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

I think you need to look at what's happening in Canada before you get too annoyed.

You can never totally protect the most vulnerable but this isn't a reason to infringe on everyone's rights and cause unimaginable suffering to those that would opt for AD.

I will use the abortion analogy again because it's important. Women are pressurised into having abortions they don't want on a daily basis. This might be due to an abusive partner or simply practical or financial reasons that means that the woman feels like they have no choice. Does this mean we should ban abortions? If not, then why is AD any different?

You demonstrated how a well-intended law to ease the suffering of people near the ends of their lives will be subjected to demand to open the scope to someone who doesn't want to sit in a nursing home chair but is in no pain and not near life's end. And then it will be subjected to more demand to open the scope still further. And we'll end up with disabled people opting for AD because they can't cope with poverty.

When my sister phoned me at 1am a couple of years back because she had £thousands of debt, couldn't see a way out of it, and had a fistful of codeine ready to take, should I have told her to take them? It's what she wanted to do at the time.

What about people with disabilities and high support needs autistic people,they may not have capacity to choose,or may not understand what they are being coerced in to .
How can we protect these members of society

That assumes everyone is pro choice.

I’ve seen elder care when someone is immobile, non verbal, doubly incontinent. Essentially they are hoisted up washed, dressed in a wheelchair, fed , sit, toileted, fed , sit , toileted, washed hoisted back into bed. What is it you’re expecting from elder care? They’re not miracle workers.

Just because I want to shuffle off a bit early rather than suffer from disease or the indignity of losing control of my body functions. Not for you, no problem but I don’t see why your opinions should outweigh mines. I’d like to see a referendum on this issue tbh.

If you truly believe in this mantra then you have to support AD even with all it's imperfections and pitfalls

I don't have to. AD puts at risk entire classes of living, breathing, born people in a way that abortion doesn't. They aren't comparable.

The me-me-me crowd don't care about them. That much is clear.

My Dad's end was quite sudden and he had been very clear about his wishes so we knew to say no extreme measures should be taken. He had had Alzheimers for a few years and we reaching a point where he was disappearing and we couldn't cope with at him home much much longer. His death at this time was what he wanted and, whilst a death of a loved one is always too soon, I am delighted he had such a quick and good death at the right time and I know it is exactly what he wanted. However there are very few people I know who say their loved ones' deaths were a Hollywood around the bed drifting off thing - whatever the death notices say. A lot of times it is, as previous posters have said, horrendous and traumatising.

My friend was diagnosed as terminal with cancer with a few months to live. She had tumours throughout her colon. The level of pain and sheer indignity she suffered through her final months was appalling. No-one should go through that. She had her family around her but it wasn't peaceful it was thrashing around, screaming and hallucinating

If the law does not support it, I shall be working out how I depart this life when I choose so I don't have to go through the same.

I have seen nothing to indicate that people can put forward a relative for AD... nothing.

I can not call Dignitas and ask my autistic DP to be considered.

But isnt a progressive society
One that puts it's vulnerable members first .
Finding a way to ensure the elderly,frail,and vulnerable are not disadvantaged by any new law ,must surely be our priority.
Otherwise,we are going backwards,not forwards

I don't really get the religious beliefs thing. Wouldn't your God/s mind you using pain relief then, as your pain was all part of Their plan? Why even look both ways before you cross the road? Maybe your God/s intend for you to be mown down by a double decker and by waiting to cross you're thwarting Their desired outcome? Surely one could argue that your God/s have allowed Assisted Dying to become a resource open to you, therefore it could be part of Their plan for you to make use of it?!

No, what is clear is that you don't care about the many many people that want to be able to choose a dignified and humane death. You don't care about their unnecessary suffering one jot. This is about a balance of risk and harms so stop trying to pretend that those who advocate for AD are self centred and not thinking of others. It's also important that we acknowledge that many disabled people support AD and want it for themselves. These are people capable of giving fully informed consent and should be infantilised and have their wishes ignored because you have decided what is best for them.

I don't think that's true. I very recently cared for somebody through terminal cancer and would have hated for them to feel pressure to opt for AD because they felt like a burden.

I think it's wrong to assume that the 'elderly, frail and vulnerable' are some homogeneous mass that all have the same view on AD. I would actually argue that people in these groups often stand to gain the most from AD as they are most likely ultimately to want to use it. I know both the elderly and frail relatives that have died recently in my family would have gladly chosen AD. It is absolutely harrowing to hear someone you love and care about insist that they 'just want to die' and to know that this is something that can't be granted to them even though there is no hope of recovery and no quality of life left to enjoy. They know there is only misery, pain and horror ahead. The problem is that by the time most of us get to this point, we are are in no position to put an end to things ourselves and we rely on a kind and compassionate society to do this for us. I simply can't accept that the anti-AD movement is selfless. It isn't.

I would support a Swiss-style model... if I didn't think that the Govt would relax the criteria and relax them and relax them.

The Swiss model works because Switzerland doesn't have an NHS. Their health care is by mandatory insurance purchase. As a consequence, the people making laws about AD aren't the ones having to pay for medical treatment of the people who don't want AD. In both Canada and the UK, Parliament makes the laws and the Govt, which is the majority party in Parliament, sets NHS funding and is looking to save cash, so there's a conflict of interest there.

Why am I the only poster who can see this difference between Switzerland and Canada?

Absolutely
But I'm taking about the ones who don't want AD
How will they be protected

I can see the difference, but some people seem to think that if we go down the AD route, it will be the Canadian model.
I hope it is the Swiss model.
There is the middle ground.. the one some US states have.

You write as though the disabled people who want to die are completely separate from the depressed people phoning the Sams or trying to get counselling. They aren't. You write as though the disabled people who want to die are completely separate from the people who are suicidal because of debts. They aren't. Canada has shown us that AD becomes a cheaper alternative to actually making someone's life worth living.

Suicide Prevention training became mandatory at my workplace in the last year. Norwich City FC held a "Minute's Unsilence" before kickoff on World Mental Health Day. Why bother, if suicide is OK?

NOT ONE SINGLE POSTER has answered me when I've asked on what grounds can I intervene to prevent someone from jumping off a bridge if AD is legalised. If we've decided as a society that suicide is OK, we no longer have any grounds to try to prevent anyone from doing it.

Because we have a Govt-funded healthcare system, it will end up like Canada as a cash-saving device. That's my point.

How do you know?
It might not. It is something worth talking about.

I know because that is what has happened in Canada, where they have Govt-funded health care.

Conflict of interest because treasury is part of the legislature, follow the money.

I came on here saying that AD was ok if it stopped someone having a painful death from suicide
But
We should be looking at what causes people to want to turn to suicide,like poverty and lack of adequate mental health care
People are wanting to die because something is wrong in their life
So a progressive society should be putting resources in to suicide prevention,increasing benefits to reduce poverty and increasing mental health resources

I don't understand why you can't see that this is about balancing harms. That overriding people's desire to die because you think that they aren't capable of making an informed decision causes immeasurable unnecessary pain and suffering.

You seem to determined to focus on those people that could request AD who arguably have something to live for. A depressed person can theoretically receive treatment and recover. Someone in debt can live a life behind their financial problems.

There are vulnerable, extremely poorly and often elderly people that know that their time is almost up. There is no recovery on the horizon and no happy days left. It is as stalk as that! Some people's situations are truly hopeless and they want to make a logical and sensible decision to end their life and end their suffering. It is inhumane to deny them this just because some people might use the legislation as another form of suicide. Suicide is already available to anyone that is that way inclined and you will never stop it happening. Of course as a society we should be trying to intervene where we can to convince people that life is worth living but ultimately it should always be someone's own decision as to whether this is actually the case. The alternative is that we push our value system and beliefs into everyone else and insist that life is always worth living no matter what. Who are we to do this? Why do we think we have this right and know better than the individuals themselves who are stuck in their reality day in day out.

To be absolutely clear: the "you wouldn't treat your dog like that" argument makes sense and, if we didn't have health care and social care funding determined by the same people who make the laws, I'd be 100% in favour of a Swiss model.

But the health and social care funding is determined by the same people who make the laws, and that means that entire classes of people who tend to have expensive health and social care needs are at risk. You don't have to be as direct as suggesting MAID to coerce someone into opting for it, just make sure that their life is shit enough.