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

"We also need to provide proper end of life care. That would be proper pain management. "

Right there last part of my quote.
Clearly your family member did not receive either.
You all seem to think AD will be a lovely little option you can put on your wish list if things get bad.
You are ignoring the people who will have healthcare denied because AD is now a solution. AD will be pushed onto people because it suits budgets. Because we will erode the value of life.
I support people desperate to access healthcare and to live. I know for a fact they will be coerced into AD because they already face language from society that they are worthless and struggle daily to get the simplest of accommodations made because people are too selfish.
I absolutely believe there should be better end of life care and better pain management but AD is a completely different ball game.

See the problem you're having is you're stuck on care homes and terminal illness and are quite incapable of seeing the bigger picture of what this shit actually means.

If you can only see the little bits then nobody can make you understand.

That's how it read!

We do provide proper end of life care!

No we don’t.

Watched anyone who is doubly incontinent, unable to move, with Alzheimer’s or vascular dementia, scared and confused, still alive, no quality of life whatsoever but kept on this planet at vast expense?

Thats diabolical.

At this stage everyone wants that person to die. The person with Alzheimer’s, the family, and frankly yes, the tax payer.

If this was a dog or cat, it would be PTS.

Give people dignity in death.

How do you know that the majority of people want it? Was there a referendum I missed?

It’s such an emotive subject. A lot of the people I’ve heard arguing for it have seen their loved ones go through horrific pain and haven’t been able to do anything for them, or are in terrible pain themselves and I completely understand why they’d be in favour of it. But it’s a slippery slope. As much as the doctors and nurses and health care providers want to do their best for their patients, it always comes down to money. And would you put your trust and your faith in government to do what is best for you, regardless of cost? Because I bloody wouldn’t!

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 think that slippery slope means that the rich will be deemed worthy of staying alive because they can pay for their treatment, while the poor are considered a burden and ‘encouraged’ to terminate their lives.

It's not about keeping people alive in suffering, it's about providing good quality palliative care so that people do not want to die prematurely. It's about raising standards of living and improving mental health care so that people don't choose AD due to intolerable living conditions. People already have the right to refuse medical treatment, to go DNR, but with good palliative care and pain relief may not opt to die. The point so many people are making here is that we fear that with AD as an option there will be less pressure on the government to provide these things which will lead to poorer outcomes for everyone and many people opting for AD purely due to lack of these resources. So it's not as easy as saying I want the right to choose and it doesn't affect anyone else. The whole debate needs to quantify the negative impact against the positive and be honest about what we are prepared to accept in order for people to be able to choose AD. At the moment every advocate of AD insists that there will be no negative impacts on palliative care, no mistakes, no coercion, no shift in attitudes towards disability and no broadening of the criteria yet these things have happened in almost every other country it has been implemented so it is naive and imo dangerous not to accept that it will happen here.

I am firmly in the no camp to assisted suicide, believing that it will be a slippery slope. Even more so as the impact and knowledge of coercive control becomes apparent.

As with many things this is about how we balance rights, risks and harms.

It isn't all about providing good quality palliative care because some people want AD instead of this. Not because they have mental health issues and are incapable of making a good choice but because they think AD is the right decision for them at that time. It is so patronising to ignore this and just pretend that investment in healthcare etc solves the problem. It really really doesn't. Not to mention the fact that this investment is certainly not forthcoming in the current environment so it's all pie in the sky anyway. It's like saying we wouldn't need food banks if we could just give people enough money to buy enough food. This may be true but the provision of food banks is currently necessary. I would certainly argue the same for AD for as long as we have a system that allows people to die in the extreme pain I have witnessed.

I still think you are missing the point. I think the introduction of AD will make current palliative care options worse for everybody. I'm not talking about the status quo (although worth noting that hospice funding has been cut dramatically in recent years), I am saying that as a direct result of AD being put into law more people will suffer. I think the long term cumulative suffering will be greater overall if AD is in law than if it isn't. You may disagree, and that should be the debate.

So it is humane to pts an animal but not a human being?

there needs to be - and would be- sufficient checks and controls. Let’s not judge it assuming there wouldn’t be.

And what about the thing that happens every day in every hospital with no checks and balances and often no discussion with families. Doctors acting as god and deciding to withdraw treatment or adding DNR. Do the medical profession can decide but not the patient!

withdrawing food and water is a horrible way to die but obviously easier on the conscience for the medical staff involved.

And it should be public vote not the great and good (laugh) MPs who decide this.

But that would only be the case if we assume the pendulum swung completely the other way and people's desire to live as long as possible in a hospice was denied? That's quite a leap and something that many that are currently fighting for AD would reject completely as at the root of many people's views is the idea of bodily autonomy and the right to choose how you end your life. The choice of life should be supported in the same way that the choice to not carry on should be. Both are equally valid.

Many hospices currently get very limited government funding so I don't really understand why you think that hospice provision would automatically get worse.

You seem determined to misunderstand me. There are a number of reasons to think that harm could be done by introducing AD. They have been detailed numerous times here. In brief they are coercion, a (continued) decline in palliative care, a shift in the way society views sickness, disability and old age leading to an unspoken pressure to select AD and a reduction in the quality and availability of care, a broadening of the criteria to include vulnerable people such as children and those with mental health issues, and many more valid points that people have raised.
So, my opinion remains that the sum of all these risks would result, in time, to a greater amount of suffering in society than that relieved by the introduction of AD.
My opinion also remains that this argument cannot be characterised by both sides having a free and equal choice, because the whole of society will be impacted by either having, or not having AD in law.

If someone wants to end their own life because they are suffering an inhumane undignified lingering death and they want to take back some agency over the way that they die, then that is their right to make that choice.

I absolutely do hear what people are saying about the necessary checks and balances and the right to excellent palliative care and social infrastructure in place to ensure that they are able to remain as comfortable as possible for as long as possible.

Despite agreeing that yes this should be the gold standard of care offered to everyone, there is the sad fact that palliation can sometimes only relieve a proportion of someone's symptoms which become more and more difficult to effectively manage and may not be able to relieve suffering.

There is a limit sometimes as to how much the palliative and medical teams are able to make someone comfortable when they are in the final stages of a terminal illness. There is a reluctance towards prescribing controlled medication in some instances which I fundamentally disagree with and think that all possible measures can and should be taken to relieve terminal agitation and pain. I would want the choice for myself if ever I am in the same position and facing a painful protracted death.

So you want people to suffer so you can say 'I know best'

My life - my choice. Yes things should be in place to stop cohersion but, if someone is cohersed - they die THE END. Someone who is suffering but is denied the choice - suffering goes on and on and on.

Sorry, your arguments hold no sway with me

There are dozens of reports and inquiries proving this. The fact you don’t know means you haven’t bothered to think beyond yourself.

Yes things should be in place to stop cohersion but, if someone is cohersed - they die THE END.

You sound alarmingly blasé about that possibility... 🤔

My life - my choice

Selfish, only thinking about you, yourself. You don’t even realise the many possibilities when it would not be your choice, when you could be marginalised, left to rot, taken out with the rubbish and because of lack of care or support see it as the only way out. Which isn’t really ‘your’ choice, but an outcome you have been driven to as much as any sheep to the slaughter.

Hey? So if I’m dying of cancer and choose to end it early to save myself suffering you don’t think I should be able to leave my home to my daughter??? The government claim it instead?? Is that what you’re saying or have I misunderstood?

It wouldn’t be the children, it would be decided by 3 or 4 professionals, they would need to agree the person was terminal and had no quality of life.
I’ve known people who have parents who are so poorly and suffering it’s simply cruel. Spend months being tube fed, incontinent, can’t swallow solid food, is scared when his family visit because he didn’t know who they were…
Families should be able to refer their poorly relative for assessment, the issue will be though that the waiting list for assessment will be so bloody long people will die anyway before hitting the top of the waiting list!
I think people should have the power to die when terminally ill, BUT again the details of it would be impossible to manage fairly in the U.K… who funds the assessments, the clicks etc…. Once again it would be too costly for the average person!

I've not followed all the thread, what I have read has sometimes been nuanced and sometimes heartbreaking

Anyway, I happened across this new article in the Telegraph about regrets from some of the people who helped make MAiD law in Canada.

https://archive.ph/XjyTm this link will enable the article to be read despite the paywall.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/26/assisted-dying-abused-canada-admits-group-legalised/

I don't want to derail the thread but I feel the old slogan about abortion, 'safe, legal and rare', fits better with AD. It doesn't seem that's the case in Canada.

I have a close relative who is doubly incontinent. Can't eat without support. Has no idea who or where they are. Doesn't recognise anyone. Full on dementia.
Is this living?
Their body is healthy, too healthy, but there's no mind.
I am terrified, absolutely terrified that I will end up like this. Especially as it could be 20 years before I'm there myself And Especially as my whole life has been built on me being academic. It's not fair on my kids to let them see me disintegrate like that. I want the right to put myself down, humanely, as soon as my mind starts to go. Either that, or I drink myself to death and cost the NHS more in the process . I don't want to be kept alive if I'm no longer me. But even an AD bill won't go that far.

Well I happen to live in a country where AD is legal so I suspect I know a bit more than you do! And we did have a referendum.

I don't misunderstand you, I just disagree with you.

You have expressed your opinion that AD will lead to more harm and I have expressed mine, that I believe it will lead to less. Of course checks and balances should be put in place in any system but realistically both realities (where AD does and doesn't exist) will be imperfect.