Assisted dying bill

Streeting is using his Ministerial position to try to kill the Bill. Harriet Harman has criticised him for his statements.

So it’s basically suicide made legal?

It’s still the potential For compulsion via expectation that worries me.
My mum desperately didn’t want to die but the end of life pathway they used meant her body gradually shut down.
My lasting memories are her asking “You won’t let me die, will you?”

Mollygo

So it’s basically suicide made legal?

It’s still the potential For compulsion via expectation that worries me.
My mum desperately didn’t want to die but the end of life pathway they used meant her body gradually shut down.
My lasting memories are her asking “You won’t let me die, will you?”

As I read it the "end of life pathway" is thoroughly inhumane - as it seems to mean starving the person to death and, from what I've read of starving to death = it's painful and it's also prolonged. I did make it quite plain neither of my parents were to be put on that come the end. My father was in the best nursing home I could find and my mother had the best carers coming into her home I could find and their instructions included "Check the contents of her kitchen - to make sure she is well-stocked with food". It was her choice in the end to have a battle of wills with them re eating - as she didn't want to herself - but the food was there for her to eat.

That is another reason imo that I believe in voluntary euthanasia - so there's no question of anyone being cruel enough to start that "end of life pathway" on another person.

I'm not sure whether they are still trying to do that to people - but I do know it's one of the reasons it feels problematic to do a "Living Will" - in case they misinterpret it as "Starve me to death". So I think voluntary euthanasia being legal will help to clarify things of either:
- the person has decided to live and so keep giving them pain relief, food and drink, and all possible palliative care
OR
- they've decided not to live and it's a quick/painless thing.

That's just awful.

The people saying it isn't killing don't seem to understand it or they do and are uncomfortable acknowledging it.

theworriedwell

The people saying it isn't killing don't seem to understand it or they do and are uncomfortable acknowledging it.

I do understand what you are saying and have absolutely no trouble acknowledging it, but I repeat, under what is being proposed, the person would have to take the drugs themselves.

Hand someone in a towering rage a loaded gun and watch them kill someone. Are you jointly responsible for the death?

theworriedwell

Hand someone in a towering rage a loaded gun and watch them kill someone. Are you jointly responsible for the death?

That's hardly comparable with what is being proposed here.

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

Hand someone in a towering rage a loaded gun and watch them kill someone. Are you jointly responsible for the death?

That's hardly comparable with what is being proposed here.

I think the comparison works in the sense that theworriedwell intended it to be understood - if you aid someone to kill then regardless of who they kill, be it themselves or another, they are jointly responsible.

So, now we've established that if you hand someone a loaded gun or a syringe full of a life-ending drug, and they use either to kill themselves, then technically, you've been complicit in killing them.

I just wonder how that really helps with the debate, now that fact has been established.

I think it muddies the waters, actually. If a doctor prescribes you the drugs after you have fulfilled all the requirements for 'assisted dying', which you then take and die - are they really responsible for your death? In the same way, if a doctor prescribes you medication for an illness, and you then suffer serious side effects from that medication, is the doctor responsible for that?

Because language as we have learnt is important. A lot of this debate is framed under the blanket of 'kindness' so using accurate language is important I feel. If you have to hide things within a discussion it makes me wary. This works for both sides, so I dont complain for example when people use accurate language to describe the siffering they have witnessed.

I'm glad the discussion has actually been opened up, this time.

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

The people saying it isn't killing don't seem to understand it or they do and are uncomfortable acknowledging it.

I do understand what you are saying and have absolutely no trouble acknowledging it, but I repeat, under what is being proposed, the person would have to take the drugs themselves.

... under what is being proposed, the person would have to take the drugs themselves

Unfortunately, to theworriedwell those drugs are the loaded gun...

And frankly, I'm tired of being 'spoken' to as if I'm part of an unintelligent and emotionally-challenged cohort that doesn't understand- as if, theworriedwell, only you have a pipeline to the truth which no-one else understands.

One of the main reasons why society has rejected this movement is - apart from the religious reasons against it - the ethics. The ethical quandary for doctors and the medical profession who might be asked to kill a terminally-ill patient sooner than they would naturally die. We get it, we really do.

Dickens

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

The people saying it isn't killing don't seem to understand it or they do and are uncomfortable acknowledging it.

I do understand what you are saying and have absolutely no trouble acknowledging it, but I repeat, under what is being proposed, the person would have to take the drugs themselves.

... under what is being proposed, the person would have to take the drugs themselves

Unfortunately, to theworriedwell those drugs are the loaded gun...

And frankly, I'm tired of being 'spoken' to as if I'm part of an unintelligent and emotionally-challenged cohort that doesn't understand- as if, theworriedwell, only you have a pipeline to the truth which no-one else understands.

One of the main reasons why society has rejected this movement is - apart from the religious reasons against it - the ethics. The ethical quandary for doctors and the medical profession who might be asked to kill a terminally-ill patient sooner than they would naturally die. We get it, we really do.

I don't think I only have a pipeline to the truth but I am being honest and I don't think some people are. If they are being honest then they don't understand that in handing someone the lethal dose or connecting it to an iv that they don't switch on is still killing someone.

I understand it is killing someone, you understand it but people on here have said it isn't killing someone. As I said either they aren't being honest with us or they aren't being honest with themselves.

You get it, you really do but read the thread and you will see some are denying it.

Galaxy

Because language as we have learnt is important. A lot of this debate is framed under the blanket of 'kindness' so using accurate language is important I feel. If you have to hide things within a discussion it makes me wary. This works for both sides, so I dont complain for example when people use accurate language to describe the siffering they have witnessed.

Exactly. I'd object if people were saying the doctor was a murderer as I don't think that is true anymore than saying you aren't killing someone is accurate. I think it makes me uncomfortable because if someone is telling me this is a good thing I have to wonder why they are refusing to admit what it actually means.

theworriedwell

Galaxy

Because language as we have learnt is important. A lot of this debate is framed under the blanket of 'kindness' so using accurate language is important I feel. If you have to hide things within a discussion it makes me wary. This works for both sides, so I dont complain for example when people use accurate language to describe the siffering they have witnessed.

Exactly. I'd object if people were saying the doctor was a murderer as I don't think that is true anymore than saying you aren't killing someone is accurate. I think it makes me uncomfortable because if someone is telling me this is a good thing I have to wonder why they are refusing to admit what it actually means.

I know exactly what it means, thank you very much - and yes, I do think it is a good thing. If that makes you uncomfortable, then that's your prerogative, but I refuse to apologise for how I feel on this issue.

theworriedwell

The people saying it isn't killing don't seem to understand it or they do and are uncomfortable acknowledging it.

Not at all. I do understand it, and I, for one, would have the choice. I truly feel my UK family and friends should too, and that choice should not just be for the rich, and often far too early for fear of not being able to travel.

We, DH and I, will have the choice- and not just if we only have 6 months to live. We are both well, love life, are very active and positive- but we have both witnessed to much suffering and so many bad deaths, that it is such a relief to know the choice will be ours, if and when- and if and when we decide for ourselves, to make that choice.

We both hope to die quietly and slip away in our sleep- but few are so lucky.

One of the main reasons why society has rejected this movement is - apart from the religious reasons against it - the ethics.

But what is ethical about deciding to prolong the pain, agony and indignity of those who would rather die?

Galaxy

Because language as we have learnt is important. A lot of this debate is framed under the blanket of 'kindness' so using accurate language is important I feel. If you have to hide things within a discussion it makes me wary. This works for both sides, so I dont complain for example when people use accurate language to describe the siffering they have witnessed.

Technically then, we are (if the bill is passed) going allow some doctors - with Court approval - to kill a terminally-ill patient.

But that is not the whole picture, is it?

As for kindness. I have seen a female consultant in tears watching an elderly patient struggling with a phlebotomist attempting to get an IV line into her withered and bruised arm. They weren't going to euthanise her, just give IV antibiotics.

I think the consultant was in tears because she felt compassion for the poor woman who was clearly suffering pain as each canula failed.

I do think the medical profession are capable of feeling kindness and compassion when they see patients suffer.

I'm not sure what language we should be using in this debate?

Cabowich

^One of the main reasons why society has rejected this movement is - apart from the religious reasons against it - the ethics. ^

But what is ethical about deciding to prolong the pain, agony and indignity of those who would rather die?

But what is ethical about deciding to prolong the pain, agony and indignity of those who would rather die?

I don't know.

But I assume those that do will tell us.

Because it's not that simple a choice. So I dont deny that people will die in pain, will die undignified painful deaths, but I think the risk to the most vulnerable in our society is too great.

So I think some people are prepared to 'risk' harm happening to people in order to alleviate the distress of others. Or they think there isnt a risk. I disagree. For me the risk is too great. I dont believe the reassurances.

But it is that simple a choice, Galaxy. Why are so many people crying out for that choice?

I think the opposite to you. There will be a risk that some people will 'slip the net' and be coerced into dying slightly early than they might have hoped. But we are talking about the terminally ill here, who have six months or less left to live. They are going to die anyway, to be brutally honest.

So it is definitely worth the risk, to my mind anyway, to alleviate the suffering of many at the risk of the few.

Cabowich you are going to die as am I and everyone else on here. Does it matter if by some mistakes we are killed? After all it's going to happen at some point.

Yes there it as clear as it is possible to be. We will sacrifice those people ( who society doesnt care about anyway) for the benefit of others.