| My take on the assisted dieing debates 08:40 - Nov 29 with 1554 views | bluelagos |
Have followed the comments, news and print pieces and at a time when so much discussion is often polarised and toxic, have been genuinely surprised and impressed with how dignified the debate has been.
People on both sides have brought very strong arguments forward yet always in a respectful way, recognising the counter arguments.
Expect the same today in Parliament tbh, MPs seem to have engaged with their constituents on the topic, listened to their views and are coming to a considered position.
|  |
| |  |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 08:51 - Nov 29 with 1514 views | itfcjoe |
The one thing that I don't like, is those who clearly don't want it pushing the "we've not got enough time to debate it" line which is muddying the waters of the debate especially with a new intake; plus Streeting's input wasn't right in the way he did it
But yes, generally it's been a good debate and very hard to call which way it goes |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:02 - Nov 29 with 1468 views | BlueBadger |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 08:51 - Nov 29 by itfcjoe |
The one thing that I don't like, is those who clearly don't want it pushing the "we've not got enough time to debate it" line which is muddying the waters of the debate especially with a new intake; plus Streeting's input wasn't right in the way he did it
But yes, generally it's been a good debate and very hard to call which way it goes |
Jack Abbott writes very well on this:
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24758743.ipswich-mp-jack-abbott-column-assisted-dyin
I think it's broadly where I stand, too. There needs to extensive safeguarding and protection in place for both patients AND clinicians as well as a thorough overhaul and change in attitude towards palliative care in this country - there are a lot of conditions where, with good ongoing palliative support you can have a number of good years in you with certain conditions which are ultimately incurable.
And then, there's training aspect. There are so many healthcare professionals who simply can't recognise when enough is enough and insist on flogging people until they experience uncomfortable, frightening and undignified deaths.
But yes, it's been a surprisingly =and refreshingly grown-up tone in the lead up to the debate and I'll certainly be tuning in. |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:12 - Nov 29 with 1426 views | hype313 |
I'm quite torn on this issue, on one hand I think people should have the right to decide, however I do have huge concerns around safeguarding, once this can has been opened you do wonder where it will end up.
From what I've read about Canada, it started out like this and then got more and more diluted, to the point where parties are running on a platform looking to get rid of this policy and not have any assisted dying laws.
If I was pushed, I would want to see really strict protocols around this, no grey area's, no loopholes etc. It would need to be water tight.
It's sad that it's come to this due to how poor Palliative care has become, another Tory box ticked off kicking this issue into Row Z. |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:26 - Nov 29 with 1394 views | BlueBadger |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:12 - Nov 29 by hype313 |
I'm quite torn on this issue, on one hand I think people should have the right to decide, however I do have huge concerns around safeguarding, once this can has been opened you do wonder where it will end up.
From what I've read about Canada, it started out like this and then got more and more diluted, to the point where parties are running on a platform looking to get rid of this policy and not have any assisted dying laws.
If I was pushed, I would want to see really strict protocols around this, no grey area's, no loopholes etc. It would need to be water tight.
It's sad that it's come to this due to how poor Palliative care has become, another Tory box ticked off kicking this issue into Row Z. |
Not helped by the moral panic over the Liverpool Care Pathway a decade or so back where the baby was well and truly thrown out with the bathwater due to some health trust implementing it with exceptionally poor training on it's use and then coupling that with astoundingly bad communication to relatives. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 9:26]
| |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:32 - Nov 29 with 1377 views | Whos_blue |
I think it will be close.
My own position would be to back the bill, but I'm glad this very important debate isn't being whipped. It provides the opportunity for true cross chamber engagement. |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:44 - Nov 29 with 1327 views | Churchman |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:12 - Nov 29 by hype313 |
I'm quite torn on this issue, on one hand I think people should have the right to decide, however I do have huge concerns around safeguarding, once this can has been opened you do wonder where it will end up.
From what I've read about Canada, it started out like this and then got more and more diluted, to the point where parties are running on a platform looking to get rid of this policy and not have any assisted dying laws.
If I was pushed, I would want to see really strict protocols around this, no grey area's, no loopholes etc. It would need to be water tight.
It's sad that it's come to this due to how poor Palliative care has become, another Tory box ticked off kicking this issue into Row Z. |
I agree with you but how do you make such a grey area watertight? I agree with the principle but how you manage/control it is beyond me.
One thing I do know. I’ve seen situations first hand that you wouldn’t put your pet through. I believe that the minimum that should happen is for doctors to be able to apply enough drugs in the worst situations to knock the person out of it. If that means application of morphine that in sufficient dosage will I believe having seen it end the life of somebody quicker (but pain free), they should not be in fear of prosecution. Ok you have the Shipman aspect. Well a third party assessment would surely get around that threat.
For people in intolerable pain who have had enough (the Swiss option), that’s far more difficult and while I agree with the principle of choice, the more I read and think about it the more I can see how legislation gets watered down.
As an aside and an extreme example, I was at a dinner a few years ago and the speaker was the chap in charge of the Camp Bastion medical facility in Afghanistan. It was fascinating. They were finding new ways to save badly injured soldiers. On one occasion, they had a lad who was about as badly injured as it’s possible to be and still be alive. He pleaded to be left in peace. They refused and fought for his life and won. Yes, his life is compromised but he’s mighty glad they did and is able to do things he’d never thought of in his darkest days.
So who makes the decisions and how? I guess that accepting the principle is the first step, for me anyway. |  | | |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:52 - Nov 29 with 1290 views | BlueBadger |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:44 - Nov 29 by Churchman |
I agree with you but how do you make such a grey area watertight? I agree with the principle but how you manage/control it is beyond me.
One thing I do know. I’ve seen situations first hand that you wouldn’t put your pet through. I believe that the minimum that should happen is for doctors to be able to apply enough drugs in the worst situations to knock the person out of it. If that means application of morphine that in sufficient dosage will I believe having seen it end the life of somebody quicker (but pain free), they should not be in fear of prosecution. Ok you have the Shipman aspect. Well a third party assessment would surely get around that threat.
For people in intolerable pain who have had enough (the Swiss option), that’s far more difficult and while I agree with the principle of choice, the more I read and think about it the more I can see how legislation gets watered down.
As an aside and an extreme example, I was at a dinner a few years ago and the speaker was the chap in charge of the Camp Bastion medical facility in Afghanistan. It was fascinating. They were finding new ways to save badly injured soldiers. On one occasion, they had a lad who was about as badly injured as it’s possible to be and still be alive. He pleaded to be left in peace. They refused and fought for his life and won. Yes, his life is compromised but he’s mighty glad they did and is able to do things he’d never thought of in his darkest days.
So who makes the decisions and how? I guess that accepting the principle is the first step, for me anyway. |
'I believe that the minimum that should happen is for doctors to be able to apply enough drugs in the worst situations to knock the person out of it'.
This is currently legal practice in the UK, as you as you can prove good intent under the principles of doctrine of double intent.
The example that's often used in courses centred around death and dying is the use of high dose opioids vs injectable potassium when trying to manage discomfort and distress in the dying.
High dose opioids *can* kill you but the intent of use would be to symptom contro and is therefore likely to be deemed a genuine attempt at treatment, compared to injectable potassium, which won't treat any kind of symptoms but simply induce a fatal cardia arrhythmia and be deemed as an attempt to kill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/doubleeffect.shtml | |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:53 - Nov 29 with 1286 views | itfcjoe |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:44 - Nov 29 by Churchman |
I agree with you but how do you make such a grey area watertight? I agree with the principle but how you manage/control it is beyond me.
One thing I do know. I’ve seen situations first hand that you wouldn’t put your pet through. I believe that the minimum that should happen is for doctors to be able to apply enough drugs in the worst situations to knock the person out of it. If that means application of morphine that in sufficient dosage will I believe having seen it end the life of somebody quicker (but pain free), they should not be in fear of prosecution. Ok you have the Shipman aspect. Well a third party assessment would surely get around that threat.
For people in intolerable pain who have had enough (the Swiss option), that’s far more difficult and while I agree with the principle of choice, the more I read and think about it the more I can see how legislation gets watered down.
As an aside and an extreme example, I was at a dinner a few years ago and the speaker was the chap in charge of the Camp Bastion medical facility in Afghanistan. It was fascinating. They were finding new ways to save badly injured soldiers. On one occasion, they had a lad who was about as badly injured as it’s possible to be and still be alive. He pleaded to be left in peace. They refused and fought for his life and won. Yes, his life is compromised but he’s mighty glad they did and is able to do things he’d never thought of in his darkest days.
So who makes the decisions and how? I guess that accepting the principle is the first step, for me anyway. |
The bill is only for adults who are terminally ill, and have less than 6 or 12 months* to live.
It's very tightly written, needs confirmation to 2 Drs, and approval from a High Court Judge and person doing it can change mind at any time in the process.
I imagine for most people they will end up dying before their case is even heard, but hopefully they can avoid the intolerable last few weeks of life that their condition could bring and go out with dignity when it is already certain they will die soon | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 10:00 - Nov 29 with 1267 views | Ryorry |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:53 - Nov 29 by itfcjoe |
The bill is only for adults who are terminally ill, and have less than 6 or 12 months* to live.
It's very tightly written, needs confirmation to 2 Drs, and approval from a High Court Judge and person doing it can change mind at any time in the process.
I imagine for most people they will end up dying before their case is even heard, but hopefully they can avoid the intolerable last few weeks of life that their condition could bring and go out with dignity when it is already certain they will die soon |
For me, the tightness you’ve outlined, especially the addition of a judge’s ruling, has swung me from being ‘against’ to being ‘for’, since I think it would meet my stipulation of ‘every case should be decided as an individual one’. |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 10:09 - Nov 29 with 1247 views | Guthrum |
Possibly the fact it's an entirely free vote, not divided along partisan lines or identified with any particular faction, helps. |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 10:25 - Nov 29 with 1203 views | GavTWTD |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 10:00 - Nov 29 by Ryorry |
For me, the tightness you’ve outlined, especially the addition of a judge’s ruling, has swung me from being ‘against’ to being ‘for’, since I think it would meet my stipulation of ‘every case should be decided as an individual one’. |
As I understand it, the debate and vote is purely to take it to the next level and not to place in law so for the new intake it isn't a definitive yes or no, and for this reason I would vote yes so that the final details can be discussed at a later date.
For me, I would be in favour and perhaps have the stipulation that it is for named conditions only (which can added to by law later). Perhaps when people feel coerced, there should be a cooling off period where any inheritance is held back for 1,2,5 years so that decisions aren't being made financially. This have to be purely about pain and not finances. |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 10:27 - Nov 29 with 1197 views | Kievthegreat |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 08:51 - Nov 29 by itfcjoe |
The one thing that I don't like, is those who clearly don't want it pushing the "we've not got enough time to debate it" line which is muddying the waters of the debate especially with a new intake; plus Streeting's input wasn't right in the way he did it
But yes, generally it's been a good debate and very hard to call which way it goes |
I do think it is a bit disingenuous for some of these MPs to claim they don't have time. The bill has a long path still to go with lots of scrutiny after today. Add to this the enormous prominence this bill has had in parliament and public discussion, I do find the time argument to be stretching.
Leadbeater: "A vote to take this bill forward today is not a vote to implement the law tomorrow. It is a vote to continue the debate, to subject the bill to line by line scrutiny in bill committee, at report stage, and further reading, and then of course the bill will go to the Lords." — Ian Dunt (@iandunt.bsky.social) 2024-11-29T10:20:49.366Z
Copied text of the tweets:
Leadbeater: "A vote to take this bill forward today is not a vote to implement the law tomorrow. It is a vote to continue the debate, to subject the bill to line by line scrutiny in bill committee, at report stage, and further reading, and then of course the bill will go to the Lords."
"But the debate can only continue if colleagues join me in the aye lobby today and I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so." And with that, Leadbeater is done. |  | | |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 11:28 - Nov 29 with 1106 views | Churchman |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:52 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
'I believe that the minimum that should happen is for doctors to be able to apply enough drugs in the worst situations to knock the person out of it'.
This is currently legal practice in the UK, as you as you can prove good intent under the principles of doctrine of double intent.
The example that's often used in courses centred around death and dying is the use of high dose opioids vs injectable potassium when trying to manage discomfort and distress in the dying.
High dose opioids *can* kill you but the intent of use would be to symptom contro and is therefore likely to be deemed a genuine attempt at treatment, compared to injectable potassium, which won't treat any kind of symptoms but simply induce a fatal cardia arrhythmia and be deemed as an attempt to kill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/doubleeffect.shtml |
Obviously, you are far more knowledgeable than me so thanks for that.
I would say in my limited experience it varied in the three different places I’ve seen this. In one, the person was left in rolling distress for around a week/10 days before they died. In another, the person spent about 12 hours in severe distress before a pump was inserted, drugs administered and the end came peacefully 24 hours later.
At one point I said to the doctor I don’t care what you do, please put x out of any distress. The response was ‘we can’t kill x you, you know’. My reply was I know that and all about Shipman, but all I’m asking is for you to make sure the pain is taken away. I don’t care how. I’d do it myself if I was allowed and had any knowledge - and would have done. Anyway, within a short period more drugs were administered.
The final instance the individual was knocked out of it a few days before and if I’m honest I think they were rightly helped on their way.
These examples are from somebody who saw it, but has no knowledge on it, so my views are skewed, subjective and limited and I guess what I’m trying to say is that I believe end of life care varies possibly for the wrong reasons (fear) and that’s something that can be changed. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 11:50]
| | | |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 11:29 - Nov 29 with 1113 views | RegencyBlue |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 09:12 - Nov 29 by hype313 |
I'm quite torn on this issue, on one hand I think people should have the right to decide, however I do have huge concerns around safeguarding, once this can has been opened you do wonder where it will end up.
From what I've read about Canada, it started out like this and then got more and more diluted, to the point where parties are running on a platform looking to get rid of this policy and not have any assisted dying laws.
If I was pushed, I would want to see really strict protocols around this, no grey area's, no loopholes etc. It would need to be water tight.
It's sad that it's come to this due to how poor Palliative care has become, another Tory box ticked off kicking this issue into Row Z. |
It needs to be tightly regulated for sure.
Having said that my personal view is that it being available as an option is the right thing to do. I don’t see why some people have to die unpleasantly to satisfy other peoples views on the sanctity of life. |  | | |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 11:59 - Nov 29 with 1049 views | BlueBadger |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 11:28 - Nov 29 by Churchman |
Obviously, you are far more knowledgeable than me so thanks for that.
I would say in my limited experience it varied in the three different places I’ve seen this. In one, the person was left in rolling distress for around a week/10 days before they died. In another, the person spent about 12 hours in severe distress before a pump was inserted, drugs administered and the end came peacefully 24 hours later.
At one point I said to the doctor I don’t care what you do, please put x out of any distress. The response was ‘we can’t kill x you, you know’. My reply was I know that and all about Shipman, but all I’m asking is for you to make sure the pain is taken away. I don’t care how. I’d do it myself if I was allowed and had any knowledge - and would have done. Anyway, within a short period more drugs were administered.
The final instance the individual was knocked out of it a few days before and if I’m honest I think they were rightly helped on their way.
These examples are from somebody who saw it, but has no knowledge on it, so my views are skewed, subjective and limited and I guess what I’m trying to say is that I believe end of life care varies possibly for the wrong reasons (fear) and that’s something that can be changed. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 11:50]
|
Far too many clinicians(mostly, but not exclusively doctors) confuse prolonging life with an extended death. Which I why I think we need much, much, much better palliative provision and training alongside this bill going through. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 12:18]
| |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 12:02 - Nov 29 with 1042 views | Churchman |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 11:59 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
Far too many clinicians(mostly, but not exclusively doctors) confuse prolonging life with an extended death. Which I why I think we need much, much, much better palliative provision and training alongside this bill going through. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 12:18]
|
Fair enough. My experiences were in no particular order in a Care Home, Hospital and Hospice, so maybe a drive for more consistency would be a good thing - based on more instances than my less than comprehensive sample of three.
Thanks for all the work you do by the way. | | | |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 14:03 - Nov 29 with 883 views | Pendejo |
From what little I've read it appears to be about giving people in a certain condition the freedom to choose an earlier outcome that they hope will preserve their dignity; choice
Freedom to choose with safeguards, why not?
My friend of 50+ years passed away 2 days before promotion to EPL gained by beating Huddersfield, he had lived with cancer for many years, surviving much longer than doctors had thought he would. Had he been given the choices would NOT have taken it, in his position I would. |  |
| |
| My take on the assisted dieing debates on 14:32 - Nov 29 with 835 views | Crawfordsboot |
Having just listened to the debate I have been impressed by the dignified and considered debate that has taken place.
It has made me wonder why on earth parliament has been unable to replicate this level of debate over recent years.
Happy with the outcome! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
