Surely, the point is that nobody is killing anyone, but rather under certain extreme circumstances we have the option to take our own lives.
I'd hope never to have to use it, but knowing the option is there would help, even if I didn't use it.
MPs vote in favour of assisted dying bill
- Thread starter RobinBHM
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
I'd hope never to have to use it, but knowing the option is there would help, even if I didn't use it.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I fully support the need for informed consent of the dying, the opinion of two doctors and endorsement by a judge.
That some or many would prefer that nature takes its course is a personal choice to be respected.
It is a completely unacceptable arrogance for those who do not support the proposed legislation to impose their views upon others who would make the legitimate and justified personal choice to minimise pain, suffering and indignity in their final weeks or months.
ey_tony
Established Member
Robin I fully agree with you and I think we are both rightly concerned about it being fully debated before it is passed into law.
My primary concern is the safeguarding issue where people could be coerced into ending their lives prematurely for the expediency of others or even the state having not explored all other avenues but I see no reason to prevent it being passed into law by those opposed to the idea providing the safeguards have been met.
The objectors are entitled to be against assisted dying and there is no obligation for them to participate but whatever grounds they may have of disagreeing, if the safeguards have been met then from my experience of watching people suffer at the end of their lives, then the views of those against assisted dying are trumped by the people who matter most and who are able to make a coherent judgement that they want to have their lives end without pain and with dignity. From personal experience it's highly distressing to watch your loved ones slowly wither and die in agony when their lives could have ended more serenely and peacefully.
My late wife was a stunningly beautiful woman, everyone thought so too and not just me and I always thought I was punching above my weight when I married her but to see what she looked like on her deathbed still haunts me. I saw at first hand the horrible lingering death such a beautiful woman suffered and the worst part is I couldn't help her...no one could and if assisted dying had been available back then, it could have at least spared her pain and suffering she did not deserve and she could have died more peacefully.
niall Y
Established Member
It was really just an observation, rather than me wanting to come down on any one side or the other.
With suicide the reasons are always going to be extreme enough for it to be carried out But the mitigating factor there will be that no one else is involved.
Where a person wishes to die, but is incapable of doing it themselves is where the morality of the situation starts to get blurred. In such a case it could be termed a "mercy killing" but it will be a killing. none the less.
Lons
Established Member
It's not as simple as that unfortunately as there are many reasons for suicide and many in any case are a cry for help which by the time they get it is too late and the person has died. There are nearly always other people involved and very often family, friends and medical staff can feel very guilty that they weren't aware, didn't listen or failed to act in time. The only person who doesn't suffer after the event is the person who has died.
Hopefully all the relevant safeguards will be firmly in place by the time it becomes law.
How wrong, on so many levels, can you be?
Sachakins
The most wasted of days is one without woodwork
And this where the problem lies. We have many relevant safeguards in place for existing laws, yet you often see these continual fail. Think of how many news items we hear were there were failures of the system to spot, stop or intervene happens.
And this is when you realise that nothing is perfect.
Sachakins
The most wasted of days is one without woodwork
True, but when we're talking about life, don't we need to strive for the strongest protection we can.
Don't misunderstand me, I do think that a person should have a right to choose.
The legal framework to protect those who may be forced, coerced or encouraged into it neferiously is what I want to be seriously debated and prevented.
To me there is a difference between killing someone and assisting someone to avoid pain and suffering by bringing forward the inevitable.
I think we should all discuss this with our families, particularly those of us privileged to do so ahead of necessity, this is what Dad always wanted being much better than utter surprise and everyones views can then be considered including those who have to live with the decision either way.
Sachakins
The most wasted of days is one without woodwork
ey_tony
Established Member
Having witnessed at first hand three important people in my life and a number of friends over the years including one in their 20s die horrendous deaths due to the wretched terminal illness of cancer which brought them so much pain, misery and suffering at the end of their lives I can't see how not having an assisted dying bill would have made their deaths more comfortable?
This isn't about other people's feelings or religious beliefs etc, it's about allowing someone who is terminally ill choosing to end their lives relatively pain-free as far as possible and with dignity while they're coherent enough to make that decision for themselves.
The state clearly has a duty of care to protect vulnerable people from abuse and coercion but surely it has a duty of care to provide humane deaths for terminally ill people in such circumstances.
If we allowed animals to suffer in such wretched pain and torment then we would be labelled inhuman and prosecuted and quite rightly too and yet by not allowing assisted dying into law we'd continue to sanction making people suffer just so that someone else could feel good when ultimately the person would still die but in the same wretched circumstances.
I can understand reluctance on the part of some with regard safeguards against abuse of vulnerable people who are not suffering terminal illness or speeding up death for convenience, I have exactly the same concerns when it comes to safeguarding but to object on such as religious grounds for instance is not an excuse not to introduce a compassionate death for those facing it.
The final voting on whether or not to introduce assisted dying into law should be secular. People such as Tim Farron may be well meaning in his determination to prevent the bill from being passed into law but what he believes in his head which is entirely based on faith is not the same as the real world suffering that others have to go through and endure when they are in their final stages of dying, therefore objection on faith grounds should be precluded from final voting..
It's not about me but personally I would have preferred to remember my loved ones looking something like the people I knew and loved rather than the withered and pain ridden loved ones on their death beds.
Their images still haunt me but the suffering I have of them regarding the memory of their deaths is just a mere drop in the ocean to what their suffering was like toward the end of their days and therefore doesn't even bear comparison.
However it's not only the dying person who suffers but it's also the loving relatives and friends who also suffer watching the person die they loved die in such misery.
Unless someone has experienced this first hand then they can't even begin to understand what it's like for the person dying and those watching and unable to help.
This isn't about other people's feelings or religious beliefs etc, it's about allowing someone who is terminally ill choosing to end their lives relatively pain-free as far as possible and with dignity while they're coherent enough to make that decision for themselves.
The state clearly has a duty of care to protect vulnerable people from abuse and coercion but surely it has a duty of care to provide humane deaths for terminally ill people in such circumstances.
If we allowed animals to suffer in such wretched pain and torment then we would be labelled inhuman and prosecuted and quite rightly too and yet by not allowing assisted dying into law we'd continue to sanction making people suffer just so that someone else could feel good when ultimately the person would still die but in the same wretched circumstances.
I can understand reluctance on the part of some with regard safeguards against abuse of vulnerable people who are not suffering terminal illness or speeding up death for convenience, I have exactly the same concerns when it comes to safeguarding but to object on such as religious grounds for instance is not an excuse not to introduce a compassionate death for those facing it.
The final voting on whether or not to introduce assisted dying into law should be secular. People such as Tim Farron may be well meaning in his determination to prevent the bill from being passed into law but what he believes in his head which is entirely based on faith is not the same as the real world suffering that others have to go through and endure when they are in their final stages of dying, therefore objection on faith grounds should be precluded from final voting..
It's not about me but personally I would have preferred to remember my loved ones looking something like the people I knew and loved rather than the withered and pain ridden loved ones on their death beds.
Their images still haunt me but the suffering I have of them regarding the memory of their deaths is just a mere drop in the ocean to what their suffering was like toward the end of their days and therefore doesn't even bear comparison.
However it's not only the dying person who suffers but it's also the loving relatives and friends who also suffer watching the person die they loved die in such misery.
Unless someone has experienced this first hand then they can't even begin to understand what it's like for the person dying and those watching and unable to help.
We do, but we need to know what is do-able and what is achievable. This latest proposal is the best to date and, I think, after a bit of discussion in both Houses, the final draft will be as safe as is practical.
I would resent the option being taken away when I know that a large proportion of those against it are not rational people.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I am sure it will be seriously debated, at great length
My understanding is that MPs voted for it on the basis that if there was a majority that would open the opportunity for detailed and lengthy debate about the way to go forward
there has to be a balance, we dont want a situation where a person chooses assisted dying with the idea they will have a peaceful pain free death finds that it has opened a can of legal wranglings which only get decided after the person has suffered a painful death
We have to bear in mind, assisted dying already happens, water, food, oxygen and medicine is withheld with the aim of killing the person off..........but not without suffering.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I feel like this bill will help a lot of people from suffering a huge amount, it will if put into law give lots of people starting their journey into a progressive terminal disease some peace of mind.
I think it could give people an ability to enjoy the last few months of their life knowing they wont have to suffer weeks or months of pain with no quality of life.
RobinBHM
Established Member
In late September, my dog was diagnosed with cancer, she was given a steroid injection to reduce the swelling and amazingly she got really well and she enjoyed her food, she enjoyed her walks even played some days.
The diagnosis was inconclusive and we had to decide what to do, so we chose to have an operation to remove the spleen, but they found during the operation they couldnt remove the tumour, so she had to be put down.
As hard as that was, our dog was able to have a good life right upto the the last morning, had we decided not to take her in, we knew within days she wouldve started having horrible symptoms and possibility a rupture leading to a massive hemorrhage.
Had it been a person, they wouldnt have been spared the pain and suffering.
I totally agree with you.
Cabinetman
Established Member
I have been completely in favour of this for many years, and tbh what the law says would have very little influence on me, when I think it’s time to go go I will. There are a few painless quick ways. All my family and close ones know how I feel.
ey_tony
Established Member
That's very true Robin. There's also DNR notices which are enacted when a person has deemed they don't want resuscitating in order to live in almost a vegetative state lacking any quality of life.
What matters most is the quality of death they go through and their choice. If they wish to have their lives terminated early to avoid pain and suffering then no one has a right to prevent that providing there are people willing to carry out those wishes.
If the person is going to die, let them die with the peace and dignity they deserve.
Why on earth force someone suffering at the end of their lives to travel to die in some far off country because their home nation doesn't allow assisted dying. It's both illogical and inhumane!
That's right, the debate just held is the 'second reading' (the first reading is just the announcement that the bill is being proposed). It'll now go to the committee stage in the Commons where it and proposed amendments will be debated at length. Then there's a third reading debate, and if approved it's off the Lords. There it will get a second reading and committee stage debates. Then if amended in the Lords it goes back to the Commons. Lots of debate yet to come on the details and it might well end up quite different in the detail if passes all that.
Similar threads
