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.

One of their questions was why does the bill allow a proxy person to give consent on behalf of the patient? This is very much like the woman killed in Canada against her own stated wish for palliative care because her husband was burnt out and felt he couldn’t cope with waiting for his wife to die. MAId was approved within hours of his request and she was killed that very same night. Her refusal to consent and repeated requests for palliative care were ignored.

No the Swiss system is also facing challenges of abuse.

This has happened in assisted dying of humans as well.
Sometimes the person goes through the gastro intestinal agony of vomiting, shitting themselves, writhing in pain, passing out and then wake up to realise they aren’t dead but are now paralysed or blind and then have to endure attempt #2 to poison them.
One person changed her mind at the last minute minute and despite being slipped a sedative into her final tea (without her knowledge) started to fight the euthanising doctor. Kicking the drugs out of her hand, saying she didn’t want to die. You know what happened? Her relatives physically held her down until the doctor had forced the drugs into her and she had died. It was brought up for review by the authorities as possible malpractice and the relatives had many many comments about their elderly female relative being a burden and how they didn’t want all their inheritance eaten up in care fees. Everyone was acquitted, nothing to see here. Just an animal being pts for the convenience of her heirs.

100% agree with you. I'm sorry you're going through this. I've been through this myself a few times now, it's traumatic.

Until I experienced this the first time I had no idea people could survive a week with no water, I thought it was 2 days maximum. If someone is so unwell that they're unable to eat or drink, to the point that you have to repeatedly swab their mouth so stop it drying up, it's cruelty IMO to let them suffer.

I don't know how anyone that's been through this could say they don't agree with assisted dying in situations where the person is never going to survive.

While I understand and theoretically support the "when we have good palliative services, social services... we can discuss", I'm very afraid that this status is becoming more and more unreachable.

So the question is, what's more harm? Current situation or a choice, accepting that there will be some cases where the choices made could had been different with better services?

Dying is sad, unpleasant and of course difficult to witness.

That said, no we shouldn't hurry the process along and treat people like we treat animals and pts The solution is adequate treatment to control symptoms. Sadly, many GPs are crap and hospice care is limited.

If pain and symptoms are managed effectively then spending time with a dying relative should be a privilege.

People are being left to kill themselves while in secure mental health units, plus a single suicide attempt doesn’t get you sectioned, you’re sent back home after a few hours free to try again.

This assisted dying concept has already changed people’s attitudes from seeing wanting to die as a mental illness where the person needs help to who could be bothered with the extra money and faff to treat depression, let us help push them off a bridge or give them a bottle of pills and cheer them on to end their lives.

No mention is made of improving the horrendous living conditions, poverty, deprivation, or poor palliative care that lead to the depression in the first place.

I disagree that it's the circle of life. We keep people alive through medical advancement now even if it isn't what's best for them. If assisted dying is unethical then so is artificially keeping people alive when they are seriously unwell.

My nan, who had dementia, got sepsis and we didn't think she'd make it. We were called into the relatives room and told to say goodbye. They gave her antibiotics and she pulled through. At the time we were grateful because selfishly we didn't want to say goodbye. If I'd known at the time how horrific her death would be in the end I would have wanted her to go when she had sepsis. At least she looked peaceful then.

My grandma had COPD and couldn't breathe. They kept her alive with breathing apparatus and she begged them to take it off. She kept trying to pull the tubes out but they said she didn't have capacity because she was hallucinating. They ignored her wishes and kept putting them back in until she was too weak to argue any more.

No it isn't - you're confusing three different things.

1. Personal choice over how and when someone choses to end their own life. I would be happy to save myself and others money - rather than suffer for longer than I should; just because someone like you thinks you have control over my autonomy.
2. We have a democratic voting system. Do you really think any government (in the foreseeable future) would get away with that? Just look at the pair of flip flops we currently have in the prime ministers and chancellors chairs - as soon as the voters complain, the policy direction changes.
3. I didn't mention coercion to reduce the benefits bill at all. Do you not believe some people would actually choose a managed death, rather than suffer? Do you not trust safeguarding?

I agree. Although my brother died from cancer rapidly in 4 months from diagnosis to death, the last month was horrific. I watched him waste away in pain and die a very undignified death in a hospice where he appeared to be choking, then stopping breathing, then gasping and clearly distressed. It was barbaric and really awful for his wife and I to witness. He should have been able to drift off painlessly at least a month before.

You’re just using whataboutary rather than addressing the point. Read @Woodywasatwatt’s post at 19:34.

Never mind the relatives. I'd rather not have a slow painful death for myself

Hang on. That's not fair. It was you that brought money into it by saying you didn't want the government spending money on assisted dying.

Yes, I agree. Most people support choice. I support Dignity In Dying's campaign to bring in assisted dying as a choice with appropriate safeguards.

I want to have that choice for myself. And if it saves money for my family or for the taxpayer, that's a bonus.

Unpleasant?! Fucking hell. What a distasteful and brainless thing to say about death. How dare you speak about death as 'unpleasant'! A bird shitting on your head is unpleasant. Overcooked pasta is unpleasant. You are unpleasant. Death is so much more than unpleasant!

'Adequate' treatment?!? Where do I start with that?

And it's not about you and your fucking privilege! Jesus, how selfish?! It's about the person who is in mental and/or physical pain who sees no way out other than it being over with through death.

Have you done it? Because if you had, I think you would know that what you've just said is, in many cases, utterly bollox. No treatment or drugs can control the mental torment of knowing you are dying. No drugs can take away the indignity of losing control of your bowels, the indignity of losing your ability to dress yourself or feed yourself, the indignity of losing the ability to get out of bed or to communicate. Drugs cannot get you to the beach or for a walk in the woods or out to your favourite restaurant.

This is up there with one of the most thoughtless posts I've ever read on here.

The current system isn't fit for purpose. People should have the choice to have an assisted death.

I really hope it becomes law in the UK. But I fear it won't because of vested interests like the huge 'care' industry and politicians sucking up to sections of their voters who are against it.

It’s horrible. My mum has dementia and for the last year of her life she was bed bound, couldn’t eat by herself. couldn’t talk, didn’t recognise anyone, slept loads. Her body was for some crazy reason just being kept alive. I fully support assisted dying. My dad told us (after she eventually passed) that if he had first signs of dementia he would take his own life. In the end he had stage 4 lung cancer which went go brain so no cure and after 18 months of chemo and relatively normal life he started to feel very unwell, got a horrible infection was in hospital. He told the doctors after 3 days he didn’t want any further treatment and passed 2 days later. He was so brave and a man of his word. He wanted to die on his own terms.

Agree 100%

I don't think assisted dying will ever come in in the UK as there are too many vested interests in maintaining life long after any quality has gone. Its a tragedy.

Wow that is horrendous.

I am all for AD. It is criminal that someone could be bedbound and in immense pain, and suffering all sorts of indignity, and their request for that all to stop is left on deaf ears.

Pets are PTS, and under the premise of 'better a week too early, than a day to late'. We let them go on a day that is nicer for them. We spare them the mercy of spending their last moments suffering. And we do that for them.
But we are not allowed to do that for people who are asking for it for themselves. It makes no sense to me.

If you have terminal cancer, or MND, or dementia or one of a host of other ending illnesses then wanting to die painlessly and with dignity at the time of your choosing is hardly a sign of mental illness.

Agree. This is the problem. It can and will be abused. You only have to look at Canada to see the issues. It's unfortunate because I understand where OP is coming from and it would be lovely if it were possible to do it without the danger of it being abused but I can't see how it can.

I can't see how it could be abused if there were strict rules about terminal illness and death within 6 months, as it was proposed.
The person will be dead in 6 months anyway. That is not really going to impact inheritance.
The only difference is that they get to die with dignity.

I was in a psychiatric hospital, and one of the patients was there after a suicide attempt. She had terminal cancer. She had a tribunal, and was allowed to go home with her family. She should have never been there to start with.