Assisted dying bill

To some terminally ill people six months is hugely important.
It's can't be written off as "one of those things"!

I agree. Which is why they, we, all need to have the choice.

Yes, that's all I would ever want, or have been arguing for - the choice. It's paramount.

It's paramount for everyone.

So - if it were possible to have a fail-safe system, would those who are now opposed to the bill, approve it?

I understand the fears, and share some of them myself, if The Liverpool Care Pathway has taught us anything it's that we cannot put our trust in the medical profession - doctors and nurses - to operate 100% in our best-interests, especially when some hospitals were offered financial 'incentives' to put a patient on that pathway.

At that time, 90 year old Kathleen Vine - who'd been admitted with a dislocated shoulder was put on this pathway after developing pneumonia.

"All I remember is they weren't feeding me. Up above my bed they put 'nil by mouth' and I was begging for food," she recalled.

She said that when she asked doctors and nurses for food, she was ignored.

"I was being left to die. If it hadn't have been for my family I would be dead now. I would just have been another statistic on the books."

When the family demanded to know what it was that she was dying from - which terminal illness - no-one could tell them. They were never told the reason why she was supposed to be dying. The medical staff could only tell the family that Kathleen was old.

She'd been given morphine for the pain (if anyone's had a dislocated shoulder, they will understand the need) which made her confused, and she behaved 'out of character'. Presumably the medical experts believed this was some form of dementia?

Following the questions raised by the family, they started feeding her again, and she quickly recovered and went home.

So no, I'm not convinced that Assisted Dying would be fail-safe.

Kathleen Vine had a loving family. Not everyone has a loving family - or even a family. And the NHS has proved on more occasions than this that it cannot always be trusted.

Would the yay or nay of an independent High Court Judge in each case make this fail-safe? Does anyone think?

So, yes I understand the misgivings. What I don't accept is that another person has the right to tell me that I must suffer like my great-grandmother because they oppose the bill on religious grounds, or because they believe we are born to suffer, or whatever other reason they give to deny autonomy.

But that's a matter of the principle of the right-to-die, rather than the reality of what it might become. And that's the point I was arguing from.

I fully appreciate Galaxy's and others POVs.

Thanks all, for the debate.

It’s a different scenario discussing our death when it may still be a way off and is not imminent reality. However, if we should develop a life limiting illness, although not unbearably suffering, would we feel emotionally pressured by the burden we may be placing on our loved ones, into making the decision to end our life sooner than we would choose to I wonder?

I'm pretty sure all the things we think when our death is sometime in the future, might be quite different when it is looming closer.

My daughter had terrible trouble accepting that her illness impacted others.

theworriedwell

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.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed". To me - death in war is killing. Also what many of us would do if faced with someone like a higher-level drug dealer or one of the people that run the "boat trips" for illegal immigrants coming into our country, a gun was put in our hands and no-one nearby to witness if we used that gun on the criminal and we got told we wouldnt be penalised for pulling the trigger of that gun.

The above is killing - but helping someone deal with illness they were suffering from = performing a medical procedure imo. I guess it's much the same as removing a foetus from a womans body would be killing if she wished to keep it - but a medical procedure if she'd decided to have an abortion. In both cases one goes by whether the decision was made by the patient concerned or forced on them against their will.

CariadAgain

theworriedwell

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.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed". To me - death in war is killing. Also what many of us would do if faced with someone like a higher-level drug dealer or one of the people that run the "boat trips" for illegal immigrants coming into our country, a gun was put in our hands and no-one nearby to witness if we used that gun on the criminal and we got told we wouldnt be penalised for pulling the trigger of that gun.

The above is killing - but helping someone deal with illness they were suffering from = performing a medical procedure imo. I guess it's much the same as removing a foetus from a womans body would be killing if she wished to keep it - but a medical procedure if she'd decided to have an abortion. In both cases one goes by whether the decision was made by the patient concerned or forced on them against their will.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed".

... lexical semantics?

CariadAgain

theworriedwell

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.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed". To me - death in war is killing. Also what many of us would do if faced with someone like a higher-level drug dealer or one of the people that run the "boat trips" for illegal immigrants coming into our country, a gun was put in our hands and no-one nearby to witness if we used that gun on the criminal and we got told we wouldnt be penalised for pulling the trigger of that gun.

The above is killing - but helping someone deal with illness they were suffering from = performing a medical procedure imo. I guess it's much the same as removing a foetus from a womans body would be killing if she wished to keep it - but a medical procedure if she'd decided to have an abortion. In both cases one goes by whether the decision was made by the patient concerned or forced on them against their will.

Well I don't get why some people can't acknowledge it is killing. I didn't make a judgement on if it was right or wrong, just the fact and if people have to pretend it is something else it makes me wonder why they can't acknowledge the truth of their actions or decisions.

The things you describe in your first paragraph are killing, fact. They aren't murder which is a different matter. Assisted dying/suicide is the same to me, the agent isn't committing a murder, they are killing someone.

The Worried Well wrote:

" 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."

'Killing" implies initiating the action, whereas "assisting the dying process" implies hastening the inevitable and for good reason.

PS ,TWW, I agree we are better not to be prudish about death and dying. But dying is always going to be an emotive topic .

'Killing' implies lack of feeling. I imagine that the Dignitas centre in Switzerland which we mat take to be state of the art, has the room where we die furnished sympathetically.

Caleo

PS ,TWW, I agree we are better not to be prudish about death and dying. But dying is always going to be an emotive topic .

'Killing' implies lack of feeling. I imagine that the Dignitas centre in Switzerland which we mat take to be state of the art, has the room where we die furnished sympathetically.

The aesthetics of the dying room deserves a thread of it's own. Photo is from the Dignitas brochure

Caleo

PS ,TWW, I agree we are better not to be prudish about death and dying. But dying is always going to be an emotive topic .

'Killing' implies lack of feeling. I imagine that the Dignitas centre in Switzerland which we mat take to be state of the art, has the room where we die furnished sympathetically.

Killing is just a fact, it doesn't imply anything other than someone was alive and they or another person has done something that means they are now dead.

Farzanah

It’s a different scenario discussing our death when it may still be a way off and is not imminent reality. However, if we should develop a life limiting illness, although not unbearably suffering, would we feel emotionally pressured by the burden we may be placing on our loved ones, into making the decision to end our life sooner than we would choose to I wonder?

Yes, many of us who have witnessed awful deaths. after prologned illness and increased loss of independence and dignity- and were very much affected, in so many ways- would take this into consideration. I do not want my ACs to have years of their lives and their children's and spouses lives, affected really negatively by watching me in increasing pain and loss of dignity. They would not pressure me- but I would very much take it into consideration as one of the factors for my decision. Nothing wrong with this

Yes that’s what I mean Fleurpepper. It may be an emotional pressure within ourselves, not the wicked relatives aiming to get their hands on our house and dosh, which may be the argument against by some.
I just don’t know.

This bill won't stop family seeing you decline for years as it is supposed to be for the terminally ill with a max of six months to live.

theworriedwell
Yes as it stands it is 6 months. My worry is that there is a body of opinion who believe that should be extended to degenerative diseases like Dementia. Mission creep by those who don't believe in a soul.
Some of this belief is based on some people who follow people who believe in concepts such as "Assembly theory" and the concept of life through evolution. Every respect to these academics. I disagree on their belief regarding a soul.
The basis of the thinking is that through physical (chemistry, physics and biology) actions reacting to external stimuli there is an output. Physically we see this when Icicles grow in an ordered non chaotic pattern. Clearly it isn't alive but the process can be extrapolated on the molecular level and lower.
Elsewhere atoms come together, molecules are formed and amino acids are generated, furthermore in "biology" where replication and life happens via complex structures and interactions between DNA that is formed and genetic coding and replication. So having a soul or being alive (not being dead) are merely outputs of complex reactions at the micro scale (quantum mechanics) manifesting themselves. To date these have been irreversible reactions. Can you reverse being dead even at the cellular microscopic level.....???
So if one doesn't believe in purposeful creation and we are merely to be defined as outputs of a lab experiment, then yes if the entity "person" is unhappy; of no economic benefit and a collectively a "burden" then yes.....like a pet or a useless car put it too sleep. There is a blur being created between a living human soul and inanimate things.

I don’t believe in a “soul” but am a humanist, believing that science and natural selection are more credible explanations for life than a supernatural god. However I have many doubts about the proposed Bill on AD as it stands at the moment.

I do believe in a soul and, personally speaking, that is one of my own reasons for believing in the right to voluntary euthanasia for anyone that has decided on this for themselves.

This is a primitive planet - with a noticeable proportion of people on it primitive (wars, crimes, huge disparities in income....do I need to say more?) and part of that is these very fallible bodies we have to live in whilst we're here. To me - it's a LOT to have to make the best we can out of living on Earth and I certainly wouldn't want to add being forced to live in a body that was experiencing a lot of illness. To me - why on earth would I want to live in a particularly faulty body (as well as a faulty Society) and I think it's cruel to keep people alive against their will/rather than provide them with the means of "voluntary euthanasia" if their health dictates that as an option and they've made that decision.

So - yep...I think people of most belief systems and none would agree it should be our own personal free choice as to what we do if our health becomes unbearable.

My personal viewpoint is "Why on earth would anyone suffer and wait it out for release from pain/suffering - when they can be free of all suffering/having that (virtual) champagne at the heavenly Welcome Home party at the end of it all?" Cue for everyone I know for long at all gets told "If I have the family heart attack in front of you = do NOT resuscitate me whilst I'm busily thinking 'Thank goodness - goodbye to Earth' and having my first glass of virtual champagne to celebrate.

Thank you, Old Frill, for the good photos . I am so sorry for the poor of this country who ,at £15,000 at Dignitas , can't afford a good death.

theworriedwell

That link is chilling. The fantasy of the perfect death blown out of the water.

I've expressed my reservations on other threads based on the truly horrific experience if my beautiful dog suffering a painful terrifying death. It seemed like she had some terrible reaction to the drugs.

I'm very sorry to ear that. It must have been horrible for you.

In my experience, I've had several pets put to sleep and have been with all but two of them. They were given a drug which sent them into a deep sleep, or so it seemed seemed, followed by the second one. It was peaceful and they didn't seem to know anything about it.

What was far worse for me was finding one of our dogs killed and laying by the side of the road. He was blind and he pushed open a gate that we thought was closed. He went missing on a Tuesday and we found him the Friday morning. we'd been out calling him, putting up posters and leafleting. We had two calls from people who'd seen him but because he didn't have a disc on his collar they assumed that they couldn't tell anyone about him.

Having gone through a drawn out death with both my parents I would not wish that on anyone and would prefer a legal, self administered death.

I find this discussion interesting because there is little about the beginning of life. So many changes have been made to medical procedures which enable young babies to stay alive but also advancements that can affect everyone's life so why not accept the changes that could affect the end of our life?

How are the two connected Dinahmo?

Dinahmo

I find this discussion interesting because there is little about the beginning of life. So many changes have been made to medical procedures which enable young babies to stay alive but also advancements that can affect everyone's life so why not accept the changes that could affect the end of our life?

I think I mentioned this in my post which is several pages ago now.
Farzanah I think the premise is we didn't know where we were before we were born therefore how will we know where we are going after we die?

Quite simply some people would say, 'nowhere,' so what does it matter.

I make a case for human infants are born completely helpless and in need of the care of other humans to help us survive. Therefore we need at the very least, other humans to protect and care for us.

Why not the same in dying? What is wrong with caring for the sick and helpless, it is a very important part of what makes us human.

We are neither animals nor machines.

Maybe there should be a case for a speciality such as midwifery at the start of life, to a similar role and emphasis on a nurse who would be there on a final journey?

Of course we have the hospice movement and Macmillan and Marie Curie nurses, but these roles would be under threat if AD without very strict criteria were introduced. If this Bill is passed we will quickly realise that for some it doesn't go far enough, for others it will be misapplied and subject to misinterpretation and abuse.

It isn't a very positive outlook except for the 'I want to to do what I want with my body' brigade.