Personal thoughts on assisted dying.

[Widowtobeat40]

AIBU to find the assisted dying Bill debate really hard?
My husband is 47 he's terminally ill. Best case he has close to 12 months worse case a couple of months. He's in significant pain, is currently going through the process of serious ill Health retirement which has had a huge impact on his self worth.
He has gone through some of the most brutal treatment I've seen in the last 3 1/2 years making every attempt to survive but where he is now is that he wants to be able to chose when enough is enough.
I appreciate that it's a hugely personal vote but what I see is most people against it are those that have no experience of a terminal illness or those that are disabled rather than terminally ill.
I absolutely understand the concern about the possibility of expanding the safeguards but that isn't what MPs are voting on. The Mental health act has changed minimally over the years despite huge suggested changes.
My husband could get the best palliative care in the world but truth is he is likely to die a pretty awful, painful death. Should he not be allowed to decide when enough is enough???
Whatever the vote it will be too late for him but I would like to think that others will get that choice.

You ask me to post links and then you studiously ignore them.
FFS stop looking at the promises of the law and start looking at the case studies of who has been euthanised and why.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death

Yes this. I can see the internalised pressure could add another level of unhappiness and misery to someone. I could see myself in that situation if I am honest. I worry about what has happened in Canada with people being offered MAID because it is a quick solution to the difficult problem of someone living with a difficult and expensive condition. Some examples coming out of there are horrific. I don’t trust our political system to not expand the criteria and for the nastier side of the general public not to be abusive towards those with disabilities, urging them to kill themselves and the like. This happens already and I think it could get worse.

I have seen a lot of terminal illness in my life and getting to the bitter end is hard for some but I think we should be arguing for better palliative care, which I now fear will be downgraded even further because it will be seen to not be needed. It’s a very complex issue and we aren’t there yet in my view.

You want me to prove a negative, when you haven't proven a positive? 😄 Be serious now.

Be that as it may, I have not said there are no abuses anywhere. I have not made the assertion that there is nothing to worry about. What I said is that abuses are not inevitable and not inherent. That is all.
With good management there shouldn't be problems of that nature. So the issue is management, not MAID itself. It's like any other area of medical care, dependent on how well it is managed. There are far more abuses in other areas of medicine which lead to deaths. Think of malpractice. Why aren't people up in arms over malpractice deaths? Or how about nursing home deaths due to neglect? Far more common. Not even in the same stratosphere.
So would you advocate we get rid of areas of medicine which have high rates of malpractice and neglect, such as elder care for example? I'm guessing you wouldn't, so you should apply the same standard to MAID. Why the double standards?

What am I wrong about exactly? I posted the legal criteria from the official source. It's beyond dispute that those are the criteria.

For goodness sake, read your own sources. In the cases listed the people were ill. Whether they wanted to die partly because of poverty or not, the reason they were approved was illness, not poverty. The point is that it is incurable and the person's suffering cannot be relieved. There are interventions a patient must try first in order to be approved.

'Incurable' means there are no reasonable treatments remaining, where reasonable is determined through a process of the clinician and patient together exploring the recognized, available, and potentially effective treatments in light of the person's overall state of health, beliefs, values, and goals of care.
At the time of the MAID eligibility assessment, assessors and providers should explore treatment attempts made up to that point including their duration and intensity, outcomes of those treatments, and severity and duration of illness, disease, or disability.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/advice-profession-medical-assistance-dying.html#a3

Those are the rules. Facts matter.

I asked for research showing that abuses are inevitable and inherent.
You did not provide anything close to that.

The law is what we are arguing about, so of course I'm focused on that. If people are saying this or that is allowed, they are saying it is legally permissible. If it isn't legally permissible, then the law, which allows MAID, is not the issue, is it. Then your beef is not with MAID itself, it's with individuals who fuck up.
That happens to a much greater degree in other areas of medicine and people die because of it. So MAID itself is not the problem. Do you understand that?

I did read my source. A report found that people asked to be euthanised for non medical reasons including isolation and homelessness.

The legal criteria is a fatal diagnosis or unmanageable pain – but the committee’s reports show cases in which people were euthanised based on other factors including an “unmet social need”.

“We’ve been gaslit for so many years when we raised fears about people getting Maid because they were poor, disabled or socially isolated.”

Trudo Lemmens, a professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said ...
“Either the law is too broad, or the professional guidance not precise enough Or it is simply not seen as a priority to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens.”

It is tiring trying to get through to you. You admit it's only under review, which means it's not happening, so saying it is happening is, in fact, a lie. It's that simple. I don't know why you can't understand this.
Btw, why shouldn't it be under review?

Sorry for the bolded emphasis. It's just that I'm getting tired of talking to what seems to be a brick wall. I'm hoping to simplify this, so I'm placing emphasis on the areas I want to focus on. So far you haven't been able to see what I'm actually arguing. You seem to think I'm saying abuses are impossible or some such nonsense, which I'm not. I'm saying they aren't inherent to MAID, they are incidental, as with any other area of medicine. I hope that's clear.

Repeat; they were ill. Whatever their reasons supposedly were according to others, they were only approved because they were incurably ill.
Do you get that? No matter why they wanted it, they got it because they met the criteria under the law. So MAID itself is not the issue there, it's a failure of the social safety net that is the problem. I don't know how else to explain it if you don't understand that.

I have been through this fairly recently. I feel like there are policies in place to make sure no one is coerced.

I’m in favour having watched my mother go through a death from brain cancer. I think the safeguards are very important - limiting it to people who are terminally ill with a limited time left. And conversely I think knowing it’s available may give some terminally ill people longer to live. Some terminally ill people die before their time because they travel to Switzerland or the Netherlands while they can still travel independently, to avoid getting their loved ones into trouble with the law.

The criteria has changed since it was introduced from terminal illness to those with non deadly diseases and disabilities. Although it requires the nature of a person's suffering to be medical, people have been killed for non medical reasons as I described above.

One of the reasons assisted dying is such a bad idea, is because it devalues human life. A substantial number of Canadians now agree that they support euthenasia for the homeless and poverty.

It's a slippery slope. Canada’s official MAiD policy was set to expand to those with mental health issues in March allowing those with no underlying physical suffering to end their lives. Due in part to pushback, officials have delayed this expansion until 2027, when it could then allow euthanasia for those with conditions like PTSD, anorexia, depression, and anxiety.

Opposition to the expansion has largely come from disability rights activists who say that Canada is already pressuring the disabled into euthanasia to ease an already strained health system.

It's even been proposed to expand euthenasia for 'mature minors' following in the footsteps of countries like Belgium and the Netherlands.

I'm not sure why you are such an advocate.

I would like to choose when I die. It's as simple as that.

I can read well researched articles, understand arguments from both perspectives, look at cases and outcomes in various countries, follow moral discussion and hear the reasoned pros and cons from many religious leaders, but in one sense they are meaningless.
It doesn't matter to me whether palliative care is better, or worse, or could be brilliant and I "never need to suffer at the end".

To me none of it is the point.
I would like to choose for myself.

And when I am ready to go, I would like to go peacefully, with dignity, and gently. In my ideal world, I would ask for an injection where I just said goodbye and fell into a safe, deep sleep from which I would never wake up.

Which I could choose myself, because I wanted to. Simple as that.

I do not want this bill to become law. The interpretation of it will get looser and looser in time IMHO. Doctors should be allowed to administer the strongest painkillers and if a side effect of that is death then fine. But lethal injections. No. Absolutely horrifying.

I believe my life would be enriched if I had a choice of when I want to die.

I believe big corporations and big pharma/health companies are against it.

I also believe some regimes are against it because of labour shortages should people choose to die rather than be economic slaves.

Given the guarantee of worsening economic conditions, the state of the NHS and the fact that it may not even exist in 20 years time, it seems like reckless optimism that this legislation won't pave the way to make sure the ill and vulnerable are not given a fraction of the treatment they are today. Why spend £££ to extend someone's life by 5 years or 6 months. Why spend on expensive palliative care. There is no going back once we have crossed this rubicon. The prosperity our parents (or we) enjoyed is in the rearview mirror, it's not coming back and it is going to have serious consequences on average life expectancy.

For me personally? I would love the means to check out peacefully when I'm done here. And I would want the same for my loved ones. I can't think of a way to deal with this that isn't going to harm a far greater majority than it would benefit though. Other than dealing with this matters privately and hoping that a compassionate judge would recognise it was mercy not murder for anyone implicated.

People talk about doctors behaving ethically - ethics are relative and changeable over a shockingly short period of time. It's very easy the shape and mould public opinion and governments will embrace this opportunity to lose financial burdens under the guise of 'care'. The elderly are a very expensive luxury for society, and given that we're all having fewer and fewer children that problem will worsen significantly.

I'm so sorry you and your family are going through this OP.

I find it really tough. Basically, I'm for it in principle - I saw my grandmother die a terrible extended death in pain and confusion, and I've also held my old cat with heart failure in my arms as she peacefully slipped away with a little injection, being stroked and told how she loved she was, and what a lovely time we had together. Seems like it should be a simple decision.

But. In my day job, I'm a sociologist. Here's my big concern: if euthanasia becomes a potential end treatment, that fundamentally changes the culture of hospitals. I don't believe that power corrupts. I do believe - and its extremely well evidenced - that 'dehumanizing systems dehumanize'. And being in hospital is already dehumanizing, inevitably, to an extent. Whilst there are individual cases where euthanasia seems like it would absolutely be the best option and many cases where I would want it myself, at the level of work and organizational structures, I have a horrible feeling it might be a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

It cuts to the heart of the question of what medicine is, and what its for. Which is obviously a huge question. I have another thought - say it becomes law that a potential treatment is euthanize someone, presumably by giving a massive overdose, in order to relieve suffering. Well say the next person comes along and says doctor, I am also suffering, and what would relieve my suffering is a shitload of benzodiazapines or opiates. The doctor will say no, because that would be extremely bad for you. But if they've just ODed someone, this throws up a pretty glaring inconsistency.

I've got a couple of friends who are doctors, one of whom is an oncologist, and she pretty much thinks the same as me - in principle, she supports it, but has massive reservations and concerns about its implementation. I think perhaps what we should do first is pull back on agressive treatment of the very old/very sick, when quality of life is poor. My grandmother wouldn't have died in fear, pain and confusion with advanced dementia if the hospital hadn't aggressively treated every infection with IV antibiotics, she would have died sooner. Eventually my mother had to actually tell them to stop, for the love of God, just make her comfortable and let her die. No-one broached this conversation with the family, they just kept treating.

I believe we should have the right to end suffering in a dignified way and the ability to appoint someone else to do it in the case of loss of brain function.

It's inhumane to ale people suffer inthe interest of preserving life. What life?

So sorry for your suffering

If it is proven to be 100% what the person themselves wants it is up to them

I worry people will be talked into it, used by relatives as a way to get money, or the person not wanting to be a burden

If they can fully give consent it should be no one else's business

I just don’t get why people with no understanding or experience of the situation think they have they right to limit the options of other people

I absolutely agree. In fact, I would want to be able to choose for myself if I ever have an early diagnosis of Alzheimer's, which definitely isn't included in this bill. I watched my father turn into a completely different person who didn't recognise his own children any more.

As an atheist, I also resent the weight that is given to religious arguments.

I spent three weeks in hospital by the side of a parent dying of heart failure. It was heart wrenching..
My cat will get better care than my poor dad. No hospice and people were just left in beds dying all around.
I was with him every step of the way until he couldn't drink anymore etc.
He was begging to go.
Terminally ill at 80 plus and largely disabled by that point due to other issues and in tremendous pain.

How please can anyone tell me my dad needed to last 3 weeks longer than necessary. S vet wouldn't put my cat through that??

I'm part of assisted dying and I've written to my mp.

@Edingril if your terminal ill weak and in extreme pain who would want to carry on?

I can't believe people think it's OK to force us all into long prolonged death in a hospital system that's brutal and shit because in a very very few cases some relatives may talk a terminally ill person into agreeing to be euthanased.

They manage to mostly mitigate that small risk in other countries!!.

And there are at least 3 medical professionals involved m

You go to a ward with dying old men they are just lying there with no water or food slowly dying

Yes it should be personal choice . I personally think the incidents of relatives persuading or hastening ones ending would be negligible. As long as the person makes the choice it's up to them . Why prolong suffering to give a few more painful months .

My Father wrote to his local MP in favour of assisted dying. He is desperate for it to be passed. Fair to the MP, he rang my Dad and asked could he come and chat about his email. (Which was utterly heartbreaking to read, it very eloquently and honestly explained what his alternatives will be if this ISN'T legalised, even as far as explaining the way he's thought of committing suicide if necessary 😢). Anyway, MP went to visit and then returned 2 days later with a film crew, and they filmed this video...
https://x.com/joshsimonsmp/status/1854909988491133334
He has no idea what Twitter/X is, but every morning when he wakes up and every evening before he goes to bed I have to text him his latest no. of views. He's just so 100% committed to people having the CHOICE to decide for themselves. And obviously sensible enough to know it needs tight regulation. If you don't want to choose it, don't choose it. But at least we should have the CHOICE.