Assisted dying bill

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

It is such a pity that dying which is a natural event, should sometimes be agonising even with the best of pain killers.

theworriedwell

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.

And in this case, then he would continue to live, if he chose to. He would have to make the request himself, and have to take the potion himself- so the choice would be his.

This just cannot be compared to DNR or not- where the person themselves make that clear decision themselves- not the doctor. Nothing to do with euthanasia either.

There are many cases in Switzerland of people changing their mind on the day, and when asked, clearly and videoed- that they are absolutely sure this is what they want, and that there is no way back - some say 'actually, I am not ready' - and they choose to continue to live, either for a bit longer, or until natural death (although in modern times, 'natural' is a strange word, as medically assisted living is not natural at all, but ...).

Miss A, so he would not ahve asked for assisted dying and would not have drunk the lethal potion- his choice.

I find the whole thing terrifying.

I know if my MP votes in favour I will never vote for her again.

I think people who are privileged, throw the word choice around like confetti. It's a bit similar to the oh prostitution is a choice debate, they dont seem to understand that for some groups choice is so small it is almost invisible.

keepingquiet

I find the whole thing terrifying.

I know if my MP votes in favour I will never vote for her again.

Why is it terrifying that people would be allowed to make their own choice? I just don't understand why other people's choices, in very specific circumstances, and with clear guidelines and safeguards, can ,'terrify' you.

@Fleurpepper Id just read a post saying strongly held opinions don't change. They do.