Assisted Dying is Sexist

[lcakethereforeIam]

This is a facet that I hadn't thought of, now I'm thinking how could I have been so blind

https://archive.ph/uhGgX

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/25/assisted-dying-is-sexist-report-finds/

I'm not entirely against people being killed by their Doctors, if that is their wish, they're going to die soon anyway and the alternative is unrelievable pain. My misgivings were from watching how it had played out in countries where it is legal, particularly Canada. I was also worried about coercion but somehow I hadn't thought how gendered that is. How it's usually the male sex that does the coercion.

There are so many things wrong with assisted dying and this is yet another thing. They aren't listening to anyone and they will force it through.
I don't think there is much wrong with our current system but it is unwritten. A doctor will provide all necessary pain medication and if the dosage proves fatal so be it. This happens all the time in end of life care. No doctors are prosecuted for this. Maybe we should codify it better and ensure better access to end of life care but the state should have no part in providing death as a service.

I actually believe in the right of people to decide if they want to die.

However, I have not faith whatsoever, whether here in the UK, or any other country, that you can safely legislate for this not to be abused.

So I am glad that this report has been written. Although I suspect that as usual, concerns about women want make much of an impact.

When you think that during Covid GPs just sent out en masse DNR forms to older patients on their lists, its hard not to think that should this legislation go through it would be so easy for the concept of "assisted" dying could shift into decision making not by individuals but by groups with elitist / discriminatory views.

The media is being really bad in covering this as an issue, as they get lots of high profile people, with I am sure genuine stories of loved ones who would have wanted this, but never ever allow any one with a rational, evidence based approach.

Also not clear why this private members' bill is being rushed through.

I understand people's concerns, but I'm not sure that it's ethical to deny people the right to end their suffering at a time of their choosing, on the basis that a minority may be negatively impacted at some indeterminate point in the future.

I agree. I think it's hard to deny that in principle it's the right thing to do, but I'm very concerned about the practicality of the law. I think to potential for abuse is immense and we need to be very careful. Once it becomes legal it will be easier to shift the goalposts. I think we need to be very careful.

Well I suppose that's a bit like saying I dont think it is ethical to deny women the right to enter into a relationship with men, when a minority may end up being killed by them.

What makes you think there is even a doubt that this is happening.

Let alone that the possibility of a "professional" like Shipman or Letby having any power in the situation.

"may"?? - pollyanna thinking

I think to potential for abuse is immense and we need to be very careful.

And as others have pointed out, if it requires 2 doctors, how can an over worked, under staffed NHS facilitate this ethically.

the worry being, of course, that it may turn from a minority into a majority.

and on current thinking/policies, of course, a tiny majority should always insist on making everyone dance to their tune 😜

I agree with this, and doubly so when what hospice care there is is often dependent on charitable donations and volunteer support. There is no real choice when economics mean that some people will have different outcomes than others. Plus, we know that women are more likely to be in poverty in old age and therefore it is not much of a step to think they might also see assisted dying as a way of not being a burden or cost.
I would be interested to read a feminist analysis of assisted dying, if one exists (I haven’t looked to see if one exists as I had not thought of it properly until now, just that I don’t agree as poverty will end up being a determinant and women experience that more than men due to caring roles).

Even though I'm a lifelong lesbian myself, ' I dont think it is ethical to deny women the right to enter into a relationship with men, when a minority may end up being killed by them.' - I respect women's choice to enter into relationships with men, so it wouldn't be ethical to deny them that right. Even if I could.
My point is that the right to choose should not be denied on the basis that sometimes things may - sorry, do not - go right.

Standards, rules, regulations should be maintained to the highest possible level, but nothing is infallible. Do we therefore abandon something just because we can't guarantee it 100%? Did we shut down hospitals and GP practices because of Shipman and Letby?

The morphine based palliative pain relief is very much end of life. It's only provided at the last stage, the last 2-3 days. I've nursed 3 cancer sufferers (all close relatives) and seen them go through weeks of pain before they get to that stage of relief. One of the sufferers tried to commit suicide in order to avoid the pain but the attempt unfortunately failed. In the end, he asphyxiated to death (cancer of the oesophagus). You wouldn't put an animal through that type of death let alone a human being.

Standards, rules, regulations should be maintained to the highest possible level, but nothing is infallible

I think at the moment the problem is that a private members bill that many think hasn't been thought through properly, is being pushed through.

For instance, without the NHS shortages, I am not sure that 2 doctors should be the judge.

Apart from the fact that they might not agree on whether life expectancy is only 6 months, the other factors which is how genuinely independent is the choice being made, are not necessarily something that a doctor is best placed to evaluate.

I am so sorry to hear this, and how terrible it must be for you to have experienced 3 times.

And not wanting to derail the thread, the issue of palliative care is another issue.

Why are those with for instance cancer supposed to endure that level of pain. There needs to be a different approach, level of treatment allowed, rather than some arbitary rule of X number of days.

I dont want to say any more because of your personal experience, but it is these sort of approaches that make me wary because if there is guidance that is so obviously inhumane, its hard to not to imagine they may make some other equally inappropriate "guideline".

Horrifying findings.

"Of the 100 UK “mercy killings” over 25 years, the report found that 88 per cent of perpetrators were male, and 78 per cent of female victims were neither terminally ill nor willing to die but were often elderly, disabled, or infirm.
Killings were frequently triggered by care demands and involved excessive violence, with “overkill” –the use of unnecessary brutality – common."

The thought of elderly/ill people feeling like they need to advocate for their right to stay alive is utterly appalling.

for me it’s a yes on an individual sufferer level but a big no on a societal level.

I would definitely be voting against as an MP. It’s crossing a line and a slippery slope IMO

I agree with this. So what if it can't be done perfectly? Most things can't and most relationships are open to abuse, e.g. the relationship between doctor and patient, the relationship between chef and diner, the relationship between mother and child.

I've changed my mind on this; I just think it can't be right to put this into law. Although, as we've seen elsewhere, where Canada goes, the rest of the world tends to follow... But when you consider the state of the NHS, and the pressures NHS doctors are under, the risks are obvious. And as @IwantToRetire says, what happens when the next pandemic comes along?

Frightening. This has given me pause for thought.

The fact it’s being rushed through shows that it’s going to be a poor policy with potentially horrific consequences. On those grounds - not in my name.

But the only comparable policy is capital punishment. Abuse or error leading to death in any other context will come in for a lot of scrutiny. Not so much when death is the intended outcome, then it’s easy for coercion and murder to slip under the radar. In fact when there’s a miscarriage of justice in a state execution that may well come to light, eventually. But when an 85 year old woman has been pressured into death or killed, out of sight and with ready made excuses, it’s a lot less likely that anyone will ever notice or care.

There are worse things in life than an 85 year old dying painlessly. Being alive, for one!

The experiences Copernicus describes are why I can't just say that accelerating someone's death is flat out wrong.

This is an odd statement. One of my best friends is 87 and has a very busy social life and friends. It’s not worse for her and many others like her to be alive.

Again, another odd statement. In all of those relationships, there would be a criminal investigation if the abuse led to death. If the process is death, then proving malpractice or coercion or lack of due diligence becomes much harder.

Of course it's sexist.

There's more elderly women and women are socially conditioned to be cooperative and passive rather than challenge, especially when it comes to people in authority.

Nice ageism there.

Yes, absolutely this. The individual stories are terrible and emotive (which is why they're always used in support of assisted suicide arguments) but you have to consider the effect of a change in the law across the whole of society. This isn't analogous to abortion rights where the woman’s right to choose doesn't have an impact on various other unrelated vulnerable people.

I've often wondered if there's a feminist analysis on this subject, but I was thinking more from the point of view that women might be more likely to choose assisted suicide due to putting others' needs above their own.