| This MUST become law on 19:09 - Oct 3 with 2917 views | FrimleyBlue |
It's a difficult one
On one hand absolutely you should have a right to decide when you want to pass and you should be able to ask someone to help.
But... what if you don't want to but the family member are trying to make it out that you do
Or what if you are coping with what ever you have but have that 1 moment where you feel low and that's when you decide to end it... would you feel differently tomorrow. |  |
|  |
| This MUST become law on 20:29 - Oct 3 with 2837 views | Ryorry |
20 years ago I’d have fully agreed with you.
But then I was asked to assist someone very close to me by accompanying them to Switzerland (clinic wouldn’t accept anyone unaccompanied).
This person wasn’t terminally ill, not in great pain. They had a history of mood swings and depression; and were depressed after the death of their partner - but had somehow persuaded two UK doctors to “sign them off”.
It wasn’t just those factual points either - no-one will ever know the emotional cyclone involved unless/until they’re asked. Whilst respecting that person’s right to make their own decision, for all those reasons I did a complete reversal of my previous view and refused (then later found out my passport was out of date anyway). The person then went on and found someone else to accompany them and succeeded in their wish.
Assisted dying *might* be the right thing in some circumstances, but only if each case is decided individually imo. |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 20:34 - Oct 3 with 2805 views | gtsb1966 |
| This MUST become law on 20:29 - Oct 3 by Ryorry |
20 years ago I’d have fully agreed with you.
But then I was asked to assist someone very close to me by accompanying them to Switzerland (clinic wouldn’t accept anyone unaccompanied).
This person wasn’t terminally ill, not in great pain. They had a history of mood swings and depression; and were depressed after the death of their partner - but had somehow persuaded two UK doctors to “sign them off”.
It wasn’t just those factual points either - no-one will ever know the emotional cyclone involved unless/until they’re asked. Whilst respecting that person’s right to make their own decision, for all those reasons I did a complete reversal of my previous view and refused (then later found out my passport was out of date anyway). The person then went on and found someone else to accompany them and succeeded in their wish.
Assisted dying *might* be the right thing in some circumstances, but only if each case is decided individually imo. |
"The details have not been finalised yet but the bill is likely to be similar to a proposal in the House of Lords, which would allow terminally-ill adults with six months or fewer to live to get medical help to end their own lives" |  | | |
| This MUST become law on 20:35 - Oct 3 with 2779 views | Lord_Lucan |
Barbaric if it isn't! |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 20:41 - Oct 3 with 2766 views | Cafe_Newman |
Take your own life today; be pressured into taking your own life "for the greater good" tomorrow.
Nearly 5 years ago this BBC article seemed unthinkable. Today opinion has been shaped to such an extent that the idea of telling granny to end her own life because she's no longer pulling her weight seems almost reasonable:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwylpvjp78jo |  | | |
| This MUST become law on 20:59 - Oct 3 with 2692 views | gtsb1966 |
| This MUST become law on 20:41 - Oct 3 by Cafe_Newman |
Take your own life today; be pressured into taking your own life "for the greater good" tomorrow.
Nearly 5 years ago this BBC article seemed unthinkable. Today opinion has been shaped to such an extent that the idea of telling granny to end her own life because she's no longer pulling her weight seems almost reasonable:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwylpvjp78jo |
Did you actually read it? | | | |
| This MUST become law on 21:13 - Oct 3 with 2632 views | redrickstuhaart |
| This MUST become law on 20:41 - Oct 3 by Cafe_Newman |
Take your own life today; be pressured into taking your own life "for the greater good" tomorrow.
Nearly 5 years ago this BBC article seemed unthinkable. Today opinion has been shaped to such an extent that the idea of telling granny to end her own life because she's no longer pulling her weight seems almost reasonable:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwylpvjp78jo |
Absolutely no one has said any such thing. Very very few people think it. |  | | |
| This MUST become law on 21:22 - Oct 3 with 2598 views | Lord_Lucan |
| This MUST become law on 20:59 - Oct 3 by gtsb1966 |
Did you actually read it? |
My old dog Burley went nuts one evening and I had to cradle her all night in my arms until I could call the vets out the next morning to put her to sleep.
My dad went nuts with a brain tumour and I had to watch him go through the most unbelievable sh1t before his body gave up.
That one took about six months.
Quite bloody disgraceful really. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This MUST become law on 22:35 - Oct 3 with 2446 views | Cafe_Newman |
| This MUST become law on 20:59 - Oct 3 by gtsb1966 |
Did you actually read it? |
Of course. I have been in favour of assisted dying for decades, only recently have I started to think differently about it but I'm still undecided other than the fact that it's clearly not as black and white as I once thought. | | | |
| This MUST become law on 22:41 - Oct 3 with 2426 views | blueasfook |
| This MUST become law on 20:41 - Oct 3 by Cafe_Newman |
Take your own life today; be pressured into taking your own life "for the greater good" tomorrow.
Nearly 5 years ago this BBC article seemed unthinkable. Today opinion has been shaped to such an extent that the idea of telling granny to end her own life because she's no longer pulling her weight seems almost reasonable:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwylpvjp78jo |
Well many of the old folk will be freezing this winter after having their winter fuel payments taken away so assisted dying may be a blessing for them. Surely preferable to dying of hypothermia. |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 23:14 - Oct 3 with 2329 views | positivity |
there are plenty of people worried about it, see tanni grey-thomson's comments for instance, but should be possible to draft something which takes into accounts the concerns and protects the vulnerable. just hope it's not rushed... | |
| |
| This MUST become law on 02:07 - Oct 4 with 2132 views | IPS_wich |
| This MUST become law on 20:29 - Oct 3 by Ryorry |
20 years ago I’d have fully agreed with you.
But then I was asked to assist someone very close to me by accompanying them to Switzerland (clinic wouldn’t accept anyone unaccompanied).
This person wasn’t terminally ill, not in great pain. They had a history of mood swings and depression; and were depressed after the death of their partner - but had somehow persuaded two UK doctors to “sign them off”.
It wasn’t just those factual points either - no-one will ever know the emotional cyclone involved unless/until they’re asked. Whilst respecting that person’s right to make their own decision, for all those reasons I did a complete reversal of my previous view and refused (then later found out my passport was out of date anyway). The person then went on and found someone else to accompany them and succeeded in their wish.
Assisted dying *might* be the right thing in some circumstances, but only if each case is decided individually imo. |
Voluntary Assisted dying was introduced in a couple of states in Australia about 4-5 years ago - including in Western Australia where I live.
This type of scenario couldn't happen because it can't be applied for mental health patients. It's a really clear and tightly controlled process and criteria:
- You have to be terminally ill and this diagnosis must be confirmed by two separate specialists who work for different health services.
- Your prognosis must be that you have less than six months to live, again confirmed by separate specialists (that can be extended to 12 months left to live if it's a neurodegenerative condition)
- You have to have two separate consultations with different psychiatrists at least two weeks apart. They are assessing that (1) you are of a fit state of mind to understand what is going on and the implications of the decision; (2) your rationale and reasoning behind the decision to end your life is consistent (i.e. there is no sign of wavering in your choice)
- You cannot be accompanied by anyone in these consults with psychiatrists because they also assess whether they think you are being coerced
The main issue and cause for much debate is the fact that someone with advanced dementia would not qualify the cognitive tests - and yet for anyone who has seen a close family member dwindle away with dementia (sadly I'm not experiencing this for the third time) it is awful. No dignity or quality of life and in the case of one grandparent this was for almost seven years. | | | |
| This MUST become law on 05:00 - Oct 4 with 2083 views | Benters |
| This MUST become law on 21:22 - Oct 3 by Lord_Lucan |
My old dog Burley went nuts one evening and I had to cradle her all night in my arms until I could call the vets out the next morning to put her to sleep.
My dad went nuts with a brain tumour and I had to watch him go through the most unbelievable sh1t before his body gave up.
That one took about six months.
Quite bloody disgraceful really. |
I had the same just before Christmas last year with the Father in law when he was on the way out through Covid.
He was in Hospital for his final week,and sometimes he was in agony,he had Dementia also so he kept yanking the tubes out,in the end they gave up and said there is nothing more we can do for him.
So basically he was starved and dehydrated for the last few days,and it was awful for him and the family to see him suffer so much. |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 06:45 - Oct 4 with 1991 views | Mercian |
I would not be totally against it in absolute extreme circumstances provided that at least two independent doctors agree it would be for the best and then put before a judge who would have the final decision. We cannot have cases like in The Netherlands where a young woman was cleared to go ahead because she was depressed or in Switzerland when a man had lost his lower leg. These are not extreme circumstances. |  | | |
| This MUST become law on 07:29 - Oct 4 with 1927 views | TractorWood |
People might hesitate to vote for it for concerns around criteria and things like potential coercion.
It's a welcome debate. The majority of people who are strongly pro have typically seen a loved one suffer immensely. Breaking that cycle of helpless suffering has to be a big potential win. |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 09:53 - Oct 4 with 1801 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| This MUST become law on 19:09 - Oct 3 by FrimleyBlue |
It's a difficult one
On one hand absolutely you should have a right to decide when you want to pass and you should be able to ask someone to help.
But... what if you don't want to but the family member are trying to make it out that you do
Or what if you are coping with what ever you have but have that 1 moment where you feel low and that's when you decide to end it... would you feel differently tomorrow. |
You’d have to imagine there will safeguards to prevent what you suggest.
I’ve no idea but I can’t honestly see it being allowed to happen without the sign off by at least two doctors AND a mental health professional.
What Tanny Grey-Thompson suggests, with disabled persons being pressured to end their lives could never happen if this is properly safeguarded, and only a defined set of terminal illness qualifying for assistance. |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 10:55 - Oct 4 with 1719 views | Mookamoo |
| This MUST become law on 02:07 - Oct 4 by IPS_wich |
Voluntary Assisted dying was introduced in a couple of states in Australia about 4-5 years ago - including in Western Australia where I live.
This type of scenario couldn't happen because it can't be applied for mental health patients. It's a really clear and tightly controlled process and criteria:
- You have to be terminally ill and this diagnosis must be confirmed by two separate specialists who work for different health services.
- Your prognosis must be that you have less than six months to live, again confirmed by separate specialists (that can be extended to 12 months left to live if it's a neurodegenerative condition)
- You have to have two separate consultations with different psychiatrists at least two weeks apart. They are assessing that (1) you are of a fit state of mind to understand what is going on and the implications of the decision; (2) your rationale and reasoning behind the decision to end your life is consistent (i.e. there is no sign of wavering in your choice)
- You cannot be accompanied by anyone in these consults with psychiatrists because they also assess whether they think you are being coerced
The main issue and cause for much debate is the fact that someone with advanced dementia would not qualify the cognitive tests - and yet for anyone who has seen a close family member dwindle away with dementia (sadly I'm not experiencing this for the third time) it is awful. No dignity or quality of life and in the case of one grandparent this was for almost seven years. |
That all makes perfect sense to me.
The only issue I have is how this would be managed within the NHS. Anyone who is part of any kind of mental health journey will know the absolute s*ite show these services are at the moment. The waiting lists for any kind of referral for getting a diagnosis from any mental health professional, let alone 2 psychiatrists are silly. |  | | |
| This MUST become law on 11:01 - Oct 4 with 1703 views | Coastalblue |
| This MUST become law on 02:07 - Oct 4 by IPS_wich |
Voluntary Assisted dying was introduced in a couple of states in Australia about 4-5 years ago - including in Western Australia where I live.
This type of scenario couldn't happen because it can't be applied for mental health patients. It's a really clear and tightly controlled process and criteria:
- You have to be terminally ill and this diagnosis must be confirmed by two separate specialists who work for different health services.
- Your prognosis must be that you have less than six months to live, again confirmed by separate specialists (that can be extended to 12 months left to live if it's a neurodegenerative condition)
- You have to have two separate consultations with different psychiatrists at least two weeks apart. They are assessing that (1) you are of a fit state of mind to understand what is going on and the implications of the decision; (2) your rationale and reasoning behind the decision to end your life is consistent (i.e. there is no sign of wavering in your choice)
- You cannot be accompanied by anyone in these consults with psychiatrists because they also assess whether they think you are being coerced
The main issue and cause for much debate is the fact that someone with advanced dementia would not qualify the cognitive tests - and yet for anyone who has seen a close family member dwindle away with dementia (sadly I'm not experiencing this for the third time) it is awful. No dignity or quality of life and in the case of one grandparent this was for almost seven years. |
It's horrible, my FIL was a huge campaigner for assisted dying before succumbing to dementia, lost him last year. He would have been horrified at the thought of the last few years of his life, in the earlier days MsBlue was concerned that he realised enough what was happening and would happen that he'd take matters into his own hands, never happened though. |  |
| |
| This MUST become law on 11:15 - Oct 4 with 1669 views | Ryorry |
| This MUST become law on 02:07 - Oct 4 by IPS_wich |
Voluntary Assisted dying was introduced in a couple of states in Australia about 4-5 years ago - including in Western Australia where I live.
This type of scenario couldn't happen because it can't be applied for mental health patients. It's a really clear and tightly controlled process and criteria:
- You have to be terminally ill and this diagnosis must be confirmed by two separate specialists who work for different health services.
- Your prognosis must be that you have less than six months to live, again confirmed by separate specialists (that can be extended to 12 months left to live if it's a neurodegenerative condition)
- You have to have two separate consultations with different psychiatrists at least two weeks apart. They are assessing that (1) you are of a fit state of mind to understand what is going on and the implications of the decision; (2) your rationale and reasoning behind the decision to end your life is consistent (i.e. there is no sign of wavering in your choice)
- You cannot be accompanied by anyone in these consults with psychiatrists because they also assess whether they think you are being coerced
The main issue and cause for much debate is the fact that someone with advanced dementia would not qualify the cognitive tests - and yet for anyone who has seen a close family member dwindle away with dementia (sadly I'm not experiencing this for the third time) it is awful. No dignity or quality of life and in the case of one grandparent this was for almost seven years. |
That sounds good and rigorous, more akin to the "each case being assessed individually" that I was asking for. As I experienced, it was all too easy to find two "independent" doctors who it has to be assumed were either grossly professionally incompetent/negligent; or who were bought off.
I'd assume two psychiatrists in addition would make that much more unlikely, but would add that scientific evidence of terminal illness should be supplied - scans, X-rays, blood-test results etc. Also perhaps an objective 3rd-party over-seeing doctor behind the scenes who'd never met the patient or their family, therefore totally objective.
The above, however, would not meet the needs of those who have zero quality of life & who wish to die because of it, but who are not terminally ill (eg. those who have something like 'locked-in syndrome').
As for those who, like I used to, say "you wouldn't let a dog suffer like that" - no you wouldn't, and I too have been through that terrible day when you have to nod through the tears as you agree to the vet's recommendation of the blue needle - *but* I haven't yet heard of any case of a dog leaving an owner half a million quid (or whatever) in its will! The complex financial & legal implications haven't even been touched on in this discussion.
There's an additional reason I would see legal, professional Assisted Dying as a better option than the current situation - ie it would take the huge trauma & pressure off relatives/friends to help if their loved one asks them to assist. Often the loved one is in no position to see or understand the invidious position this puts the asked one in, both legally and emotionally. No doubt that goes for many doctors also, if asked. | |
| |
| This MUST become law on 11:55 - Oct 4 with 1610 views | DJR |
A few observations.
1. I don't think this should be rushed. Far better in my view to have a Royal Commission to look into it, as might have been the case in times past.
2. The fact that high profile members of the disabled community have concerns reinforces my view. Liz Carr (from Silent Witness) did a programme on the subject which dealt with Canada, where the grounds in the initial legislation had been subsequently extended.
3. Whilst a Private Member's Bill, the complexity of this issue suggests to me that it will be a "hand out" drafted by Government lawyers.
4. Those Private Members' Bills that do get enacted are generally relatively uncontroversial.
5. This will not be an uncontroversial Bill, so I wouldn't be surprised if it fails to be enacted because of filibustering. And even if it gets through the Commons, I would imagine there would be opposition in the Lords.
6. Maybe the Government is just testing the water, but if it does fail, and it wants it to proceed (on a free vote), it will have to make Government time for the Bill at a later date which will increase its chances of success. [Post edited 4 Oct 2024 12:25]
|  | | |
| This MUST become law on 12:24 - Oct 4 with 1549 views | Ryorry |
| This MUST become law on 11:55 - Oct 4 by DJR |
A few observations.
1. I don't think this should be rushed. Far better in my view to have a Royal Commission to look into it, as might have been the case in times past.
2. The fact that high profile members of the disabled community have concerns reinforces my view. Liz Carr (from Silent Witness) did a programme on the subject which dealt with Canada, where the grounds in the initial legislation had been subsequently extended.
3. Whilst a Private Member's Bill, the complexity of this issue suggests to me that it will be a "hand out" drafted by Government lawyers.
4. Those Private Members' Bills that do get enacted are generally relatively uncontroversial.
5. This will not be an uncontroversial Bill, so I wouldn't be surprised if it fails to be enacted because of filibustering. And even if it gets through the Commons, I would imagine there would be opposition in the Lords.
6. Maybe the Government is just testing the water, but if it does fail, and it wants it to proceed (on a free vote), it will have to make Government time for the Bill at a later date which will increase its chances of success. [Post edited 4 Oct 2024 12:25]
|
The problem of the "mission creep" (their term, not mine) of the Canadian system was mentioned on the R5l phone-in on the subject this morning (9-10am).
Edit: totally agree with you that any legislation on this shouldn't be rushed. Hugely complex & emotive issue. The heart-rending experiences of some on here may indeed have meant a straightforward & simple decision was all that was needed for them, but legislation has to encompass *all* situations and needs. Hence the difficulty, & my plea for each case to be considered on an individual basis. [Post edited 4 Oct 2024 12:32]
| |
| |
| This MUST become law on 12:49 - Oct 4 with 1492 views | DJR |
| This MUST become law on 12:24 - Oct 4 by Ryorry |
The problem of the "mission creep" (their term, not mine) of the Canadian system was mentioned on the R5l phone-in on the subject this morning (9-10am).
Edit: totally agree with you that any legislation on this shouldn't be rushed. Hugely complex & emotive issue. The heart-rending experiences of some on here may indeed have meant a straightforward & simple decision was all that was needed for them, but legislation has to encompass *all* situations and needs. Hence the difficulty, & my plea for each case to be considered on an individual basis. [Post edited 4 Oct 2024 12:32]
|
I meant to upvote your post but ended up cancelling my upvote out.
EDIT
As it is, one thing that puzzles me is when people might use this. Is it when unbearable pain kicks in? Or is it when someone not in pain is feeling depressed? Might it be more likely that people without immediate family would go down this route because they won't have family support?
No doubt there are other scenarios. But I was struck by hearing Esther Rantzen on R4 this morning whose prognosis seemed to be much better than initially thought, and I did wonder whether she would in fact go down this route, were it available, not least for her family's sake who would presumably want to survive as long as possible. [Post edited 4 Oct 2024 12:57]
| | | |
| This MUST become law on 15:52 - Oct 4 with 1381 views | BlueBadger |
I'd describe myself as 'cautiously in favour' but there needs to be a massive amount of safeguards in law.
And probably a significant amount of training for healthcare professionals. An awful lot of (sometimes very senior) healthcare professionals struggle to recognise when someone is dying and distress as it is NOW.
Plus, palliative care services are both woefully underutilised, poorly understood and funded. Those NEED to be in shape, first as I feel like they'd be the professionals best suited to assessing people's readiness, capacity and suitability for assisted dying. [Post edited 4 Oct 2024 16:16]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
