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’m watching my mum slowly die. She wouldn’t have wanted it. All of my parents money has gone into maintaining her life. Of course it’s theirs to spend, but it’s not how they wanted their ending to be like… she is aware and doesn’t like it either.

im going to opt out by my choice. Will tidy up affairs. The DC will know of my plans in general terms but I’m not having some right to life moron dictating my end.

Well knowing that they aren’t going to be professional trouble or imprisoned probably helps. Medics have become very risk averse, possibly thanks to Dr Shipman. No one wants to risk being accused of killing off patients. In years gone by it was seen as reasonable to take the patient from the pain by giving them a lot of pain relief if necessary even if it sped their death. Doesn’t seem to be the case now.

I worked in a care home and doctors would often refuse drivers for dying patients as not in enough pain. There was almost an implication that it’d be the easy way out for staff. The distress for patients and families was something to be endured.

Excellent post by @Ambienteamber It really illustrates the need for both improvements in palliative care and the option for AD if it is wanted.

I used to support it. In fact one of my relatives was euthanised when dying from liver cancer, this was in the Netherlands.

I feel it has changed from giving people a more comfortable death, to being an option for a lack of social care, mental illness support etc. I believe in Canada it’s been offered to the poor and homeless.

The safeguards will always be inadequate.

A Bill could be passed by people with the best of intentions. But who would inherit it?

Imagine a Reform Party government (shudder). Do you think they would continue to safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable? Stand up for those who cannot contribute financially to our economy? Champion the poor, marginalised or mentally ill against coercion into assisted suicide?

This Bill is a watershed moment and other countries have proved the slippery slope argument.

And yes, unfortunately, I have witnessed the end of life of loved ones. It was awful.

But with the distance of a few years I'm glad that assisted suicide wasn't an option. Not only were they vulnerable but so was I as their advocate and I relied heavily on the advice of medical professionals to do what was right for them.
I can imagine I would have been influenced to make the 'kind' decision but regretted it later. The what if's and guilt would be very hard to live with. Especially as I had multiple 'last days' with my Mum who rallied in between and got to see loved ones who travelled to see her. I could have made a choice to rob her of that and I find that chilling. End of life is not always a smooth and predictable decline.

My sympathies to everyone who has witnessed similar deaths. Whatever conclusion it brings you to, we do need compassion with each other in these discussions.

I've seen lots of people dying of dementia. Anyone who is worried about dying slowly in a care home should ensure they make an advanced directive saying they don't want to be given any antibiotics, just adequate pain relief.

Once upon a time pneumonia was known as 'the old man's friend' as it killed frail old people, comparatively painlessly. Now care home residents are given recurrent courses of antibiotics that prolong their lives.

Lots of people arguing the point that we are allowed to give our pets a peaceful ending, which is absolutely right in my mind.

However you must also realise that many animals are also put to sleep because there isn't the space or money to care for them, including dangerous animals who given unlimited resources could be cared for safely to live out their lives.

Not all animals are euthanised for their own good.

Don't be silly, it's a turn of phrase. I'm both disabled and depressed and I'm not getting into a tizzy over semantics.

OK but we can’t just be idealistic when millions of adult lives will be at stake. These good principles would have to work safely and fairly in the real world context that they would be used in. I don’t see any evidence for that happening , I see lots of evidence for the opposite happening.

Everybody has the same rights to autonomy, I agree with you. But meanwhile right now, whole swathes of the population who have just as much right to autonomy as the individuals you mention, are already incredibly vulnerable and unsupported in their lifetimes. That’s not something a lot of voting parliamentarians will admit to but it’s completely true.

Those vulnerable people in future would be pressured or forced against their wishes and bodily autonomy to ‘choose’ to die early. So my fear of legal assisted dying comes from the everyday, unchanging reality of lack of state support for the vulnerable in the UK. AD means that some people would get to have autonomy yes, but only at a new expense, of others’ autonomy. We shouldn’t risk that.

My mum had a stroke, she was given a few weeks to live and she suffered and lost all dignity as well.

She couldn't have chosen to end her life, even if available and in all honesty, i'm glad that wasn't an option, we shared many very close moments in those last 3 weeks she lived for.

She stopped eating then in her last 2 days, no fluids, just a wet sponge to keep her mouth moist.

The hospital was brilliant, nothing but palliative medication, no interventions for food or a chest infection she acquired.

Supporters should think carefully because i think a PM like Boris Johnson who said let the bodies pile high, would have no compunction to expand the original bills definition.

Its shameful that Hospices have fund their very existence via charity, this needs fixing first before AD is considered, so many people either don't get a hospice or have to travel long distance to get into one.

Exactly. Did we all forget that in the pandemic people with learning disabilities and neurodevelopmental disorders were effectively DNR when it absolutely was not necessary or ethical.

This is just a cost saving tactic, because it won't stop at adults in with terminal illness. It will be extended to many others, and some of those will be easily manipulated and mentally vulnerable.

Vulnerable people are never going to be supported perfectly in society. They never have been and never will be. There simply isn't enough resource to go around to facilitate this. I see this argument all the time around abortion and yet the support is never ever put in place to give women a totally free choice. I don't know why people even think this is possible when we don't have total freedom of choice in any area of our lives. Many of us are stuck doing jobs we hate, with less/more children than we would ideally like, living in areas we despise because of constraints that are often behind our control. Eutopia doesn't exist for anyone. For some, the world is very cruel indeed and it is wrong to make people suffer in it just because in a perfect world their lives would be better and potentially worth living.

Coercion is one thing, but we need to be careful that we don't try to take away people's autonomy on the basis that their decisions aren't being made in perfect circumstances. No decisions ever are! Unless you are going to make the life changing differences that will change someone's mind that AD isn't the solution then you are effectively ignoring their wishes and making them live in misery and despair. You are essentially forcing them to live in a bid to stop people potentially pressurising them to die. You are in no position to claim that this is the lesser of the two evils unless you are living their life and truly understand their suffering.

It isn't 'just' a cost saving tactic. There is a clear and obvious need for some form of AD to meet the needs of people that are suffering and don't want to live anymore. Of course there is a risk that AD could be misused but it is completely erroneous to suggest that this is the main reason people want AD to be accessible in the UK.

Next, Carr meets a moderately disabled man who applied for Maid when he became homeless (he later changed his mind when a crowdfunder paid his debts). Non-terminal cases can be granted help to die in 90 days, we learn. In contrast, social housing waiting lists can take up to a decade

The above is an extract from a Guardian review of the documentary by Liz Carr. The above situation was in Canada.

I used to be very pro AD (with restrictions and safeguards) but now I'm not so sure. However well controlled it may start out, there will be amendments, relaxations, challenges and new precedents.... I worry about disabled people and those with mental ill health, very unwell or elderly people with relatives, NOKs and POAs whose motives are more selfish than caring.
I'm terrified for my daughter who is a young adult with ASD, ADHD, anxiety and serious depression; what will happen when we're no longer around to look after her? What might she be pressured into doing for the sake of economy?

Palliative care is crap, but won't be improved if people can be asked, persuaded or manipulated into AD by HCPs or family members, and be made to feel that their continued suffering is their choice.

Surely the answer to painful undignified suffering, mental ill health, chronic pain or mental ill health is better treatment and end of life care, not bumping people off?

No not for members of the public but those running or rather having to fund services.... ?

After all, the Govt doesn't care about people in agony who cannot get dental treatment or people in huge pain but cannot get an operation to mitigate this.... but they can find the time to debate AD.

Getting rid of people in the last 6 months of life? why 6 months? easily extend this to 12 or 24 years and save the NHS a fortune.

Candaceowens · Yesterday 14:34
I am against both

You have no right to dictate what others do with their own bodies. If you are against both, that’s fine, don’t choose them. What anyone else chooses is not your concern.

Actually, in the case of AD it absolutely is; because the legal situation that would allow the supposedly personal choice of assisted dying could, as has been explained a billionty times already, be abused or found to detrimental in other ways to many vulnerable people; and that could be any one of us at some point.

Where healthcare is state funded, a whole new culture of expectation and pressure around "not being a burden" to either family or on NHS resources could easily arise if AD becomes legal and normalised.

Of course there is a risk that AD could be misused

I don't think it's a risk. More like an eventuality. And sure on a personal level people may want assisted dying to end their own personal suffering but I think it's a really naive position to take if you think the government's motive isn't financial.

It's a further service that can be privatised through contracts, and means less funding will go to other resources meanwhile it's filling someone's pockets.

If those of us who want to go are allowed to go, then there will be a lotmore money available to pay for the care of those who don't want to avail themselves of a peaceful and dignified death at a time of their own choosing.

Of course their needs to be safeguards but we don't ban cars because some people speed or do other dangerous things that cause death.

We don't ban analgesia because some people abuse class A drugs. Or alcohol or gambling because of addictions.

We make it as safe as possible, and don't prevent others from making their own choices. No body is saying you have to do it.

EDIT (Oh, and offering it isn't cohersive. It's giving someone an option)

EDIT (Oh, and offering it isn't cohersive. It's giving someone an option)

Seriously? You have no problem with disabled people being offered death instead of disability aids, benefits or adjustments?

That's absolutely shocking.

But that’s the problem, religious people often believe that their beliefs and morals apply to YOU, so they will impose it on you whether you are interested or not.

TheFreaksShallInheritTheEarth · Today 11:20

EDIT (Oh, and offering it isn't cohersive. It's giving someone an option)
Seriously? You have no problem with disabled people being offered death instead of disability aids, benefits or adjustments?
That's absolutely shocking.

You don’t think that disabled people ought to have the same choice to end their life as able bodied people?

That’s absolutely shocking.

I find the lack of detail about how this will be enacted really worrying. I’ve been looking at Portugal which I think is the most recent country to bring AD (voted last year to start this year). their definition is

“medically assisted death is considered not to be punishable when it occurs by the decision of the adult person themselves, whose will is current and repeated, serious, free and informed, in a situation of great suffering, with a definitive injury of extreme severity or a serious and incurable illness, when practiced or assisted by health professionals”.

have we got a definition with that level of detail going before Parliament? I genuinely don’t know if I might have missed it

Eh? Did you read my post?
It was about people being offered AD without asking for or wanting it; nothing to do with choosing it.

Yes I did read your post.

Disabled people ought to be given the same options as everyone else.

Why should they not?