Assisted suicide..

Author
Discussion

JumboBeef

3,772 posts

176 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
What a depressing thread.

Live for today, worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

I'm a Paramedic and I've seen lots of people into their 90s living a happy and full life.

I've also seen those who have died/been killed completely out of the blue at all ages.

Chances are your mum, when time comes, will either clock out quickly or depart after an illness which didn't entail someone else wiping her backside.

Worry about that if it happened, stop planning for the worse.

I agreed on the DNR however (I personally think all elderly or infirm should have one).

Shuvi McTupya

Original Poster:

24,460 posts

246 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
swerni said:
So you've worked out that the tax payer won't fund your inheritance now you want to top her instead.
Don't forget to insure her first, it'll increase the yield rolleyes
WTF..

This is a thread about assisted suicide, not murder. Since I was a teen, my mother has made it quite clear that if she got into a state where she couldn't look after herself, she would rather not be here.

Thankfully it is purely hyperthetical at the moment anyway, she will hopefully live another twenty years , it is just something she and I have been discussing due to her recent health scare..






TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
I am 47 and she is 71.
47 is a good age for a stroke. She could end up wiping your arse (again). Have you made plans for your own demise should this happen. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't want your mum, who is still active and enjoying life, tied to some dribbling incontinent shell like you.

Matt_N

8,900 posts

201 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Pebbles167 said:
Have you been on the sauce by any chance?
Yes smile
Why is it that people fall back on the excuse of posting crap threads, that they've been on the sauce?

On a Wednesday night? Who does that?

Raging alcoholics who want to bump their Mum off it seems.

hehe

GreigM

6,726 posts

248 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
JumboBeef said:
Chances are your mum, when time comes, will either clock out quickly or depart after an illness which didn't entail someone else wiping her backside.
However in some cases (like mine) you have to watch your parent endure months of absolute agony on the way to an absolutely horrific undignified death that we wouldn't let a pet labrador endure.

JumboBeef

3,772 posts

176 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
GreigM said:
JumboBeef said:
Chances are your mum, when time comes, will either clock out quickly or depart after an illness which didn't entail someone else wiping her backside.
However in some cases (like mine) you have to watch your parent endure months of absolute agony on the way to an absolutely horrific undignified death that we wouldn't let a pet labrador endure.
Sorry to hear that. I did say "chances are". Most people don't linger for long at the end.

amusingduck

9,396 posts

135 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
So, the OP has (understandably) had a good bashing in this thread.

Is his mothers wishes really such a minority view? I understand peoples views about taking care of their parents in old age, but if those aren't her wishes, whats the problem?

I despise the idea of working hard all my life to leave something behind for my family, and then having it all wasted on a care home for me.


TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Given the OP is 47 and his mum only 24 yrs older, and looking at male life expectancy in certain parts of Scotland, I think it's his mum who should be worried about not inheriting his assets!

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Drumroll said:
Whilst I to find it annoying that those that have no assets get there care paid for and those with assets don't. It is where we are.
So which is preferable?

Poor people are left to die in the gutter?
Council tax payers subsidise residential care for the wealthy, who are perfectly able to pay for it themselves, but who want their offsprogs to get a nice fat inheritance untouched?

Shuvi McTupya said:
This is a thread about assisted suicide, not murder.
If you can't see how the difference can be very subtle indeed...

As the man said...
ModernAndy said:
I have an image of somebody speedily pushing their mother into the dignitas clinic on a wheelchair with the deeds to a house in their back pocket.
Or, to put it another way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNSedcIKXWI

Drumroll

3,738 posts

119 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
If Toomany2cvs had quoted my whole post then he would have noted I also said. "The other side is why should "we" (taxpayers) pay for your mother (or anybody else) when she has money to pay for here accommodation?"

Tallboy

92 posts

259 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
pcvdriver said:
+1 hear, hear!!! Ignore all the I'm alright jack Tories on here - they obviously hate living in Scotland so much because we have a socialist govt (they're not perfect by a long shot - but imagine what Holyrood would be like run by the Tories). It is my view that your mum has paid enough in taxes/NI over her lifetime to be cared for by the state. Maybe it's time we all paid a little more in tax/NI to cover our old age, but that's another debate entirely.
An average individual today will pay circa £200,000 in tax and NI over a 40 year working life (In simplistic non adjusted terms). Average cost of residential nursing care circa £40,000 per annum.

If that individual took no benefit from society, security defense etc, and never called on any social or welfare benefit nor any state pension then their 'paid enough' taxes would run out in just over 5 years.

This isn't about politics, it's just basic maths.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Tallboy said:
pcvdriver said:
+1 hear, hear!!! Ignore all the I'm alright jack Tories on here - they obviously hate living in Scotland so much because we have a socialist govt (they're not perfect by a long shot - but imagine what Holyrood would be like run by the Tories). It is my view that your mum has paid enough in taxes/NI over her lifetime to be cared for by the state. Maybe it's time we all paid a little more in tax/NI to cover our old age, but that's another debate entirely.
An average individual today will pay circa £200,000 in tax and NI over a 40 year working life (In simplistic non adjusted terms). Average cost of residential nursing care circa £40,000 per annum.

If that individual took no benefit from society, security defense etc, and never called on any social or welfare benefit nor any state pension then their 'paid enough' taxes would run out in just over 5 years.

This isn't about politics, it's just basic maths.
Not everyone needs extended care at the end of life, that's how the system is sold. You all pay in and care is available to those that need it.

TheWelshManc

976 posts

113 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Wow, sad....

snobetter

1,145 posts

145 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Not the whole suicide route but: -
Isn't there something along the lines of if your mother puts her house etc in your name, after 7 years it's no longer classed as inheritance taxable or able to be used by the council for fees? Money saving expert site would probably cover it.

Tallboy

92 posts

259 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Not everyone needs extended care at the end of life, that's how the system is sold. You all pay in and care is available to those that need it.
Agreed not everyone will, although the number that will is growing but the system has never been sold that way. Neither the 1911 or 46 NI acts provided for long term care nor did the NHS act. Beveridge was quite clear that it was to be for the prevention and cure of disease not extended periods of care.

And the reasons for this are quite clear. Neither Beveridge or Bevan could foresee the advances in medicine, the increase in longevity and social/family changes which have led to individuals being unwilling or unable to look after 'their own'.

And we're back to politics, no politician wants to tell people what they won't be getting for their tax money. No politician has said that you'll always be taken care of no matter what for free, for ever but they haven't said you won't either. So go back to the maths.

Impasse

15,099 posts

240 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
It's a funny business when the only one who cannot legally make a decision about their life's length is that person.

ModernAndy

2,094 posts

134 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
I completely respect the right of a person to choose how they want to end their life but bringing financial considerations to the fore borders on the ridiculous, especially when it's somebody who does have a bit of wealth and isn't going to be a burden on a struggling family. Obviously, individual circumstances are going to vary but we all know that there is an inherent imperative to prevent suicide where the reasons aren't compelling.

I don't know how you solve the issue of paying for care in a way that makes the people who currently have to pay from their assets happy as well. I do think that there is justification for making people pay for their own care when they can though and I also believe inheritance tax is a necessary mechanism. It seems to me that the argument boils down to people paying in what they get out and where there are so many people who can't pay in what they get out, wealthier people are going to need to make up the shortfall otherwise nobody will get decent care. Vast oversimplification I know but then again isn't everything in the world of economics and politics?

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Mojooo said:
I think some of you are being a bit harsh on the OP - it is a reasonable question even if it could be an argument against assisted suicide - clearly it is a scenario a lot of people think about.
This.

My grandfather went through a protracted and slow decline over about 5 years till eventually he just stopped eating and went down hill rapidly after that. In the end he had no idea if he was surrounded by people who loved him or not as he didn't actually know anyone anymore. He went from a proud man who felt like the head of the family to a confused person with no memory and no ability to do anything for himself. I'm am quite sure that had he been given a choice he would not have chosen to go that way. My father isn't afraid of dying but he is afraid of going through the same thing. It's perfectly reasonable to want to address this issue. Sadly those in power have not had the nerve to change the law yet but it is only a matter of time.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
ModernAndy said:
I completely respect the right of a person to choose how they want to end their life but bringing financial considerations to the fore borders on the ridiculous, especially when it's somebody who does have a bit of wealth and isn't going to be a burden on a struggling family. Obviously, individual circumstances are going to vary but we all know that there is an inherent imperative to prevent suicide where the reasons aren't compelling.
Is wealth the primary driver here? I think people are getting hung up on the idea of the inheritance but I suspect that isn't what is at the forefront of the OP's mothers mind.

I think it entirely reasonable that if I wish to go into a care home that my house be sold to fund it. The issue is that I would like to end my life with a little bit more dignity than the current law allows.

amusingduck

9,396 posts

135 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
ModernAndy said:
I completely respect the right of a person to choose how they want to end their life but bringing financial considerations to the fore borders on the ridiculous, especially when it's somebody who does have a bit of wealth and isn't going to be a burden on a struggling family. Obviously, individual circumstances are going to vary but we all know that there is an inherent imperative to prevent suicide where the reasons aren't compelling.
Who decides whether the reasons are compelling or not?

If I would rather take a trip to dignitas to avoid spending the rest of my life dribbling in a godforsaken care home, and pissing my life savings up the wall in the process, who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to decide that my reasons aren't compelling enough?