To think people should not use 'we put pets to sleep' as an argument to allow assisted dying?

Are you aware of terrible reputation Canada's death industry has? Strict my foot.

The proposals for the UK bill was that the person has to self-administer.

I 100% support assistive death and I think its very frustrating that the law keeps being rejected.
If it is not in place when my time comes I will do it myself. We love our pets and dont want to see them suffer. We love our relatives and have to watch them suffer when noone wants that, not the patient, family or doctors.
Who in their right mind would say oh yes I would love to have the most painful drawn out death possible that will traumatise my family, noone!

We could equally say "Are you aware of the terrible reputation the NHS has?" No system works perfectly for everyone. You can see on posts here about the NHS that people have had a range of experiences - there are those who feel the NHS saved their lives against all odds, and those who feel they or their relatives have been appallingly treated. Both are valid based on the particular individual's experiences.

Yes this is true too. We are glossing over a lot of things with this simplistic pets analogy, which I think was the OPs original point. All of our decisions are loaded in so many ways with past experiences and worries about the future. This is a huge potential change and I'm glad people are talking so much about it to be honest. And I do think we need to take apart the word 'suffer' and stop with the glib pet analogy if we are to get anywhere.

You have ended a life. The baby will not be the same baby. You don't get to unabort your baby.

We haven't had AD before and yet we still under fund healthcare and palliative care. Arguably AD would reduce the costs associated with keeping people alive that don't want to be alive and this money could be used to improve the experience of those that want to live. It isn't a primary motivation of course but I don't think it's a foregone thing that AD would mean less money for healthcare either. It could go all kinds of different ways.

The fact that fetuses can be aborted doesn't mean that we treat miscarriage as insignificant or defund the care for disabled children who are born after screening when mothers have chosen to proceed with the pregnancy.

Add 'hasten' to 'suffer' in the list of words that needs to be thoroughly picked apart.

Yeah. Obviously a pet is classed as a piece of property so the owner has the right to choose to end the life of their animal. But when you think of animals in general in the wild they would die from another animal or natural causes.

This is true but in the kindest way as I am are this is emotive my friend died in the most horrendous way and no amount of good palliative care would have prevented that even if he had all the money in the world.

He was never going to be able to afford to go aboard to have his death assisted. This left him of the option to be scared for the two years he had left as he was fully aware of what was coming.

While people worry about equality there are humans dying in pain and are terrified of what's to come. I cant see where that is right.

Yes completely agree - whenever I see someone advance that argument and present it as some kind of mic drop I mark them down as a mental case and move on, not worth engaging.

Well yes. People do. I’m not sure what point you’re making? I mean, I see what you’re doing with the ‘killing’ term, but beyond that?

My first instinct was to say "oh fuck off is it"

But then I thought, thats not fair.

I guess maybe for some, but I have had 3 cats put to sleep - it had nothing to do with the cost, they were old and it was their time. They had declined, one to the point he couldn't climb on the litter tray. Every single time my heart broke to say goodbye. But I didnt want to keep them alive as they were

In each case the argument is the person in charge should get to decide. For a pet that's the owner, for a human it's the human. I'm fine with that as a principle. The problem then comes with all the safeguards we need for humans, because they do matter more.

I agree with the decision in this case.
righttolife.org.uk/news/two-year-old-child-has-died-by-euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-despite-doctors-initially-saying-reasonable-alternatives-remained
But what worries me as a Mother of a child with LD's/Autism etc is if you read my DD's medical and educational history, you wouldn't imagine it to be my DD, working full time, independent etc, during Covid she would have had a DNR put on her. If reform get in, we won't have the right to life. I worked in end of life care, when the Liverpool pathway was in existence, with a few tweakes, it was the right way to start to move towards assisted dying. People are choosing to dieoin other countries because there isn't suitable housing, or adequate benefits. I don't believe that it would take much to convince the public that most disabled people should either put up with how things are, or choose to die. It happened in the 1980s, single mums were blamed for their poverty, because they could have aborted.

Thank you for reflecting honestly on this. I would have made the same choice, for sure. But would we have a relative put to sleep because they couldn't get on to the toilet independently? Fuck off would we! Don't you think?

Edited to make a closer comparison: I would say EVEN IF they said they wanted to die, and had those mobility problems. We still wouldn't as a society say doctors should then euthanize them.

I think it's something that can be reasonably evoked as part of the overall argument. It obviously does not constitute the final word or decisive factor.

Why wouldn't you? If a medical professional checked and found that they were of sound mind and in the position to give informed consent then why wouldn't you listed to the relative in that position?

Some people care a great deal about independence and dignity. I wouldn't want someone having to help me go to toilet and wiping my arse. I would hate it and quite frankly doubt I would be getting any enjoyment from a life where that was necessary as what state would I be in if I couldn't use the toilet on my own? Why should my wish to die be ignored just because you don't see it as sufficient reason? Why does your desire to not have me euthanised trump my desire to be euthanised?

I do honestly think that should be a choice for the individual concerned. It reminds me of Daniel James rugby player who was left paralysed after a training accident and went to dignitas after 18 months. I’m not saying all people in his position should be euthanised. Just that to him his life was unbearable and we should be entitled to make that choice for ourselves.

Likewise.

So you think doctors should have to kill people who decide it's undignified to need to be changed?

This is what I mean by needing to pin down the term suffering.

I absolutely don't think you have the right to have the state do that for you. To be frank, you'd still be in a position to do it for yourself at that point. But I hear a lot of people in their 40s and 50s saying 'just take me out and shoot me when I'm old' and I just don't think they have the slightest clue what they're on about tbh. This is so so far from a tightly managed process for not prolonging life.

What about when the human, who can communicate, does communicate to say they want to die.

Currently watching a family member wither away in a home after attempting suicide in their 90s as they are losing their faculties and don’t like it. Very vocal that they’d like to die instead of soiling themselves in bed, not being able to hold a conversation most of the time, and being down right depressed that there is no prospect of it getting better (which there isn’t, they’re in their 90s, health deterioration is a sure bet).

I can’t see anything humane or dignified about keeping them alive because they no longer have access to the things required to successively end their own life.

The debated euthanasia bill wouldn’t have helped them anyway, but the whole thing is a travesty I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, my pet or my cherished family member.

People are choosing AD because of a lack of suitable housing? Really?

Doctors don’t have to perform abortions if they are morally opposed. I don’t see why AD would, or should be different.

I think it’s a really important debate to have and there are obviously strong feelings on both sides. But can we show the subject a little more respect than “…you think doctors should kill people’s who decide it’s undignified to be changed..”. I mean really? We are talking about real people in real situations here. And their families. And at the risk of going back to the animal comparison, you wouldn’t say to someone “oh, you had your cat killed, did you?” I think some respect is in order.

The reason you might hear people in their 40s and 50s come out with lines like 'just take me out and shoot me' though, is surely a kind of despair that there won't be any option in reality, and nor is the shooting idea really a goer. They know their kids won't be able to do that, so I think they very much do have 'the slightest clue what they're on about', especially as by that age they may well have seen their own parents in a pain and miserable with no way out of a suffering that someone else has decided in the abstract is acceptable - or even, in some arguments I've heard, somehow good or purifying for them!

It's because we know that if we get a shitty diagnosis there will be no options and no off-ramp until we've endured a lot of pain and unhappiness that we come out with glib lines like this.

Agreed. We very much know what we’re on about. Loads of us have seen a ‘bad death’ up close. It’s not pretty, and it’s not quick. And are well aware that it probably won’t be the last one.