Richard and Judy suicide pact

nigglynellie.

My post re parents was to newist no to you.

I agree with what you posted and I understand 'the stash' that your parents accumulated was indeed possibly something a lot of people do.

I think we are on a similar page with our thinking. [dove emoticon]

You are right POGs, my mother and stepfather's arrangement was not a suicide pact. I realised my mistake as soon as I had posted and it was too late to alter it!!! What they had accumulated over the years was a cocktail of sleeping pills ready for one or other or both of them to take as an overdose should terminal illness, dementia or some other horror overtake them. My mother referred to it as her suicide pack (hence my mistake!!). I don't think one of them intended to follow the other, it was (as they saw it) an escape route for whoever should it become necessary.
I am about to read the Telegraph link and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll be back later over that.

The law doesn't have to change in order for people to have a peaceful and dignified death.

I sometimes work as a nurse in private palliative care at home .... in the past few months a typical patient would be an 80-something woman who has had enough of treatment for cancer and called it a day. The patient is weak, has a small appetite and gradually becomes frailer. A 'Do Not Resuscitate' form has been signed by the GP.

Patient takes to her bed.

The GP prescribes' End of Life drugs' which are stored in the home and when the patient is in need, either because of breathing difficulties, pain, or agitation, the district nurses commence the syringe-driver containing the drugs and visit every 24 hours to re-fill the syringe. If a top-up is required in between visits then this can be given by private nurse or a relative calls district nurses and they visit to top-up. They are on-call 24 hours and the system does work. The local Hospice is also part of the system.

It's then a matter of days or weeks before the end.

It can be done ... without the drama of suicide pacts.

There is a link on the same page to info about the Oregon law which, I now see, has worked for 16 years with no abuse.

Here is a breakdown of Lord Falconers porposed assisted dying bill. As you can see, safeguards against abuse are there.

jane, I referred you to the Oregon law, which has been in place for at least a decade, because there have been no abuses of it since it was enacted. This shows that, properly done, such a law can work perfectly well as intended.

I'll see if I can find a link to some more info. One of the Dignity in Dying sites might well have some.

Palliative care is not really the same. People who choose assisted dying are people who have had all the palliative care that is available but still want to end their lives because they are still suffering too much, and dying in any case.

Anniebach I agree, flippant is a good description of Richard Madeley's pronouncements.

Culag I didn't say human beings are superior to other species. I said it was a different matter, choosing to end the life of a family pet, from ending the life of another human being. Although there is some dispute about whether cats and dogs are sentient beings, their thoughts and feelings on the subject of dying are certainly not taken into account and they form no part of the decision-making process. So it is not the same at all.

Bags I mean safeguards against abuse by other family members with vested interests, and medical professionals too.
I am not against the principle of assisted dying, but I worry very much about how it would work out in practice.
You have only to look at what happened with the Liverpool Care Pathway.
This was devised by experts in Palliative Care and was used to help hundreds of people die as comfortably as possible and in as little pain as possible.
Then what happened? The Department of Health set targets for hospitals, so that a certain percentage of patients had to die 'on the Pathway'.
Very soon there were reports of patients' deaths being hastened without proper consent or discussion with the patient or the relatives. There was even a report of a woman being admitted to hospital with a broken shoulder and being put on the pathway, without any consultation with her or her family.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23698071

The real tragedy is of course that the Pathway has now been withdrawn and many patients who could have been helped with its proper use are being denied the comfort it could bring in their final days.

newist

Unless I have read their words incorrectly the 'suicide pact' you talk of between your mother and stepfather is not the same thing.

Anybody can commit suicide, you don't need a law to change killing yourself. It is the act of 'assisting' a suicide that the article is eluding to which would require a change in the law.

nigglynellie

Try reading the Telegraph link janeainsworth posted at 07.20. I say that only because you mention not 'hearing' the interview so I thought you would find reading their words interesting. I agree with your post.

I really do not understand Anniebach how you consider his comments as flippant but I suppose we all interpret another person's words and thoughts differently.

As I said previously some people like to go for the couple/person/celebrity/personality because they dislike them and make very little sustained or reasonable debate to the question being asked. It's not a point I make solely relating to this article but to any question or debate raised. The problem with that is we never get to know what they think about the topic. It happens all the time.

When my mother and step father were alive they made a suicide pact, much to the horror of the family. which ever one went first the other would take an overdose soon after. My step father instigated this because he was a controlling jealous man. as it happened my mother died first but he continued to live a merry life for another 20 years. My mother certainly would of gone through with it

My mother and stepfather have both joined 'Exit', and I have to say that I am quite intrigued as to whether they will actually carry it through. My mother has discussed it with us, her children, for years. She doesn't want a miserable end and to be a burden. I think for many people there must come a time when they think that they have had enough. I would love to be able to choose the time and method of my going to suit me.

I'm sure that whatever discussion Richard and Judy had in the privacy of their own home was not as flippant as the probably abbreviated and altered version that was quoted.

I'm not at all scared of the thought of death, I suspect that makes a big difference as to how people perceive the assisted deaths of others, they cannot imagine actually wanting to have that choice.

And as for being taken advantage of by either government or family - as long as I am really no longer 'Me' then I welcome the chance for my family to remember me as I am now, and not a demented creature who has uncontrollable rages and refuses to wear clothes and can barely eat, having to live on a cocktail of drugs to make others around me safe.

I agree with Aka as I see absolutely no virtue whatsoever in prolonging a life of indignity and suffering for the sake of it, and I cannot believe that this is a right and proper thing to do. Quality of life not quantity surely should be the byword here both for human beings and for beloved animals. As for Richard and Judy, I didn't hear the interview so I can't really comment, but maybe his attitude was partly bravado knowing the disapproval and finger wagging that for certain would be heaped upon them both.

Ana, yes that's why I said the person he loves most .

I don't see how their interview has brought all this into the open sorry, it has nothing to do with 'right to die' or assisted suicide where the person who helps a loved one die is then arrested , this has been discussed openly for some years

Good post Bags. Completely agree

Anniebach I thought Richard Madley was describing how he would end his own life not Judy's. Didn't she find the shooting idea abhorrent?

Anniebach, I got the impression that the revolver was the way Richard would end his own life, if it came to it, not Judy's.

I applaud Richard and Judy for getting the issue out in the open. It is wrong that anyone feels the need for a suicide pact like theirs. I think our medical profession has concentrated too much on keeping people alive to the detriment of helping people to die with dignity. It's time we, as a society, talked about the issues and had adequate laws to help the dying where helping them may mean speeding up their death by a short time rather than keeping them alive with excessive "prevention of death".

So Richard Madley, it would have to be a revolver, how could he shoot the person he loves most.

It is a serious matter and his comments were flippant

What you should not do however is insist another human being has to forgo their right to decide their ending of life.

Well said

And I have to say, ending the life of even a much loved animal is not the same as ending the life of a human being.

For those of us that value the lives of our pets, losing those pets can be heartbreaking so a choice of ending a pets suffering is equally as agonising to those concerned; especially as you cannot explain to the animal why you are doing that.

Whether animals are aware of the self is still being debated but humans most definitely are aware of what is happening to them. So why is it considered a kindness to animals to release animals from suffering but the same is considered abhorrent for humans?

I suspect this whole suicide notion as wrong comes from the days when the ruling elite didn't want the peasants killing themselves - no peasant, no food and no income; it was a way of keeping production moving. If that is the case, then surely we have moved beyond that.

janea, safeguards against what? Being assisted to die when that is your own choice but you need help to achieve it?

The current law is bad. There is Dignity in Dying (@dignityindying) here. There is a similar movement in South Africa (@DignitySAfrica) and another in Canada (@DWDCanada). They have websites and facebook pages too. Have a look. There is nothing outrageous about any of what they want to achieve – a change in the law to allow people to choose the time of their own death when they are dying anyway. The idea is to reduce the suffering of people who are already dying. It is not euthanasia.

I have just read Janeainsworth link to the Telegraph.

I thought it was a perfectly sound and thoughtful article and I don't understand why it is supposedly attracting controversy. Probably by those who dislike the couple rather than what the subject is, usually the way, a bit pathetic if that's the case but it seems to be the way people behave these day's.

I couldn't help but think they were saying very similar things my hubby and I have said. We too have said we would 'look after' each other if ever we thought the other one was suffering, We too have seen death come to our parents which were bloody cruel way's of dying and it is something we have no desire to see either of us suffer with or from and we hope we would have the courage of our convictions and do it.

This 'topic' is not for those with a deep religious faith or those who are set against it, I fully understand that and respect their choice. The problem is for those who do choose this sort of pact they do not have their choice respected and that is wrong.

I think there is possibly a 'turning of the tide' on this matter with regard to at least being spoken of legislative wise but there has long been a desire for a lot of people to have the choice to dye for ever and a day.

They would not be discussing a 'suicide pact' nor have the need to think about it if the law was not as it stands. It is not attention seeking, it is simply two people who love each other and 'know' better than anybody else what their chosen path would be if ever the terrible day dawns that they decide enough is enough my time has come.

Perhaps people trivialise, mock or set themselves against the concept of suicide pacts, euthanasia because it scares them, is against there belief or they think it is simply wrong. Then you don't have to make the decision. What you should not do however is insist another human being has to forgo their right to decide their ending of life.

I do think there has to be balance to the debate to the extent it has to be ensured there is no pressure from family etc. and I do believe the law should be on the grounds of health and guarantees it is the choice of the individual only and a way would have to be found to secure everything is looked at for the right reasons.

That is not taking away a person's choice. After all we all have the choice, it's called suicide. It is giving the death a legalality so that nearest and dearest are not imprisoned or subjected to the law as it stands to date.

We are animals too, Jane. And the world is being overrun by one species - us. Why do we think we are so superior?

granjura

Having preparation for your death is absolutely NOT negative, as it takes the fear away- especially the fear of extreme pain, suffocation and total loss of dignity

When I have heard people discussing this subject (and read comments on various forums over the years), what you have stated is the most common concern; not death itself but the pain and loss of dignity. It is rather damning of how we treat people in those circumstances when their concerns rest more on pain and loss of dignity.

granjura

Drs are between a rock and a hardplace- with families ready to sue them to Kingdom come for being ageist if they allow an elderly patient to slip away quietly- or as used to happen very often before Shipman- out of humanity and with all the best intentions. So what are they to do? Blamed if they do, blamed if they don't??? and sued anyhow.

The difference being, I suspect, that one is with consent and the other isn't. Why is it okay for a doctor to assume it's your time to give up (or on the occasions they've kept people alive who'd rather not have been) but if a person has had enough (or they want to fight to the bitter end), that choice is deemed as not their right? MDs might have more knowledge than the average person regarding physiology but there is more to human existence than that.

If what has been aired (again) brings about meaningful discussion, then that has to be a good thing surely?