Assisted dying bill

Quote valdavi Fri 20-Jun-25 21:37:25
People with dementia, who have made their wishes not to be kept alive clear beforehand, would not be resucitated if their heart was to stop & probably not admitted to ITU.
Most wouldn't be eligible for assisted dying as they would need both to have mental capacity and have 6 months or less left to live at the point of making that decision.
That's my understanding - so making one's wishes clear beforehand is still a useful thing to do.

Do not resuscitate is not ‘ too much suffering end my life please’

People with dementia, who have made their wishes not to be kept alive clear beforehand, would not be resucitated if their heart was to stop & probably not admitted to ITU.
Most wouldn't be eligible for assisted dying as they would need both to have mental capacity and have 6 months or less left to live at the point of making that decision.
That's my understanding - so making one's wishes clear beforehand is still a useful thing to do.

Anniebach

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

Theg mostly won't be able to make an informed decision....therefore they will not be covered by the new law

Anniebach

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

In the case of both my mother and MiL, they had made their wishes abundantly clear when they still had the mental capacity.

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

Iam64

Whiff - I agree with you

Me too…

Yes, so do I. Having seen what my FiL went through these past few weeks has only strengthened my feelings. It was traumatic for the whole family to see him like that and hear him begging us to help him end it all.

Whiff - I agree with you

When my husband was terminal we talked and decided if the pain got to much I would overdose him . The children knew our decision. Our McMillan nurse told us in her own way what would be a fatal dose. My husband became unconscious before I could help him . But he was put on a morphine infuser which gave him a shot every 30 mins . He couldn't breath on full oxygen. I told him to stop struggling and he died few minutes later he was 47.
We always believed in quality over quantity of life..

I know I want to end my own life if I get terminally ill and if I get dementia or Alzheimer's. I do not want my daughter to go through what I did. It's ok being pro life but at what cost.
I watched my husband dieing for 3 years slowly and his last 4 months he went through hell.

I looked after my mom and she died 4 months before her body did. If when she was of sound mind and ask me to end her life I would of. My mom would of hated what she became.

We all control our lives and those who wish to end their suffering then it's up to them. We have free will. Quality of life is more important than quantity. As without quality whats the point of quantity.

In reply to Rosie 51

I think you’re speculating a scenario that fits your viewpoint.

Other scenarios are equally valid.

Increased government funding for hospices as places where assisted dying can be provided.
Greater availability of places in charitable hospices for those who wish to accept palliative care to prolong life and Increased availability of support at home when charitable resources can be directed to them.

I think this is as likely as your scenario.

I’m too old and experienced to have blind faith in organisations or the law. Despite this, I have enough faith in this bill to be relieved it’s been passed.
The talk of there being no hope for improvements in palliative care as a result of this bill makes no sense to me, based on experiences with end of life care for loved ones. It was available and delivered.
My husband’s diagnosis of stage 4 metastasised cancer, spread all over his body, including his brain led to life expectancy of four to six months, ‘palliative care only’. He was given the gold standard treatment that stopped his tumours growing. Sadly, the treatment that shrank his brain tumours caused his death.
I posted earlier about the fantastic end of life care he and his wife and daughters received.
I’m not Pollyanna, but I’m so relieved this bill passed

Claremont modern hospices have been around during Labour and Conservative governments for over 50 years, and neither party has seen fit to fund them fully or properly, even when the NHS wasn't in a dire state. Do you honestly think the passing of this bill won't have any affect on palliative care research and funding?
Perhaps that will be the outcome of this bill, hospices struggling ever more to survive, loss of availability of placements, so a bigger take up of the suicide assistance.

Luckygirl3

I willingly support my local hospice - they provided excellent care to both me and to my late OH.

BUT - I really do not think I should have to do this! The NHS should be providing this!

And I couldn't agree more. But do you think that local Hospices and McMillan nurses will be magically better supported by the State if this Bill does not go through. Tories certainly had no intention of doing so, and even if Labour did want to, they have been left with an NHS (and everything else) in such a dire state, that they just could not do this.

I'm certainly not blind to the dangers of coercion, and yes, I do have misgivings about that, but having had to listen to a 98-year-old man pleading with me to help him die for the past three weeks, I would have given anything to be able to ease his pain. I would never have let my dog suffer like he did.

Galaxy

I think this is the issue that everyone has a story but the stories of the risks to the vulnerable, those at risk of coercion are hypothetical so don't carry the same weight.

When I said hypothetical Galaxy I intended to use it to echo your thought in this post.

Im sorry if I misrepresented it.

Or perhaps I should have said an understanding of their decision .

I truly can’t see it myself.

I freely admit my definitive reasoning comes from the fear of agony and suffering of death. And I would gladly sign up to anything that would reassure me that I could possibly avoid it

But there must be a flip side. I just don’t know what it is.

But aren’t those who desperately want to die being coerced into living? If coercion is about forcing one persons will not another?

Fir every story of the relative who wanted to live till their last breath or a patient whose treatment was withdrawn there is another equally heart rending story of a person moaning and screaming and pleading Help me to go.

In that respect none of those heart rending story bear more weight than the other as definitive reasons for or against. All have been coerced.

So what is the definitive reasoning if coercion applies to all, whichever way. Why for some posters does the weight of the decision fall n favour of those who want to prolong their life rather than those who want to shorten it.

I am genuinely looking for a rational justification here.

GrandmaKT

The latest wording of the bill:

For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if—
(a) the person has an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot
be reversed by treatment, and
(b) the person's death in consequence of that illness or disease can 5
reasonably be expected within six months.

How does this equate to "sweeping inclusion of those not at end of life stage"? Serious question to the OP.

I was going to ask the same question.

Anyone remember the Covid pandemic? It has been admitted that during that people with disability and/or learning difficulties had DNRs slapped on them without their knowledge or consent.
A relative of mine currently has a DNR signed by two doctors who have never seen her, something she doesn't want, something that is being imposed on her against her express wishes.
Forgive me if I don't have blind faith that this law will not be misapplied. There aren't robust enough safeguards and many medical people and organisations who have much more knowledge than any of us on here have voiced great concerns. The amendment to prohibit a doctor from bringing up the possibility of assisted death to a patient who has previously not mentioned it was defeated. Encouragement to consider it is just one step away from coercion.
A previous poster said palliative care would not be increased if this bill failed, but now it's been passed it's a certainty it won't be further researched and increasingly funded. Since hospice care is almost totally from voluntary contributions already, government won't suddenly start financing it.
Contrary to the oft mentioned examples I would point out that your death does not have to be a potentially agonising or even painful one to qualify for state aided suicide under this bill.

Visgir1

I'm not sure it's going to sail through the HoL think they will stall it?

GP's do help folk on their way, but it's not publicised or talked about.

They won't stall it...they are already saying, if its the will of the commons then it will go through

No coercion is not hypothetical it happens in all aspects of life and failures of safeguarding happen in all areas of life ( as we have seen time and time again) I have no idea why this aspect of life would somehow be magically exempt.

The issue of incurable pain or agony of knowing you’ll never get better is why this law is needed.
But. . .
Coercion/obligation, even by suggestion, is a danger, and not hypothetical.

Someone in a nursing home, which is swallowing money rapidly, frightened about what will happen when the money runs out may well feel, It will be better for everyone if I go now.
In some cases that idea will be promoted by relatives.

My mum was “helped to die” by simply stopping giving her sustenance. When we were there (almost all the time) , we could give her drinks if we requested them.
We were assured it wasn’t the Liverpool Pathway, but that only meant they’d given it another name.
The hospital staff at the end were very kind and sympathetic, but the poor treatment and lack of care when she went into hospital was responsible for her death.
Would she have chosen to die?
In the early stages she used to ask “You won’t let me die, will you?”
As she grew weaker, she didn’t ask, so we don’t know how she felt.

I willingly support my local hospice - they provided excellent care to both me and to my late OH.

BUT - I really do not think I should have to do this! The NHS should be providing this!

I heard an interesting call on Sheila Fogarty's show today from an English woman who lives in the Netherlands. Two of her friends had taken the path of assisted dying there and she was supportive of this. However, she wasn't sure that the Westminster bill was rigorous enough. I am in favour of this choice in principle but I do hope that it will be reviewed and scrutinised once it is in law. Strict safeguards can slip with practice and public acceptance.