To be very anxious about the assisted dying bill?

[bipbopdo]

I’m surprised by how anxious I am about it. I don’t agree with it at all and I’m not sure there will ever be enough safeguards to justify making it legal. As it currently stands, it’s theoretically possible for someone with anorexia to qualify.

It took less than ten years for Canada to expand eligibility well beyond the original criteria. Assisted dying now accounts for one in twenty deaths there. I’m scared that could happen here.

@XenoBitch

Sedation is often for what’s called terminal agitation, which you can look up. You’d look for slightly different signs for pain in someone who’s dying and can’t tell you. Frowning, grimacing etc. Sometimes if they’re a bit agitated and you’re not sure you can give them a little bit of both - pain relief and sedation, the sedation tends to be a benzodiazepine which would make them feel a bit more relaxed.
It’s for the patients benefit as in the last couple of days of life it’s likely they’ve lost consciousness for the majority of the time anyway.
It’s a slight tangent, and probably shouldn’t derail the thread.
I hope that helps.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2025/05/13/the-rcpsych-cannot-support-the-terminally-ill-adults-(end-of-life)-bill-for-england-and-wales-in-its-current-form

This worries me - just remember about it. I’ve written something more balanced further up thread.

Not really. For some conditions, it is best to say goodbye to your pet before they have a very traumatic crisis such as a tumour rupturing or a cancer ridden bone breaking. There is the saying ' better a week too early than a day too late".
And some pets are just very old and no amount of meds can reverse that.

Unfortunately there are some people who were so aggressively against this bill and there was someone trying to get everyone in our community to protest against it that quite a few of the vulnerable elderly were saying they wouldn't go into hospital as they would be bumped off as soon as they got through the doors. No amount of explaining the conditions of the bill and that it would take a few years to set everything up would persuade them otherwise

I totally understand the anxiety and can never think about it without being conflicted.

On the one hand id never want a relative or loved one suffering if they could have peace and dignity.

But I do worry about a variety of scenarios. Most concerning is the idea a loved one may choose assisted dying, wrongly believing they're a burden. Id never want a loved one living in unending pain but id also never want them to feel that caring for them was in anyway a burden.

And I do worry some people may feel pressurised into it. I think it needs to be handled carefully to balance protection of the vulnerable with dignity and comfort for the ones certain its for them

I haven’t seen that. Can you link to it here please? Ta

@CorneliaCupp

Im sorry but this “It is not possible to completely eradicate suffering, it is a part of life” sounds incredibly flippant and heartless. If someone said that to you when you were in unbearable hideous pain and suffering, I don’t think you would like it.

Of course not, which is why I would never say it in such a scenario. That would be heartless and massively inappropriate.
In an intellectual debate, such as this, it is factually accurate though.

Honestly this seems like such a niche argument to impose a blanket prohibition on everybody from being allowed an assisted death.

It's argument seems to be that there may be a person who is assessed by two doctors as being terminally ill with only six months left and is suffering intolerably as a result of that terminal illness and who decides as a result they want to die but they also have depression or some similar condition and if the person didn't take an assisted death they might have cured the person's depression in the last six months of their life and they would want to wait to die of their terminal illness instead.

I can't deny it's an impossible scenario but I am dubious it's something that plays out enough to justify taking choice away from everyone without exception.

And, like so many other critics, they say there aren't enough safeguards but don't actually say what safeguards would satisfy them.

@CorneliaCupp

the bill is for people with a terminal illness with a limited time left to live. So im not sure why you think suffering for disabled people should increase? Surely as well they should be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else to end their life if they were terminally ill and wanted to put a stop to their suffering?

@CorneliaCupp

this is about real people and real lives and real suffering, it’s not purely some intellectual philosophical debate. Suffering should be ended if that’s what the person wants. It’s the humane thing to do. END OF.

I think it's a sad reflection on society today that people are more worried about those who may be coerced into this choice rather than those in horrific pain wanting to end their days in a peaceful and calm way of their choice. 100 k people a year die in this country without access to any palliative care, and the palliative care that is available is a postcode lottery. Having experienced the system when my Dad died of cancer, I wholeheartedly give thanks for this bill.

https://apmonline.org/wp-content/uploads/Assisted-Dying-Briefing-16.05.25.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi35-mh54WOAxWuTkEAHc78CW0QFnoECFQQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3oSnOfg4_9U8Z_-j8a38Ad

It does also mention concern about medical professionals being required to participate but the Bill already addresses that.... unless that's a reference to the Scottish or IoM legislation I suppose.

I agree!
This conversation right here right now IS an intellectual debate. But you are right, it is about real lives.
No one should ever have to suffer, I don't think any rational person would take any pleasure in the suffering of another person.
I believe that this bill will cause people to suffer who wouldn't itherwise, and therefore on balance is a bad bill. You have already said that there is nothing that anyone can say that could possibly change your mind, so why carry on having this conversation?
We disagree with each other, and that's ok.

Even the most fabulous palliative care doesn't always avoid a long drawn undignified traumatic death. My mum recently died after 7 weeks in hospice. It was horrific, she lost all dignity and independence in her last few weeks. It's true when folk say we wouldn't put a dog through it. I fully support the Bill

@CorneliaCupp

”I believe that this bill will cause people to suffer who wouldn't itherwise, and therefore on balance is a bad bill.”

thats hypothetical. And what about those who would definitely benefit from the bill who are in pain now?? Or it just tough shit for them to protect others from something that is really unlikely to happen? Should they just be left to suffer because suffering is a part of life?

No I don’t think it’s justified to spend enough money to feed a village in the developing world for a pet. BUT when my cat was unwell all I was offered was to investigate her up hill and down dale for asthma- talking ct scans, bronchoscopy, mri and echo all separately and under GA. When I actually asked for asthma treatment I was told if I wasn’t going to go for all investigations then all they could offer was to have her put down.
so I wouldn’t be surprised we are in the same position as Canada soon.

Thats exactly my thought. Its really not our business or worry to be anxious about if its passed.

See my response to pp. My experience of vets was eye opening when my cat was unwell. I suspect she went before her time.

Or it just tough shit for them to protect others from something that is really unlikely to happen? Should they just be left to suffer because suffering is a part of life?

Agree. There are lots of things that people could be pressured or coerced into doing. We don't outlaw them just because some people might be pressured or coerced. We don't stop everybody being able to do those things if they want to.

If you’re sedated to the point where you don’t know what’s going on around you, quite honestly you might as well be dead. Why would anyone want that?

Yep, it is for the benefit of the relatives.

@mutinyonthetwix

To ensure you’ve made a safe and holistic assessment, I’d still argue that their assessment is still very important in the process and if they’re saying they cannot safely do that, it’s a concern.

And statistically the very high levels of severe depression and anxiety that are triggered by a terminal diagnosis (evidence based) might make it less niche that we’d like to think? 😞

Thanks. There’s a very interesting document from these same people.

One can see that many people have much to gain from extending palliative and end of life care, the need for care homes, home care.

It costs a lot of money. People often pay with their houses. The drugs alone cost millions. Interesting, isn’t it.

Not even delved into the IHT implications (gvt gets less), pensions (gvt keeps less with current rules, but of course Reeves is updating pension rules so more goes back to the gvt). Etc. once one starts looking, and seeing, it’s hard to unsee.

This along with the religious contingent provides many with arguments to dislike Assisted Dying.

None of which look for the best outcome for individuals, nor for personal choice and control.

We see you. AD means a lot of entities receive a lot less ££££. Of course it’s not in their interest to support AD.

https://palliativecarecommission.uk/report

‘Palliative care and end of life care - Opportunities for England’

Well then I think the Association of Palliative Medicine needs to do better, so that people do not have to go through what people are going through.