Assisted dying bill

Claremont

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.

Agreed that suicide can indeed be done in a very messy/traumatic way. Someone I'm on friendly terms with lived with a guy that did so by throwing himself in front of a train. This was a common method of doing so back in the city I'm from - and I'd always assumed it would be instant. Not necessarily so. She told me he got badly "damaged"...but not dead and it took him several days to die after that. Poor woman indeed to see that happen to her partner and poor partner to find that it hadn't played out as "instant".

Throwing oneself off a height may not be "instant" either. I was shocked years back to find my father had researched that!!! and was telling me it's not a good idea and...yep...I've read of people landing up badly and permanently ill - but not dead from it.

I don't really understand why people put themselves through "professional assistance" if it comes to it - but I presume that most people are so used to the idea all round of "The medics do anything to do with the body" and of getting told what to do medically-speaking by the "professionals" that that must be why they do. It's entirely up to them, of course, on this...obviously.

Yes.

I am very troubled , maternity services are being investigated now, is assisted dying possible without harm ?

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.

This 100%

The Vet always comes to our house when the time has come. Best money we can ever spend on them. I have never bought a cat or a dog- and they have all had the best of care and end of life care. Not because we couldn't be bothered with caring for them, but because we truly loved them and knew the time had come, for the best. Always fall asleep in our arms, in their favourite place, no stress of going to vet's. All at a very good age, last cat was at least 25- last 2 dogs 16.

And everyone should have the right to decide to fall asleep peacefully in their own home, in their favourite place, with their loved ones if they want to be there, with their favourite music on. WE are not so different to animals actually.

Excellent post Lathyrus.

Lathyrus3

I suppose I am asking why is ongoing life, no matter how agonising, to be valued more than painless death.

What is it about those extra few days that is so important that it is right to deny someone the end of life they chose and impose the end of life that we chose for them?

When a dying person says “ I am ready to die now” what is the answer that says “No you must go on living because…….”

Yes, exactly!

I suppose I am asking why is ongoing life, no matter how agonising, to be valued more than painless death.

What is it about those extra few days that is so important that it is right to deny someone the end of life they chose and impose the end of life that we chose for them?

When a dying person says “ I am ready to die now” what is the answer that says “No you must go on living because…….”

Rosie51

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?

DNR l imagine (I'm not a doctor) can be made on the basis of medical history, test results, prognosis etc. l would think it fairly obvious, few people survive it.
Age Concern gives advice if people think they have wrongly been assessed as DNR.

Thanks Claremont and Lathryus for your posts.

April rose, FWIW, I find the comparisons with the care we give and decisions we can make for the animals we share our lives with interesting and relevant to this debate.
Our vet came to our home to ease the death of my six year old dog. In three weeks he’d deteriorated from running three miles to being distressed, confused, unable to walk steadily and doubly incontinent. The tumour along his spine showed by mri scans was the cause. He was lost and bewildered, it was desperately sad. The surgeon said he could remove the tumour in a six hour operation but the oncologist said the tumour would recur within six weeks
I lay with him, talking to him. He held my eyes and peacefully died. It was the last loving thing I could do for him.

As my husband died over 8 days, one of our daughters said mum you wouldn’t let one of your dogs suffer like this, why can’t dad’s passing be eased

I have been with every one of my dogs when they were put to sleep, and I can assure you that I grieved just as much for them as for any human. Their passing was - in every case - peaceful, compared to the horrendous three weeks I've just had to endure watching my FiL's agonisingly slow death.
I also watched my mother and MiL also suffer long slow deaths to dementia - and I can assure you that had I been able to grant all three of them the same kind of peaceful, dignified deaths that I did for my beloved pets, then I would have.
aprilrose, I am sorry for what you went through with your husband, but that doesn't mean that no-one else should be denied the chance to die with dignity.

Whilst I dont really want to get too involved in this. I know how I felt with what was said to my husband and how it felt as if they were just viewing him as an economic unit to be removed because he is too costly. Is that what we are reducing human life to now? Is that what people here think? Ok, its your opinion but I feel somehow we are selling people cheap .

Also , it doesnt sit right we me ( but if you believe the above then it is not surprising to follow though on this) that people want to equate human treatment with that of dogs and cats and other animals , albeit saying that dogs and cats are treated better but are they? I know people who have animals put down because they are becoming inconvenient . They are getting smelly, accident prone , cant reach the door or wait for walkies time and basically some consider it time for the animal to go because its just an inconvenience and difficult for them. Its dressed up as care and concern and preventing suffering but I am just asking - is it always? And whose distress and suffering, the animals or the person taking care of the animal? I know sometimes its for the people not the good of the animal. Is that how it will become for all life?

Before anyone says anything. I took care of my mum until she passed. She stayed home and we had a TEP for her. The final few days were hard for me as I watched her deteriorate but I observed her wishes and respected what she wanted and, as I promised I took care of her ( no carers in and only an end of life nurse in the final hours). I have done the same with animals. I only ever had one cat put down and I regretted it afterwards and asked myself why I had to send him on his way prematurely , even though he was poorly - was it too much for me to hold on and hold his paw in his final few hours? I watched him die and it was not peaceful , which is why I questioned it. It seems to me an assisted dying law is a means of sanitizing a messy business for some. Pushing death out of the way and hiding it in some hospital corner or in a back room as is often the case with animals as most people do not stay and watch their pet put " To Sleep" ( killed ).

These are just questions I ask myself. Treating humans like animals, well I suppose we are all animals and if you think that way, fine. But I suspect there is a cold callousness behind some peoples thinking and there are no safeguards for that in any law other than to have an outright ban.

I understand people's concerns about this, I really do. However, if you'd been at my FiL's bedside during the last three weeks of his life and seen his pain, you might ask why we let humans suffer like that, when we would not do that to a cat or dog.
To hear him begging us - my husband and my children included - to help him end his life is something which will haunt me for the rest of my life.

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?

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

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.

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.

*was under MAiD not 'were'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Excellent comment Lathyrus.

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.