Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[classic33]

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.

Wouldn't a person with learning disabilities or very low intelligence already have someone else making some of decisions for them on a daily basis anyway?
We already have (E)POA's and DNR's that are decided on in better times.
They aren't treated lightly, "just add this to what I want". They have a legal framework to back them up, before they can be legally binding. A set of circumstances has to be met before they can be acted upon. Will assisted dying be any different in the setup in law.

The two big things, for me, to be considered are what happens to those who might do nothing or something to aid me. And then there's suicide, often voiding any insurance and holding others to account at present. Sometimes for doing nothing to stop or trying to stop a person.

 

[Bazzer]

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 the one who has repeatedly stated about raising or ensuring high standards of palliative care throughout the UK, it has been you.

 

[BoldonLad]

Unfortunately, I am currently witnessing an actual situation where assisted dying is perhaps relevant.

My brother-in-law (well, to be precise, my ex-brother-in-law) was recently given a terminal cancer diagnoses.

He has been discharged from Hospital, since they can do no more for him. Although, these words have not actually been used as far as I know, he has been sent home to die.

He has medication and carers attending several times during the day.

Various relatives (including my daughter, his niece) are taking it in turns to spend the night at his house, so that he does not meet his end alone.

He has given up the fight, and, just wants it to be over with.

So far, the "end game" has been going on for a week, goodness knows how long it will drag on for.

What kind of civilised society thinks this is anyway to treat a fellow human being, we would be more caring towards a dog, plus of course, the mental and physical strain on his relatives.

 

[Pblakeney]

What kind of civilised society thinks this is anyway to treat a fellow human being, we would be more caring towards a dog, plus of course, the mental and physical strain on his relatives.

In my Mum's words "They wouldn't treat a dog like this.".
Your family has my sympathies.

 

[farfromtheland]

We already have assisted dying in many forms.

There are people whose life support was withdrawn in compassion.

There are people who have 'learning disabilities' who have been marked DNR by their family's decision.

There are people who have died of starvation when their benefits were suspended by the DWP.


Death and suffering have always been reality. There is no solution to this. We can only do our best to help each other.

The question for me is do I trust this parliament in this climate to make good legislation. First do no harm should be the active principle.

The amendments for safeguards voted down by the scrutiny committee are terrifying. That they voted against high court judge scrutiny and for a panel of experts is also terrifying, given the nature of such panel recruitment within the corruption of the health service.

The non-availability on cost grounds of decent palliative care is an inescapable issue to be addressed before ANY legislation on assisted dying were even proposed.

An honest government would then sponsor a bill rather than rely on a private member with the inherent risk of partiality.

 

[farfromtheland]

Oh Hell

 

[Pblakeney]

Oh good!

 

[First Aspect]

I must say I struggle with the latest "I agree in principle but" angle that somehow a high court judge was an okay safeguard (which it wasn't at the time as I recall) but a committee of specialists isn't.

The I agree in principle but brigade simply don't.

 

[farfromtheland]

I must say I struggle with the latest "I agree in principle but" angle that somehow a high court judge was an okay safeguard (which it wasn't at the time as I recall) but a committee of specialists isn't.

The I agree in principle but brigade simply don't.

A committee of specialists comprises of persons inclined to engage in committee selection processes. These are not as impartial as progress to the position of a high court judge. Judges' decisions are subject to intensely intelligent peer and public scrutiny, both supporting and critical.

As far as I've read, I am the only one here who has recently mentioned this. I am not a brigadier however and have not expressed support for legislation in principle either.

I have attempted to point out flaws in the preparation and process of scrutiny by committee of this private member's bill.

 

[farfromtheland]

Perhaps I am being fatalist, but Esther Rantzen's ever-present voice in the media lobby also gives me the willies, given her cosiness with the McWhirter twins.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unfortunately FFTL, if you express any concern about any part of this particular legislation you'll be told that it's because you're against it in principle, as such pointing out individual issues with the many complex parts is simply playing Whack a Mole because you don't want any AD law at all.

As I understand it the panel is not obliged even to hear from the applicant, not obliged to see anybody in person (just one doctor which can be by “audio link”), not asked to check if applicant is severely depressed, feels like a burden, or has financial concerns. They are not obliged to ask anybody one single question

There was a suggested ammendment that the panel include a palliative care specialist. This was voted down. At no point in the process does the applicant have to have seen a palliative care specialist to talk about medical and care support options. Lack of access to palliative care is a barrier to informed choice.

Assessing competency for medical procedures is very different to assessing the factors involved in assisted dying. Even the experts aren't confident.

Quote from:

 

[First Aspect]

One positive out of all of this is that the issue of palliative care has a higher profile. It has never been either/or, and this continual refrain is tiresome.

One specific point made above is the presumption that anyone involved is, by definition, going to lack objectivity or independence. This is an unsubstantiated nonsense and casts one side of the debate (those against) as being somehow morally superior. Whatever your position on the bill (opposed in principle, or worried about some specifics) it's an unhelpful stance that if adopted by anyone in parliament would not advance the debate either way.

The comment about Esther Rantzen is silly and irrelevant.

The suggestion that people who are "in favour in principle but" are, in fact, against in principle, is based on the total absence of any solutions to the concerns raised. You simply raise a series of problems and when the discussion gets into any depth on one of them, you just raise another.

 

[Pblakeney]

One positive out of all of this is that the issue of palliative care has a higher profile. It has never been either/or, and this continual refrain is tiresome.

This is true. However, while my Mum had excellent palliative care her choice was excruciating pain, or in a stupor from morphine.
"Wouldn't treat a dog like this."

 

[First Aspect]

Indeed. There's also no effort from one side of the discussion to address the balance of harms.

I am struck somewhat by the almost religious fervour from the palliative care sector and the "nothing to see here" when it comes to acknowledging that they cannot make everyone die peacefully in their sleep.

The "I am in favour in principle" people don't acknowledge that opposition in all but name is itself causing harm.

No piece of legislation will be perfect, and some people will get harmed. This is why governing is hard.

So, where is the least harm? I'm personally not convinced that the bill itself will move the dial very much at all, because the process will be fairly convoluted and a lot of eligible people will pass away anyway while it goes on.

 

[C R]

The suggestion that people who are "in favour in principle but" are, in fact, against in principle, is based on the total absence of any solutions to the concerns raised. You simply raise a series of problems and when the discussion gets into any depth on one of them, you just raise another.

This is a well known "debating technique" called Gish Gallop.