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.

@ismu

”one day” is right…and we’re no where near that. So should people just suffer for the sake of it until
then?

But whether, as you say, you take a pill and your family watch you commit suicide, or if they watch you die in pain for weeks, it will might all still be in hospital with no privacy.

Why would begrudge a loved one their decision not to suffer in death? Should they not have the option so as to spare you feeling uncomfortable about the way they have decided to end their suffering?

You are making it all about you. That’s wrong.

But AD does not stop people suffering if they want to. It allows people like me who don't want to suffer, to decide how and when we die.

The people who want to suffer can carry on.

I am happy to take the risk that there might be a cure in the future. I really don't care if there is. Once I have decided to die, I want to die.

I think if someone is dying, they are suffering and want to die then absolutely they should have that choice and help in which to do it. It is one I will make for myself if needed. I will not spend my final months in pain, with all my loved ones suffering beside me. I have told my dh on many occasions that I will go to dignitas if that were to happen.
It is beyond cruel to keep someone alive who is already dying. Suffering every day just because other people don’t think it feels quite right. It is down to the individual to choose and there should always be a choice.

Are there any doctors on this thread out of interest and apologies if I've missed a post from one. How does/will the new law change your thinking if at all?

Oh yeah. Because the UK track record for eradicating homelessness speaks volumes……

How long do we give these disabled kids and drug users to turn their lives around? 6 months ties in nicely with the euthanasia bill?

On the contrary, the comparison with the poor souls who jumped from the burning towers on 9/11 is perfectly relevant and illustrates what this new law represents in reality.

They all wanted to live of course, but the reality was that they had only 2 choices in that moment.
Stay where they were and burn alive, or jump.

People with a terminal illness who doctors agree will die within 6 months will now have a choice.
They could take whatever death may be in store for them, not knowing how prolonged and painful in might be, or they could go under their control with no pain and drawn out misery.

I'm not a gambler and the risk of pain and undignified suffering is not for me. You can choose to wait and see what you'll get, that's your perogative, but don't deny others their choice.

This is so ironic. The only argument that people make for euthanasia I’ve heard so far is from a purely personal level. MY body/MY right/ME.

If it’s so wrong to make something all about you, does that not apply to those who are pushing for euthanasia regardless of the potential impact on others?

You have the right to end your life at a time of your choosing now. You don’t and shouldn’t have the right to require someone else to help you do it.

Because no one makes anyone do anything they don’t want.

Because all OP wants is to spare her own uncomfortable feeling.

Having worked in palliative care, im really relieved about this. I think the dying process can be so traumatic for some people.
I think a lot of people have a misguided belief that doctors or nurses 'help people on their way' unofficially, but in my experience this is not the case at all.

Also, what’s wrong with wanting to be able to decide about your own body?

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that it will be the individual concerned that will make the decision about whether or not they wish to die, and no one else. They will have to be deemed to be “in sound mind” so no one with latter stage dementia, or other debilitating mental health conditions that mean they cannot make a rational decision will be able to make that decision, it is then too late. It’s a bit like making a POA, you have to be in sound mind for it to be undertaken and legal.
So it very well might not be in a hospital, it could be at home. I am sure that anyone determined that this is going to be their choice will make it plain, will ensure that no comebacks will fall on loved ones, and it might very will involve someone from the legal profession being made aware. In essence it means that those in extreme pain, but still with full faculties mentally can now say yes, I have had enough. It gives them the right to choose a quick pain free death, under settings and surroundings of their choice, with or without a brave loved one on hand, instead of having to be alone. Suicide will still happen, agonising deaths for those incapable of taking this decision will still happen. But for many, who perhaps have come to terms with understanding that it might now be possible to have the option of ‘a good death’, it gives a choice.

@ThisAquaCrow

people can do what they want to do their own bodies, end of. Are you really suggesting people live in pain and misery to protect others from completely hypothetical situations?

70% of us want the option of assisted dying

To be more accurate only 59% (a small majority) support assisted dying both in principle and in practice.

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_AssistedDying_241120_exefTJ4.pdf

A further 19% chose 'I support it in principle, but in practice I am opposed as I don't think it is possible to create adequate laws regulating it.'

I would have picked this option and I think quite a lot of others on this thread would too.

It seems to me that some of those in favour of the bill are counting us amongst their support when it suits, while at the same time accusing us of wanting people to suffer or dismissing our concerns as religion in disguise.

Religious beliefs should have no place in this bill. Those who practice religion will base their choice of whether or not to die upon their personal religious beliefs, but it should not be foisted upon society in general.

One of my sisters is a senior HCP on children's Oncology.

She is totally in favour of AD within the parameters in this bill. Older children have expressed terror of how painful and prolonged their approaching death will be and this choice could ease their fear immensely.

Yes, a lot of people are extremely badly informed. Including on this thread. The misinformation is mind blowing.

@BMW6 - I believe this bill only applies to adults?

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/covid-19-inquiry-told-do-not-resuscitate-communication-people-learning-disabilities#:~:text=DPO%20Hub-,Covid%2D19%20Inquiry%20Told%20of%20Do%2DNot%2DResuscitate%20Communication,To%20People%20With%20Learning%20Disabilities&text=People%20with%20learning%20disabilities%20were,the%20Covid%20inquiry%20has%20heard.

In case people have forgotten what happened during covid please read the article linked above. Many disabled people and those with learning disabilities including autism were automatically put on the do not resuscitate list without their consent if they caught covid. The guardian did a big whistle blowing piece which resulted in the NHS backtracking on this policy which they quietly brought in. I do not belive that this assisted dying bill has enough safeguarding clauses in to protect the vulnerable.

And you think I disagree on assisted dying because I said bringing the twin towers into the debate wasn't relevant to a debate on assisted dying because?

Just to reiterate to posters on this thread

You do not have the right to take your own life. *
*
People will stop you. You will be assumed to lack capacity.

The AD bill allows for a judge and two doctors to decide whether you have capacity to end your own life.

If they think you do not, you will not be given AD.

If you try to kill yourself in this situation you might still be resuscitated and kept alive.

Some people are suggesting that mental health is a reason for AD.
It is not in the bill.
If it is amended to include mental health or other conditions outwith terminal illnesses, as it surely will be, where does that leave medical care?

I think your post is relevant. But don’t lose sight of the fact that that decision was made at the very height of the World being in the grip of a terrible pandemic, with little known about what was causing it, how to effectively treat it, no sign of a viable inoculation on the horizon, and I think we can safely say a very inept set of people leading the political response. It was put into place on the 24th March, possibly two weeks into first lockdown when all hell was breaking loose, but rescinded (quite rightly) a month later.

This bill isn’t a panic response to an unknown situation, but will be a debated, voted upon, likely to be amended in a variety of ways, informed decision, and with such as your post in mind, ought to be better informed. Mentally ill individuals (those who have someone else make decisions on their behalf) are unlikely to be included, as they will lack the rational capacity to make an informed personal choice.

I am sorry for your suffering but two things. The first is that this bill will, for the people who can use it, take that decision and process OUT of the hands of a single doctor who can say "you will probably die from this so take a pill" The LCP was horribly misused. I have been in the watching loved ones die position more than once both at home and in hospital and I think from my experiences. that watching a loved one die slowly and in agony is much worse than seeing them pass quickly and peacefully.

If you can, you need to communicate with this “amazing Lady” and suggest she does more reading and analysis away from Twitface and via better informed reading. All trash social media platforms do is feed into anxiety and depression. She is no doubt amazing caring for a loved one, but doing it based upon social media is not a good idea.