through hoops for even the smallest amount of totally inadequate support.
We then introduced a bill with inadequate safeguards, that gave these people a way to end the life that we, as a society, made unbearable.
People will absolutely be coerced into ending their lives because of this bill. That is why I think suffering will increase.

Tbh we put our pets to death not because they are in pain but because it’s too expensive to pay vets to investigate, treat and care for them, including pain relief and not cheap or easy to care for them at home.

Very inciteful & well-put. I am a counsellor ( I have my own private practice) & volunteer for our local Hospice.

I spend my life assuring people in the Hospice that they will be allowed to die with dignity & pretty-much pain free. I will ask about their experience of pain, invite them to tell me about their most painful experience. We have a discussion about the worst of it & I can assure them that they will not suffer that level of pain as they will be sedated if it get's that bad & will be out of it & unaware. We meet pain head on, it's generally a fact & no shying away from it. But we can do things to help with it-even if that means keeping someone so sedated that they don't know what's going on around them.

I've held the hands of many, many people while they were dying, encouraged their relatives & friends to touch them, kiss them & talk to them even if they seem unresponsive. We also encourage music to be played - the patients favourite tracks (I have mine already listed) & encourage visitors to have a chat as if the (unresponsive) patient was responsive. I am certain that they know their loved ones are there & chatting to them..

Honestly the Hospice is the most positive place that I have ever worked.

I am fully in favour of it. Recently watched one of my best friends die, though she wouldn’t have qualified anyway as the cancer had already spread to her brain by diagnosis so she wouldn’t be classes as of sound mind. My dad died a slow and horrible death from a lung disease. I really don’t think the UK would expand like Canada for example.

If someone is diagnosed with terminal cancer and has 3 months to live, what benefit do you think it brings by making them suffer to the bitter end? I don’t get why anyone would say that it’s unreasonable to want to avoid a slow and painful death. At the end of the day, even the best palliative care doesn’t stop all pain. Sitting at someone’s bedside as they slowly day is horrendous. When my friend died in March we all wished that the end would come quickly, but it dragged out which caused more pain for everyone, and too much suffering and indignity for my poor friend.

So…. What is their opinion??

This is a valid point because these are the experts in this area. Their opinion holds weight.

So why can’t the funding that would have been used for palliative care for someone that chooses AD be allocated to those who didn’t choose it?

Why do you think it would increase suffering to some people?

That statement you quoted doesn’t adequately explain why the most vulnerable in society would suffer more. It highlights a lot of important points that need to be addressed, I agree. But I cannot see a valid argument in there for not allowing AD for those that want it.

As someone who lost a loved one in a brutal and horrendous way I support it.

As a Social Worker it’s going to be an absolute nightmare and can already see the increase in SG alerts.

This is only relevant if he’s judged to have capacity to consent to medical treatment.