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 the palliative and end of life nurses do one of the most important jobs in the world.

That's the reality though isn't it? You've surely seen all the stories just on this thread of people having to watch awful deaths because there was no other option.

Why is AD considered too risky to some when the alternative is thousands and thousands of people dying really painful, horrible deaths? There are risks with anything but do the risks here really outweigh the horrible deaths so many people are currently having to go through?

It's not like the options are AD or a lovely peaceful death where you just drift off in your own time. For many it's AD or drifting slowly into dementia where you get very confused, forget everyone you love, can't feed or toilet or do anything else for yourself, can't communicate where you are in pain or how you are feeling and die a horrible, horrible death.

People should be allowed the option even if others don't agree with it or want to take it, just like they should be allowed an abortion even if others don't agree with it.

There have been lots of reasons given here.

To those objecting, I assume you don't disapprove of advance directives? So, for example, when you have certain diseases or are of a certain age, no active treatment. No CPR. No intubation. No stimulants. No tube feeding. Just pain relief. It takes us back to a time not so long ago, when people were allowed to slip away quietly, without intervention. I think that was better tbh.

Same, I'd love the choice to die on the date of my choosing. But how do we prevent coercion?
Whats going to stop a motivated person coerce a family member to die soon?
How can you legislate for such scenarios?

Bear in mind we still have men coercing women into staying in abusive partnerships and marriages.

What will stop someones child doing a drip drip of coercion? For any reason, but likely a house, hatred, jealousy, money, etc.

You cant legislate for such instances. The most obvious is ask the person who wants to die, but there may well have been coercion for years to get to this point, the person 'thinks' it's a good time to die, because it's been insidiously put in the mind for years. It's not a true choice.

Then there's the creep of such laws, today its terminally Ill people, tomorrow, people with no quality of life, the day after its anyone in a wheelchair, the day after, anyone who uses a stick to walk and on and on until the only people left are healthy until later years when they are getting infirm and are killed because they cost too much. If you have a disabled baby, off to death it goes, itll cost too much to keep alive.

So until those major issues are sorted out, I do not want assisted dying.

I think people are rather stupid if people can't see there are strong arguments on both sides and it's just a simple case of waving a magic wand and enacting legislation.. I suggest you listen to the very good debates which happen in parliament when issues are non-political.

It's possible to have a painless and dignified death without needing to kill people

Yes, but only with strong medication, which in reality, at slightly higher doses causes death anyway. It's what used to be done pretty routinely before Shipman.

I really really want it.

AND it is partly about saving money MY MONEY.

Why should my money be spent on something I don't want when, little as it is, it can be used far more productively by my adult children. If I am of sound mind (and I am, and have been for the 35 years I have been hoping for this) why should the law (much less twatting interferers) prevent me from ending my life, peacefully and painlessly at a time of my choosing.

People who are against it could easily have a register saying that, under no circumstances do they want medical help to end their life NO MATTER HOW UNBEARABLE. Relatives could not overide this.

Sorted.

Without need for anyone telling me I can't do it. I am 70, and will end my life when I choose. If I can legally get help, I will actually live longer as I won't need to make sure I complete it whilst I am still physically able.

DH died a slow, painful, horrible death, completely bedbound and dependent on carers for the last 12 months , but he wasn't ready to die. He would absolutely have been someone who when young and fit, said shoot me if I end up like that, but when it happens, the instinct to hang on to life is strong.

I've seen far to many people bitter about their inheritance going on care fees to think that parents wouldn't feel pressure to end it all , rather than see their DC deprived of the money. Their choice perhaps, but is it one people should be making in a civilised society?

Ref the coersion argument. You do realise that sick and vulnerable people can be coersed by awful family members whilst alive! They are vulnerable by their health position to be coersed into supplying money at the cash point, being abused by health care workers ( yes, this happens).
The argument who is next, someone in a wheelchair? Come on. This is a terrible argument against this. If someone in a wheelchair is going to be coersed into death, then they're going to be coersed in their daily life to all sorts of horrors. People are being treated appallingly in hospitals and wishing they weren't is not an argument to stand against this. You cannot imagine the suffering people endure. I have seen so much I am beyond horrified. I would find huge strength in having the option to stay longer knowing the option for MAID was available here.

Who are all these people who have been wheeled off to death by their relatives in Canada and Switzerland?? What's going wrong there?

It's just not an easy question, OP. I think most people feel conflicted. I don't want to force suffering on anyone, including myself. I don't want to be trapped in agony and I don't want to sit with (yet another) loved one as it happens to them. At the same time, I spent many years caring for a very profoundly disabled person and it was a constant battle to defend his right to live, in his incurably broken body, a life that many many people, including HCPs told him was not worth living.

As many people have said, we need to understand how to protect people whose lives are expensive, unproductive, inconvenient, frightening, and precious. It is frightening to see the way the MAID programme is playing out in Canada.

I've experienced (first hand and through the experiences of close friends/family) being asked by dying loved ones to hasten their end. 4 examples off the top of my head. Are we just saying the best thing for these people is to just suffer? Are we going to pretend that drugging these people to unconsciousness is better than them choosing to hasten their death?

I think bumping granny off
for the inheritance is a bit of a red herring tbh, the family will already have bled her dry anyway if they think like that as they won’t want the money going to a care home.

I would rather have a choice than be stuck in an awful painful terminal state and have no option but to endure it until my inevitable death.

I think there is a philosophical argument about our need to control death. We'd rather take control over it for others than accept it happens horribly sometimes.

It is worrying that the public narrative seems to be changing. I just don't understand why the state should have the right to dictate whether I'm allowed to die. Suicide is not a crime, but people struggle to complete it. If I want to end my life, then I should be allowed to do so and it's no f*ing business of anyone else!

Atheist here and I do not support assisted dying.

You can end your life.

If you think I'm gonna trust the people who have run our hospitals and social care into the ground with providing well managed and ethical assisted dying you must be joking! If they cannot run a decent health service they are never going to be able to run a decent death service.

I remember a friend of my fathers being diagnosed with ms and taking his own life by using his car exhaust. Left a note to the authorities and his wife. How can that be good compared to assisted dying? But I understand the need for regulations.

It would be so convenient for the government if this law was passed, would save them billions in health and social care.

If they really gave a tiniest shit about people's dignity and end of life care they would have sorted that out first so that people didn't feel that suicide is a better option than dying in an nhs ward or hospice.

For those people that are saying they are against it because they don't want it, but don't have it, then don't engage with the system, but don't you say and stop other people from having it. The point is in Oregon. I believe you need three people like judges to go in front to explain why you want this to happen the same thing in switzerland I believe or other countries i can say nothing wrong being allowed to speak in front of free impartial judges on your own being asked questions as to whether you have been forced then being allowed been helped to die with dignity.
People are conflicting different language, and it's really unhelpful. This isn't euthanasia, because that would imply doing it to somebody that doesn't have a say, this is simply people that have got 6 months to live, been allowed to die without suffering with pain. Personally, I think that's too short of a window, and it doesn't take for those suffering debilitating illnesses that are not life threatening as such.
Disably, rights, people might think this is a slippery slope but let's be honest with ourselves, I do not believe that doctors who generally on the whole want, the best for people would give that to anybody without them themselves, possibly asking and possibly going in front of 3 judges, if we made it that you wouldn't be legally allowed to assist anybody to die unless they have gone through scrupulous. Questions etcetera, then I cannot see a problem

@SomethingFun exactly this. Granny will have been milked to within an inch of her life whilst alive already! Thinking people aren't coerced or exploited horrifically already is incredibly naive. People are already dealing with this yet without the relief that this option would provide! The option will actually help keep many people alive. Including those being destroyed by the relatives already bleeding them dry and the medical professionals failing to meet all their needs.
Saying no to this and instead yes to investment will not equal greater investment in care. We all know this.
It's a massive red herring.

@GreatNorthBun thankyou for the link. The stories are uncomfortable. Yet it really doesn't change my view. People are already being treated appallingly. So examples in the attachment such as offering MAID to people who don't want it. People are being sent home to rot and die as it is. I have observed the greatest horrors imaginable where granny can't sit up unaided and is on another planet yet fit for discharge. They are already doing it! The good news is that the healthy people who feel coerced will not suddenly decide to die if there's no will to die anyway.

Will it mean resources are removed? There aren't enough resources as it is. That won't change. I'm not horrified by what's happening in Canada. I'm relieved for these people. Until I see these grannies crying saying I didn't want to die being wheeled in, I will feel the same

For all those whose positions are informed by the painful deaths of love ones, you have my sympathies.

In Canada, they have a number of issues, the first concerns the lack of safeguarding and barriers to entry to obtain MAID. As someone down thread pointed out, being offered MAID when you just want a ramp for your house, it's absurd.

Secondly, whilst it was initially rolled out for adults with terminal illness, it has now been extended to mental health disorders and to "mature minors" although that was delayed earlier this year. There have been a number of chilling cases. A 37 year old woman with Ehlers-Danlos was approved for (and went through with) MAID her name was Jennyfer Hatch, as she was unable to find a doctor who could manage pain for her non-terminal condition. A 23 year old man, who was blind owing to his diabetes. applied and was approved for MAID and his mother only found out when his sister (who had access to his account to help with accessibility for his vision) found an e-mail saying the MAID procedure would be in the next few weeks. RUPA I think most of us would like to be able to say goodbyes to our family.

For those with terminal illnesses who have family of friends to advocate on their behalf, the availability for MAID works well for them, however those who do not, who are poor or elderly, MAID as it is offered in its current form, is simply a get out of jail card for a failing healthcare system and welfare system. The current estimates are that the Healthcare systems (Canada operates Healthcare provincially) will save $100 million. In Canada, the slippery slope is real.

Been thinking about this a lot lately due to health issues, I really hope it comes in. Saw my gran have a long painful undignified death was awful and have seen my dog put to sleep, which was a much more peaceful experience, I know which one I would prefer.

Stop calling elderly women "grannies". @Tittat50