Assisted dying bill

It includes the old and vulnerable who have an estimated 6 months to live and a terminal illness, and who make the clear, personal choice, to ask for assistance- and who will need the approval of two doctors and supervision by a Judge. It does not include the elderly and vulnerable who do not strictly fit in the criteria above, and a clear, personal CHOICE.

As said, I am passionate about this, because I have the choice. Whatever happens tomorrow will not affect me. Well apart that more family and friends will ask me to hold their hand, if ever they have to travel to get their wish, as their loved ones in the UK will not be able to accompany them, for fear of being prosecuted (well, not the Scottish ones).

This Bill indeed includes the old and vulnerable. Many disabled people for example feel very threatened by it. It’s truly not as straightforward as some would make out.

GG13 'I am totally against the death penalty for criminals, so how can I justify what is in effect suicide assisted by the state'

simple, because it is NOT at all. It is a personal decision to leave before the pain and loss of dignity becomes too much.

This bill isn't about the old and vulnerable and should be discussed and decided upon for what it is.

What chance is there of that happening with ridiculous references to Shipman and Letby?

I am very concerned about how this Bill, if accepted, may alter society in the way we view and treat the very old and vulnerable. I am a reasonably able and fit older person, but was shocked for example when attending for gastroscopy to be asked if I have an Advanced Care Directive in place (DNR).

How will we feel if admitted to hospital and as part of the admission process are asked if we have considered AD? Will it be part of our admission assessment? Will we feel we are taking up valuable NHS resources? Even if not, will we notice a subtle change in care? Lots of queries for me. It’s not that far fetched. Look what happened during the pandemic.

theworriedwell

You only need two doctors like shipman to join up. Don't tell me that is impossible. Before Shipman and Letby people would have scoffed at the idea of what they did. Just because someone is a doctor it doesn't mean they can't be a psychopath.

I think it is very unfair to mention these criminals in this context.

Shipman got his kicks from killing old ladies due to an abuse of power and low risk of being caught.

Letby killed vunerable infants for same reasons.

This is a different issue entirely.

LizzieDrip

I think the practicalities of making this work effectively are causing some MPs to question it, even though they may agree with the principle.

It’s a really tricky issue.

I really hope so. Well intentioned maybe but bad bill and very bad timing. Let's hope common sense prevails.

The more I think about this, the more I become uncomfortable with it.

I totally understand why some people wish to choose to end their life before they get to a point that they lose capacity to make the decision.

Medicine is not always an exact science, mistakes are made and diagnosis along with prognosis can and do change.

I watched an item on the BBC news which highlighted that in several places where AD is available the rules have over time become more encompassing to include mental health for instance.

I am totally against the death penalty for criminals, so how can I justify what is in effect suicide assisted by the state

I think the practicalities of making this work effectively are causing some MPs to question it, even though they may agree with the principle.

It’s a really tricky issue.

Fleurpepper

theworriedwell

You only need two doctors like shipman to join up. Don't tell me that is impossible. Before Shipman and Letby people would have scoffed at the idea of what they did. Just because someone is a doctor it doesn't mean they can't be a psychopath.

No you wouldn't- the two doctors have to respond to your clear request- and this will be supervised by a Judge- who will also ensure YOU requested this, of clear and sound mind. And you then have to take the drug yourself.

So no, sorry, your post does not relate at all, in any way, shape or form, to the proposed Bill.

Fleurpepper are you saying the two doctors and the judge will all be together at the same time to witness you requesting assisted dying? Or that the judge will be present separately with each doctor? I really can't see that working easily. With the pressure already experienced by the judiciary it could easily take months to set that up, by which time some would be dead from their illness.

They haven't said how the judge will be involved. The doctor is in a powerful position to influence the patient. Doctors have gone to prison for abusing patients. It is naive to imagine things can't go wrong and in fact it is dangerous.

theworriedwell

You only need two doctors like shipman to join up. Don't tell me that is impossible. Before Shipman and Letby people would have scoffed at the idea of what they did. Just because someone is a doctor it doesn't mean they can't be a psychopath.

No you wouldn't- the two doctors have to respond to your clear request- and this will be supervised by a Judge- who will also ensure YOU requested this, of clear and sound mind. And you then have to take the drug yourself.

So no, sorry, your post does not relate at all, in any way, shape or form, to the proposed Bill.

You only need two doctors like shipman to join up. Don't tell me that is impossible. Before Shipman and Letby people would have scoffed at the idea of what they did. Just because someone is a doctor it doesn't mean they can't be a psychopath.

nothing, but nothing to do with the example given and Shipman I agree Fleurpepper.

Well, you the Bill requires the decision of TWO doctors, which has to be ratified by a Judge.

Shipman, tragically, put an end to kind and caring doctors, both in and out of hospital, giving inreasing doses of morphine, which they knew would shorten the agonising death of terrible cases, for fear of being prosecuted.

And the person has to take the dose themselves, and express a clear choice, publically- so nothing, but nothing to do with the example given and Shipman.

Fleurpepper

Respect to those who do, and do not want to avail themselves of this choice. Totally their choice,

But why should they have the right to dictate the choices available to others, with very strict parameters.

People are very happy to have modern medicine and technology, even artificial kidneys, breathing machines, blood transfusions and organ donations, chemotherapy. radiotherapy, antibiotics, etc, etc, but than say 'we have no right to 'meddle with nature/God' More than bizarre.

As said before, the 6 months is a guideline, in the experience of two doctors. Many, once they know that if pain or loss of independence and dignity becomes unbearable, the choice will be theirs- will continue to live, often to a natural conclusion. But without the fear. Like my mother- she knew she could ask at any time- but she chose not to. Aged 94, blind, unable to walk, totally dependent, she just turned to the wall and refused food or water. She was very weak by then, and died that night, totally naturally. But she knew she could ask at any time- and it helped her live longer.

I wonder how many Harold Shipmans would love to be pronouncing you only have six months? He wouldn't have had to worry about prosecution, he could have exercised his God complex without fear.

Smileless2012

Whiff .

I hope it gets through. It's certainly an option I would want to be able to take.

Me too............................
😊😊

One of our elderly friend and neighbour told his son he wanted to ask for assisted death. His son and dil were adamant that they were totally against and told him he shouldn't apply, and put a lot of pressure on him not to do so.

He went to the attic on 4th floor and jumped- his son found him.

Respect to those who do, and do not want to avail themselves of this choice. Totally their choice,

But why should they have the right to dictate the choices available to others, with very strict parameters.

People are very happy to have modern medicine and technology, even artificial kidneys, breathing machines, blood transfusions and organ donations, chemotherapy. radiotherapy, antibiotics, etc, etc, but than say 'we have no right to 'meddle with nature/God' More than bizarre.

As said before, the 6 months is a guideline, in the experience of two doctors. Many, once they know that if pain or loss of independence and dignity becomes unbearable, the choice will be theirs- will continue to live, often to a natural conclusion. But without the fear. Like my mother- she knew she could ask at any time- but she chose not to. Aged 94, blind, unable to walk, totally dependent, she just turned to the wall and refused food or water. She was very weak by then, and died that night, totally naturally. But she knew she could ask at any time- and it helped her live longer.

Yes, of course.
It's a complex, multi faceted situation.
Plus, I don't believe in God, anyway.

MissAdventure

I take it to mean that just because we (humans) can, doesn't mean we always should meddle with nature/God, or events that would ordinarily be beyond our control.

Yet God gave us a brain and we used it to create medicine. are you eschewing that too?

Rosie51

MissAdventure
It's a very compelling watch.
It's hard not agree with his choice, and I'm glad he has been able to choose.

Rosie51

That's good for him but it's really not relevant with regard to the proposed plan for the UK is it? Nobody in his condition would be eligible under the stated rules. That's why I believe there would inevitably be 'creep' and demands for widening the scope, despite the protestations of some posters.

Look at the confusions or differences of opinions about what it would mean, even between posters on these few pages on GN.

The only agreement seems to be that there should be choice,

However, the interpretation of choice, including references to what places outside the UK think is the right way to do it, demonstrates how easy it would be for the creep and widening of scope to impact or overrule the initial decision.

Well yes, not relevant to this Bill entirely I agree. But his point is, having the choice as an 'insurance', will often see people putting the date back, and choose to live longer.

No reason why someone with a terminal illness diagnosis choosing assisted dying, and wait and see how things progress, once they know the choice is theirs, if and when they feel they just can't bear it anymore.

MissAdventure

It's a very compelling watch.
It's hard not agree with his choice, and I'm glad he has been able to choose.

That's good for him but it's really not relevant with regard to the proposed plan for the UK is it? Nobody in his condition would be eligible under the stated rules. That's why I believe there would inevitably be 'creep' and demands for widening the scope, despite the protestations of some posters.

It's a very compelling watch.
It's hard not agree with his choice, and I'm glad he has been able to choose.