Assisted dying debate next week… To think this is a relief. So glad they’re finally debating this important issue.

[Mavenss]

We will be able to see which MPs are for or against assisted dying.

This Monday 29th April, assisted dying will be debated in Westminster for the first time in two years. An absolutely incredible 203,000 people added their name to the government petitionspearheaded by Dame Esther Rantzen to make this happen, creating the largest ever parliamentary petition on assisted dying.

There will not be a vote on Monday, but this debate will be the last time before the General Election that MPs have an opportunity to show you that they are listening to our calls for safe and compassionate choice at the end of life. A majority of voters in every constituency support an assisted dying law.

The debate starts at 4:30pmand you can watch it live online through the UK parliament website.

YABU- it’s a silly idea, why are government even debating it? Assisted dying is a terrible idea.

YANBU - I support the debate and assisted dying (under the agreed circumstances)

I’m interested in the MN feedback here.

I think when someone says they just want to die, we should assume they mean it.

That sort of naivety falls flat on its face when it comes to mental illness.

A wish to die is a wish to die. The absolute arrogance of thinking you know better.

So when a person or an animal is howling with pain, cannot walk, can barely see or hear and is being fed via a tube up their nose and into their stomach you don't think they have possibly just about had enough. The difference is the animal, if you had any shred of decency whatsoever, would have been taken to the vets and been put out of its suffering before things got this bad but the person has to endure this until their body can take no more and if they are lucky their heart gives out.

No, people are not pets and that is the point. It is the only situation where the pet has an advantage over the person, their suffering can be brought to an end before it becomes intolerable while the person has to continue to suffer. This is not a life it is a miserable gutted existence and if that person has made their wishes clear that they do not want to end their life like that, then that should be their prerogative and not for a few sanctimonious wets to deny them a decent and humane death.

As I have said before, it you want to suffer for your last weeks or months on Earth then that is fine but don't push what you want on to everyone else.

'Don't push what you want on to everyone else'? Says you who (unless I misunderstood your earlier post, and I really hope I did) wants it to become the default that once a person reaches a certain point of suffering they are killed unless they have specifically said they don't want to be?

Don't get me wrong, I totally take your point about those who are unable to give consent for themselves. I don't know what the solution is but I agree one is needed. But to extrapolate from that point that everyone should have to opt out of, rather than into, being killed if their suffering reaches some arbitrary/externally decided level is one of the darkest things I have ever read on here. Like I say, I'm really hoping I've misunderstood.

Where did I say it did?

But imo it's naive in the extreme to assume that choice, once made available, will always be made freely by the person whose life it actually is. I simply don't believe that there is zero risk of anyone being coaxed, persuaded, coerced, you name it.

Whereas the other papers are strictly objective and impartial? 🤔

So someone who can't give their permission just has to suffer until the bitter end? How is that humane or compassionate? When there is no hope of any sort of recovery what is the point of delaying the inevitable? When death is not a case of if, but when, then the when may as well be sooner rather than later if later means enduring pain and distress when the only thing to look forward to is death.

I have been in a care home for the last 18 months and for a lot of those months there was an elderly lady who had had a massive stroke. She was in huge distress and howled with pain. She had one visitor (no family) who told me she would hate being in this condition and if there was the possibility of AD she would take it. As she got worse and in more pain, with failing sight and hearing she also had to suffer a feeding tube as she could no longer take any food or drink orally. She literally lay on her back day after day waiting to die. No-one will ever convince me that she should have been left to endure this when a simple needle in the arm would have saved her from possibly weeks of unnecessary suffering.

Fortunately she has since died and all the staff agreed that it was a blessing. Obviously, like anything else, it is not for anyone so tell your doctor and have it on record that you would prefer to suffer a violent and horrendous death rather than have a gentle and painless one.

Yes, she was an end of life doctor with many many years experience. Probably much better qualified to make the decision that most psychiatrists- and psychologists are NOT doctors either.

Perhaps you have not read my comments on the subject. Of course there is a risk of being coerced, etc. Which is why trained specialists interview the person asking for assistance twice, on their own, to ensure this is not the case, On application, and again on the day. ON THEIR OWN

What you describe is heartbreaking and of course she shouldn't have had to go through that, but read my reply again. I very clearly stated Don't get me wrong, I totally take your point about those who are unable to give consent for themselves. I don't know what the solution is but I agree one is needed.

However, it is beyond me why you think an appropriate solution to this would be some sort of across-the-board mandate stating everybody who hadn't stated to the contrary should be killed if their level of suffering reached a level that some random outside observer deemed excessive. That really is 'sledgehammer, meet nut' territory as far as I'm concerned. And apart from anything else, there is no way whatsoever of guaranteeing that this rationale wouldn't be abused to free up hospital beds. There's enough of a problem these days with some medical staff expecting elderly people to accept their time's up and not expect treatment, without introducing the possibility of their being offed for reasons that actually have nothing to do with their own well-being. The system you describe would be wide open to abuse of this kind, and it's my belief that it would happen.

I've read all your comments on the subject. I think assuming the system you describe to be watertight/failsafe is naive.

No, she shouldn't have had to go through that, but go through that she did because there wasn't an alternative and even if there had been and she hadn't signed that she wanted it, she would still have had to go through it.

Since the law change in 2020 anyone who doesn't want to be an organ donor can opt out. This means family don't have to make a decision at a time of grief and as there will be more organs available more lives will be saved. Similarly if everyone who didn't want it opted out of AD then anyone in a similar situation to this lady would be able to have a decent end to their life. When someone is terminally ill and at the end of life why drag it out?

When my Grandad was in hospital following a stroke my Mum asked him why he didn't want further treatment and he told her he had had enough. He was made comfortable and after a few days he lapsed into a coma and eventually died. If AD had been available this would have been avoided - he was dying anyway, so if it had happened a week or so earlier so much trauma and heartache would have been avoided for everyone concerned but mostly for my Grandad and Mum and she could have remembered him as he was and not as the shell he became.

You're not going to like the next thing I am going to say, but given that there is limited capacity within the NHS is there much point in spending money on the fruitless task of keeping the terminally ill alive for longer when there are people whose lives can be saved but are missing out because such things as cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment happen too late.

In an ideal world this would not be a problem, but we don't live in an ideal world and resources should be directed where they are likely to do the most good.

In an ideal world this would not be a problem, but we don't live in an ideal world and resources should be directed where they are likely to do the most good.

Lovely. How about you come back and tell us that when you're 80 and dying but not ready to go yet and the medics tell you tough, we're not going to treat you, your time's up, move over and start planning your funeral so we can prioritise the young.

The fact that this is even a topic of discussion is a real indictment of how low society has sunk in terms of complete absence of respect for human life, if you ask me. If this is really what we think the country has come to, why aren't we getting good and angry about what's been done to the healthcare system (and stopping voting fucking Tory) instead of arbitrarily labelling whole swathes of the population as worthless. The sheer arrogance of it takes my breath away.

You're not going to like the next thing I am going to say, but given that there is limited capacity within the NHS is there much point in spending money on the fruitless task of keeping the terminally ill alive for longer when there are people whose lives can be saved but are missing out because such things as cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment happen too late.
**
In an ideal world this would not be a problem, but we don't live in an ideal world and resources should be directed where they are likely to do the most good.

You just made @thepastinsidethepresent ’s point for her- the discussion starts as ‘suffering’ ‘choice’ and ‘inhumane’ but very quickly moves onto ‘resources’ ‘cost’ and ‘waste’.

If you can make that jump so quickly, what makes you think many many people won’t?

And how many people like you (who believe that brought on death is a reasonable management strategy for underfunding) need to be the policy makers before the policy makes the jump from ‘ending suffering’ to ‘saving money’?

This is why it’s a bad idea- not because suffering should go on as long as possible, or people should not be allowed to choose (they already are- attempted suicide is not prosecuted) , or life should be dragged out on principle-

but because the system simply can not be trusted to put people’s best interests first. Too many people find it easy to consider that some lives are less valuable and therefore it’s acceptable to have them die to free up resources.

. No-one will ever convince me that she should have been left to endure this when a simple needle in the arm would have saved her from possibly weeks of unnecessary suffering.

You have no idea what her thoughts and feelings were in that situation.

You feel it would be intolerable for you- that’s absolutely valid- I wouldn’t want it for myself either. And faced with seeing it I too would comfort myself with the idea that AD will be legalised so I won’t have to experience that pain-

but she may have been a devout Catholic who believed all life is sacred. She might have been lying there praying for one more day in case her family came to hold her hand. She might have been afraid to meet her maker and found suffering but alive preferable.

We don’t know, so we don’t get to decide. What it makes us feel is irrelevant.

Okay, you have enough money to treat one patient and that is it. Which do you choose the 40 something father of two who, with the correct treatment is likely to make a full recovery or the 40 something father of two who is terminally ill, with at best a few weeks left to live? Make the choice. Of course it is hard and in an ideal world you would treat them both but you can't. The one you have to choose is the one with the greater likelihood of making a full recovery otherwise they will both be dead and everyone loses.

Life is shit at times and difficult decisions have to be made. If we are lucky the next government will put proper investment into the NHS and everyone will be treated equally, but don't hold your breath.

But back to the AD debate, the hypothetical terminally ill 40 something father of 2 may not want AD because he wants to spend as much time with his young family as he can, although he may decide to go for it because he doesn't want his young family's last impression of him to be wracked with pain and/or doped up to the eyeballs on morphine - but that should be his decision to make and he should have the legal opportunity to make that decision.

No-one really knows what choice they would make in any given situation until they have to make it, but they should at least be given a choice to make.

I have already said that her good friend who used to visit her knew exactly what she would have wanted and it was certainly not to suffer the way she did and that if AD, or something similar, was available that she would have wanted that. It is something they had talked about before she had her stroke and they had both agreed that if there was the option they would both want it for themselves if they ever ended up in that condition. She had no family and no great religious beliefs. She certainly wasn't laying their praying for one more day, she lay there howling and crying out in pain and distress.

There are people with devout religious beliefs who are against it and that is their absolute right, but sometimes these same people have a change of heart when it affects themselves. The woman over the road from us whose daughter suffered a brain haemorrhage refused permission for a blood transfusion as it was against her beliefs. Fortunately the father overruled her and signed the form and the daughter survived, but it was a different story when the mother needed a transfusion a few years later and signed straightaway. It is very easy to have principles until it affects you directly and then they can go out of the window.

No-one really knows what choice they would make in any given situation until they have to make it, but they should at least be given a choice to make

This goes against your previous argument that people should have to opt out of AD in advance. How do you know that you don’t want it until it’s decision time? How late is too late to change your mind?

the 40 something father of two who, with the correct treatment is likely to make a full recovery or the 40 something father of two who is terminally ill, with at best a few weeks left to live? Make the choice. Of course it is hard and in an ideal world you would treat them both but you can't. The one you have to choose is the one with the greater likelihood of making a full recovery otherwise they will both be dead and everyone loses.

If you want a system that makes these types of decisions you are in luck- we already have one.

Bringing in AD wouldn’t change a system from one where it’s first come first served into one where algorithms work out how to allocate resources- it would take a system where those algorithms are already in use and add the option of killing inconvenient people who are throwing off the numbers.

knew exactly what she would have wanted

There are two massive points of weakness in that statement which mean you shouldn’t decide to kill somebody based on it.

a) she said she knew what she wanted (that doesn't make it true)
b) their discussion was before the lady was in the situation - as you go on to say, people can have a change of heart, and that can be in any direction.

She certainly wasn't laying their praying for one more day

Again, that’s how you feel. A lot of people would agree, it seems obvious. But we can’t know.

The arguments you have put forward are reasons which lead people to help their loved ones to take an overdose or smother them with a pillow - they aren’t reasons to legalise killing somebody based on an outside opinion of their experience.

I'm just going to say it. @VeryHappyBunny's views on mercy killing are just bat shit crazy. It's proper angel of death stuff. Going around arbitrarily euthanising people whom you deem to be suffering too greatly. It's one of the darkest ideas I've ever read on Mumsnet and seems akin to the thinking of serial killers like Harold Shipman who persuade themselves that they are serving their community. Lots of people trying to debate and reason with @VeryHappyBunny but it's really just beyond the pale.

I agree.

I think a lot of it comes from fear of ending up in a situation that they wouldn’t choose (a long death),

and also intolerance of being made to see and have feelings about people dying. Death can be uncomfortable, guilt inducing, sad, scary, messy, boring, inconvenient, or a relief for the people left behind. Some people really can’t stand being made to deal with those (often conflicting) emotions so they want death to be tidied away. ‘A simple needle in the arm’ and they don’t have to endure the emotional discomfort.

(btw @mybeesarealive you have to be careful using ‘beyond the pale’ on mumsnet, some people find it very offensive).

I didn’t say it was ok- I said it happens.

When I was mid twenties, my grandmother died. She had cancer in her bones, and faded away. She was in hospital for a long time. She died in a hospice. She was at times uncomfortable, and the overriding memory of it that I have is that for everyone else it was a period of waiting for the inevitable. I remember watching Deal or No Deal with her (it was circa 2005) on one of those hospital TVs that you had to pay for at the time via an access card. She called it "What's in the Box" 😂. I was there intermittently. My parents were there daily. For months. When she died, they were distraught, but completely wiped out physically and emotionally for months afterwards. It took a toll. But I am so proud of them. And what they did. Just being there. My grandma died with dignity because she received care, love and high quality palliative care. I am not sure the same would be true or possible today because of austerity and policy choices that have decimated NHS and social care. BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO MOVE TO ASSISTED DYING. It is a reason to repair the NHS, social care and palliative care services. There is no getting away from the fact that this debate always gains most traction when resources are scarce. And that should trouble advocates of the policy who say it is only for the terminally ill more than seems to be the case. I've said this a few times in this thread, but the alleged right of a few (relatively wealthy) individuals to what they see as a good death is no basis to implement a corruptable system that would inevitably prejudice the lives of the disabled and vulnerable. I know that's hard for those advocates to swallow, as they think they have the moral high ground - but that is only because they close their eyes to practical reality and the greater need to protect the right to life of other less privileged people.