Assisted dying bill

theworriedwell
Yes as it stands it is 6 months. My worry is that there is a body of opinion who believe that should be extended to degenerative diseases like Dementia. Mission creep by those who don't believe in a soul.
Some of this belief is based on some people who follow people who believe in concepts such as "Assembly theory" and the concept of life through evolution. Every respect to these academics. I disagree on their belief regarding a soul.
The basis of the thinking is that through physical (chemistry, physics and biology) actions reacting to external stimuli there is an output. Physically we see this when Icicles grow in an ordered non chaotic pattern. Clearly it isn't alive but the process can be extrapolated on the molecular level and lower.
Elsewhere atoms come together, molecules are formed and amino acids are generated, furthermore in "biology" where replication and life happens via complex structures and interactions between DNA that is formed and genetic coding and replication. So having a soul or being alive (not being dead) are merely outputs of complex reactions at the micro scale (quantum mechanics) manifesting themselves. To date these have been irreversible reactions. Can you reverse being dead even at the cellular microscopic level.....???
So if one doesn't believe in purposeful creation and we are merely to be defined as outputs of a lab experiment, then yes if the entity "person" is unhappy; of no economic benefit and a collectively a "burden" then yes.....like a pet or a useless car put it too sleep. There is a blur being created between a living human soul and inanimate things.

This bill won't stop family seeing you decline for years as it is supposed to be for the terminally ill with a max of six months to live.

Yes that’s what I mean Fleurpepper. It may be an emotional pressure within ourselves, not the wicked relatives aiming to get their hands on our house and dosh, which may be the argument against by some.
I just don’t know.

Farzanah

It’s a different scenario discussing our death when it may still be a way off and is not imminent reality. However, if we should develop a life limiting illness, although not unbearably suffering, would we feel emotionally pressured by the burden we may be placing on our loved ones, into making the decision to end our life sooner than we would choose to I wonder?

Yes, many of us who have witnessed awful deaths. after prologned illness and increased loss of independence and dignity- and were very much affected, in so many ways- would take this into consideration. I do not want my ACs to have years of their lives and their children's and spouses lives, affected really negatively by watching me in increasing pain and loss of dignity. They would not pressure me- but I would very much take it into consideration as one of the factors for my decision. Nothing wrong with this

Caleo

PS ,TWW, I agree we are better not to be prudish about death and dying. But dying is always going to be an emotive topic .

'Killing' implies lack of feeling. I imagine that the Dignitas centre in Switzerland which we mat take to be state of the art, has the room where we die furnished sympathetically.

Killing is just a fact, it doesn't imply anything other than someone was alive and they or another person has done something that means they are now dead.

Caleo

PS ,TWW, I agree we are better not to be prudish about death and dying. But dying is always going to be an emotive topic .

'Killing' implies lack of feeling. I imagine that the Dignitas centre in Switzerland which we mat take to be state of the art, has the room where we die furnished sympathetically.

The aesthetics of the dying room deserves a thread of it's own. Photo is from the Dignitas brochure

PS ,TWW, I agree we are better not to be prudish about death and dying. But dying is always going to be an emotive topic .

'Killing' implies lack of feeling. I imagine that the Dignitas centre in Switzerland which we mat take to be state of the art, has the room where we die furnished sympathetically.

The Worried Well wrote:

" Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion."

'Killing" implies initiating the action, whereas "assisting the dying process" implies hastening the inevitable and for good reason.

CariadAgain

theworriedwell

Cabowich you are going to die as am I and everyone else on here. Does it matter if by some mistakes we are killed? After all it's going to happen at some point.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed". To me - death in war is killing. Also what many of us would do if faced with someone like a higher-level drug dealer or one of the people that run the "boat trips" for illegal immigrants coming into our country, a gun was put in our hands and no-one nearby to witness if we used that gun on the criminal and we got told we wouldnt be penalised for pulling the trigger of that gun.

The above is killing - but helping someone deal with illness they were suffering from = performing a medical procedure imo. I guess it's much the same as removing a foetus from a womans body would be killing if she wished to keep it - but a medical procedure if she'd decided to have an abortion. In both cases one goes by whether the decision was made by the patient concerned or forced on them against their will.

Well I don't get why some people can't acknowledge it is killing. I didn't make a judgement on if it was right or wrong, just the fact and if people have to pretend it is something else it makes me wonder why they can't acknowledge the truth of their actions or decisions.

The things you describe in your first paragraph are killing, fact. They aren't murder which is a different matter. Assisted dying/suicide is the same to me, the agent isn't committing a murder, they are killing someone.

CariadAgain

theworriedwell

Cabowich you are going to die as am I and everyone else on here. Does it matter if by some mistakes we are killed? After all it's going to happen at some point.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed". To me - death in war is killing. Also what many of us would do if faced with someone like a higher-level drug dealer or one of the people that run the "boat trips" for illegal immigrants coming into our country, a gun was put in our hands and no-one nearby to witness if we used that gun on the criminal and we got told we wouldnt be penalised for pulling the trigger of that gun.

The above is killing - but helping someone deal with illness they were suffering from = performing a medical procedure imo. I guess it's much the same as removing a foetus from a womans body would be killing if she wished to keep it - but a medical procedure if she'd decided to have an abortion. In both cases one goes by whether the decision was made by the patient concerned or forced on them against their will.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed".

... lexical semantics?

theworriedwell

Cabowich you are going to die as am I and everyone else on here. Does it matter if by some mistakes we are killed? After all it's going to happen at some point.

I don't really get the arguing about being "killed". To me - death in war is killing. Also what many of us would do if faced with someone like a higher-level drug dealer or one of the people that run the "boat trips" for illegal immigrants coming into our country, a gun was put in our hands and no-one nearby to witness if we used that gun on the criminal and we got told we wouldnt be penalised for pulling the trigger of that gun.

The above is killing - but helping someone deal with illness they were suffering from = performing a medical procedure imo. I guess it's much the same as removing a foetus from a womans body would be killing if she wished to keep it - but a medical procedure if she'd decided to have an abortion. In both cases one goes by whether the decision was made by the patient concerned or forced on them against their will.

I'm pretty sure all the things we think when our death is sometime in the future, might be quite different when it is looming closer.

My daughter had terrible trouble accepting that her illness impacted others.

It’s a different scenario discussing our death when it may still be a way off and is not imminent reality. However, if we should develop a life limiting illness, although not unbearably suffering, would we feel emotionally pressured by the burden we may be placing on our loved ones, into making the decision to end our life sooner than we would choose to I wonder?

So - if it were possible to have a fail-safe system, would those who are now opposed to the bill, approve it?

I understand the fears, and share some of them myself, if The Liverpool Care Pathway has taught us anything it's that we cannot put our trust in the medical profession - doctors and nurses - to operate 100% in our best-interests, especially when some hospitals were offered financial 'incentives' to put a patient on that pathway.

At that time, 90 year old Kathleen Vine - who'd been admitted with a dislocated shoulder was put on this pathway after developing pneumonia.

"All I remember is they weren't feeding me. Up above my bed they put 'nil by mouth' and I was begging for food," she recalled.

She said that when she asked doctors and nurses for food, she was ignored.

"I was being left to die. If it hadn't have been for my family I would be dead now. I would just have been another statistic on the books."

When the family demanded to know what it was that she was dying from - which terminal illness - no-one could tell them. They were never told the reason why she was supposed to be dying. The medical staff could only tell the family that Kathleen was old.

She'd been given morphine for the pain (if anyone's had a dislocated shoulder, they will understand the need) which made her confused, and she behaved 'out of character'. Presumably the medical experts believed this was some form of dementia?

Following the questions raised by the family, they started feeding her again, and she quickly recovered and went home.

So no, I'm not convinced that Assisted Dying would be fail-safe.

Kathleen Vine had a loving family. Not everyone has a loving family - or even a family. And the NHS has proved on more occasions than this that it cannot always be trusted.

Would the yay or nay of an independent High Court Judge in each case make this fail-safe? Does anyone think?

So, yes I understand the misgivings. What I don't accept is that another person has the right to tell me that I must suffer like my great-grandmother because they oppose the bill on religious grounds, or because they believe we are born to suffer, or whatever other reason they give to deny autonomy.

But that's a matter of the principle of the right-to-die, rather than the reality of what it might become. And that's the point I was arguing from.

I fully appreciate Galaxy's and others POVs.

Thanks all, for the debate.

It's paramount for everyone.

Yes, that's all I would ever want, or have been arguing for - the choice. It's paramount.

I agree. Which is why they, we, all need to have the choice.

To some terminally ill people six months is hugely important.
It's can't be written off as "one of those things"!

Yes there it as clear as it is possible to be. We will sacrifice those people ( who society doesnt care about anyway) for the benefit of others.

Cabowich you are going to die as am I and everyone else on here. Does it matter if by some mistakes we are killed? After all it's going to happen at some point.

But it is that simple a choice, Galaxy. Why are so many people crying out for that choice?

I think the opposite to you. There will be a risk that some people will 'slip the net' and be coerced into dying slightly early than they might have hoped. But we are talking about the terminally ill here, who have six months or less left to live. They are going to die anyway, to be brutally honest.

So it is definitely worth the risk, to my mind anyway, to alleviate the suffering of many at the risk of the few.

So I think some people are prepared to 'risk' harm happening to people in order to alleviate the distress of others. Or they think there isnt a risk. I disagree. For me the risk is too great. I dont believe the reassurances.

Because it's not that simple a choice. So I dont deny that people will die in pain, will die undignified painful deaths, but I think the risk to the most vulnerable in our society is too great.

Cabowich

^One of the main reasons why society has rejected this movement is - apart from the religious reasons against it - the ethics. ^

But what is ethical about deciding to prolong the pain, agony and indignity of those who would rather die?

But what is ethical about deciding to prolong the pain, agony and indignity of those who would rather die?

I don't know.

But I assume those that do will tell us.

Galaxy

Because language as we have learnt is important. A lot of this debate is framed under the blanket of 'kindness' so using accurate language is important I feel. If you have to hide things within a discussion it makes me wary. This works for both sides, so I dont complain for example when people use accurate language to describe the siffering they have witnessed.

Technically then, we are (if the bill is passed) going allow some doctors - with Court approval - to kill a terminally-ill patient.

But that is not the whole picture, is it?

As for kindness. I have seen a female consultant in tears watching an elderly patient struggling with a phlebotomist attempting to get an IV line into her withered and bruised arm. They weren't going to euthanise her, just give IV antibiotics.

I think the consultant was in tears because she felt compassion for the poor woman who was clearly suffering pain as each canula failed.

I do think the medical profession are capable of feeling kindness and compassion when they see patients suffer.

I'm not sure what language we should be using in this debate?