Assisted Dying

[Nordione1]

I dont know what section to put this in. Im more upset about the vote for it than I thought I'd be. I feel like we have crossed a rubicon somehow.

Good point, I didn’t realise that.
However, there are points that you just can’t get to because no respectable society would allow it.

We allow easier access to abortion, yes. But I still can’t ever see a bill being passed that would allow it at full term even though I know some are in favour.

It’s the same with AD - scope may creep to include other conditions, for example. But I cannot imagine a society would ever allow it for depression for example. I have had depression, I have felt suicidal but I came through it. I believe many others have also. It would be a travesty if we allowed it for those sorts of conditions and that would be very extreme.

Yeah well seeing as morally it’s about a million miles from murder as it allows a person the personal choice to die with dignity, I’d say that a religion that doesn’t see that difference isn’t a good one.
And for those moralising over abortions, there are millions of alive children living in terrible conditions, being abused and growing up in poverty so maybe worry about them rather than the cluster of cells aborted before 12 weeks (which makes up the vast majority of abortions).

again "asssitance" for such children as will be added to the Dutch legislation already happens in the UK. Its not discussed or admitted to but it happens. Additionally clinical staff can remove artificial life support from children and have applied to have children made wards of court to do so.

Exactly this. Why shouldn't people want to commit suicide in those circumstances?

Most of the people arguing against it have their views rooted in a book which told them so. You do whatever your special book tells you, but don't impose your beliefs on me.

But hang on, no-one else's religious beliefs should be able to restrict or influence anyone else's beliefs and choices surely?

You live (and die) in accordance with your beliefs and choices. I will fight for your right to do so if needed.
But why do you think you have the right - morally or legally - to impose your beliefs and choice on me or anyone else?

Can you not recognise this dictatorial stance?

Definitely. I genuinely fail to see why it’s so terrible that if I am diagnosed with a brain tumour that will kill me and which causes me to lose control of my body, I can choose to go when I want to and on my terms. Genuinely what am I missing out on by being kept alive for a few more months, unable to speak or communicate with anyone? I don’t see that as a life I want to live and that should be respected.

Yes, I wish they'd just be honest and say it goes against my beliefs that vulnerable people should be allowed to end their suffering, instead of claiming they're concerned about some other set of vulnerable people.

Artificial life support is not always in the best interests of the patient.
Life above anything at any cost even after the body is broken and the consciousness is dead isn't moral superiority, it's moral cowardice.

Having watched my poor late DB die aged 34 from cancer, I would rather have had a much fonder memory of him instead of the one when he looked so emaciated from cachexia that he was practically skin and bones.

He wasn't in lots of pain as far as I remember. He had a lot of wonderful palliative care in a hospice which alleviated much of his suffering, hopefully. But I've seen enough of a prolonged, awful death like that to know it's certainly not something that I'd want. Personally, I would rather choose to leave on my own terms, and to prevent my family being traumatised by an awful death.

I think that people are failing to realise what it means when they say that 7 in 10 agree with assisted dying.

It means they agree with the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, basically the vulnerable being euthanised. Because that is absolutely where this will end. 100%.

Nobody is stop ing anyone from ending their own life. But people don’t want to end their own life, they want someone else to do it, and to hell with who gets hurt in the process.

Although I presume that we will now no longer need funding for suicide support after this, so maybe they can put that funding towards something else… what I wonder, since anyone who is vulnerable can just opt for assisted dying.

Yes, in theory it will only be those with six months left to live who will be able to have this. But in practice everyone knows that this isn’t what’s going to happen.

We already have people, even on these threads, hoping that the bill ultimately goes further and that only allowing the terminally ill to die isn’t going to be enough.

Someone said upthread and elsewhere that “we wouldn’t put an animal through that,” well, now that’s going to be extended to “we wouldn’t put a cancer patient through that,” when it comes to arguing for the law to be extended.

“My body my choice” doesn’t apply in the way people think it should. Ultimately it’s your body, it’s your choice to end your own life if that’s what you want to do.

What’s that they say? Better a week too soon than a day too late? So if people want to end their own lives, then they surely have the ability to do so while they are still capable.

So you'd be ok with robots assisting then?

No, they were not proven right. People are not having late term abortions for no reason. Women don’t suddenly decide they “don’t fancy” a baby. I’m pro choice, so a quarter of a million isn’t a personal concern as long at it’s the woman choice.

I don't agree with this comment that suggests they can see into the future.

Yes. It reminds me of that awful woman Caroline Farrow during the Charlie Gard litigation. All the moralising and the poor child had zero quality of life. Of course any person could see that the doctors were completely right.

I agree wholeheartedly

It was recognised that the Liverpool pathway was wrong, that’s why it was removed and lessons learnt

in the case of assisted dying there are lots of guidelines needed to follow, including only the terminally ill with 6 months left having to ask themselves for it, signed by two separate independant drs and a high court judge, it’s not left to the hospital to agree like the LP was

It will be a number of years yet before it becomes law, but for a lot of people who have seen people die in pain, who saw loved ones wanting help to die to stop that pain it will bring relief that further help maybe there.

Tbh all the hysteria about it being an open killing field, with disabled people and those seriously ill killed off left right and centre has to stop. Lots of countries now have assisted dying with a lot of conditions that have to be met. Ours seems the most restrictive in that it’s terminally and death is due. within 6 months and the guidelines will stop any coercion unless drs and a high court judge are also in on it which seems very unlikely

I don’t think it’s fair for people to suggest they automatically know what 7 in 10 people are thinking.

I am extremely pro AD but in very specific, very well controlled and strictly monitored conditions. Adults, independently assessed as being capacious, with a terminal diagnosis should be allowed the choice. It shouldn’t be suggested or offered but if they ask, they should be assessed for eligibility. I have seen a number of people suffer horrifically knowing they are going to die from Motor neurone disease. Many people initially have a reasonable quality of life but when they are at the point where they are very close to the end, it can be horrific and terrifying. If they can prevent the last days and weeks of distress, they should be able to choose if they want.

I think hysteria is offensive and wording could be reframed.

@Errors I very much think it will feed down to mental illness, especially depression. There are cases in Holland and Canada where people who've tried repeatedly to commit suicide have been granted AD.
To me this is about the value of human life. It would be better in my opinion if doctors were being given powers of prescribing and administering potent opiates for people in extreme pain or distress to hasten the dying process.
This legislation puts death in people's own hands and is open to issues with medical error, misinformation, poor palliative care and public outrage when it dawns that it's not ending suffering for those with dementia or delirium. Which will then require amendments... and more amendments...

But we’re already there in some instances.

We already have DNR’s for patients with certain disabilities. We already withhold certain treatments for people with certain disabilities. It’s only a short step from that to assisted dying for people with certain disabilities.

I need a heart transplant. I am going for an assessment next week. Should the NHS be funding such surgery? Or should transplant patients opt for assisted dying instead?

We’ve seen first hand what’s happened in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, even Switzerland, So we know that assisted dying is offered to the vulnerable elsewhere. So why on earth does anyone believe that won’t happen here? Given the country’s track record with disability being what it is.

Wholeheartedly agree.

We’ve seen first hand what’s happened in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, even Switzerland

Have we? Because there’s a lot of misreporting and sensationalism about how depressed young teens are given lethal injections on their say so. That’s not true. There’s also been interviews with relatives who didn’t agree with their loved one’s decision to die and understandably feel angry over it.

I'm pleased personally, having seen what both my parents went through. However, it's worrying the potential for abuse, especially as we have a barely functioning NHS, poorly funded social care for elderly people and a v negative attitude towards disabled people. Hearing about how DNR s are practically foisted on pp by indifferent doctors is chilling.

Blankets DNARs are unacceptable but the general public woefully misunderstands what this means. They view it as people not receiving treatment. I hope ReSPECT forms are fully rolled out soon and totally replace DNAR, so we can ditch the language of ‘’DNAR.

HowMuchOfYourHeart

I think that people are failing to realise what it means when they say that 7 in 10 agree with assisted dying.
It means they agree with the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, basically the vulnerable being euthanised. Because that is absolutely where this will end. 100%.

Oh I'd really appreciate seeing your source for this claim.

Or us it just your hyperbole?