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.

Maybe humans are living too long? Quality of life over quantity of life.

So who gets to decide when someone’s time is up? The tax man when you’ve run out of money? Or the NHS when you reach 75?

My nan lived until she was 96. It was only the last two years of her life that she went downhill. She lived a relatively independent life for most of it.

I feel deeply uncomfortable with some of the posts on this thread. People are perfectly entitled to their opinions. But we need to be very careful with this so we don’t end up in a nightmare scenario where people have to worry about ‘euthanasia’ being forced upon them.

@Marmalademorning You never answered my questions. Who is going to look after the increasing number of people who need care in the UK?

I’m not a policy maker, and I can’t come up with all the solutions to massive issues like that first thing in a Sunday morning.

I do know that it would be wrong and inhumane to force euthanasia on people because ‘sorry but we’ve run out of money’. The irony of that being it wouldn’t actually be euthanasia anyway would it? It would be something entirely more sinister.

So what Gill Pharaoh chose to do makes sense. She died before she may have needed care, which isn’t always readily available. I think there are a lot worse things than euthanasia.

It was outsourced along with everything in the Thatcher + years and there was no choice. Tbf it is more expensive to do it in house because of sick pay, annual leave etc but thats because they treat staff properly

Congratulations, you've not only told me what I think but exactly why I think it.

Your wrong on all counts please stop doing it.

I think sometimes modern medicine ends up keeping people alive beyond when they should be – and beyond what they wish. For instance, a dementia patient shouldn't be on medications for prolonging their life, like heart medication (do they do that now?), just medications that make them comfortable in the moment.

But for the most part, I think people have good quality of life into their twilight years, and should be supported in that. I fear that the normalisation of assisted suicide will lead to people (particularly women) feeling pressured to kill themselves early on in their older years, so as not to risk burdening their children.

The problem is that you can't just say, remove someone pacemaker because they have dementia. Some, definitely not all, go to a happy place in their dementia and those that dont can still experience pleasure.

Well, yes, pacemaker removal would be a little invasive, wouldn't it? I'm not sure how things work now, but if I got dementia and didn't kill myself (the old-fashioned, unassisted way), I'd want to stop taking any medications and have a DNR, so that hopefully a heart attack would carry me off! I think striving to keep someone alive when they have dementia shouldn't be a priority – just day to day happiness and comfort.

You seem to find any description of you other than a person as offensive. Are people allowed to differentiate between being a woman or a man, be described as a spouse, schoolchild, grandparent, etc? As I stated up thread, I didn't make the language up. I'm in my 60s myself and it doesn't matter what people call me I'm still the same person but I'm definitely not young or middle-aged. I'm old. I know by the time I'm 70 I'll be described as elderly.

Yes I agree but what might happen instead is that removing meds can just lead to pain instead, so chest pain on off, kidney infections on off, oedema affecting mobility and so on.

Ah, good point. That definitely wouldn't be ideal.

Being described as elderly conjours up the picture of a person who is frail and dated and in some way not competent to deal with day to day life. That is why I am so against it as a descriptor. It takes away from the person. It makes them appear as an acronism, some one who has no place in today's society.

The attitude to ageing and older people in today's society is appalling. That is why I fight against being defined by my age. I am the same person I always was only with the tweaks that life and experience has wrought on me.

I am actually quite proud to be me atm. It's one of my achievements: I have survived a very difficult and quite unhappy life and I'm here living an iinependent life and gleaniing as much pleasure from it as I can. Why should I allow people to diminish me as one of " the elderly " - one of those drains on and nuisances in society?

I don't think elderly people are a drain on society and it's definitely an achievement to have reached our 60s/70s, particularly as it sounds like we have both lived through tough times. A sibling of mine died as a baby through something today would be treated with antibiotics, several cousins are long dead, an uncle died at 40 and some of my grandparents died in the 50s. I'll keep going as long as I can.

I'm sorry you have had difficult experiences.
And I accept you don't have negative views of elderly people. But society as a whole definitely does.. And people cease to see older people as people. It just sees them as being defined by being old..

Being described as elderly conjours up the picture of a person who is frail and dated and in some way not competent to deal with day to day life.

That’s on you then. Now we have it. I suggest that you examine your prejudices. Being elderly is just that: old age. It’s the way it is and nothing to be ashamed of and certainly not something to be loaded with negativity as you are doing.

Been watching this thread with interest. Am always very conflicted by the whole subject.

I have done four direct deathbeds of close family members. None were easy. Three cancer related, one frail and elderly whose decline was so badly managed that despite a strong will to live, the flesh was unco-operative. At the point of no return, the tight control of palliative drugs to ensure they played no part in death seemed counter intuitive.

That said, I am uneasy about the possibility of mission creep around AD, and the subtle promotion of euthanasia framed as best for avoiding the suffering of one's nearests and dearests, in terms of having to watch a difficult demise, or in the interests of overburdened, financially hamstrung states.

We are complex organisms. We dice with death on a daily basis, one way or another, yet the drive to thrive and survive persists. Over-riding that with nudges about resilience, stoicism, and pragmatism in the face of inevitability is an interesting philosophy.

The PP upthread who was accused of flippancy by referring to their being no need for suicide prevention if we should all have the right to just decide when to die and with state sanction and assistance raises a point worth debating in my opinion.

Flipping the zeitgeist from wanting to die due to mental suffering being seen as something to work against and to offer support to overcome, to actually it being a rational decision to be respected and facilitated is rather mind bending.

I'm 57 and although in reasonable physical health, I feel otherwise obsolete. My son is in his 30s, I have no grandchildren, and none are likely. My DM, my DH, my DF, my DMIL have all died in the last 6 years. Complications from my DHs death have seen me lose my business, become isolated from my community for a raft of complicated reasons, and my friends are down to 3. Attempts to re-build are actively hampered by my age, financial restrictions and a lack of relevant qualifications and skills in the current market.

I basically live to keep my two cats alive. Every day I wake up mired in depression and berate myself for my failings.

This thread has certainly given me food for thought.

"Hope I (do) die before I get (really old)."

Yes age is nothing to be ashamed of. And actually I am proud to be the age I am.

I don't have prejudices about older people.

But why do you feel the need to define people by their age?

I am a person. Who happens to be the age i am. And the person I am has been shaped by my life experiences.

I am not defined by societies' perception of peopke in my age group.

There isn't a consensus when 'life' begins. It depends what perspective you have and if you're talking from a biological or legal perspective. Even then we as a society treat the beginning of life differently.

If a fetus is aborted early on then many believe it wasn't a life in the true sense however many that have suffered an early miscarriage believe that a life has ended and grieve accordingly.

I don't think you can definitively say that abortion isn't about ending life in the way you suggest therefore it isn't really that different from euthanasia.

Why are you congratulating me? On what counts am I wrong, and why? Can you actually put forward any arguments, or is it all snarky defensiveness?

Do you genuinely think the safeguards for abortion being watered down has led to a lot more coerced abortions? If so then why aren't you doing something about it and fighting for this cause rather than offering no view?

If abortion safeguards being watered down hasn't led to more coerced abortions then why are you so sure it will lead to this with AD? If anything it would prove the counter point.

Interestingly most research indicates that more coercion actually exists around external parties wanting to continue the pregnancy against the mother's wishes rather than abort it. Ring any bells? Why are we coercing, no forcing people to live when they don't want to. Why is this so much better than an unproven and theoretical fear around coercion related to AD?

The point of abortion is not to end life, though. The point of abortion is to cease to be pregnant, and not be a mother. Yes, one leads to the other, but women don't abort because they just really want to kill a foetus, they simply want to be not-pregnant, and that's the only way to do so.

If a consenting adult wants to be euthanised why is that a problem for some people? Living, when all you want to do is die, is cruel and causes immense suffering. The UK has a chronic shortage of medical personnel like nurses, doctors and carers. We also have a severe crisis in Adult Social Care. If someone wants to die to preempt this, they should be allowed to safely with assisted dying. That is a humane way to die. Keeping people alive “against their will” is inhumane.

Well stop thinking about it then and mind your own business. She was entitled to do as she wished with her own life.