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?

[RonaldMcDonald]

I fail to see how this is dangerous for disabled people at all
It is to allow someone at the end stage of a terminal illness the choice to end their life
I find the conflation irritating and nonsensical.

Allowing someone very ill to have the same rights as I am granted, the ability to legally end my life if I choose, is only fair

[GnomeDePlume]

This has been a thoughtful discussion so I hope my next comments can be taken in the spirit in which they are meant with no intention to inflame or offend.

As a parallel look at the introduction of legalised pregnancy terminations. Until it was legalised, terminations were taking place. However these terminations were entirely out of the view of the authorities. Many will have been done well but also many will have been botched, ineffectual with devastating consequences.

Do we in fact have assisted deaths now? I think that we do.

When my DF was terminally ill and developed pneumonia he was prescribed morphine which was specifically described as not to be given in that circumstance. He wasnt in pain but he was distressed. The morphine will have hastened his death but at the same time seemed to make him more comfortable.

While I dont disagree with the doctor's actions it is all too easy to see how 'backstreet' assisted deaths could be occurring now. Some, like my DF's will be done well. Others will be botched, ineffectual and with devastating consequences.

I think that legalising assisted dying in very specific circumstances will bring the practice out into the open. It will also bring the reasons for why a person is wanting to die out into the open. HCP & SW will want to know why. It will be harder for family members to pressurise a relative if they know that there will an investigation up front.

[BackforGood]

ICanHearYou has made some very good posts.
I am 100% sure that there should be the 'right to choose to die when I choose to' in principle. For me, the debate is around the detail.
I would willing sign a document now - and would have been happy to do so at any point over the last 30 years - as indeed, would my parents when they were still alive, indicating a wish that my life would end if (or when) I was in the circumstances listed on that legal document.
It would then give the assessment panel a good starting point, to know that was my wish, and had always been my wish.
Yes, there would still need to be assessments - I presume by at least two independent Drs (and I respect the rights of Drs to opt out of this if they wish), and each case would have to be decided on a case by case basis, but I find it quite horrific that other people can make me to live without dignity, or in pain, or in the knowledge that I am just going to get less and less capable, or more and more paralysed, or that "me" has long gone (in terms of dementia suffering), and think they have more right over that decision than I do.

[HercShipwright]

Icanhearyou It seems you can't. As I said, it was my father, not my grandfather who was left to die, and he had not at any point in his life been kept alive 'because that's what we do' after the war ended. He was kept alive 'because that's what we do' during the war - I presume you didn't mean to suggest that he shouldn't have been? Or perhaps you do. 'Because that's what we do' is a doctrine that hasn't been applied to keeping the elderly alive for some time now (my dad died in 2002). It's been applied to leaving them to die - without a nurse or doctor even being bothered to witness it.

[larrygrylls]

There is no meaningful argument against someone's right to end their life. No one should waste their last few hours trying to arrange a private ambulance (half to be paid in cash on a Sunday) to Brussels.

85% of people who request euthanasia have terminal cancer. Palliative care is patchy at best and shit at worst.

There is not only the moral question. There is the inability of a doctor to relieve suffering when someone is actively dying in front of them because it might 'hasten death', regardless of whether it is what the person wants.

We don't have enough hospices. Regardless, many want to die in their homes. And, when they do, the care is shocking. To improve palliative care to the level where it would afford everyone decent end of life care would cost billions (10s of billions, maybe?). And, even if it were possible, some adults with capacity choose to die. Who are we to refuse them?

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Agree with the bill 100%. Am always suspicious of argument which are based on 'people will probably start thinking...'.

It's not right that someone suffering and dying and puking shit should not be allowed to say 'enough'. All the things we can do, and we can't allow someone to have autonomy over when and how they want to draw a line. And no amount of widower vicars waxing emotional about the magical last months they had with their wives who were dying in pain will sway me.

If you don't want an assisted death, you need not have one, but you shouldn't tell others that they must scream it out until the last moment because death is the decision of a god they may not believe in.

[Jux]

It's the risk of abuse - which has the potential to be high, not small - which scares me.

At the same time, I would really prefer to have the option to decide when I die, and as I have a debilitating condition, am quite likely to get to a point where I may not be able to do physically do it myself.

[Solopower1]

When thinking about myself, what scares me the most is the thought that I could turn on the people I love if I had dementia - as happened to one of my in-laws. Another had Alzheimer's and did a poo in the middle of the carpet in front of some of her old friends who had come to see her. Both situations were terribly distressing to their children and grand-children.

As someone said upthread, it would be useful if there could be a legal document that we could sign when we are in our 50s. I would say something like I do not want to live if I can't recognise the people around me, and I do not want any of my children to have to care for me in that situation (just put me in a home and throw away the key!).

But everyone would write something different. So couldn't we have a law that allowed us to make a choice earlier in life - something like a birth plan, but which doctors were bound to follow (unless it was against their conscience)? It would involve allowing assisted suicide in some cases, but only when specifically requested.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

I agree that it's frustrating OP, and the anti's trying to take the moral high-ground, when there's nothing wrong with a bit of pragmatism and compassion.

We're all going to die one day. Absolutely a good death is the natural last task of a well lived life, but that won't mean the same experience for everyone, not all deaths can be the same. As a society we need flexible approaches that are as right as they can be for different individuals and circumstances.

Hope that gives some idea of my POV, these things can be hard to express adequately can't they?

[Solopower1]

I don't know much about what's in the bill, but this is one of the rare occasions when I feel the views of all sides are being respected, and we are likely to get a decision that has been very carefully thought through.

I hardly dare say it, but I think we might just end up by getting the best result for the greatest number of people.

[edamsavestheday]

Stephen Hawking has backed the right to die with assistance. Interesting because he is someone who was written off by doctors several times

[DikTrom]

In the Netherlands there is assisted suicide, only a panel of three independent doctors (not patient's own GP) need to be convinced that the patient really wants this and there is absolutely no hope and the patient is suffering to the extreme if denied assisted suicide.

It took my friend a good 6 months of trying to persuade the panel before he was finally allowed assisted suicide. Then they needed to get the stuff for the assisted suicide which for some strange reason had to come from Switzerland and was also fraught with difficulties. He was so relieved when the day came close and was told that the stuff had arrived. This may seem strange but he had organised a kind of party to celebrate his life, exchange stories (well he couldn't obviously take much part in this apart from listening) and then he was given the fatal medicine and died surrounded by friends and family. It was what he wanted, not so easy for the friends and family, but definitely his wish.

[larrygrylls]

Do 98% of people die 'peaceful' deaths? I am very sceptical? And what does peaceful mean? Enough morphine, halperidol and diazepam that the dying person is unconscious ahead of time? And maybe suffering hallucinations?

And what of the last few days, hours before the syringe driver dosage is upped enough to ensure sedation? Are they peaceful?

From what I have seen personally and heard from others, most deaths are far from peaceful. And, again, that is assuming ideal end of life care, which often does not happen.

[ClashCityRocker]

It's been interesting participating and thinking about this thread.

I think I am very uncomfortable with the idea of it, however I am beginning to think that, whilst I don't think I would necessarily do it myself (although who knows if I was in the position to contemplate it, which I'm not) it should be the individual's choice.

I do agree that the devils in the details, and there needs to be a heck of a lot of safeguarding in place.

The analogy of backstreet abortionists was also a point I'd never considered; and the poster was absolutely right, it will be going on right now...

[larrygrylls]

I think that most who would not contemplate it for themselves have not considered what dying might entail. Once I can no longer breathe properly or swallow fluids, get me out. The remainder is merely the body's futile attempt to stay alive in a sea of pain and fear. I would leave it until near the end, but I want that right.

As one small example, in Kent there are two cars with doctors on a Sunday covering all emergencies. They don't carry a lot of injectable medicine. If you suddenly worsen on a Sunday, how do you think you are likely to die? Yes, they all carry injectable morphine but if someone is already on opioid analgesia they are not allowed to give a morphine injection, regardless of suffering.

[specialsubject]

Tony Nicklinson said that suicide was an option for the mentally ill but physically able. He said that as he was in the reverse position he was denied the option.

the picture of him after he was denied the right to a peaceful death still haunts me. As does what an elderly relative said to me the last time I saw him, knowing what his diagnosis meant was coming to him.

We will all die. Why can't we choose when, with assessment to make sure that we are capable of that decision?

[DikTrom]

No Crescentmoon you are wrong. There are cases for which there is no palliative care apart from inducing a deep medical coma. That is not palliative care. Please do not fool yourself and others that extreme pain and suffering can simply be dealt with through better palliative care. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

[Scarletbanner]

The bill requires 2 doctors to sign off that someone is competent and that they are expected to die within 6 months. So stipulating in advance that you'd like this if x, y, or z happens in future is irrelevant.

If it's agreed, there would be a 14day cooling off period and then a doctor could write a prescription for the drugs. The individual takes the drugs themselves, they are not "killed" by a doctor. This means it wouldn't help someone with dementia (not competent) or with MND or similar, if they couldn't take the drugs themselves.

This is similar to the process in Oregon which is now supported by the hospice movement. Interestingly many of the people in Oregon who have the prescription don't choose to take the drugs. But knowing that they could is a tremendous comfort.

I hope this Bill becomes law.

[ClashCityRocker]

I can see why that might be the case for someone like your friend, DikTrom, and it sounds like he had the best 'send off' that he could've had, given the circumstances.

The whole thing makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, but on the other hand, I am a healthy person with no concept of even being in that position, so who am I to deny someone the choice?

I do find it troubling though.

[ClashCityRocker]

That's an interesting point, scarlet banner.

A friend of mine who had bone cancer kept a stash of pills 'just in case'. She never used them (as far as I know) but found comfort in having the option. I supposed, without being too flippant about it, it's like a smoker keeping a pack of cigs in the house.

[LadyLemongrab]

The argument that the right to die will become a duty to die is compelling.

This is the only thing which has made me reconsider my stance on the whole thing.