Assisted dying bill

Ending a persons life with approval in law is civilised ?

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.

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

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)

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😬

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

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.

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

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.

No worries lathyrus.
I take my atheism seriously

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.

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.

lemsip

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.

Sorry, what difference does that make. Are you saying that because Esther Rantzen can afford to go to Switzerland, she should not fight for others to have the same choice. And of course, at home, in the UK, without the gruelling travel with lots of assistance, having to go to Hotel whilsts last checks are made, and then go to die in a strange flat on an industrial estate? And without her family for fear they would be prosecuted on return, or even stopped on the way there!

Even in Switzerland Rosie51 - where the choice has been available, with a much wider basis, advanced Alzheimers patients cannot be given help to leave their misery behind. Anyone with a diagnosis has to make a very quick decision, whilst the disease has not taken too deep a hold, and whilst they still have capacity to make a clear judgement and decision.

I have a friend in the UK who has done everything so far to make sure he will be helped, despite diagnosis of a slow form of Alzheimer's. He has the goahead of the Swiss clinic. It has been over 5 years and he knows he will have to make the decision soon, or 'miss the boat' so to speak. I have promised to pick him up from the airport, take him there and hold his hand. He cannot ask his partner to come for fear she would be prosecuted on return, or even stopped at the airport.

knspol

I support the bill wholeheartedly but do also agree that high standard palliative care should also be available to those who want that route.

It would be lovely if high standard palliative care was available to all terminally ill people who need it when and where the time arises.

Unfortunately, it isn't.

Rosie 51

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.*

FGS. As the law stands, ITS A CRIME. The police object, the Law of the land objects.

Any doctors/ nurses known to have administered a deadly dose of pain killer to end a patients life , would be struck off, and charged with a crime.

That is the whole reason for people wanting to change the law.

OldFrill

So why were those doctors not murderers like Shipman.

Shipman killed patients who were NOT terminally ill, for his own financial benefit.

OldFrill

So why were those doctors not murderers like Shipman.

I just can't believe you asked this question.

Shipman killed people who didn’t want to die. That is murder.

People with dementia cannot choose to end their lives

Anniebach

People with dementia cannot choose to end their lives

But what about those who - like my mother - had clearly indicated their wishes while they were still of sound mind?

Quote ViceVersa Sun 22-Jun-25 13:59:41
Anniebach
People with dementia cannot choose to end their lives
But what about those who - like my mother - had clearly indicated their wishes while they were still of sound mind?

At what stage of the advancement of the illness ?

Anniebach

People with dementia cannot choose to end their lives

Not under this Bill. But I have clearly explained that it is possible. However that means taking the decision early after diagnosis.

butterandjam

Rosie 51

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.*

FGS. As the law stands, ITS A CRIME. The police object, the Law of the land objects.

Any doctors/ nurses known to have administered a deadly dose of pain killer to end a patients life , would be struck off, and charged with a crime.

That is the whole reason for people wanting to change the law.

No need to shout, I know it's a crime at the moment, I thought my intention was clear that most people (especially on this thread) don't and wouldn't object to the use of painkillers at any concentration to alleviate pain. They would be administered to control pain not intentionally to cause death, although that could be a result. Maybe the law on administering pain killers needs looking at? Palliative care needs a huge boost in funding and research or else it really isn't a choice.

This bill, until it starts its descent down the slippery slope, will not help vast numbers of people who won't fit the criteria but will still be in pain. Lord Steel has already said the panel would be very expensive and may have to go, and remember KL was so proud that a high court judge would be adjudicating on eligibility at the start of the bill's progress. "Strongest safeguards anywhere in the world" That soon got watered down.
Strange how all the elation that some adults will have the option of a painless suicide doesn't consider that no child will be eligible no matter the level of their suffering, nor people with advanced dementia, or too disabled to be able to self-administer the lethal dose. Obviously some people matter more than others. On the other hand I don't believe there won't be some who will be pressured or coerced into taking the option because they do qualify.

Anniebach

Quote ViceVersa Sun 22-Jun-25 13:59:41
Anniebach
People with dementia cannot choose to end their lives
But what about those who - like my mother - had clearly indicated their wishes while they were still of sound mind?

At what stage of the advancement of the illness ?

Well, my mother was deemed still capable enough to grant me power of attorney shortly after she was diagnosed with Alzheimers - but she'd made her views known years beforehand in any case.
However, as others have pointed out, this Bill - as it stands - would not apply to those with dementia. Which demonstrates the importance to make your views clearly known while you are still of sound mind (not just when it comes to assisted dying).