Assisted dying bill

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 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!

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

A DNR is not the same thing 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.