To think Gill Pharaoh had the ideal end of life

For sure. It may not look as peaceful as the loved ones would wish but it's got to be better than watching a conscious person die in pain asking to be put out of their misery.

I get this but maybe it is the lesser of two evils in some cases. It’s not like there’s an alternative painless dying process and death for people with certain conditions.

I do agree with you that people don't know what they are asking for with this subject. I count myself lucky in some ways to have seen a lot of death of large mammals, both healthy and unhealthy. It often really isn't pretty, and anyone who intends to be present at an assisted death does need to understand that.

I completely share your concern about oral drugs.

It usually is legally defined whether a country offers assisted dying I.e. administered by the patient or euthanasia administered by another like a Doctor by IV. I was simply clarifying for those who believe AD guarantees a discomfort free death isn't guaranteed because of increased complications caused by having to self administer and another not being legally allowed to administer via IV and bypass the stomach.

ETA: I'd also say that the negative perceptions of a palliative care death is usually due to the perception of the onlooker as well rather than the patient. For example you often see people say they couldn't bare to see their loved one go without water, and I've felt this too when witnessing it, but it's our perception as a non dying person that they must be in agony with thirst while not actually their experience. I agree with you the same about complications with AD, I just don't think people should assume there will be no complications and a guaranteed peaceful death compared to a non assisted death.

The difference between assisted dying and euthanasia is not one yet enshrined in law, I think. For me the difference would be that one is requested by the person dying and the other requested by someone else, but Google also suggests it's who is administering the medication. IV drugs are still assisted dying in that definition if the pump is activated by the patient.

I don't see why assisted dying should be oral only, it isn't in the Swiss clinics or other places. If oral drugs are less certain then I'm baffled that they are being suggested.

But even if oral methods are all that is being offered in the UK bill, I still consider it utterly inhumane to allow someone to die in pain when their death is inevitable and they request that their life be shortened, so I would still vote for it anyway.

My understanding is that most of the bad effects you have mentioned are bad only for the onlookers, the patient will normally be unconscious.

It really is.

You'll have to educate me here on why this isn't technically possible anymore?

Morphine pumps are set so that people can't overdose themselves. Medics who set them so that they could would leave themselves open to be prosecuted if the patient OD'd and died.

IV euthanasia and assisted dying are not the same process, they aren't terms you can use interchangable and the legal bill and complications I was referring to are regarding AD. With the AD bill you would not have the option of IV. I posted relevant info about AD from my own perspective as someone who supports it in principal but not in practice right now as I don't trust our system and I don't trust people's understanding of it when voting for it. You've demonstrated a lot of people's misconceptions around what is being campaigned for and shows people's opinions aren't that aligned. You also falsely accused me of posting wrong information to support an argument against AD, when actually it was just relevant about the method proposed in the UK and I even clarified in my original post I support the principal of assisted dying but I think people are uneducated around it which is dangerous.

I sincerely hope we return soon to the days when people on morphine self administration pumps could choose to overdose themselves.

You'll have to educate me here on why this isn't technically possible anymore?

What? There have been no such posts

I am not talking about the UK I am talking about assisted dying in general. You were telling me it doesn't compare with animals and I am saying it does.

I personally would not choose oral administration when iv is available.

I sincerely hope we return soon to the days when people on morphine self administration pumps could choose to overdose themselves.

For the third (?) time,.I presumed this is talking about AD bill on the UK which is not IV assisted, it's oral self administered which is why I mentioned the complication rate people seem unaware of because they're wrongly assuming either oral admin works as well as IV Euthanasia or they wrongly think AD is proposed to be IV. I don't know which you are, but clearly your position is clouding your ability to read my posts and do your own research as you don't seem to be following.

IV assisted dying is common in humans.

Are you giving your horse an oral tablet to take is the point? No, you're using a method that completely by passes the stomach which is not proposed with AD hence completely different complication rates. You seem to be selectively reading?

Why are you assuming oral administration? IV using bigger doses of the same or similar drugs to other animals is widely used.

I was simply saying when you list of characteristics which make up some people's every day lives and are manageable as cues for human euthanasia because we use them as reasons to euthanise dogs it muddies the waters. I get you mean for yourself but it's important to say that, not to say we euthanise pets when they get incontinent as a reason to support AD, that's all. Disabled people are ein danger enough as it is and really struggle to get care, and that kind of language unconciously adds to that.

You seem to have chosen to misread my post where I gently suggested you don't understand AD which is not IV Euthanasia hence they don't have the same effect. I also didn't get this from campaigns "against assisted dying" just my own general open minded research about assisted dying. You could probably benefit from doing so if you genuinely think we are euthanise horses in the same way someone would receive oral AD.

Leasbetter's Bill wasn't an attempt to reduce existing safeguarding around suicide. It's about legalising AD which is completely different. Yes, her bill amended the requirement for court approval with a multidisciplinary review panel but this doesn't necessarily weaken safeguarding. The core requirements fundamentally stayed the same and it is completely subjective whether court approval as opposed to enhanced medical safeguards is better or worse. The bill also interestingly increased protection for medical staff that are consciousness objectors so your idea that staff would be pressured into encouraging this is actually not supported by the changes made to the bill.

AD for children that have mental capacity and have less than 6 months to live. These children could be 16 or 17 and making fully informed decisions. Your fixed idea that death is worse than anything else that these 6nmonths could bring these poor children will never allow you to see that offering AD can be the compassionate thing to do. You must at least understand that the vast majority of people and MPs want what's best for terminally ill adults and children? Depicting them as monsters is unhelpful. This is a complex debate that centres around ethics and subjective and often spiritual views of life and death.

I too understand where you and Gordon Brown are coming from and this is a classic case of conflicting rights. One group wants the right to choose AD for themselves and others to prevent undignified and painful deaths and the other wants it banned as they don't believe sufficient safeguards can be implemented to stop this devaluation of life and coercion of people to choose AD. I think the risks and harm associated with not implementing AD outweigh the risks of implementing it. You think differently. Neither of us are monsters or definitively right or wrong. I think in situations like this we should go with the majority view as we live in a democracy and there is no clear obvious answer.

What about Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? As you’ll be aware, they debated it in Parliament in 2024 after Starmer said he’d give MPs a vote on it if they won the election. On 10 February 2025 Kim Leadbeater suggested removing the need for administration of assisted suicide to be overseen by the judiciary, which had originally been one of the key components of the safeguards for her bill. What is that if not an attempt to reduce safety legislation? Do you really have so much faith in them that they won’t attempt to remove other elements of safeguarding legislation from the bill? If you do, then nothing I say will change your mind. But I stand by my original point, which is that it’s not fear mongering to suggest that is what will happen, because attempts have already been made to do exactly that. How long would it be before staff at council run care homes are being encouraged to raise the possibility with their residents on the pretext that it’s just making residents aware of their options?

The House met for a second time on 13 June 2025, whereby an amendment to the bill which prevents medical professionals raising the procedure with people under 18 years old was passed by 259 votes to 216. That’s 216 MPs who think children should be offered help to die.

Gordon Brown said: "An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people, even if only subliminally". And I agree with him. It doesn’t stop me from understanding your point completely and understanding completely how horrific it is to watch your loved ones go through that. But I just can’t agree it’s the right thing to do.

My mum is 71 and is terrified of death. It was her birthday recently and she told me she hates birthdays now because it means she’s got less time to live 😢 I used to think that when people get old, they just accept death and resign themselves to the fact they might not have much longer on this earth. Speaking to my mum I’ve realised that’s not always the case.

I guess by that reasoning, one person’s perfect death is different to another’s.

It used to be quick in “the good old days!!” My great grandfather apparently fell in a ditch, caught a cold which turned into pneumonia. He took himself to bed and was dead within three days. Doesn’t sound like a bad way to go.

Humans have an innate sense of survival so it would be unusual for a 25 year old to be 'tired of life' as a stand alone reason to want to die. This is why the real reasons would need to be explored.

It can take longer than that for other people dependant on other health conditions and age.

If anyone at any age wants to die, let them. I don’t understand why we have to keep people alive at all costs? If a 25 year old has had enough of living, it’s their choice if they decide to end it.

My mother had dementia and spent the last few three years of her life in a care home. She died of pneumonia at 93 having been found unresponsive one morning. We were given the option of hospitalising and treating her but we decided against it. She passed away peacefully at around 1pm that day . BTW she never while of sound mind expressed a desire to be euthanised should she become incapacitated.