Assisted dying bill

Macmillan were worse than useless, in my experience, and I can only hope whatever or whoever took on the assisted dying training did a damn site better.

'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.'

nothing wrong with it at all. Both should be available, as a choice. One of my best friends recently died at a wonderful, amazing hospice, full of amazing people and care. I am so so grateful she was looked after so lovingly well in her last few days.

It is not, and never has been, about 'either/or'- but about choice. And for all. The comment about the 'I want to do what I want with my body' ''brigade'' - is just appalingly unfair, patronising and disrespectful in the extreme.

I rarely come on the politics thread, for I am neither robust enough nor knowledgeable to hold my own.
However, I have written to my MP asking him to vote against the Bill.

I will never forget at the beginning of the pandemic, when I was told by my Consultant that a DNR notice had been put on my record in the event of me catching Covid. I was not consulted on this.
Basically I would be depriving someone with a chance of survival, of a bed in ICU, when there was no chance of me surviving.
In other words, my life was worthless and even more frightening, someone else held my fate in their hands.
Who has the right to decide whether someone should live or die.
How many will feel that they are a burden on their family and assisted suicide is the right thing to do?

Not Dead Yet UK is a network of disabled and terminally ill people, who believe, if the Bill is passed, some people's lives will be ended prematurely, due to mistakes and abuse.
No safeguards can guarantee protection from coercion.

both should be available, as a choice
If only they were. Unfortunately hospices are underfunded and struggling with some having to close. There are nurses and doctors trained in palliative care, but far too few, and good home palliative care rarely available.

Some of us may prefer to die at home with support or in a hospice, but many will simply not have that choice, and possibly end our days on a busy hospital ward.

I would be more enthusiastic about the AD Bill if these options were available for end of life care for most of us, but they are not.

These are good points Marydoll.

Marydoll, DNR andassisted dying have very little, actually nothing, in common.

So Farzanah, because the UK's palliative facilities are so poor- everyone should be forced to endure massive pain, loss of indepence and dignity, to the bitter end?

So sorry, but I truly don't get it.

Well if this worked as proposed, clearly no one would be forced to endure massive pain, loss of independence and loss of dignity to the bitter end. But I think Marydoll makes a very valid point. This bill would not work as is proposed, that is clear from what has happened in Canada. Undoubtedly the bill would be tampered with, watered down, and changes made as time went on. It would be the beginning of the end. Excellent palliative care should be the goal, not killing people.

Fleurpepper, I beg to differ.

I could not overturn that DNR notice, because a clinician had decided my fate. There was no way of rescinding it. I.e, some nameless clinician had determined my fate.

Assisted dying is open to abuse, where someone may be coerced into assisted dying by someone, other than the person themself. I.e someone, who has no right to make the decision about another's fate.

What kind of society have we become?
How do we determine that a person is mentally capable of choosing to die? Chronic pain and ill health can affect how we feel and deminishes our cognitive ability and ability to make informed decisions.
I speak as someone, who has experienced this on a number of occasions.
I certainly have had thoughts on numerous occasions, that I am a burden to my family and a drain on the NHS and it would be better for everyone if I wasn't here.

In a rich country such as ours WHY are adequate funds not being put into palliative care, which would also benefit the NHS. It is a political choice.

Call me cynical but the AD Bill seems to me to be a “convenient” solution.

I totally understand where MD is coming from. There was a huge outcry when the extent of the DNR blanket application became known. It can never be ethical or justified to sacrifice vulnerable citizens because of the government’s inability to plan for a not unexpected pandemic.
George Orwell got it right!

Farzanah

In a rich country such as ours WHY are adequate funds not being put into palliative care, which would also benefit the NHS. It is a political choice.

Call me cynical but the AD Bill seems to me to be a “convenient” solution.

I totally understand where MD is coming from. There was a huge outcry when the extent of the DNR blanket application became known. It can never be ethical or justified to sacrifice vulnerable citizens because of the government’s inability to plan for a not unexpected pandemic.
George Orwell got it right!

Far from unexpected "pandemic" for sure. I actually watched the tv (BBC I think?) programme a year or two before Lockdown and they were running a sort of "science" experiment in a small town seeing how people went about their daily business and making out that some people in that town had a Big Virus and watching the "virtual" spread of that virus round the town. From memory the Government was either behind or watching that experiment programme and made plans accordingly. That was just before (by some months?) Covid reared its head anywhere. The Government DID plan but when it came to it they pretty much abandoned those plans they'd already made and did what the WHO wanted instead...

I think some of us realised at that point "Not much longer - and this is going to be happening in the real world" and I know I certainly had the very surreal experience of walking round the little rural town I live in now and thinking "I'm used to this town being much quieter than my home city and finding the streets pretty empty most of the time compared to what I'm used to - but why have I got this thing running through me that this town is going to be much emptier than it normally is very soon now? Why am I planning places I can go for walks that vehicles can't manage? (that turned out to be all those police cars patrolling the streets)." I think there must have been others as well that took that tv programme and/or intuition as Advance Notice there was going to be a Lockdown soon. That felt very wierd knowing there was one coming soon and wondering what we'd be told was the reason for it and having this surreal "Walking through a Living Graveyard" vibes thing going on in my head...

So - yep...the "game was up" as to what was coming some months before we'd heard of Covid and then Lockdown was announced.

Farzanah: Call me cynical but the AD Bill seems to me to be a “convenient” solution.

I have similar thoughts.

madalene

Well if this worked as proposed, clearly no one would be forced to endure massive pain, loss of independence and loss of dignity to the bitter end. But I think Marydoll makes a very valid point. This bill would not work as is proposed, that is clear from what has happened in Canada. Undoubtedly the bill would be tampered with, watered down, and changes made as time went on. It would be the beginning of the end. Excellent palliative care should be the goal, not killing people.

Yes, this!

The bill is ill-timed, too complex and hasn't taken into account the complicating factors around how it will be funded, the roles of the GPs and the high court judge (s) whose job is really to weigh up whether justice is being served in any situation, and not approving a death sentence on a particular individual.

The risks are that MPs (most of whom are new to their jobs and only just finding their way around) will not have time to read through and consider the pros and cons of what would happen if they voted yes. This means they could be more open to pressures in their mail-box than they normally would. They could vote either way without having had time to think about how it will impact of NHS resources, for example.
If it is passed then the process is open to more scrutiny because it is just too complicated- therefore leaving it open to either not being used at all or in very rare circumstances, or mis-used. Either way I am very uncomfortable about it.

No doubt if it thrown out it will only be a matter of time before the matter is raised again.

Marydoll 'Fleurpepper, I beg to differ.

I could not overturn that DNR notice, because a clinician had decided my fate. There was no way of rescinding it. I.e, some nameless clinician had determined my fate'

but that is my point entirely- you were not given the choice. The choice was not given to you for you to make.

Whereas in Assisted Dying- the choice would be yours, and yours only.

Because of where I live, I do have that choice btw. Witthout travelling, without putting my loved ones at risk of prosecution, and even in my own home, just as I would decide. And every step would be taken to ensure I am perfectly compos mentis, and that NO coercion whatsoever has taken place. And having that choice cost me a very small amount a year. I am so so grateful, and so is my OH who has seen and witnessed so much in his job. And we both feel strongly our UK family and friends should have that choice too.

So many of them have asked us 'if ever we need this, can we come to yours?' - and the answer has to be 'NO' as you ahve to be resident in Switzerland. Dignitas or Pegasos are their only choice- but it costs about £15000 + travel, hôtels, etc. It puts UK loved ones at risk of prosecution, and you have to go early to be fit enough to travel. How fair is this? Just available for the rich?

We are of course volunteers to help people once here, if they need a hand to hold and physical and emotional support. But why should they have to travel to here? This is so so wrong and elitist in the wrongest possible of ways.

From the Guardian
The Swiss Criminal Code of 1942 permitted adults to assist in another’s suicide as long as the motive for doing so was not “selfish”. Doctors are permitted to prescribe drugs for self-administration and to administer. Organisations providing assisted suicide have been providing services under certain regulations since 1985. Assisted suicide is lawful irrespective of the condition of the person who requests it.

Is this up to date and correct Fleurpepper? If so there are a couple of things which trouble me.

Fleurpepper, you have ignored my point, that sometimes, due to chronic pain, people are not able rationalise and make informed decisions about their treatment or wellbeing and may make a choice, which on better day, they would not make.
As I have said before, I have been in that position, where I have been in despair and had enough of chronic pain and ill health. That is what makes the the situation open to abuse.
Have you been in that position?

How wonderful that you have people, who would ensure you were able to make the decision if necessary.
You can only speak for yourself and not everyone will be in the position you claim to be in.
It is not about you, but about protecting those vulnerable people, who don't have the protection you have. Who will speak out for them?

I have tempered my reply, because I would probably find my post being deleted.

I can't debate with Wes Streeting as his opinion isn't about NHS funding, the state of healthcare or protecting the vulnerable, it stems from his faith. He's demonstrated he's self serving to the core.

Marydoll

*Fleurpepper*, you have ignored my point, that sometimes, due to chronic pain, people are not able rationalise and make informed decisions about their treatment or wellbeing and may make a choice, which on better day, they would not make.
As I have said before, I have been in that position, where I have been in despair and had enough of chronic pain and ill health. That is what makes the the situation open to abuse.
Have you been in that position?

How wonderful that you have people, who would ensure you were able to make the decision if necessary.
You can only speak for yourself and not everyone will be in the position you claim to be in.
It is not about you, but about protecting those vulnerable people, who don't have the protection you have. Who will speak out for them?

I have tempered my reply, because I would probably find my post being deleted.

I applaud your stance on this. To find a DNR, usually only made with patient consent, or family if patient wishes known, must have been terrifying.
During a pandemic many people will die, that is the nature of pandemic, however much planning is done. But to deliberately refuse to help someone in need, whatever age, because of their incapacity or learning difficulty, was the dark side of Medicine .
Well said, and you're very brave to stand up against this terrible Bill.

I totally agree with Marydoll as do a lot of the current Labour Government Ministers of State

I have listened to them being interviewed on the morning news programmes for several weeks now, and they all say the same thing they have concerns around safe guarding

I have doubts about this Bill and couldn’t vote for it in its present form if I was an MP.

I hope Gransnetters will email their MPs to let them know what they think. There are quite a few groups lobbying MPs and I think plenty of individual opinions should be heard, not least from older folk.

Farzanah

From the Guardian
The Swiss Criminal Code of 1942 permitted adults to assist in another’s suicide as long as the motive for doing so was not “selfish”. Doctors are permitted to prescribe drugs for self-administration and to administer. Organisations providing assisted suicide have been providing services under certain regulations since 1985. Assisted suicide is lawful irrespective of the condition of the person who requests it.

Is this up to date and correct Fleurpepper? If so there are a couple of things which trouble me.

I do not know of anyone in Switzerland who has had the drugs prescribed for self administration. Most people who wish to have the choice, one day, but not urgently- will join Exit. They will receive publications and have the choice of going to AGM once a year, or contact the office with questions, etc. For the small sum of about £40 a year. Only people who think that if one day this maybe their choice to get out of massive pain, loss of independence and dignity- will make an advanced directive, let their family know, and their GP or medical team. So if and when the day comes, then the choice is sort of already made.

The doctor will then prescribe the drugs, when the person requests it, for Exit to come and assist and help, to make sure interviews take place, with the person on their own- to ensure no hesitation and no coercion, on two separate occasions, including on the day. All is filmed and the evidence given to Police for Judge. Some of the trained volunteers are doctors, but never part of the medical treatment team. Most are not.

Marydoll, I am so sorry you have at times felt in such pain and despair that you feel you could be at risk of asking for assistance to end it all. No I have never been in that situation, and I consider myself very lucky. My mother was, and she was a founder member of Exit- so she had the choice. But in fact, having the choice gave her the courage to continue with the pain and loss of everything, really. Because she knew she could ask at any time. She kept going- and finally turned to the wall and refused food and water, and died a few days later. But the choice, she had.

There are in fact lots of cases where people have said that knowing the choice was there, at any point- gave them the strength anc courage to keep going.

Again, I am very sorry you have been through such torment, and wish you the very best. And YOUR CHOICE- and your choice alone.

Freya, Assisted Dying has nothing at all to do with the DNR. Confusing and mixing the two is just so wrong.

They do have something in common, patients having no control over whether they live or die.

Interesting reading:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/canada-mps-university-of-michigan-national-institutes-of-health-university-of-toronto-b2352321.html

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/canada-assisted-dying-laws-in-spotlight-as-expansion-paused-again

To me the way the Canadian law has evolved is a very good reason not to vote for the Bill. Safeguards agreed at the beginning are watered down as time goes on, and I think it’s quite a warning.

The actress Liz Carr in her documentary on BBC explained why many vulnerable and disabled people find AD threatening.

The Canadian model is unique and no-one, but no-one at all, is considering adopting a model with any similarities to it.

There is no threat to disabled people, however severe, because the law will require for AD to be available only with thos with an estimated 6 months, terminally ill, and if they CHOOSE to ask for help.

To be clear, I have no personal interest in this Bill. I live where the choice will be mine, and all mine, in safe conditions, in my own home, with DH and close family (if they choose to be there), and without the severe restrictions of this proposed Bill.

But I strongly feel that my British family and friends deserve to have the choice if and when they suffer from a terminal condition and they can't bear to continue. I have a long list already of those in the UK who have asked to come to us, if and when. We have explained this is not possible, as to get assistance here you need to be resident in Switzerland, not just a visitor. But we have promised them that we would be there to welcome them, help them with formalities, and hold their hand, if it is what they wish- safe that even though we are British, we could not be prosecuted for helping at this end.

But they really should not have to travel, and go through all the red tape, the massive cost, and the discomfort- and have to make that decision early to be able to do so. They should, just like us, have the choice in the UK. So unfair too that travelling to Switzerland is only available to those with the means to do so- with a cost of £15.000 to 20.===