MPs vote in favour of assisted dying bill

[RobinBHM]

I guess this is a historic moment.

My feeling is that assisted dying exists anyway, the Liverpool pathway for example.

My question would be: is it better to die from having water, food, meds withheld, or is it better to die with a direct medical intervention?

 

[Noel]

This thread likely comes with a very limited future (so to speak....).
Yes, it's an important issue but please stay on topic.

 

[Ozi]

In this I think the fine detail of what is becoming law really matters, without knowing that it's hard to comment. On a personal level if I ever get to the point where there are no more good days ahead of me just knowing that everything I have tried to build for my family is being eroded at a rate of hundreds of pounds per week it may be the way I chose to go. Just hope I'm allowed one last good brandy.

 

[niemeyjt]

Assisted dying, as I understand, still requires the patient to action their own death.

It is not like euthanasia or the Liverpool Pathway where the actions/inactions of a medic end a life.

Given many of us will have taken a pet to the vet on a one-way trip to ease its suffering, I am inclined to support this bill.

 

[Inspector]

This province has had MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) for some time. You have the option while healthy enough to make sound decisions to have your life ended by a doctor when you chose if you have a terminal condition. Some other provinces don't and you can look forward to suffering.

Your friends and family can't rush it along for their purposes. "Times up dad. Gotta catch a flight to Madrid on Monday."

Pete

 

[Chris152]

It's a very good thing in my opinion.

 

[niall Y]

Can't help thinking that the last great taboo has been overturned. And our world will never quite be the same again.

 

[selectortone]

My partner was an 'end of life' nurse for 25 years. She provided palliative care and sat with people through their last, often very painful, months, days and hours. She's retired now and this was before we met. She is 100% in favour of the bill.

 

[RobinBHM]

I know it comes down to budget but we really need to be thinking of the terribly short staffed hospital wards where the very frail and elderly get rather neglected at times

I can remember visiting my Mum in Kent and Sussex hospital in Tunbridge Wells, one particular ward was full of the really really elderly, some just lying in a foetal position on the bed, some with advanced dementia.........its really really grim.

I kind of think we need to be improving the care of those close to the end of their life.

I think I support the bill, (provided it has robust safeguards) because some people can suffer the most terrible painful and undignified death simply because of the bad luck of having a particular illness / progressive disease.


hopefully Ive got a few more years left before I have to worry about it for myself

 

[JSW]

On a personal level if I ever get to the point where there are no more good days ahead of me

From a personal viewpoint, this is the key. When that day comes I'd like to depart this world with a little grace and dignity.

 

[Tris]

I won't be getting too excited yet. Iirc it'll take a couple of readings and then need to pass through the upper house, could be 5 years or so before it becomes law.
After seeing a few family members linger on in pain I would be in favour of a well crafted law

 

[Sideways]

I am strongly in favour.
Partly it is a matter of personal rights. If I am dying in pain, and in my right mind, then I claim the right to decide when my life should end and absolutely reject anyone arrogant enough to say their opinion should matter more than mine.
After that, it is just about causing the least harm and distress for any others involved.
My family or friends shouldn't be placed in difficulty for supporting such a decision.
Medical staff shouldn't be placed in a position that is legally, morally and emotionally (any more than is inevitable) problematic for them.
Public serices shouldn't be placed in the traumatic situation of cleaning up the mess because someone is driven to end their lives by whatever means they can.

 

[Spectric]

Medical staff shouldn't be placed in a position that is legally, morally and emotionally (any more than is inevitable) problematic for them.

The first hurdle, it will require two doctors and a high court judge to give the go ahead so not completely within your own control. These doctors will be giving someone the green light to die, there will be cases where they may not be confident enough or without some doubt to say this person will be dead within six months so will they defer the decision or just think we are confident they are terminal so dead tommorow or at some point in the near future makes no difference as they are dead either way. These doctors will have to live with these decisions which go against there very basic desire of saving and promoting life.

Given many of us will have taken a pet to the vet on a one-way trip to ease its suffering, I am inclined to support this bill.

That is the worry if you think about politics and decision making where what is said one day becomes something very different at another time so will we get to the point where we decide that poor old granny is dying and has no dignity so lets just wheel her down to the undertakers and put her down. Maybe we could end up with the full package, dial a death so the doctors watch as you take the pills and then your body is placed into the mobile incinerator where following a puff of smoke your ashes are dispensed into a container and given back to you and they move onto the next patient.

I think allowing someone to make that decision is there decision to make but there is a difference in being in pain and being terminal so the medical evidence needs to be very sound to prevent someone in pain and curable from making the wrong decision. Is this not why we got rid of the death penalty, because mistakes were made and people hung that were later found to be innocent, oh dear to late.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I am in favour of it as long as the detail of the process is properly thought through and implemented. Quality of end of life care should also be of a high standard for those who don’t want to accelerate the inevitable.

Interesting that:

• the Liverpool Pathway has been mentioned. I’m pretty sure that was scrapped some years ago as it was found to be flawed.
• the Canadian system was covered quite extensively by Sky earlier in the week with a controversial point being that there are moves to extend it to include mental health conditions which I would be against. https://news.sky.com/story/depresse...ted-dying-in-canada-crossed-the-line-13258336

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The first hurdle, it will require two doctors and a high court judge to give the go ahead so not completely within your own control. These doctors will be giving someone the green light to die, there will be cases where they may not be confident enough or without some doubt to say this person will be dead within six months so will they defer the decision or just think we are confident they are terminal so dead tommorow or at some point in the near future makes no difference as they are dead either way. These doctors will have to live with these decisions which go against there very basic desire of saving and promoting life.


That is the worry if you think about politics and decision making where what is said one day becomes something very different at another time so will we get to the point where we decide that poor old granny is dying and has no dignity so lets just wheel her down to the undertakers and put her down. Maybe we could end up with the full package, dial a death so the doctors watch as you take the pills and then your body is placed into the mobile incinerator where following a puff of smoke your ashes are dispensed into a container and given back to you and they move onto the next patient.

I think allowing someone to make that decision is there decision to make but there is a difference in being in pain and being terminal so the medical evidence needs to be very sound to prevent someone in pain and curable from making the wrong decision. Is this not why we got rid of the death penalty, because mistakes were made and people hung that were later found to be innocent, oh dear to late.

I understand the process proposed for the UK - informed request, two doctors, judge - is as robust as anywhere which has similar legislation in place.

It is complacent to assume processes will always work faultlessly - there will be occasional problems - both inadvertent and deliberate.

Legislation needs to balance the risks. To protect a very small number who may anyway be severely ill and close to death, may be to deny possibly many thousands the right to avoid pain, suffering and indignity of an unnecessarily extended death

My strong desire is to have the right to an assisted death if or when life becomes intolerable, and thus wholly support the proposals.

There is a sound argument the proposal does not go far enough. Many utterly disabling conditions can deny any reasonable quality of life for many years with no prospect of improvement.

Those who wish nature to take its course should have their choice respected and provided with the best palliative care that can be provided.

 

[Spectric]

It is complacent to assume processes will always work faultlessly - there will be occasional problems - both inadvertent and deliberate.

But when dealing with someones life you don't want the risk of a flawed process, so really it must be a very simple process so there is no small print or ambiguity so anything can be mis-interpreted. If you are allowing someone to end their life then should you now put conditions on that person such as terminally ill because that is being selective and everyone should have the same rights. Then should we treat a physical problem that is causing severe pain any different to a mental health issue that is also causing the person severe pain ?

 

[bilspe]

Absolutely in favour.
Been visiting my 92 yer old mum in a care home for the past 2 years with severe dementia. A living corpse is the only way I can describe it. She wouldn't qualify for this bill though as obviously you have to be of sound mind.
It's got to the point where I cant even face going into these care homes, (and I remember the frailty ward in the hospital) it's just too distressing, seeing people basically rotting away but trying to keep them alive at all costs. We really are kinder to our animals.

If I ever get to point where I'm bedbound or staring out the window like a vegetable all day, and unable to do anything for myself, the best palliative care in the world wouldn't persuade me to carry on living

 

[niall Y]

I have to admit, that I am not exactly sure, what my feelings are, on this issue.
Suicide, I have always thought of as something that is inevitable.Especially if a person has both the desire and the means to end their life. I can see the logic in the argument - " It's my body and my life. and I have the right to do with them as I wish" And, nor do I attach to it the stigma, of it being a sin.

However, the problem comes from having others assist in a suicide. That is where the moral and ethical issues come to the fore. It is one thing to take ones own life. It is quite another to have someone else kill you (even with your consent) This still amounts to murder.

Parliament will be making the decision, that in law this will no longer be the case, hence my earlier observation about it being one of the last taboos It is interesting that the idea of assisted dying is something that is prevalent in Western secular countries. Not something coming from those with strong religious beliefs.

A persons right and freedom to be allowed to do something often impinges on others rights and freedoms This law will be no different There are always going to be unintended consequences. There could also be concerns about how such a scheme could be administered. You are going to need people who are scrupulous, moral and trustworthy. so government of any kind should be kept as far away from it as possible.

 

[Lons]

I would certainly be in favour given adequate safeguards are in place. These would also have to overule any possibility of abuse under health and welfare LPA.

We have neighbours/friends we have known for some 40 years. The lady is paraplegic and has been in a wheelchair all that time, she was an intelligent and lovely natured person. Now in her eighties she has advanced dementia, frustrated and angry, doesn't recognise anyone except her husband and begs him to kill her which he of course can't won't do. It's an horrific situation and it's not too many years ago when of sound mind she told us it was her wish to have a dignified end in Switzerland when the time came. She is now not mentally or physically capable of doing that and the whole situation is heartbreaking and exacting a severe toll on her husband's mental health.

On the other hand, my wife's uncle who lived in Switzerland at the time was in very bad health and terminal pain. We got a text one morning asking us to think of him on a given date and time and his death was of his choosing. His wife moved back to the UK nearer her kids and a few years later had entirely the opposite experience and a painful death in the south of England. I know which I'd prefer.

 

[Robbo3]

I am strongly in favour.
Partly it is a matter of personal rights. If I am dying in pain, and in my right mind, then I claim the right to decide when my life should end and absolutely reject anyone arrogant enough to say their opinion should matter more than mine.
After that, it is just about causing the least harm and distress for any others involved.
My family or friends shouldn't be placed in difficulty for supporting such a decision.
Medical staff shouldn't be placed in a position that is legally, morally and emotionally (any more than is inevitable) problematic for them.
Public serices shouldn't be placed in the traumatic situation of cleaning up the mess because someone is driven to end their lives by whatever means they can.

I completely agree.
It's illegal to allow an animal to suffer yet it's ok for a human.