Euthanasia

Redplane said:
What's frightening about it? Not sure I understand the text of the tweet. I watched the entire clip.
Click to expand...
Me too. It’s fine. People are uncomfortable with death, so the idea that she ‘loves her job’ seems macabre. What she loves is giving people in unbearable suffering the autonomy to choose, if they wish, a painless death at the time and place of their choosing. It’s frankly an honourable cause.
 
Are we sure everything is alright in Canada? For the record, MAID = medical assistance in dying.

Rates of medical assistance in dying for non-terminal illness in Ontario higher in poorer neighbourhoods, reports say
In a third, a man in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease who was socially isolated and addicted to opioids and alcohol was told about MAID during a psychiatric assessment. His family wasn’t consulted beforehand, and the MAID provider drove him to the location where he received an assisted death.
Click to expand...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...istance-in-dying-for-non-terminal-illness-in/
 
It’s a great idea…sure assisted dying is much easier and much more straightforward than assisted living. :rolleyes:
 
Kinsella said:
It’s a great idea…sure assisted dying is much easier and much more straightforward than assisted living. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What has straightforward got to do with it? My body, my choice. Like abortion, if you don't like the idea then don't do it. But don't try to remove my agency to satisfy your religious beliefs.
 
There will always be some "excuse" for not allowing this in the UK. Much like the US we have a lot of pro life lobby groups who influence debates like this. They don't care about the suffering of others, they just want people living longer because ultimately they cannot squeeze money out of a dead person. Money will always be the driving factor here, be it care homes, or pharma industry, they will be the biggest losers if assisted dying was allowed.
 
maximus419 said:
There will always be some "excuse" for not allowing this in the UK. Much like the US we have a lot of pro life lobby groups who influence debates like this. They don't care about the suffering of others, they just want people living longer because ultimately they cannot squeeze money out of a dead person. Money will always be the driving factor here, be it care homes, or pharma industry, they will be the biggest losers if assisted dying was allowed.
Click to expand...
Seriously?!

The point is about coercion and it's being made by the very people whose job (and duty) is to provide end of life care. So maybe start there and listen to them, rather than indulge in conspiracies, because you don't like what they are saying.

Listen to the waffle here from one of the proponents of this Bill and you tell me how robust the safeguards are:

 
Last edited:


Also -
Labour divisions over the controversial bill on assisted dying have intensified as party grandee ******* Harman demanded the immediate cancellation of work ordered by the health secretary, Wes Streeting, into the potential costs to the NHS of legalisation.

In an interview with the Observer, Harman said Streeting’s intervention – making clear he regarded the bill as a “slippery slope” and saying that he had commissioned work on the financial implications – had not only breached “neutrality” rules for cabinet ministers but risked “tainting” the entire debate by turning it into an issue of “pounds and pence”.

Harman, who backs the private member’s bill introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, said: “I think it is really important that the government is neutral on this and the two people whose neutrality is most important are the prime minister and health secretary. Keir has stuck to that – but Wes has not.”

Now in the House of Lords, Harman said she strongly supported Streeting on other issues, including his proposed changes to the NHS, but added: “He has already stepped over the line by saying how he is going to vote.” Now he needed to “cancel the work” he ordered on the potential costs.

“By commissioning work to assess the cost of facilitating assisted dying – which he will have to publish – he will then of necessity have to balance that against the cost of the person staying alive. That leads you to the awful prospect that the research could find that it is cheaper for people to be doing assisted dying rather than staying alive, and that would really contaminate the argument,” said Harman, who is co-host of the podcast Electoral Dysfunction.

“It has to be an argument about individual choice and moral principle. It cannot be an argument about money.”

It was already clear from experience in other countries that the costs would be tiny in the context of the overall NHS budget, she argued. “I think he should not go ahead with this research because either way it is problematic, especially if it finds that it is cheaper for the NHS for people to have assisted dying. That will taint the decision with the idea that people who voted for it are voting for it to save money.

“The most important thing is for him to cancel the work he has commissioned and henceforth… to say absolutely nothing. “This debate has to proceed not on the basis of pounds and pence. It has not to be a debate about money but about morals and practicality.”

Only a few weeks ago it seemed highly likely that the bill would pass through parliament, albeit after intense debate both in the Commons and Lords. The fact that Keir Starmer, while in opposition, had voted in favour of assisted dying, and with Labour now enjoying a huge Commons majority, seemed to mean a historic change was on the cards.

But ahead of the second reading of the bill on 29 November, the debate is intensifying. Other cabinet ministers have been taking sides, including justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has said she will not support it, and culture secretary Lisa Nandy and work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, who have indicated they will back it.

On Sunday, public figures opposed to the bill, including the paralympian Baroness Grey-Thompson, former Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption and former attorney general Dominic Grieve, will endorse a report by the thinktank Policy Exchange that comes out strongly against assisted dying. The report argues, from international experience, that legalising assisted dying for the terminally ill means it will then “be extended to many other patients, including the frail elderly and people with a range of disabilities”

It also says that the case advanced for legalisation unduly prioritises the argument for individual autonomy, holding this to be the paramount principle at the expense of other important considerations, such as the sanctity of life.

Sumption writes: “The lesson of this paper is that medically assisted suicide arouses strong feelings, and strong feelings make for muddled thinking and moral confusion … It would be difficult to argue that the interventions of courts and judges have been either coherent or consistent. What is the justification for allowing medically assisted suicide but limiting it to those believed to be close to death or in intolerable pain, actual or prospective? There are so many other reasons why one might want to end one’s life. Once the moral barrier has been crossed, what is the logical stopping point?”

Harman urged members who were in favour in principle of assisted dying but worried about a lack of safeguards, to vote for it on 29 November because ample time would be allowed in parliament to debate all issues thoroughly and make changes.

“They should vote for it at second reading and then the safeguards will be scrutinised in committee – and if they are still not happy with the safeguards they can vote against it at third reading … This is really important because some people are saying: ‘I am happy with the principle but I am worried about the safeguards’.

“This is the biggest piece of liberalising social policy change in a generation, up there with the abolition of capital punishment and the allowing of abortion,” Harman said. She added: “This is a very big moment for MPs and peers.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-nhs-of-assisted-dying-harman-tells-streeting
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
What has straightforward got to do with it? My body, my choice. Like abortion, if you don't like the idea then don't do it. But don't try to remove my agency to satisfy your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
How about we limit your agency in order to prevent the normalisation of suicide and so protect the agency of those more vulnerable than you?

If abortion really was about terminating a childs life and not a fetus, we wouldn't allow it, bodily autonomy or not.
 
The fact this is still a discussion in the Western world, mind baffling.

I have seen my father going through 2.5 years of pancreatic cancer, having had throat cancer before; 2.5 years of chemotherapy and his body deteriorating.

He signed the necessary documents for euthanasia about 1 year before he actually went through with it. Covid happened, and he didn't want to die alone somewhere in a hospital. The day itself was the weirdest, saddest day I ever had to endure. But seeing the smile on his face while he said his goodbyes to friends and family, telling my mom and me he had peace with it and was happy his struggle was over, will always warm my heart. He had suffered enough, he had lived a full life and although he was way too young to go, I'm glad euthanasia was an option in my country.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


Anyone making these sorts of claims is simply living a really privileged life where they cannot comprehend the suffering many go through with some really awful illnesses. Once again, people are making it about themselves rather than those in pain, it's quite sick that once again rich politicians and people in privileged positions tell others how they will end their life.
 
maximus419 said:
Anyone making these sorts of claims is simply living a really privileged life where they cannot comprehend the suffering many go through with some really awful illnesses.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph of the article -
Jennifer, the baby daughter my wife Sarah brought into the world a few days after Christmas 2001, died after only 11 days. By day four, when the extent of her brain haemorrhage had been diagnosed, we were fully aware that all hope was gone and that she had no chance of survival. We could only sit with her, hold her tiny hand and be there for her as life ebbed away. She died in our arms. But those days we spent with her remain among the most precious days of my and Sarah’s lives. The experience of sitting with a fatally ill baby girl did not convince me of the case for assisted dying; it convinced me of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care
Click to expand...

And later on in the article -

For two weeks in the summer of 2009, Sarah and I volunteered in our local hospice, an NHS-run building situated in hospital grounds. Again we saw at first hand how sensitive doctoring and compassionate nursing responded to individual needs and wishes. On a more recent occasion, when I visited the hospice at Christmas time, I met a school classmate of mine, and what struck me most about our bedside conversation was how grateful she was for the help, support, care and love she was being given as she faced her last days. It convinced me that we can ensure there is such a thing as a dignified death.
Click to expand...
 
maximus419 said:
Anyone making these sorts of claims is simply living a really privileged life where they cannot comprehend the suffering many go through with some really awful illnesses. Once again, people are making it about themselves rather than those in pain, it's quite sick that once again rich politicians and people in privileged positions tell others how they will end their life.
Click to expand...
Maybe you need to read up on Gordon Brown's history before making such a sweeping statement
 
Few years ago, I was installing access points in a nursing home. A resident, 70+ or maybe 80+ year old male, was asking when his family was coming to visit and the response from a caretaker was that they are arriving in an hour or so. He asked later again and received a similar answer. Only after asking for a third time, I realized the caretaker is lying and that the gentleman suffers from some sort of a brain disease. No one is coming to visit him. O man, sadness hit me about the faith of an old man, but realization that I might get old one day as well and be in a similar condition hit me as well. Been fantasizing since then about installing some sort of a kill switch that can end the suffering for myself and everyone around me if the quality of life deteriorates to the irreversible state. I haven't figured out the specifics around the argument that there is power in ending your own life when it is time. The whole "God's will" that religious people reference is a lot of bs, sadly. The modern medicine can keep someone alive where suffering can turn into prolonged torture for an individual and those who care for that person.
 
nickm said:
How about we limit your agency in order to prevent the normalisation of suicide and so protect the agency of those more vulnerable than you?
Click to expand...
Suicide is already highly normalized in society. And the concern isn't, or shouldn't be, someone deciding to die but ensuring that it isn't simply though temporary despair or distress. As is the case with many suicidal people. Euthanasia isn't the same at all and you aren't going to be allow yourself to die on a whim. There are checks and balances to make sure that a person is taking a rational choice of their own free will. And the reason is far less important than the rational free will nature of that choice.

Most, if not all, of the concern stated about the relationship between income and euthanasia rates is confusing correlation with causation. The majority of people who want to be euthanised will, on average, have severely reduced economic means due to the reasons they want to be euthanised. Not the other way around, which is what opponents of euthanasia are suggesting. If that were the case e.g. people were being persuaded to die for the economic benefit of others, then any half decent legislation and procedure would weed that out. If it didn't the procedure needs to be improved. I'd actually suggest there is no such problem in most places that allow it, but that the correlation is being disingenuously used as propaganda by religious pro-life types.
nickm said:
If abortion really was about terminating a childs life and not a fetus, we wouldn't allow it, bodily autonomy or not.
Click to expand...
Depends how you define child vs fetus. Obviously a baby doesn't have full legal bodily autonomy until it is legally old enough e.g. 18 or whatever the local law says. If you are talking about defining the point where a fetus/baby is sufficiently a person for them to have rights that outweighs the mother's right of control over her body then that is a hard one (and a very different question). Personally I don't think we have ever satisfactorily defined when a fetus/baby becomes sufficiently a person to the point where it has rights that outweigh those of a woman. Most discussion is either religiously driven or emotionally driven, because a fetus looks like a baby. I'm not pretending that I know the answer nor have a solution but we need to use rationality more and religion/emotion less imo. I'd also say that we are currently very (overly?) cautious with limitations based on weeks. In any case euthanasia for a baby is such a rare/almost never issue that it merely distracts from the discussion.

And Gordon Brown's recent input is in this category is deeply unhelpful. He watched his baby die which is very sad. But trying to use this to justify delaying thinking about euthanasia for adults for ten years is ludicrous and surely all about his fervent religious beliefs.
 
Red in STL said:
Maybe you need to read up on Gordon Brown's history before making such a sweeping statement
Click to expand...
He had a sick baby die and is highly religious. So nothing to do with euthanasia and clearly motivated by his religious beliefs to try to delay legislation for a decade.

His experience was with one dying adult, who was grateful for human contact and help, is also irrelevant. Most dying people would be grateful for any such help, irrespective of their will to be euthanized or otherwise. The idea that there is no such thing as a good assisted death is utterly ludicrous. I'm sure my old man would have agreed if he wasn't too busy quite literally drowning in his own fluids for a week, after we were told there was zero hope, no medical intervention would be made and he would only last a few hours. Best case scenario he was so far gone that he didn't really now anything about it. This best case scenario still involved his entire family having to unnecessarily experience him in such a distressing and humiliating state for so long. The medical decision had been taken for him to die but the moral and legislative cowardice removed the logical option of hurrying that along for his own good. I've recounted it before but it is probably worth repeating it. I'd have happily smothered him with a pillow days before he finally died if we could have got him into a private room, but I couldn't afford to go to prison for my families sake. A much better option would have been simply to up his morphine dose even higher and let him slip away peacefully. That he was denied a much better death for the sake of someone else's belief in a fictional god is outrageous, and still angers me.
 
Last edited:
ExoduS said:
Few years ago, I was installing access points in a nursing home. A resident, 70+ or maybe 80+ year old male, was asking when his family was coming to visit and the response from a caretaker was that they are arriving in an hour or so. He asked later again and received a similar answer. Only after asking for a third time, I realized the caretaker is lying and that the gentleman suffers from some sort of a brain disease. No one is coming to visit him. O man, sadness hit me about the faith of an old man, but realization that I might get old one day as well and be in a similar condition hit me as well. Been fantasizing since then about installing some sort of a kill switch that can end the suffering for myself and everyone around me if the quality of life deteriorates to the irreversible state. I haven't figured out the specifics around the argument that there is power in ending your own life when it is time. The whole "God's will" that religious people reference is a lot of bs, sadly. The modern medicine can keep someone alive where suffering can turn into prolonged torture for an individual and those who care for that person.
Click to expand...
And this is totally ignored. If I were in my parent's situation (advanced Alzheimers) I'd have wanted to be euthanised years before they died. Dribbling and shitting your last away in a home that confuses and distresses you (at best) with little or no memory, dignity or autonomy and virtually no enjoyment of life. Compound that with the huge emotional and financial cost to the family that can traumatise multiple people for years or decades, just to satisfy someone else's need for religious nonsense, is unconscionable.

Euthanasia and abortion - if you have an objection to them, then don't do it. Your choice, but don't fecking dare try to restrict mine.
 
Last edited:
Human rights organisation Liberty has said that while it supports assisted dying in principle, there are “significant shortcomings” in the Bill set to be debated in Parliament next week. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has a “principles first, details later” approach which could lead to significant risks to marginalised and vulnerable groups, Liberty claimed.

The debate and expected vote on November 29 will be the first on the controversial issue in the Commons in almost a decade.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has described her proposed legislation as the “most robust” in the world.

Unveiling details of the Bill last week, she said it contains “three layers of scrutiny” in the form of a sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge, and would make coercion an offence with a possible punishment of 14 years in jail.
But Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, argued the Bill is “just not robust enough”, and urged MPs to oppose it if they “find it wanting”.

She said: “It is possible to support assisted dying, as Liberty does in principle, but recognise that there are significant shortcomings in this Bill that present serious safeguarding risks which are hard to look past.
“What’s really important is to look not just at who might benefit from assisted dying, but at who this Bill might harm. “Ultimately, the safeguards in this Bill are just not robust enough, and leave too many details to be decided later, particularly at a time when there is already great inequality in our healthcare system.

She said there is a danger of the Bill “evolving into something it was never intended to be”, warning of risks that some people in marginalised communities could feel pressured into an assisted death.

Ms Hart added: “It is clear to us that serious human rights concerns exist and are not being considered due to the rushed nature of this Bill.
“MPs must bear this in mind when they vote.
“If they find it wanting, they should oppose it.”
Ms Leadbeater has previously rejected accusations the Bill has been rushed, saying almost three weeks between the full wording being published and the Bill being debated is “plenty of time” and normal within parliamentary time frames. If the Bill passes the first stage in the Commons, it will go to committee stage where MPs can table amendments, before facing further scrutiny and votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/liberty-mps-commons-parliament-edward-leigh-b1195574.html
Click to expand...
.
 
Wibble said:
He had a sick baby die and is highly religious. So nothing to do with euthanasia and clearly motivated by his religious beliefs to try to delay legislation for a decade.

His experience was with one dying adult, who was grateful for human contact and help, is also irrelevant. Most dying people would be grateful for any such help, irrespective of their will to be euthanized or otherwise. The idea that there is no such thing as a good assisted death is utterly ludicrous. I'm sure my old man would have agreed if he wasn't too busy quite literally drowning in his own fluids for a week, after we were told there was zero hope, no medical intervention would be made and he would only last a few hours. Best case scenario he was so far gone that he didn't really now anything about it. This best case scenario still involved his entire family having to unnecessarily experience him in such a distressing and humiliating state for so long. The medical decision had been taken for him to die but the moral and legislative cowardice removed the logical option of hurrying that along for his own good. I've recounted it before but it is probably worth repeating it. I'd have happily smothered him with a pillow days before he finally died if we could have got him into a private room, but I couldn't afford to go to prison for my families sake. A much better option would have been simply to up his morphine dose even higher and let him slip away peacefully. That he was denied a much better death for the sake of someone else's belief in a fictional god is outrageous, and still angers me.
Click to expand...
The insinuation was that GB is just living a priviliged life, a politician etc, which IMO is a bit unfair

On the broader subject I'm with you all the way, fortunately my parents are still alive and still have their mental facilities, (both are in their 80's) they have both expressed quite clearly in the event of them getting dementia or a painful debilitating disease that they'd rather be euthanized, I am of the same opinion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet Square said:


Click to expand...


I'm all for assisted dying but I completely agree with this. The NHS is too broken to make this work the way it needs to be. I've been delivering care to people who have begged for this for years, especially those with Motor Neurone Disease. I been there from their first symptoms, diagnosis and death. It's unkind, depressing and quite frankly inhumane IMO.

However, the NHS does not have the resources currently to make this work. I can only imagine how strict the framework for assisted dying would be, and rightly so. The issue is having the qualified people to facilitate that decision. Capacity assessments take time, needs to be repeated and you'll also come across professional conflict from an ethical POV. Even if it's voted in, not every clinician is going to be comfortable in assisting such decisions and I know many of my peers who are flat out against it.

Agruebly, mental health illnesses are even more difficult to assess. The lack of qualified mental health clinics is alarming and mental health can often fluctuate. I've looked after patients in crisis and awaiting capacity assessments, namely dual MCAs between social workers and MH professionals which can take weeks to organise. Ultimately and sadly, I've seen people take their own lives before the assessment has been carried out.

In short, a diagnosis, a prognosis, a capacity assessment(s) and everything else in between takes time and multiple disciplines to make this work and currently, the NHS rarely gives people a good expected death given the stress that it's under. It won't be a surprise if this doesn't happen, not on the NHS anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.