Why do we put animals out of their misery but let humans suffer?

[Freshton]

A relative is currently dying a slow and horrible death from terminal cancer. In palliative phase and last few days now as can't swallow or take any liquids.

It's truly opened my eyes. I had no idea how medieval things were still when it comes to death. I've been truly horrified at what people are expected to endure in their final weeks and what their relatives have to witness.

I can't understand why we put animals to sleep to spare them suffering but humans still have to deal with this slow and undignified end.

I've never been much in favour of assisted dying as not had to think about it but after seeing what I've seen, I really hope something can change. I'll be haunted for the rest of my life by what I've seen in last few weeks.

You are mixing up that momentary time of death and the longer process of someone dying. Assisted dying is about preventing people going through weeks or months of pain and mental trauma. The actual death is momentary and largely irrelevant.

Death is inevitable how ever you die. But the run up to it is the part we can intervene with and improve.

So the answer to that is to make sure it is safe, not to take my choice away.

What are the statistics of successful assisted dying processes against those you claim are not safe?

Another one who is mixing up death with dying. This is not about the death itself. Its about ending life before they go through months of mental and physical trauma.

In the UK? None, because the law was not passed.
How can you make sure that an assisted dying law is safe?

You were asked to justify why you think assisted dying is unsafe through statistics and your answer is you don't have any statistics. What are you basing your 'unsafe' thinking on if you have no idea whether it is unsafe?

I would very much welcome a choice that doesn't involving suffering or having to commit suicide.

I'm basing it on the many objections raised by professionals in the field, including disability charities, individual advocates, professional bodies including the Association for Palliative Medicine, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Disability UK, the Royal College of Psychiatrists ...

I have incurable cancer. I’m TERRIFIED of having to face a long lingering painful death. Neither do I want my young adult children see me suffer.

So you don't have any facts then?

I don't know what you're looking for.
I don't have stats to say that a law that hasn't been passed is unsafe, just as you don't have any to say that it is.
I can't prove conclusively that it isn't safe, just as you can't prove that it is.
What is it that you want to know?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/627be27aeebc7620ee956da1/t/6742f6bae4bdc83efee3f5b6/1732441788287/Safeguarding+women+in+AD+The+OH.pdf

Here is one study for you as an example, in this case on the risks of assisted dying to women. One quote reads:

'Even if our law never widens beyond the terminally ill, safeguards
fail. Elsewhere, women with anorexia, disabilities and other
‘challenging’ female conditions have been funnelled into ‘assisted’
death. Providers of assisted death can and do coerce.'

Hopefully it will give you a small insight into one of the reasons why some people might object to this law.

People always make this comparison, and I don't understand it.

We also eat animals, forcibly breed them or sterilise them, and cull them. We treat animals and humans differently in many ways, and I don't think anyone would want to be treated the way the average animal is.

I do think it's terribly frustrating that people can't just load up on massive amounts of morphine to eliminate pain once they're in the last stages of a terminal disease though - after all, what's the risk? That it'll kill them? They're dying anyway! The risk seems like a reasonable one to take.

I want the choice to choose how I die. You and other people who are against it are taking away my choice. It is not fair for you to advocate for stopping me having that choice particularly when you appear to have zero evidence of why I should not be given the choice.

You stated that by me having a choice 'makes others less safe'. You admit you have nothing to back up this argument so why would you be against me having a choice?

Suicide is not illegal in the UK. Hence the terminology change from ‘committed suicide’ to ‘ended their own life’. You cannot commit a legal act.

100% agree with you having seen a couple of relatives die long, painful, hugely undignified deaths. Thank god one of them had no clue what was going on.

I think I have presented ample evidence of this risk, but it is unacceptable to you.
I ask again, what evidence would you accept that this bill puts people at risk?

I also want the choice to choose how I die. But how should this be laid down in legislation? You must realise that some implementations of assisted dying have more problems than others.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2023.2265265

That isn’t based on reality. Where it is legal, the vast majority go through months to years of physical and mental suffering before a decision is made (not always by them) that they’ve had enough and it’s time to die.

This is even in countries that only require a terminal illness or an illness that if left untreated would become terminal (a great way to usher diabetics, asthmatics, heart disease, MS and other patients on to the much cheaper assisted death track than the expensive decades of medical treatment track).

The UK law has the six months left to live requirement which means there will be months to years of suffering before a death day is scheduled. I am sorry but the concept of being able to time death before you’re suffering isn’t realistic.

I accept that there are risks involved with AD. But the current situation is just awful, when people are kept alive long after their quality of life has gone. Who benefits from this, apart from the owners of care homes?

We're an aging society so ending your life being totally incapacitated and dependent on carers who may be caring but who may just as easily be negligent and harsh is a fate awaiting many of us. AD, with appropriate safeguards, is the humane alternative for those who choose it.

Death is inevitable how ever you die. But the run up to it is the part we can intervene with and improve.

I agree with this, but disagree that assisted dying is the safest way to do it. Good palliative care would improve the dying process without the collateral damage of people being coerced into their own deaths.

Many ppl put down healthy animals too in the same way that healthy ppl will be killed if we have a system without safeguards as seen with the MAiD programme. Killing healthy ppl who have nothing wrong with them but are normal is wrong but apparently that is how they do it there!

There are thousands of disabled people living full lives while totally incapacitated and dependent on carers. Quality of life does not equate to being fully abled and in no need of carers. Keeping these people alive benefits them, not just their carers or the businesses that provide care.

Comments like yours show why most organisations and charities for disabled people are fighting this bill. Such arguments surrounding quality of life tend to describe the life of a disabled person dependent on carers as a harsh fate with the implication that hastening their death is preferable.

That's why Pegasos exists in Basel, Switzerland. They're a not for profit AD organisation and you don't have to have a terminal illness to use their services, although they have safeguarding measures in place.

Some people may find that objectionable in which case they don't have to use their services. But for others who might choose this, I'm glad there is such an organisation.

I had to watch my Mum for a slow and sometimes painful death from pancreatic cancer. She begged her GP to give her an injection to end it but of course she couldn't. Mum had to go on for 5 more days where she couldn't eat, drink or swallow or talk during this time she didn't even need to wee once she was so dehydrated.

Agree with the posters with concerns. In theory I am all for it, but having seen what is happening in Canada and hearing from disabled people who will no doubt be disproportionately affected by this, I can no longer support it. I’m hoping I will be able to get my hands on my own stash of something when the time comes and go out with a bang.