To think Gill Pharaoh had the ideal end of life

[CurdinHenry]

Article in the Times about this woman who decided to end her life through voluntary euthanasia at 75. Huge outrage on social media as a result as various people missing the point entirely express fury because they think being very elderly will be great fun. I personally don't want to get older than that. I don't ask anyone else to take the same view but it stresses me out that the naive want to reduce choices available to the prescient. Euthanasia should be available to everyone without condition.

I agree its a hard job but it can also be family friendly and if it was paid well to reflect the intensity, it could be a valid career choice.

No it's an economic decision made by customers, which include local authorities which don't have enough money to pay more.

Are you hearing the howls of protest at the suggestion from Andy Burnham that every dead person's estate pays £10,000 to finance care?

Well, I suppose reclassifying suicide as a good thing, as many people seem to consider it to be on this thread, will at least save money on suicide prevention. Now people can be happy when their family and friends commit suicide, instead of devastated. Problem solved!

The new Bill going through parliament will allow for terminal people with capacity, to ask for it. Despite what can happen sometimes I still think there are a lot of people who are helped on their way with medical overdoses of medications when they are in their last stages.

Even if there were enough carers available, some people don’t want carers looking after them. I would prefer to die on my own terms than need care. I want to have that choice in the UK (assisted dying) but that’s not going to happen in my lifetime.

The rates LA rates are enough ( roughly £30 ph), but the private companies keep the vast majority of that and want huge profits rather than a healthy one. The amount the LA customer pays doesn't change if they have 5 hours a week or 15.

I think everyone should have the option to end their life and that money should not be the determining factor. If you don’t agree with euthanasia for yourself, why are you trying to stop others from having access to it. It is not proposed to become compulsory. We have all led different lives and have different life experiences. Why refuse to let someone make a decision about their own end of life. Especially when for their whole time alive 18+ they are completely responsible for every single one of their actions regarding everything, until their end of life which is just left to money, chance and availability of services.

You think that post is an adult and helpful contribution to the discussion of a complex issue in what way, exactly?

"According to data from the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Homecare Association, roughly 40% to 48% of large for-profit home care providers report margins of 5% or less on state-funded work, with average net operating profits hovering near 2%–3%. "

Those profits are very low. Local authorities outsource this work to avoid management costs and all the on-costs involved with employing staff. Sick pay, holiday pay, PPE, recruitment costs and on and on.

Their profit is not the difference between what the care worker is paid and what the agency is paid.

The principle problem with care worker pay is that tax payers won't or can't pay more.

I expect I can sit back now and wait for the predictable "so tax the rich more".

I think it's an apt illustration of the issue that comes with presenting suicide for any reason as a positive thing: It makes suicide a positive thing.

(As for 'helpful contribution' to 'complex issues', given your response to a previous comment of mine was simply "She didn't want them", I'm not sure you can complain.)

Not really because 99.9999999% of us will never get hit by a bus, but we are definitely all going to die.

You don't think it matters that the personal opinion of the woman was that she didn't want to live the additional years she could have lived?

You think that comment compares with your own infantile sarcasm?

Can you accept that other people's opinion on the sanctity of life, of living life simply for the sake of not being dead, is not the same as yours?

By all means argue against assisted dying, there are some arguments against it, but your sarcastic post trivialising the actions of people who kill themselves out of desperation was really very offensive.

Suicide is a positive thing if it means you are no longer suffering by living.

@Imdunfer
And many people who commit suicide don't want to live.

Infantile sarcasm? I was making a point. If people who don't want to live killing themselves is a good thing, then suicide can no longer be considered a bad thing, so long as the person is competent. Suicide is no longer a problem to be solved.

Many people who commit suicide aren't desperate, they've just decided they don't want to live anymore because they aren't happy, or they've struggled all their life with trauma that will never go away, or they don't enjoy their quality of life, or they have simply had enough. Just like those who commit assisted suicide. What's the difference? The 10k (or however much) to pay to go to Switzerland?

We really can't say suicide is terrible and devastating, while also actively touting (assisted) suicide for healthy people as a positive thing.

Which is the case for practically all suicide victims; they were in a state of suffering of some kind, and now they're no longer living, so no longer suffering. So you agree with me – assisted suicide for anyone who wants it who is competent, means that suicide committed by competent people is now a positive thing.

@Itchthescratch When abortion was legalised, it was subject to very tight restrictions. And supposedly still is, if you look at the legislation

In practice, the safeguards have been watered down. This may be a good thing. i offer no view on that

But it's a chilling reminder that the same would likely happen with assisted dying

Killing off frail, elderly, unwell, poor people or those with poor mental health would likely become "an act of kindness". And save the economy, reduce NHS waiting lists, free up housing, therefore might be popular with people who are young and fit. As a society, we really don't want to sleepwalk into that, IMHO

I do agree with you!! Suicide is a positive thing if it ends your suffering. We are all going to die. Give people the choice (by having assisted dying) to choose to end their life when they want to.

Fair enough!

Technically everyone who is capable of movement is capable of choosing to end their life at any time, and I disagree with assisted suicide in any case other than where a person is paralysed and can't do it themselves, or is in the final stages of a terminal illness.

But I appreciate the consistency of your views, and can respect that.

Thank you!!

Isn’t it “an act of kindness” to kill people if they are suffering? If there are no carers available or spaces in care homes what will happen? Who will look after the people who need care?

This is so simple minded. Not all suicide is the same. People who need help to avoid it should receive it. That does not preclude other people making a rational decision and receiving help to achieve it.

What scares you so much about other people making a decision that their own life takes more effort than it returns in rewards for being alive?

It isn’t an act of kindness to kill people with mental health issues when they are depressed and say they want to die, or homeless people, or old people who’ve been made to feel like a burden on society though. There are solutions to all three of these scenarios without the need for ‘euthanasia’.

Unfortunately in some countries, this euthanasia is seen as perfectly acceptable in these instances.

If it were only used when someone is in excruciating physical pain that can’t be stopped then it would be acceptable. But that’s not always been the case.

What are the solutions to all three of these scenarios? We have a massive carer shortage in the Uk which is getting worse. We have an aging population and a severe mental health crisis. If there is no one to look after people who need care what is the solution?

I'm afraid your belief that we can somehow tell 'rational' suicide from any other suicide is what's simple minded, here.

Are you saying that you think a 75-year-old in good health, who has children, grandchildren, a partner, and a fulfilling life, but who has talked about dying to avoid old age for decades, and who can pay for a suicide clinic, is a 'rational' suicide? But a chronically depressed, single 50-year-old who has suffered immense trauma they've never been able to move past, and has poor quality of life, who also doesn't have the money to access a suicide clinic, isn't rational?

Hmm...

By what criteria are you deciding that? Because to me, it makes more sense that the 50-year-old should wish to die (not that I think they should be helped to!)

How do you decide who needs help to avoid it, and who should be assisted to receive it? Because from what I've read (partially paralysed women, depressed women, women grieving a child's death - a lot of women, now I think about it), it really seems to simply come down to whoever can afford to pay for the trip and clinic.

And I'm not scared at all. Why would I be? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying suicide as terrible, while also praising suicide as great. It doesn't really work.

We could just Logan's Run it and kill everyone over the age of 80, but I feel that would (fairly) be frowned upon.