Assisted dying bill

ViceVersa

Is letting a person die a long, slow, agonising death civilised? Subjecting them to something we would not do to our pets?

Of course it isn't, I don't think anybody objects to painkillers being increased to alleviate pain even to the point where they become 'killers' not pain killers.

What I can't understand is that those that support this bill don't seem to be up in arms that anybody who is too disabled to be able to self-administer the drugs won't get this relief, nor anyone without competency, even if they've previously asserted such a desire. Many have spoken of relatives with advanced dementia dying in agony and welcome this bill not seeming to understand their relative wouldn't have been covered. Apparently their agony won't need to be relieved. And as for children, every one of them can suffer in a way you wouldn't let a pet. It just doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion it's an ill-thought out bill that should never have been a Private members Bill, it needed to be a robust government introduced one.

the thing I've got against this bill is that a celeb heading it.

Esther Rantzen's 'last hurrah' and her daughter Rebecca Wicox , duty bound to push this through as last thing she can do for her mother!
.
then they will be all over the news photographs everywhere
Esther said herself that she will go to Dignatas..... good for her she can afford it. £13.000 I just read.

No worries lathyrus.
I take my atheism seriously

ViceVersa

Is letting a person die a long, slow, agonising death civilised? Subjecting them to something we would not do to our pets?

Exactly. A friend of ours with terminal prostate cancer was in terrible pain for quite a while before he died - it had got into his spine. Evidently he could not be given sufficient morphine to keep him comfortable.
Not long before he died he said, ‘I’m not sure I want to endure much more of this.’
This was in Australia BTW.
It’s barbaric.

I know that before Shipman doctors were allowed to ‘ease the way’ and I know of a case where I think this happened post Shipman. The man was still at home, in a lot of pain/discomfort, and the visiting GP gave him a shot, saying, ‘You’ll feel much better in the morning.’
The man soon fell peacefully asleep and died that same night.

Oh sorry. I should have read back to the previous page on my pad.

Palliative care; increased doses of medication that will hasten death, but under strict supervision.
A rushed through Bill, ill-thought out and promoted by those acting way beyond their pay grade.
I would only trust medical staff, and possibly clergy of all denominations, since they are the people who experience and are frequently involved with those at the end of life.

No interviews with a panel of social workers, trained to spot coercion, (as they are with grooming gangs?) and lawyers, assessing something way beyond their experience.

And certainly no involvement with the 'activists', capering around College Green in inappropriate bubblegum pink sweatshirts and baseball caps, hugging each other and celebrating. Most distasteful.

I wasn't trying to prove anything I was responding to the comment that we shouldn't be held to ransom by religious groups.

Galaxy

I do find it interesting the assumption that we are all religious, I am an atheist, everyone I know who is opposing has some connection to either safeguarding or those without power in society.

Many of those I know without power in society are very much in favour of of the bill. Equally those I know who are working in safeguarding or the medical profession.

It really sent a little gical argument for or against.
You haven’t proved anything with that comment, except perhaps that we move in different circles.

Or that people tend to agree when we express a view😬

Before Shipman, doctors were able to ease the passing of people who were dying. That’s very different than being a mass murderer as Shipman was. His evil murders meant caring family doctors could no longer assist in peaceful deaths (thank goodness for morphine doses being increased)

Is letting a person die a long, slow, agonising death civilised? Subjecting them to something we would not do to our pets?

I do find it interesting the assumption that we are all religious, I am an atheist, everyone I know who is opposing has some connection to either safeguarding or those without power in society.

Ending a persons life with approval in law is civilised ?

No civilised country should deny people the right to choose when and how to die, especially those in dreadful pain. We cannot be dictated to by religious pressure groups.

So why were those doctors not murderers like Shipman.

Upping the medication and letting him slip away was how King George V was allowed to die, as I recall.

That’s how I remember it Calandergirl just upping the medication as needed to keep the patient comfortable and to die kindly I would rather more money went in hospices which can be sone positive places
I am afraid for people with mental health problems

I remember my mother telling me about her father who died in 1947.

The family doctor, who visited at home and knew his medical history very well, gave him an injection (morphine I assume) and said, ‘Don’t worry, he won’t suffer any more and won’t wake up again’.

And he didn’t.

Bluebelle, moving post and I am sorry you had to witness all those sad events.

Your question is 'do we need more'. And for me, the answer is that 'we' don't- but everyone should have that individual choice., with all the safeguards in place.

Anniebach

How can anyone with dementia make the choice to live or die?

Perhaps you are not a medical expert? Me neither, but I have studied the issue with great care with reputable medical information. And from personal information.

Alzheimer's and dementia take many forms, and can happen quickly or in stages over a long period of time. If the person has made an advanced directive, and the disease progresses very slowl (Terry Pratchett comes to mind) with long periods of lucidity. May not remember what they ate for breakfast, or the date, but are clearly able to make a decision. So in some countries, they could request assistance to die. But not in the UK, and not even if this Bill goes to final stage and is implemented.

I have a UK friend who has a slow developing form of Alzheimer's. He has made his wishes known from the beginning, to his partner, family, doctors, and his solicitor. And he has got the go ahead from a Swiss clinic (not Dignitas) for assistance when he deteriorates further.

Good to see that many MPs are capable of independent thought, not simply voting as their masters tell them to.

I m not over comfortable with this and I don’t know why
I m not a religious person I struggle with believing, struggle a lot because I think it’s so wonderful to have a blind faith I would love to have that
My parents and my Nan died by withdrawal of necessary drugs to keep them alive so I feel doctors have always helped
My Dad had incurable cancer last stages he was at home I moved in and he had a hospital bed and carers to help me he was on a morphine shunt which was upped to keep his pain controlled he died in his ‘sleep’ at age 92
My mum with late stage Alzheimer’s had a heart attack never having had any heart trouble the doctors said they could save her life but it could cause her pain and ‘for what’ she had no quality of life so with my permission they let her go just on pain relief she died in 24 hours she was 90 she never woke up
My Nan also had dementia and was unhappy, when she became ill my doctor said he wouldn’t prescribed anti biotics but pain relief she died peaceful in her sleep a few days later she was 87
These were all different doctors and different periods of time
Do we need more?
i m just so unsure

Yes, there's criticism that the Bill is too loose and too fast, it's anything but.
Unfortunately l think that most who want an assisted death either won't qualify or will die before qualifying. Whatever happened to compassion.

2029 - that's one heck of a time to someone who is suffering...!!!

The Bill was tightened up extensively, nearly every safeguard tightened not watered down, between 1st and 2nd readings. The implementation period has also been doubled so it won't now be implemented before 2029.

I am not totally against assisted suicide but I don't believe this particular bill is robust enough. For such a serious measure to be the subject of a Private Members Bill is astonishing, given they don't get the same debating time as that given to a government introduced bill. I truly see there is a place for relieving acute and inevitable suffering when a patient requests it but I do not see this bill in it's present format fulfilling that brief. Every supposed safeguard has either been eliminated or watered down, and that the private sector might well be involved is horrifying to me.
How many coerced suicides will be acceptable before stronger safeguards are implemented? It would be beyond naive to think there won't be any.