The Assisted Dying Bill

[pavarotti1980]

FMOB said:

And this is exactly the problem, where do you draw the line today, tommorow or next week. I don't know but I think there is nothing worse than someone feeling obligated to follow such a path, being forced to do so or heaven forbid changing their mind.

This is the criteria. Similar to Australia (they have to make 3 separate requests).

1)They must be resident of England and Wales and be registered with a GP for at least 12 months

2) They must have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure

3) They must be expected to die within six months

4) They must make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die

5) Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person is eligible - and there must be at least seven days between the doctors’ assessments

6) A High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can also question the dying person, or anyone else they consider appropriate. There must be a further 14 days after the judge has made the ruling

[llewop]

pavarotti1980 said:

How wide should the scope be in your opinion?

Quite wide if it is a predictable path:

I would sign something today to say I am content to be culled when I reach the point of negligible function. The potential end state for my condition is needing nightly, potentially constant respiratory support, increased immobility, struggling to eat/swallow. I am nowhere near that now, but if something else doesn't get me before then, inevitably (my condition is progressive) I would be increasingly helpless. Eventually not able to self administer any exit strategy.

The decision making process, by the individual with capacity and understanding of their path, in consultation with whoever is necessary; you can plan ahead and avoid any suggest of pressure/coercion/manipulation or other foul deeds that are cited as the reasons to justify the current abstention of care or dignity.

Having a condition that has a direction of travel gives you clarity of thinking, even if the end game is (hopefully) decades away.

All just my own view, I suspect many, even in parallel circumstances, will look at it differently.

[pavarotti1980]

llewop said:

Quite wide if it is a predictable path:

I would sign something today to say I am content to be culled when I reach the point of negligible function. The potential end state for my condition is needing nightly, potentially constant respiratory support, increased immobility, struggling to eat/swallow. I am nowhere near that now, but if something else doesn't get me before then, inevitably (my condition is progressive) I would be increasingly helpless. Eventually not able to self administer any exit strategy.

The decision making process, by the individual with capacity and understanding of their path, in consultation with whoever is necessary; you can plan ahead and avoid any suggest of pressure/coercion/manipulation or other foul deeds that are cited as the reasons to justify the current abstention of care or dignity.

Having a condition that has a direction of travel gives you clarity of thinking, even if the end game is (hopefully) decades away.

All just my own view, I suspect many, even in parallel circumstances, will look at it differently.

I think the only major change should be if the condition is progressive but a predictable path as you say, in addition to the existing 6 months prognosis. So this would emcompass the likes of MND, PPMS etc and allow for this to be planned to kick in at a certain point of progression

[lornemalvo]

There are rumours that the Labour Party are starting with assisted dying, then introducing compulsory Attestup, an idea borrowed from the Norsemen, so that when people reach a certain age, they no longer need to worry about being a burden. For those who don't know what Attestup is, here's a clip from Norsemen, possibly the funniest comedy series I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ziMr4I3YqE

[Wheel Turned Out]

FMOB said:

And this is exactly the problem, where do you draw the line today, tomorrow or next week. I don't know but I think there is nothing worse than someone feeling obligated to follow such a path, being forced to do so or heaven forbid changing their mind.

Will we end up with Carousel from Logans Run where we all have to pop off at 30?

Given the difficulty with even getting this far (which still isn't any sort of major step) do you really see the slippery slope manifesting like that? I must admit I don't. We have far too uneasy and frankly awkward relationship with death for that sort of thing, the Futurama suicide booths aren't coming for a while yet.

If nothing else we should surely have total bodily autonomy, access to a safe and peaceful method of stopping our lives. Legislating, or not legislating, purely because of a perception of someone being influenced doesn't sit well with me against the ability to grant people freedom to end their own suffering.

Is people existing on in misery really a better option? Or even worse, potentially botching an illegal attempt and ending up in even more pain? Yes palliative care should be better, but that applies regardless. Even with Assisted Dying, palliative care needs improvement.

Through the worry of certain people having their choice denied and made to do something (end their life early), you yourself are denying the choice to an another group and making them do something else (exist on in agony/immobility) - so people being denied a choice isn't really your issue, is it. That bit is seemingly negotiable, if you think the choice is a right one to be denied.

[FMOB]

Wheel Turned Out said:

FMOB said:

And this is exactly the problem, where do you draw the line today, tomorrow or next week. I don't know but I think there is nothing worse than someone feeling obligated to follow such a path, being forced to do so or heaven forbid changing their mind.

Will we end up with Carousel from Logans Run where we all have to pop off at 30?

Given the difficulty with even getting this far (which still isn't any sort of major step) do you really see the slippery slope manifesting like that? I must admit I don't. We have far too uneasy and frankly awkward relationship with death for that sort of thing, the Futurama suicide booths aren't coming for a while yet.

If nothing else we should surely have total bodily autonomy, access to a safe and peaceful method of stopping our lives. Legislating, or not legislating, purely because of a perception of someone being influenced doesn't sit well with me against the ability to grant people freedom to end their own suffering.

Is people existing on in misery really a better option? Or even worse, potentially botching an illegal attempt and ending up in even more pain? Yes palliative care should be better, but that applies regardless. Even with Assisted Dying, palliative care needs improvement.

Through the worry of certain people having their choice denied and made to do something (end their life early), you yourself are denying the choice to an another group and making them do something else (exist on in agony/immobility) - so people being denied a choice isn't really your issue, is it. That bit is seemingly negotiable, if you think the choice is a right one to be denied.

I think whatever controls are put in place they will not be 100% successful in ensuring there is no coercion so how would you ensure 100% or you get to acceptable losses.

I suggest that lifting rules, etc from other countries is also risky as they need to reflect the cultural aspects of the UK to not have unintended consequences.

Regarding choice, why should the choice of one group put other groups at risk? The current situation where it is denied to everyone is clear and unambiguous. Any law really needs a national referendum rather leaving it to law makers.

[mikeiow]

FMOB said:

I think whatever controls are put in place they will not be 100% successful in ensuring there is no coercion so how would you ensure 100% or you get to acceptable losses.

I suggest that lifting rules, etc from other countries is also risky as they need to reflect the cultural aspects of the UK to not have unintended consequences.

Regarding choice, why should the choice of one group put other groups at risk? The current situation where it is denied to everyone is clear and unambiguous. Any law really needs a national referendum rather leaving it to law makers.

You sound like nothing will convince you.

I’m pleased to say I had a reply back from my MP confirming he would be voting for the bill.

It is just ridiculous that as a Country, we treat end of life for our pets better than we do our frail and elderly humans.
Things have to change.
We have to moved towards giving those with painful end of life conditions looming some way to take control.
Instead, we focus crazy efforts on keeping people alive past their use-by date.
I’m guessing you’ve never had an elderly relative tell you “I want to die” as the doctors focus on just keeping them alive. I have, and it was one of the saddest things to hear.

[FMOB]

mikeiow said:

FMOB said:

I think whatever controls are put in place they will not be 100% successful in ensuring there is no coercion so how would you ensure 100% or you get to acceptable losses.

I suggest that lifting rules, etc from other countries is also risky as they need to reflect the cultural aspects of the UK to not have unintended consequences.

Regarding choice, why should the choice of one group put other groups at risk? The current situation where it is denied to everyone is clear and unambiguous. Any law really needs a national referendum rather leaving it to law makers.

You sound like nothing will convince you.

I’m pleased to say I had a reply back from my MP confirming he would be voting for the bill.

It is just ridiculous that as a Country, we treat end of life for our pets better than we do our frail and elderly humans.
Things have to change.
We have to moved towards giving those with painful end of life conditions looming some way to take control.
Instead, we focus crazy efforts on keeping people alive past their use-by date.
I’m guessing you’ve never had an elderly relative tell you “I want to die” as the doctors focus on just keeping them alive. I have, and it was one of the saddest things to hear.

Not against it, I just don't want anyone to feel obligated or forced down this route, one day it might be you. You can imagine the kids say, oh its for best Dad as they are rubbing their hands.

As for pets, do we? They cannot give their view or consent and we just assume we are doing the right thing, not sure that should be applied to people.

[captain_cynic]

mikeiow said:

You sound like nothing will convince you.

I’m pleased to say I had a reply back from my MP confirming he would be voting for the bill.

It is just ridiculous that as a Country, we treat end of life for our pets better than we do our frail and elderly humans.
Things have to change.
We have to moved towards giving those with painful end of life conditions looming some way to take control.
Instead, we focus crazy efforts on keeping people alive past their use-by date.
I’m guessing you’ve never had an elderly relative tell you “I want to die” as the doctors focus on just keeping them alive. I have, and it was one of the saddest things to hear.

This... hence he's using this "coercion" bks.

What business of theirs is it if someone else wants to end their life, especially someone who's suffering.

Like you I've seen a relative die from a degenerative disease (lost an aunt to MS), I'm absolutely certain she'd preferred to end it before losing total control of her body.

I think anyone who uses a false "coercion" argument needs to do some time working in a palliative care ward, so they can see how much "coercion" there really is... I would say after that they should volunteer for a suicide help line but they'd probably end up calling it "Lemming Tuesday".

[Boringvolvodriver]

mikeiow said:

FMOB said:

I think whatever controls are put in place they will not be 100% successful in ensuring there is no coercion so how would you ensure 100% or you get to acceptable losses.

I suggest that lifting rules, etc from other countries is also risky as they need to reflect the cultural aspects of the UK to not have unintended consequences.

Regarding choice, why should the choice of one group put other groups at risk? The current situation where it is denied to everyone is clear and unambiguous. Any law really needs a national referendum rather leaving it to law makers.

You sound like nothing will convince you.

I’m pleased to say I had a reply back from my MP confirming he would be voting for the bill.

It is just ridiculous that as a Country, we treat end of life for our pets better than we do our frail and elderly humans.
Things have to change.
We have to moved towards giving those with painful end of life conditions looming some way to take control.
Instead, we focus crazy efforts on keeping people alive past their use-by date.
I’m guessing you’ve never had an elderly relative tell you “I want to die” as the doctors focus on just keeping them alive. I have, and it was one of the saddest things to hear.

Exactly how I feel. If you have seen anyone suffer before they die and for them to say that they wish it could end, then you will feel differently.

The one illness that probably will never be covered by this bill is dementia - now that is horrible to see. My wife having seen her mum suffer with it has a clause in her POA that she would not want to end her life like that.

[Cotty]

pavarotti1980 said:

This is the criteria. Similar to Australia (they have to make 3 separate requests).

3) They must be expected to die within six months

Why the six months? I fancy going now

[mikeiow]

FMOB said:

mikeiow said:

FMOB said:

I think whatever controls are put in place they will not be 100% successful in ensuring there is no coercion so how would you ensure 100% or you get to acceptable losses.

I suggest that lifting rules, etc from other countries is also risky as they need to reflect the cultural aspects of the UK to not have unintended consequences.

Regarding choice, why should the choice of one group put other groups at risk? The current situation where it is denied to everyone is clear and unambiguous. Any law really needs a national referendum rather leaving it to law makers.

You sound like nothing will convince you.

I’m pleased to say I had a reply back from my MP confirming he would be voting for the bill.

It is just ridiculous that as a Country, we treat end of life for our pets better than we do our frail and elderly humans.
Things have to change.
We have to moved towards giving those with painful end of life conditions looming some way to take control.
Instead, we focus crazy efforts on keeping people alive past their use-by date.
I’m guessing you’ve never had an elderly relative tell you “I want to die” as the doctors focus on just keeping them alive. I have, and it was one of the saddest things to hear.

Not against it, I just don't want anyone to feel obligated or forced down this route, one day it might be you. You can imagine the kids say, oh its for best Dad as they are rubbing their hands.

As for pets, do we? They cannot give their view or consent and we just assume we are doing the right thing, not sure that should be applied to people.

With multiple doctors, evidence you make the decision of your own will, you still think your kids would get away with rubbing their hands and sending pops to the chamber?

Like I said, your comments suggest you have never witnessed the painful death of a loved one, and that your views won't be changeable. Ho hum.

& you feel dog and cat owners gleefully put their animals down?
Again, I'm not sure you've been in that position.

Oh, & don't appear willing to entertain the opinion of others who have, most importantly.

[FMOB]

captain_cynic said:

mikeiow said:

You sound like nothing will convince you.

I’m pleased to say I had a reply back from my MP confirming he would be voting for the bill.

It is just ridiculous that as a Country, we treat end of life for our pets better than we do our frail and elderly humans.
Things have to change.
We have to moved towards giving those with painful end of life conditions looming some way to take control.
Instead, we focus crazy efforts on keeping people alive past their use-by date.
I’m guessing you’ve never had an elderly relative tell you “I want to die” as the doctors focus on just keeping them alive. I have, and it was one of the saddest things to hear.

This... hence he's using this "coercion" bks.

What business of theirs is it if someone else wants to end their life, especially someone who's suffering.

Like you I've seen a relative die from a degenerative disease (lost an aunt to MS), I'm absolutely certain she'd preferred to end it before losing total control of her body.

I think anyone who uses a false "coercion" argument needs to do some time working in a palliative care ward, so they can see how much "coercion" there really is... I would say after that they should volunteer for a suicide help line but they'd probably end up calling it "Lemming Tuesday".

It is not bks as you so politely describe it, it is a fundamental part of the decision and the question is how does the law guard against it and are the protections good enough. Not as if a mistake can be corrected after the event is it.

[Cotty]

FMOB said:

Not against it, I just don't want anyone to feel obligated or forced down this route, one day it might be you. You can imagine the kids say, oh its for best Dad as they are rubbing their hands.

What if they are not obligated or forced down this route. What if they have no family, do you hand the choice back to them?

[FMOB]

Cotty said:

FMOB said:

Not against it, I just don't want anyone to feel obligated or forced down this route, one day it might be you. You can imagine the kids say, oh its for best Dad as they are rubbing their hands.

What if they are not obligated or forced down this route. What if they have no family, do you hand the choice back to them?

See, plenty of questions the bill doesn't have an answer to. I am very sympathetic to the situation but I have concerns about the decision making process.

Seeing how some posters have reacted with the 'look at the horrors of the situation, how could you object' trying to dismiss any objection or concern and pushing forward seemingly without any concerns themselves I don't think there is enough information in the bill to make an informed decision.

I will reserve judgement.

[NRS]

I agere. Furthermore, there is a risk that health care could result in people’s deaths - either accidentally or there will be some like Shipman who will kill their patients. It’s too risky so we should remove the choice of healthcare to everyone to avoid some bad eggs that might misuse the rules.

[swisstoni]

You haven’t read the bill have you?

[FMOB]

swisstoni said:

You haven’t read the bill have you?

Yup, all 14 pages of it.

[handpaper]

For those pooh-poohing the 'slippery slope', allow me to draw your attention to events in Canada
Their assisted dying programme started out as last resort, with many steps, requirements, and caveats. Now nearly one in twenty deaths are at the hands of the medical profession. Canada's stats office doesn't list MAID in its figures on causes of death; if they did it would be fifth.

[otolith]

Doesn’t do anything for those with degenerative conditions whose only way out is to off themselves while still sufficiently able bodied to do it.