Assisted dying

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
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.
My mother is in a similar situation.
She would be appalled if her healthy self could see her now. For example, she was always adamant she never wanted to be in a situation where others, particularly my sister and I, had to be involved in her personal care, but that is exactly where she is.
I don't want my daughters to go through what me and my sister are going through.
 

Psamathe

Regular
With properly funded end of life care very few people would face 7 months of pointless pain.
On this I think Wes Streeting is being somewhat hypocritical talking about Palliative Care improvement given that in his/Labour's short time in office they have acted such to reduce the quality of such care. So they made things worse, not even maintaining current poor service.

If Wes Streeting disagrees with the budget he dhould quit his ministerial position - he hasn't so only adsumption is he agrees with it.

Ian
 

bobzmyunkle

Senior Member
Leadbeater said on the radio that there won't be any creep because the law can't be changed. So WTF have they just voted for this afternoon if it's not a change in the law?
Feel free to have your rant, but please don't quote me out of context whilst doing so.
Did Kim Leadbeater really say the law can't be changed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Psamathe

Regular
Leadbeater said on the radio that there won't be any creep because the law can't be changed. So WTF have they just voted for this afternoon if it's not a change in the law?
This afternoon was not voting on a law - so it's not a change in the law. It was the 2nd reading. Before becoming law there are further stages of scrutiny, likely amendments and more votes (both in Commons and House of Lords).

Ian
 

presta

Member
.
Feel free to have your rant, but please don't quote me out of context whilst doing so.
Did Kim Leadbeater really say the law can't be changed?
A rant being anything you don't like presumably.
How was it out of context, the conversation was about creep widening the scope of those who will be eligible for assisted dying, and Leadbeater said on R4 that there can't be any creep like that because the law can't be changed.
This afternoon was not voting on a law - so it's not a change in the law. It was the 2nd reading. Before becoming law there are further stages of scrutiny, likely amendments and more votes (both in Commons and House of Lords).

Ian
The vote was the first step toward changing the law, which proves that laws can be changed, contrary to what Leadbeater was saying on the radio.
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
Without a transcript of the radio interview that Leadbetter gave we have to go on what she has said on record about the risk of creep:

"Asked about the "slippery slope" argument, Ms Leadbeater said: "Wherever a law has been introduced in other countries and it's got strict limited criteria with proper safeguards and protections, it hasn't been widened. So there is a perception that's the case but it isn't the case.

"Where there are countries where the law is broader, that was always how it started. So I think there is a perception around the slippery slope concept, which actually isn't reality
.""

She is not stupid and of course knows laws can be changed.
 

multitool

Pharaoh
Moving on from legal creep...

Any thoughts on whether you'd trust doctors to administer this system given that most of us don't even see the same GP every time we go to the doctor's, and that the NHS is in a state of permanent chaos?
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
Moving on from legal creep...

Any thoughts on whether you'd trust doctors to administer this system given that most of us don't even see the same GP every time we go to the doctor's, and that the NHS is in a state of permanent chaos?

The only answer I can give at this stage of the legislation and without seeing the resources, training and protocols that will be put into the medical and legal sides of it is no.
 
Without a transcript of the radio interview that Leadbetter gave we have to go on what she has said on record about the risk of creep:

"Asked about the "slippery slope" argument, Ms Leadbeater said: "Wherever a law has been introduced in other countries and it's got strict limited criteria with proper safeguards and protections, it hasn't been widened. So there is a perception that's the case but it isn't the case.

That is patently untrue though. In Holland and Canada what was legislated as a law for the consenting terminally ill has in fact 'slippery sloped' to other conditions, all without additional legislation. They simply expand what 'terminal' means from those with a terminal physical illness to those with a mental health issue or eg anorexia. Let's face it, many treatable diseases are terminal if you don't treat them, eg diabetes, so you can bring a lot things under the legislation that it was never intended to cover.

"Canada introduced assisted dying in 2016 for adults with a terminal illness. In 2021, it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled.

On 17 March 2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...awyer-who-tried-to-take-his-own-life-13260546
 

theclaud

Reading around the chip
I know it's a tenet of forum discourse that no one ever alters their position or changes their mind, but this is something on which I've undergone a 180° pivot over a relatively short period, based not on principle but on how things actually are. It doesn't seem long ago I would have backed up Bob on the jist and the detail.

But here we are - we all have the government that Multitool deserves, and (surprise, surprise) it's amenable to the suggestion that there are groups of citizens who are better off dead. Goalposts to be set by people who have been entirely relaxed about, and provided material support for, their allies who have been spending well over a year slaughtering and maiming toddlers for being Arab and in the way of their designs. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Top Bottom