Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[classic33]

Should it be allowed, and at what point should you be able to use it, with no-one who facing prosecution for helping you.

I'm partway there as it, with a DNR on record. This came about as result of two separate but similar events, the first of which took place in hospital with me completely unaware of it till later.
If it happens again, the chances of survival with a reasonable life afterwards are slim. If I'm lucky, full time care will be all that's required. The brain will be further damaged, possibly resulting in being in nothing but a persistent vegetative state. Painkillers are already a no, with their last use thirteen years ago resulting in admission from the A&E. A nurse and a doctor left facing discipline procedures because they didn't have full access to the records, and finishing their shifts submitting their version of events. A busy A&E down a senior nurse and one doctor.

I for one do not want to "live" like that. Or have anyone facing prosecution for letting me go or if a simple mistake were to be made and misinterpreted afterwards with hindsight.

 

[classic33]

When the doctor suggests a course of antibiotics you're unlikely to feel a sense of coercion though. You might if he/she suggests assisted dying and you're in a care home that's costing your kids £4k a month.

Better comparison would be surgery being offered before you've had a chance to even consider it.
A course of antibiotics is usually a short term measure, five days at most.

 

[Psamathe]

My current thoughts are that Assisted Dying should be available but the crucial considerations in the law(s) permitting it are scope and safeguards.

Scope: I feel that it's definitions of scope are down to detailed medical & psychological knowledge rather beyond my expertise and beyond the expertise of most of our politicians.

Safeguards: Again a lot comes down to expert knowledge on eg detecting coercion, what constitutes suffering and unacceptable loss of dignity, treatment options, prognosis reliability, etc. so again beyong my expertise.

That said, pof course I/we can look at what is being proposed and be critical of it (particvularly as so much legislation coming out of Westminster seems to fail to address it's intent and include loads of (maybe deliberate) loopholes and unintended consequences).

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

Exactly. There are so many factors involved that pushing through a bill without thorough scrutiny and safeguards will result in unintended consequences that are hard to undo.

 

[Psamathe]

Exactly. There are so many factors involved that pushing through a bill without thorough scrutiny and safeguards will result in unintended consequences that are hard to undo.

I thought it had been going through loads of scrutiny in committees, with expert inputs, etc. sin ce last Oct and is still subject to further debate and amendments.

My worry is that there will always be some who strongly disagree with the principle eg on religious grounds so there will always be objections to aspects. People are already subject to coercion and for those with adequate finances there are virtually no safeguards (eg greedy relative offering a trip to Switzerland).

At what point does one accept that appropriate experts have provided their input and sensible safeguards put in place. If one accepts that Assisted Dying is something society should permit then we need to take decisions not prevaricate forever whilst every ideological objector proves nothing can change their views.

From what I can see of the bill much of the criticism of it is actually explicitly excluded (eg mental illness, anorexia as so many are talking about). And exclusions are pointed out objectors start with "... but 'mission creep'".

Unintended consequences can be addressed by Parliament very quickly if necessary. Laws have been made in a day eg a recent law to allow the seizure of Scunthorpe steel works. So serious "unintended consequences that are hard to undo" can be fixed quickly.

Ian

 

[Beebo]

91% of all pet dogs die when the person who loves them the most decides their time is up and it’s too cruel to continue.

I know a dog has no agency in the decision, but it’s not like the UK population don’t understand the issues of assisted dying. As they have been managing it for decades.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unintended consequences can be addressed by Parliament very quickly if necessary. Laws have been made in a day eg a recent law to allow the seizure of Scunthorpe steel works. So serious "unintended consequences that are hard to undo" can be fixed quickly.

Totally different situations. Look how long it took to get rape in marriage not being a criminal offence undone. Once laws are passed it's hard to undo them. Better to build in the safeguards at the outset.

 

[Psamathe]

Totally different situations. Look how long it took to get rape in marriage not being a criminal offence undone. Once laws are passed it's hard to undo them. Better to build in the safeguards at the outset.

Depends on how urgent the issue is as to how fast Parliament will respond.

I agree better to build in safeguards but as repeatedly pointed out "But Naz Shah's amendment was rejected ..." there are likely good reasons and not in relation to safeguarding (as the amendment did not add any safeguards). We can go on ad-infinitum reviewing, adjusting, adding specific clauses for specific conditions already covered, etc. and end up never getting anywhere and with a law that's a complete dogs breakfast and then medics classify an "Anorexia Type 7" that isn't mentioned specifically ...

As others have said, maybe if you disagree with Assisted Dying on ideological grounds then fine, valid position but at least be honest about it.

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

'Likely good reasons'? You don't even know what they were then. You're just taking it on trust that there must be good reasons with no curiosity about whether they were valid nor the implications.

Naz Shah was on board with the bill. She was chosen to be on the committee - she's a good friend of Kim Leadbeater - but even she has changed her mind at the committee stage.

I'm not against assisted dying. I'm against this bill in it's current form. If you don't give a toss about the most vulnerable in our society and its implications for them, because you want to make sure you get the assisted dying that you personally want, then I'd rather you were honest about that too. This has obviously turned into a pointless ideological discussion rather than a debate about the particular legislation.

 

[Psamathe]

'Likely good reasons'? You don't even know what they were then.

To be honest I've not searched out and studied and researched every proposed amendment to decide I know better than experts who hve studies and deal with such issues every working day.

Like I accept that on a given stretch of road 60 mph speed limit is fine where on a different stretch of the same road it's a 50 limit and I don't go measure distances, study road research papers, etc.

My interpretation is Naz Shah's amendment about anorexia is irrelevant as that condition is already excluded and that adding specific conditions that are already covered could introduce unnecessary complexity and potential ambiguity(eg as I said previously, saying anorexia is not a terminal illness and is a mental conditions could be argued that "had they intended ..." bulimia would have also been listed ... and you've created your "Mission Creep" you argue is a risk.

But I'll admit I'm not a lawyer and lawyers I've seen interviewed (eg BBC Newsnight) have said "Anorexia is already excluded".

Ian.

 

[All uphill]

Disclaimer: My views on this are from personal experience. I've not studied the proposed legislation.

Ms AU and I made the decision to withdraw life support from one of our children, and Ms AU now has a condition that could result in sudden death. Those experiences have shown us , as @classic33 implies, that death is not the worst possible outcome, and that attempting to avoid the risk of sudden death is worse than living with the possibility.

I have little confidence in the state's ability to design and implement robust safeguards, so I have no easy answer, and I suspect no one else does either.

 

[Pblakeney]

Assisted Dying, Yes or No?​

Yes. 100% yes.
After watching my mother suffer the last few months even though she had excellent palliative care it didn't matter as she simply wanted to go.
Plus, she had made that intention clear decades previous.

 

[First Aspect]

Okay, let's start with Naz Shah's amendment. She seems to be involved in several so you will need to narrow it down.

Just read a new statesman interview with her, and she's managed to link Assisted Dying to forced.marriage and suicide attempts. I am struggling with this reasoning already.

 

[AuroraSaab]

To be honest I've not searched out and studied and researched every proposed amendment to decide I know better than experts who hve studies and deal with such issues every working day.

The palliative care specialists, the hospices, and the college of psychiatrists seem to be against it though. Unlike some areas it's not one where they have a vested interest.

 

[First Aspect]

Time for some data on this really.

The argument against, from what I'm going to term the palliative care sector, presents a choice between palliative care or assisted dying. This is a disingenuous position to adopt.

They also claim that everyone can receive palliative care and meet their end comfortably. This is also medically untrue. And irrelevant frankly, if someone doesn't want to.