Assisted Dying

Why do we have to find a reason for her c action, it was her choice for whatever reason. How does "being attractive" change that?

Sadly DJ, hospitals and doctors often do not obey directives of DNA, because of pressure and accusations from relatives. You really did your best to support your DH in his (and your ordeal) - I feel for you.

One of my neighbour's husband suffered from advanced stomach cancer, and explained to her that he didn't want any more treatment- and he made that clear to his doctors. But she went on and on, and on- until the doctors agreed to operate again- despite it being clearly a waste of time and would put him through a lot of pain and discomfort again. She just would NOT let go - we all tried to explain it was not in his best interest, or what he wanted- but that was the only way she could sort of cope- hold on to hope that was clearly lost. I'm quite sure she would have sued and thereatened, had the medical team not gone ahead.

That's what I remember from my husband's directive, whitewave. I know he had to be careful about the feeding problem, because he was a type 1 diabetic, so he did not want to die from a hypo. Therefore they could give him glucogen if necessary. But he did not want a feeding tube, which could have been the end result of the ataxia. If he could not feed himself he did not want to be artificially fed.
Did your friend not complain? The GP had a copy of my husband's directive, as had the various medics he had dealings with, as well as his family.

Lord Carey has just made a really good case for Assisted Dying for his fellow Christians. Sadly can't cope the video here.

whitewave, what a shocking shame his wishes were not adhered too. Why, oh why? Perhaps becaude doctors and hospitals are becoming terrified of being sued by relatives and accusation that they do not care and are trying to save money, etc, etc. What a shocking abuse of human rights, but also, let's face it and say it- even if some find it shocking- with an NHS so stretched and not able to pay for essential care for young people, such a waster of money of ressources. Ageist? Yes, and quite rightly so. if you hve one kidney for donation, do you give it to the young father of 3, desperate to see his children grow up, or to a 90 year old person with dementia? It makes sense to chose wisely.

Oh dear. I just had to witness my elderly neighbours' living wills stating clearly that they did not want to be resuscitated.

Even a signed directive doesn't always work. My friends Dad had sign one requesting no treatment in certain circumstances. He had a severe stroke and could not move or speak but he was treated when he got pneumonia and survived for a few more months.

How dreadful for her, and yes, for her children too. I would never want my children to see me like that, and cry at what I had become, as we did for my mil- and my mum in a different way (she never suffered from dementia).

All OAP homes here a private and have a Charter of how they want to run the place. When you go there, you have to sign that you accept those conditions. It is the only local one, and she was placed there after she broke her femur. It's only later, when she got desperate to die- that the reality sunk in. Despite being a member of EXIT for 50 years- she could not ask for support there. The Law has now been changed- and those private OAP homes are no longer allowed to stipulate that- as it is considered as an attack on your basic human rights. Too late for mum.

(btw everyone who can pay, pays- or the local council pays if you can't afford it- or when savings run out (and of course houses and possessions have to be sold to pay).

My mother in law is like that at the moment, Granjura. It does not matter how many drugs they give her, she is getting increasingly violent and agitated. So much so that they are thinking of moving her into a closed ward in a hospital. I know she would gladly have died last year. She nearly did, in a coma for two weeks. However, she had not signed any forms, so they had to keep her alive.
I know I do not want to end up like that.

granjura thanks for the list of requisites. It makes me even more sure that there must be more to Gill Pharoah's story. I can't understand why anything should be hidden given that she and her partner were happy to let the world know what she was doing. It also begs still begs the question if the criteria were not met as to how Dignitas allowed it to happen at this point.

I think your list is a good one and I do believe that you should be able to choose in this way but of course once you were at that stage, would you be able to administer the drug knowingly yourself ? It's a question that could go round in circles.

On the surface, the idea of being able to bow out with dignity when one has had enough of life seems appealing, but I am very much opposed to it because it would inevitably lead to abuse of the vulnerable. There is so much in the news about "bedblockers" and the "burden of the elderly", that I can imagine coming to feel that it was my duty to depart, whether I wanted to or not.

And if someone who is fit and well is allowed to seek euthanasia just to avoid getting old, where do we draw the line? Many people of all ages may feel their lives are not worth living either. Who is to say which of them are right? For example, would someone who has been unable to get over a major bereavement or a painful divorce, be justified in requesting euthanasia?

In an advance directive you have to say when you want treatment and when you do not.
You have to say that you have the capacity to make the decisions when you sign, and a doctor has to sign to say you have.
You can refuse all medical intervention aimed at prolonging or artificially sustaining life and if you suffer serious impairment of the mind or brain with no prospect of recovery together with a physical need for life sustaining treatment/interventions.
You can refuse treatment in the event of an inability to feed yourself.
You have to say you refuse treatment even in the event that the action will shorten your life.

So that's why you have to decide what you want while you are still capable of deciding. Any later and the advance decision will not count.

Interesting what you say about care homes, and Exit, Granjura. According to DyingMatters, a quarter of all deaths occur in care homes.

hence the 5 criteria I quoted- in those circumstances, it would be quite clear that I would not be 'happily doolalli'. My mil was so was for many years, but the last 2 were ghastly. She was either very distressed and violent, or so drugged up she was like a zombie. I know SHE would have hated hated hated it- and what on earth was the point of those last 2 years- apart from totally losing diginity and every little bit of quality of life and no enjoyment of anything? Why oh why? Not for me, NEVER- and it that means chosing to go early, then so be it.

I hear what Jackie is saying and share this view - if it becomes the norm for elderly people to be regarded as an inconvenience or burden, then many people are going to feel sidelined and irrelevant in their later years. It is a reflection of poor attitudes towards elderly people.

Thank you granjura for posting those criteria from Dignitas - it is hard to understand how this lady qualified for the end she desired.

I also understand your criteria for wishing to end life in the event of a dementia illness. I can see where you are coming from. The difficulty is of course that we cannot perceive the world through the brain of someone with dementia - some seem contentedly dotty, others distressed and agitated. Someone who seems content but who does not recognise their family for instance may not be suffering in any way - if we try and turn the clock back and think about what their thoughts might have been when they were well, then we know that they would not have wanted this - but they are a different person now and may be perfectly happy.

Perhaps the staff at Dignitas are not following their own rules. Perhaps it is just one member of staff.

jackikiel- you've been watching Logan's Run too many times perhaps. The 2 are not linked- at all, choice and compulsory.

It makes very uneasy Jackie Perhaps that is one reason to keep the house of lords as they are bound to be consulted giving their average age and hopefully they will come to a sensible decision, given that they are clearly enjoying life on their £300 day allowance and other unmentionable perks!!!!

I believe that Gill Pharaoh's decision plays into the hands of an increasing number who view older people as an inconvenience. Ageism is rife. Health and mobility don't improve with age but age shouldn't be seen as a disease, even if it is terminal. I'd have hated for any of my elderly relatives to feel themselves a burden. Soon voluntary euthanasia, next compulsory?

So no, bags, no lethal injections. So were are so lucky here to have the choice in most cases, but if at the last minute, the illness progresses and the person cannot self administer- even if just by pulling on a scarf or other contraption- then it is normally too late.

And the next big step is the situation re Dementia or Alzheimers. As said above, the person has to decide very quickly and in the early stages- to die before it gets worse- as anyone asking for asistance has to be compus mentis on the day. Many argue that this is terrible unfair- as the person has to 'leave' when they could still have many weeks or months or some quality of life- and that to force a person to make the decision 'too' early is cruel. EXIT argues, and I agree- that one should be able to make a clear advance directive, with 5 criteria personally chosen- saying that, when those 5 criteria are clearly reached, the fatal potion should be given then.
I've been trying to make a list of my criteria, that is not easy. Perhaps something like

when I do not recognize any of my children or grand-children and think they are strangers

when I no longer show any pleasure at the sound of beautiful music, or bird song

when I begin to do really awful things with my excrements (sorry- but a very personal case makes me feel that way) like smearing them on my walls, my face and my bed

when I cannot speak or make myself understood

when I get distressed and violent due to the frustration of the above

That will do, I think.

I agree jane- but the point is, the person has to be able to change their mind up to the very last second.

ingests

Are lethal injections by someone else allowed?

One could pour a cup of poison on the floor. The person who igests it is totally in control of their final moments before taking it. No-one else is required.

The assistance, surely, is simply supplying the draft, not administering it.

But in Pharoahs case what was wanted was suicide and not a release from my first example.

I would argue that the balance of her mind was disturbed, as she appeared to be anticipating something that !may never happen.

granjura Why is it necessary for the person to administer their own fatal dose?
If there are so many safeguards in place to ensure that the process is not abused, what's the difference between a trained volunteer handing over a cup of poison and a nurse or doctor injecting a lethal drug?

Totally agree Bags- and yet- her case does not seem to fit at all with the pre-requisites for Dignitas- as per their own regs.

Apologies for format- as we can't edit on this site, there is little I can do. Hope it might be of interest to some all the same.