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

No one wants to “kill Granny” ffs!

Some people do. Maybe because they find it very distressing to watch her in pain, losing her dignity and independence, maybe because 'Granny wouldn't want her children's inheritance to be eaten up by care costs', or maybe Granny is simply an arsehole and they can't stand her.

It’s about MY right , OUR right to choose to die peacefully if you are terminally ill with less than 6 months to live.

ECtHR has ruled that this is not a right.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60448%22]}

If you are arguing for a change in the law to give you this right then you need to show how any new law would protect other people's already existing and well established human right to life.

research …
Overall, most people who accessed voluntary assisted dying had cancer (66.5% of cases). Neurological diseases were the second most common (8.1%), followed by heart (6.8%) and lung (4.9%) conditions.
( from Go gentle , research university of Ottawa)

What about the other 13.7%?

@PencilsInSpace

What would you ever be happy with or feel safe with because when I have discussed it with peole who are against I get the feeling they will be against for ever so no point in debating it in good "faith"

Human Rights are a social construct as is the current law. The fact that they exist in their current form doesn't mean that this is objectively the correct or even best set of laws or rights that humans could design. It's all entirely subjective.

In this context, we are in a circular debate. Yes the current UK law prohibits AD and allows you to euthanise pets or abort fetuses. Some countries have different laws around abortion and provide legal personhood from conception. It's all subjective and can be changed.

Article 2 ECHR has been legally tested and found to neither prohibit or give an automatic right for indidvial to access AD the same is true for Article 8 around autonomy. It is up to each individual country to balance these Articles, the associated rights and build in strong safeguards around AD. To be absolutely clear though ECHR does not ban AD. Again, this could all change so in itself doesn't prove AD is the right or wrong thing to implement.

Advocates of AD will engage with discussion around safeguards but they won't necessarily agree with you. This is about balance of risks and harms and your view on those risks and harms is often completely subjective. You may feel the risk of one person being coerced into a slightly earlier death is worth millions of people living longer than they want, often in immense discomfort and pain. I disagree. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to someone. We need all the checks and protections necessary to prevent coerced AD but we have to accept this won't be removed entirely. It is still worth implementing in my opinion despite this. Obviously in suggesting this then I am accepting the personal risk that I myself could potentially avoid a long and unpleasant death through being able to use AD but could also be coerced when I'm in a vulnerable state. I would still rather take the risk and allow AD.

The person themselves would be choosing to die, rather than someone putting them to sleep, like a pet. So it's not quite the same thing.

But the point people are making when they say this is... we do not allow pets to suffer. Sometimes human suffering cannot be alleviated in this way, because of the law.

My late first husband begged me to kill him, when he was dying of brain cancer. Mercifully, the doctors had a loose hand with the tranquilisers and painkillers after that. But I understand that doesn't work for everyone.

I would have held a pillow over his head rather than allow him to suffer, but I remember thinking it won't do the kids any good if their dad is dead and their mother in prison.

I’m amazed at this poll outcome. Killing a person and putting a pet to sleep (who has never had the ability to consent) are two entirely different things. I’m amazed people can equate their pets to their grandparents or relatives.

It is not about wanting to "kill Granny" (a throwback to Covid times that needs to feck off).
Granny has terminal cancer and faces pain and vomiting faeces in her final weeks. Or she has a neck cancer that means she could suddenly bleed to death at any time. Or a cancer that has eaten away at half her face already and she is in immense pain as well as suffering the fact she has half a face.

Granny is asking to be able to check out on her own terms. She does not want to jump off a car park or take a load of pills at home alone, or leave a body for someone to find. She wants to have her loved ones with her and go in a controlled manner, without worrying they would all be arrested for being there with her. Who would deny her that?

My ex had terminal brain cancer and because he was too weak to travel to Dignitas he died NIL by mouth and it took days for him to die. He was a young man in his early thirties.

YABVU

We don’t equate humans to pets. Why should any human suffer like my ex did? He wanted to die peacefully and was Sound of mind to make that decision - instead he died of dehydration and starvation- medicated out of his mind unable to recognise anyone.

Sorry to hear that. We do not put pets through that. If a pet is dying, we don't leave them to it for days/weeks. It is cruel and unfair.
But it seems to be ok to let a human go through that, and that same human is asking you not to allow it to happen.

Meant to uote @RumPidgeon

That’s appalling @RumPidgeon. It’s really shocking that someone should be allowed to endure that in an allegedly civilised country.

Why are you going on to me about men murdering women and calling it mercy killings? What’s that actually got to do with assisted dying? Surely if you want to murder your wife because you think you know better than she does about whether she should live, you are unlikely to be able to get her to convince medical professionals she wants to die? I am so confused. Do you think murderers don’t really want to do the murdering and are looking to outsource or something?

I have been wondering the same.
Violent killings of women, and are happening anyway regardless of any AD laws in place.

That is why there are safe guards.

You have never watched someone you love die painfully and slowly. You are so lucky

There is a lot of evidence that cannot be ignored.

Except there aren’t. The HoL tried to add some in, but the Leadbetter committee rejected every single one.

Did you know that in the UK AD bill voted on a self nominated proxy can sign on your behalf to consent for AD and there is no requirement for a doctor to physically tell you that an AD application has been made on your behalf? That the doctor, excuse me, any healthcare professional (the bill doesn’t even require a qualified nurse to administer it), can come to you and euthanise you? The proxy only has to say wink wink they signed for you, that you have verbally agreed or you nodded or blinked or did a thumbs up whatever and that means full steam ahead.

It was mentioned upthread the Canadian woman who told an AD assessor she did not want AD but palliative care. Her husband said he was experiencing carer fatigue put in an emergency request for AD for his wife, hours later she had been euthanised. And he’s not a murderer despite her being killed on his order, without her consent and against her express wishes. The state becomes complicit in murder and so permits it.

No, there isn’t.

It’s just people who want to cover the whole world in plastic and safeguarding instructions.

Can you post the guideline about that please. From the proposed AD guidelines.

Oh yes there is. A lot has been posted in this thread and others. I suggest you pull your head out of the sand and read some of it.

When my dog was pts it was a good death - he'd been spoilt for a week, he was relaxed and happy, and just drifted off. I though that's very much how I'd want to go. In contrast I have seen someone elderly die who was begging to die during his final days - that was inhumane. I also have had close relatives who very much wished to die rather than continue with their lifes as their quality of life declined. I wluld join dignitas if I was diagnosed with certain conditions. I think that option should be available in the UK, not just those able - financially and physically - to travel.

Here. Section 21 Signing by Proxy (p22 of the pdf)
The proxy merely says hand on heart the patient said they wanted it. And with the process being paper reviews and no interviews in person. Very easy to do a proxy to bump off a person, you only need to have known them for two years, you don’t even have to be next of kin.

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/61635/documents/6734

It’s very concerning when so many people throw out lines such as “we wouldn’t let a pet suffer” and “we don’t want a loved one to suffer”

all of these are to alleviate the feelings of the speaker and the watcher of the dying person. I have watched people dying and all the medical professionals tell me they are in pain and they patient themselves deny it. It is very dangerous when we try to advocate for euthanasia based on people saying that they think their loved one is suffering and they want to put them out of their misery

so dangerous.