Assisted Dying

[Spare tyre]

The old boy next door is 96 and as fit as a fiddling - he jokes that he has a potion to take when he finally gets too old

His sister is over 100 and still active

His mum died at 106, was fine then just dead

All in the genes, his daughters are in their 60s and genuinely look like a milfy 40 something


As a younger kid our neighbour needed to be put down as he was very unwell, he was in an awful lot of pain for years, you’d hear him yelling in agony and eventually he would get some sedatives, it would repeat over and over - poor sod, was a great guy as well

[PurpleTurtle]

When you read stories like this it is very hard not to feel sorry for the alleged murderer, especially when they've been so seemingly open about doing it and their reasons for doing so.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13362615/...

[bitchstewie]

PurpleTurtle said:

When you read stories like this it is very hard not to feel sorry for the alleged murderer, especially when they've been so seemingly open about doing it and their reasons for doing so.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13362615/...

I was just reading that very case but on the BBC.

Doesn't seem right on any level that you have to resort to that or that you get done for attempted murder if you do.

[chemistry]

I'm in favour in principle, but against it in practice.

Whilst I'm sure it would start off only being applicable to terminally ill people who've been assessed by two independent doctors etc., I think that's the start it's a slippery slope that ends in making relatively fit and well older people feel like a burden who should 'do the decent thing' (especially if they have grabby offspring who want an inheritance). Worse, I can see politicians in charge of a perpetually underfunded NHS facing an aging population encouraging long term sick to be good citizens and stop wasting tax payer money.

Just look at how (worryingly) it's implemented in other countries:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/cana...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163

[swisstoni]

The party (of any persuasion) that say they will make this happen if they get into power gets my vote.
That’s how strongly I feel about it.

[TGCOTF-dewey]

chemistry said:

I'm in favour in principle, but against it in practice.

Whilst I'm sure it would start off only being applicable to terminally ill people who've been assessed by two independent doctors etc., I think that's the start it's a slippery slope that ends in making relatively fit and well older people feel like a burden who should 'do the decent thing' (especially if they have grabby offspring who want an inheritance). Worse, I can see politicians in charge of a perpetually underfunded NHS facing an aging population encouraging long term sick to be good citizens and stop wasting tax payer money.

Just look at how (worryingly) it's implemented in other countries:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/cana...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163

I mean this with the greatest respect, but you're part of the problem. Your contrasting real world with speculative whataboutary.

Even the article cautions "But medical and legal experts caution that oversimplified media coverage of the cases fail to capture the realities of the system – and warn that sensationalist coverage of a handful of “extreme” cases ignores a larger crisis in the country’s healthcare systems."

We shouldn't have a system that legislates for fringe cases at the cost of the many.

I do think that there will be some very very rare examples where people are pressurised to end their lives, but this cost is worth it if literally thousands of people are not forced to undergo long painful deaths watched helplessly by their families. That st stays with every one of the family as well as the medical staff.

Try watching someone's father crying and begging for death due to dementia (or the many many other examples) and see if you feel the same.

The law needs to change, because it is currently inhumane, and it is perfectly possible to put in place protection.

[isaldiri]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

I mean this with the greatest respect, but you're part of the problem. Your contrasting real world with speculative whataboutary.

Even the article cautions "But medical and legal experts caution that oversimplified media coverage of the cases fail to capture the realities of the system – and warn that sensationalist coverage of a handful of “extreme” cases ignores a larger crisis in the country’s healthcare systems."

We shouldn't have a system that legislates for fringe cases at the cost of the many.

I do think that there will be some very very rare examples where people are pressurised to end their lives, but this cost is worth it if literally thousands of people are not forced to undergo long painful deaths watched helplessly by their families. That st stays with every one of the family as well as the medical staff.

Try watching someone's father crying and begging for death due to dementia (or the many many other examples) and see if you feel the same.

The law needs to change, because it is currently inhumane, and it is perfectly possible to put in place protection.

That's a bit unfair to the poster above I think. While I agree that there will always be sensationalist cases highlighted, it's not an unreasonable point to be making that the confidence you seemingly have in the protections in place will not longer term be abused might not quite be justified, particularly as there is an obvious incentive for politicians to go down that slippery slope. And I am someone who is very much in favour of the law being changed

[InitialDave]

Everyone should have the right to choose to exit the world on their own terms, so I'd support some form of assisted dying being put into place.

I do understand the concerns about someone bumping off their granny for an inheritance payday, but I'd like to think the vast majority of people aren't like that.

Fortunately most people in my family seem to have made a fairly quick transition from "seem pretty much ok" to "left the building", without much extended suffering, but that's clearly not the case for many.

[TGCOTF-dewey]

isaldiri said:

That's a bit unfair to the poster above I think. While I agree that there will always be sensationalist cases highlighted, it's not an unreasonable point to be making that the confidence you seemingly have in the protections in place will not longer term be abused might not quite be justified, particularly as there is an obvious incentive for politicians to go down that slippery slope. And I am someone who is very much in favour of the law being changed

From the article quoted.

“Many of the slippery-slope arguments that were made initially never happened,” said Hillary Ferguson, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University. “There were fears that the floodgates would open and all these people would be accessing Maid or even forced upon them. But that’s not been the case.”

I don't think it's unfair... They use the word slippery slope and then state how 'worryingly' it's been implemented in other countries. It's alarmist and doesn't help sensible debate based on a balance of risk.

[Triumph Man]

If you want to die, you should be able to die.

[768]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

I don't think it's unfair... They use the word slippery slope and then state how 'worryingly' it's been implemented in other countries. It's alarmist and doesn't help sensible debate based on a balance of risk.

He is looking at the balance of risk, it's just he sees that balance somewhere different than you do.

I think there's a principal similar to Blackstone's that should apply here, if we're hanging out death sentences.

[TGCOTF-dewey]

768 said:

He is looking at the balance of risk, it's just he sees that balance somewhere different than you do.

I think there's a principal similar to Blackstone's that should apply here, if we're hanging out death sentences.

No, they're ignoring the expert they quoted who said, in practice, it hasn't been an issue, in favour of whataboutary.

That is not a balance of risk. That looks at the quantum of benefit evidence vs the sacrifice evidence.

BTW we're not handing out death sentences - another alarmist statement - individuals are choosing the time and place of their death. A VERY different concept.

[Mr Penguin]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

From the article quoted.

“Many of the slippery-slope arguments that were made initially never happened,” said Hillary Ferguson, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University. “There were fears that the floodgates would open and all these people would be accessing Maid or even forced upon them. But that’s not been the case.”

I don't think it's unfair... They use the word slippery slope and then state how 'worryingly' it's been implemented in other countries. It's alarmist and doesn't help sensible debate based on a balance of risk.

How would you know if someone had been "encouraged" to take up the option?

[Fermit]

PurpleTurtle said:

When you read stories like this it is very hard not to feel sorry for the alleged murderer, especially when they've been so seemingly open about doing it and their reasons for doing so.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13362615/...

The mistake he made was confessing. I'm confident that what he did was done out kindness. If she was 92, dying, why would there be any suspicion of him smothering her?

[TGCOTF-dewey]

Mr Penguin said:

How would you know if someone had been "encouraged" to take up the option?

You can't know 100 percent. But the Canadian evidence shows it's not a significant problem.

There's also multiple protective barriers that reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

But it's a risk two thirds of the UK population are willing to accept.

[Biker 1]

As mentioned above - various books about sky fairies will come into play & our great leadership will run scared & the current position will not change. Its utterly absurd.

[Mr Penguin]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

You can't know 100 percent. But the Canadian evidence shows it's not a significant problem.

There's also multiple protective barriers that reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

But it's a risk two thirds of the UK population are willing to accept.

I don't know if two thirds of the UK population will accept it when it comes to it. People will respond to pollsters on an "in principle" approach but when it actually comes to putting safeguards in place and hearing stories about the people who are killed or influenced by their relatives or doctors it becomes more complicated. Not every case is as clear cut as Esther Rantzen or Karen Vamplew and those are the details that need to be ironed out (I am generally in favour of it BTW).

I'd still like to know how you would detect a problem. Simply waving away other country's experiences with "they never detected a problem" isn't very helpful given our experiences of the British government's past handling of scandals that only come to light many years later.

[TGCOTF-dewey]

Mr Penguin said:

I don't know if two thirds of the UK population will accept it when it comes to it. People will respond to pollsters on an "in principle" approach but when it actually comes to putting safeguards in place and hearing stories about the people who are killed or influenced by their relatives or doctors it becomes more complicated. Not every case is as clear cut as Esther Rantzen or Karen Vamplew and those are the details that need to be ironed out (I am generally in favour of it BTW).

I'd still like to know how you would detect a problem. Simply waving away other country's experiences with "they never detected a problem" isn't very helpful given our experiences of the British government's past handling of scandals that only come to light many years later.

I'm not waving anything away. There will be individual cases that undoubtedly fall through the cracks in the system... But inviduals are 'murdering' their relatives now because they decide it's the best course of action. And others murder their relatives for monetary gains.

As system that provides a safe framework for assisted dying is better than what we have now. It will give more protection for all involved than what we have now.

For the abuse cases, it is possible to minimise the risk there but not remove it.

The question then comes down to what is best at a societal level?

Thousands die horribly painful and protracted deaths per annum (as is currently the case) vs the risk of someone who is medically diagnosed as being terminally ill, with a living will, and subject to a battery of psychological tests, having their life ended prematurely.

I don't care what side of the fence people sit - that's personal choice. What angers me is such an important debate getting hijacked by religion and whataboutary.

If we still decide that balance of risk is not acceptable, that's fine. But we need to look at the real risks and not those imagined.

[Mr Penguin]

Who is arguing about this on the basis of religion?

[chemistry]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

chemistry said:

I'm in favour in principle, but against it in practice.

Whilst I'm sure it would start off only being applicable to terminally ill people who've been assessed by two independent doctors etc., I think that's the start it's a slippery slope that ends in making relatively fit and well older people feel like a burden who should 'do the decent thing' (especially if they have grabby offspring who want an inheritance). Worse, I can see politicians in charge of a perpetually underfunded NHS facing an aging population encouraging long term sick to be good citizens and stop wasting tax payer money.

Just look at how (worryingly) it's implemented in other countries:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/cana...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163

I mean this with the greatest respect, but you're part of the problem. Your contrasting real world with speculative whataboutary.

Even the article cautions "But medical and legal experts caution that oversimplified media coverage of the cases fail to capture the realities of the system – and warn that sensationalist coverage of a handful of “extreme” cases ignores a larger crisis in the country’s healthcare systems."

We shouldn't have a system that legislates for fringe cases at the cost of the many.

I do think that there will be some very very rare examples where people are pressurised to end their lives, but this cost is worth it if literally thousands of people are not forced to undergo long painful deaths watched helplessly by their families. That st stays with every one of the family as well as the medical staff.

Try watching someone's father crying and begging for death due to dementia (or the many many other examples) and see if you feel the same.

The law needs to change, because it is currently inhumane, and it is perfectly possible to put in place protection.

No offence taken, for what it's worth; we're allowed to disagree on a forum

I have seen loved ones die miserable deaths, sadly. I've also got a friend who is a consultant geriatrician (NHS and private, for what that's worth) and he, like me thinks its a good idea in principle but doesn't trust the system to administer it appropriately.

Whilst I have some sympathy for the argument that we shouldn't not do something because a minority will abuse it, my greater concern is the societal/political pressure. I just have deep concerns that if/when assisted dying is introduced, we're on a path to people who are otherwise relatively healthy being 'encouraged' to die rathe than be a burden. We're facing a demographic time bomb as it is, so it's just too easy to imagine that in 20/30/40 years time the mood will be that once you hit 70, or are long term unemployed through ill health, or have been made to feel like you're a burden (homeless folks etc.) then it's time to 'do the right thing' and sip away...protect the NHS and all that.

I accept of course that one could put in place controls. We could say that folks have to decide at 18 whether they would ever want assisted dying and then formally review that every 5 years...as and when the time comes one's most recent declaration will be taken as gospel, so couldn't be overridden by greedy family etc. The downside of course is that someone might say no at 28 but then get terminally ill at 30 and be unable to reverse their earlier decision. More generally, any controls put in place initially can always be loosened down the line...

Ultimately, as I said initially, I think it's a humane idea in principle, but remain of the view that in practice the risk of abuse and mission creep outweighs the obvious benefits.