The Assisted Dying Bill
Discussion
Boringvolvodriver said:
<edited for brevity>
...........the bill is just a rushed attempt to do something and from i can tell is worse than useless - as pointed out above - last 6 months is b
ks when you have a life limiting illness and struggle.
I agree. I think this bill is better than the status quo, but doesn't go far enough. The 6 months/terminal prognosis/two doctors/judicial review constraints impose barriers that are far too high. I feel strongly that quality of life should be reflected in any legislation. If I was facing a steady descent into (say) Motor Neurone Disease over (say) the next ten years I believe an assisted death at a time of my choosing should be allowed............the bill is just a rushed attempt to do something and from i can tell is worse than useless - as pointed out above - last 6 months is b
ks when you have a life limiting illness and struggle.It's all moot anyway, Parliament won't even vote for Kim Leadbeater's bill, let alone anything further.
TameRacingDriver said:
As much as I hate to be so negative, there's no chance in hell this is getting voted in. The rats in government don't like doing anything good for the public and will claim they have moral reasons for voting against but in reality they probably have their mates in the pharma industry who will no doubt heavily profit from keeping people alive unnecessarily.
Incidentally, I think this should be voted for by the public and not MPs as they're all lower than a snakes belly and can't be trusted.
Sounds harsh but any MP who votes against, I hope they die the most long, drawn out, painful, suffering death possible.
I have read it is a private members bill and already some MPs are expressing concern that there hasn’t been proper scrutiny- mind you from reading about Westminster, they don’t scrutinize normal Bills that much and leave it to the HOL to look at!Incidentally, I think this should be voted for by the public and not MPs as they're all lower than a snakes belly and can't be trusted.
Sounds harsh but any MP who votes against, I hope they die the most long, drawn out, painful, suffering death possible.
I don’t disagree with your sentiments and the 6 months and a High Court Judge is of little use to many people who would want to die with dignity at a time of their choosing. The current proposals are, imo, useless in the real world.
Maybe there should be a public referendum on it once the terms and conditions have been properly worked out?
pavarotti1980 said:
FMOB said:
It is an acknowledgement that making good laws is difficult at the best times without all the emotion the current topic has, your comment is an example of such emotion that makes legislating on this topic so difficult.
It might seem a little cold but please explain your view of dying with diginity? I think everyone has a different view of that and somehow this bill needs to be all things to all people under any circumstance.
Having the ability in a situation of a terminal illness to plan the time at which you can pass away without ending up in hospital with no control over bodily functions, no quality of life for the patient or family and ultimately having to be pumped full of drugs to control symptoms prior to death. Seeing patients with "the rattle" is not nice and I imagine not to clever for the patient either. It might seem a little cold but please explain your view of dying with diginity? I think everyone has a different view of that and somehow this bill needs to be all things to all people under any circumstance.
Having worked previously in a hospice and also experienced it within the family and also most recently with a colleague whose partner spent 3 weeks in a hospital bed in the living room before dying in excruciating pain and constantly ending up in their own s
t and piss. The irony is that we don't put our pets through this suffering but unable to extend to ourselvesFrom another poster the bill is very narrow and I'm not sure it would cover either situation described.
Having assisted dying on the statute book shouldn't be an easy solve for bad end of life care.
I don't particularly feel this bill is right but if people want to go somewhere where it is legal, then those that help shouldn't get into trouble for helping.
Edited by FMOB on Wednesday 13th November 12:28
FMOB said:
And it is awful, I watched my Mother die due to sepsis as a result of a leg ulcer that went down to the tendons, seeing her fade away in pain dosed up to the eyeballs on pain killers given through one of those machines but diginity is different for everyone and every circumstance.
From another poster the bill is very narrow and not sure it would cover either situation described.
Having assisted dying on the statute book shouldn't be an easy solve for bad end of life care.
Is it bad end of life care though? From another poster the bill is very narrow and not sure it would cover either situation described.
Having assisted dying on the statute book shouldn't be an easy solve for bad end of life care.
pavarotti1980 said:
FMOB said:
And it is awful, I watched my Mother die due to sepsis as a result of a leg ulcer that went down to the tendons, seeing her fade away in pain dosed up to the eyeballs on pain killers given through one of those machines but diginity is different for everyone and every circumstance.
From another poster the bill is very narrow and not sure it would cover either situation described.
Having assisted dying on the statute book shouldn't be an easy solve for bad end of life care.
Is it bad end of life care though? From another poster the bill is very narrow and not sure it would cover either situation described.
Having assisted dying on the statute book shouldn't be an easy solve for bad end of life care.
Alex Z said:
I’m in favour of it in principle, and this seems like a good and balanced starting point for legislation.
I have a friend who’s dying of cancer at the moment, in significant pain and with very poor quality of life.
He wants to be dead, and who am into say he should sit there and suffer?
I remember my Dad saying he was ready to die.I have a friend who’s dying of cancer at the moment, in significant pain and with very poor quality of life.
He wants to be dead, and who am into say he should sit there and suffer?
Then spent some time (a few months) in the hospice before dying.
But even a few days before death he was talking, interacting, comfy enough, pulling faces at our 6 month old.
I don’t think there are any ideal ways to go.
But I feel a big part of our issue in the Western world is our view on death to begin with… it seems fundamentally unhealthy and a bit destructive really.
pavarotti1980 said:
FMOB said:
You're asking me? I thought you had all the answers!
Really? I think you are confusing "all the answers" with a different opinion to yoursI don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
FMOB said:
I'm not confusing anything, just pointing out the bill is a one size fits all trying to cover a complex situation where everyone's circumstances are different.
I don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
I am one of the most emotionless people going so there is nothing attached to it. This a step in the right direction to prevent people dying in a pool of their own sI don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
t and piss in abed somewhere with what appears to be suitable governance to prevent just popping off when they feel like it. As I said previously, if your dog or cat was told there was nothing a vet could do and their quality of life would be non-existent what would you choose to do? Allow further suffering or ask the vet to help them out of their suffering? If the latter why is it ok for pets to die with some degree of dignity but not humans
pavarotti1980 said:
FMOB said:
I'm not confusing anything, just pointing out the bill is a one size fits all trying to cover a complex situation where everyone's circumstances are different.
I don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
I am one of the most emotionless people going so there is nothing attached to it. This a step in the right direction to prevent people dying in a pool of their own sI don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
t and piss in abed somewhere with what appears to be suitable governance to prevent just popping off when they feel like it. As I said previously, if your dog or cat was told there was nothing a vet could do and their quality of life would be non-existent what would you choose to do? Allow further suffering or ask the vet to help them out of their suffering? If the latter why is it ok for pets to die with some degree of dignity but not humans
People are looking at this legislation from the sunny day scenario, in which the person retains their faculties and has made a rational decision to end their life. The flip side is the elderly person who is forced/coerced/convinced/guilted into making that decision because it benefits other people.
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson talks very much about this aspect, which many seem to want to rush past in their urge to prevent suffering in the sunny-day scenarios. The bill needs to consider all existing aspects and also have one eye on future possibilities too.
I was disappointed when I actually read the proposed legislation.
It is limited to address a pretty specific situation where someone is lucid and has had two doctors certify that they are within 6 months of death.
It does nothing to help people who have lost the ability to express themselves by the time they are definitely within 6 months of death.
So don’t worry.
People will still be dying in a slow undignified way or just finished off on a ‘pathway’ of being starved and dehydrated to death.
It is limited to address a pretty specific situation where someone is lucid and has had two doctors certify that they are within 6 months of death.
It does nothing to help people who have lost the ability to express themselves by the time they are definitely within 6 months of death.
So don’t worry.
People will still be dying in a slow undignified way or just finished off on a ‘pathway’ of being starved and dehydrated to death.
Edited by swisstoni on Thursday 14th November 10:16
pavarotti1980 said:
FMOB said:
I'm not confusing anything, just pointing out the bill is a one size fits all trying to cover a complex situation where everyone's circumstances are different.
I don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
I am one of the most emotionless people going so there is nothing attached to it. This a step in the right direction to prevent people dying in a pool of their own sI don't think you are seeing that, you are applying emotion when it is the last thing the situation needs.
t and piss in abed somewhere with what appears to be suitable governance to prevent just popping off when they feel like it. As I said previously, if your dog or cat was told there was nothing a vet could do and their quality of life would be non-existent what would you choose to do? Allow further suffering or ask the vet to help them out of their suffering? If the latter why is it ok for pets to die with some degree of dignity but not humans
As for vets and pets, if pets could talk do you think they would say time to go or sod off I have time left and I will make the most of it. They can't tell us what they want so they get whatever the owner decides, not the same thing at all however you want to rationalise it.
FMOB said:
And as I said, the scope of the bill is very narrow and would only assist a few people in the situation you describe in your first paragraph. The second paragraph is the Harold Shipman way authorised by a court.
As for vets and pets, if pets could talk do you think they would say time to go or sod off I have time left and I will make the most of it. They can't tell us what they want so they get whatever the owner decides, not the same thing at all however you want to rationalise it.
The alternative being a very wide scope which may have unintended consequences and be narrowed in future. Much better to start like this and amend legislation to widen the scope in future. As for vets and pets, if pets could talk do you think they would say time to go or sod off I have time left and I will make the most of it. They can't tell us what they want so they get whatever the owner decides, not the same thing at all however you want to rationalise it.
How wide should the scope be in your opinion?
pavarotti1980 said:
FMOB said:
And as I said, the scope of the bill is very narrow and would only assist a few people in the situation you describe in your first paragraph. The second paragraph is the Harold Shipman way authorised by a court.
As for vets and pets, if pets could talk do you think they would say time to go or sod off I have time left and I will make the most of it. They can't tell us what they want so they get whatever the owner decides, not the same thing at all however you want to rationalise it.
The alternative being a very wide scope which may have unintended consequences and be narrowed in future. Much better to start like this and amend legislation to widen the scope in future. As for vets and pets, if pets could talk do you think they would say time to go or sod off I have time left and I will make the most of it. They can't tell us what they want so they get whatever the owner decides, not the same thing at all however you want to rationalise it.
How wide should the scope be in your opinion?
Will we end up with Carousel from Logans Run where we all have to pop off at 30?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff