Assisted dying bill

A DNR is not the same thing Galaxy.

Likewise, if people impose their beliefs that assisted dying isn't OK, then those beliefs will negatively impact those who do not share their beliefs.

If people impose their beliefs that assisted dying is ok, then those beliefs will negatively impact the most vulnerable in society.
I dont believe the reassurances. They put inappropriate DNR s on people with learning disabilities during covid.

And for their loved ones, who want to support help, not to be threatened with prosecution, as has been the case for many.

It is not for everyone but for those desperate to end their own suffering it is a much needed option my thoughts exactly Babs.

I have CAtholic cousins who have fallen out because the daughters agreed for him to be incinerated, as he had made a clear choice before his death, and a clear request. His sister said they could not go with his wishes, as he was a practising Catholic. The same beliefs in Islam. Should those who do not want to be cremated, for religious or other reasons, stop others from doing so.

Same with contraception, and many other things.

Fleurpepper

Kalm 'I don't trust the state to decide when people should die.'

the present bill will not allow the state to decide, but the person themselves. Muslims, Jews, Christians or agnostics, will not have to either. But some do want that choice, to make the decision themselves, for themselves and self administered.

I have total respect for the belief that death should occur naturally, when someone's God decides. But then surely modern medicine and treatments, blood transfusions and drugs, chemo and radiotherapy, modern machinery which keeps someone alive way beyond 'nature' or 'religious destiny', should all be avoided too.

This bill is about giving those people who choose to, the choice. No-one will ask anyone else to do so. So if your religious beliefs go against, then this is totally fine, for YOU. But please, don't impose your beliefs, religious or otherwise, for making MY choice, or anyone else's.

Well said.
At the end of the day only the person themselves can decide, not the state, not relatives, and the person will have to be in full control of their mental state 6 months before they are due to shuffle off this mortal coil.
Those against this will not be pressured into it for even if they have the beginnings of dementia or are mentally vulnerable, a point at which all elderly people fear pushy relatives could pressure them quite easily, they will not qualify for assisted dying due to their mental state.
It is not for everyone bit for those desperate to end their own suffering it is a much needed option.

Kalm 'I don't trust the state to decide when people should die.'

the present bill will not allow the state to decide, but the person themselves. Muslims, Jews, Christians or agnostics, will not have to either. But some do want that choice, to make the decision themselves, for themselves and self administered.

I have total respect for the belief that death should occur naturally, when someone's God decides. But then surely modern medicine and treatments, blood transfusions and drugs, chemo and radiotherapy, modern machinery which keeps someone alive way beyond 'nature' or 'religious destiny', should all be avoided too.

This bill is about giving those people who choose to, the choice. No-one will ask anyone else to do so. So if your religious beliefs go against, then this is totally fine, for YOU. But please, don't impose your beliefs, religious or otherwise, for making MY choice, or anyone else's.

B9exchange

There are observations you can do, observing heart rate, breathing patterns etc.

People who have been anaesthetised but remained awake during surgery have said they were in agony but unable to communicate. There didn't seem to be any adverse readings/observations that showed the patients weren't anaesthetised correctly and we're in pain.

B9exchange

There are observations you can do, observing heart rate, breathing patterns etc.

But what is this "state of unconsciousness"? How long does it last? Is nutrition/fluid continued? Has the person consented? Is the person able to consent, what is the criteria for consent?

I uphold people’s right to choose to die in the very specific circumstances, with all the safeguards, that are proposed. It is a free vote, and MPs will be fully aware of the proposal before they vote.

There are observations you can do, observing heart rate, breathing patterns etc.

B9exchange

"If this bill passes, soon there will be a call for amendments and extensions etc and the momentum of this kind of narrow thinking will get carried away with itself"

Just exactly this. Do not for one moment think that it will stop at those expected to die within six months. There will be appeals to the ECHR that this is unfair on those who are finding life intolerable, and they will succeed. Then it will be those with severe depression. Then young people who are stuggling in life. Look at Canada. And for all the elderly who are needing more and more expensive care, perhaps it won't be their family putting the pressure on to save their inheritance, but they themsleves. A 'right to die' very quickly becomes 'a duty to die'

There should be more information available on what the normal process of dying looks like. See Kathryn Mannix talking about it on this TED talk www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f6twy70iM Those of us who have nursed the dying know that if pain actually is intolerable, which is rarer than you think, despite what you have heard, then patients can be eased into unconsciousness.

If this is voted through, which I fear it will be, then just watch the rapid expansion in scope.

"What does "eased into unconsciousness mean"?
How do you know an unconscious person is pain free if they can't tell you?

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.

keepingquiet

I have seen many people die- I can't think of any I would label 'undignified.'

Maybe things have changed in palliative care- but I think that's part of my point.

If we choose the 'easy' option then less and less will be done to help the dying. A self-fulfilling prophesy really.

Those who choose dignity form an orderly queue please!

I can assure you that both my mother's death and that of my MiL, who both had dementia, were anything but dignified.

"If this bill passes, soon there will be a call for amendments and extensions etc and the momentum of this kind of narrow thinking will get carried away with itself"

Just exactly this. Do not for one moment think that it will stop at those expected to die within six months. There will be appeals to the ECHR that this is unfair on those who are finding life intolerable, and they will succeed. Then it will be those with severe depression. Then young people who are stuggling in life. Look at Canada. And for all the elderly who are needing more and more expensive care, perhaps it won't be their family putting the pressure on to save their inheritance, but they themsleves. A 'right to die' very quickly becomes 'a duty to die'

There should be more information available on what the normal process of dying looks like. See Kathryn Mannix talking about it on this TED talk www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f6twy70iM Those of us who have nursed the dying know that if pain actually is intolerable, which is rarer than you think, despite what you have heard, then patients can be eased into unconsciousness.

If this is voted through, which I fear it will be, then just watch the rapid expansion in scope.

I have seen many people die- I can't think of any I would label 'undignified.'

Maybe things have changed in palliative care- but I think that's part of my point.

If we choose the 'easy' option then less and less will be done to help the dying. A self-fulfilling prophesy really.

Those who choose dignity form an orderly queue please!

So answer me this then - why do we not let our beloved pets suffer pain and distress when there is no longer any hope for them, yet we cannot do the same for our beloved humans?

I'm really on the fence about it, but I do know that a natural death is often not dignified at all.

I really feel uncomfortable reading words like choice, rights and dignity here.

We don't choose when we're born. We come into the world completely helpless and wouldn't survive if it wasn't for the care of others- maybe parents, maybe others, dependent on the circumstances but no one would walk past an abandoned new born infant. We would want to care for it. This is human nature.

To me then, how can it be for the betterment of humanity that we fool ourselves into thinking we can 'choose' to die?

Dying takes all sorts of forms, and let's face it we have no control over the actions of others that might eventually cause that death. If we are dependent on the signatures of two doctors (and what is the criteria upon which those doctors are 'chosen?) and one judge then the control has been handed to them, not us.

Choice is a mirage, therefore, except for the very rich who can pay their way for such things.

Then there is this word, 'dignity.' Of course we would all hope to die, as we may or may not have lived, with 'dignity.'

To say assisted dying is a way to go with dignity then the implication is that just dying naturally, as a result of illness or old age, has no dignity?

It seems to me that some in society are building an illusion of control and dignity because so many don't have direct experience of death, or have been badly let down by those who should have cared better, or even believe that death should be clean and clinical, like having a quick fix, or going to the dentist.

I find the whole thing abhorrent.

However, this isn't about me or my moral, spiritual or social values. It is about how we as a society care for the weak, the sick and the vulnerable. We may all be so one day.

If this bill passes, soon there will be a call for amendments and extensions etc and the momentum of this kind of narrow thinking will get carried away with itself.

When I think of these calls for choice, rights, and dignity I think of Rob Burrows. If you haven't heard of him then look him up. He raised awareness of Motor neurone disease for which there are now multiple research studies being undertaken. He raised millions for improved medical and nursing care. He showed great dignity in his illness and gradual decline and never once spoke of choice or rights. His family and friends showed what it is to care and live with dignity.

I know my mother would have taken the option of assisted dying, had it been available to her. She had stated so on many occasions before the dementia took hold of her - having cared for relatives with dementia in the past, and she did not want to go that way.

Fleurpepper

AGAA4- I am so so sorry you had to witness you father is such pain and that the morphine didn't help in the end.

But I truly do not understand your last sentence at all. Sincerely and with all my heart, I do not. Why?

I believe my husband (not my father) would have wanted to die naturally which he did 18 months after the few months he was given. The reason I think he may have wanted to die sooner was to spare our then 11 year old daughter from the trauma of watching him suffer as well as our other children.
For myself I would definitely want the choice of ending a life that had become unbearable.

biglouis

I believe passionately in the right to end my own life and have enough barbiturates to do it several times over. I dont need to go to court and ask doctors and judges to authorize it.

When the time comes I will make my own arrangements. When you live alone its not a problem as you dont involve anyone else and put them at risk. You just tell people your going away for a few days. The great thing about mobiles is that no one knows where you are calling from. So you can tell them you arrived safely at "your friends" house. By the time they realise they havnt heard back from you the deed is done.

I respect that. You hopefully had a good or at least tolerable life and now you are choosing to have a good death. For so many this isn't an option. And I for one don't want to have to rely upon the medical profession to give me a good death when I have several friends who died a terrible death because palliative care wasn't up to scratch, others were given a wonderful care at the end, but it isn't consistent and I don't want to sign up to a lottery.
Like you I want to have that final choice.

Hmm, well I'll find a link and post it.
When I can remember,

MissAdventure

The concoction needed is 3/4 of a pint of very caustic fluids, which need to be taken quickly, I saw yesterday.

It's important that people also know the facts regarding this, so that they don't imagine floating gently away.

Not as much as that, and not caustic, but bitter. And yes, they do ^float away gently' - very much so. It is also possible to administer intraveinously, and for the person to just trigger the action. No bitterness and even faster. The method used by Pegasos, in Switzerland.