MPs vote in favour of assisted dying bill

[Diver Fred]

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

The Liverpool Pathway - best description is here.

I've now seen 2 elder members of my family put on 'Palliative Care' - I'd say it's the same thing Cruel action as the Liverpool Pathway. All the patient gets is some pain killing drugs, possibly some liquid just to moisten their lips whilst they have food withdrawn - in other words they are staved to death. Is that better than being put to death painlessly? In many cases that (seems) to be done to save the carers or nurses from having to keep the patients (and beds) clean cause it's easier than changing nappies on adults.

My wife sat in a hospital with her mother for several weeks whilst the hospital firstly withdrew care, then moved to a care home on 'palliative care' for the last fortnight of her mothers life. Even I had to spend a lot of time either in hospital with the wife and was in the care home for with her for the last few days of the MIL life. It was horrible to see and hear the agony!

 

[TRITON]

two doctors, judge

Similar systems in the past allowed shock treatment and lobotomies, and even pregnancy terminations. All in the patients best interests.

So when will the decision start being made for those people who are severely disabled ? 'No quality of life' 'its for the best'
2 doctors. Can doctors be trusted ? The judge just provides the legal aspect, not the moral one.

 

[MikeJhn]

Having watched my MIL laying in a fetal position, PEG fed to keep her alive for ten years, unable to communicate or interact with either myself or her daughter, it was my Wife who suffered, as long as safeguards are in place, I do think the bill is overdue.

 

[Scruples]

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

The Bill will still need more 'filling out', that's for sure and the HoL will study and debate then send the Bill back to the HoC for amendments, twice if they feel it necessary, but the HoC, if still adamant after that, can send the Bill through once they have decided.

Personally, I would have thought there would be minor resistance from the 'oldies' in the HoL since they they are closer to the reality of death but the religious few will attempt to make their beliefs known in the meantime. The HoL must, however, keep this on a rational level and leave mythology behind.

 

[Scruples]

Similar systems in the past allowed shock treatment and lobotomies, and even pregnancy terminations. All in the patients best interests.

So when will the decision start being made for those people who are severely disabled ? 'No quality of life' 'its for the best'
2 doctors. Can doctors be trusted ? The judge just provides the legal aspect, not the moral one.

That's an easy argument to make, mate. However, it is not sound.
Medicine has advanced a lot since the days you cite as a fear. The distribution of information has advanced, significantly, and the electorate are more more vocal leaving MPs and senior figures a little more vulnerable. I think the safeguards are there and would nullify your fears.

On our local Reach website the balsnce appears to be in favour of the Bill as it stands. As long as the debate remains in the secular zone the Bill will get Royal Assent with ease.

 

[Scruples]

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

No, animals can, and are, euthanised by vets if, the owners believe that the animal's quality of life has passed and there's no likelihood of recovery. The vet will advise that the animal should have a fewer good days than bad, as a guideline.

Our 16 year old collie reached that situation, being unable to walk, eat properly or even lie comfortably. 16 years of a bond between a dog and its family and the end decision was a no-brainer. We all cried, and grieved, but out dog died at the right time, for him and for us. I'm sure this happens every day and the decisions aren't taken lightly but with a great deal of hand-wringing. The worth of a life, of someone close, hits you when they're gone.