Assisted dying bill

Listen to Alex Pandolfo, explaining how having the choice, actually saved his life - 10 years so far

www.facebook.com/share/v/14zGHiJBNx/

I imagine Mo Mowlem would have taken matters into her own hands, had she wished to opt out.

If you read my posts, I am adamant that everyone should.

And as said before, so many people, once they know that the choice will be there, CHOOSE to live. My mum did, although she was a founder member of Exit.

Must find the video of Alex Pandolfo, a strong member of Dignity in Dying- who was diagnosed with Alzheimers 10 years ago. He went to Switzerland to discuss his options and was accepted by another organisation (not Dignitas), as long as he can still show he has capacity to make a clear decision. He says having the choice literally saved his life - and 10 years later he is still doing well. If he didn't have the option, he would have committed suicide at the time of diagnosis- as he had truly awful experiences with the disease with both his parents.

True Fleurpepper. No one knows what HER CHOICE might have been, but I’m glad you agree that she was entitled to have one.

Farzanah

Medicine is not an exact science and predicting how long a person will live is very difficult. My mother was discharged home from hospital to die, with palliative care, almost 3 years ago, and is still alive. She has just had her 100th birthday, and is in a very poor state but has never expressed a will to end her life.

I so hope she will fall asleep in her sleep.

Of course medicine is not an exact science, and we all know the '6 months' window will be just that, an estimation. Your dear mum has never expressed the will to end her life, and that is of course to be totally respected. And would be, with the proposed Bill.

As for MO Mowlem- does anyone know what her wishes would have been. She was so dedicated and passionate about the cause that I am quite sure she would have chosen to live to get the job done. But the fact she had a massive responsibility, should have made no difference to HER CHOICE and hers alone.

Medicine is not an exact science and predicting how long a person will live is very difficult. My mother was discharged home from hospital to die, with palliative care, almost 3 years ago, and is still alive. She has just had her 100th birthday, and is in a very poor state but has never expressed a will to end her life.

Mollygo

Grantanow

If Mo Mowlem had not been available to help with the Good Friday agreement another able politician would have taken her place. No-one is indispensable in politics.

But she was available, because she outlived her predicted lifetime and that’s the important part.

Yes the 6 months predicted by the medical profession is somewhat different to 9 years in anybody's book. They weren't out by a month or two but 8 1/2 years!!

Grantanow

If Mo Mowlem had not been available to help with the Good Friday agreement another able politician would have taken her place. No-one is indispensable in politics.

But she was available, because she outlived her predicted lifetime and that’s the important part.

If Mo Mowlem had not been available to help with the Good Friday agreement another able politician would have taken her place. No-one is indispensable in politics.

Fleurpepper

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper you cannot speak for the disabled people here in the UK. Posting that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the disabled is both naive and extremely crass.

Many of them are extremely concerned about this bill, including high profile ones.

Yes, I understand this, And I have listened to those who have spoken against, including Liz Carr (hope I spell her name correctly). I respect their views, but as said, and this is not crass at all, that this Bill has nothing to do with the disabled, severely or not, unless they are diagnosed with a terminal illness with medically estimated 6 months to live, and who ask for it, fully compos mentis.

Mo Mowlam fulfilled all of the criteria Fleurpepper

Many 1,000s people live past their predicted end

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper you cannot speak for the disabled people here in the UK. Posting that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the disabled is both naive and extremely crass.

Many of them are extremely concerned about this bill, including high profile ones.

Yes, I understand this, And I have listened to those who have spoken against, including Liz Carr (hope I spell her name correctly). I respect their views, but as said, and this is not crass at all, that this Bill has nothing to do with the disabled, severely or not, unless they are diagnosed with a terminal illness with medically estimated 6 months to live, and who ask for it, fully compos mentis.

Mo Mowlam (Labour MP) was given six months to live with her brain cancer, if this Bill had been on statute books she would have been able to apply for AD.

Mo lived for a further nine years, during which time she was instrumental in The Good Friday Agreement…

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper you cannot speak for the disabled people here in the UK. Posting that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the disabled is both naive and extremely crass.

Many of them are extremely concerned about this bill, including high profile ones.

We cannot just sweep away vulnerable individuals concerns because it does not fit a pro AD agenda, akin to what happens in Switzerland. It has been stated previously how the vulnerable were treated (not treated) during the covid epidemic.

There may be a way to have a legally humane death, in life limited cases, but this Bill in its present state is not it.

How about a person who refused treatment? Would that bar them from accessing the service?

I'm not being deliberately awkward, ust thinking of things which may occur, with humans being as they are.

I wonder if people would end up resenting others, who they felt had been given the assisted death, or whatever it's called, fraudulently?

Would people who outlived their prognosis be removed from "the list", for want of a better term, and the assumption that almost everything involves a waiting list.
Bearing in mind that presumably, whatever made life unbearable would perhaps be worse by that time.

Would someone who seems to be unable to communicate be accepted as having capacity, if, for example, a family member could prove that they communicated clearly to them. What would count as proof?

My thoughts too MissAdventure. Surely nobody seriously thinks there won't be any attempts to widen the scope of this bill (if it passes into law)? It proposes such a very narrow set of qualification that the justified cries of unfairness would be sure to be very loud. Besides which, no doctor can say with certainty that someone has 6 months or less to live. There are countless accounts of people being given x months to live and actually going on for many multiples of x.

So, for the purpose of the bill, certain rules must be met.
In sound mind, terminally ill, with a six month prognosis.

Surely it'll be all too soon and people will be "what about-ing".
Unless or until every eventuality has been met, worked through, and resolved, it leaves people vulnerable, I think.

I think I agree with everyone, and also disagree at the same time.

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper you cannot speak for the disabled people here in the UK. Posting that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the disabled is both naive and extremely crass.

Many of them are extremely concerned about this bill, including high profile ones.

Exactly this!

Fleurpepper you cannot speak for the disabled people here in the UK. Posting that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the disabled is both naive and extremely crass.

Many of them are extremely concerned about this bill, including high profile ones.

I totally agree the potential and very real problems of severely disabled people should be raised, and dealt with, by society.

But it is indeed wrong and dishonest to link this to the proposed Bill, as it clearly does NOT apply to them (unless they do develop a terminal illness and (see post above).

It was not so long ago that disabled people "weren't allowed" to marry, or even have a sex life.

Anything that raises awareness of the potential problems for severely disabled people is not dishonest, whatever the matter under discussion.

It can't be right though, to just deny choice to a section of society, because it's too difficult to allow it.

If only each incapacitated person could have a moment of clarity every few months, so we could check they still felt the same...