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?

[3littlefrogs]

This whole thing has made me so angry.
I had to fight like mad to allow my father to die peacefully in his own bed - he was almost 100 years old and did not want to go to hospital.

Another, younger relative endured a slow painful death from starvation and neglect in a hospital. She was walking, talking, eating when she went in and they wouldn't let us take her out. They killed her because she was elderly. Talk about double standards.

I would want the chance to end my life with dignity and no pain if I was seriously, terminally ill. I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of a busy ward in an NHS hospital. It is hell on earth.

[hiddenhome]

People should not be forced to remain alive. There needs to be choice.

There is very little hospice care in this country.

Not everyone who wants to die is suffering from a typical terminal illness, they might merely had enough of whatever it is they're dealing with, whether that is degenerative disease, chronic pain etc.

[OwlCapone]

I don't agree with legalising assisted dying. I believe passionately in the concept of a 'good' death and in excellent palliative care.

So, you only believe in your idea of a "good death". Not everyone's idea of a good death is being forced to remain living a nightmare.

[3littlefrogs]

I believe in excellent palliative care, but the fact is there isn't enough to go round and many, many people endure a slow, painful death in places where there are no trained staff, no facilities, no weekend or bank holiday cover etc.

If you are fortunate enough to be allowed a bed in a hospice you will probably get good care. But that just isn't available for an awful lot of people.

[Greydog]

The trouble is - there is no decent pain relief, no decent care unless you are in a hospice (mostly funded by charities) How there are no drugs in this day and age to help people not to suffer I don't understand. As far as I can see "pain relief" just means more and more drugs that just put the patient into a coma. My Mum never wanted to die in a hospital - she was part of the "end of life" pathway. It took a week. My son and I sat by her bed every night as she just wasted away. She would have been furious. She would have wanted to have some dignity left. My cat had more dignity when I took her to the vets, and he held her paws, and spoke kindly to her.

[TheHoneyBadger]

i wish someone would address what i said above about how it's not a meaningful choice unless you first have quality palliative care, choices around being at home or in a good hospice etc. making a choice that you would rather die than be at the mercy of shitty care standards is not a 'clean' choice. and where that was the choice there'd be no incentive to improve palliative care.

once that care was of a humane standard for all and not a postcode lottery i would feel more comfortable about assisted dying as people would be making choices about life or death NOT about institutional abuse/neglect or death.

[3littlefrogs]

Unfortunately that is where we are ATM.
Hospice care is funded by charity, not NHS.
If the NHS takes it over it will deteriorate to the current level of NHS care.
If it is privatised, as much of the NHS is currently, it will become all about profit and the standard of care will drop.
Meanwhile, there are people who are suffering appalling pain and misery who need help NOW. They can't wait for the system to be sorted out.

[niminypiminy]

From a letter in the Guardian "Recent exchanges in the British Medical Journal confirm that more than 98% of deaths in the UK are acceptably peaceful." Full letter here.

I agree, TheHoneyBadger, that improvements in palliative care must come first.

[TheHoneyBadger]

it is true that where this legislation has entered other legislation has followed and the requirements have lessened.

if, for example, it was legal to assist the death of those with mental health conditions with serious prolonged, entirely rationalised desire to die i would be short of several very good friends who are now doing fine. i possibly wouldn't even be here myself.

also when i was younger i was convinced i'd never want to be kept alive in situation x, y or z whereas now i feel quite differently even having seen relatives die difficultly. this idea that a decision made years ago and drawn up gives consent worries me because we change, we don't know how we'll feel in that situation etc.

i would rather see cases of assisted suicide assessed by the authorities after the event and decisions made as to whether to prosecute or not based on case by case scenarios i think. with leniency towards those where there was clear, evidenced consent etc.

[TheHoneyBadger]

it surprises me actually because i was very pro euthanasia and the right to die when i was younger.

[3littlefrogs]

Hmm - it depends who is saying that.
I have personal experience of medical and nursing staff telling lies, losing and editing medical records.
I am very, very sceptical about a figure of 98% of deaths being peaceful.

The only staff I would trust would be hospice staff at the moment.

Mind you, I have seen pretty corrupt behaviour in a health related charity I worked for too, so it is difficult.

[DikTrom]

I would be surprised if it gets through ...

Even in the Netherlands it is not easy at all. I had a friend who had ALS. He deteriorated very very quickly, nothing could be done to stop it, muscle group by muscle group stopped working, so he quickly ended up in a wheelchair, needed intravenous feeding, breathing support etc. Couldn't talk anymore, could barely use his hands. Only his brain still worked completely normally. He was forced to write a letter explaining why he really wanted to die, which was then discussed with a panel with doctor (as he couldn't talk anymore at all). It took him many months to write this letter typing with one finger with long time in between as each letter took him enormous effort. He was really despairing.

In the end he got the permission and was allowed to die. It was not easy for him at all, whilst his family and family doctor fully supported his decision, the other doctors needed lots of persuading.

[Madamecastafiore]

Ask the people who have MND and have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and I bet they would say they want tone able to die with dignity.

It's easy to have an opinion now but if you were facing a slow painful death losing your marbles or being locked in your body which doesn't respond knowing you would choke to death eventually it may change pretty quickly.

[TheHoneyBadger]

but there need to be real choices about 'dying with dignity'. not just kill yourself or be subjected to shit inhumane treatment.

[niminypiminy]

"people who have MND and have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's "
But these are people who would not be eligible under the bill.

"It's easy to have an opinion now but if you were facing a slow painful death losing your marbles or being locked in your body which doesn't respond knowing you would choke to death eventually it may change pretty quickly." But this goes both ways, doesn't it? I mean, you can think that you would wish to be killed by a doctor in those circumstances, and then when you get there, have a change of mind and heart.

[TheHoneyBadger]

yep and statements like that i'm afraid DO make it sound like the life of someone with those conditions is worth less.

how on earth would that enable those people to have a life and death of dignity if the idea that their life is no longer really worth anything is so flippantly stated?

i know you didn't mean to say that but that is the implication.

[TheHoneyBadger]

we're making massive leaps forward with knowing how to keep people with alzheimers happier and more at peace in the end stages. there are great initiatives out there.

there are also people who have spent large parts of or their whole lives paralysed in wheelchairs who have massive contributions to the world.

i think to deny that this kind of rhetoric contains the potential to damage the sick and disabled and the perception of them is naive.

[ClashCityRocker]

It's a topic I find myself veering on.

If i understand correctly, the bill would be just for those who are capable of self-administering medicine. So a lot of people who have conditions that mean they are paralysed or have no motor controls wouldn't be eligible for it anyway...

I also worry that it will mean that palliative and end of life care will suffer as less research will be done to improve quality of life for those who chose to live, effectively encouraging people to chose assisted suicide.

[Madamecastafiore]

No it's not worth less at all, it's an example of people who may want to end their life because of what is to come. You could include some types of cancer too and a multitude of other conditions.

All I'm trying to say is it's ok is debating but it's down to those people who have these conditions, who are going to face a slow agonising death that should have the final say but I suppose that's all they are asking for anyway, the right to have a final say.

[TheHoneyBadger]

well suicide is always an option - always has been. if these are people capable of self administrating then why does it need legalising?

[DikTrom]

The problem is that suicide in these cases tend not to be an option. My friend could never have committed suicide, the disease progressed so rapidly. He lost all use of his arms/legs/couldn't talk/couldn't swallow/couldn't breath without assistance. It was awful, he was truly locked in his body, his brain was perfect, he was aware of everything, but could no longer communicate (typing with one finger was a massive effort, some days he would only manage three words).

[ClashCityRocker]

But DikTrom, if he couldn't self-administer, he wouldn't have the option of assisted suicide, so as bill as it stands wouldn't make him eligible for assisted suicide.

This is what I can't get my head around. It sounds like it wouldn't help the people who most need it.

[MrsCakesPremonition]

Assisting someone to commit suicide is still a criminal offence. So presumably leaving a lethal dose of medicine within reach of a suicidal patient could result in being prosecuted. It seems to me that for many of the people wanting the right to die, it is about changing the law to protect the people who help them.

[MrsCakesPremonition]

Presumably "assisting" includes constructing and setting up a mechanism/tool which would allow someone with very limited motor skills to self-administer.