Wow! They've thrown it out!

So many people end their days in a hospital - which is not, I am sure, where they want to be.

So much better to go peacefully in a place of your choosing.

My husband would probably have asked to go that way. His last three weeks he was bedridden and had carers coming to do everything physical for him. He had difficulty swallowing but did not want to be artificially fed. His last three days he refused food and drink.
He had a living will, which said that was what he wanted if there was no chance of improvement in his condition and if two doctors agreed that there would be no improvement. That's what happened. He would have had to die when he did because if he left it any longer, he would not have been able to drink anything by himself.

The 6 month prognosis is difficult. I once obtained attendance allowance for someone under the special rules for people with less that 6 months to live and she was still around 5 years later!

Doctors are often unwilling to commit to a clear prognosis - and I can understand that.

Just knowing that you can make the decision yourself is comforting.

My aunts cared for my grandmother and, the family being very large, younger aunts cared for older aunts when they became frail. Even an older aunt cared for a younger aunt (and her family) when she was dying of terminal cancer. Cousins have cared for elderly parents and I cared for my mother for the last years of her life in my home. My sisters-in-law were pillars of support for my mother-in-law.

My mother never became a burden, but it was stressful and restrictive looking after her. I hoped that as she became a very old and very frail lady that I would walk into her bedroom with a cup of tea one morning and find that she had died peacefully in her sleep during the night.

Eventually her body betrayed her to the extent that she needed 24-hour care and I couldn't do that. The place - not a full-time care home, possibly a halfway house to which she was transferred when the hospital wanted the bed - was very kind and full of gentle carers. I visited her pretty much every might and many of my cousins went to see her too. Nevertheless, she literally turned her face to the wall, refused food and drink and, not long afterwards died. I am not sure whether that was a good or bad way to die.

I have no idea whether she would have chosen an active death over a passive death, but I recognised that she really had had enough.

This, of course, has nothing to do with a six-month prognosis. I suppose this was planned as a first step, with a view to expanding the possibility of a chosen, dignified death to others who feel that they really do not want to carry on living.

It is very important to think about this.

These arrangements are being made anyway - but they are limited to those people who can afford to go to Switzerland. As someone else said the Switzerland route carries few regulations, and, more importantly, people have to make a premature decision because they can't risk being too unwell to travel.

On balance, I believe a person who is suffering from an imminently terminal illness and who can no longer cope with the pain/discomfort/indignity/helplessness that it is causing him/her should be able to obtain assistance to die in as peaceful a way as possible.

Good question RQ, and it must be ourselves.

I have been wondering just who 'owns' your body - you yourself or the state?

Ipad!

To do a journey by plane ( full of business and holiday people) to Switzerland, in order to the drive to a clinic, and die, is such a sad thing to have to do.I hope the time comes, and quickly, when we have our own Digntas type clinic.

I think it is wrong. The people who have the money, ability and help can go to Dignitas and achieve their aim. The poor and the really ill can't. I remember the story of the woman who could have lived for longer but who had to go to Dignitas so ended her life earlier when she could still make the journey.

I watched a lot of the debate today and it was interesting to listen to the excellent, emotional speeches from both sides of the debate.

I felt the main issue for a lot of MP's was not necessarily the act of 'assisting' the end of life but the possible problems of guaranteeing the act itself did not cause miscarriages such as somebody feeling they are a burden and opt for ending their life to please. If only there was a way of guaranteeing no miscarriages could occur then I think there could be a different vote. It's a start but the bill needs refining before going back to Parliament but I believe it will.

On a personal note I did think how I would have voted and I believe I would have voted for rather than against believing those who wish to end their life and suffering would take president over a supposed problem , albeit a realistic feasable one.

Someone on the news made the interesting point that the rules for the Swiss Dignitas suicides are less stringent than the ones proposed under this bill and that British citizens will be less well protected by throwing out this bill - apparently one person from Britain goes to Dignitas every fortnight, unprotected by the two doctors and one judge rules that were proposed.

What a great disappointment, but not totally unexpected.

My DH said he didn't think there would be any changes in our lifetime, so I suppose that it means Switzerland is the only choice.

That is quite a thought, nigglenellie

Very disappointed by this.

If assisted dying is illegal, then surely abortion, which let's face it is ' killing' look at it what way you will, should be illegal too?! At least the terminally ill would have a say in the matter which obviously the unborn child does not. It's just a thought.

Luckygirl I am sure that happens more often than we know.
We are positive that DF was 'helped' by a lovely sister at the hospital and I hope someone would do the same for me if I was suffering like he was.

I wanted it to go through too, but was pretty certain it wouldn't. I can see both sides of this debate, but for me it's quality of life not quantity, and when that quality has gone, then it's time to get on that train and quietly depart.

to go through.

I wanted it to through, but knew really that it wouldn't, great shame.

Not a backlash from the majority of the public, just those extreme antis who might have taken it upon themselves to make trouble for anyone who voted for the proposal. It has been known to happen...

Yes. I think it could have been the thin end of the wedge. Not good.

Doubt they fear a backlash from the public when there is a majority in favour

I am thankful they voted against, we only have to look at the abortion law when it was introduced and today

The medical profession already do end people's lives under the Double Effect rules (I think that is what it is called). They can provide drugs to relieve suffering even though they know it will shorten someone's life.

One of the issues here is the funding of hospices and end of life care. The voluntary sector plays a very large part and it is time that these services were properly funded under the NHS. Proper end of life care, at which MacMillan and the hospice movement are experts, is relevant to the call for assisted dying.