Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[First Aspect]

Something that alays the fears of patient groups and experts. In the end it's a free vote by MP's, some of whom will be voting yes or no based on conscience alone rather than the actual legislation. That isn't ideal but it's how it works, so I'll accept whatever the result is. If this legislation goes through in it's current form hopefully patient advocates and experts will continue to push for safeguards.

So, unelected patient groups and experts would be preferred rather than elected representatives.

Okay. Who decides which patient groups and experts get a say?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Pot, kettle and black springs to mind as it always does when answering your posts.

I've already said what my thoughts on this are, only to be told by yourself, it's not about me. "Me" in this case being the patient. The DNR mentioned is the nearest thing currently accepted under UK law to assisted dying.

It's not just about you though is it? Just like it's not just about me, or anybody else. There are other patients who feel differently to you and this legislation needs to address their worries just as much as it needs to address yours.

How do elected representatives make informed decisions without input from unelected stakeholders? I don't trust them to self inform.

The committee decides who gets an official hearing but as this is such an important issue as many voices as possible, from whichever side, should be heard. That hasn't been the case here.

 

[Bazzer]

It shouldn't be either/or but the view of end of life experts seems to be that people may feel pushed towards assisted dying if quality palliative care isn't available.

So where are the concrete plans for this Shangri La of quality palliative care and where will the money come from?

In countries with assisted dying palliative care improves at a slower rate so assisted dying does look to impact other provision, in effect reducing choice not widening it.

I can only think that those countries must be improving palliative care at continental drift speed, because in my personal experience palliative care in this country has barely changed from when my step father died around 15 years ago. A grandparent of the long term boyfriend of one of my daughters is currently dying from a brain tumour. It is frustrating and utterly soul destroying to see the emotional and financial impact the steps towards dying is having on his family.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

It's not just about you though is it? Just like it's not just about me, or anybody else. There are other patients who feel differently to you and this legislation needs to address their worries just as much as it needs to address yours.

How do elected representatives make informed decisions without input from unelected stakeholders? I don't trust them to self inform.

The committee decides who gets an official hearing but as this is such an important issue as many voices as possible, from whichever side, should be heard. That hasn't been the case here.

I am not sure what you mean you say there are patients that will need to have their worries addressed?

 

[First Aspect]

It's not just about you though is it? Just like it's not just about me, or anybody else. There are other patients who feel differently to you and this legislation needs to address their worries just as much as it needs to address yours.

How do elected representatives make informed decisions without input from unelected stakeholders? I don't trust them to self inform.

The committee decides who gets an official hearing but as this is such an important issue as many voices as possible, from whichever side, should be heard. That hasn't been the case here.

You are describing literally what is happening, and bemoaning that it isn't happening.

On your second point, public health policy and the underlying legislation doesn't and can't address everyone's concerns. This is my point. You have to balance them because some are incompatible with others.

As I have said before, you seem against the legislation in principle by virtue of the subset of concerns you are raising.

That's fine, providing you appreciate you are implicitly ignoring the concerns of others, and that your assessment of the balance of harms differs from, for example, mine.

I accept this, but I don't accept that anyone who raises concerns is somehow adopting a more thoughtful moral high ground. One could equally argue that accepting and providing for people's personal wishes to truncate suffering is the moral high ground.

 

[classic33]

It's not just about you though is it? Just like it's not just about me, or anybody else. There are other patients who feel differently to you and this legislation needs to address their worries just as much as it needs to address yours.

How do elected representatives make informed decisions without input from unelected stakeholders? I don't trust them to self inform.

The committee decides who gets an official hearing but as this is such an important issue as many voices as possible, from whichever side, should be heard. That hasn't been the case here.

I have never said it is just about me, just expressed my opinion on the matter. You seemed to think/feel my opinion wasn't as valid as yours. It comes down to what the patient wants, or should.
Why should someone else have the right to make another person suffer, by prolonging what they are going through. I made my choice some years ago, it remains on record. My choice also covers those who may be involved in it. Making certain that no blame be attached to them for my choice. Their training is directed more to keeping people alive than killing them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So where are the concrete plans for this Shangri La of quality palliative care and where will the money come from?

Given that palliative care is underfunded already, and hospices run mainly on charity, where will the money come from to fund assisted dying? If it ends up being a bought in private service what will that cost the NHS? It's possible to fund both if there's the will but assisted dying shouldn't be something that people end up feeling obliged to undertake due to health care being poor.

I am not sure what you mean you say there are patients that will need to have their worries addressed?

Groups that represent severely disabled people have expressed concerns for example. Some are listed here:

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/...ty Rights UK opposes the,but that is not true.

It's a wide ranging issue with many different strands to the debate. There is no moral high ground for either side, just a difficult attempt to balance individual rights and wider concerns that those individual rights can affect. This is a pointless debate to have on here tbh.

 

[First Aspect]

Sorry to have taken up your time.

 

[Psamathe]

Given that palliative care is underfunded already, and hospices run mainly on charity, where will the money come from to fund assisted dying? If it ends up being a bought in private service what will that cost the NHS?

Palliative care is not available or sought by terminally ill. Even palliative care still costs NHS money eg medications, specialists and consultants , etc. Estimates I've seen are that costs to NHS would reduce but I suspect it's a complex calculation that will depend on many factors and be bery indivudual.

Ian

 

[classic33]

Given that palliative care is underfunded already, and hospices run mainly on charity, where will the money come from to fund assisted dying? If it ends up being a bought in private service what will that cost the NHS? It's possible to fund both if there's the will but assisted dying shouldn't be something that people end up feeling obliged to undertake due to health care being poor.

Groups that represent severely disabled people have expressed concerns for example. Some are listed here:

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/assisted-dying#:~:text=Disability Rights UK opposes the,but that is not true.

It's a wide ranging issue with many different strands to the debate. There is no moral high ground for either side, just a difficult attempt to balance individual rights and wider concerns that those individual rights can affect. This is a pointless debate to have on here tbh.

Does the patient have any input into the palliative care they receive?
Asked because
The World Health Organization (WHO) describes palliative care as:
"an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial, and spiritual".

Who's rights should come first/given priority in any care given?

Taken from the piece you linked to,
"Disabled people must be assisted to live before we can safely and responsibly be assisted to die. Only when we have equal access to support and aren’t made to feel like a burden could we be provided with a real choice that isn’t influenced by discrimination and barriers to healthcare."

I'm only too familiar with the equal access to support, and being made to feel a burden. And that's under the current laws, and by qualified professionals. Getting the means to just to manage the primary illness/disability/condition to enable/assist in staying out of hospital are down to cost.
The cost of emergency admission to a hospital, via ambulance and A&E, was into four figures the last time I asked in passing time with the nurse assigned to keep an eye on me.

The more expensive treatments aren't a consideration I can expect. Those treatment impacts directly on every other, and choices have been made by myself on which I prioritise.

 

[Pblakeney]

Given that palliative care is underfunded already, and hospices run mainly on charity, where will the money come from to fund assisted dying?

No hard data but I think I'm safe in saying that assisted dying will be much cheaper in the long run than either palliative care, or a hospital bed.
I'd have thought that low cost would have been one of your objections to assisted dying, not the reverse.

 

[First Aspect]

Is anyone concerned that if assisted dying becomes law, some people will have a diminished ability to avail themselves of the choice by well meaning advocacy groups fundamentally opposed to it on their behalf?

 

[Psamathe]

Is anyone concerned that if assisted dying becomes law, some people will have a diminished ability to avail themselves of the choice by well meaning advocacy groups fundamentally opposed to it on their behalf?

It's an interesting aspect I've not seen much about. It seems a very private process with consultations, etc. not open to wider scrutiny so advocacy groups would not be aware of individual cases. But your raising it makes me wonder how open the reviewing panel might be eg family members being informed and/or being able to respond to. And then what if a family member is ideologically opposed to Assisted Dying despite the wishes of a parent with full capacity.

And then eg US based religious groups start funding campaigns in the UK and the vulnerable suffer.

Ian

 

[classic33]

Is anyone concerned that if assisted dying becomes law, some people will have a diminished ability to avail themselves of the choice by well meaning advocacy groups fundamentally opposed to it on their behalf?

Not in a direct sense. But assisted dying doesn't just mean helping you die, it can be helping stopping you "living".
Where "living" could be a PVS, completely unaware of what's going on around you.
If that's living, I don't want to be in that position, others making the choices for me. Be that a group or an individual.

 

[First Aspect]

Not in a direct sense. But assisted dying doesn't just mean helping you die, it can be helping stopping you "living".
Where "living" could be a PVS, completely unaware of what's going on around you.
If that's living, I don't want to be in that position, others making the choices for me. Be that a group or an individual.

I think it is inevitable that someone with learning disabilities or very low intelligence will be overtly protected from making a decision that a person of normal intelligence could make for themselves. By extension, this could apply to other people deemed "vulnerable".

I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, because I can almost guarantee that the concept hasn't remotely occured to some of those who feel most strongly about this.