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.

Well. I know from a friend in nhs (but didn't at the time) my beloved MIL was put on Liverpool pathway without my MIL's or family knowledge. That is entirely different from someone making a decision for themselves.

I don't get what you mean? Would you like to live like that? If you were given the choice between your current life and that life, which would you choose? I would bet your current life because it is better quality. We know there is a spectrum of quality of life from v high to v low. Does it really surprise you that some of us would rather die than suffer the v low quality of life I described my grandad as suffering

Edited to add - quoted wrong poster, shouldn't have been LuckySantangelo35 but ThisAquaCrow

@Vergus I think this is where the proposed bill and AD generally will eventually fail worldwide.
Medicine and basically society relies on trust and an understanding that all individual life ( not unborn) is of equal value. We are asking judges and doctors to make a decision about people who are still well and have capacity. It's open to such massive abuse. In principle it's a good idea but in practice there are so many loopholes.
The fact is that doctors and medical staff will be required to aid suicide for patients with full capacity rather than euthanise as part of an end of life plan, which is the more ethical and straightforward option. The difference is that patients should be in a position where death is the only choice- not an option.

Medicine and basically society relies on trust and an understanding that all individual life ( not unborn) is of equal value.

Breaking down the social contract was a feature of the Thatcher government, which is one reason why its so enraging to see it being used by the Labour Party. I have no idea where we are heading, but we never really recovered social stability from the changes made during the 80's.

No, they are not.

The point is that even a dog, that’s clearly lower than a human being, can have a painless death.

This not equating. Quite the opposite.

@Thelnebriati this government is more dangerous than the last one. Courting Reform voters and weaponising immigration and now rushing through AD. Better make sure you're an essential economic unit!!!

I completely agree with you and it’s exactly this kind of situation that makes me so supportive of AD and also so exasperated by people who oppose it - how can you think that suffering like this is ok for others? Like, it’s so inhumane.

i am so sorry your dad and mum has to endure that

@ismu Unfortunately despite my best efforts I am not! 😬

@@LuckySantangelo35 Many of us support AD but not this bill, because we've read it and can see the loopholes.

That level of compassion. It's not saying that dogs are the same value of humans.

yes its a criminal shame that a well thought out document was so criminally misused.

@DaniMontyRae dogs can't make the choice to be euthanised because at the end of the day they can't communicate with us. So this is a false equivalence.
However I suspect not all dogs would agree that their time has come!

Really?

Dogs can’t communicate with us?

Tell me you know nothing about dogs without telling me you know nothing about dogs.

@ChardonnaysBeastlyCat ffs they're hardly filling in consent forms or getting counselling, what a sanctimonious post

Why are you so sure that everyone in favour hasn't bothered reading it?

You may fing this cruel, but for some animals, such as cats, incontinence can be quite distressing. Cat are very clean animals, in fact they want a clean litterbox too, a bit removed from where they eat. Cats also hide their illnesses, so that incontinence often comes with pain as well.

I have also witnessed some dogs freak out if they need to relieve themselves in the house, instead of waiting for their usual walk time. With an illness it's thankfully temporary, but if I knew it was permanent and if I found a dog lying in its own urine or feces, because of permanent health issues, I would consider euthanizing as well.

Because if they have less than 6 months to live it won't matter if they're depressed as long as they still have capacity.

This is exactly how it will pan out unfortunately.😕

You clearly didn't see my old dog when he was nearing the end. He looked miserable, he was becoming unsteady on his feet, incontinent and his appetite was really poor amongst other things. I'm happy that I could spare him the miserable existence that a human would be condemned to tolerate.

@NewGreenDuck of course your dog was suffering and you helped him. But a dog can't ever have enough communication ability to tell us whether they offer consent to euthanasia and we literally have to make that decision for them.
It is also sadly impossible to know whether they would want to be euthanised, we just have to make that judgment call. We don't even know if dogs have a concept of future and past events the same as we do.
So it's impossible to use this as a comparison for people, who can tell us what their wishes are in advance.
It's a false equivalence for the AD bill because

• dogs would be unlikely to understand that they need to die now to avoid future suffering
• we are only offering AD to people with capacity who are physically capable of performing the act

To me ( and to many others who have made the same point repeatedly on these threads) it is saying that human life is of the same value as a dog.

No we are saying that if we allow a dog, or cat or any pet to suffer we would be prosecuted. But human beings who ask for help to end their lives are denied that and made to continue to suffer.

I disagree and you have just swept away one of the much touted safeguards that Leadbetter promised to the public and MPs. The safeguard being that the person is freely choosing AD as opposed to being suicidally depressed.

When you are terminally ill but not depressed, making the most of the time you have left does matter alot to both them and their relatives.

Well... Your interpretation is quite simply wrong then.

What concerns me is the possibility that, in ten years' time, there'll be posts like this on MN and other forums:

"AIBU to think my MIL is selfish for not offering to be euthanised? The inheritance she was going to leave us is already being eaten into by her care home fees. If she lives even just a few more years, it'll all be gone. Why isn't she prioritising her grandchildren's future? I know that when I'm her age, I won't want to be a burden. Ever since FIL died, all MIL's done is moan about how bored and lonely she is, and she even guilt-tripped us for putting her in the home instead of letting her move in with us. It's not as though she's happy, so why won't she accept that her time is up? I've asked my DH to gently suggest it to her, but he went berserk and accused me of wanting to murder his mother. AIBU to think he needs to stop being such a mummy's boy and prioritise his core family?"

You might think this is far-fetched, but I don't think so. I read posts on forums every week that make my jaw drop with their sheer selfishness. The anonymity of the Internet provides a real insight into how some people think.