Assisted dying

[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.

Edit: the study was actually the UK, of 100k terminally ill patients. Explained here:


View: https://x.com/TradSkowronski/status/1861413223573963194

 

[spen666]

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.

It's not a complicated point I am making

1. Tomorrow (ie Friday 29 November
2. is the 2nd (not 1st or 3rd) Reading of the Bill

See, it's not complicated to understand, unless you are trying to make it something else

 

[Rusty Nails]

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

Exactly. If doctors can do it what is wrong with the individual having the same say?

I have some experience of palliative care and it's effect on people. In 2019 my 68 year old s-i-l was terminally ill with cancer and on end of life care in St Giles Hospice in Lichfield. My wife and I sat with her every day for the three weeks she was in there. She was out of it most of the time on morphine, but when she had rare times of lucidity we tried to talk with her, probably about family banalities in a vain attempt to raise her spirits, but all she wanted to say, other than how much she loved us, for being sorry for putting us through it and to ensure her will was in place, was that she just wanted to be out of the pain and misery she felt. She knew there was no hope of anything other than a continuation of what she was going through.

I cannot fault the hospice or the staff there but it was a situation where there was no hope for her and nothing but future pain and misery. The only way her suffering was eased was by putting her in a drug induced sleep. At the very end we were convinced that her suffering was only stopped by judicious and merciful use of the morphine.

Why not give her the choice to make that decision?

This debate should not be about statistics or impersonal arguments...it is about individual people, their suffering and their choice and their rights.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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.

It is not about the length of time left but the quality of life and level of suffering of the individual in that time.

 

[icowden]

It is not about the length of time left but the quality of life and level of suffering of the individual in that time.

Indeed and it can become quite complex. One of the clients I work with is a specialist hospital for older men with severe dementia. They have usually been sectioned. Each of them is cared for with a 2 staff to each patient ratio. Many of the patients receive few visits as their relatives find it harder and harder to reconcile the visits with the person they are now seeing. Sexual disinhibition is common, and for many, they will slowly deteriorate. Some will deteriorate until they are being fed pureed meals, at risk of complications every time they eat. They will no longer be able to understand or make their own decisions. I'm not sure what the assisted dying bill covers, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live out my last few years not knowing who or where I am most of the time, struggling to eat, at risk of falls etc.

Of course the danger is that for some patients, they do get visits and they do get lucid moments. It's very difficult to decide at what point a relative has the ability to decide that their parent should not have to continue living anymore. The counterbalance to that is that I would suspect that just like with a DNAR, any such decision would be made by the relative along with the medical team, therapists etc. It's not enough that a relative decides, the clinical team also has to be in agreement.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

It is not about the length of time left but the quality of life and level of suffering of the individual in that time.

Exactly, the six month condition was probably put in to appease the 'caring' 'concerned' busybodies, now they are saying, well actually we can't be absolutely sure you might have seven months of pointless pain left before your inevitable death.

BBC this morning saying the vote is too close to call. Let's hope our wonderful representatives don't cop out.

 

[AuroraSaab]

With properly funded end of life care very few people would face 7 months of pointless pain. Individual choices have wider implications. That's why we don't allow people the individual choice to sell their organs, not wear crash helmets, take any drugs they like and so on. Any law like this needs to be carefully drafted, debated thoroughly, and scrutinised to the n th degree. This proposal is none of that.

If we look at places where similar laws are in place the scope of the law has been expanded without going back to parliament.

Oregon is the assisted dying model pushed by some advocates here but what was a law to help the terminally ill now includes others illnesses. "The result of this interpretative sleight of hand is that assisted suicides have been granted in Oregon in recent years for diabetes, arthritis, a hernia and, most disturbingly, anorexia – hardly conditions generally considered ‘terminal.'".
https://www.google.com/amp/s/labourlist.org/2024/11/assisted-dying-bill-kim-leadbeater-oregon-mary-glindon/?amp

 

[icowden]

"The result of this interpretative sleight of hand is that assisted suicides have been granted in Oregon in recent years for diabetes, arthritis, a hernia and, most disturbingly, anorexia – hardly conditions generally considered ‘terminal.'".

There is an excellent Guardian article about the Anorexia implications of assisted dying and why for some people it might be appropriate, but for others it might promote a path away from recovery.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/13/anorexia-right-to-die-terminal-mental-health

The most important thing that comes up is what I have already alluded to - which is that no one person should be able to choose assisted dying, it needs to be done in collaboration with the medical team. For some people it will be the right choice. The most difficult decisions will be where the patient lacks capacity to choose for themselves, and the decision has to be between relatives and the medical team.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The most difficult decisions will be where the patient lacks capacity to choose for themselves, and the decision has to be between relatives and the medical team.

Which isn't what this bill is about. Please don't confuse the hard of thinking, thin end of the wedge, fear mongers.

 

[Psamathe]

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.

My understanding is that it's only a "2nd Reading". If it passes it's still going to go to Committee stages, 3rd reading when it is open to amendments, then to the House of Lords who scrutinise it further and can pass it back to the Commons.

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

Better to address the issues in the legislation now rather than later.

 

[Psamathe]

Better to address the issues in the legislation now rather than later.

Parliament is busy. We have to live in the real world not out idealised world.

I do have concerns about the bill but I see it as a lot lot better that the present situation and if there are tweaks to improve then it's at the right place at the right time. It's the reason for the system of passing legislation, the points at which it's scrutinised. We'd never get any legislation passed if every bit of proposed legislation went through all the scrutiny stages just to be voted down first time it is presented to a Parliamentary vote.

It's a lot better that most Westminster legislation at this stage in passing into law.

Ian

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And after 14 years of Tory govt

'Badenoch says she's against bill, citing teenager gender treatment as example of why NHS safeguards too weak'.

 

[AndyRM]

Palliative care is basically a euphemism for easing people into the afterlife.

What a surprise that the DUP are against it.

This is all mired in religious bullsh!t about the sanctity of life.

The sooner we actually realise death is part of life the better.

 

[Psamathe]

Palliative care is basically a euphemism for easing people into the afterlife.

What a surprise that the DUP are against it.

This is all mired in religious bullsh!t about the sanctity of life.

The sooner we actually realise death is part of life the better.

There is an aspect to our democratic process that concerns me ... that our system is a representative democracy, we elect our MPs to represent us. I have concerns that some MPs will be voting on this bill deciding on their own views/conscience. An MP should be able to vote against their personal views to represent the views of their constituents.

But that concern is invariably based on suspicion as without a referendum it is all but impossible to establish the views of constituents. Most issues will prompt letter writing from concerned groups which will result in a skewed impression of population views.

I have seen some MPs interviewed or expressing strong impressions on religious grounds which I suspect means they are treating their vote as expressing their personal views rather than the views of their constituents.

For this bill I don't feel "Tyranny of the Majority" is a consideration as the bill is all about safeguards (so MPs should be representing their constituents not their personal ideology).

Ian