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.

So all I can conclude from this paper is that natural death might be the same as assisted or it might be preferable to assisted death.

Efficacy and safety of drugs used for ‘assisted dying’
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9270985/

And therefore all I I can conclude for now, unless it’s refuted by other stronger evidence, is that the assisted dying bill has been passed way prematurely to having the key facts. And I don’t want laws voted through based on comforting principles about choice and a wish to be free of pain at death. That’s understandable as a wish but it’s not enough to make law on. Especially with the lack of safeguards this law is said to have.

I want to see a consensus of medics agreeing on how best medically to offer a pain free quick death globally and based on record keeping of what has actually been tried, before it’s made law here.

I’m not looking for any agreement on the principle of whether it’s OK or not morally, we won’t ever get agreement on that, We might not get agreement on details of the law and the safeguards needed either, those are all separate but important questions.

But at least I want there to be enough medical evidence gathered on the physical medical reality of what actually happens when certain drugs are given and then on how it would feel for the person going through it. So as humans within different health and legal systems and with different resources available to us economically, we know how best to do it. And then we can weigh up as individuals if that best practice is actually what is on offer to us and whether it is preferable to what dying naturally will be like for us.

Without applying a normal medical and scientific standard of evidence to it, assisted dying just joins a long list of failures of informed democratic argument. A huge failure of critical thinking by MPs that we rely on.

In terms of resources... the act will not increase overall pressure on the HS, the opposite. In much the same ways as the 1967 act did on social care (orphanages, fostering and adoption services). Yes, the 1967 act required upfront resources but net-net resources were reduced.

The state is already involved in taking life in this country, that is what palliative care is at the end stage. Do you think the patients actually die from their disease or respiratory effect from the levels of morphine?

It’s not unpalatable, it’s a statement that’s not true and stupid.

Can you expand? You’re saying that the state has no role in introducing and enacting this legislation? Is that what you actually believe to be true?

How do patients who do not require opioids die?

It’s introduced by the state, as it is with all bills, but it’s for people who want AD.

It’s not mandatory. It only happens when someone actively wants it.

Quite frankly, the lack of comprehension and the paranoia is off the charts.

Well ok ‘the state’ an elected MP .. but it was not a government bill which would have been much better and more transparent way because of the automatic research and scrutiny and public consultation which would have preceded any parliamentary vote
This Bill has not even been published gone three weeks yet. It’s total madness.

Well that's exactly why we don't need this bill.

What we need is hospice care available to all. There is a huge difference between extra morphine once the process of dying is underway and this bill.

For starters no one can predict this six month thing anyway. My mother lived for six years after her terminal diagnosis.

And looking at Canada and Holland I don't know how anyone can say that people with concerns about assisted dying are paranoid. It looks like a dytopian novel in those two countries to me. And Canada started down this road only eight years ago with legislation quite similar to that just passed.

The NHS is part of the state. High court judges are part of the state.

The state considering legislation with significant safeguards that is supported by a majority of the population is not state sponsored killing, just like access to abortion isn't. The people who could die are people who have a terminal illness with a prognosis of 6 months or less to live who CHOOSE this, possibly because they would rather die with dignity than in agony. You may not agree but let me call a spade a spade and forward my view that people have the right to take a different view to you without being accosted with irrational arguments about the state going around killing people as if they're Harold Shipman.

My mum was in a hospice. The staff were lovely, so caring and kind, but even they couldn't stop her dying in pain and fear. It is most definitely not the end my lovely mum would have chosen, if she had had that choice.

Agreed that this is how it absolutely should be, but I'm concerned that in one or two generations it will just be the "done thing" to choose to end your life so there won't be another option available. Individual choice rests on there being structures to facilitate that choice

That's really surprising. Are you saying that there were instances that you suspected that a person was euthanased by doctors or nurses, or that it was a widespread thing?
I worked in the community, and I swear ive never suspected it. I cannot see how it would routinely happen at all, because of how everything is documented and double checked when giving medication.
I just can't even imagine the discussion wouldn't be taboo.

There are signs when death is really imminent, and sometimes if a person is really distressed, then they can be made more comfortable , but what you're saying is pretty serious.

Judges are independent and impartial.

I totally understand your point of view. I was lucky that at the very end my mother's death was swift.

I think it would have been a better idea to start from the point of view of asking palliative care doctors what could or should be done to ease peoples deaths and if there is any legislation needed so that doctors can administer (with consent) more medication in the days leading up to a death.

I'd also be much happier with this bill if everyone had access to a hospice or if there was some kind of right to one enshrined in the legislation. Otherwise people are not going to get a real choice.

I'm not saying they're not. Nevertheless:

The justice system is one of the three branches of the state.

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/

actually you know what. This is a public forum and I don't think I should say more.

@VestaTilley

dont have it, if you don’t want it 🤷‍♀️ simple

but those who do want it should be able to have it.

why do you think people should be forced to endure pain and suffering against their will? It’s cruel.

What evidence do you have that it will the done thing in one or two generations? This is the type of comment unevidenced by fact that is unhelpful to the public discourse. We are not in Blade Runner territory. A majority of the public according to poll data support the Bill and support significant safeguards within it too

I am actually going to stop posting here about it and write to my MP instead.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so awful if an amendment was made to the bill so that an assisted death was only allowed if a comprehensive and funded package of palliative care including a guaranteed hospice bed had been offered to the patie nt as an alternative first.

Still think this whole thing is messed up and they should have started by asking palliative care doctors what it is they actually need to ease suffering, new laws / new guidance / more resources

Canada and Holland. It isn't a fanciful concern. It's happening in two developed and democratic countries right now.

I don't think it helps to dismiss people with concerns about this bill as fanciful and paranoid. There is a lot of evidence that laws around assisted dying and euthanasia can be abused.

I am certainly not dismissing anyone's concerns about people suffering at the end of their lives. I share those worries.

I wrote to my MP who had a different view to me, which was their right. You can see how your MP voted if you want to

There is no way that they can commit to a guaranteed package of care or a bed