Assisted dying bill

I would have agreed at one time, but a documentary I watched changed my mindset.

A man was left with "locked in sydrome" after a motorbike accident.

He was an adventurer, a daredevil, free spirit and rocker, taking off on his bike to explore new places and meet new people.

Over the years, in discussions with family, he had said it was his biggest fear to not be able to live freely, and that he would want and expect to allowed to die if that became the case.

His family wanted only the best for him, and took further action to ensure his wishes were honoured.

The last week or so loomed, and it became clear that he could communicate by blinking.

He was given time to practice, against his families wishes, but having been asked, in numerous ways, he made clear that he did not want the ventilator switched off, and wished to carry on living.

Story I heard from a COVID ward. Retired doctor who had always promoted DNRs and against fighting the inevitable. When told he wouldn't be getting a place in ICU and a ventilator due to his age and little hope of survival his life time beliefs went straight out the window. He wanted every treatment going and wanted to fight till the end. Who knows how we will feel in that position.

It's about shortening the death process, not ending life yes it is Cabowich.

MissAdventure

That's my point, Cariad

People think ahead, assuming that their mindset now is the same as it will be if they have dementia, for example.

It won't be, for some people. For others, yes.

I would have thought for most people their mindset would be the same - dementia or no (except that dementia might mean they didn't know what they thought on a basic issue??).

I can only speak for myself and I know that - over the 70 odd years to date that I've had - that my fundamental opinions haven't changed at all. Superficial ones - like which particular political party to vote for, which way to dress, which way to eat have all changed. But absolutely fundamental basic ones have remained exactly the same all that time, ie:
- bodily autonomy (ie I and I alone make all my decisions for myself)
- I never had the slightest wish to have children (and made sure I didn't)
- wanting to eat healthily
- hoping to meet The One and get married - but I was never going to marry anyone else and if I never met Him = I'd never get married (I never did meet Him - so I never did get married)
- general expectations of leading a fairly standard middle-class lifestyle (haven't darn well had the money to do so much of the time - but that was/is the target that I regard as "mine").
- which church I was in - which is latterly "Do what you want as long as no-one is harmed"

Hence I think most people will have a fundamental basic set of tenets that are highly unlikely to change. Both my parents got dementia come the end - but I didn't detect any change in their Basic Opinions about life in any way. What I did notice was that their basic character got exacerbated - my father is basically a nice person/pretty overall tolerant/has always done what my mother wanted (!) and he stopped the "standing on principles" he was very much known for (as he no longer had the brainpower to argue his corner better than anyone else - as he had vascular dementia) and so he "softened" rather. My mother - it took me a long time to realise what my father had known for some time, ie that she obviously had PTSD (not that surprising in the circumstances) and she was much more reserved/didn't really like people very much and had a (really b*tchy) temper and she became a lot more like that (ie antisocial/the temper got stronger/she "withdrew" from everyone except her son and his wife - ie my erstwhile brother - more and more as time went on).

So yep temperament changes - but basic strongly-held opinions don't imo.

Cabowich

I hope that it gets through too - it's something I believe in very strongly.

Whether people want to go through the agony of dying of something like cancer should be down to personal choice. Having a low pain threshold, I certainly don't want to suffer like that and I would very much resent being told I had to because of misguided do-gooders.

There's a good headline on the BBC news website ATM. It's about shortening the death process, not ending life (as the people it concerns are dying anyway).

We're all dying. One day closer every day. Why does anyone get convicted of murder?

I can see that, I think though that if it is introduced with workable guidance, a lot of people who actively choose to die will benefit. I don’t have any feel for how frequently it might be used, if we assumed that the guidance was watertight and only used appropriately, which I appreciate is a big assumption. Id really like to see the detail of the guidance.

Oh sorry I misunderstood what you were asking I think.
I am afraid whatever safeguards they detail (and the ones in the public domain are quite strict in some sense) I wont trust the implementation for the vulnerable and those who might be coerced.
Coercion happens in all sorts of ways, it's why women stay in intolerable situations, etc. It is often very difficult for us on the outside to see and understand.

Galaxy

Do you mean the proposed guidance on how it will be applied Casdon, FP summarised it upthread, the BBC have a very similar summary of the proposals. I havent read anything that isnt in the general public domain if that's what you mean.

Yes, I’ve seen what is in the news, I did mean had you seen the detailed proposals for implementation which it said were to be debated. I’m reluctant to pass comment until seeing what the safeguards actually are in detail, but I think it’s likely that a lot of the fears expressed on this thread will be addressed. Hopefully there is more information to come.

Hell doesn't exist I'm sure. Personally I don't know about Heaven and the rest, but we wouldn't be able to imagine & be scared of Hell if there weren't so many reminders of torture & suffering here on earth. That's why it's so vivid & such good propaganda. New Testament & even the old Testament hardly mention Hell.
I am glad the bill is being brought forward, wrote to my MP in support of it & he replied that he intended to support it.

Do you mean the proposed guidance on how it will be applied Casdon, FP summarised it upthread, the BBC have a very similar summary of the proposals. I havent read anything that isnt in the general public domain if that's what you mean.

That's my point, Cariad

People think ahead, assuming that their mindset now is the same as it will be if they have dementia, for example.

It won't be, for some people. For others, yes.

Hell is just a threat to keep the masses in order. It doesn't exist anymore than Heaven, Purgatory or Limbo.

MissAdventure

So if the current situation is very far from ideal, is it the right time to be introducing something as far reaching as assisted dying, or whatever it will be called?

Obviously choices made by people who are suffering pain, indifference, confusion about who to turn to, lack of, or poor care aren't going to be carefully thought out and considered, and done for the right reasons.

I would think that most people have made up their own minds what their personal decision is should it come to it.

I know I've been telling all people close by to me that, should I keel over with the family heart attack (ie as both sides of my family are VERY prone to having) = "do NOT touch me under any circumstances and I presume to clobber anyone who brings me back round with a defibrillator". That was my view before I knew they are likely to get cracked ribs and spend weeks in pain from that machine and it's even more so now I do know. Everyone that gets that close to me has known for years "Revive me at your peril if that happens - and I do have a will made out".

My father had also certainly made out a DNR thing on file for himself when he felt the end coming near. I think probably the only reason my mother didn't do the same is the way I found out she was more Catholic than Anglican come the end and believed she'd "go to Hell" if she did that. I handed realised she had that sort of belief system - because it had looked so like she was an Anglican for years as far as I knew.

I've got someone I'm friendly with now who is in my agegroup and dying of cancer. She knows it - and she is being so "organised" in how she is dealing with it and I don't know if she's made out a Will or living will - but I know she asked me the procedure for making out a will months back now and I duly informed her how that gets done.

So I think many people do "think ahead" on that one.

So if the current situation is very far from ideal, is it the right time to be introducing something as far reaching as assisted dying, or whatever it will be called?

Obviously choices made by people who are suffering pain, indifference, confusion about who to turn to, lack of, or poor care aren't going to be carefully thought out and considered, and done for the right reasons.

Galaxy

Yes I have read the guidelines. There were guidelines about DNR's that werent followed. There are very serious discrepancies in care for particular groups in all aspects of medical care, I have no reason to believe that this will be any different.

The guidelines related to the bill I meant? I heard it being discussed on the radio earlier, and thought they sounded very prescriptive regarding the circumstances in which they could be used. I couldn’t find them online though, so if you have seen them, could you post as I think it would aid this discussion?

I think it has been said that people just want to know that if and when their pain is too much they have the option to end their lives. In their own home maybe, with people they love, or be alone. Their choice when and where.
It means that decisions aren’t needed to be made early as going to Switzerland requires reasonable health and strength to travel and go through the process. It’s also very expensive and unless things have changed the premises used are empty flats on industrial estates which are changed regularly because of neighbours objections, not much Dignity there.
I am with choice, here, and while I acknowledge the possibility of coercion, still maintain the law should be changed.

GrannyGravy13

I wish I had your trust in the NHS here in the U.K. Fleurpepper

There have been far too many cases of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals being anything but professional. I personally have little trust that there would not be coercion in some circumstances.

Each time there is a case against a hospital, doctor, nurse the same old phrase is trotted out lessons will be learnt unfortunately to date they haven’t been.

I would far rather they get the current system up to standard, no one should die in pain, the drugs are available to prevent this.

I would far rather they get the current system up to standard, no one should die in pain, the drugs are available to prevent this.

Getting 'the current system up to standard' would take decades - there isn't the funding, the staff, the equipment, the beds, I'm not even sure there is the will.

And not all terminally-ill people die in pain - sometimes, if they've lost the ability to control the swallowing reflex, they choke.

I hate the idea of assisted-dying, but whatever my misgivings, they are my own misgivings which doesn't give me the moral right to decide that everyone else should abide by them.

Yes I have read the guidelines. There were guidelines about DNR's that werent followed. There are very serious discrepancies in care for particular groups in all aspects of medical care, I have no reason to believe that this will be any different.

It's worth considering that what seems unbearable now can change as someone's mental capacity diminishes.

In other words, having a singalong might be quite acceptable when you've little brain activity for much else.

The clear proposals are

be over 18 and live in England and Wales, and have been registered with a GP for at least 12 months
have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure
be expected to die within six months
make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die
satisfy two independent doctors that they are eligible - with at least seven days between each doctors' assessment

A High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors, and can question the dying person, or anyone else considered relevant.

After the judge has made their ruling, a patient would have to wait another 14 days before acting.

A doctor would prepare the substance being used to end the patient's life, but the person would take it themselves.

It would be illegal to pressure or coerce someone into declaring they want to end their life, carrying a possible 14-year prison sentence.

Galaxy

I know what a DNR is. I am using it as an example of lack of safeguards within medical care for vulnerable people whether that is those with a disability or those who may be coerced.
I suppose the question is who wins. I know who will win and it wont be the most vulnerable.

Have you read the guidance? I think it’s wrong to make assumptions about safeguards if you haven’t?

I am in two minds about this bill. On the one hand I do agree with many of the comments on this as we would not let our cat or dog suffer would we? However, on the other hand I do worry that some vulnerable people could be put under pressure by relatives wanting to speed up their inheritance. I don't know how these situations could be fully identified.

The ones who will win are the ones who meet the criteria and are able to choose how and when they die.

I absolutely believe in us all having the legal right to voluntary euthanasia should we decide to.

I long ago decided that if ever I need that then I will have it.

People should absolutely have the choice as to whether to have palliative care (and it should be good-quality care - and I still recall a tv programme made by a reporter that was dying and had loads of pain, but he didn't feel any of it at all - because he'd seen a pain management specialist and was receiving exactly the cocktail of drugs he needed in order not to feel a thing). We should all have the medical care he had if we needed that and had decided to.

On the other hand people should absolutely have the chance to have voluntary euthanasia if that's what they have decided on.

I've watched both my parents go through years of being kept "artificially alive" as I call it and both of them wanted to go come the end. I'm not daft - and I do know what my father was doing come those last few weeks in a nursing home apres the start of Lockdown in 2020 when an incautious member of staff told me he was throwing himself against the walls. I also knew what my mother was doing when she got pneumonia not forever before that and the nursing staff (she was in hospital) told me "She was taking the drugs to start with and now she's refusing to do so" and looked to see what my opinion was as "eldest child" and I said "You are to do whatever option it is that she wants herself. If she wants them = she gets them. If she doesn't want them = she doesnt get them". It is her life...her choice. Basically - I'm living with the fact that both my parents made the same choice come the end - him with his throwing himself against the wall, her with the food "battles" she had with carers trying to make her eat and her doing her best not to do so.

I made my own choice long ago for myself - ie that I would take no account whatsoever of whatever Society does or doesn't do and, if I felt too ill to live = I would not live and would "take matters into my own hands". Obviously I hope it will all come to an end quickly/quietly/painlessly of itself come the time (whenever it is). I know this is a possibility for me - because I did die once before (years ago) and had one of those nde (near death experiences) people are increasingly talking about.....but, as can be seen, I wasn't allowed to "go" at that time.

But if ever I had a noticeable amount of pain that couldn't (more likely wouldnt) be dealt with by medics = I would deal with things myself. I simply wouldnt put up with anything I defined as a noticeable amount of pain and that would be that (regardless of the state of the law at the time - and, in fact, I'd rather handle it myself personally than go to medics for it). But I appreciate many people would prefer to go to a doctor about it if life became unbearable - and I think they should have that chance if need be.

I know what a DNR is. I am using it as an example of lack of safeguards within medical care for vulnerable people whether that is those with a disability or those who may be coerced.
I suppose the question is who wins. I know who will win and it wont be the most vulnerable.