Assisted dying bill

Yes I know that power of attorney can be chosen, even changed
.but this is different, this is suicide

Anniebach

Yes I know that power of attorney can be chosen, even changed
.but this is different, this is suicide

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but a power of attorney made while someone was of sound mind could not be changed if that person was no longer determined to have the mental capacity to do so. I'm just saying that it's wise to make your views clearly known on all matters like that while you are still in a position to do so, that's all.

The thought of going to Switzerland is awful. People should die in their own beds if possible. I just hope vulnerable people are not pressurised.

Anniebach

Yes I know that power of attorney can be chosen, even changed
.but this is different, this is suicide

Suicide is not illegal. It can be donw in the most violent and messy of ways, leaving others and family totally traumatised forever. And sometimes not work and leave the person with massive health issues and physical disability. And generally ot available to anyone with advanced cancer or Motor neurone disease as too weak and limited.

Or it can be done with professional assistance, and be gentle and sure.

Just for the record, the NHS does fund a dying person's care in a care home, for six weeks i think. There was no room in the local hospice for my DH, so he spent his last 19 days in a pretty good care home (the NHS doesn't fund the most luxurious homes!) Either me or our DS or DD were with him virtually all the time and the palliative nursing team called in regularly.
It wasn't a traumatic time, assisted dying wouldn't have come into it, but I just wanted to make the point about the NHS.

Galaxy

I wasn't talking to you caleo, I think generally those who support the bill have failed to address/ understand the risks. I am afraid I think it us a bill led by the privileged ( and I hate that word!)

Have you followed the debates and process in Parliament as the Bill passed through in the House of Commons ?

Romola

Just for the record, the NHS does fund a dying person's care in a care home, for six weeks i think. There was no room in the local hospice for my DH, so he spent his last 19 days in a pretty good care home (the NHS doesn't fund the most luxurious homes!) Either me or our DS or DD were with him virtually all the time and the palliative nursing team called in regularly.
It wasn't a traumatic time, assisted dying wouldn't have come into it, but I just wanted to make the point about the NHS.

It’s twelve weeks, or was when my mum in law was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She lived 250 miles away. The nhs brought her by ambulance to the nursing home we chose, a mile from our home. I tried to persuade her to live with us. She’d cared for her father and refused to expect me to care for her as she feared it could upset our marriage 💙. So we visited daily, as did our adult children. She had a lovely airy room over looking the garden along with the nursing care she needed.

Allsorts

The thought of going to Switzerland is awful. People should die in their own beds if possible. I just hope vulnerable people are not pressurised.

That is one of the many reasons I object to this bill.

There appear not to be enough safeguarding to protect those who maybe coerced, made to feel a burden, taking the decision to end their lives for the sake of others.

I don't agree with the SPUK attitude. If you're financially able you can go to Switzerland and have a pain-free death. If you can't then it's hard cheese.

Quote GrannyGravy13 Mon 23-Jun-25 09:02:04
Allsorts
The thought of going to Switzerland is awful. People should die in their own beds if possible. I just hope vulnerable people are not pressurised.
That is one of the many reasons I object to this bill.

There appear not to be enough safeguarding to protect those who maybe coerced, made to feel a burden, taking the decision to end their lives for the sake of others.

I very much doubt there can be enough safeguards

Personally, and I have made that very clear to my DH and to our ACs- ONE of the factors that would make me decide to go earlier rather than later would be exactly that. I do not want to be a burden- not to my DH, not to my ACs or GCs and not to the health system. I would much prefer nursing and medical care going to those with a future, and same for finances.

Mainly it would be about pain and loss of diginity and enjoyment of life- but not being a burden would be one of the factors. And there is nothing wrong with it. This especially as I live abroad and it would put extra pressure on the family. Nothing wrong with wanting to ease the burden on others, at all. Those who assess cases always interview twice, alone, and ask all the right questions to eek out any sign of coercion.

I really hope, under the auspices of assisted dying that in our country we never reach these alarming figures recorded in 2023, Canada 15,343 as a percentage of their population alarming! and The Netherlands 9,068 both nations appear to have a very free and easy attitude to state sanctioned Euthanasia, and I can't help feeling pressure might have been brought to bear in certain cases. I understand the arguments for and against, although the premise makes me feel uneasy, it's where it might lead to down the line.

Why are people fervently concerned about the possibility of people being subjected to the pressure to die and not at all concerned about the reality of those who are subjected to the pressure - indeed the compulsion - of having to go on living.

Why is one “pressure” - “coercion” to be fought against and the other discounted.

I am looking for a logical reasoning and so far nobody has given one although I have asked before.

Excellent comment Lathyrus.

Lathyrus3

Doctors have taken an oath (in many forms) to preserve and save lives, I think asking them to assist people to end their lives is a step too far for many of them.

If some doctors are showing concern, then we all should be concerned.

I’m still on the wall with this, but from personal experience I think that I would probably have voted for the bill for a number of reasons.

First the experience of friends and family members who did not have a good death.

Secondly I think that if we shut the door now it will be shut for many years, but if we keep it open, at any time in the future it will be easy to revisit the bill if we don’t think it is working properly and tweak it.

But the most important thing of all is that we ensure that every single person is given the best palliative care possible.

I also think that people should administer their own demise, although where this is not possible it should then fall on the nearest and dearest or the doctor if they are willing. But I am not sure it should be legislated that doctors should administer the drug.

This is just a personal level. My husband who had a stroke , in fact, two, caused by a mistake in the hospital in medication ( an iatrogenic stroke) is now disabled. He was fit by the way.

He is slowly getting weaker but he can still walk around. A few weeks ago, he fell and I couldnt get him up, so I had to call a paramedic. They insisted on taking him to hospital. Before he was discharged we had a doctor come and ask my husband ( who had little sleep and was a bit confused from an infection and its treatment , aside of his cognitive disabilities ( slowness) due to his stroke, was asked if they could put a permanent DNR on his medical files.

Husband got it a bit wrong and thought they were asking if he would like medically assisted dying ( he had heard about the bill then due to be debated in the news). He said he didnt want this but the doctor kept trying to correct him and ask if he could be put on DNR because if he had another stroke at any time in the future he might not recover. I had to intervene in the end and point out since hubby was unwell it was not possible to get informed consent at that time. The quack stopped.

Since then this bill has made it through the H o C . My husband heard it on the news. He was distressed. He told me not to call an ambulance if he falls but to try and get him up , no matter how long it takes. He doesnt want to go to hospital. He doesnt want to be " Bumped off or asked if he would want it. He is clearly frightened and distressed because of his condition and because of the question the last time.

He does not want to be asked if he wants to die. He doesnt want to die in hospital or go there. He wants to stay home where he says, they cant ask and he wont be coerced or talked into agreeing ( he fears that in hospital he is " captive" and has to do as he is told)

All very reasonable in all honesty if you are disabled or sick now.

Dont say it doesnt apply . With a stroke it is statistically likely that death will occur within two years. So, that " likely to die in six months " is a liklihood at least statistically. Not a very well thought through piece of legislation in my own opinion. Seeing how it is affecting my husband ( and how many others are not being heard?) it seems unnecessarily cruel.

You dont have to agree. Its just my experience and my opinion.

So sorry about your husband AprilRose. Although it's unlikely you will be able to reassure your husband it is worth noting that the law will not come into effect before 2029, if at all.

aprilrose I am so sorry you ad your husband are going through this. But no-oe will ask him if he wants to die, not now, and not if and when the bill goes through. He will be asked about DNR though. My DH was asked when he had prostate cancer, and he vigorously told them he wanted to live and be ressucitated if his heart failed. Totally normal.

But no, it does not apply. Not now, and not when the Bill gets through. It won't be implemented for years anyhow

Wish you all the best and strength, and lots of help and supportt so he can stay at home with you as long as possible.

One very interesting fact however, is that many people who suffer terminal illness, once they know that if and when they can no longer tolerate the pain or loss of quality of life or dignity, do relax and are the able to live much longer, safe in te knowledge that if and when, the choice will be theirs. I can understand this.

Lathyrus3

Why are people fervently concerned about the possibility of people being subjected to the pressure to die and not at all concerned about the reality of those who are subjected to the pressure - indeed the compulsion - of having to go on living.

Why is one “pressure” - “coercion” to be fought against and the other discounted.

I am looking for a logical reasoning and so far nobody has given one although I have asked before.

I have looked for logical reasoning why it is only the suffering of certain adults that must be considered and not the suffering of those with dementia, those too disabled to be able to self administer and all children. Nobody has answered my question. The categories of people eligible under this bill would all be capable of suicide by overdose without the help of others, so not entirely without choice, albeit maybe not such an easy method as AD.

My relative who has a DNR, signed by two doctors neither of whom has even seen her, strenuously objected all to no avail, so forgive me if I'm a tad cynical about the safeguards that will be in place for this state assisted suicide.

To add to TerriBull's Canada concerns, almost 1 in 20 deaths in Canada in 2023 were under MAID. It appears to be the offered solution rather too easily.

Former Canadian veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier had been fighting for five years to get a home wheelchair ramp installed. Injured in a military training exercise, she repeatedly petitioned Veterans Affairs to supply the ramp. In response, she was offered MAiD.3 Feb 2025

Are people so very sure that a UK law won't progress along a similar route eventually. Canada didn't start out so gung-ho.

*was under MAiD not 'were'

DNR is put on someone's medical records when it would do more harm than good. Resuscitation is not a right. Nor should we expect medical staff to perform a procedure, supposedly to help us, that would actually kill or severely damage us.

I’m assuming rosie that the current bill only applies to a limited section of people because they are the ones whose death is least likely to raise objections amongst the public.

Where death is close and the remaining time is spent in agony and distress I can see no reason why anyone should be required to endure suffering in the days leading up to inevitable death. I fail to see what is achieved. But I am open to reasons why this should happen.

I understand people’s concerns about coercion to die. I am equally concerned about coercion to live. To be compelled to live when you want to die seems to me to be as horrific as being compelled to die when you want to live.

I see no difference in those two coercion’s and to me, to know safeguards are in place so that you can be supported to die painlessly is as right and important as knowing that safeguards are in place to prevent your dying before you wish.

As yet nobody who who is opposed to Assisted Suicide has given me a logical reason why their safeguards should be given more consideration that mine. If somebody can I am open to the argument and prepared to concede.

Very interesting post Lathyrus, I'd never thought about this, re coercion, and you say it very well. May share this pov?

Lathyrus3 I'm not 100% against assisted suicide but I suppose my argument would be on the lines we don't have the death penalty any more at least in part because one innocent person wrongly executed is unacceptable. One person wrongly assisted in a suicide they didn't really want is equally unacceptable. That's why the safeguards before any assisted suicide have to be rigorous and exhaustive, and totally rule out the tiniest element of coercion.

OldFrill DNR is put on someone's medical records when it would do more harm than good. Resuscitation is not a right. Nor should we expect medical staff to perform a procedure, supposedly to help us, that would actually kill or severely damage us.

How can two doctors decide a DNR is appropriate when they haven't even seen, let alone examined, the patient?