Assisted dying
- Thread starter Beebo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
A complex issue and I don't think I understand or appreciate enough so probably good that I don't get a vote. My current (but very open to changing) view is that I'm in favour of the principle being proposed but do have concerns about safeguards as I really don't know how effective GPs and a judge would be at reliably identifying coercion. Plus people can even coerce themselves eg "I don't want to be a burden".
In practice timescales could be a challenge. If somebody is expected to have 6 months, see a consultant to write a letter "less than 6 months" to your GP (3 days in post, 3 days to be scanned onto GP systems) it can take more than 3 weeks to get a max 10 min. GP appointment for non-emergency, and what it the current delay for court cases? But that's resolvable.
But then no system can be perfect and if we seek 100% guarantees we'll never move from worse to better.
Palliative Care
But I feel the argument some against the change are presenting about instead we need to improve palliative care as being irrelevant to the assisted dying. We (as a society) should be improving palliative care whatever any decision about assisted dying - it's a separate issue. Many would never chose assisted dying so they should have good palliative care - separate issue from assisted dying.
Also, so often we've seen investigations and reports into how aspects of the NHS should and could be improved and yet Government then fails to act. So Gov. instigates then a report on improving palliative care and does anybody think that in the current financial climate and NHS budget constraints anything will actually improve?
I feel the "improve Palliative Care" argument is being used by those against the change as a way to suggest there are improvements making the change unnecessary which I feel is a separate issue.
Ian
In practice timescales could be a challenge. If somebody is expected to have 6 months, see a consultant to write a letter "less than 6 months" to your GP (3 days in post, 3 days to be scanned onto GP systems) it can take more than 3 weeks to get a max 10 min. GP appointment for non-emergency, and what it the current delay for court cases? But that's resolvable.
But then no system can be perfect and if we seek 100% guarantees we'll never move from worse to better.
Palliative Care
But I feel the argument some against the change are presenting about instead we need to improve palliative care as being irrelevant to the assisted dying. We (as a society) should be improving palliative care whatever any decision about assisted dying - it's a separate issue. Many would never chose assisted dying so they should have good palliative care - separate issue from assisted dying.
Also, so often we've seen investigations and reports into how aspects of the NHS should and could be improved and yet Government then fails to act. So Gov. instigates then a report on improving palliative care and does anybody think that in the current financial climate and NHS budget constraints anything will actually improve?
I feel the "improve Palliative Care" argument is being used by those against the change as a way to suggest there are improvements making the change unnecessary which I feel is a separate issue.
Ian
AuroraSaab
Squire
No, it's a terrible law in it's current state. It will end up with elderly patients signing up so they aren't a burden, there are no real safeguards against coercion, and we know from other countries that what was aimed at the terminally ill ends up being extended to those with depression and anorexia. It's state assisted suicide when what is needed is properly funded palliative care.
Do Not Resuscitate notices were placed on patients without their permission during covid. I simply don't trust any UK government or the NHS in it's current cash strapped state to administer this properly. It's the definition of a slippery slope law with unintended consequences.
This doctor gives a good summary of the problems with this bill.
https://x.com/DrCalumMiller
Do Not Resuscitate notices were placed on patients without their permission during covid. I simply don't trust any UK government or the NHS in it's current cash strapped state to administer this properly. It's the definition of a slippery slope law with unintended consequences.
This doctor gives a good summary of the problems with this bill.
https://x.com/DrCalumMiller
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
And if I click on that, I see
'Shadowy dark money behind the assisted suicide/euthanasia bill connected to American global population reduction organisations'
Sounds completely plausible*
* o.k. I'd better add that I don't think it does at all.
icowden
Squire
Hmmm... the first thing on his timeline is "shadowy money" because the Open Society Foundations involved in a think tank receive funding from George Soros...
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
There's that false binary crap again.
I regard that as a seperate issue. We should have properly funded palliative irrespective of the assisted dying proposal.
Ian
Other countries have a different legal system and introduced different laws and I can't really comment on something as broad as "other".
My understanding from what specialist commentators I've see have said is that the "terminal" means that there is no treatment and that conditions like depression and anorexia do have treatments and thus would not be covered by the law as it is being proposed.
If it's a UK law then any extension to include non-terminal conditions (that cannot be treated) would require Parliament ammend the law which would require further debate.
Ian
Unfortunately most of this has been handed over to either charitable organisations or private enterprises and while I have no doubt some are excellent at what they do many are not and the same can be said of social care as a whole.
Take so called care in the community if the person does not have family willing or able to take on the majority of this care it often in reality becomes abandonment in the community with 2-3 visits a day lasting 15-30 minutes.
AuroraSaab
Squire
We already have palliative care treatment pathways that ensure people don't suffer. We just don't fund it well enough.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
Which is not an alternative to assisted dying. We can have both.
spen666
Well-Known Member
Its the 2nd reading of this Bill tomorrow
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
At 77, I may need to avail myself of this before the rest of you 😊
I am in favour. In my view, the proposed law is too timid, but, it’s a start in the right direction.
The Palliative care argument is not relevant in my view. Of course, we should have excellent palliative care, but, what the advocates of Palliative care don’t seem to get is that for many of us (myself and everyone of my 6 drinking pals), it is the loss of dignity and quality of life which is most worrying, even if the medics are able to provide it, I/we do not want months/years of “being cared for”, even if it is totally pain free and comfortable.
I am in favour. In my view, the proposed law is too timid, but, it’s a start in the right direction.
The Palliative care argument is not relevant in my view. Of course, we should have excellent palliative care, but, what the advocates of Palliative care don’t seem to get is that for many of us (myself and everyone of my 6 drinking pals), it is the loss of dignity and quality of life which is most worrying, even if the medics are able to provide it, I/we do not want months/years of “being cared for”, even if it is totally pain free and comfortable.
OP
OP
Beebo
Guru
It’s all degrees of suffering.
Most people will want a bit of palliative care in the early stages.They just want to say when it stops.
And even the best care is going to involve some pain and discomfort. As you say, daily bed baths and being hoisted onto the commode isn’t much fun.
OP
OP
Beebo
Guru
I don’t understand the point you are making.
MPs don’t vote on 1st reading. So this is the first time they get to vote.
Yes, the vote only takes us to the next stage of the process, but it’s still an indicative vote.
