| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? 09:15 - Nov 13 with 4486 views | Keno |
sorry if I missed it but I havent seen it discussed on here.
For my part I'm broadly in favour subject to certain safe guards around possible coercion.
I think people should have some degree of choice in these awful situations |  |
| |  |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:02 - Nov 13 with 790 views | Ryorry |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 14:55 - Nov 13 by Churchman |
This is such a tough subject, but here goes.
Firstly, I agree with the OP. But it’s complex and difficult.
My mother died in 2018. She broke her pelvis early Dec 2017 and died the following February. She was 92, had a multitude of problems and dementia. But she knew who her family were and who she was. Late January she was fading. Eating and drinking - she just didn’t want it and feigned it if encouraged. It’s actually what happens sometimes when people begin to shut down.
My mother was in constant and ever worsening pain during that period. 10 days before she died she told me every fibre of her being, every hair on her head was in agony. As I held her, if I could have taken that away from her by ending it, I’d have done it for her willingly right there.
I went to see the wonderful staff at Asterbury Care Home who were as ever unfailingly kind. They told me all they were trying to do (drugs, this that and the other) and nobody could do more. One lady was even in on her day off to sit and do what she could. I cut to the chase and said look, I know she’s going to die soon. How long do you think?
We just don’t know and neither do the doctors. 2 weeks to 3 months is all we can say, but not beyond that. A few days later, she tried to end it herself but was too weak to get it done. Monitored, sedated, morphined eventually, she died a few days later.
The key to this too long story (apologies) is that while I was perfectly happy to cut short her pain and would have done it myself necessary, my father and sister certainly would not have understood or accepted it. My dad was in denial and thought palliative care was a few days rest and all would be well, my sister knew the truth but refused to believe it. So in this instance, any form of assisted dying was out of the question.
Last year I saw the saddest, most difficult sights in the hospice, including my father, I wouldn’t wish on anyone or any living thing. I have been present when three of our cats have been put to sleep at the end of their lives and tough though it is, it’s the kindest thing when the options are out. Can you compare pets to people? In some respects of course no, but in others, yes.
I strongly believe there is a place for assisted dying. Quite how you do it and avoid a madman like Shipman or getting rid of people out of convenience etc etc, I don’t know. But the principle is sound. Is life sacrosanct? I think so, but existence for existence sake isn’t in my view. Living is not the above. But that’s how I see it and we are all different.
So yes, in favour. As Keno suggested, it needs rigorous safeguards of course. |
Feel for you in that awful situation, and my sympathies.
The problem is that many elderly people have large sums of money & property to leave - the financial implications (and potential malicious motives) just aren't a factor with pets, but massively complicate things for humans, sadly. |  |
| |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:09 - Nov 13 with 772 views | Churchman |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:02 - Nov 13 by Ryorry |
Feel for you in that awful situation, and my sympathies.
The problem is that many elderly people have large sums of money & property to leave - the financial implications (and potential malicious motives) just aren't a factor with pets, but massively complicate things for humans, sadly. |
Thank you. I agree - disgusting peoples’ selfish motivations are just one of the many risks (complications) with it. |  | | |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:25 - Nov 13 with 754 views | Ryorry |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:09 - Nov 13 by Churchman |
Thank you. I agree - disgusting peoples’ selfish motivations are just one of the many risks (complications) with it. |
Quite. And there can be even more complications if there's a "per stirpes" provision in a Will - eg "I leave my house to Joanna and her children, but if she dies before John, then John & his children get it".
Only know about this because it was the major storyline, in which the precise timing of a death was crucial because of inheritance, in a Dorothy Sayers whodunnit - 'The Unpleasantness At The Bellona Club' serialised on R4Extra!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unpleasantness_at_the_Bellona_Club [Post edited 13 Nov 2024 15:29]
| |
| |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:44 - Nov 13 with 744 views | cinnamonITFC |
(Sorry long post!)
I work within in the medical profession, and it is likely that if this bill is passed, I could be asked to be involved in assessing whether someone is eligible for assisted dying.
I of course have huge sympathies with anyone going through these situations at present. However, I do have really significant concerns regarding this upcoming bill, and feel quite strongly about it.
Particularly in terms of safeguarding vulnerable adults. From my experience, ‘safeguards’ is a word that is used to make us feel better about our anxieties with this bill – but in reality, I don’t think any amount of safeguards will make this bill safe. (Eg. capacity is subjective, coercion/feelings of burden is extremely difficult to assess, mental health has rarely been assessed professionally prior, if one doctor disagrees – patients can just find another, some doctors will inherently be more ‘pro’ than others, and willing to sign off eligibility etc etc.)
Both sides come at this debate from a position of wanting the best for their patients, vulnerable adults and loved ones, and therefore I hope that all viewpoints can be respected.
I’ve adapted the below from a letter I sent to my MP regarding this. It’s brief (arguments not fully fleshed out), and not comprehensive, but hopefully it’s helpful to some.
I’m fully aware that lots of people disagree with me, and that is absolutely okay - I understand why. But I do think we should think very carefully about the full implications of this being passed, before coming to a decision – even if it is against what we might ‘want’ for ourselves/our loved ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst not an argument against assisted dying, it is vital to first consider the ‘slippery slope’. This is important, because whilst some arguments may not apply to the current proposed bill, it appears likely that this bill (if passed) will be subsequently expanded in the coming years.
The primary proposed ethical argument for assisted dying is frequently patient autonomy. If we grant this for those with terminal illness, there is limited logical reason to deny this treatment to those with non-terminal illness, disability, mental illness, those without ‘unbearable suffering’, minors who demonstrate capacity etc. In fact, it could be argued that not expanding it is discriminatory. This expansion in the scope of the law has been seen across the world (eg. Canada, Belgium, Netherlands). In Canada, assisted dying was legalised in 2016. In just in 5 years (2021), this was expanded to include non-terminal disability, and a bill (2023) has been passed that those with solely mental health conditions will be eligible from 2027. A Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying’ recommended in 2023 that the government extends its eligibility to minors with capacity. In both the Belgium and Netherlands, minors who demonstrate capacity can now apply for euthanasia – despite both laws initially (2002) just being for adults with ‘unbearable suffering’. In 2014 and 2022 respectively, Belgium and Netherlands implemented a law allowing euthanasia for children aged 1 to 12, under specific conditions.
We must be aware that if we grant assisted dying for one group, the argument to expand the scope in the future becomes stronger, and much harder to ethically refute.
From a practical perspective, it will be impossible for assessing doctors to rule out micro-coercion, as well as vulnerable adults feeling ‘a burden’ to their care-givers. The 2019 Oregon State ‘Death with Dignity’ Summary stated that 59% of patients listed the concern of being a burden on their family as a significant factor in their decision. We already see this in other areas of care (eg. decisions regarding care placements). How often have you heard someone – perhaps even a family member – say to you: ‘I don’t want to be a burden, just put me in a care home’?
The recent Darzi report into the state of the NHS in England was damning. Palliative care is particularly stretched, under-funded and unequitable across the country. As we know, this is also the case for mental health services, as well as social care. When we cannot offer reliable, good-quality palliative care and related health services, does offering assisted dying actually represent a real choice for patients? Our priority should be on ensuring these services are high-quality and equitable.
My overall view is that no amount of ‘safeguards’ will make this bill safe. The current law is the safeguard, and we should always default to the safe option that protects vulnerable lives. I have huge sympathy with specific individual cases, but making society-wide legal changes will certainly have unintended significant consequences. [Post edited 13 Nov 2024 15:45]
|  | | |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:57 - Nov 13 with 721 views | Keno |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:44 - Nov 13 by cinnamonITFC |
(Sorry long post!)
I work within in the medical profession, and it is likely that if this bill is passed, I could be asked to be involved in assessing whether someone is eligible for assisted dying.
I of course have huge sympathies with anyone going through these situations at present. However, I do have really significant concerns regarding this upcoming bill, and feel quite strongly about it.
Particularly in terms of safeguarding vulnerable adults. From my experience, ‘safeguards’ is a word that is used to make us feel better about our anxieties with this bill – but in reality, I don’t think any amount of safeguards will make this bill safe. (Eg. capacity is subjective, coercion/feelings of burden is extremely difficult to assess, mental health has rarely been assessed professionally prior, if one doctor disagrees – patients can just find another, some doctors will inherently be more ‘pro’ than others, and willing to sign off eligibility etc etc.)
Both sides come at this debate from a position of wanting the best for their patients, vulnerable adults and loved ones, and therefore I hope that all viewpoints can be respected.
I’ve adapted the below from a letter I sent to my MP regarding this. It’s brief (arguments not fully fleshed out), and not comprehensive, but hopefully it’s helpful to some.
I’m fully aware that lots of people disagree with me, and that is absolutely okay - I understand why. But I do think we should think very carefully about the full implications of this being passed, before coming to a decision – even if it is against what we might ‘want’ for ourselves/our loved ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst not an argument against assisted dying, it is vital to first consider the ‘slippery slope’. This is important, because whilst some arguments may not apply to the current proposed bill, it appears likely that this bill (if passed) will be subsequently expanded in the coming years.
The primary proposed ethical argument for assisted dying is frequently patient autonomy. If we grant this for those with terminal illness, there is limited logical reason to deny this treatment to those with non-terminal illness, disability, mental illness, those without ‘unbearable suffering’, minors who demonstrate capacity etc. In fact, it could be argued that not expanding it is discriminatory. This expansion in the scope of the law has been seen across the world (eg. Canada, Belgium, Netherlands). In Canada, assisted dying was legalised in 2016. In just in 5 years (2021), this was expanded to include non-terminal disability, and a bill (2023) has been passed that those with solely mental health conditions will be eligible from 2027. A Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying’ recommended in 2023 that the government extends its eligibility to minors with capacity. In both the Belgium and Netherlands, minors who demonstrate capacity can now apply for euthanasia – despite both laws initially (2002) just being for adults with ‘unbearable suffering’. In 2014 and 2022 respectively, Belgium and Netherlands implemented a law allowing euthanasia for children aged 1 to 12, under specific conditions.
We must be aware that if we grant assisted dying for one group, the argument to expand the scope in the future becomes stronger, and much harder to ethically refute.
From a practical perspective, it will be impossible for assessing doctors to rule out micro-coercion, as well as vulnerable adults feeling ‘a burden’ to their care-givers. The 2019 Oregon State ‘Death with Dignity’ Summary stated that 59% of patients listed the concern of being a burden on their family as a significant factor in their decision. We already see this in other areas of care (eg. decisions regarding care placements). How often have you heard someone – perhaps even a family member – say to you: ‘I don’t want to be a burden, just put me in a care home’?
The recent Darzi report into the state of the NHS in England was damning. Palliative care is particularly stretched, under-funded and unequitable across the country. As we know, this is also the case for mental health services, as well as social care. When we cannot offer reliable, good-quality palliative care and related health services, does offering assisted dying actually represent a real choice for patients? Our priority should be on ensuring these services are high-quality and equitable.
My overall view is that no amount of ‘safeguards’ will make this bill safe. The current law is the safeguard, and we should always default to the safe option that protects vulnerable lives. I have huge sympathy with specific individual cases, but making society-wide legal changes will certainly have unintended significant consequences. [Post edited 13 Nov 2024 15:45]
|
Thank you thats really thoughtful and insightful and highlights so many wider issues, not least od those in the healthcare industry who will be at the forefront of this | |
| |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 19:16 - Nov 13 with 623 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:44 - Nov 13 by cinnamonITFC |
(Sorry long post!)
I work within in the medical profession, and it is likely that if this bill is passed, I could be asked to be involved in assessing whether someone is eligible for assisted dying.
I of course have huge sympathies with anyone going through these situations at present. However, I do have really significant concerns regarding this upcoming bill, and feel quite strongly about it.
Particularly in terms of safeguarding vulnerable adults. From my experience, ‘safeguards’ is a word that is used to make us feel better about our anxieties with this bill – but in reality, I don’t think any amount of safeguards will make this bill safe. (Eg. capacity is subjective, coercion/feelings of burden is extremely difficult to assess, mental health has rarely been assessed professionally prior, if one doctor disagrees – patients can just find another, some doctors will inherently be more ‘pro’ than others, and willing to sign off eligibility etc etc.)
Both sides come at this debate from a position of wanting the best for their patients, vulnerable adults and loved ones, and therefore I hope that all viewpoints can be respected.
I’ve adapted the below from a letter I sent to my MP regarding this. It’s brief (arguments not fully fleshed out), and not comprehensive, but hopefully it’s helpful to some.
I’m fully aware that lots of people disagree with me, and that is absolutely okay - I understand why. But I do think we should think very carefully about the full implications of this being passed, before coming to a decision – even if it is against what we might ‘want’ for ourselves/our loved ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst not an argument against assisted dying, it is vital to first consider the ‘slippery slope’. This is important, because whilst some arguments may not apply to the current proposed bill, it appears likely that this bill (if passed) will be subsequently expanded in the coming years.
The primary proposed ethical argument for assisted dying is frequently patient autonomy. If we grant this for those with terminal illness, there is limited logical reason to deny this treatment to those with non-terminal illness, disability, mental illness, those without ‘unbearable suffering’, minors who demonstrate capacity etc. In fact, it could be argued that not expanding it is discriminatory. This expansion in the scope of the law has been seen across the world (eg. Canada, Belgium, Netherlands). In Canada, assisted dying was legalised in 2016. In just in 5 years (2021), this was expanded to include non-terminal disability, and a bill (2023) has been passed that those with solely mental health conditions will be eligible from 2027. A Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying’ recommended in 2023 that the government extends its eligibility to minors with capacity. In both the Belgium and Netherlands, minors who demonstrate capacity can now apply for euthanasia – despite both laws initially (2002) just being for adults with ‘unbearable suffering’. In 2014 and 2022 respectively, Belgium and Netherlands implemented a law allowing euthanasia for children aged 1 to 12, under specific conditions.
We must be aware that if we grant assisted dying for one group, the argument to expand the scope in the future becomes stronger, and much harder to ethically refute.
From a practical perspective, it will be impossible for assessing doctors to rule out micro-coercion, as well as vulnerable adults feeling ‘a burden’ to their care-givers. The 2019 Oregon State ‘Death with Dignity’ Summary stated that 59% of patients listed the concern of being a burden on their family as a significant factor in their decision. We already see this in other areas of care (eg. decisions regarding care placements). How often have you heard someone – perhaps even a family member – say to you: ‘I don’t want to be a burden, just put me in a care home’?
The recent Darzi report into the state of the NHS in England was damning. Palliative care is particularly stretched, under-funded and unequitable across the country. As we know, this is also the case for mental health services, as well as social care. When we cannot offer reliable, good-quality palliative care and related health services, does offering assisted dying actually represent a real choice for patients? Our priority should be on ensuring these services are high-quality and equitable.
My overall view is that no amount of ‘safeguards’ will make this bill safe. The current law is the safeguard, and we should always default to the safe option that protects vulnerable lives. I have huge sympathy with specific individual cases, but making society-wide legal changes will certainly have unintended significant consequences. [Post edited 13 Nov 2024 15:45]
|
In short, I agree. No amount of safeguards can be enough. Once the position has been changed there would be future alterations to make it easier too - it has happened on other similar issues and some of the cases that have happened on the continent are heart-rending.
I get the difficulty of seeing people suffer but we need to focus caring for the most vulnerable and alleviating suffering as best we can rather than ending life instead.
That's my opinion. |  |
| |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 22:38 - Nov 13 with 558 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 09:44 - Nov 13 by redrickstuhaart |
Utterly stupid snd obnoxious comment which is outright offensive to those with lived ones facing these situations. How are you still here? |
I’m guessing that someone’s comment has been deleted from the thread! |  | | |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 02:21 - Nov 14 with 517 views | IPS_wich |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 19:16 - Nov 13 by Nthsuffolkblue |
In short, I agree. No amount of safeguards can be enough. Once the position has been changed there would be future alterations to make it easier too - it has happened on other similar issues and some of the cases that have happened on the continent are heart-rending.
I get the difficulty of seeing people suffer but we need to focus caring for the most vulnerable and alleviating suffering as best we can rather than ending life instead.
That's my opinion. |
I will respectfully disagree. My post got deleted yesterday because I included a reaction to the inappropriate comment that saw a load of posts deleted.
Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) was introduced in Western Australia three years ago - the second state in Australia to introduce it. There are exceptionally strict criteria and multiple safeguards - and they are working.
I won’t go through the whole set of criteria, but in short:
- Only available to people with a terminal illness and less then six months to live
- This has to be confirmed by two separate doctors
- Two separate psychiatric assessments where the individual attends alone to asses for both coercion and whether the individual is wavering. Any hint of either and it isn’t approved.
Sadly for many, this means that mental health and neurological conditions don’t qualify - there is an ongoing debate that this excludes people with dementia.
The third annual report was published this week. Last year, there were 970 requests for VAD made, 496 of which led to a medical and psychiatric assessment, and of which 292 people were supported to die. 72% of these were people with less than six months to live due to cancer.
I would recommend everyone to read the patient and family testimonials at the start of this report and conclude this is a bad thing - even if it’s just for terminal cancer patients. Anyone who has lost a close family member to cancer would know those last few months are horrific for all concerned.
https://www.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Voluntary-assiste
VAD done well and legislated properly will not see family members bumping of their parents to inherit their money, or present an option for someone wanting to end it all due to severe mental health issues. Dementia will always be the most heavily debated space because quality of life isn’t something we can measure - who’s to know whether the dementia suffer has a poor quality of life?? It sucks balls for the family (we’re going through it now), but as a supporter of VAD I don’t support it for dementia. [Post edited 14 Nov 2024 2:23]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 02:32 - Nov 14 with 508 views | Ryorry |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 02:21 - Nov 14 by IPS_wich |
I will respectfully disagree. My post got deleted yesterday because I included a reaction to the inappropriate comment that saw a load of posts deleted.
Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) was introduced in Western Australia three years ago - the second state in Australia to introduce it. There are exceptionally strict criteria and multiple safeguards - and they are working.
I won’t go through the whole set of criteria, but in short:
- Only available to people with a terminal illness and less then six months to live
- This has to be confirmed by two separate doctors
- Two separate psychiatric assessments where the individual attends alone to asses for both coercion and whether the individual is wavering. Any hint of either and it isn’t approved.
Sadly for many, this means that mental health and neurological conditions don’t qualify - there is an ongoing debate that this excludes people with dementia.
The third annual report was published this week. Last year, there were 970 requests for VAD made, 496 of which led to a medical and psychiatric assessment, and of which 292 people were supported to die. 72% of these were people with less than six months to live due to cancer.
I would recommend everyone to read the patient and family testimonials at the start of this report and conclude this is a bad thing - even if it’s just for terminal cancer patients. Anyone who has lost a close family member to cancer would know those last few months are horrific for all concerned.
https://www.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Voluntary-assiste
VAD done well and legislated properly will not see family members bumping of their parents to inherit their money, or present an option for someone wanting to end it all due to severe mental health issues. Dementia will always be the most heavily debated space because quality of life isn’t something we can measure - who’s to know whether the dementia suffer has a poor quality of life?? It sucks balls for the family (we’re going through it now), but as a supporter of VAD I don’t support it for dementia. [Post edited 14 Nov 2024 2:23]
|
"Dementia will always be the most heavily debated space because quality of life isn’t something we can measure".
It is something that can be researched/studied, anticipated as a potential, and planned for whilst people are still in possession of all their faculties though -
| |
| |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 02:50 - Nov 14 with 499 views | IPS_wich |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 02:32 - Nov 14 by Ryorry |
"Dementia will always be the most heavily debated space because quality of life isn’t something we can measure".
It is something that can be researched/studied, anticipated as a potential, and planned for whilst people are still in possession of all their faculties though -
|
Sorry - not great use of language. Quality of life for a dementia patient is not something that a doctor can independently measure as part of a request for VAD - because the patient doesn't have the capacity to comment on their quality of life. So it can't be brought into the model as currently implemented in Australia.
I have a parent who watched their parent (my grandparent) go through seven years of dementia related decline - and they now have a living will. Aligning living wills into a VAD environment is probably the most obvious first step for how dementia can be brought into VAD. | | | |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 02:54 - Nov 14 with 497 views | Ryorry |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 15:44 - Nov 13 by cinnamonITFC |
(Sorry long post!)
I work within in the medical profession, and it is likely that if this bill is passed, I could be asked to be involved in assessing whether someone is eligible for assisted dying.
I of course have huge sympathies with anyone going through these situations at present. However, I do have really significant concerns regarding this upcoming bill, and feel quite strongly about it.
Particularly in terms of safeguarding vulnerable adults. From my experience, ‘safeguards’ is a word that is used to make us feel better about our anxieties with this bill – but in reality, I don’t think any amount of safeguards will make this bill safe. (Eg. capacity is subjective, coercion/feelings of burden is extremely difficult to assess, mental health has rarely been assessed professionally prior, if one doctor disagrees – patients can just find another, some doctors will inherently be more ‘pro’ than others, and willing to sign off eligibility etc etc.)
Both sides come at this debate from a position of wanting the best for their patients, vulnerable adults and loved ones, and therefore I hope that all viewpoints can be respected.
I’ve adapted the below from a letter I sent to my MP regarding this. It’s brief (arguments not fully fleshed out), and not comprehensive, but hopefully it’s helpful to some.
I’m fully aware that lots of people disagree with me, and that is absolutely okay - I understand why. But I do think we should think very carefully about the full implications of this being passed, before coming to a decision – even if it is against what we might ‘want’ for ourselves/our loved ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst not an argument against assisted dying, it is vital to first consider the ‘slippery slope’. This is important, because whilst some arguments may not apply to the current proposed bill, it appears likely that this bill (if passed) will be subsequently expanded in the coming years.
The primary proposed ethical argument for assisted dying is frequently patient autonomy. If we grant this for those with terminal illness, there is limited logical reason to deny this treatment to those with non-terminal illness, disability, mental illness, those without ‘unbearable suffering’, minors who demonstrate capacity etc. In fact, it could be argued that not expanding it is discriminatory. This expansion in the scope of the law has been seen across the world (eg. Canada, Belgium, Netherlands). In Canada, assisted dying was legalised in 2016. In just in 5 years (2021), this was expanded to include non-terminal disability, and a bill (2023) has been passed that those with solely mental health conditions will be eligible from 2027. A Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying’ recommended in 2023 that the government extends its eligibility to minors with capacity. In both the Belgium and Netherlands, minors who demonstrate capacity can now apply for euthanasia – despite both laws initially (2002) just being for adults with ‘unbearable suffering’. In 2014 and 2022 respectively, Belgium and Netherlands implemented a law allowing euthanasia for children aged 1 to 12, under specific conditions.
We must be aware that if we grant assisted dying for one group, the argument to expand the scope in the future becomes stronger, and much harder to ethically refute.
From a practical perspective, it will be impossible for assessing doctors to rule out micro-coercion, as well as vulnerable adults feeling ‘a burden’ to their care-givers. The 2019 Oregon State ‘Death with Dignity’ Summary stated that 59% of patients listed the concern of being a burden on their family as a significant factor in their decision. We already see this in other areas of care (eg. decisions regarding care placements). How often have you heard someone – perhaps even a family member – say to you: ‘I don’t want to be a burden, just put me in a care home’?
The recent Darzi report into the state of the NHS in England was damning. Palliative care is particularly stretched, under-funded and unequitable across the country. As we know, this is also the case for mental health services, as well as social care. When we cannot offer reliable, good-quality palliative care and related health services, does offering assisted dying actually represent a real choice for patients? Our priority should be on ensuring these services are high-quality and equitable.
My overall view is that no amount of ‘safeguards’ will make this bill safe. The current law is the safeguard, and we should always default to the safe option that protects vulnerable lives. I have huge sympathy with specific individual cases, but making society-wide legal changes will certainly have unintended significant consequences. [Post edited 13 Nov 2024 15:45]
|
I do appreciate your points of view, esp re the slippery slope factor.
One thing I think is somewhat overlooked in the debate generally however, is that many individuals greatly suffering from their condition will look for their own way out anyway if they are denied the legal route, and have the means + money. This usually requires asking a close relative or friend to help. That relative or friend then is then faced with a terrible choice emotionally and is put in an invidious position legally.
Ordinary individuals should not have to carry such terrible burdens for just trying to do the right thing in following their loved ones' pleas; & would not have to do so if AD was legalised with very, very strict criteria including referral to a judge as well as the kind of psychiatric & medical assessments used in Australia. | |
| |
| Where are we on the Assisted Dying Bill? on 04:44 - Nov 14 with 458 views | Benters |
I’m all for it.
Having watched my partner’s Father struggle and suffer for a week in Hospital,sometimes screaming in pain,I’m sure to her and her family would have rather seen him put out of his suffering.
Although of course once they are gone they are gone,but why prolong the pain to him and those watching,when you wouldn’t do the same to a cherished animal. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
