Our world has changed forever - assisted dying bill

Thank ladyinblue. Mum had a catastrophic stroke, couldn’t do anything. She was given some morphine to ‘help’. It did and we remain eternally grateful

Iam64

Deedaa

I can remember my grandmother being in a lot of pain from arthritis after she had her final stroke. she wasn't really conscious but was still obviously in pain. When she then developed pneumonia the GP decided not to treat it and she died very quickly and quietly. This was about 60 years ago.

Before Dr Shipman was exposed as a serial killer, doctors had more freedom in deciding what was best for their patients. Pneumonia was known as the old person’s friend because it often follows a stroke and can, with the aid of morphine help the patient did more peacefully.
Imo a better option than being peg fed and given intravenous antibiotics to prolong a life that is ready to end

Deeda,

The same with my grandad in the 1950's, after having a bad heart for many years and being bedridden with no quality of life, he had a heart attack and was given morphine by his doctor and died a peaceful death.

I have made out a DNR form which states if I die and bringing me back will result in me not being fully functional, I do not want resuscitating, just to give me palliative care and keep me comfortable.

Last year I was rushed into hospital as I was very ill and the doctor came to see me and said that she had seen that I had signed a DNR and that I was a very sensible lady and wished
more patients had taken the time to organise their lives like I had.

So isn't that like assisted dying, refusing to be resuscitated if I died.

Deedaa

I can remember my grandmother being in a lot of pain from arthritis after she had her final stroke. she wasn't really conscious but was still obviously in pain. When she then developed pneumonia the GP decided not to treat it and she died very quickly and quietly. This was about 60 years ago.

Before Dr Shipman was exposed as a serial killer, doctors had more freedom in deciding what was best for their patients. Pneumonia was known as the old person’s friend because it often follows a stroke and can, with the aid of morphine help the patient did more peacefully.
Imo a better option than being peg fed and given intravenous antibiotics to prolong a life that is ready to end

When the midwife and the doctor were having a argument over my body as I gave birth, and later when a midwife made it pretty impossible for me to read the notes of the birth, I should have just had faith and it would all have been fine.
Blind faith in any profession is a dangerous idea.

gentleshores I disagree entirely. A money-saving option? That’s not why this bill was proposed, it was to give those people the choice when it comes.
I truly believe it comes from a place of humanity.
Perhaps you should learn how to trust the medical profession. It will not serve you well if you were to get ill to not have faith in your doctors.

As others have said, it’s not rare for people to die in unbearable pain and suffering. I saw it with both parents.
I just don’t understand why people are so opposed to this bill and am happy that the vote went in favour.
It’s not a slippery slope and I even hope that it will be extended at some point, as it has in other countries.
No-one will be coerced into making a decision but will have the freedom to end their own lives with dignity. It gives me peace of mind that should the time come for me, I can choose to die and stop the suffering.

gentleshores

It does concern me that it is indeed economic. The same day as this bill was passed, the bill to fund hospice care for children was turned down.

I have a vision of less treatment options being available - why care for you when they can just let you opt to die instead.

Funding good end of life care and hospices would cost a fortune. If people die it's less strain on the NHS.

While I accept some people like the option and feel it gives them choice, I think it could lead to laziness in caring and charities taking the strain.

I have visions of it being a new vocabulary - another option offered - like the annual flu jab. I hope no medical person ever offers me that option - if there are alternatives that could help me. Just because it would cost too much.

I don't really trust Doctors either that much, certainly don't trust policitians or most care homes.

It may be the right thing for some people but it does seem a convenient money saving exercise.

I rather fear we've crossed the Rubicon as far as state funding for healthcare is concerned.

As long as we operate under the small-state economic model there will be huge gaps in the availability of end-of-life care and it will continue to be something of a lottery for tens of thousands of people who do not have the funds to engage private-care. Not knowing whether you will be one of the unlucky ones is enough to make anyone consider the option that this bill might make available.

Norway - which I've mentioned previously - appears to be able to manage both a robust market-economy and well-funded health and welfare services (I lived and worked there for 12 years).

But then, Norway does invest in its people, in their welfare - because they are the key to a continuing successful economy.

The North Sea oil boom of the 80s created mammoth revenues for the UK and Norway. Basically Norway invested theirs for the benefit of everyone whilst we plundered ours to bankroll unemployment, the destruction of manufacturing and the 'big-bang'.

So here we are, with a totally different mind-set. We've fallen for the big-money-trick and believe "there isn't enough money" to fund the services that a huge swathe of the population rely on (or would, if they could).

Against this backdrop, like others, I too am uncomfortable with the decision on AD. Though in principle I also believe that each individual has the right to choose the manner of their 'passing'.

Difficult, isn't it?

It does concern me that it is indeed economic. The same day as this bill was passed, the bill to fund hospice care for children was turned down.

I have a vision of less treatment options being available - why care for you when they can just let you opt to die instead.

Funding good end of life care and hospices would cost a fortune. If people die it's less strain on the NHS.

While I accept some people like the option and feel it gives them choice, I think it could lead to laziness in caring and charities taking the strain.

I have visions of it being a new vocabulary - another option offered - like the annual flu jab. I hope no medical person ever offers me that option - if there are alternatives that could help me. Just because it would cost too much.

I don't really trust Doctors either that much, certainly don't trust policitians or most care homes.

It may be the right thing for some people but it does seem a convenient money saving exercise.

Rosie51

This oft quoted 'people will have a choice' only applies to a very select narrow group of people. You can be in awful pain for years without being terminal within 6 months, and these people aren't covered by the bill. Does anybody really believe there won't be calls for the scope to be widened, to not disadvantage this group before moving onto other groups? When there is this 'opt out' from pain and suffering what incentive is there to invest huge amounts into research for better pain relief and palliative care?

You have a point there Rosie51.

When there is this 'opt out' from pain and suffering what incentive is there to invest huge amounts into research for better pain relief and palliative care?

In crude economic terms - good question.

The problem with effective pain relief is - as you probably know - that it's subject to the law of diminishing returns hence all the issues with dependency and addiction.

The last 'breakthrough' I remember was intended to deal with this aspect by slow - prolonged - release of the opiate over 12 hours thus providing "smooth and sustained pain control all day and all night" according to marketing-blurb of the pharma drugmaker, Purdue Pharma, who launched the generic Oxycodone Hydrochloride under the brand-name Oxycontin decades ago in America.

BUT, there was a fundamental problem - in reality the drug wears off hours early in very many people. And, Oxycodone Hydrochloride - being a chemical 'cousin' of heroin - left these patients with excruciating symptoms of withdrawal as well as a return of their underlying pain.

'Finding better pain relief' is light-years away unless - and even if a drug can be found which doesn't alter the brain's circuitry.

As for palliative care, which I'd find it hard to argue against in principle - do we have a government, or are we ever likely to have one - that is prepared to invest heavily in such a state-run service?

I read somewhere, and you'll have to forgive me for not quoting the source because I read so much data that I can't bookmark it all - that at least 100,000 people needing end-of-life care are unable to access it.

Some serious funding would be needed to address that.

I'm not arguing for assisted dying because, like you, I have doubts about the eventual creep of this bill, but neither am I arguing against it because I can understand why people fear their final days / hours, considering the dire state of palliative and end-of-life care.

Going to hell in a handcart comes to mind on hearing this news. Visions of relatives seeking money, visions of doctors made complicit in murder, visions of the third reich.

No my mother in law wouldnt have said that, it would have been the reason though. Socialised to always put everyone before herself. Again choice is a funny word.

GrandmaKT

Allira

No doctor will agree to help just because someone feels they are a burden on their family.

No, but you wouldn't say that would you? Even if it was privately one of your reasons.

No, but a doctor would know if your condition would be causing intolerable pain or if your condition was such that you were totally incapable of caring for yourself.

Allira

No doctor will agree to help just because someone feels they are a burden on their family.

No, but you wouldn't say that would you? Even if it was privately one of your reasons.

No doctor will agree to help just because someone feels they are a burden on their family.

Galaxy

No it gives privileged people choice, they cant imagine that people will be coerced, or opt for this through fear of being a burden (my MIL would absolutely have seen her last months as a burden to her family for example) , those who use the word choice dont understand that for many choice is an illusion.

I'm sure that not wanting to be a burden will be a big reason that people will consider ending their lives more quickly. Other reasons apart from not wanting the pain are not wanting the indignity and just being "ready to go". Of course we absolutely must guard against persuasion and coercion, the decision MUST be the individual's alone. But, if I am going to die in 6 months anyway, am living miserably in pain and am also a drain on my family (physically, emotionally, financially), I would like to have the option to take all these into consideration and make my decision.

MissAdventure

What if the terminal illness impacts on your mind, though?

Then you would not be offered the chance

I'm for the bill because I believe that (a) painful deaths are not "very rare" and I think that whether (b) one can get good palliative care and (c) whether a hospice placement would always be available if needed would be at best a matter of happenstance

(a) True
(b) Debatable
(c) We've had experience of this years ago when a loved one spent time in a hospice, was sent home as he rallied then, when he deteriorated rapidly a week later, no place was available. Also more recently, no place was available at a hospice for another beloved family member. The hospice was one featured last night on ITV, worrying they will lose staff as a result of the recent Budget.

This Bill will probably not be beneficial to those diagnosed with dementia as, by the time they are near end of life and living without any dignity whatsoever, they will not be able to give informed consent.

My girl saw her palliative care nurse three times in ten years.

I'm for the bill because I believe that (a) painful deaths are not "very rare" and I think that whether (b) one can get good palliative care and (c) whether a hospice placement would always be available if needed would be at best a matter of happenstance and at worst a postcode lottery(or both).
No criticism of the medical staff here just accknowledgement of lack of resources throughout the NHS.
As hopefully there will be a very low% of assisted deaths (I think they gave 2or3% of all deaths in the Netherlands) I don't see that Assisted Ds and funding of Palliative Care and Hospice services should be mutually exclusive.
I am very sorry that the OP has felt less safe because of the bill but I think that it is the right decision.
It is a matter of giving people choice, and some control over the length and manner of their death.

Allira

MissAdventure

I don't agree that it's rare.

Me neither.

I should have said - in a hospice/palliative care setting - I was quoting a palliative care Doctor.

Galaxy

No it gives privileged people choice, they cant imagine that people will be coerced, or opt for this through fear of being a burden (my MIL would absolutely have seen her last months as a burden to her family for example) , those who use the word choice dont understand that for many choice is an illusion.

I think that too. Guilt tripped. Unfortunately as well, not all families are caring towards their elderly.

MissAdventure

I don't agree that it's rare.

Me neither.

I can remember my grandmother being in a lot of pain from arthritis after she had her final stroke. she wasn't really conscious but was still obviously in pain. When she then developed pneumonia the GP decided not to treat it and she died very quickly and quietly. This was about 60 years ago.

No it gives privileged people choice, they cant imagine that people will be coerced, or opt for this through fear of being a burden (my MIL would absolutely have seen her last months as a burden to her family for example) , those who use the word choice dont understand that for many choice is an illusion.