Assisted dying

[AuroraSaab]

.... 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.

That would truly be state organised suicide then because with proper care there is no reason for disabled people or chronically ill people to feel like that. It's our society that makes many disabled or ill people feel that having their physical needs met is undignified.

Which is not an alternative to assisted dying. We can have both.

Sure, but only one leads to unintended consequences. It started with the terminally ill in Holland and Canada, now it's more widely available, including those with mental illness, anorexia, or just don't have the finances to pay for long term care. I don't think they changed the law again either, just expanded what euthenasia could cover.

This is an article by a psychiatrist, formerly head of his hospital's MAID team, who has changed his mind on medical assistance in dying.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-10-maid-marginalized-people-coroner-death.html

"Laws initially intended to compassionately help Canadians avoid suffering a painful death have metastasized into policies facilitating suicides of other Canadians seeking death to escape a painful life".

It's naive to think the same wouldn't happen here. This bill has poor safeguards and the fact that so many disabled people, disability rights groups, lawyers, and medics themselves are urging caution should make the government go away and think again.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't know what's going on with the software today. It keeps double posting.

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

Spotted on the main site:

I don't know what's going on with the software today. It keeps double posting.

If it's throwing up an error when you first try to post, ignore that. The post likely will have been made.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I don't think they changed the law again either, just expanded what euthenasia could cover.

Please explain how that would happen if the UK bill became law.

 

[BoldonLad]

That would truly be state organised suicide then because with proper care there is no reason for disabled people or chronically ill people to feel like that. It's our society that makes many disabled or ill people feel that having their physical needs met is undignified.



Sure, but only one leads to unintended consequences. It started with the terminally ill in Holland and Canada, now it's more widely available, including those with mental illness, anorexia, or just don't have the finances to pay for long term care. I don't think they changed the law again either, just expanded what euthenasia could cover.

This is an article by a psychiatrist, formerly head of his hospital's MAID team, who has changed his mind on medical assistance in dying.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-10-maid-marginalized-people-coroner-death.html

"Laws initially intended to compassionately help Canadians avoid suffering a painful death have metastasized into policies facilitating suicides of other Canadians seeking death to escape a painful life".

It's naive to think the same wouldn't happen here. This bill has poor safeguards and the fact that so many disabled people, disability rights groups, lawyers, and medics themselves are urging caution should make the government go away and think again.

Sorry haven’t even bothered to read your entire post. You don’t get it, do you?.

I don’t care what YOU or anyone else think about MY dignity, my body, my life, my choice!

 

[AuroraSaab]

I do get it. There are some things though that bring wider issues into play that concern us all. Would you like a law that allows people to sell their kidneys if they wish? Should it be legal to allow someone to amputate your healthy leg because you want it removed? Why do you have to wear a seatbelt if you don't want to?

We have all sorts of laws that remove our individual autonomy because there are wider consequences for society. Your individual decision if taken up by enough people might make others feel they should be euthanised, or make disabled people feel they aren't valued.

There are ways to improve palliative care and help people bring a peaceful conclusion to their suffering, but this bill isn't it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That would truly be state organised suicide then because with proper care there is no reason for disabled people or chronically ill people to feel like that. It's our society that makes many disabled or ill people feel that having their physical needs met is undignified.

What on earth do you mean by 'with proper care'. Haven't you noticed how bad social care for the sick, and especially the elderly sick, is these days. Unless you are in hospital or a hospice it is a joke and dignity and care are the last things professional carers can do in the very short time they are allowed for each visit. It is pie in the sky to think that our society is going to change, especially now that austerity seems to be the first resort of both Tories and Labour.

My father died seven years ago at 89 after suffering from ill health in his last year that left him chair/bed ridden needing someone to feed him and having bowel problems that meant he needed nappies. He did not have a terminal diagnosis even though doctors told us he would only get worse physically. He had carers four times a day for flying visits, who seemed to change regularly and never had time to build up a 'caring' relationship and I regularly made the 25 mile journey at short notice to help clean him up after his 'accidents'. He was a proud, dignified man who never deteriorated mentally, and you have no idea how much it hurt and made him feel diminished having his son or daughter wipe his ar*e, despite us telling him that we were OK with it. Your comment about society making people feel their dignity has been lost displays no real understanding of how different people are and how deeply some feel about it.

I fell out with him several times because he begged me to help him take an overdose and I couldn't do it...mainly out of cowardice, although I knew that in his shoes I would have wanted the same. Luckily, and I use this word with some guilt, he died shortly after before I was really tested in my decision.

I know my father's situation would not have been covered by this legislation and it is not an easy decision but I believe, from the way he died, and also my brother who died a very painful death from pancreatic cancer at 45, that it is the right thing to do in cases of terminal, painful/debilitating illness that take away everything that the person values in their life, and that legislation must be made as watertight as possible to prevent it drifting from very strict requirements and checks.

 

[Beebo]

What on earth do you mean by 'with proper care'. Haven't you noticed how bad social care for the sick, and especially the elderly sick, is these days. Unless you are in hospital or a hospice it is a joke and dignity and care are the last things professional carers can do in the very short time they are allowed for each visit. It is pie in the sky to think that our society is going to change, especially now that austerity seems to be the first resort of both Tories and Labour.

My father died seven years ago at 89 after suffering from ill health in his last year that left him chair/bed ridden needing someone to feed him and having bowel problems that meant he needed nappies. He did not have a terminal diagnosis even though doctors told us he would only get worse physically. He had carers four times a day for flying visits, who seemed to change regularly and never had time to build up a 'caring' relationship and I regularly made the 25 mile journey at short notice to help clean him up after his 'accidents'. He was a proud, dignified man who never deteriorated mentally, and you have no idea how much it hurt and made him feel diminished having his son or daughter wipe his ar*e, despite us telling him that we were OK with it. Your comment about society making people feel their dignity has been lost displays no real understanding of how different people are and how deeply some feel about it.

I fell out with him several times because he begged me to help him take an overdose and I couldn't do it...mainly out of cowardice, although I knew that in his shoes I would have wanted the same. Luckily, and I use this word with some guilt, he died shortly after before I was really tested in my decision.

I know my father's situation would not have been covered by this legislation and it is not an easy decision but I believe, from the way he died, and also my brother who died a very painful death from pancreatic cancer at 45, that it is the right thing to do in cases of terminal, painful/debilitating illness that take away everything that the person values in their life, and that legislation must be made as watertight as possible to prevent it drifting from very strict requirements and checks.

Your father’s story is heart breaking. And I believe the legislation should extend to cover situations like that.
I’m aware of the pitfalls and risks, but in a loving and caring environment it should be possible to make that decision.

 

[Psamathe]

Whilst I agree that in the UK there is no chance that social care or palliative care will improve (depressingly reality is best we can hope for is that it doesn't deteriorate too much). But I don't see the assisted dying as being about the quality of care. Dignity and quality of life can depend on many things, different aspects important for different people.

Hence I support the principle of assisted dying. It's the safeguards that concern me, aspects of coercion (including individuals not wanting to be a burden). Trouble is safeguarding is a complex specialised consideration outside my knowledge so I'm dependent on those who have spent time researching and putting such protections in place. Maybe there are too many people without the needed expertise making statements about the proposed safeguards.

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

I do get it. There are some things though that bring wider issues into play that concern us all. Would you like a law that allows people to sell their kidneys if they wish? Should it be legal to allow someone to amputate your healthy leg because you want it removed? Why do you have to wear a seatbelt if you don't want to?

We have all sorts of laws that remove our individual autonomy because there are wider consequences for society. Your individual decision if taken up by enough people might make others feel they should be euthanised, or make disabled people feel they aren't valued.

There are ways to improve palliative care and help people bring a peaceful conclusion to their suffering, but this bill isn't it.

I have just explained, for me (and by chance, my drinking pals, average age 75) it is not about peaceful endings, it is about not wanting to continue with life once we can no longer actually live it. Living consists of more than breathing and eating in that context. But, if you wish to spend days, months, years event, being kept comfortable then, so be it, you ar welcome to it. I don't want that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What on earth do you mean by 'with proper care'. Haven't you noticed how bad social care for the sick, and especially the elderly sick, is these days. Unless you are in hospital or a hospice it is a joke and dignity and care are the last things professional carers can do in the very short time they are allowed for each visit. It is pie in the sky to think that our society is going to change, especially now that austerity seems to be the first resort of both Tories and Labour.

I think the solution is to properly fund such care then, not starting funding the version of euthanasia that this bill will legislate.

Your comment about society making people feel their dignity has been lost displays no real understanding of how different people are and how deeply some feel about it.

Read what disabled people are saying about this bill. There are profoundly disabled people who feel this bill will put pressure on people in their situation to view their quality of life as poor and their existence as a burden. In Canada and Holland it has led to people being euthanised who have no physical illness but suffered from depression or anorexia, or who simply were worried about care bills.

This bill needs far more rigorous examination before we embark down the same road.

..... it is the right thing to do in cases of terminal, painful/debilitating illness that take away everything that the person values in their life, and that legislation must be made as watertight as possible to prevent it drifting from very strict requirements and checks.

This bill isn't watertight at all though. Even coroners are saying it gives them no opportunity to investigate whether there was coercion. It's got so many problems it would be a travesty if such an important issue was passed without far more scrutiny.

Fox hunting bills have been discussed for 500 hours in parliament, yet people want to push this through with hardly any time spent on it by comparison.

 

[AuroraSaab]

..... it is about not wanting to continue with life once we can no longer actually live it.

Wouldn't you want a law that permits that to be thoroughly examined though? And to make sure that when people make that choice it's not out of desperation because they can't get proper support or care? This bill doesn't protect against any of that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think the solution is to properly fund such care then, not starting funding the version of euthanasia that this bill will legislate.

This will never happen. The two costs are in no way comparable.

Read what disabled people are saying about this bill. There are profoundly disabled people who feel this bill will put pressure on people in their situation to view their quality of life as poor and their existence as a burden. In Canada and Holland it has led to people being euthanised who have no physical illness but suffered from depression or anorexia, or who simply were worried about care bills.

This bill needs far more rigorous examination before we embark down the same road.

Is this what all disabled people are saying, or just those who disagree with it and are worried about it. My disabled father agreed with the principle of assisted dying.

Because of what has sometimes happened in Canada and Holland it is important that the regulations and checks are made even more stringent. We do not have to follow them.

I have no problem with more rigorous examination.

This bill isn't watertight at all though. Even coroners are saying it gives them no opportunity to investigate whether there was coercion. It's got so many problems it would be a travesty if such an important issue was passed without far more scrutiny.

It needs scrutiny for the reasons you say, even if that means a slight delay.


The above points do not alter the moral principles behind this legislation, whether people approve of it or not. I approve of it because of my own wishes and because of family experience, with safeguards; you clearly don't and don't believe the safeguards will be sufficient.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Read what SOME disabled people are saying about this bill.

Sorry, that's already been said.

 

[AuroraSaab]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-dying-bill-vote-mps-disabled-people-liz-carr

This will never happen. The two costs are in no way comparable.

Because we can't (I would say won't ...) fund proper care for the disabled and terminally ill *, we need to provide an alternative? You can surely see that such a situation could lead to people who do want to live being pressured into believing they are a burden once they reach a certain point of care requirements?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/par...employee-offered-her-assisted-dying-1.6179325

I have no It needs scrutiny for the reasons you say, even if that means a slight delay.

This is what most people are simply asking for. Instead it is being pushed through without full discussion or consultation.

The above points do not alter the moral principles behind this legislation, whether people approve of it or not. I approve of it because of my own wishes and because of family experience, with safeguards; you clearly don't and don't believe the safeguards will be sufficient.

Doctors already act to end the lives of the terminally ill. I have no objection to that. Their suffering could be further eased by better palliative care - I am very much in favour of that. It's crazy that hospice funding is 70% from their own charity fundraising and 30% from government.

This legislation goes beyond that though and it really is a slippery slope.

* can't find the paper now but doctor's estimates (USA I think) of how long a patient would live were roughly accurate in only 30% of cases. Many patients outlived their estimates.