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.

I’ve been surprised at the defensiveness and lack of insight of supporters of the bill. Most people that I’ve spoken to haven’t actually even read it……

@BMW6 if you don't understand that reference it's a famous tweet from Brexit times.

'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. 8:18 AM · Oct 16, 2015.

But the people in support of the bill are only saying that its right that an individual has the ability to choose !
I support YOUR right to choice. Wanting a choice FOR MYSELF isn't "defensive" is it? Just fair.

I'm sorry that the people you've spoken to are ill informed and clueless. I'm not and I want to choose to die painlessly and easily if I'm in dire straights.

Isn't that OK for you? Me having that option if it comes down to it?

Never heard of it I'm pleased to say!

(Edited to say probably because I don't do Twitter and never have)

I’ve been in favour of assisted dying for a very long time.

It should be a clinical decision, if someone is terminal or will never have a basically decent quality of life they should be able to choose to die on their own terms.

Had my DF who was terminal been given the decision I know he would have chosen to go on his own terms, as it was he choose plaintive chemo to make himself as comfortable as he could, but died an excruciating horrible death in the end. Absolutely everyone who loved him would have wanted him to go peacefully if we had been given the chance.

Im from a very large family with short lifespans due to horrible inherited conditions, I’ve witnessed too many painful deaths from a very young age.

Religion absolutely should never ever be a factor in these decisions by clinicians. It’s a basic science decision. Having a faith that opposes assisted dying dose not change the science behind someone’s health. People who can not seperate the 2 should not be allowed to make decisions for others.

i understand the dangers surrounding disabilities and families taking the easy way out, but at the end of the day if someone has the understanding of what will happen to them they should be allowed to choose their own ending.

"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%."

No, the polls do not show that. 7 out of 10 people support assisted dying in some form. What you're saying is like saying everyone who supports abortion supports it in every form and at every stage of pregnancy. That is blatantly untrue.

"Although I presume that we will now no longer need funding for suicide support after this"

Suicide support is for people in mental health crisis or struggling massively with circumstances. That is very different to the assisted dying bill which is for people with capacity, who are terminally ill and who repeatedly wish to die over several weeks. None of that applies to people who are in mental health crisis and actively suicidal.

"What’s that they say? Better a week too soon than a day too late?"

That saying is typically used for people who have to decide when to put their pet to sleep. That is very different to assisted dying as 1) it's an animal who cannot understand why they are in pain, and 2) the owner is making the decision on behalf of their pet. In the bill it is the decision of the person who is terminally ill whether to use assisted dying, they can weigh up their own quality of life and make their own decision.

Only if you are physically able.

This has been more emotional for me than I expected. Hearing shortening death used as an explanation was so healing for me. I would have given anything to shorten my mother's death. It was inhumane.

If you don't want this Bill to pave the way for other changes, then campaign against them as they raised. For now kindly allow other to live their lives and choose their deaths as they please.

Supporting a government to introduce legislation and criteria so that YOU can make a choice for yourself whilst refusing to consider the potential impact on people who are more vulnerable than you, is selfish.

But we live in a selfish society. We live in a society where we already can’t provide adequate health and social care for our most vulnerable adults and children. We live in a society where people lost their minds when they were asked to protect vulnerable people during the pandemic.

It’s no wonder we’ve moved so quickly to this.

This is a very sad day
.

You absolutely have your right to your view. But I personally think you are over-stating the situation when you say people will be euthanised. The bill is for people with only up to 6 months to live, who HAVE CAPACITY, who have 2 doctors and a judge involvement. What would you rather they do? Refuse nutrition (as is their right and starve to death)? The point of AD actually prolongs life sometimes. The people who rely on it know it is there but don 't avail themselves of it.

But you're opposing this because of what MIGHT happen!

You have no problem with this bill as it stands I take it? Your contention is that it's the start of a slippery slope?

But neither you nor anyone on earth knows the future. We can only deal with issues as they arise. If there was ever a proposal to euthanise people without their specific wish I'll be in the front of the protest.

Taking your stance "what next" you wouldn't want the wheel because it leads to nuclear weapons.

That’s my risk to take as someone who wishes to choose assisted dying, surely? I don’t think anyone thinks death of any sort is going to be kittens and rainbows. It’s about choice.

’Although I presume that we will now no longer need funding for suicide support after this’

Yes, because choosing to end your own life in a controlled way when you have a terminal illness is EXACTLY the same as being suicidally depressed…

This argument always reminds me of the people who described those leaping from the burning towers on 9/11 as ‘committing suicide’. It shows a total misunderstanding of the very different motivations at work. One is a permanent solution to a temporary problem (I’m aware there’s debate about this as per the use of assisted dying for mental health patients, but that’s a separate discussion). The other is (hopefully) a more controlled, dignified and comfortable route to an inevitable end.

Only 80 years or so behind Switzerland, but at least now finally people will be able to be treated with the same compassion that we show to animals. Well, some people. The legislation is far too restrictive, in my view.

And that post, right there, is what should be giving some of you a pause.

How can you argue with a straight face that there is no 'slippery slope'? If this passes, the second it does there will be calls to expand it.

It happened in Canada. It will happen here too.

It's because they are afraid that relatives will put pressure on people to choose this to access their inheritance. Or that is extended (I don't understand how) to just kill off people with disabilities.

I ideologically support assisted dying - however, we don’t live in an ideal world, so I am against this Bill and against bringing assisted dying into this country at this time.

The Liverpool Care Pathway had the laudable aim of extending hospice quality palliative care to hospitals and community settings. On paper it was great but there were huge problems in implementation, especially in hospitals.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-liverpool-care-pathway-for-dying-patients

There was a lack of understanding around what 'end of life' meant, with some patients placed on the pathway far too early.

The word 'pathway' was a problem - in some cases it was interpreted as a set of instructions to be ticked off on the way to death, rather than a framework for considering the end of life needs of the actual human being in front of them.

So some patients were inappropriately denied food and fluids and some patients were inappropriately, heavily sedated. Undoubtedly the LCP hastened death in some cases.

This didn't happen because of bad actors with nefarious motives, or because of a lack of compassion. It happened for all the usual reasons - understaffing, overwork, poor training, inadequate supervision, poor communication, admin issues ...

I am so glad we fixed all those things before legalising assisted dying 😶

That’s my risk to take as someone who wishes to choose assisted dying, surely? I don’t think anyone thinks death of any sort is going to be kittens and rainbows. It’s about choice.

I'd agree with you if it was known what people likely experience during assisted dying, but as far as I'm aware, there's been very little research into it. Canada's MAiD protocol states that there isn't any peer-reviewed literature looking at the right combinations and doses of these drugs, and because muscle blocking agents are typically used, I'm concerned that it would be impossible to tell if people are experiencing distress or pain, because they can't move. This paper gave me pause for thought, I did some research because I was surprised to notice so few people wondering what an assisted death would actually be like:

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9270985/

My opinion on assisted dying changes frequently- overall I'm in agreement with it in principle but concerned about what could happen in practice. But if the points raised in the paper I linked to are correct (and maybe someone with more knowledge than me will be able to give their opinion), how can anyone really give informed consent when the process sounds under-researched and even experimental?

I want to live thanks.

I support others right to choose. But I want to live.

And I find it pretty disgusting that I now feel the need to say that. I want to live.

This is pretty shocking. I thought that withholding fluids was only for heavily sedated patients, so I assumed it was basically when they weren't coherent. To be dying of thirst while conscious is pretty unethical.

But nonetheless I don't agree with prolonging people's discomfort against their will, especially when they're too ill or weak to take their own life.

Some people die long painful deaths. I watched the documentary last night 1 man was literally suffocating. Living for them is worth than death.

I have watched a family member battle cancer twice then die a painful death. Some people want it they have to have capacity to make the decision themselves. They also have to have their wishes approved by 2 Doctors.