Guest post: ‘The blanket ban on assisted dying means terminally ill people who want to take control over the end of their life are put in an impossible position.’

[NicolaDMumsnet]

Dame Esther Rantzen recently revealed that she is fighting stage four lung cancer. We all hope that what she calls her “miracle” treatment works, but if it doesn’t she told Radio 4 that she "might buzz off to Zurich", where assisted dying is legal. Her revelations made headlines, and her support for a change in the law on choice energised the debate amongst politicians.

For some time, assisted dying has commanded widespread support. The majority of the public now believe that terminally ill people should have the right to choose to end their life, empowering them to control how and when they die – and to do so with dignity. This recent poll of Mumsnet users – showing that 87% were in favour of choice at the end of life – is further evidence for a consensus of support.

But a change in the law seems far off. Public support for assisted dying has not translated into action. When plans to legalise choice at the end of life were brought before Parliament in 2015, two thirds of the House of Commons voted against.

Affording someone the power to end their life is of course a significant issue, and a serious step for legislators to take. Some MPs are wary of whether the necessary safeguards could be put in place. Others hold strong views in opposition based on their faith.

But what they forget is that doing nothing is a political and moral choice too, with serious consequences for thousands.

The blanket ban on assisted dying means terminally ill people who want to take control over the end of their life are put in an impossible position.

For those who can afford it, there is the option to travel abroad. The UK has outsourced its compassion to Switzerland, where dozens of Britons travel to Dignitas each year, paying £15,000 to seek help with a dignified death. British membership of Dignitas is at an all-time high, but under current law those accompanying people to end their life can face prosecution when they return to the UK.

Those who are unable to travel to Switzerland face continued suffering. While excellent palliative care is important, it alone cannot be the answer. Even with universal access to the best end-of-life care services in this country, the Office of Health Economics estimates around 6,400 people a year – an average of 17 a day – would still suffer with completely unrelieved agony at the end of their life.

This leaves a tragic situation in the UK. Current ONS research indicates that people with serious and potentially terminal health conditions may be more than twice as likely to take their own lives, often in harmful and distressing ways, only then to be found by their deeply traumatised families. According to latest estimates, up to 650 terminally ill people end their lives every year, which includes people receiving specialist palliative care in hospital.

In countries across the world, assisted dying has been proven to work in a safe and secure way. For more than 400 million people across 30 jurisdictions in Europe, North and South America and Australasia, assisted dying has been legalised or decriminalised. Closer to home, Scotland, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are on the cusp of legislating to allow terminally ill people to control the end of their life.

We need to call upon MPs to reopen the conversation on a change in the law, urging them to reconsider the case for assisted dying. In an election year, there is a huge opportunity to thrust this issue back onto the political agenda. Speak to your local candidates about choice at the end of life; it’s an opportunity - as their potential constituents – to convince them of the undeniable public support for a change in the law. For those with personal experiences, it’s a chance to demonstrate the damaging impact that the current law has on British families.

It is also paramount that parliamentary time is given to this debate. We need Parliament to meaningfully engage with this subject, to allow for proposals to be comprehensively scrutinised and for safeguarding concerns to be addressed.

Dame Esther’s support for a change in the law has sparked a petition calling on Parliament to bring this subject before the House, holding a free vote on whether to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. Supported by the organisation Dignity in Dying, she’s already reached more than 100,000 signatories, and we urge you to sign it at the link below.

Alongside a majority of the public, we are convinced that a change in the law is better and safer than the situation we have now. We would want it for ourselves as well as everyone else. It is time for members of Parliament to listen to their constituents and reopen this conversation. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of our duty as elected representatives.

Sign Dame Esther and Dignity in Dying’s official government petition calling for parliamentary time and a free vote on assisted dying here.

Thanks for this post.

Signed.

I am so glad this is back in the public eye. My mum died years ago and the death was long and drawn out, she was in agony and couldn't speak for days. I do not want to put anyone I know through that and am confident my mother would have hated knowing that is how she was going to end her days. I have a dog and am at least afforded the sense by the vet to choose when she has no quality of life and put her out of her pain and misery when the time comes. I never understood how we value human pain and suffering so much less.

I also think that in the grand scheme of the NHS and Social Services funding, we need to recognise how much this could save both services. It isn't an easy subject to discuss without offending people who have suspicions about people being murdered rather than seeing it as an ethical choice we should be allowed to make for ourselves. As someone who worries about having the genetic marker for dementia and alzheimers, I would also like to see discussion around whether papers could be signed well in advance to enable people without the diagnosis to choose their fate should they suffer from it in older age, when they may not be able to make such decisions legally.

I fully support this campaign. We need to think about what makes a good death and the role that control and self determination play.

Great Post.. Thankyou .

Signed. Thank you for raising this. I watched my dad and my nan die the most horrific deaths in hospital. My mum is so traumatised over a year later that she’s put together a ‘suicide kit’ to use at home so the same thing doesn’t happen to her when her Parkinson’s gets too bad.

Yet when I took my old, very poorly dog to the vet he was given a sedative then put to sleep peacefully with his favourite people with him. Why do we not afford the same courtesy to humans

Bump.

As a healthcare professional who has worked for many years with people at the end of life and had close relatives who died good deaths with good palliative care and those who died what I consider bad deaths. I've changed my mind on assisted dying. I was opposed on the grounds that I didn't do my job in order to kill people and felt it was unfair to ask professionals to do it. I then changed and thought with strict criteria maybe it could work, because believe me, the thought of developing MND or IPF terrifies me. However, having seen the appalling things that have happened with MAiD in Canada where people are requesting assisted death for things such as poverty and mental illness, where people cannot get the health and/or social care they need and instead are asked if they would like to explore euthanasia, and the expansion in the Netherlands of euthanasia for children from the age of one, I am now opposed again. I also listened carefully to disabled campaigners, and people such as Tanni Grey Thompson, who oppose on the grounds that the most vulnerable members of society are likely to feel obliged or in some cases pressured into choosing death so as not to be a burden. How do you propose to solve these problems, and avoid the "slippery slope" argument so often derided by euthanasia activists, but proven in Canada to have already sliding downhill rather fast?

Having witnessed the horrors of slow disintegration through Alzheimer’s and also Motor Neurone Disease and a stroke which left another relative paralysed and helpless for two years, I think it is utterly inhumane to refuse anyone who chooses to take it an escape from such suffering.

I do not think it impossible to frame legislation governing euthanasia with built-in safeguards against abuse. That other countries may have made mistakes would be a warning against making the same ones.

By doing nothing we continue to condemn people to prolonged pain and indignity. I can give my beloved pets the gift of a peaceful, painless death when their bodies can take no more. Why can I not choose the same for myself?

Sadly those other countries also thought they could have adequate safeguards. Thing about laws is that they can be changed. I will instead campaign for better and well funded palliative care.

So surely the solution is to ensure nobody feels like they ‘have’ to go down this route, and that there is enough support in place for those who are suffering mentally / financially etc to not want to end their lives.
Ultimately, it’s taking the role of the Nanny State to its end point. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy, to choose the way they want to end their lives, whether it be to utilise as much medical intervention as possible even in the face of extreme odds of success, or to be helped to slip away when they feel it’s time. We treat sick animals with more compassion than we do sick humans.

It would be nice if those safeguards could be put in place. Unfortunately no country has yet managed it. Get back to me if it ever happens and I’ll happily consider changing my mind again.

Couldn’t agree more. I’d love to know how watching my Nan die was humane. She had no chance of recovery yet she was kept alive, with no food or water for the best part of a week. Sat beside her in hospital while she became very distressed and got slowly weaker was horrific. I’ll never forget the sound of her death rattle.

Same with my dad, he died from advanced COPD. His last week was awful. Again, no chance of recovery so why put him and our family through it.

In contrast, I took my dog to the vets when it became obvious he no longer had a decent quality of life. He was made a huge fuss of, got given his favourite foods and had a sedative. We then made him a little bed on the floor, the whole family sat with him and he was peacefully put to sleep, surrounded by love.

I’m utterly traumatised by my dad and my nan’s deaths. Yes I’m devastated at the loss of my dog but he had a good life and a good death. Why can people not have that option.

How would the system be abused though? Surely, if you don't want to be euthanised you say no?

Why isn't it that simple?

Read my first post? This is the problem with politicians asking the public to sign petitions without giving all the info needed to make an informed decision.

In short

Bullying - we'd be better off without you
Being neglected and lonely and no one bothers with you ( another type of we'd be better off without you

Thesedays to expect a perfect life followed by a perfect death seems to be considered a birthright. It isn’t, it never was. Previous generations were far more pragmatic. Palliative care is better now than it has ever been and continues to improve.

I have a forty year nursing career behind me and can honestly say that with a few notable exceptions I have witnessed very few deaths that I would view as unbearable for myself. However I have seen a number of situations in which it was obvious, sometimes quite overtly, that the patient’s family did not have their best interests at heart, sometimes from the need to relieve themselves of the burden of care and sometimes to get their hands on an inheritance.
I’m speaking here of people that were nowhere near to death, not suffering, just old and infirm and needing a lot of support and very aware of how much of their family’s time and resources they were taking up. I really don’t know how these people could be protected from feeling that to cease to be a burden on others would be the only ‘decent’ thing to do, and I don’t know how these people could be protected when the motivation is coming from within themselves, or from subtle, and sometimes not so subtle pressure from those tasked with their care.

I am not in any way denigrating nor devaluing the role of carers and the effect that taking on responsibility for the well-being and sometimes even the happiness of another person has upon the person doing the caring. The support for carers in this country is a national disgrace, but that is a different, albeit related topic for another thread.

As other posters have said, evidence from other countries that have already embraced euthanasia is alarming. I can see no clear way of successfully and comprehensively safeguarding the vulnerable. I also have huge doubts about the process of euthanasia . It’s presented to us as a peaceful, dignified event - falling asleep and never waking up, but is it? Well unfortunately no one has ever been able to tell us.

So for me it’s a no. I would however like to see more research and resources going into palliative care and funding and support for carers including, but not limited to frequent and regular free respite care.

Those who are terminally ill, with no quality of life and who do not wish to prolong their lives should be allowed the choice of an assisted death. I watched somebody go through cancer with all its ups and downs. In her last weeks she had no quality of life and said”I’m just sitting here waiting to die”. She was depressed, unable to care for herself in any way and frequently asked me to help her end her life. It’s shocking that we allow anyone to suffer in this way.