Assisted dying bill

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

Fleurpepper

Yes, it is a difficult issue- very complex indeed. Which is why Switzerland has not gone that route. And which is why THIS IS NOT AT ALL IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM the plan for the new Bill in the UK.

I know it isn't but I don't think that is well understood. I've seen so many posts, on here and elsewhere, with people referencing years of suffering with dementia who don't seem to realise this bill won't help in that situation.

I do realise that, actually. I understand why some people are concerned - this is always going to be a very divisive issue, but for me personally, it comes down to the same argument in the abortion debate. My body - my choice.

Quite! The phrase is "bodily autonomy".

I'm a great believer in bodily autonomy myself - as I put it "I'm the one living in this body - so I am the one that makes all decisions about it".

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

Of course we already have choice, suicide has been legal for years.

We all know it's not quite as simple as that though.

Far from as simple as that. Suicide used to be illegal way back I gather (but in my lifetime). Thankfully it has been legal for some time now. But there's still problems in saying about it - as I have long ago worked out exactly what I would do personally if ever my body (or my society) had let me down that badly that I saw it as my only option and my friends know exactly what I would do to my own body if it comes to it - but I'm concerned re whether I'd get into legal trouble if I said what I've decided for myself if need be online.

My life, my choice. I hope this Bill succeeds. I would prefer the 6 months rule to be removed as there are very painful and debilitating conditions that last longer. If it fails now it may takes decades for it to be presented again. MPs need to develop some backbone rather than worrying about religious objections, palliative care (which can't be fixed in a few months) and the extra costs to the NHS

Alternatively they could think about a complex issue and look at all aspects of the debate.

Galaxy

Alternatively they could think about a complex issue and look at all aspects of the debate.

Don’t you think that’s just a theoretical proposal though? I understand why that would be the ideal, but in truth I don’t believe there could ever be a perfect set of guidelines which met every possible concern in every possible circumstance. In 20 years time it would still be under discussion. In common with other guidance, on balance it’s probably best to get it as good as you can and then expect there to be exceptions which challenge the law, which result in changes to the guidance.

keepingquiet

What happened to the value of life?

This is such a depressing thread- the truth is no one knows how they will die.

Some people seem obsessed with death here.

Let's live and celebrate life for a change!

Some people seem obsessed with death here.

Really?

There is a bill before Parliament which we are discussing because it's an important bill that will change our established set of principles if it's passed. It affects, and will eventually, effect every man, woman and child in the country.

I don't see any 'obsession' - just posters talking about their own experiences of death and their feelings about it, which -considering the topic - is to be expected.

So, who are these "some" that you are accusing of 'obsessing'?

Of course no-one knows exactly how they will die - that's the whole point isn't it?

And what makes you think we're not all living and enjoying life away from this thread and GN?

Honestly, your comment is provocative.

Well said, Dickens. And given that most of us on here are likely to be in an older age bracket, I think it's actually very sensible to think about death and what we would like to happen in various scenarios. It's hardly an obsession to think about it and prepare for various possibilities, is it?

MissInterpreted

Well said, Dickens. And given that most of us on here are likely to be in an older age bracket, I think it's actually very sensible to think about death and what we would like to happen in various scenarios. It's hardly an obsession to think about it and prepare for various possibilities, is it?

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Dickens
For Muslims ending life before the appointed time is a Sin. A major wrong. All sects of Islam and some of Judaism and Christianity have the same beliefs. Islamic beliefs on death are derived directly from the Quranic verses rather than interpretable scripture ( Hadith) is unchanging. Suffering is a test for which there is recompense in the hereafter.
If we believe no one should be forced to suffer then the NHS would have clinical needs as its topmost priority. Our social and palliative care systems would be second to none. Alcohol and tobacco would be banned as they are causal links to suffering.

NICE would not exist and hospital records would be up to date and ambulances would not be queuing up with screaming patients.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East (e.g. Gaza) would be somewhat different as we don't wish to see suffering, in fact suffering is being helped along by our arms to Israel.
The imposition of values is what I see as wrong. The guardian article has sort of summarised this www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/14/assisted-dying-nhs-staff-conscience-clause. Furthermore the British Islamic Medical Association has also given its members guidance britishima.org/work/assisted-dying/.
Similarly for same gender unions all children are taught this is acceptable clearly in Islam it is not.
Ultimately people feel conflicted when other value systems are imposed. By all means others can live and do whatever they feel is acceptable to their own value systems.
Aside from my conscience and beliefs there is politics and the issue of coercion. Politically Starmer may be influenced by his wife, Shabana Mahmood as a muslim with a small majority in a muslim constituency is unlikely as is Wes Streeting.
On coercion as has been shown by the recent tragic stalking and grooming cases isn't like in the films where a g proverbial gun is pointed and the arm is pulled. Coercion is a process that Doctors cannot always determine, five experienced DC's or DCI 's could be used independently (geographically distant) to vet the relatives. It should not be a binary "Have you been coerced ?" Vetting can get to the bottom of financial issues.
So no I will not be supporting the principle of AD

Fair enough that you personally won't support this for yourself personally.

This is the thing - Britain is a democratic country and we have to do what the majority wants done. The minority have to accept it. We're never going to have absolute total agreement about everything - or indeed anything.

That's the thing about a Christian democratic country such as ours - majority rules. In our own personal lives we have to accept that others think/act differently to ourselves. I'm vegetarian - but one of my friends is a butcher. I'm anti-Lockdown and all that but a very good friend of mine abided by it all/had those jabs etc. I'm "do what you want re religion" - but my best friend of all (very longstanding) is an evangelical Christian (so I just smile and say "Thank you" for the thought when she tells me things like she's put angels on guard around my house and accept that she genuinely wants the best for me). I think I've probably voted for just about every political party there is over time - except one.

So I think most of us would accept a "conscience clause" if someone personally was a medic and chose not to take part in this - as long as they accept that other medics will do so. I would certainly not expect anyone to act against their conscience - as long as I could find someone else who would deal with my requirements instead. I'd just tell people "You can't go to Dr X about this - as he invokes the conscience clause. But you can go to Dr Y about it". That way no-one is forced to do/or not do whatever it is they have decided on for themselves personally.

That's how it's supposed to be in Britain.

That is also how it will be if the vote doesn't go the way you want it to.

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

Kalm

Dickens
For Muslims ending life before the appointed time is a Sin. A major wrong. All sects of Islam and some of Judaism and Christianity have the same beliefs. Islamic beliefs on death are derived directly from the Quranic verses rather than interpretable scripture ( Hadith) is unchanging. Suffering is a test for which there is recompense in the hereafter.
If we believe no one should be forced to suffer then the NHS would have clinical needs as its topmost priority. Our social and palliative care systems would be second to none. Alcohol and tobacco would be banned as they are causal links to suffering.

NICE would not exist and hospital records would be up to date and ambulances would not be queuing up with screaming patients.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East (e.g. Gaza) would be somewhat different as we don't wish to see suffering, in fact suffering is being helped along by our arms to Israel.
The imposition of values is what I see as wrong. The guardian article has sort of summarised this www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/14/assisted-dying-nhs-staff-conscience-clause. Furthermore the British Islamic Medical Association has also given its members guidance britishima.org/work/assisted-dying/.
Similarly for same gender unions all children are taught this is acceptable clearly in Islam it is not.
Ultimately people feel conflicted when other value systems are imposed. By all means others can live and do whatever they feel is acceptable to their own value systems.
Aside from my conscience and beliefs there is politics and the issue of coercion. Politically Starmer may be influenced by his wife, Shabana Mahmood as a muslim with a small majority in a muslim constituency is unlikely as is Wes Streeting.
On coercion as has been shown by the recent tragic stalking and grooming cases isn't like in the films where a g proverbial gun is pointed and the arm is pulled. Coercion is a process that Doctors cannot always determine, five experienced DC's or DCI 's could be used independently (geographically distant) to vet the relatives. It should not be a binary "Have you been coerced ?" Vetting can get to the bottom of financial issues.
So no I will not be supporting the principle of AD

I respect any individual's freedom to follow their religion's dictates regarding how they conduct their lives, or their death.

In a western democracy - for all its failings and imperfections - you (collective you) cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else, that is how it works.

The reason we have an NHS and social-care system on its knees is because we now live in a society that is, and has been since Margaret Thatcher, profoundly transformed. Her premiership brought about immense social, political and economic change. We no longer invest in people, families, communities - education, apprenticeships, further education, health, these have all been monetised, and the State has been rolled-back. That's the politics of the matter. And the only politics I am prepared to discuss. Our foreign policy should have a thread of its own.

I appreciate what you say about coercion - that is partly why I am 'on-the-fence' on this matter of AD, but when it comes down to the wire, I will not have anyone ese's value-systems or religion's dictates imposed on me - as I, personally, would not expect to impose mine on anyone else.

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I thought we were having a real discussion, and that people were being honest about their feelings, one way or the other?

Does semantics help?

I think the manipulation of language has been used in many debates and I am very wary of it. I think it is quite important to look at the language used.

How is it being honest to say that an act which kills people isn't killing them? It is a very false start to any discussion. If you believe in killing people why wouldn't you own it? Maybe it is uncomfortable to call it what it is.

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

What do you mean by 'giving someone a lethal dose'?

This is not at all what is intended in this Bill, or what happens with assisted dying. Yes, the person is handed a lethal dose, and then then make the choice to take it, or not. Or a drip is put up with a lethal dose, and they then have the choice whether to activate it, or not. No-one is 'given a lethal does'.

The difference is massively important. The choice is the person's right up to the last minute, to the last second, and the consequences made absolutely clear before hand.

Dickens

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I thought we were having a real discussion, and that people were being honest about their feelings, one way or the other?

Does semantics help?

I think most of us are being honest in this - and saying what we personally feel.

It's certainly all the same to me - as I have no "skin in this game" personally at all. Whether it's passed or not passed - I personally will die if and when I decide to. If my own health got that bad personally - I'd deal with the matter myself and be gone by the end of that day (having already figured out exactly what I'd do and how long it would take to do it and I've got the stuff I need in just-in-case). It doesn't matter a jot to me personally whether my Society has legalised this or no - either way "If I decide to go I'll go - and I'll do it my own way anyway".

Basically I take the view/would hope most people would take the view of "Whether I anticipate needing it myself or no - I want other people to be able to have the chance if they decide to". Same as the abortion debate - I'd no skin in that game from the sterilisation operation I paid for myself at 27 years old - but will still argue that other people should have the chance for an abortion if they need one/have decided on it.

So I'm just concerned personally that those people who choose to leave it to medical professionals have the position that they can do so - because the medical professionals will help them (as they're no longer stopped from doing so by the law as it is at present).

So - as long as no-one forces their personal decision in any of these bodily autonomy debates on anyone else then that's fine/that's how Britain is supposed to operate.

If they aren't given it how do they get it?

How they get it - is a question we're probably not legally allowed to say publicly. I think that's daft - but that's how our society is and we can't say....

theworriedwell

If they aren't given it how do they get it?

Of course they are given it- that is the whole point here. Handed it so they can then make the choice, to take it and swallow it, or to trigger the drip- in full knowledge that there is no way back if and when they do make the choice.

Assisted, so that it is the correct dose, of the correct potion- to ensure very quick and painless death. The whole point indeed.

They will get it from one of the the doctors who need to prescribe it.

What I'm not clear about is how these Drs will be appointed and where?

How many are anticipated to be using the service- will the Drs be signing off the drugs in local health care trusts?

What will be the safeguards for the pharmacists storing the drugs?

Who will fund it?

Will the Drs also be GPs? Able to treat patients and then choose to not treat them?

There is a judge involved in this too- will it be just one judge for the UK or will they be locally appointed?

Who will pay them, and will they be salaried or paid on a case by case basis. Will the patients solely represent themselves, or can they appoint advocates?

None of this is clear.

Maybe someone here knows?

my husband had motor neurone disease. He was outraged that his life was judged to be meaningless with everyone suggesting that he should end it. The disease is pretty insufferable but painless...he did art and music although unable to speak etc...he finally died nineteen years after being diagnosed,, the second longest living after Stephen Hawkings...should he have been encouraged to take his own life?
I felt the pressure recently when my ageing dog collapsed...the pressure of friends who drove me to the vets, the vet herself that she should be euthanised. I am still haunted by the look she, my loving canine companion, gave me as I acquiesced. I greive her death far more than I did for those that nature took.
I remember a vet once told me when I mentioned that dogs didn't seem to die naturally anymore...that it was seen as neglect. He said it was the fashion. My first dog died naturally by my side..a big intake of breath and no more. I stroked his head whilst nature took its gentle course.
My last two cats died naturally at home, they stopped eating I put them on a cushion and stroked them often as I passed by them and they purred. It would have been no comfort to take them to the vets in the box which they hated. People should man up to death it is often gentle. It was with my mother, although she had often said what she wanted was to die. I'm so glad we didn't have that decision to make. I told her that wasn't in my gift. And I was glad about that. The day she died she was happy, took to her bed and without struggle died a few hours later. Fleurpepper .you should take it up with Unherd.
My friends father recently went to Oregon to have assisted suicide he in fact died en route. But I cant believe it is only they that have problems getting the lethal drugs. I remember readng a while back that the US had run out of the drugs that they use in capital punishment and what shocked me was that we supplied them with the drug used to euthanise our companion animals and they judged them too inhumane. That stuck with me. Its a very heavy subject.
I'm sure assisted suicide will always be available for the rich who wish it for a price, but on the NHS? with cut backs? I'm just glad I didn't have to refuse, or permit my mother and hand her a lethal drug ...no.
Many people have assisted dying with morphine for pain control, that is humane. That is palliative care which we should be investing more in. This is not assisted dying this is assisted suicide. There is a difference. The more rules that are put in place the more complicated and conflicting it will become.

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

The person has to take the drugs themselves - so how is that 'killing them'? I don't have an issue with the language used though. I've previously said that, having seen my mother and MiL suffer (and yes, it was suffering) long, slow, lingering deaths from dementia, that if I could have legally put them out of their misery - or killed them, if you prefer - then yes, I would have done it, just as I have had to have several beloved dogs put to sleep to end their suffering. That is my personal view on the subject, nothing more.

theworriedwell

How is it being honest to say that an act which kills people isn't killing them? It is a very false start to any discussion. If you believe in killing people why wouldn't you own it? Maybe it is uncomfortable to call it what it is.

If a person asks a doctor to administer a lethal dose of a drug that will kill them, and he agrees and does it - he has killed them.

It's academic.

Are we now any further forward in the debate?

I don't believe many people are shying away from the profound principles involved in AD, which surely is one of the reasons why it's a matter which has been roundly rejected for so many years.

The doctor, or whoever administers the fatal dose of whichever drug is used, will have to live with his or her conscience which, I assume, they will have 'questioned' prior to agreeing to such an act.

I visited for the last time my great-grandmother as a child aged around 7/8 who lay dying in the upstairs bedroom. I was tentatively ushered in by my aunt and stood watching my great grandmother writhing in pain and crying, mumbling the phrase over and over, "I wish the doctor would take me out of the road". She didn't use the word "kill" but that's what she meant.

That is the reality - I think we all understand that fact.