Assisted dying - so angry

[specialsubject]

No-one is saying it will be compulsory. But it looks like it is going nowhere. And this kind of comment is why:

Archbishop of York says: "Dying well is a positive achievement of a task which belongs to our humanity"

tell that to Tony Nicklinson's family, and many others.

I am no more terminally ill than any other healthy person. But if I become so, I would like the choice. I have seen the suffering of someone who didn't have it.

It was ok for George V. It is ok for suffering animals. Why isn't it ok for terminally ill humans who want to make that choice? Why is this choice not allowed?

[pointythings]

I have enormous trouble with the arguments against assisted dying.

My grandmother had an assisted death in Holland in 2006. She too had a bedside party - she was able to speak, have a drink, have her nails done, spend time with the family. Then she chose the moment of her death. It didn't take as long in her case because she was physically able to write the request in a normal way, and she was able to speak with the panel herself.

I've read a lot of the arguments against and I heard Baroness Campbell speaking on Radio 4 - her argument seemed to be that since she would find it difficult to resist the temptation, no-one should have the choice. That argument made me

Then there was Giles Fraser in the Guardian's CiF page, stating that (I paraphrase) if he was low enough to be considering assisted suicide he would want to be 'bullied' out of it. That one made me even more because it presumes that people who are depressed are not able to make rational decisions. Informed consent legislation says something quite, quite different - even people on a section are not automatically deemed incapable of informed consent, so why the patronising attitude?

I also have to take issue with the '20% of people who had an assisted suicide were not physically ill, just tired of life and lonely'. And? So? Of course ideally we would like to have a world where people could access support networks, make new friends, bring colour back to their lives. Some people might benefit from that and discover a new zest for life. And some might not, and would still prefer not to be alive. Their choice.

Lastly there's the issue of excellent palliative care - the kind of doses of morphine needed to control the pain in some cases have massive, horrendous side effects that rob people of comfort and dignity. If someone chooses not to 'live' like that - again, their choice. By all means let's have excellent palliative care, but let's not pretend this is a zero sum game. It isn't.

[larrygrylls]

To all those people who think assisted dying is an excuse for saving money from palliative care:

What do you think palliative care looks like now? Do you think there are a lot of palliative care specialists? Or that GPs are well educated in end of life care?

From what I have seen, I don't. And, if that is the case, the choice is not between assisted dying and world class palliative care. The choice is between assisted dying and an unpleasant death. And even with good palliative care, very few people go from having a nice relaxed chat one minute to dead the next. The reality of GOOD palliative care is several days of unconsciousness, lack of lucidity and possible hallucinations before death.

I am pro assisted dying anyway, as I think how one dies should be through personal choice. But, given the resources we have, and how one is likely to die, the idea of having the choice to end things before the horrific stage seems even more compelling to me.

[prh47bridge]

The bill debated by the Lords would not help those with locked-in syndrome (which is what Tony Nicklinson had) provided the rules are followed. The bill requires two doctors to agree that the patient has a life expectancy of less than 6 months. A patient with locked-in syndrome can last far longer. But I expect that, if passed, this would rapidly become suicide on demand in much the same way that the restricted right to abortion has become abortion on demand with no change in the law. After all, doctors cannot reliably predict life expectancy. Some patients die much quicker than expected. Others hang on for years after they were supposed to die. So I suspect that, just as it is easy to find two doctors who will say that a woman will suffer injury to her physical or mental health if her child is not aborted, it will become easy to find two doctors who will declare that a patient has less than 6 months to live.

If we do get assisted dying in the UK I would imagine we will see the same as in other countries where this has been widened to include dying children and those with dementia. And, of course, it puts the elderly in the position of having to consider whether they could save their family trouble and the state money by getting a doctor to kill them.

What we have at the moment is a fudge whereby assisting someone to commit suicide is an offence but you will not be prosecuted in certain circumstances. I'm not happy with having it as a fudge but I am concerned that changing the law may be worse than continuing to fudge the issue.

[juliascurr]

but who will pay for all this care in an era of austerity where right-wing poiticians can make themselves look progressive by voting for much cheaper assisted dying? assisted living will just be a more expensive choice
not for each specific individual, but as social policy

[edamsavestheday]

Quite. All those palliative care doctors are hardly going to pack up and retrain as plumbers. They are going to carry on looking after people living with incurable pain as well as the dying.

[juliascurr]

the point I'm making is the two 'choices' (abortion or assisted dying) are not equal; it's much easier to get an abortion than adequate support and the same will happen with assisted dying

[larrygrylls]

This is akin to saying legalising abortion allows men to pressure women into having abortions. Yes, it does happen. Should abortion be legal in a civilised society? Absolutely. Every new right brings with it risks and responsibilities. However, as far as I can see, the number of controversial deaths in societies where assisted dying is legal are a tiny tiny proportion of the total.

[settingsitting]

Yes HoneyBadger. Plus comedian jokes and half meant black humour jokes.

[TheHoneyBadger]

i presume the poster meant that it would enter the parlance and 'jokey/half serious' rhetoric and be a pressure in itself.

[DikTrom]

[ICanHearYou]

jokes?

[settingsitting]

Can you imagine the jokes, meant or half meant, when a person becomes terminally ill?

[Jux]

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some people who will not blanch at the idea of coercing a family member into agreeing to an assisted death. Not many, but there will be some unscrupulous people who will take advantage of this legislation.

I am torn, as I am also horrified that there are people who want to die for very very good reasons, in sound mind and all that, and I don't like the fact that we will end an animal's suffering but not a person's. My mother got as close as she could to it by having a DNR put on her file (she was a Catholic and wouldn't have gone further than that under any circs).

I think I agree with TheHoneyBadger that as a society we are not yet ready for this, but are we ever likely to be?

[TheHoneyBadger]

thespork haven't read the replies to your post but wanted to say thank you for your post. you've said some of what i'm trying to form in my mind clearly let alone try and say.

i agree totally that we as a society are not ready to use this well. that there are other things we must achieve first, there are conditions that need to be in place first and then we can talk about 'choice' and it mean just that rather than it requiring us to gloss over the actual realities and context that make that alleged choice very far from being a meaningful one.

i'm so sorry you've had to grow up with that fear. i'm guessing you've been brushed under the rug on here as a special circumstance or just been told ah we're talking about choice though not forcing people. maybe not. but i just wanted you to know i engaged with the complexity of what you were saying and really appreciated your sharing it as it's helped me put together some bits in my mind that have been concerning me. i too have mixed feelings and mostly because of that complexity and reality behind a word as clean sounding as 'choice'.

[larrygrylls]

I think this a really important discussion and, while I respect the failings of society towards those with disabilities, this thread is about the current bill giving the right to an assisted death to those with terminal illnesses and less than 6 months life expectancy.

[larrygrylls]

'As for not knowing how 'calm' an assisted death really is, even if its 20 minutes of pain before death, that is better than the many months or years some have to endure.'

The best way of doing it (which they do in Belgium) is using an anaesthetic agent. It is no more stressful than being anaesthetised for an operation.

It really would be a good idea to look at the statistics of who is choosing assisted dying and when, rather than making out this is an anti disability measure. I will post some links later but, in the Netherlands, 78% have terminal cancer and the vast majority of the rest have degenerative neurological conditions.

[ICanHearYou]

Your post is hypocritical, you are on one hand pointing out all the things that we, as a society do to help single mothers and on the other hand suggesting that the ability to terminate if that is your choice is 'weighted'

Doesn't make any sense I am afraid.

Choice is not a bad thing, people will cling on to life as much as they can if that is what they choose, regardless of what is available to take life away. Just as people will cling on to their babies regardless of the choice of abortion.

If we stop paying to keep people alive who simply don't want to be, there will be more money to support those who do want to be, nobody seems to be able to argue this basic point.

[juliascurr]

Ican yes, it is similar to abortion - any single mother who gets social housing, free nursery, benefits to help her bring up a child on her own is regarded as a scummy scrounger. Far better to 'choose' to terminate.

(I'm totally pro-choice, but that 'choice' is weighted)

[juliascurr]

House of Lords packed for assisted dying. Independent Living fund abolition - not so much. If we get assisted suicide we will get nothing else.

[ICanHearYou]

Maybe it is better to make these types of decisions based on facts rather than hysterics.

That would be an awfully good start.

Unfortunately I think it would have to start with a complete overhaul of this ridiculous fear of 'death' that we seem to have and instead focus on balancing dying with the reality for many who will die over a long period of time in serious pain and understanding that when the end comes it will be seriously horrible.

As for not knowing how 'calm' an assisted death really is, even if its 20 minutes of pain before death, that is better than the many months or years some have to endure.

I think allowing people who are seriously ill and in pain to die when they choose (or have previously chosen) is the mark of a truly civilised society.

[bemybebe]

Not sure what facts are otherwise. My fil had no problem obtaining permission for dying in the NL. He also had a party for the family, I was not present I had to stay away. He was not in "insufferable pain" and was walking around. But this is anecdote as is your story.

[DikTrom]

The facts are otherwise.

Never heard of disabled people in the Netherlands being pressurised to die ...

Maybe it is better to make these types of decisions based on facts rather than hysterics.