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

She is in the US, but there is a great YouTube channel by someone called Hospice Nurse Julie who explains all this sort of stuff, the process of dying, why certain things happen and why some the staff do certain things.
I think in a lot of cases, death/dying is taboo and no one talks about it... so when you are dealing with it, it is strange and scary, and sometime parts of it makes no sense.

My ex watched his DM die... and he was very upset that she was seen to struggle to breath and that no one was doing anything. It was agonal breathing, and very normal in the dying process and she was totally unaware... yet no one explained that to him.

No I mean about having water on the table but can't drink and it being torture.
So much about that is inaccurate. We move water if we don't think a patient can cope due to reduced conscious level etc at end of life. If the person can manage sips and drinks ie not unconscious then of course that's what they have.

We judge that hour by hour day by day

Fair comment, but is there never a situation where a person is conscious and capable of drinking but unable to communicate that they need to drink? Genuine question.

Yes frequently but they would be offered sips with a beaker if conscious and able to swallow

When someone is dying and in the last days of life they are unlikely to have a safe swallow.

That means if they drink water it may go into their lungs.

It may also increase end of life secretions.

I've had to stop family members giving their dying loved ones a drink because it would cause distress or aspiration.

That said mouth care is very important and there are ways to help if the dying persons mouth is dry.

Expands to cover who, in what situations? This is what most of us are saying. We all think it will over time expand to cover more people. We do not want that. If I could be persuaded that itll be for terminally Ill people and only them. Those with say a year to live or less. I'd be all for it.
I'm not all for it expanding. All I can see is pregnant 20 year old me wanting to die. If this law comes into being, many other pregnant 20+ year olds will also want to die. Will they be allowed? Will they have to give birth first? What if its ante natal depression, what if its post natal depression? Where will services these people need be? After all if it's easy enough to die, we wont need more than the basic services. No counselling, just off to the suicide room.

And as an aside, who will deliver the mechanism to all these people. I'd be very worried about people who volunteer to kill people. I know I couldn't do it. Whats to prevent those who will do this job from deliberately fucking up and causing more pain, distress etc just before the death.

People do not have enough of an understanding about what death and dying actually looks like.

End of life conversations are not happening.

So many people get upset about what they see as cruel treatment, starvation and deprivation of liberties that is actually all just part of the process.

We need to be having conversations and education about the mechanisms of a body shutting down.

It's an emotional time but if people understood it could be much less traumatic

I am not religious but I want it, seen too many of my parents/grandparents die a terrible, painful death.

It is a myth that euthanasia is painless and dignified. There is absolutely no evidence to show that it is either. But there is plenty of evidence to show that it is neither.

The following essay is taken from Jack King’s book `They Want To Kill Us’. Please read the book. The conspirators who are taking us into “net zero are lying and pushing the world into accepting euthanasia (aka doctor-assisted suicide). The media refuse to carry material questioning euthanasia. There is no debate in public. No one will interview Jack King. But in November 2024, MPs in Britain will discuss introducing euthanasia into Britain.

Hmm. A self published book by an author whose only other book is called "Net Zero Will Destroy You and Everything You Care About".

What credentials does he have that would mean he should be interviewed by the UK media?

Its a myth that natural death is always painless and dignified. Is there a reason why euthanasia is very different from being given an anaesthetic? Things can go wrong with either, but its very rare.

Assisted dying bill has now been published

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0012/240012.pdf

Happy to see Wes Streeting rightly saying that he’ll oppose this Bill because ‘end-of-life care is currently not good enough to give people a real choice’ in the BBC article below. Powerful acknowledgment of the reality from a Health Secretary.

Unrealistic response from Kim Leadbeater MP saying we must both improve end of life care and provide assisted dying.

Meanwhile back in the real world, we all know that no expensive improvements will be offered to palliative care. That hasn’t happened when AD isn't legally available. Why would palliative care suddenly be heavily invested in when AD is available?
So lot of pressure of different kinds would be put on many vulnerable people to use assisted dying, if it became legal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c154pwlv4epo

Given the delays in the High Court, how quickly is authority going to be given? plus as the med's have to be self administered, this will only those with quite a lot of independence will be considered & these will be the very people who may be subject to pressure to "do the right thing"

Hospice funding has been cut under the Tories and the new Labour Govt haven't even said they will make good, let alone fund it to the levels required.

I also don't agree with not including those who are suffering great pain but not EOL.

the 'bill just seems to be a massive compromise and that means bad law imho.

It's not that Hospice funding has been cut because they aren't directly funded.
CCG funding has been cut. CCG's buy hospice services. This payment barely covers the cost of the nursing care provided by Hospices. It doesn't touch actually running costs, medication etc.
CCG's know that Hospices make up massive shortfalls with charity provision, there is no incentive for them to pay more so when their budgets are cut they just cut their payments to hospice because they know they will still do the job regardless.

Palliative care just isn't a priority

I would expect CCGs to stop buying hospice provision then and only the rich will be able to pay for palliative care in the future. It's going to go the way of dental provision. People will be told that palliative care isn't needed anymore due to having a vialable (and cheaper) alternative. People who refuse (for whatever reason) AD will be subjected to shrugs and paracetamol.

It's a scary place for hospices right now.
All palliative care staff have been talking in depth about this bill for a long time.
What worries me is the pressure groups already saying the bill doesn't cover enough.
It strongly indicates that what ever is passed will never be enough for some people

What sort of things are they complaining it doesn't cover?

This does feel like the top of a slippery slope and pretty frightening to me.

I don't think the bill covers enough, all those people with illnesses that will be terminal but have to wait until they are told they only have 6 months that could means years of pain before then

Days before my mother died she asked for a drink and I put the straw in to her mouth. She sucked the drink in to her mouth but could not swallow so it went down her front.

The nurses suggested they deliver any drinks rather than family.

The bill’s sponsors claim that they are acting on behalf of patients who are dying and suffering and likely to die within six months.
The wording of the bill means that two doctors and a judge will be able to enable “mentally competent terminally ill adults” to commit suicide with the help of a health care specialist.
As a doctor, I think this is a rubbishy bill which is badly worded and enormously dangerous. I think the bill’s sponsors and supporters are badly advised.
First, who is going to decide who is or is not mentally competent?
And, second, who is going to decide who is or is not terminally ill?
The definition of “mental competence” is absurdly woolly. I have stood in a hospital ward as so-called experts tried to assess the mental competence of patients. A particularly stupid “expert” labelled my mother as mentally competent even though she didn’t recognise me or my father and had no idea what either of us did for a living. At one point my mother guessed that both my father and I were teachers. “That’s close enough,” said the “expert” who then declared my mother “mentally competent.” If the euthanasia bill had been law, they’d have let my mother (suffering from dementia associated with Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus) sign up for death.
The definition of “terminally ill” is also nonsensical.
When I was a general practitioner, I knew at least two patients who were labelled as terminally ill (or, in the modern parlance, as terminally terminally ill).
Both patients lived for years after they had been labelled terminally ill. Both went on to have full lives. I suspect that both would have agreed to commit suicide if the option had been available. And what about misdiagnoses - something that is happening more and more now that doctors try to diagnose remotely? And for the record, I was diagnosed with a terminal illness 40 years ago.
It is impossible ever to say that a patient has less than six months to live. In my professional judgement (founded on real experience), any doctor who makes such a prediction is a dangerous fool.
The argument against allowing euthanasia is the same as the argument against capital punishment: you can never be sure that you aren’t making a mistake. If this euthanasia bill is passed many mistakes will be made.
And there’s another problem.
Britain is currently a member of the European Convention of Human Rights (a misnamed body if ever there was one).
If the proposed UK bill is passed it will almost certainly breach European law by denying access to other people. Judges in Strasburg will probably widen the law to allow anyone to take advantage of the “please kill me” legislation.
Euthanasia in Britain (and indeed the rest of Europe) will then be as free as it is in Canada where people with mental or physical health issues can sign up for euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide at the drop of a hat.
The British Government has paved the way for euthanasia by putting up national insurance taxes on hospices so that a good number will have to close - leaving genuinely terminally ill patients with nowhere to go for help, except to the official death camps.
If the House of Commons votes to legalise euthanasia in Britain it won’t be long before children, depressed people, the poor and the unemployed will be put to death (It’s already happening in other countries where euthanasia has been legalised). Children will be allowed to have themselves killed without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
And once euthanasia is widely available in Britain and the EU the killing spree will spread. Within five years there won’t be a country anywhere in the world where euthanasia isn’t legal.

I've lost too many people in awful painful ways. I think it's necessary, we'll do it for animals but not our loved ones.

Have you heard about what cancer does to the body before it kills it? Or people living with dementia whatever it's at the stage where they cannot move properly or control their bladder and bowels, when you can't have any entertainment and all they do is stare into the distance?

People with dementia will not be covered by this bill because they won’t have capacity to decide and i would think it would be very hard to say when they have 6 months to live

Shazam
What are the death camps you mention?

You have when working as a doctor done mental capacity assessments? They can be done formally by a trained practitioner. Though I think I take your point possibly that sometimes for eg a lawyer assesses a patient and says they have capacity but in our opinion they do not.
I'm not sure what you mean about hospices / the ones we use are nhs - and as you probably know these days hospices are only there to provide care for those with intractable symptoms needing specialist input f eg pain or vomiting / management of drains etc
Your posts seems a bit OTT for a medical doctor