Assisted Dying

But Dignity in Dying, with respect, just had much more stringent guidelines and conditions and safeguards- eg for 2 doctors to agree that someone has an estimated maximum 6 months to live, and has a terminal condition- there is NO comparison, surely with Dignitas or New York. I know many of you think it would be a slippery slope to similar cases should Dignity in Dying go through (it didn't, so you 'won') - but I truly believe we have NO RIGHT to force people to live to the awful and bitter, undignified end of many terminal diseases. As said, we wouldn't wish that on our beloved pets- so why oh why, our loved ones?

I am sorry I am repeating myself- but this is a Forum- and a discussion- and we are all free, you two, to try and persuade others with valid and hopefully persuasive arguments. And yes, I know that I am failing with several here. That's ok. I do imagine the woman with long-term depression and some disability (I do not know of her case) - will just find another, perhaps very unpleasant way, of ending her misery. Sad or tragic, at the end, her choice too.

There was a long, very moving article in the New Yorker a few weeks ago about a middle-aged woman with only minor physical illnesses but recurrent depression whose doctor agreed she could die. Her children were, not surprisingly, extremely distressed and unhappy about it. There was also a young British man, sadly paralysed in a sports accident, who went off to Switzerland and was assisted to die. I see no reason to suppose the Dignity in Dying law would be any more effective in excluding mental illness and depression. I'm very glad the majority of MPs think the same.

Not at all- this is a discussion. But I did object to this:

Presumably, the majority of the people requesting euthanasia would have a physical, mental or emotional problem of some kind i.e be the very people who need help from social and health services.

which seemed to show that this person did not understand the proposal of the Dignity in Dying bill, which was intended for terminally ill people only, be it cancer of other debilitatiing diseases, and NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM for those with mental or emotional issues. To imply anyhow that someone who is dying and would rather avoid the last stage of suffering and indiginities is suffering from 'mental issue' is way out of order, sorry.

Granjura you seem to have difficulty in accepting that some GN members have as much knowledge and understanding of the proposed Act as do you .... but take an opposing view as to whether it should become law.

I hope people GNeter will read your link dj- I sometimes feel that some who opposed the bill and the basic principles of Dignity in Dying have not spent time studying the proposals.

In Switzerland, with EXIT, the 'process' and guidelines are quite different and much more open and wide. And yet there are few cases every year- as people often choose to live longer and continue to fight, secure in the knowledge that they can ask for help if they just can't anymore.

People requesting help are interviewed, at least twice and on the very day of the deed- on their own- by specialist trained counsellors- to ensure there is NO coercion from anyone, no doubt, no hesitation of any kind and no mental issues clouding the decision. It works admirably well- and actually allows people to live longer in most cases!

Sadly, for terminally ill people who are suffering, like DJ's poor DH did- the only way is to make that drastic and painful decision to stop feeding and drinking + treatment. This has been much much worse since Shipman- as GPs and consultants in hospital had to stop doing what they had always done, eg increase doses of morphine knowing what the end effect would be- for fear of being sued or struck off. Tragic.

dyingmatters.org/gp_page/identifying-end-life-patients

Information for GPs about end of life care. If GPs are expected to identify those who are likely to die within the next year, and have a conversation about it with them, why should we not all talk about it?
There are lots of signs to tell us when someone is dying, and as Granjura says,we know what the outcome is, even if we do not know exactly when.
So what is wrong with a little bit of dignity? That's all people in this situation want.

Quote:

Presumably, the majority of the people requesting euthanasia would have a physical, mental or emotional problem of some kind i.e be the very people who need help from social and health services.

Where on earth do you extrapolate that? Have you read the guidelines for 'the Dying with Dignity bill? What was talked about only covered the estimated last 6 months (and yes, this is difficult to ascertain for sure- but medical experience rarely gets it wrong) and only for people for a terminal illness, who clearly REQUESTS help with dying before the final stage of extreme suffering and loss of independence and dignity- like DJ's poor husband. Why did he have to choose to stop treatment, feeding and drinking- and have to die over a period of days- when all new that was the only outcome possible?

We would never inflict that on a pet- so why on a loved one? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL ILLNESS.

Indeed Durhamjen- people who like you have had to accompany loved ones through this last journey should be listened to.

And please, could people stop using the word 'euthanasia' for 'assisted dying' - the two are NOT the same at all. Thanks.

Babyboomer, my husband refused medical treatment and food and drink.

It was quite horrific, watching him die over three days. That was quick, because he was diabetic and was not given insulin any more, and he had not been able to swallow much for months before that.
What are you actually wishing on people, by saying that's acceptable but not euthanasia?

I believe everyone has a right to chose how to end their own life, let it go full term or end their own life when they chose.
The Government have got it wrong this time showing that they can be influenced by the Church and organisations like Care Not Dying; thus disregarding giving people the choice to make their own choice about decisions that affect their life.
Care Not Dying while they may help those in need don't take into account the pain & suffering that people have had to go through sometimes for years before coming to the decision to end their lives
I applaud the lady mentioned for making her own decision to end her life when n way she chose to.
It would never become the norm for people to do what this lady did, and it doesn't make vunerable people more vulnerable by making Assisted Dying legal, that's just a cop out n excuse by doctors n organisations like Care Not Dying.
Not making it legal won't stop people committing suicide or planning their own death, a misguided judgement by the Government in my opinion.
People should have the legal right to choose the way they end their life n it should have nothing to do with doctors or the Government.

Well said BB

Some contributors seem to be suggesting that, no matter what a person's age and situation, it is their right to choose death if they wish for it. That is certainly a valid point of view, but it is totally unrealistic to think that a way could be found to prevent abuses, or moral slippage.

Presumably, the majority of the people requesting euthanasia would have a physical, mental or emotional problem of some kind i.e be the very people who need help from social and health services. For example, I used to work for a community mental health team, and staff there spent a good deal of their time attempting to heal and protect the potentially suicidal. Can we really trust that all governments in the future will be above capitalising on this and spotting a way of reducing public expenditure that can be spun as compassionate and libertarian?

I entirely agree that everyone should have the right to refuse medical treatment which would prolong a wretched existence, but this is NOT the same thing as euthanasia.

I do feel that this 75 year old's health is being down played.

As I said earlier my mother had long standing pain from her shingles and she was in great pain. In addition when my tinnitus was at its worst it was like an express train passing within a few feet of my ear and one time this lasted for about an hour and a half before it died down - it was terrifying the intensity.

So if this poor lady had a combination of those two illnesses plus exhaustion I can fully understand her decision.

IMO I think we need to experience an illness to fully appreciate it's effect.

Shabby I'm so sorry about your sister. I agree with you that life is precious.

So sorry to hear that- and yes, our own experiences to very much colour how we feel on so many things. Life is indeed so precious- but only as long and some quality of life is still there- not just for its own sake. It's so hard when we lose people far too early- most of us have been there.

And yet- the Manager of the OAP home where my mother was- had lost her husband to cancer, aged 38. That made here so desperately sad and angry- that she insisted the Charter at the OAP home included a clause that EXIT was not allowed to help anyone who is a resident at that OAP home. I could understand why she felt that way- but her loss had made her forget that her very elderly residents often, despite being well looked after, had lost so much of their independence and digntiy, and sense that their life made any sense, or were in such great pain. I sympathised with her- and yet felt she had no right to impose her views on life being so precious come what may or whatever the degree of loss of the above.

(((( hugs )))) -I always wanted a sister, and I am so happy for you, that despite your sudden loss- you loved yours dearly.

Can't get my head around this probably because my younger sister died, aged just 61, very suddenly and unexpectedly last month. Life is so precious why would a relatively healthy person want to take it. So hard to read this.

Excellent- couldn't help it- and contributed again ...

Nearly £20,000 for the campaign now, granjura.

The "can of worms" remark was mine and was not intended as a joke - I can now see that it might have been open to misinterpretation.

I was trying to convey that this instance was out of the ordinary (as many have said) and might cause the sort of controversy that would hamper progress.

I suppose so absent.

Such jokes are anything but new soontobe. People will make jokes about more or less any subject. There are those who feel that jokes about, say, domestic abuse, disability, incest or assisted dying are tasteless and not funny and there are those who laugh at them.

Older people can feel frightened, vulnerable, alone.
They dont need jokes about being helped to be accompanied to Switzerland.

There is already a joke on a differnet thread about euthanasia.

I cant help thinking that it is opening a can of worms.
There are going to be all sorts of jokes about older people, and it is predominately older people who might like to use this service.

It is going to make people look at older people in a whole new light.
Then we will really be talking about ageism!!

It could make life in ordinary homes uncomfortable.

I can understand posters wanting to know the reason for her decision, but not for the purposes of saying it should or should not be allowed.

It was her decision and I assume she did not break the law and was of sound mind, so I think I have to respect her choice.

We all make decisions that others will disagree with, but we don't have the right to stop them. The law exists for this purpose and I think what many of us are saying is the law in this area needs revisiting to reflect the changes in our culture and society. I greatly admire the people who challenge the law when they believe it to be wrong. I think our society let Tony Nicklinson down when he took his case to the High Court a few years ago. The subject was not of particular interest to me at that time, but I clearly remember thinking it was wrong for someone have to end their life fighting for something that seemed so compassionate and right.

I agree, mittenma. Her reasons for acting as she did were sufficient reason to her. What anyone else might have wanted in her position is entirely and fruitlessly speculative.

I understand people's concern about people being pressurised into assisted suicide, but I really do think that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise safeguards against that, the first one being the exclusion of relatives or other "interested parties" from discussion sessions with the person who asks for assisted suicide, not just once but several times, over a period of weeks or months or years, while the issue is being discussed with the provider of the assistance.