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.

We are not Canada or the Netherlands. The Canada Bill in particular did not have the safeguards the UK one does. It allowed "unbearable suffering" not terminal illness. We are our own country enacting our own laws.

So are the state involved or not?

Then people aren't going to have a real choice are they.

Why the enthusiasm for assisted suicide but not the provision of palliative care?

I am afraid that whatever the intentions of those who have drafted this bill it will end up being about saving money.

The state is involved in abortion. Do you oppose that?

Who employs them?

They voted against. I think now that the vote is passed the bill needs to be amended to ensure that sick people have a real alternative to assisted suicide. So I will write to them about that.

@ScatolaNera What is this real alternative?

And again. I have countered the assertion that assisted suicide does not involve the state. It does. Whether you ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with abortion or euthanasia the state is involved.

Despite how some people want to sanitise it.

The example I cited above of routine abortions for genetic anomalies. Anecdotal, but friends of mine were quizzed by their family about their decision to keep a baby with an identified genetic condition. Once something becomes routine it can be hard for people to assert their own individual choices, especially if they don't feel supported. Btw I've never seen Blade Runner so your references are wasted on me

@ScatolaNera What do you think palliative care actually does?

A guaranteed package of state of the art palliative care, including regular appointments with a specialist, hospice care and a guarantee of a hospice bed and specialist care at the end if needed.

Who has accosted you about Harold Shipman? Haven’t seen those posts-perhaps you could link?

That's actually end of life care, and what exactly would all of the above do for the patient?

Mean that they didn't die in pain whilst being ignored on a busy general hospital ward or waiting 10 hours for an ambulance to show up or a district nurse to come round.

With all of the above people still do die in horrendous pain , end of life can TRY and manage the symptoms and pain but that's all it can do

Can you not think of any circumstances where the only way to avoid intolerable pain is to actually die? Knowing that death will not be quick, might be beyond the reach of any pain relief, or might be extremely distressing isn't how any of us wants to end up.
As I said earlier, a family member has just died after a year of begging to be given something to allow him to die. A whole year. A very elderly man, who understood that his life was ending, who said that his life had been good, but who knew the end would be tough. In fact an infection ended his life, but good grief, he should have been spared that. And so should his family.

I think it's problematic.

If you read the Bill, it all seems very sensible and full of appropriate safeguards.

Then you get the part about the actual dying. The person has to "self administer" the medication - in wonder what that will actually be like in real life, on the ground? A person may very well opt for assisted dying, complete the declaration to confirm that they are of an informed and settled decision. But when it comes to it - I think it could be messy. The instinct to live is strong and I wonder who will be able to swallow the drug cocktail. Of course they can change their mind at any time. But think there could be messy and traumatic scenes for all concerned.

No one wants to die a horrible painful death but with proper palliative care provision no one needs to. Palliative care doctors titrate morphine to the right level so that the patient is comfortable without it killing them. Of course sometimes the reality is that when someone is in a huge pain they have a lot of morphine and it's perhaps that that makes them slip away. But with palliative care the patient can be looked after, can be cared for in the hands of the hospice - and because death is not an "option" that anyone can actively choose, there is no pressure on the patient to feel that they should "hurry up and die" etc. its a process out of everyone's control and everyone has to let nature take its course.

Once it's in our option/control then I think there are a whole host of complexities.

I don't think "fear of dying in terrible pain" is a good enough reason to back it. If that's what you fear (and who doesn't!!) then what we need in order to deal with that is really good palliative care.

We don't need to change one of the fundamental givens of life/society.

Yes, I can. My issue is that we are not even trying to find an alternative to offer people.

This legislation should also have been drawn up in consultation with doctors that actually look after dying people.

Seems so badly thought through.

People have a really unrealistic view of what palliative care can actually do for someone and it isn't palliative care, it's end of life, two very different things

At the end of the day there can be the best care available but someone doesn't want to put themselves or their family through that

You can add Oregon and Belgium to the list.

Again, why make a person suffer when that person is asking to go? As in my previous post?

Can you clarify the distinction? Particularly regarding time frames and prognostic indicators?

When palliative pain relief fails, is that because doctors are afraid they be accused of killing the patient with an overdose?

Look it up, basically palliative care is for long term serious/ chronic conditions. End of life is usually at the later stages when nothing else can be done