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.

No, they don't. And this is the fundamental issue with too many people on this thread, you're opposing what you think the proposal is, or what you think it might become. Possibly because you haven't bothered to read it for yourself.

I think you might come second to two short planks in a debating contest, but that doesn't make it true.

Probably exactly the same

I can't seem to find the statistics you're referring to, would you mind providing some links please?

Certainly. Europe as a whole, despite relatively stringent rules, had worse deaths per million than countries that closed borders, and countries that let people choose for themselves. I say choose - they had to because there was much less / no financial support to people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Though, that’s way off topic. Governments role is to implement the will of the people, and 70% of us want the option of assisted dying. Yes, the option. It’s not and never will be compulsory, despite the histrionics of the minority. A minority who think they have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do.

I’m asking you to explain how prognosis is measured in patients with MND. Particularly in the context of the 6 months timescale in the euthanasia bill.
’Progression is varied’-at what point can we definitely say that prognosis is less than 6 months?

Are all these diagnostic procedures available for people who are in and wish to remain, their own homes or in nursing homes?

If we decide to use CO2 testing as a prognostic indicator, what fors that involve? How invasive and painful is it?

Having animals put to sleep isn't a straw man argument. It's pretty relevant. If you left a dog in the amount of pain my gran was in at the end, you'd probably be prosecuted. Because it's cruel to leave a sentient being in so much pain with no hope of recovery and wait for them to die a horrible death with pain relief that doesn't touch the sides.

If my gran wanted to choose to end it on her terms when the pain became unbearable, what business is that of anyone else's?

I think a lot of this is still religion interfering with what is supposed to be a secular country, with all that bollocks about "only god can take away life". It's like people judge others for wanting not to suffer pain.

I feel like we haven't even tried to seriously improve palliative care before just giving up and passing this bill.

There will be no incentive to improve it now. And no real choice. If we had a state of the art system and it was a well resourced hospice versus assisted dying that would be one thing.

The reality will be a 16 hour wait for an ambulance and being ignored on a ward versus assisted dying which is no choice at all.

And what about the doctors and nurses? Should they be put in this position?

OK, so it's suicide. That's not been a crime for over 60 years. Not always a bad choice for the individual concerned. But attempted suicide can fail - with assisted dying, it will be successful. That is just a massive relief to me, and I'm sure for many other people.

A ‘tracker’? I assumed you were referring to peer reviewed evidence.

I’m struggling to understand why you are referring to ‘compulsory’ euthanasia. That’s not what people are concerned about. It’s about coercion and vulnerability. Quite ironic that you mention ‘histrionics’ from your black/white position.

’Government’s role is to implement the will of the people’ Really? The same public who voted for Brexit based on signs on buses? 😉

Most people with MND are at home - if practical -, especially if they are younger. Those tests will involve a hospital visit but again, people will be travelling to hospital to see their consultant or for other interventions. Lots can be done at home e.g. specialist neuro physiotherapy and SaLT. Tests that involve equipment obviously need a visit to the hospital. An earlobe blood test is uncomfortable but not invasive. I have it regularly for other reasons. Overnight sleep studies are more limited but can be done at home. More detailed ones are an overnight stay in hospital. It’s monitoring, not poking and prodding, although you’d probably have a blood test.
I am not a specialist neurologist but you can google the NICE guidelines. I have them on my work laptop but i am on my phone. There will be indicators of when a person is approaching the terminal phase and respiratory failure. I wouldn’t like to say what these are, as that is not my area.

I hope it is a good thing. Having watched the excruciating pain my late husband experienced in his last weeks & the effects that has had on our young children has been devastating

@Mumistiredzzzz and other people on here who think that ending your own life is a right- it absolutely is not. If it was there would be no attempt to stop people jumping off bridges or in front of trains, no emergency mental health admissions, no restrictions on the sale of paracetamol.
Is that the society we want?
In my opinion euthanasia should remain a judicious use of drugs the end suffering, under medical care - an updated version of how it was prior to Harold Shipman, with full consent.
The goal should be to maximise quality of life and make sure a good death is possible.
AD is not the choice you think it is, especially not in this bill.

Which is a very good reason for this bill. It takes the decision making out of the hands of the clinicians who are caring for the actual person in hospital and adds in a non clinician. It alaso slows down the process. Be in no doubt that clinicians assist people right now. The vast vast majority of then aren't Letbys or Shipmans, they are good people who have the best ethical intentions for their patients. Some of them have "careful conversations" with the patient or with their relative but many do not. It amazes me that people who oppose assisted dying don't want it regulated.

My biggest concern with the proposed regulations is that they don't cover the situation that I suspect many of us fear the most. A late-life diagnosis of a terminal condition with a progressive loss of physical ability where you could end up incapable of physically taking the action yourself before reaching the 6-month point whilst still being mentally capable of making the decision and with full awareness of the worst yet to come.

@DogInATent excellent post.
It avoids dealing with the fact that most people in that situation are in a state of shock and denial for a long time, possibly even until they die.

Of course it's a right.
Your argument is fallacious. The right to do something doesn't in the slightest imply that in all circumstances it's the best course of action. There are many things we have a right to do as adults which people concerned about us may dissuade us from, and support us to avoid.

Some of those examples are because of the distress they cause others-jumping in front of cars and trains-and some of them are to stop people taking actions that they might later regret at a a time when they are not competent to make those decisions.

Yes.

However, the opening up,of discussion will, I sincerely hope, encourage more people to make their wishes clear while they can - whatever they are. Get those POAs set up and talk to the person who may have to make decisions on your behalf.

While I agree, the proposed law will not allow a POA holder to agree on behalf of the dying person BUT hopefully when the detail of the bill is unpicked the concept of "self administration" may be defined to include actions which are possible for people with very limited physical ability....sucking on a straw, pressing a button, maybe even blink activated injection. Similarly there are ways of communication that do not involve physical speech.

https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/help/support/terminal-illness/planning-ahead/advance-care-planning

A good place to start.

I'm not sure it's up to you to tell anyone else that it is not their right to choose. You don't get to take that from me.

@Viviennemary

its someone with awful illness whose suffering loads who can’t ever get better having the choice to end that pain. Call it suicide, call it AD, what does it matter? So long as it’s an option for those that need it .

@godmum56 @ErrolTheDragon ending your life is not a right. It's not illegal anymore but we presume that people attempting it should be saved or prevented from doing so as we consider all lives precious and valuable.
If it's a right now that's saved the emergency services a lot of time and money!

@ismu

its not always possible to maximise quality of life and have a good death. For lots of people. And you think that these people should just suck it up and suffer do you?

The other issue that at least needs to be mentioned, all of the people raising the issue of coercion are doing so from the perspective of people that can only see coercion to take the AD option as the only bad form of coercion in this situation. They are exactly the sort of people that would attempt to coerce (or outright deny) someone in unbearable pain against this option when they want to take it. It doesn't help that the moral compass of christianity is fundamentally based on the concept that suffering is a good thing - suffer in life for jam eternal in an afterlife.