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

Yeh that's madness

Re the bill it probably should be a free vote

I am 100 per cent against assisted dying, and pro better quality palliative care and support.

Completely agree with this. My belief is that it is totally inhumane not to have AD as an option for people with a terminal illness or terrible quality of life. I have loved ones with incurable cancer and Parkinson’s. I know that in one case there was a plan to end their own life before things became unbearable, but sudden deterioration meant the moment had passed and now they are in a nursing home, waiting for a long, painful drawn out death. The nursing home is a good one, but God’s blood I’d sooner end it myself than be there and I can only imagine how some of the other residents feel. My relative regrets ‘missing their chance’ and wishes they hadn’t waited so long. And so you sometimes end up with a situation where people kill themselves earlier than perhaps needs be, to avoid this situation.

With beloved pets the belief is that giving them a peaceful
end at the right time is the last kindness of a loving owner. The saying goes “Better a week early than a day late” so they don’t suffer. Why don’t humans deserve the option of a similar ending?

I'm against assisted dying and I cared for both parents through cancer.

I'm a Christian and I fully support this.

I think Wes Streeting's reasons for going against it are disgusting, as far as I understand it, his argument is, "our care in this country is so shit that people would rather die so I won't vote for people to be allowed to opt out of a slow and painful death."

It feels like if he's planning to fix palliative care, maybe they could have waited to have a vote on this so it was meaningful, and if he's not going to fix palliative care (which is how it comes across) maybe he should try another job.

What is happening in Canada then?

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6671721

In Canada an Army veteran and Paralympian applied to get a ramp for her house and was offered AD.

A few years ago I'd have supported the passing of this bill but, as pp have said, what's happened in Canada has really given me pause. The Critic has an article I read this morning, it's not behind a paywall if you want to find and read the whole thing. This is a quote from it

To help answer this question, it’s worth looking across the pond to Canada, a country not dissimilar to our own, which legalised “assisted dying” for the terminally ill in 2016. Last week, a committee of experts in law, medicine and nursing published the first official report on the operation of Canada’s Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) law in Ontario, the country’s most-populated province. Its findings are alarming.

The report’s authors noted that patients have accessed assisted death because they are poor and lack access to housing and said that vulnerable Canadians face “potential coercion” and “undue influence”. They also noted data showing that a disproportionate number of Canadians who died by “assisted dying” despite not being terminally ill (29 per cent) came from Ontario’s most deprived areas.

In Canada MAiD was originally introduced for the terminally ill. Once the law was in place individuals, who weren't eligible, sued and won the right to be killed by a Doctor. So, anyone worried the state won't kill them, might be better worrying that state won't help them lead a life of a quality that lets them want to live. This'll be poorer people, having money will always give you choices.

However, i do believe that no-one should be forced to live in unrelievable pain.

My husband has a life-limiting illness. He knows, no matter how good palliative care is, just how dreadful his death, and his final months, will be. He is adamant that he will not go through that.

He is in no hurry to die - he’s 8 years into this, and doing everything in his power to remain as healthy as possible for as long as possible - but without legal assisted dying in the UK, he will be forced to make the decision sooner than he otherwise might, as he won’t risk not being able to travel overseas in time, or putting me in a position where I have to risk criminal investigation for helping him.

We are not wealthy, but we have prioritised saving for him to travel for assisted dying, but even being able to do that makes us privileged compared to many.

What this legislation - and that of other countries we can go to - is proposing is not euthanasia. People have to be physically able to administer the drugs themselves; it’s assisted suicide, and ensures a better death for those who choose it than sneaking off with a a shedload of barbiturates and a bottle of gin, or some of the other routes the terminally ill take now.

i think those who are insisting that almost all jurisdictions that have shifted their stance on assisted dying since introducing it need to look a bit more carefully: for example, US states where this is legal have seen no reason to to amend their procedures, and the law proposed here is based on the very long-standing Oregon model. It’s also worth considering why countries that have changed their legislation have done so - amendments aren’t necessarily bad.

if what anyone is worried about is the ‘slippery slope’ argument (which I think is fallacious) then campaign against that; campaign for tight controls, effective checks and balances, preventing coercion, well-resourced palliative care (whilst recognising that there will always be people like my husband whom it won’t help), but not passing this legislation wont be prolonging lives, but deaths, for those who wish otherwise, and more grief for those of us who love them. .

The problem is you make that decision for your dog as your it's owner. Who makes the decision for the human and at what point do you consider the criteria to have been met / them to have enough understanding left etc?
Do I think your Dad deserved the dignity of a quick syringe and falling asleep pain free? Absolutely and I'm sorry he and you had to go through what you all did.

But what about the person also with dementia who doesn't understand? What about the person who thinks it's bearable but her kids are pressuring her? What about the person who could come home but has no family to care for them, or feels guilty spending the inheritance on care home fees? Or the people who aren't terminal but are depressed? Or have personality disorders which make it harder for them to understand? People with significant learning difficulties or disabilities who are also dying? Who decides? Could a parent decide that their child's quality of life is so poor they would be better off dead? There's so much that needs to be controlled to stop people being harmed against their will

This!

I’m so, so sorry you had to watch your poor Dad go through such a nightmare. I completely agree that if you haven’t lived through it then you just don’t have the first idea. 💐

I wouldn't be able to have it due to my religious beliefs, but I'd be then left relying on palliative care which they'll probably do away with if assisted dying becomes law. A death with no pain or other symptom relief isn't what most people would want for themselves. You'll have healthcare providers just shrugging their shoulders and telling you "well, you know what the answer is".

I can fully understand why most people would opt for it, but there must still be palliative care provision for those who don't or can't otherwise it'll be even worse than it is already.

Agree that end of life care, including hospices, need to be much better funded and prioritised.

However what I don’t understand is surely it is known when someone is in the process of dying - by the medical professionals. Isn’t that why they tell the family? I’ve heard reaching death can take days and days, without ANY hope of a recovery. I dont understand why a choice cannot be given at this stage.

As others have said, if I put a dog through a longer than necessary period of fading away over a couple of weeks, drugged, incapable of anything, I think I would be accused of cruelty. Let the animal go gently and peacefully would be the thing to do. Why humans aren’t allowed that is beyond me.

I support assisted dying, with tight precautions.

Others have already answered this. In addition, there are reports of suicide being offered to patients suffering from depression.

The suggestion that some will encourage their parents to AD in order to gain an inheritance just means that those people failed to bring up their children well. Poor parenting should not be used as a barrier to end suffering.

I think I am for this but with lots of safeguards in place. Although really I would prefer better end of life care so people don’t have to live with pain and suffering in their final days. And I assume it will be very expensive and not available on the NHS, so only the rich will be able to avoid the suffering. And obviously it won’t be available to people who have lost the ability to make decisions about their own care. But what about children? I’ve read newspaper stories of children and teenagers begging their parents to end their pain and it’s absolutely heartbreaking.

I like to think the vast vast majority of people would not want to kill a relative for money, that the relative either wouldn’t go along with it or would be judged not able to make a decision, and that safeguards would prevent it being used for legal murder

For anyone who doesn’t know, the current system is that patients receive a lot of morphine to knock them out then food and liquid are withdrawn which speeds up the process. So the patient essentially dies of dehydration when a doctor decides the end is near

anyone worried the state won't kill them, might be better worrying that state won't help them lead a life of a quality that lets them want to live.

Exactly this.

How much of assisted dying is actually free will and choice and how much of it is being backed into a corner because of a failing healthcare system? What does this mean for the future of healthcare and if this is passed will the government commit to also funding more services to help improve the quality of life of those suffering with chronic and terminal conditions or will they instead expect more and more people to choose to opt out of life so they don't have to bare any responsibility?

What conditions will qualify? What about the woman who won her case because of her crippling depression- why was she struggling so much with depression and what would stop this happening again instead of better funded mental health services, better working conditions and better pain management for those living with chronic pain?

Years ago I watched the Terry Pratchett documentary about dignitas and I was very much for assisted dying but I always assume that the government's motive for doing something is financial and if the cost of assisted dying is less than the cost of ongoing treatment and investment in better services and research then I am afraid that assisted dying will always be unethical and misused.

I'm pro assisted dying.

To Those who fear some may be coerced, you have my sympathy and understanding. Safe guard's must be in place.

To Those who say I don't want it, I say fine, don't have it. But don't deny my right to take this route.

I'm old and frail, I'm a "burden" I suppose. But I'm not concerned with that. I do what I can to minimise that burden (I have more "aids" than you could shake a stick at) and I've done my bit (paid my taxes willingly, brought up my now adult child) so What if I'm a burden? Our beloved dog is a "burden" in much the same way. Beautiful dog Has to be fed and watered, she not allowed out on her own, much like me 😁. none of us would hesitate to do her the final act of kindness if she needed it.

I want that same right.

As others have said, if you had the misfortune to witness a bad death, even second hand, it might change some minds.

The two are not mutually exclusive though, are they. Better quality palliative care is always desirable. But to what end if ultimately an individual feels the quality of life is poor and declining and and they would rather not put up with months / years of a worsening situation. Why should one be ‘forced’ to stay alive, even if it is in the best palliative care facility in the world with cold champagne on tap and every need attended to, if ultimately one feels there’s no purpose. I’d happily chose the “thanks but I’m checking out now” option in that situation, and I don’t see why anyone has the right to deny me that choice.

Just recently we lost a dear family friend from MND. He received all the palliative care possible, the care was fantastic but unfortunately not all pain and symptoms can be relieved.

He died a horrible death, in pain, with difficulty communicating and without a shred of dignity. He had wanted to go to dignitas, but the disease progressed too quickly for the lengthy arrangements to be made. It has been heartbreaking, as a medical professional all his life, he knew what was coming and wanted out, but our rigid laws instead put him through sheer hell.

I get so frustrated with those against a change in the law, I feel that if YOU don’t want an assisted death then don’t YOU have one. Please don’t try to deny others control over their lives due to some misplaced do-gooder sentiments about protecting vulnerable people, there will be adequate safeguards in place.

Who says we haven't, I have buried nearly all my family.

I watched them live and die... their life (which they fought for) was worth existing.

A lot of people are only thinking of their own feelings of upset at things not the patient life. Lots of things aren't nice to think about, remember, watch, care for but it doesn't mean death is better for the PATIENT. Its like how it can be horrific to watch things like childbirth, a painful thing but in it you just focused on get through it.

Look at people on this thread saying stupid abelist shit like there is 'I saw my grandma theres no dignity, when I'm old and incontinent shoot me' so lets kill every incontinent person?

Someone with a stoma etc... should just die, they must want to right because someone on mumsnet would feel so embarrassed by poo they thing they would want to die. Maybe everyone with IBS, UC or crones etc... its painful (sometimes agonizing) lifelong condition often with no magic cure and it can cause incontinence so not worth living.

What about those with learning difficulties, severe autism, brain damage that have incontinence and also can't talk or remember things... should they die?

Lots of the shit that people are applying is THEIR feelings about it as not the patient. As a disabled person (with brain damage and bladder damage btw) who has been through a near death (they prepped my family and said goodbyes) agonizing acute medical situation I'm not embarrassed from what happened and don't want to die, I want to LIVE, I wanted to live during it and now even if it hurts at times.

Very few people outside of those dealing with depression actually WANT to just die.

From what I briefly heard on the news this morning, prior to becoming Health secretary Streeting was for AD, but having more in-depth knowledge now of the NHS end of life care (your last paragraph) is the reason he’s changed his mind.

I do support it, if it’s a choice made by someone with full legal capacity with a life limiting illness. People who don’t want it don’t have to choose it but they shouldn’t get to veto other people’s right to choose. Clearly safeguards are necessary, but if other countries manage it why can’t we.

I agree with it being an important matter of conscience it should be a free vote and respect the Health Secretary’s right to vote against it.

It is also not a substitute for good palliative care

I’m for it with proper safeguards.
My dad was in a nursing home for the last couple of years of his life. No dementia at all but no quality of life. Every time we went to visit he would beg my mum to help him die - he just didn’t want to be there - was in physical pain and basically waiting to die. He had a specific hobby which he could no longer do or enjoy as he was stuck in the bed pretty much 24/7. He didn’t like watching tv so was just lying there when we weren’t there. It was so sad. He would definitely have chosen assisted dying.