Assisted dying bill

Exactly this. We need both.

Sorry. Fingers playing up.

Surely the options of palliative care that I'd good, responsive, accessible and individualised should run alongside the right to say "enough, no more".
That would be the ideal, I'd have thought.m

Rosie51

IOMGran The status quo is letting a small but not insignificant number of people down every day, do you not care about them? Your need for certainty in an uncertain world would stop you from making any improvement for the existing suffering?

Of course I care about them. I would rather money was poured into better pain management, and end of life care, which would also benefit those who will not be covered by this bill. I'm not against people being able to take their own life per se but I do worry that this is the first step on a slippery slope. Many of the people supporting this bill talk of their loved ones who had dementia and awful deaths, they don't seem to realise those loved ones would not be helped by this bill.
You are the one stating with certainty that this bill can't be tweaked, that the loopholes aren't there, the checks and balances are in place. I'd like a bit of realism and acknowledgement that there is no such certainty it won't or can't be abused.

You want something that cannot be given. So many people want certainty, it's impossible to get 100%.

So you are content with the status quo it would appear. I am not. I think everyone wants better palliative care but even the best cannot stop intractable pain that happens with some people, Clues in the word intractable. Have you also come across other stuff that can happen at end of life, especially with cancers in the stomach and bowel? Ever heard of faecal vomiting? A friend of mine has that image of her husband vomiting faeces in the days before his death. I am not sure how palliative care deals with that one when it cannot always stop pain. There are so many horrible things that can and do go wrong with our bodies at the end of life. I bear that in mind on his issue.

CariadAgain you do realise there are British born Muslims, only your post comes across as bit xenophobic.

bigsteveross69

I realise that religion/faith within our nation is no longer what it was 50 or 60yrs ago however it's something I hold dearly and Thou Shalt not Kill includes assisted dying

But why- assisted Dying does not involve killing anyone, at all. It is NOT euthanasia.

IOMGran The status quo is letting a small but not insignificant number of people down every day, do you not care about them? Your need for certainty in an uncertain world would stop you from making any improvement for the existing suffering?

Of course I care about them. I would rather money was poured into better pain management, and end of life care, which would also benefit those who will not be covered by this bill. I'm not against people being able to take their own life per se but I do worry that this is the first step on a slippery slope. Many of the people supporting this bill talk of their loved ones who had dementia and awful deaths, they don't seem to realise those loved ones would not be helped by this bill.
You are the one stating with certainty that this bill can't be tweaked, that the loopholes aren't there, the checks and balances are in place. I'd like a bit of realism and acknowledgement that there is no such certainty it won't or can't be abused.

CariadAgain, I quite agree with you. Religious mores should be not inflicted on people who don't subscribe. Cheek of them and that goes for the poster above too. I am an equal opportunity religion disliker!

I realise that religion/faith within our nation is no longer what it was 50 or 60yrs ago however it's something I hold dearly and Thou Shalt not Kill includes assisted dying

Grantanow

Kalm

Having witnessed the death of both parents this is not an easy subject.
For many Muslims, and similarly for Jews, the belief in a predetermined time of death is a profound aspect of faith. The story of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Angel of Death (Malaik ul mawt) underscores the significance of divine will and the eternal afterlife in Islam. the angel MuM asked the prophet's permission to extract his soul, the prophet asked whether this option will be available to his ascendants, the reply was n the negative.
This belief system provides comfort and a framework for understanding life's trials and the suffering of loved ones, those who suffer pain are martyrs.
I don't trust the state to decide when people should die. Historical events like the thalidomide tragedy and the contaminated blood scandal have removed trust in governmental oversight....Or those in palliative care where hospices are under-funded. Generally speaking not everyone is rational as politicians believe, dysfunctional families are likely to put pressure on the elderly to go down the AD route. There are many cases where people have survived. Anecdotally we had a relative who was told in 1936 he didn't have long in Kashmir, he died .....in 1992 in Birmingham !
The challenges in palliative care, especially for Muslims, highlight significant gaps in the current healthcare system. Concerns about cleanliness, dignity, halal food, and prayer time are crucial for providing culturally competent care. The lack of understanding and bureaucratic hurdles exacerbate these difficulties
Just because the narrative of this discussion is somehow portrayed as compassionate liberal because Ester Rantzen supports it does not mean it is right.

Those of us who do not subscribe to a religion of any kind should not be controlled by the beliefs of those who do.

Quite! Classic piece of British understatement there - except I'd amend it from "should not be" to "darn well won't be controlled by people from other religions/other countries". If other people living here don't wish to take advantage of our more liberal laws/way of thinking = that is entirely a decision they are free to make - for themselves only.

I could put it more strongly.......and offscreen I would....

Rosie51

IOMGran

Rosie51

And I notice nobody is addressing my point about children, adolescents and those without mental or physical capacity. Why is their unbearable pain or distress different?

IOMGran you keep stating this law would be based on the Oregon one. Are you unable to understand our governments would not be answerable to Oregon should they decide to tweak it in the future, or do you think this would be impossible? It's happened with other legislation. Governments do change their minds about things and subsequent governments are not held to promises made by previous administrations.

Our law is written the way the Oregon law was written. Not that we'd be answerable to Oregon! The checks and balances and lack of loop holes is key. Any government could create a completely new law but it would not be easy to just change this law structure and delimitation. This is my understanding. And indeed Oregon has kept it's law as is and there has been no scope creep since it's inception in 1997. Are you able to understand what I am writing?

Yes I do understand what you are writing, I don't see it as a 100% guarantee that it can't be tweaked. but it would not be easy to just change this law structure and delimitation but not impossible then?

Still ducking the rest of my post? Concern or compassion for children, adolescents and those without mental or physical capacity absent eh?

I'm not ducking anything. I am sorry for the mentally incapable and those under 18 if they are in this situation. I can't do anything for them because that would set the naysayers off. Are you saying that because this subsection cannot have the option then nobody should have it?

I personally think we should be able to end our lives for what ever reason we have, but that's another matter.

The proposed law will help the majority who need it access it. It has the necessary safeguards and is drawn on the very conservative line of the debate.

The status quo is letting a small but not insignificant number of people down every day, do you not care about them? Your need for certainty in an uncertain world would stop you from making any improvement for the existing suffering?

I hope this bill comes through we should personally have a choice we do not let our pets suffer.

IOMGran

Rosie51

And I notice nobody is addressing my point about children, adolescents and those without mental or physical capacity. Why is their unbearable pain or distress different?

IOMGran you keep stating this law would be based on the Oregon one. Are you unable to understand our governments would not be answerable to Oregon should they decide to tweak it in the future, or do you think this would be impossible? It's happened with other legislation. Governments do change their minds about things and subsequent governments are not held to promises made by previous administrations.

Our law is written the way the Oregon law was written. Not that we'd be answerable to Oregon! The checks and balances and lack of loop holes is key. Any government could create a completely new law but it would not be easy to just change this law structure and delimitation. This is my understanding. And indeed Oregon has kept it's law as is and there has been no scope creep since it's inception in 1997. Are you able to understand what I am writing?

Yes I do understand what you are writing, I don't see it as a 100% guarantee that it can't be tweaked. but it would not be easy to just change this law structure and delimitation but not impossible then?

Still ducking the rest of my post? Concern or compassion for children, adolescents and those without mental or physical capacity absent eh?

Rosie51

And I notice nobody is addressing my point about children, adolescents and those without mental or physical capacity. Why is their unbearable pain or distress different?

IOMGran you keep stating this law would be based on the Oregon one. Are you unable to understand our governments would not be answerable to Oregon should they decide to tweak it in the future, or do you think this would be impossible? It's happened with other legislation. Governments do change their minds about things and subsequent governments are not held to promises made by previous administrations.

Our law is written the way the Oregon law was written. Not that we'd be answerable to Oregon! The checks and balances and lack of loop holes is key. Any government could create a completely new law but it would not be easy to just change this law structure and delimitation. This is my understanding. And indeed Oregon has kept it's law as is and there has been no scope creep since it's inception in 1997. Are you able to understand what I am writing?

Mollygo

Fleurpepper
No-one, but no-one, is talking about a Canada style option.

Yet.
And that is my concern. Once a law is in place it’s relatively easy to tweak parts of it.

No, it is not easy at all.

CariadAgain

Kalm

With respect I am saying the "choice" should not be available to any Muslim. The Muslim has the "rooh" in the soul, that is what makes the inanimate molecules come alive during conception. Allah decides the entry and exit point of the soul.
After death the departed soul enters a state of limbo known as barzakh until the day of reckoning. Secularists or humanists believe life ends at the grave, a Muslim doesn't. The Quran clearly says "....He gives life and causes death, and to Him you shall be brought back. (10:56)"

I'm struggling to get my head round that.

If someone is of the Muslim religion and that forbids it = they personally make the choice of:

a. Whether to stay a Muslim and accept that viewpoint of them not having any personal choice
or
b. Leave the Muslim religion if need be if that's the only acceptable way for them to make their own personal decision for themselves.

Obviously in our society as a whole we must have that choice and if someone decides (for whatever reason) not to make that choice for themselves = that is entirely up to them and they either:
- choose not to choose and accept what they've been told
or
- make their own choice

It is their life = their decision (even if that decision is not to make a decision themselves).

Our own personal decisions might well differ from those of a group we are in. I know that I've been in that position myself - as in many years back now I was in an evangelical Christian church and hadn't really clicked that women were not being regarded as equal. That was until the day where the man that was giving the Sunday morning sermon said "Anyone can give this sermon - unless they're a woman" or words to that effect. I clicked how that church thought at that point and instantly got up and literally walked right out in front of a chapel full of people - followed by walking into a liberal Christian church that has known women are equal since it was founded in the 17th century. Right from Day 1 there was simply no question of women obviously being equal (more equal than they are still to this day in secular society).

Even not making a choice and believing one doesn't have a choice = a choice of itself.

Exactly, the choice has to be for everyone, within the constraints of the Bill. Muslims have the choice of drugs, alcohol, contraception, abortion, etc, etc. If their religious beliefs are strong, they will simpy not avail themselves of all things haram.

Jehovah's witnesses have the choice to have blood transfusions or donated organs.

Religious beliefs have to be respected, but have no place in restricting choices for others, or other religions or none.

And I notice nobody is addressing my point about children, adolescents and those without mental or physical capacity. Why is their unbearable pain or distress different?

IOMGran you keep stating this law would be based on the Oregon one. Are you unable to understand our governments would not be answerable to Oregon should they decide to tweak it in the future, or do you think this would be impossible? It's happened with other legislation. Governments do change their minds about things and subsequent governments are not held to promises made by previous administrations.

Mollygo

Fleurpepper
No-one, but no-one, is talking about a Canada style option.

Yet.
And that is my concern. Once a law is in place it’s relatively easy to tweak parts of it.

Again, the law is based on the Oregon one, not Canada. It doesn't even mention suffering, it is specifically only available for people in the last 6 months of their life if they choose it. Doctors are not allowed to bring the subject up with patients and a High Court Judge will have to approve any application. In Oregon this law has remained unchanged since 1997. About 1% of deaths each year make use of this option. People only choose it if their deaths are proving too difficult for them. Why do people feel it's OK to impose their belief sets or misguided/limited experiences of the rest of us? I want the option for myself and my loved ones if they need it.

Fleurpepper
No-one, but no-one, is talking about a Canada style option.

Yet.
And that is my concern. Once a law is in place it’s relatively easy to tweak parts of it.

If it meant the shortening of a life of absolute torture, unrelenting pain, and hopelessness, then it seems an easy choice.

If it meant longer spent feeling weak, sleepy, but able to cope, then I'm guessing some would choose that, at least for a time.

MissAdventure

As far as I know, an incidental shortening of life due to painkillers isn't illegal.
I may be wrong though, because I usually am lately.

I wondered about that, too.

If the amount of opiate drug required to alleviate unmanageable pain equals the amount that will accidentally shorten the life of the patient - I mean, does a consultant / doctor actually know to the nth degree the exact ML or MG? - then is he or she 'assisting' dying, or trying to relieve pain?

As you said earlier, there are grey areas.

I wonder how many people suffering hours /days of unremitting pain would take the risk, if told that an additional 5ml (or whatever) of an opiate might hasten their death?

I can answer that for me, but not for others - and therein lies one of the problems.

My daughter's was metastatic breast cancer, too. IOMGran
Can't say she or I felt particularly lucky.

She had battled for ten years before that point.

GrannyGravy13

IOMGran sitting with my Granny until she died in hospital, sitting with both of my parents in their Hospice rooms whilst they took their last breath, sitting with my step-father who had vascular dementia whilst he died, yep I must be really lucky.

I will not engage with you in this thread anymore.

You were luckier than me and mine. No loss to lose your opinion.

MissAdventure

My daughter was in Southend hospital, with cancer in her brain, skull, spine, pelvis, arms, legs
, ovaries, lungs.

For the first time then, she was treated well, and listened to.

Plus she was determined by then that she would be made comfortable, having suffered awfully in the years before.

My mother had cancers everywhere but nowhere that would have done her the kindness of immediate death. It was in her brains and she was fitting and I think she had tumours in her liver as well. Quite frankly there was little point in finding them all at that point. She bas blind by then, had lost all sense of taste and smell and had zero QOL. All this started as breast cancer and she was clear for 6 years and then it came back with a vengeance. But again, the morphine that was legally allowed was insufficient to control the pain. She had become very resistant to it, her kidneys just excreted it. I reckon her urine could have killed if drunk. I would not wish this on anyone.

I am very glad your daughter did not have this experience. Cancer sucks.

IOMGran sitting with my Granny until she died in hospital, sitting with both of my parents in their Hospice rooms whilst they took their last breath, sitting with my step-father who had vascular dementia whilst he died, yep I must be really lucky.

I will not engage with you in this thread anymore.