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.