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.

Who voted in the governments we had? There were always parties that had manifestos to increase taxation and spending but people didn't want them then and polls show they don't want them now. We got the governments we deserved. Some of u want an insurance based system like our European equivalents but people like to pretend that the NHS will work.

Raising minimum wage also won't solve the care crisis and will arguably make it worse. Who will pay the increased costs? People can't afford the current costs already. I think you are the one that's very naive

Very true!! I will either do what Gill Pharaoh did or kill myself when I’ve had enough.

How adorable. ‘You’re wrong but I’m not going to argué but you’re wrong’.

Go ahead darling. I work in healthcare policy and can definitely say this is broadly true and more, with sources.

😂
What is question here? Of course raising the minimum wage doesn’t solve the caring problem. But it makes low wage jobs more attractive. Feel free to do some reading on your own. Raising the minimum wage doesn’t cause inflation or unemployment and despite all the rhetoric, most businesses do not move.

But it would increase the cost of care. Considering we are struggling to fund care already and demographics suggest the population is getting older and sicker then how do you think this is the answer? I already mentioned that some care placements already cost many tens of thousands of pounds each year already. Who is paying enough tax to fund this for everyone?

It can take 2 weeks+ for pneumonia to kill someone

“Being tired of life” has been mentioned above as a justification for assisted death being available. But what if a fit, healthy 25 year old decides they are tired of life? Should assisted death be available to them? If not, at what point do we decide that someone who says they are tired of life is actually of sound mind and not suffering from depression that could be treated?

I'm not your darling, sweetie pie.

I will take the two weeks over suffering a physical and mental decline for years.

When treatment hasn't changed anything.

My mother had dementia and spent the last few three years of her life in a care home. She died of pneumonia at 93 having been found unresponsive one morning. We were given the option of hospitalising and treating her but we decided against it. She passed away peacefully at around 1pm that day . BTW she never while of sound mind expressed a desire to be euthanised should she become incapacitated.

If anyone at any age wants to die, let them. I don’t understand why we have to keep people alive at all costs? If a 25 year old has had enough of living, it’s their choice if they decide to end it.

It can take longer than that for other people dependant on other health conditions and age.

Humans have an innate sense of survival so it would be unusual for a 25 year old to be 'tired of life' as a stand alone reason to want to die. This is why the real reasons would need to be explored.

It used to be quick in “the good old days!!” My great grandfather apparently fell in a ditch, caught a cold which turned into pneumonia. He took himself to bed and was dead within three days. Doesn’t sound like a bad way to go.

My mum is 71 and is terrified of death. It was her birthday recently and she told me she hates birthdays now because it means she’s got less time to live 😢 I used to think that when people get old, they just accept death and resign themselves to the fact they might not have much longer on this earth. Speaking to my mum I’ve realised that’s not always the case.

I guess by that reasoning, one person’s perfect death is different to another’s.

What about Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? As you’ll be aware, they debated it in Parliament in 2024 after Starmer said he’d give MPs a vote on it if they won the election. On 10 February 2025 Kim Leadbeater suggested removing the need for administration of assisted suicide to be overseen by the judiciary, which had originally been one of the key components of the safeguards for her bill. What is that if not an attempt to reduce safety legislation? Do you really have so much faith in them that they won’t attempt to remove other elements of safeguarding legislation from the bill? If you do, then nothing I say will change your mind. But I stand by my original point, which is that it’s not fear mongering to suggest that is what will happen, because attempts have already been made to do exactly that. How long would it be before staff at council run care homes are being encouraged to raise the possibility with their residents on the pretext that it’s just making residents aware of their options?

The House met for a second time on 13 June 2025, whereby an amendment to the bill which prevents medical professionals raising the procedure with people under 18 years old was passed by 259 votes to 216. That’s 216 MPs who think children should be offered help to die.

Gordon Brown said: "An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people, even if only subliminally". And I agree with him. It doesn’t stop me from understanding your point completely and understanding completely how horrific it is to watch your loved ones go through that. But I just can’t agree it’s the right thing to do.

Leasbetter's Bill wasn't an attempt to reduce existing safeguarding around suicide. It's about legalising AD which is completely different. Yes, her bill amended the requirement for court approval with a multidisciplinary review panel but this doesn't necessarily weaken safeguarding. The core requirements fundamentally stayed the same and it is completely subjective whether court approval as opposed to enhanced medical safeguards is better or worse. The bill also interestingly increased protection for medical staff that are consciousness objectors so your idea that staff would be pressured into encouraging this is actually not supported by the changes made to the bill.

AD for children that have mental capacity and have less than 6 months to live. These children could be 16 or 17 and making fully informed decisions. Your fixed idea that death is worse than anything else that these 6nmonths could bring these poor children will never allow you to see that offering AD can be the compassionate thing to do. You must at least understand that the vast majority of people and MPs want what's best for terminally ill adults and children? Depicting them as monsters is unhelpful. This is a complex debate that centres around ethics and subjective and often spiritual views of life and death.

I too understand where you and Gordon Brown are coming from and this is a classic case of conflicting rights. One group wants the right to choose AD for themselves and others to prevent undignified and painful deaths and the other wants it banned as they don't believe sufficient safeguards can be implemented to stop this devaluation of life and coercion of people to choose AD. I think the risks and harm associated with not implementing AD outweigh the risks of implementing it. You think differently. Neither of us are monsters or definitively right or wrong. I think in situations like this we should go with the majority view as we live in a democracy and there is no clear obvious answer.

You seem to have chosen to misread my post where I gently suggested you don't understand AD which is not IV Euthanasia hence they don't have the same effect. I also didn't get this from campaigns "against assisted dying" just my own general open minded research about assisted dying. You could probably benefit from doing so if you genuinely think we are euthanise horses in the same way someone would receive oral AD.

I was simply saying when you list of characteristics which make up some people's every day lives and are manageable as cues for human euthanasia because we use them as reasons to euthanise dogs it muddies the waters. I get you mean for yourself but it's important to say that, not to say we euthanise pets when they get incontinent as a reason to support AD, that's all. Disabled people are ein danger enough as it is and really struggle to get care, and that kind of language unconciously adds to that.

Why are you assuming oral administration? IV using bigger doses of the same or similar drugs to other animals is widely used.

Are you giving your horse an oral tablet to take is the point? No, you're using a method that completely by passes the stomach which is not proposed with AD hence completely different complication rates. You seem to be selectively reading?

IV assisted dying is common in humans.

For the third (?) time,.I presumed this is talking about AD bill on the UK which is not IV assisted, it's oral self administered which is why I mentioned the complication rate people seem unaware of because they're wrongly assuming either oral admin works as well as IV Euthanasia or they wrongly think AD is proposed to be IV. I don't know which you are, but clearly your position is clouding your ability to read my posts and do your own research as you don't seem to be following.

I am not talking about the UK I am talking about assisted dying in general. You were telling me it doesn't compare with animals and I am saying it does.

I personally would not choose oral administration when iv is available.

I sincerely hope we return soon to the days when people on morphine self administration pumps could choose to overdose themselves.