Why do we put animals out of their misery but let humans suffer?

No I don’t trust the safeguards. The ones in the bill are watered down. In addition, every other country that has legalised it has end up coercing the most vulnerable into a death they did not want. Wheelchair users refused a hoist but offered assisted dying.

People will be murdered. The question is whether cutting short the life of people who are going to die anyway on demand worth the sacrifice of killing other people who want palliative care instead of a quick death? It’s not about suffering at all the suffering is caused by bad palliative care. We should be focussing on better palliative care to stop end of life suffering, not ending lives sooner.

Yes I wholly agree this cannot be compared to putting an animal to sleep.
The OP should never have compared the two.

I used the word witness as that was the word used in the question asked of me. I have witnessed last breaths.

I do think that sitting with a dying relative is a vigil of sorts. The word vigil to me has a spiritual meaning where you’re seeing a loved one over the threshold of life on earth to another state of being in death. I am sorry if my use of the word offends you.

I personally do not want any company when I die. That much is true.

what did your relative want? express? Whether you found it difficult or not is not relevant.

My aunt is a vet and she puts down her pets as soon as they have slightly dodgy hips, or wet their beds routinely with age. Not sure you can make any useful comparison between the dignity of man and the treatment of pets.

My mother had a miserable last year in very many ways but she NEVER expressed any desire to give up, cut things short and we were with her to the absolute end. It was a time of great love and support. In fact she was terrified of the hospice as on one visit (multiple hospice visits!) they tried to persuade her to go somewhere she didn't want to rather than come back home (coercion; trying to persuade her she was a burden), and if we weren't around, they were crap about feeding her. I hated the hospice - evil place. She never wanted to go early and to the end she continued to look forward to seeing her family and friends.

Assisted dying is not necessarily the peaceful choice people think it is - this is something well known. Conversely, most deaths do not involve terrible pain, or the pain can be well managed. I have friends who have managed to resolve their depression but say 15 years ago they would have gone for assisted dying as they offer in NL and Canada. They are horrified it is an option there, over the right kind of support and treatment (because economically that would be too expensive).

Finally, given the government we have today, would you really trust them to properly administer such a scheme?

But there's a difference between terminally I'll people and those who are disabled but not dying

Threads like this are so similar.

I'm pro assisted dying and if you aren't you obviously want to see people suffer and die in agony.

I'm against assisted dying and if you aren't you obviously don't care about vulnerable and disabled people.

There is no space for nuance or gray, and no one changes anyone's mind, everyone just becomes more entrenched in their position.

I would love to discuss this topic, but I don't know how to get past the above.

I didn't "witness" my parents deaths, nor did I keep a "vigil".

I keot my parents company, and tried to make sure they were as comfortable and soothed as possible during what was a scary time for them. It was an honour to be able to hold them and sing to them as they passed away.

My parents were very vocal about when they didn't want to live, the cut-off point, and both lived beyond that. Comparing honouring their decision to putting down a sick animal is ridiculous.

To be able to honour their wishes would have undoubtedly have resulted in a much more peaceful passing for both of them.

The thought of being able to choose AD without having to travel abroad would be a great comfort to me and many others.

I agree.
I know that if someone goes to dignitas then anyone who accompanied them may face consequences. However how would the police - or whichever authority is responsible - find out who accompanied them?

People should absolutely have the choice. The current system where people are forced to live way beyond the point where they have any quality if life is awful and needs addressing. We are an aging population so this is what's ahead for many of us.

The thought of being able to choose AD without having to travel abroad would be a great comfort to me and many others.

That's lovely. For you. That's your choice. But others don't want this. Do you think your opinion is so important that it should overrule mine and take my choice away from me?

💯
@Teresa3349 You have autonomy and so should others. Just because you disagree with assisted suicide doesn’t mean you have the right to decide what others want.

For those who are claiming we don't need it in the UK and we can just go abroad, this is a very difficult listen but the tragic truth about our disgraceful laws here in the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0n69ljf

They are absolutely comparable. We are talking about choice. It doesn't matter whether the consent is given by an owner (in a pet's case) or by the patient (in a human case). It is about having the choice to end a life before it becomes unbearable.

Why do you feel you have the right to take that choice away from me?

Likewise. I'd happily do it myself.

Me. I'm happy to euthanize myself. Just give me the tools and the legal framework to do it.

As it stands it's even illegal to support a loved in going overseas to do it. You can't book a flight, travel with them or publicly wave them off. It's a fucking disgrace.

That's lovely. For you. That's your choice. But others don't want this. Do you think your opinion is so important that it should overrule mine and take my choice away from me?

My Aunt and Uncle in Canada had a neighbour whose wife passed away, secondary to dementia. He was also terminally ill with advanced cancer, in terrible pain and had been given less than a year to live. He organised MAID (medically assisted in death) immediately after her death. My relatives and a few of his close friends were present at the end, which was in his own bed at home.

They said it was very calm and peaceful and he was 100% content with his decision. Both also said it was a very positive decision and brought them peace, knowing it would be an option for them. I can't see any of this being a negative thing.

I live in Canada and honestly we rarely hear anything about it, and if we do it's positive. Only on MN is it a horror show!

So you didn't hear about Christine Gauthier, the veteran who was offered MAID by her case worker because she was struggling to get a wheelchair lift installed?

Or Roger Foley who took recordings and sued over the repeated attempts at coercion by hospital staff including threats to refuse to give him further care for his disabilities if he did not choose MAID and his documentation of others with similar disabilities who'd suffered the same who spoke to the Canadian Parliament?

Or The Quebec College of Physicians who discussed MAID for infants up to one for their disabilities?

Or the over thousand people who received MAID for isolation and loneliness?

Or the hundreds who received MAID for seeking, but not getting palliative care and/or disability services, including those where the issue was they could not afford their long term care?

All of these and more have been reported in Canadian news and much of it before the Canadian Parliament, with the Prime Minister getting involved in some of them. That it's not being heard is concerning. I'm open to assisted suicide, but we need to learn from these issues to build better systems, not pretend it's only positive.

Who do you propose should do the euthanizing?

I don't think the comparisons with other animals helps - there are a lot of things we do with other animals that would be horrifying if we did it with people.

I'm open to the concept, though strongly believe that it is something that should only be brought up by the patient. I don't think medical professionals or any other professionals should be starting that conversation - I view that as a breach of trust.

I also agree with others that assisted suicide has been romanticised. Yes, it likely means death will be sooner, but it doesn't automatically mean it's going to be dignified, pain free, and without difficulties for the dying or those in attendance.

I've been at death vigils, I've cared for the dying, I've seen peaceful ones and very difficult ones, I've been there for the terminal rallies that can give people false hope and the person with confusing hallucinations and little objective quality of life.

I was also born disabled and had people discuss it was better for me to die for as long as I can remember. Just as many people on here and elsewhere say you can't really know until you've been with someone dying a difficult death, I don't think those who've never had those meant to care for you discuss your death as a blessing repeatedly can know what it's like to be able to dismiss the concerns that people can be convinced that dying is the best course of action even if they want to live. I don't think it would automatically come out in the vetting process, I'm not sure - much like death - that it's something that could be entirely prevented with or without these laws.

If someone is suffering and is able to document their wishes for their death ahead of time then whats the issue?

Because consent is only consent if it can be withdrawn.

There have been documented cases of people who'd been granted assisted suicide fighting back against when it came time and being held down. That was not the dignified chosen death anyone would want. That was traumatic to the patient and anyone around to watch. Even with the argument that they had dementia and didn't understand, I struggle to see that as consent.

Society has moved to drawing out the process of dying too much through treating every little thing, and that does need to be resolved - as others have said, there needs to be more security for medical professionals to not provide on-going care where that's been agreed and social understanding for families not to push for treatments that only prolong the inevitable.

Consent to a professionally administered overdose needs the safeguard of the person's consent at the time it's happening.

However in this case it makes no real difference. The key point is the same. People are not “free to commit suicide if they wish”. If they try and are unsuccessful they will be forcibly prevented from trying again.

Not always, IME not often and it takes more than just trying.

No one can 'commit' suicide anymore, if someone fails, they aren't charged with a crime, it's treated as a medical issue where the treatment can involve being detained. That why someone can detained under the Mental Health Act - not because it's illegal - and many who've used and supported people with those services know that just being suicidal or attempting even repeatedly isn't often enough to get sectioned.

I've had suicidal ideation since I was 9, I'm fairly open on it, I've previously taken myself to hospital because of it. I was held in a room by myself for a few hours, had a nurse speak to me for about 5 minutes during that time which I remember fondly, and I was essentially held until someone could arrive to take me home. I've never been sectioned. I've checked my medical records, and that event isn't on there at least where I can see. I've known more than a few that've tried, I've had someone try in front of me, went to the hospital, was open about the situation - none of them have ever been sectioned. That care is often given to family and friends if they're willing to do so.

Society has shifted since and we're in the midst of social debates on when suicidal desires go from always a medical issue to sometimes a medical issue and sometimes a normal response. Society has moved around from the ideal that it should always be prevent and treated to the reality that much of the time, it isn't, to whether in some situations those desires being normal should mean they get medical assistance to do so. How and if that's going to resolve over time is up in the air.

Most people don't have the option of travelling to end their life somewhere else. Going to Dignitas costs around £15k. It should be a right afforded to everyone.

I find the people who want to take the choice away from terminally ill people utterly abhorrent. There's a reason why societies that are acknowledged as the most civilised already permit this. We shouldn't let other people dictate anyone's manner of death but their own.

I agree. I think there's quire a few people who object to AD because they don't know much about it and they haven't had the experience of a loved one going through a long degenerative illness like dementia.

I've worked in care homes where I'm very sure many of the people there would chose AD if it was an option. Not because the care is terrible, although it often is especially if you can't afford to go into one of the better places, but because the only people who benefit from the current system are the owners of the care homes.

But why should it be?

Giving birth is unpredictable, uncertain, uncomfortable and messy - and we are heavily using the human kind's knowledge to make it less so - screening the most uncertain cases, CS, pain relief.

Why is this different?

Let's be realistic.

There will never be "properly government-funded palliative and hospice services that can guarantee reliability, equity, and genuine choice," never. And there is no mass of voters requesting this/voting on this. The fundraising based services will shrink even further.

What now? Should people even in the most clearcut cases be forced to suffer and block the limited resources doing so?

Sorry about your mum .

Death is often unpleasant though sadly. Hcps should do their job properly and make sure patients are medicated effectively. If they can't take oral meds than a syringe driver should always be used to keep people comfortable.

You can end your life whenever you choose

@AmberTigerEyes

How can you end your life if you are bedridden in hospital? Or bedridden at home?
Also if someone commits suicidal, what about the consequences for those who find them?

Pets aren’t human, they are property and don’t need to consent to their death. You can’t compare the 2.