The Assisted Dying Bill
Discussion
Ridgemont said:
MAID, the Canadian version, is now responsible for 4% of all Canadian mortalities.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? With modern medicine having solved a lot of the easy problems, a huge proportion of people these days ultimately die of diseases which make their quality of life pretty bloody awful in their final days. If I get to the point where I'm not enjoying life anymore and there is no realistic prospect of me doing so in the future, I want to be part of that 4% thank you very much!kambites said:
Ridgemont said:
MAID, the Canadian version, is now responsible for 4% of all Canadian mortalities.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? With modern medicine having solved a lot of the easy problems, a huge proportion of people these days ultimately die of diseases which make their quality of life pretty bloody awful in their final days. If I get to the point where I'm not enjoying life anymore and there is no realistic prospect of me doing so in the future, I want to be part of that 4% thank you very much!It’s certainly not a religious thing and it certainly deserves discussion.
What concerns many opponents is what may be hidden in that 4%. What is a well intentioned act may be open to enormous abuse.
kambites said:
Ridgemont said:
MAID, the Canadian version, is now responsible for 4% of all Canadian mortalities.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? With modern medicine having solved a lot of the easy problems, a huge proportion of people these days ultimately die of diseases which make their quality of life pretty bloody awful in their final days. If I get to the point where I'm not enjoying life anymore and there is no realistic prospect of me doing so in the future, I want to be part of that 4% thank you very much!Ridgemont said:
What concerns many opponents is what may be hidden in that 4%. What is a well intentioned act may be open to enormous abuse.
Of course, but IMO one has to consider whether the change will result in a net positive or negative effect for members of society as a whole. You can't run a legal system on the basis of never changing any laws in ways which might make things worse for a small minority, or we'd still be living with the laws we had 1000 years ago. kambites said:
Ridgemont said:
What concerns many opponents is what may be hidden in that 4%. What is a well intentioned act may be open to enormous abuse.
Of course, but IMO one has to consider whether the change will result in a net positive or negative effect for members of society as a whole. You can't run a legal system on the basis of never changing any laws in ways which might make things worse for a small minority, or we'd still be living with the laws we had 1000 years ago. If it fails on the third point allowing the killing of potentially of thousands of people who were pushed into the act because of bad intent, or were feeling depressed, or were not receiving proper palliative care.
You are then looking at the state knowingly condoning euthanasia involuntarily or not because of a net effect.
That sounds appalling to me.
Edited by Ridgemont on Friday 29th November 20:59
Ridgemont said:
But a legal system has to, by necessity, ensure that disputes are resolved, laws are enforced, and individuals are protected.
If it fails on the third point allowing the killing of potentially of thousands of people who were pushed into the act because of bad intent, or were feeling depressed, or were not receiving proper palliative care.
You are then looking at the state knowingly condoning euthanasia involuntarily or not because of a net effect.
That sounds appalling to me.
Accept our proposal has to be reviewed by the courts who I assume are quite good at knowing if someone is a) able to make a decision b) doing it willingly c) the decision meets the criteria of the law.If it fails on the third point allowing the killing of potentially of thousands of people who were pushed into the act because of bad intent, or were feeling depressed, or were not receiving proper palliative care.
You are then looking at the state knowingly condoning euthanasia involuntarily or not because of a net effect.
That sounds appalling to me.
Edited by Ridgemont on Friday 29th November 20:59
kambites said:
Sounds appalling to me, but not as appalling as forcing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to spend their final days/weeks/months in agony.
There's no right solution, but to my mind the new bill (assuming it becomes law) will make our solution slightly less wrong.
That’s been the human condition for hundreds of thousands of years.There's no right solution, but to my mind the new bill (assuming it becomes law) will make our solution slightly less wrong.
It was ameliorated over the last hundred or so years by discrete use of massive amounts of morphine. (cf George V).
The problem was and is that that was an informal arrangement between a doctor and the relatives.
That relationship has broken down and the likes of Shipman were the nail in the coffin for that.
But now we move into state assisted death.
Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
One monstrosity does not validate another monstrosity.
Ridgemont said:
kambites said:
Sounds appalling to me, but not as appalling as forcing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to spend their final days/weeks/months in agony.
There's no right solution, but to my mind the new bill (assuming it becomes law) will make our solution slightly less wrong.
That’s been the human condition for hundreds of thousands of years.There's no right solution, but to my mind the new bill (assuming it becomes law) will make our solution slightly less wrong.
It was ameliorated over the last hundred or so years by discrete use of massive amounts of morphine. (cf George V).
The problem was and is that that was an informal arrangement between a doctor and the relatives.
That relationship has broken down and the likes of Shipman were the nail in the coffin for that.
But now we move into state assisted death.
Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
One monstrosity does not validate another monstrosity.
I don’t know how Canada ended up in that situation (if they indeed have) but there would have to be a hell of a change for our system to get to that.
swisstoni said:
We are a million miles away from recommending homeless people are euthanised.
I don’t know how Canada ended up in that situation (if they indeed have) but there would have to be a hell of a change for our system to get to that.
Well a poorly drafted law is a cracking good start.I don’t know how Canada ended up in that situation (if they indeed have) but there would have to be a hell of a change for our system to get to that.
Strangely Brown said:
gregs656 said:
ScotHill said:
So when our observational skills run out we should just make the rest up?
I think that’s a category error. Not all questions can be answered by the scientific method. You know, the fundamental question that can’t be answered by observation, so people have to think logically, or creatively, or whatever.
Mr Whippy said:
Strangely Brown said:
gregs656 said:
ScotHill said:
So when our observational skills run out we should just make the rest up?
I think that’s a category error. Not all questions can be answered by the scientific method. You know, the fundamental question that can’t be answered by observation, so people have to think logically, or creatively, or whatever.
Science knows what it knows, and knows what it doesn’t. And that’s fine.
Ridgemont said:
swisstoni said:
We are a million miles away from recommending homeless people are euthanised.
I don’t know how Canada ended up in that situation (if they indeed have) but there would have to be a hell of a change for our system to get to that.
Well a poorly drafted law is a cracking good start.I don’t know how Canada ended up in that situation (if they indeed have) but there would have to be a hell of a change for our system to get to that.
To put it simply, religion should have no bearing whatsoever on what is decided in Parliament.
People can believe whatever they want to believe and if this law is passed and goes against their beliefs then fine, assisted dying will be optional and not mandatory.
However, I object with every fibre in my being to someone telling me I can't do something because of 'their' god.
People can believe whatever they want to believe and if this law is passed and goes against their beliefs then fine, assisted dying will be optional and not mandatory.
However, I object with every fibre in my being to someone telling me I can't do something because of 'their' god.
Does anyone really think that the infrastructure is there to get 2 Doctors, a high court judge and then another doctor to do all this within 6 months? You'd spend the last 6 months of your life speaking to answer machines/AI bots or Julie who doesn't have your medical records at hand and is sorry for your situation but will do her best.
Mr Whippy said:
Strangely Brown said:
gregs656 said:
ScotHill said:
So when our observational skills run out we should just make the rest up?
I think that’s a category error. Not all questions can be answered by the scientific method. You know, the fundamental question that can’t be answered by observation, so people have to think logically, or creatively, or whatever.
I have not been following this thread so I don't know what has been said here. I see that this bill has been passed by Parliament today. That does not surprise me from the coverage I have seen of it in the media, but I am still a little disappointed by it.
Had I not witnessed the abysmal treatment of my own family by doctors in their attempt to speed up the end of my father's life a few years ago I would likely have supported the bill myself.
The pressure put on my family by the doctors in ICU to allow them to speed up the end his life in order to free up his place there was genuinely abusive. The view that he was 'now a vegetable' and there was 'no point to him' and that he was a 'bed blocker' who could 'put other patients at risk' was put in clear, stark terms.
My mother was told that putting him in a side ward and letting him die there (the 'side ward' was a large storage cupboard) 'would be better for everyone' and that when put there he would not disturb other patients when he called out . There was no palliative care offered - only end of life in a cupboard.
Fortunately, we were able to find him a place in a hospice where he received excellent end of life care. The NHS was very different: abysmal treatment and often uncaring staff . I was quite naive about how badly the NHS generally and its medical staff in particular can treat families before I was unfortunate enough to experience it. Inevitably it colours my view as to what could be the realities of Assisted dying rather than the good intentions surrounding it.
Had I not witnessed the abysmal treatment of my own family by doctors in their attempt to speed up the end of my father's life a few years ago I would likely have supported the bill myself.
The pressure put on my family by the doctors in ICU to allow them to speed up the end his life in order to free up his place there was genuinely abusive. The view that he was 'now a vegetable' and there was 'no point to him' and that he was a 'bed blocker' who could 'put other patients at risk' was put in clear, stark terms.
My mother was told that putting him in a side ward and letting him die there (the 'side ward' was a large storage cupboard) 'would be better for everyone' and that when put there he would not disturb other patients when he called out . There was no palliative care offered - only end of life in a cupboard.
Fortunately, we were able to find him a place in a hospice where he received excellent end of life care. The NHS was very different: abysmal treatment and often uncaring staff . I was quite naive about how badly the NHS generally and its medical staff in particular can treat families before I was unfortunate enough to experience it. Inevitably it colours my view as to what could be the realities of Assisted dying rather than the good intentions surrounding it.
BigMon said:
To put it simply, religion should have no bearing whatsoever on what is decided in Parliament.
People can believe whatever they want to believe and if this law is passed and goes against their beliefs then fine, assisted dying will be optional and not mandatory.
However, I object with every fibre in my being to someone telling me I can't do something because of 'their' god.
I agree but there seems very little appetite to separate church and state here. That children are still praying in schools is madness to me. People can believe whatever they want to believe and if this law is passed and goes against their beliefs then fine, assisted dying will be optional and not mandatory.
However, I object with every fibre in my being to someone telling me I can't do something because of 'their' god.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff