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'm someone with progressive multiple sclerosis and my plan has always been to go to Dignitas if I feel it is needed.

I have lived with MS for over 30 years and am only in my mid 40s. If things are bad for me now (which they are), how much worse will it be if I make it to 80 years?!

I personally feel like it needs to go further but, as others have said, there needs to be safeguards and palliative care needs a shake up too.

What impact will those few minutes have on the loved one observing them?

What impact will the months of suffering have?

Relief. Peace. Gratitude.

Sorry where are you getting this information from? Because if it’s from US executions then bullshit. It’s absolutely possible to tailor the medication so that the death is quick and painless.

Yes, the suffering and the duration of it that can go on for many, many years is just so utterly sad. However, I am also interested in hearing the other side. I would like to hear and learn as much aspects about it as possible, as I'm sure there are factors that I haven't considered.

It just seems to me that we only hear half the story and when we realise exactly what it is that is involved, or will be taking place, we no longer agree. It's not quite what we had the impression of or what people thought they were signing up for. Reminds me a tad of Brexit.

What impact will those few minutes have on the loved one observing them?

Versus the impact of observing months of suffering and then quite possibly still traumatic at the end.

Not that loved ones have to observe a death anyway. Many dying people seem to not want this - it's quite commonly observed that a lot of deaths occur when the watching relative has had to leave the room.

Agree. I’m devastated, and feel sick to be honest.

A 5 hour debate and a private members bill for something of this seriousness is a disgrace. We spend longer discussing bus service regulation and the plight of bees.

I’m terrified by AD anyway - people will be coerced, people will do it when they don’t truly want to - no safety features could ever guard against it. But to do it this way is, frankly, diabolical.

A truly dark day for our country.

How selfish. It's not about the loved ones, it's about the person who is suffering.

WTF are you on about? The 5 hour debate was the tiniest tip of the iceberg of debate and thought over YEARS and YEARS!

Unless you are a time traveller from the future you have no idea about the rest of your scaremongering nonsense.

Ill informed hyperbole.

I was referring specifically to the potentially distressing symptoms that may be experienced.

I’m against it and think the focus should be on making improvements to palliative care so people are not suffering in pain.

And yet we have heard from multiple people who argue that having to watch somebody suffering and it’s subsequent impact on THEM is enough reason to push forward with euthanasia. So is it about the person or their loved ones? Because if it’s about the loved ones, then it brings us full circle to the fears about people feeling pressured to agree to euthanasia in order to spare their loved ones from witnesses their dying.

Already Esther Rantzen has been advised in a radio interview that if her family helped her kill herself, she is not going to be prosecuted.

That is awful. I am so sorry.

How will she be prosecuted if she’s dead?

It's about the person.

You're the one who asked what about the loved ones. Those who have said they want AD because they watched someone die in horrible pain, have said that they support it because that's what the person who died wanted. OR because having seen a person die like that, they want the option for themselves to not to.

I am absolutely no expert but I wonder if the quantity of drugs needed to remove pain would hasten someone's death? Hence the problem.

Sorry, her family will not be prosecuted for assisting a suicide.

And as a potential 'loved one' I was telling you the impact it would have. Doesn't need to be distressing. Distressing is watching your loved one waste away, suffering, rotting.

Henry Riley a journalist for lbc radio has written a piece in the independent how there are more mps as a percentage with religious views then non mps. He also states that many are not being honest about the role of their faith in this decision

Oh ok.

Even the most hardened CPS counsel might struggle otherwise!

That’s what I was trying to say….

This was always a problem. Towards the end of life the amount of, say, morphine required to alleviate pain would end the life.

Pre Shipman I am confident that some doctors would administer the dose in full knowledge that it would end life but relieve pain. It happened to King George V (the late Queens grandfather) but sadly in that case it was to ensure the Kings death was announced in the "right" morming papers. Nevertheless the King was dying so I have no issue with it - the end justified the means in my opinion.

But sometimes painkillers - even morphine - don't kill the pain. The dying person is in agony and cannot be relieved of it. What then?

I think I discussed this a few pages back on this post because this is exactly what David Davies said in his argument need to state to legalise this to get everything down on paper so that it protects doctors. He mentioned that about Harold shipman