AIBU to see the government vote against assisted Dying, as preventing personal choice in how we might want to die?

I agree on both counts - but it's already been stated in this discussion and is used often by those who disagree with the AD principle.

Ooh, let's see. Providing good, funded palliative care and providing expensive treatment v making people feel guilty in needing help and bumping off people with serious diseases or conditions in fast order?

There's no such thing as an easy death and don't say that there is because there's no proof that there is. Do you just want people's life to be so crap that they want to die?

That bill would have been the thin end of the wedge.

This is fantastic news, I didn't realise this had happened! YABU who gives you the right, or anyone else's to take someone's life.

I expect it’s incredibly difficult and isn’t really relevant in the AD debate.

Yep, because they haven't actually seen it themselves, a good proportions of suicides I've attended to professionally would have come under the banner of MAID, all died alone, distressing and most found by family.

I get so 'pissed' with people that say "well suicide is legal". Do these people have any idea how difficult it is to commit suicide, the stigma it brings on families and the violent methods that inevitably end up traumatising others (as the ones you can do alone invariably fail). You'd then start moaning about trains being delayed or bodies being found in rivers.

AD should be a choice for anyone who is of sound mind.

But you wouldn't presumably have opted for it when you were young and had a chance of recovery to a good functioning baseline. This is about personal choicem bodily autonomy and pragmatic decision making.

Also why do you think sepsis would be an agonising death?

And refusing life extending treatment does not exclude you from palliative care, symptoms management treatment.

I would like good palliative care. It probably needs to be improved. But what I’ve read so often from medical professionals is that at the end of life and in terminal diseases, not all pain and suffering can be prevented. That there are real medical limitations to what can be done. We’ve had posts even here on MN from those directly involved who explain that.

Refusing antibiotics can be a powerful and controlling tool at your/ your DH disposal, also it is totally reasonable to have morphine at home to manage terminal breathlessness and no allow people to push him in to going to hospital, unless that is what he wants..

Hm...there have been two times in my life where refusing antibiotics would have meant a certain death. Death that also would be the most agonisingly painful thing imaginable. Not to mention traumatising for anyone to witness.
The exact sort of thing where a suicide (assisted or otherwise) would make for a better option.
Whilst I'm healthy now, young still and recovered fully, I really could have done without knowing what dying in agony feels like. I'm terrified of something like that being my actual last days on this earth.

The perfect world I'm talking about would include no expense spared medical treatment, social and palliative care, with no trace of undue influence from any party. If all of these criteria were met, I don't believe any reasonable person would wish a painful death on anyone. In the real world, even the most robust legal safeguards could and would be circumvented which is why I'm vehemently against state-sanctioned assisted dying.

You can have both high quality palliative care followed by MAID, palliative care isn't simply End of life care, it can be for some period before (maybe 6months, maybe 3 years depending on the ocndition and symptoms).

I'm curious too, as I have the same feelings when i read these threads.

All this fear of wholesale murder when the reality is the NHS won't let people with severe dementia die of a urinary or respiratory infection frequently prefering to drag them in to A&E, a unfamiliar and distressing environment, and subject them to blood tests and the IV access required for IV antibiotics, because it is a 'reversible cause'.

Why do the rest of us straightforward people who want this always have to be prevented by the “vulnerable”. I think we all need to register our wants way before we get anything! Then there’s no coercion in the later stages. I’m totally fed up with other people controlling my wishes. Plus, all this crap about improving palliative care! I don’t want that. Not interested. I’d be off to Switzerland and I can afford it. I’m lucky I guess. It’s very sad for poorer people to suffer because of a minority.

My dad had hospice care - it was the last thing I could do for him, and it was brilliant. Made such a difference to us all.

I’m not sure if you’re for or against AD from this post.

MN is such a window into how people form judgements on limited information and experience.
I am often torn between hysterical laughter and despair for humanity.

And? If that’s their reasoning and the conclusion they came to, then it should be respected.

So just bring it in as an opt in scheme the way organ donation was for many decades. Whilst you have the mental capacity to do so you can opt in in case you want it later, if you fail to do so during this time your forfeit your 'right' to ever have it as an option. Simple. Sadly it would mean it isn't available to anyone who loses their capacity during childhood, or has already lost it before the legislation comes in.

I have terminal cancer and I would vote against assisted dying.

I am also disabled unrelated to my cancer, I am a retired nurse and have nursed family members in the period leading to their death so I feel I have a fair amount of experience to be able to comment.

I think there is far too much room for abuse both deliberate and simply pragmatic over use because there is not enough care for those of us in need.

I think what is needed is increased funding for palliative and so called social care, not assisted dying.

In principle it sounds very humane to be able to choose your own death but the practicalities are far more complex than have been written into the proposed bill.

But why are we not allowing people to make that choice? If I don't want to be a financial or care burden for my kids or the state, why isn't that a good enough reason to allow me to end things as and when I choose? Just because some people may think life at any cost, in Amy state is better than death, if I do not, why should I be held to someone else's view?

We cant just use the idea that suicide isn't illegal so just let people do it because without expert guidance, suicide could be painful, messy and a failure, leaving a far far worse situation than a calm, controlled end.

If we have assisted suicide it will potentially affect anyone, including some very vulnerable members of society. You can’t pretend its just an entirely personal option which you have been deprived of. The implications go far beyond that.

This is naive. There are many ways to influence another person’s decisions, hence why we have laws against coercive control. Did you read the statistics from the Canadian study quoted in the Guardian above showing how many people chose suicide partly because they felt they were a burden to others?

Then they need to do some more research before they vote, as that is what happens to many people currently.

Everyone should have access to high quality palliative care as well as the choice of MAID.

Unlike you i don’t think people that voted against the bill actually wants anyone to die a painful death alone

I disagree. Many people are strongly against assisted dying/assisted suicide in all manifestations.