Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[First Aspect]

Assisted dying for mental health reasons has gone up in the last ten years from 2 in 2010 to 219 in 2024 in the Netherlands. Could that be because as you say "Most mental health inflicted/motivated suicides are caused by the fact it takes such a goddamn long time to actually get the help needed"?

Picking this up from the Starmer thread so that @Stevo666 can have a safe space to complain about leftiebollocks.

 

[First Aspect]

Assisted dying for mental health reasons has gone up in the last ten years from 2 in 2010 to 219 in 2024 in the Netherlands. Could that be because as you say "Most mental health inflicted/motivated suicides are caused by the fact it takes such a goddamn long time to actually get the help needed"?

Picking this up from the Starmer thread so that @Stevo666 can have a safe space to complain about leftiebollocks.

So, Netherlands does not have a terminality condition on assisted dying.

The data is interesting, but Tim Harford has taught me that when I see a statistics showing a 1000% increase, it might be worth asking why.

Has data recording changed, for example? E.g. has there been a change in reporting to pull in more than just a primary condition? Was 2010 the first year of the legislation?

There might, just possibly, be a reason other than clinicians in the Netherlands getting sick of being pestered by patients with mental health conditions.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Classic introduced epilepsy, not me.
As I understand it, the chair of the committee - Leadbetter - puts forward the names to the Committee of Selection who choose the members from her list.

I haven't suggested Dutch GP's are approving suicide for annoying patients.

 

[First Aspect]

Classic introduced epilepsy, not me.
As I understand it, the chair of the committee - Leadbetter - puts forward the names to the Committee of Selection who choose the members from her list.

I haven't suggested Dutch GP's are approving suicide for annoying patients.

No you haven't said that.

But it would be interesting, presuming you are indeed interested in the unintended potential impact on patients with mental health conditions and citing the Dutch numbers as support, to look into those in a bit more detail.

Call me cynical but I'm not one for taking things at face value.

You have suggested that Kim Leadbeater chose the committee members though. Which is not accurate.

 

[Webbo2]

Given under the UK mental health act you can be given treatment ( feeding) against your wishes if you have a diagnosis of an eating disorder and your body weight is low enough to be life threatening. I struggle to see how assisted dying might be approved.

 

[classic33]

You constantly say this about stuff and it's never true.

Ooh, but it is true.

As it's physiological in origin I would call it a medical condition. Whether it's a disability depends on its severity I suppose.

One type, but not all types. But all are disabilities. But you avoid answering again.

@First Aspect, it was myself that sort of introduced it in the first post of this thread. It's something I'm living with, and having to decline treatment because of. Deciding which should get priority. Because of the impact of other treatments on it, I've had things go wrong.
This "conflict of interests" has led to the DNR being questioned by some. There's a very real chance of being left in a PVS, which is something I don't want. I've based this on the short term periods where I've been admitted to hospital due to the epilepsy, where machines have been there keeping me "alive". To be in that state day in day out isn't something I want. Nor do I want anyone being blamed for not "helping me live" like that.
@All uphill seems to have picked up on what I meant, in that there's worse than dying. Not just for myself.
And if I'd checked before starting this thread, to try and keep another on track, I'd have seen @Beebo's thread on the same subject from late last year.

 

[First Aspect]

Okay, so given it's a delicate subject I know a dangerously little about... Your personal concern is finding yourself in a situation you would not wish to persist, but unable legally for your wishes in that case to be respected in advance, but unable to express them should it occur l?

 

[Ian H]

Okay, so given it's a delicate subject I know a dangerously little about... Your personal concern is finding yourself in a situation you would not wish to persist, but unable legally for your wishes in that case to be respected in advance, but unable to express them should it occur l?

Er... run that past me again.

 

[First Aspect]

Er... run that past me again.

Too many double negatives?

I'm probably projecting a personal fear here. I worry about dementia. I do a demanding intellectual job and I'm good at it. By its nature it puts me at higher risk. So does my genetics.

There's no point being being here but not being me. I would like to choose when I say I'm not me enough to bother, bit when that happens I won't be considered to have capacity to choose. My advance wishes will count for nothing.

None of this is relevant to the assisted dying bill.

 

[Mr Celine]

Her concern is that ill people might be coerced into assisted dying by a spouse, or other relative, whether forcibly or by persuasion, or guilted in to it. Just as people goad their partners into suicide.

Partners goaded into suicide aren't usually terminally ill.

Faced with a terminal diagnosis an abused partner might welcome the chance to end the abuse early.

On the other hand the abuser might persuade or guilt the ill partner into refusing assisted dying in order to continue the abuse for another six months.

 

[AndyRM]

This thread is all kinds of weird.

Go out on your own terms of that's how you want to.

 

[Bazzer]

Coincidentally an update on the BBC website.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyqej092qno

 

[First Aspect]

Naz Shar is on the R4 now conflating the Royal Society of Psychiatry's position on the bill with anorexia specially. Also very misleadingly saying it will be up to the doctors to determine how the law is applied. The law says literally the opposite. She also seems to believe that the fact that someone with a mental health condition can apply for assisted dying is an issue - ignoring that if they were excluded but had a terminal condition, that would be grossly discriminating against people with a mental health condition.

I have to be honest, she's not coming across as particularly bright. Or at least, she's firing out somewhat unconnected points, scattergun.

There is space for debate on all of these topics, but when it is festooned with inaccuracies and hyperbole to the point of bordering on lies, it make me angry.

This thread illustrates how making outlandish extrapolations automatically urges people to the opposing side.

Gah.

 

[Bazzer]

It's not just about anorexia. None of the countries who introduced it seem to have intended for it to be for anything other than terminal physical illness. But it has invariably expanded - without further laws being passed - to wider conditions.

Again you are providing inaccurate information.
The Beligian law passed in 2002 had from outset included mental suffering.
Edit. There may be others, but that was the first one I looked at.

 

[Psamathe]

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.

There is a further suggestion that the legislation is so bad, Kim Leadbetters friend has changed her mind about it.

Naz Shah voted against the bill on 2nd reading (https://members.parliament.uk/member/4409/voting?page=7), so where is the change on mind?

Ian