Assisted Dying Bill tomorrow.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

I really hope this goes ahead.

I'm from a family who die from cancer. It's a genetic thing. Over the years I've watched numerous loved ones die from this cruel and ravaging disease. It has taken a massive toll on us. From PTSD to immense guilt, complicated grief and fear of the future.

Not all of my family would have accessed Assisted Dying, but I know some did want it and requested it in the weeks / days leading to their death. They should have had the option of shortening their suffering. Having witnessed what they went through, I want that option for myself.

I want it for my mother. For the past 20 years she has told me when she wants out and how I will have to help her achieve it. I don't want to. She apologises for putting it on me. She shouldn't have to.

No one will be saved if this Bill is stopped, but fear and suffering will be reduced.

But I don't feel reassured.

If doctors are allowed to suggest it first to patients then potentially in my most vulnerable awful moment of being given a terminal diagnosis, I could have a doctor suggesting this to me. I don't want that

Im wondering what makes people think they will be handled better than conversations around DNR or around choosing one treatment vs another.

Situation and timescale.
I find it hard - impossible really - to imagine doctors not being ultra careful about raising AD without the conversation being requested by the patient (whether directly or via a pre-existing living will)

They should be banned from mentioning it unless the patient does first. I am worried doctors working in areas with a shortage of beds will be under pressure to suggest it.

But if the timescale is such that to be able to access AD before you die, you need to start the process soon after knowing you only gave 6months left, then doctors will have to mention it.
Or people won’t be able to access it in a timely manner.

Why do they "have to" mention it? Why can't they say nothing unless the patient say something about it? I mean it's highly publicised, we will all know it's an option

But if the timescale is such that to be able to access AD before you die, you need to start the process soon after knowing you only gave 6months left, then doctors will have to mention it.
Or people won’t be able to access it in a timely manner.

Yes, it's worrying people won't find out in time to get the help they want.

It’s not possible to rely on ‘everyone knows about it’.

I mean everyone knows about wills or PoA but how many people dint do them?
Everyone knows about DNR but how many people don’t sign them as they get older?

And that’s people who are not under oressure.
But imagine being to,d you only have 6 months.
You worry about what’s going to happen. You might not believe it anyway. You think about the family like your partner or your dcs.
You have no idea what the process is and how to bring the issue.

And you want people, in a really vulnerable and stressful time, to think about bringing up,the subject soon enough so it can happen?

EDIT
To add it’s more likeky that’s it’s relatives that will then bring the subject.
They wont have the training. They’ll be clumsy.
More hurt.

We can't 100% prevent coercion and abuse when it comes to abortion either, but it certainly doesn't mean we should be banning abortion.

It's fine for you not to want this for yourself, but you need to let others make different choices. Anything else is extraordinarily selfish as you're basically saying thousands of people should be forced to go through misery and pain just because you're a bit uneasy that there might possibly be some cases where there might possibly be coercion or abuse.

You don't have to be comfortable with this, just like you don't have to be comfortable with abortion, for it to be right for other people in other circumstances.

So if you think doctors should be allowed to mention this when giving someone a diagnosis, do you think there should be any rules around how they broach the issue?

It's fine for you not to want this for yourself, but you need to let others make different choices. Anything else is extraordinarily selfish as you're basically saying thousands of people should be forced to go through misery and pain just because you're a bit uneasy that there might possibly be some cases where there might possibly be coercion or abuse.

Yes.
While it's definitely necessary for the possibility of coercion to be kept in mind, it seems like some of the opponents of this bill want to do far more than coerce, they want to retain the previous situation of others having no choice but to endure their suffering.

But we can't have it all

If it's brought in, coercion and abuse will be inevitable in some cases. Safe guards won't catch and prevent all coercive situations

If it's not brought in, then those who want assisted dying won't get it and will suffer to some degree.

The whole debate really centres around which of these scenarios is worse. My person opinion is the former one is worse.

We'll have to agree to differ because to my mind continuing with a blanket ban is total coercion by the state.

The difference is probably on WHO is going to be coerced.

Coerced by the state to die in pain if the Bill is somehow never going through and we are staying in the same situation as now. The numbers I saw say it will affect around 1000 people each year.

Coerced by family/doctors/society(that’s the ‘right’ thing to do) if the Bill pass as it is. Very hard to see how many people would be affected then.
And ofc this assumes it will stay as the Bill is now, aka people who have only 6 months left to live and the NHS continues to care for people in the way it is now (aka as pointed out by PP, withdrawing or making access more difficult will move some chronically ill people from ‘living’ to ‘only have 6 months to live’ quite easily)

Either way, there are huge risks.
I think it’s impossible to have a discussion of AD without talking about the NHS and social care. The risks and issues associated with it are so closely
linked what we do in those two areas.

And ofc thats wo talking about the risks of the Bill changing over time (as all laws do).
And what it means for disabled people.

Absolutely !

Completely agree.

It is selfish, this is about the terminally ill.
Not disabled people or the elderly.Why would a doctor coerce, someone to end their life, this is coming from people who are completely against the assisted dying bill to clarity only for people who have 6 months or less to live.
Instead of thinking about that you’re not reassured, it’s not about you, this is about terminally ill people, maybe consider those who are having painful deaths, or take measures to end their life, suicide.Are you comfortable with this.

People get terminal diagnoses all the time. I have a friend currently living a full life with stage 4 cancer. This isn't for all people with terminal disease, it's for those who are suffering terribly.

The thread is about AD, it's not the only thing I care about.

It's this level of debate that is truly worrying.

Ok but if doctors are going to be allowed to bring this up to patients as an option, what kind of rules are they going to have as to how they suggest it without being coercive or even persuasive...or are there going to be no rules and they can be as persuasive as they want?

Well, maybe that has to come back in 2 or 3 years when they have gone through the whole consultation on it. As far as I'm aware, I don't think they will suggest that I think it will be you to choose what you want. I think they will just openly suggest it as a choice. Just like now, you know Even if they think something is good for you, they will give you a choice. And you can ask them, what would you do if it was in your life and sometimes they won't answer that because they won't

Well if you think you are so clever and so much better than anyone else at debating, why don't you become an MP rather than just complaining about what they have done.
But no, you would just rather sit there and complain and moan and complain that everyone else's debating is inferior to your level of debate.

Well sometimes they won't answer it is quite wishy washy when it's a matter of life and death. We need concrete rules and safe guards in place. Suggesting something to someone can take many forms...and suggesting something to someone who is potentially in shock, terrified and vulnerable is even more risky.

We have no idea because there’s nothing about it in the bill
We have no idea if doctors will be monitored by others, if it’ll be a leaflet handed to you. We have no idea because the bill lacks detail.

That's what they will be sorting out in the next 2 and three years then bring it back to be debated

In that case, the Bill should never have been voted in that state.
Because what people voted for isn’t what the Bill will be ….

You are wrong, the mps, a lot of them lent the vote, knowing that this was going to be discussed.
Further then they get the chance to decide if they like it when it comes back