bikerdave
You have put into a much more eloquent posting, that which I wished to convey. Thankyou
Things you find stressful that other people don't notice.
Tales about "stingy" guests and hosts.
Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
SubscribeThe Swiss are becoming concerned about what they are calling suicide tourism as a result of the numbers of foreigners travelling to the country for assisted suicide. They are considering preventing foreigners from using Dignitas or even closing it down. This news suggests to me that our own government can no longer turn a blind eye and must tackle this issue head on. So far, the consensus seems to be that old and disabled people would be persuaded or browbeaten by family members that they have a duty to die which strikes me as complete tosh and I should like to know what other baby boomers and more seniors think. First, the younger generation in Switzerland (and some other places) do not seem to be pushing their old people into a premature grave so why would our young people do this to us? Second, the will to live is very powerful and we're also quite a bolshie generation so I can't see us quietly lying down and dying just for the kids' convenience. Of course, safeguards would be essential, especially to protect the most vulnerable, but I think rational adults with terminal conditions, especially if they are suffering intolerable pain, should have the option. An option is not the thin end of the wedge of compulsion, whatever MPs say. I don't see the Swiss being any less caring and compassionate about people with terminal cancer, multiple sclerosis or just the frailties of extreme old age seeing out their lives naturally, so why would we in Britain be? I'd really like to know what other people think. By the way, it's not something I'm contemplating; I'm just genuinely interested.
bikerdave
You have put into a much more eloquent posting, that which I wished to convey. Thankyou
Having only just picked up this thread, I find it interesting, and pleasing, to see that most contributors are in favour of having the right to choose when they die.
As the (mainstream) medical profession has developed over the centuries it has sought to repair broken bodies and improve and preserve life. It has evolved in partnership with a wide range of ancillary facilities, such as nursing services, pharmaceutical companies and, of course, political control of our lives. In many ways they've done well - but - they are not as clever as they'd like to have us believe, and they should not have the right to dictate to us that we must "soldier on" whatever the state of our lives and our health.
One of my worries about this subject is that it tends to consider only the effects and the consequences of a painful and/or debilitating physical disease. But those people who raised the Terry Pratchett involvement will be aware that he is suffering from a particular type of Alzheimer's disease. This means that a time will arrive when he will be unable to make his thoughts, his needs and his wishes known. He will, at that time, be unable to insist on a particular course of action. He will not be considered to be "of sound mind" and therefore the medical profession will, without doubt, ignore any plea he may be able to make to have his life ended peacefully.
This will mean that anybody who develops the early stages of Alzheimer's will need some means of declaring their wishes at that time, and then have them carried out at a later date - or before the disease's effects really get a grip. This is a major problem, both for the individual and for any legislation that may be enacted.
As someone who has seen, up close, the way the disease can destroy people and their families, and watched the incompetent and un-caring manner in which this society "cares" for sufferers, I have to say that I do not intend to follow the route taken by those I've loved and lost - and that means lost before they've died.
How a government will frame legislation to allow those with totally destructive mental problems to die in peace - and at a time of their choosing - is a question that will tax even the most brave, compassionate and understanding of politicians. But they have to do it.
iloverose, I disagree, 'not to strive officiously to keep alive ' does mean letting nature take its course and not using every technical facility to keep people alive, this is why we used the phrase. Of course there will be families who want to go on using every technique to keep someone alive, but they would not use the phrasing we used. Doctors too will ignore or disagree with relatives. Subjects like this will always have grey areas around the edges but nobody had any difficulty in understanding what we wanted which we did anyway spell out quite clearly, Yes to medication, nutrition and hydration, no to invasive treatments which would cause him physical and mental distress.
JessM, The problem is what starts as the right to choose soon becomes what you ought to do and finally what you are pressured into doing. Abortion started out as applying to circumstances where there were good medical or psychological reasons for abortion with each case carefully examined before decision is made. Bit by bit it has become abortion in demand . These developments can be considered to be a right and proper way to go but we now have a situation where it is assumed that parents will abort a foetus that may be born disabled and some are put under considerable pressure if they decide not to and extensively in the far east foetuses are scanned for gender definition so that unwanted female foetuses can be aborted because boys are preferred to girls
This evening there was a programme on R4 about treating people in persistent vegetative states. It including a story of a consultant deciding on a very cursory examination that a patient was in this state and had been for a considerable time, there was no purpose in keeping them alive and just telling the relatives that nutrition etc would be stopped. The consultant was acting illegally and eventually a court order stopped the process, But the attitude shown by the consultant and his behaviour towards such patients will not go away just because in this case he acted illegally and he is probably not the only one who thinks and would act like him if possible.
I am not suggesting that lives of all people in this state should be preserved until they die of natural causes but at the end of the programme there was mention that with NHS resources stretched some trusts are considering how much resources can be given to people in this state for long periods or put simply if you do not end the life of the person in a vegetative state, you may have to bear the cost of their care. And if you cant? From there it is a short step to deciding that the NHS must consider how much resources can be spent on elderly people with chronic conditions that are costly to treat. Death by a thousand cuts.
It is called the law of unintended consequences
This is a bit like the abortion issue isn't it. On the one hand there is a group of people, a powerful lobby group, who believe "thou shalt not kill" is a moral absolute. They would like their view of morality to be enshrined in law so that it applies to everyone and not just those who agree with them. On the other hand there are those who think that people have "a right to choose". This group want the choice to be enshrined in law but do not wish to impose their will on others.
Have to say that the hospice movement sets a standard in care of dying - but isn't it interesting that it relies on charitable donations and that many people have to put up with a hospital ward and the unreliable care that this affords. See the thread on that subject elsewhere on this forum.
FlicketyB
The trouble, as I see it, with the mantra you quote is that the "not strive officiously" part is interpreted according to the institution or relative who has the power. If a close relative loves the dying person too much to really be able to "let go" in a loving way, or a doctor believes that his/her duty is only to keep the patient breathing or they have "failed", a sort of "blindness" descends as to the compassionate action ( or lack of it).
We now have so much technical ability to keep people alive that we seem to think that that is the only moral thing to do instead of asking whether morality might sometimes be to let nature take it's course.
Are we really gaining very much in quality of life as we add that extra 6 months or year to everyone's life?
I DO NOT believe than anyone has the right to force/persuade someone else to end their life but that does not seem to be the question here: the question, as I understand it, is whether we, as individuals, have the right to make our own decisions at this most profoundly personal moment of our life.
It is not a choice between kill or cure. Recently I had to draw up an End of Life Plan for an elderly relative where both he and his wife had dementia. After consulting around the family we found that the old mantra served as well today as at any time in the past.
The Mantra is: 'Thou shall not kill but shall not strive officiously to keep alive'. In this case we said that my relative should not be deprived of food or water, even if this meant inserting a drip, and where drugs such as antibiotics or pain killers were required they should be given but that we did not want any further invasive treatments that we already knew would cause distress because he could not understand or remember what was happening or why.
A few months later he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. He moved from a care home to a nursing home where he received the care we had requested and died there peacefully and quietly a few months later.
It used to be that the doctor in charge could give a potent combination of morphine and something else that made people in pain die happy and pain free but then the hospices came in and people had to plough on to the end with lots of "caring " carers- I worry abot their motives
I too am tired of the increasing feeling I get that someone else is in charge of me. I think it is time that we were all treated like grownups, free to make choices in how to live, and in some cases, how to die. However that also carries with it the willingness to take responsibility for our choices and not expect others to carry the can. I think that we should be allowed to die in dignity when suffering from incurable and painful conditions. But some body or authority has to be in place to stop abuse of that and we must be alone in making that choice.However, it is a tricky and sensitive subject, my 100 year old mother-in-law, is near the end now, drifting in and out of sleep and still at times lucid. She has felt that she has been" ready to go", as she puts it, for some time. But she has strong Anglican beliefs and feels it is not up to her to make that choice, and we all have to respect that .
. "I do agree that some families might want their oldies to just die, and leave a decent inheritance, but such families are not a reason to let people die in agony. Proper help for such vulnerable people with dreadful families is the answer to that aspect." Sorry, I disagree this is something that is simply impossible to do.
Families who want to expedite the death of an elderly relation will do it quietly, obliquely. Discussions with the elderly relative about worries about paying for care, concerns about the quality of care, especially when there have been so many horror stories about, concerns about grandchildren not getting to university because they cannot afford it, distressing stories of painful deaths in uncaring hospitals Eventually the elderly person will make an 'informed independent' decision to go now rather than let nature take its course.
I worked for a charity for the elderly for some years making home visits and I saw a number of cases of elder abuse or suspected elder abuse where nothing could be done because the elderly person acquiesced in their treatment and refused point blank to do anything to stop the abuse, which was usually financial, but also violence. Some of these cases were known to the police but if the victim will not complain there is nothing that can be done. The elderly person would not act because it meant a daughter knowing what her son was doing, because they could not accept that a son was mentally ill, or a crook. It will be no different with 'voluntary' euthanasia.
From there it would get institutionalised. There is already talk about changing the law to end the lives of pople in a vegetative or 'low awareness' stated. the arguments are the same as for voluntary euthanasia. Some years ago there was a scandal about hospitals putting 'no resuscitation' notices of elderly peoples files without discussion with the person or their relatives.Not because they were terminally ill but because they were old and not worth treating.
It has been reported this week that if you are over 50 you will not always be offered the cancer treatments or heart attack or stroke care that younger people get, even when there is a high probability of a return to full health if the treatment is given. We are already on the slippery slope towards decisions about our deaths being made by nurses doctors and Health Service administrators on financial grounds, although the arguements will, as ever, be emotoinal. I can hear it now 'elderly people are taking up so much of NHS resources that children are dying of cancer because we cannot afford to treat them'.
Nowadays pain is not inevitable, drugs and sedation can see people through to the end. It is what they use when they withdraw hydration and nutrition from patients in a vegitative state to put them out of their misery.
iloveroses - bravo - my sentiments exactly.
iloveroses - well said...my thoughts, too.
I do believe that intolerable pain should be enough reason to be given a strong enough dose of painkillers, if you want, even if you know that these pain killers will kill you. There is no excuse, religious, secular, or legal, for allowing a terminally ill person to live in pain.
I do agree that some families might want their oldies to just die, and leave a decent inheritance, but such families are not a reason to let people die in agony. Proper help for such vulnerable people with dreadful families is the answer to that aspect.
Loving families have to risk prosecution if they want to help stop the agony of their terminally ill loved ones. This is not acceptable.
I love having this thread to join. I have always talked to my family about not wanting to go on living for the sake of breathing but because there is something to go on living for.
Surely there is something ass-backwards about keeping us alive for the sake of it. Medical science has brought us to a place where too many people seem to think that it is a failure if anyone dies but we have all to die one day. Doctors strive beyond what many of us would consider reasonable just to keep another breath being forced in or out of us; the Churches are trying to brainwash us into believing that we have no control over our own lives (They belong to GOD); and our families are being persuaded that they would be guilty of "pushing" us into a premature death if they do not insist that we should be kept breathing against any evidence that it is pointless and/or painful.
I know that this a purely personal point of view, but I honestly believe that if we all knew that we had a Dignitas "way out" there would be no more suicides than we have at the moment because just KNOWING that we could make the decision for ourselves would enable us to treat each day as a bonus with the knowledge that "Tomorrow (truly) is Another Day".
Sadly, I missed the Terry Pratchett documentary. I have numerous health problems and, as I near 70, I am well aware that in the not too distant future, at some point, I may wish to make the decision to die rather than face a very painful/undignified final span. At present, I am totally happy with my lot in life, in spite of my problems. However, I have told my sons, that in the event of a major crisis, I most certainly do NOT wish to be resuscitated.
I saw the Terry Pratchett film and the programme that followed it. I was struck by several things. First how very very brave of the man who not only chose when and where to die but let us see it and thereby perhaps be able to discuss and contemplate our own deaths. Secondly that a figure of 200 Swiss a year use Dignitas to leave life. That doesn't suggest that families are queueing up to get rid of "burdens". Thirdly that anti right-to-dies are saying how biased and one-sided TP's programme was as it didn't present the anti-view. Surely as the subject was the right to die, that's a bit like saying the televising of say the Royal Wedding was biased and one-sided and should have included all views of matrimony, monarchy, pageantry, etc etc. (Well perhaps that's not the best example, but I can't think of another at the moment). My Mother and my younger sister died within a few months of each other. Both had living wills, and we were able to follow my sister's wishes of non-interference and being able to die at home, but thanks to an officious doctor, my mother had to suffer an intolerable week in hospital before we got her home again to die peacefully as she wished. She wanted to go on the compost heap too: couldn't manage that, but did get the cardboard coffin, which was interesting . . .
Did anyone see the Terry Pratchett documentary on television last night? I missed it but it sounds fascinating and very moving.
As someone who has already been talking painkillers every day for 30+ years (I'm now 55), I know there will probably come a time when they're not very helpful and my life will be awful. I would like to be able to choose to say That's enough and die. I'm not expecting it to happen any time soon but I think it will come. In the meantime, maybe I should get that tattoo on my chest in case of a massive heart attack that doesn't quite kill me: Do not resuscitate! It's my life and it's my death, if I choose.
Did you all watch Terry Pratchett's film last night? I was riveted to it. I am a longstanding member of Dignity in Dying (having seen two members of my own family suffer needlessly) and also made a Living Will. What a bunch of hypocrites our government and clergy are! And nobody is attacking disabled people: many of whom lead full and satisfying lives, but the powers that be choose to ignore those of us who demand the choice to leave life how and when we wish. Many medical treatments are not prolonging life; they are prolonging death. Stop me, or I'll rant on all day!
Not long ago the thought of legalised euthanasia was unheard of , I think it will become politically/socially popular as financially it will be impossible to support so many older people.
Old Eskimos walk out into the snow when they become a burden on society maybe this will be our equivalent???
I have already made it quite clear to both my sons that I'm in favour of euthanasia, and as far as I'm concerned it's MY will, not THY will that counts. I've extracted (with some difficulty) promises from them that should I suffer some devastating stroke or accident then they will pursue a Do Not Resuccitate policy if at all possible as requested in my living will.
I'm in a constant state of two minds about this subject. I am against making it legal as that opens up all sorts of complexities. As much as I hate to say it I still think people should have to put up a bit of a fight to get permission - it takes time and in that time things may change for them. I also believe in 'Thy will, not MY will, be done' but into that you could read that if we are given the knowledge to carry out certain procedures, maybe that's what we should be doing. Does that make sense? It's a real grey area but sometimes we put down animals with great sorrow and dignity in lesser conditions.
My next door neighbour died last week from Cancer, at home. She was in tremendous pain. It would have been kind to let her go before this. They offered her a hospital bed but it was too late. I also think its thy will not mine but if there was another way I may concider it.
I have been able to take up my grandfather's philosophy because I share his faith. " when my time comes it comes", - until then I live as wisely and compassionately as I am able.
Or in religious language "The lord giveth and the lord taketh away" I wouldn't dream of interfering or imagining that I have that control. What a gift we might give to our nearest and dearest to remain loving through adversity.
A colleague was severely limited by a stroke, and it was touching to see how his life was reflected in the loving care of all those around him.
I'm ready to go, or up 'for the duration' if that's my fate.
I think the thing about Dignitas is choice...it gives you the choice of soldiering on or letting go. I know of someone with severe MS who has registered with Dignitas (it is quite an intense process) but has not taken up the option because said person now feels back in control of her life/death. I,too, am disabled and while it is not something that I would consider right now I do feel that we should all have the right to a decent and respectful death.....
Absentgrana...I'm agreeing with every wise word you say. I'm almost 70, fit-ish and happy. When, in the mists of time, I feel that my useful life is over due to great distress, mental or physical, then I would gladly take a trip to Dignitas...
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.