They don't want us to have a choice over death do they?

[Hunnymonster1]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyl8jrvlo.amp

This is so bloody annoying why are we so backward compared to other countries? Other countries have this sorted like america.In some states, belgium, holland, Switzerland.
They are not gonna allow this to happen are they? Which means the rich will go and pay dignitas and the poor will suffer. I am starting to get so annoyed by the mps of this country
Am I being unreasonable into thinking that they are backwards and should have given maybe the British public a referendum on a subject matter so important to individual people. If not a ref why is our country so backwards

Come on, I want even just one person who is against assisted suicide to comment on this. Upthread I posted that anyone against it needs to read the case of Mark Van Dongen, there’s an excellent guardian article written by his father. He eventually was given assistance to die. I want any of you to read that and come back and tell me or anyone who is for assisted dying that you believe that he should have been left, laying a room, not being able to move while in constant and excruciating agony 24 hours a day for the rest of his natural life because of your weak arguments against assisted suicide, go on look and come back and tell me what you think, so far it’s been crickets from you all!!!!

As for the lady in Canada offered it before a mastectomy, well she is still here isn’t she? She wasn’t forced to kill herself. Do you at least all think we should be able to opt in and the rest of you can not have that choice written into your medical notes? It’s like organ donation, so many people do not receive life saving organ transplants because idiots start arguing things like “but what if they start whipping them out before I’m dead”.

I’ve always been for assisted suicide as an adult, I had a sniff of being in hospital in pain and three doses of morphine and other drugs did not dull it in the slightest, that was pancreatitis, I’m not having that at the end, for me or anyone. I’ve got my planned suicide method if i ever need it, but it would be stressful and awful, I’d rather die comfy in a bed, with no stress if I need it, same for anyone.

Now read about mark, and if you are still against it, you are awful!

Hospices here are not run by the state, although I believe they contribute part of the costs. There is a national organisation which represents all hospice services, the individual hospices are independently managed.

@Thommasina extremes and horrors that don't happen to the majority of people.

That even one person has to suffer a long agonising painful death that isn't necessary is enough for me to be in favour of AD.

You don't want it, fine. Die whichever way your final illness/condition takes you, be that months of unnecessary pain.
Don't take that choice away from others who do want to choose.

Exactly.

And what about people whose physical condition progresses quickly so the "option" of suicide is no longer possible but mentally they still have complete capacity to choose to go? Why endure months of pain when it's not what they want?

For those whose religious beliefs are that God grants life and only God can take it away, just think about this for a moment. God has also given people the skill, the medical knowledge and the drugs to alleviate suffering and bring an end to life, so who are we to refuse to use what God has provided?

Yep. I don't believe in god, but all the ones that do never have an adequate answer to this.

Like the tale of the priest who stayed with his church while flooding. Resisted the people who told him to leave, refused the rescue people in boat, refused the rescue from the spire, saying God would help him. He drowns, gets to heaven and says God, why did you let me drown? God says I sent rescuers, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want?

Who says it's not God's will to prevent suffering?

So then your positions should be that every person therefore has the right to make that decision for themselves!

Don't take away choices if you believe everyone has free will.

@midgetastic

Are you for real??? You want to stop anyone who actively chooses a humane and dignified death, after being given a terminal diagnosis, from passing on their estate to their loved ones?? Fuck me! 😱🤦‍♀️

Most of the people who need AD the most to avoid horrific suffering don’t qualify.

Dementia = no capacity to choose. Choke to death. Nice.

Incidentally, I’m buggered if I’ll be accused of murder for begging a doc to relieve the suffering of a family elder cos they’ve got a fiver in premium bonds.

I didn’t inherit from the cat who also deserved a good death.

As long as it is a REAL free will.

If your decision is based on lack of access to care, cost of care home (so impact on inheritance), social pressure, the repeated ‘but you know AD is still available to you’ or simply not having access to support (I’m thinking the case vulnerable people seeing the ‘doctors’ on their own mentioned upthread - a RL case in Canada), then it is not free will.

When people with the same disease will make different decisions because of their access to cash and support, then it’s not free will.

I'm not against assisted dying in principle. It must be very carefully legislated though. Some reports of elderly people in the Netherlands relocating across the German border. As you would if you came under social or familial pressure to opt for AD. Assuming you could afford to move....

HotTopicsWithImogen · Today 00:29

I don't want the society I am part of to sanction killing people.
As I said before, the reason we kill pets is because we own them. Nobody owns a person

I don’t want the society I am part of to sanction unbearable suffering. With many conditions, towards the end, no amount of palliative care can end that.

We own ourselves.

When I was at uni I lived with a final year medical student who brought me to a debate on assisted dying. It was for final year medical students who were months away from being qualified doctors, so you'd think they'd have given some thought to assisted dying.

Everyone was given a voting button and before the debate began they were asked to vote on whether they supported assisted dying or not. Two thirds were in favour and one third was against.

Then we listened to the debate, which had three speakers for and three speakers against, all highly intelligent, qualified people with relevant expertise.

At the end of the debate, we were asked to vote again. This time, two thirds were against and only one third were for, meaning that in the space of a one hour long debate during which the pros and cons were outlined against, at least a third of attendees had changed their mind.

I think this shows that it is really not a simple question and all the issues need to be discussed and debated at length. I genuinely don't know where I stand on the issue at the moment.

I think our ageing population is becoming a real issue from both an ethical and financial standpoint. From an ethical point of view, modern medicine means we CAN prolong people's lives where previously it would not have been possible, but SHOULD we? Should we be considering quality of life? But then who gets to decide whether someone still has quality of life or not? From a financial point of view, the cost to society of prolonging people's lives is absolutely enormous, which means there is less money to invest in children's education, or cancer treatment for young people. But it's incredibly difficult to have that conversation because even though we all understand that a pot of money can only be spent once, and if you spend it on one thing you can't spend it on something else, nobody wants to say we shouldn't be spending money keeping 90 year olds alive, because how do you put a financial value on someone's life?

The thing is I don't want my estate to go to pay for me to be kept alive in pain or not knowing who my loved ones are etc. if this isn't passed they are making me pay to be kept alive against my will. Being cynical here but I do wonder if they know that people with assets will want to pass that money on and will therefore choose AD. Many if those with assets are partly funding those without.

If they don't put this through then they need to be clearer on time frames for going after people for deprivation of assets. I'm nearly 60 and will start to pass on as much as I can whilst my children are young enough and I am active enough to enjoy that money. The government should not be allowed to make people pay to be kept alive against their will.

The counter argument to this is how do you know whether the person genuinely wishes to die or whether they feel they're doing the decent thing so as not to be a burden on their loved ones, or even whether an unscrupulous adult child, son in law or daughter in law has been twisting their arm.

Wanting something doesn't automatically give you a right to have it. As many others have pointed out, it's been disastrous in other countries.

Yes America is so forward thinking with this and its current treatment of women. They don't allow this for the good of the good of the people. They dont want disabled/ill people, they want more younger people that is all

You have always had a choice over death. I know three people (one a retired GP) who made use of that choice.

What the bill will do is protect those you leave behind from the consequences of assisting you in your decision.

But "they" are changing nothing so far as you and your choices are concerned.

From an ethical point of view, modern medicine means we CAN prolong people's lives where previously it would not have been possible, but SHOULD we? Should we be considering quality of life? But then who gets to decide whether someone still has quality of life or not? From a financial point of view, the cost to society of prolonging people's lives is absolutely enormous, which means there is less money to invest in children's education, or cancer treatment for young people.

There are really interesting questions @MissScarletInTheBallroom

I think the question of QoL is a really good one and one many people have to grapple with when faced with a terminal illness/dangerous surgery: how far do you want to go to stay alive knowing the risks and side effects.
Many many people chose life and treatment regardless. Actually if this is about cancer and a child , treatment will always be the answer, regardless of the impact (incl living what most would call no quality of life afterwards).
The very big risk is when you start having generalised statement about ‘a ing no quality of life’ when those are made by people OUTSIDE, the bystanders, usually the family who finds it heartbreaking to see their love ones struggling so much.
On a different (very!) scale, it’s my m mum being horrified at the idea I’m now using a wheelchair. She sees that as the most horrible thing in the world. As said before that life isn’t worth living if you have a stoma. And yet, my wheelchair means freedom for me. And people get to LIVE with a stoma bag.

So who is deciding what’s worth living for?
And how much pressure defining what’s a good QoL according to healthy people will have to those who are ill or disabled?

The financial side is obvious too and one of the great issues in that discussion.
Lets remember first that this doesn’t apply JUST to the elderly too.
And that we are already making decisions like this based on cost - when we decide which educations you can get in the NHS for example. Or when we don’t fund hospice care but rely on charities instead.

If the cost of looking after chronically ill people with ‘poor quality of life’ is too much, then is it that simply pushing AD is an easy way to reduce those costs?
We are afterall in one of the most disabling events we’ve seen. It’s not getting better. It would be an easy solution right?
Well apart that it is full on eugenic.

I wonder how people who are against AD it feel about abortion?

Abortion can be abused - women could use it as a form of birth control (not saying they do but it's certainly possible), men could coerce/force women into it, families could shame them into it. Or they could be offered one by a doctor due to serious abnormalities even though they don't want one,

Are any of these reasons to not offer abortions? If not then they're not reasons for preventing people from AD.

I'm against abortion after 8 weeks and I think you can take the morning after pill if contraception has failed. Yes you can be coerced into it but you're not ending a life you're preventing a potential life growing that would have life long effects on the mother.

I'm against AD because it just doesn't sit right with me, I don't think people should be able to choose death, death is a part of life. I am conflicted because my parents suffered and I sometimes think the death penalty should be brought back but ultimately I think it's not OK.

This is a really interesting issue actually. I'm anti ad and pro choice for abortion. In terms of coercion, the thing with abortion is it can go both ways, women are sometimes forced/coerced to have one and also forced/coerced to not have one.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom - surely you could put parameters around that. I mean if I don't know who anyone is, am smearing poo up the walls, can't take care of myself then that's enough.

Ive had a good life, if I reach an age I feel happy with life then it's up to me if I want to go a bit early surely. I would prefer my family to be a bit more comfortable than having to watch any money that they may get being paid to a care home and subsidising those that didn't bother to make effort to provide for themselves. The decision is not just about my life but my children's too.

I am against both