Assisted dying

Thank you jane.

Those who have been told they have less than six months to live are usually in pain, sick or disabled.

When my husband was dying we trusted the GP more than the Macmillan nurse. The GP said that it was the hardest thing she had ever had to do, to give us permission not to ask him if he wanted anything to eat or drink, and to tell him that if he wanted anything to eat or drink he had to ask us.

That's the reality of the situation as it is now. It's easy to be objective about the situation if you haven't had to face it. Once you have it's impossible to be objective about it again.

The bill is trying to make it easier for the dying person, not put more obstacles in the way. Nobody will have to go down that route. It will just be there for those who want to.

Assisted dying is not instead of palliative care. It's as well as, when all the palliative care in the world is not enough.

Exactly Bags. I can understand that there is concern that the Act may not be used properly in the same way as the Liverpool Pathway wasn't always used correctly but it's a step in the right direction I think.

(By saying step in the right direction I mean it'll probably need some tweaking after a time - not that I think it's a step towards all oldies being snuffed out after they reach a use by date!)

My Mum was old (93) and disabled - deaf, unable to walk with severe arthritis and had quite simply run out of energy for living. She took to her bed and turned her face to the wall. Wouldn't eat or drink, slept a lot and gradually slipped away from us. She made the decision it was time to go, so she did.

No-one should be kept alive against their will and I believe that the Act would help those who have made the decision - but it must be their own decision and safeguards to ensure that need to be stringent.

Just one thought- assisted dying is legal in one state of the USA (Oregon, I think) but in other states where they execute criminals they are no longer able to do so humanely. A murderer executed yesterday in Arizona was said to have taken two hours to die. The reason, according to Radio 4, is that the drugs prisons used to use were supplied by European countries which have now refused to supply them for judicial execution. Anyone know any more about this?

There are safeguards within the bill Gaga quite stringent ones too.

Well yes Aka but wasn't that also the case when the Abortion Act was brought in yet now it seems to be on demand?

A totally different issue though. And that is the point, assisted dying would be on demand- with very strict guidelines.

It is wrong that some (very few, but too many still) use abortion as a form of 'contraception' and refuse use any kind of contraception available. The doctors' dilemma then is with the child in mind- what future for a child whose mother would be forced to have said child, when she clearly does not want a child? 'Punishing' the mother by refusing an abortion would punish the future child a lot more- which is why most doctors agree to go ahead. But a totally different issue, really.

BTW, a reminder that Dignitas is never used by the Swiss- as they are able to die in the comfort of their own homes, with or without family, loved ones, their favourite music, bird song, whatever- in their own garden even if private. The choice for UK people to use Dignitas is better than having no choice- but it is a horrible choice, only for those who can afford it and can manage the trauma of travelling here. The Dignitas apartment is on an industrial estate- as complaints were made about previous locations in nicer private estate- as said, the only choice but people should be able to stay in their own home or that of a friend, family, etc, without having to travel abroad (expensive, but more importantly exhausting both physically and emotionally- and impossible for those who are too weak or sick).

The point I was trying and failing to make Granjura was that "stringent guidelines" seem to become less so over time. The Abortion Act is a case in point.There is obvious concern about the possibility of pressure being brought to bear on the vulnerable as the end of their life approaches.

Having said that, I do think that there should be a way for someone to bow out if that is their true wish.

Granjura how is the issue completely different? There were different lobbies in the case of legalising abortion and some have been astounded at how far things have moved from what they expected. Others, I suspect, have arrived at the situation they wanted in the first place.

I understood your point gaga, and I agree with you.
granjura You are simply wrong to say that 'very few' women use abortion as a form of contraception.

This is from the Department of Health's own report:
"In 2011, 36% of women undergoing abortions had one or more previous abortions. The
proportion has risen from 31% since 2001 (See Table 3a.ix and Table 4b). 26% of
abortions to women aged under 25 were repeat abortions (See Table 11)."

Here is a link to the whole report (Abortion Statistics, 2011) if you want to read it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213386/Commentary1.pdf

Also from the report:
A legally induced abortion must be certified by two registered medical practitioners as justified under one or more of the following grounds :
A the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant
woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated (Abortion Act, 1967 as
amended, section 1(1)(c))
B the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or
mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(b))
C the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance
of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,
of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))
D the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance
of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,
of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of the family of the
pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))
E there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such
physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped (section 1(1)(d))
or, in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary:
F to save the life of the pregnant woman (section 1(4))
G to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant
woman (section 1(4))

It beggars belief that all the women having abortions in this country fall into one of these categories.
I am not against abortion if the alternative is an unwanted child.
But we shouldn't pretend that Abortion on Demand, which was not the original intention of the Abortion Bill, hasn't come about.

My work and personal experience suggests women rarely use abortion as a form of contraception. My experience of women who've had more than one termination is that they usually have multiple difficulties in their lives.

Domestic abuse is one feature that is often present in the life history of women who have had multiple/more than one abortions. Doctors faced with women who say their mental health will break down, they won't be able to care for existing children, etc etc would find it difficult to send them off to continue their unwanted pregnancy I imagine.

I'm not sure that putting assisted dying alongside abortion makes a discussion on the sanctity of life any easier. But, then, it isn't an easy subject, is it.

We could all bring in personal experience but I think we should take notice of the information Jane has posted. The debate on assisted dying seems to be driven in part by a few harrowing personal experiences. We would all wish for a peaceful death but even assisted dying won't guarantee that for the majority. I think of other legislation driven by emotion, sympathy and a desire to please the electorate. The Dangerous Dogs Act comes to mind.

Agreed Lilygran. But could you please explain why it should not be helpful to the majority (of those who fit the criteria and ask for help)? Why shouldn't it?

For the reasons other people have already given, that any safeguards can be breached. Changing the law in this way would be much more fundamental and radical than it perhaps appears. Agreeing that it is legally all right to kill people (other than babies) shifts our culture to a point where we think of killing a person as quite ordinary and normal.

I don't agree, Lilygran. I don't think granting a terminally ill person the right to a dignified death will change our attitude to 'killing a person' at all - why would it? It would only be at the request of the person wishing for such a death - nothing like abortion at all.

And why do so many opponents of the bill seem to assume that all seriously ill, vulnerable patients will somehow be 'persuaded' to sign up for an assisted death if they don't wish to? By whom? Their greedy relatives who can't wait a few more weeks? Medical staff?

Perhaps I'm just more cynical than you, Ana.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jul/18/how-many-people-choose-assisted-suicide-where-it-is-legal

This is interesting and I think it refutes to some extent the slippery slope argument. What for me is an argument in favour of assisted dying is that I can really imagine that being given a prescription and knowing i could choose when to use it, could paradoxically make it easier for me to perhaps keep going. I'm distressed by the commonly spoken view that there would be hoards of greedy relatives encouraging people to die - as Ana says, we're only talking about a few months, weeks anyway. I think there would be more pressure the other way. Personal experience is bound to influence how we feel, I appreciate that but I will never forget my next door neighbour crying as she described her dying husband screaming in pain in a hospital ward and saying kill me, kill me. The day after he died, the hospice place was available.

Indeed GrannyTwice- that was the case for my poor mum- my dad just couldn't bear to lose her, and despite her being a founder member of EXIT Switzerand- and her absolutely clear wishes to be allowed to die- he begged and begged her not to. Lots of people do NOT respect the wishes of elderly parents and relatives- and insist to medical staff they should be made to live artificially for longer- hopeless operations, antibiotics and 'force' feeding, etc- despite the patients begging for this not to happen.

No-one should die in pain - we have the means to avoid this now, although there are times when it is used with insufficient skill.

Doctors have always brought lives to a quicker close in the name of pain relief. This act seems to put this on a more formal footing and to help doctors to stay on the right side of the law. As long as there are sufficient safeguards it should help to prevent inappropriate heroic efforts to save people whose lives should be allowed to draw gently to a close.

I do not have a concern about the "slippery slope" argument.

Some people, as well, would prefer not to end their days drugged up to the eyeballs, hallucinating and not knowing where they are, never mind who's there with them. Pain relief such as morphine in high doses can affect all the faculties, even though it might only take the pain away temporarily.

Today, Bob will die on the other side of my country- just like his wife did a few years ago. He has an aggessive form of cancer and does not want to see this to the agonising end.

My heart goes to him, and I am proud that my country will allow him that choice- but so sad that he has to leave his home, and come to a modern cube on an industrial estate to do so. Here in Switzerland, I would have the choice to die quietly in my own home, in my bed or on my settee, with DH holding me, with my favourite music playing and watching the birds feeding outside my window. I am not religious, but I pray in my own way that friends in the UK will soon have that ultimate choice if ever they feel this is what they want.

Safe journey here and beyond Bob - my heart goes out to you.