I always hated Latin at school.
Didn't think that much of Children of Men either.
Euthanasia
- Thread starter calodo2003
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) review both the Everton and Bodø/Glimt victories at Old Trafford. Listen to the guys discuss 2 wins and 7 goals in the last week, analyse of the Amorim formation, focus on Amad and how he is playing, and also take a look at Hojlund, Rashford & Zirkzee – who starts v Arsenal?
Didn't think that much of Children of Men either.
So you would rather people suffer and are forced to live in unbelievable physical or mental agony against their wishes and force their relatives to endure their extended suffering too?
I've personally witnessed my gran and father in law endure unimaginable suffering and seen the toll it takes on them and the family, both would have taken the option to go at a time of their choosing and with dignity and the knowledge they didnt suffer themselves and the family didn't have to endure months, maybe years of unnecessary torment. My father in law was diagnosed with 6 months to live and lasted nearly 10 years. He had absolutely no quality of life and all our memories are of his suffering. Yes he had 10 years but he was in agony. The family put their lives on hold thinking any day could be the day and he was so conscious of how much of a burden he was to us all and the NHS and those caring for him.
Nobody has the right to deny him the option of wanting to die with dignity. His last 10 years were fecking torture for him and for us all to witness as he was permanently in unbelievable pain with no chance of ever getting any better.
You wouldn't put your pet through it, so why someone you love so dearly?
Yes, it can be abused, but with the right protections and safeguards it shouldn't be.
I know some will say I'm a huge hypocrite as I fight against the death penalty because I don't think the state has the right to take a life, and also because even if 1 out of 1,000,000 are innocent then the system is wrong, but this is different. It's an absolutely disgusting abuse of human rights to deny someone of sound mind the right to end their own life.
I know someone who had to endure his dad starving himself to death because he didn't want to be a burden to his family. He had no quality of life remaining and he refused a feeding tube. They watched him day by day suffering until he died. It took 8 days and they wished they had the option of euthanasia. Imagine watching someone you love die slowly for 8 days. Can you imagine already being on your last and your only option is to starve yourself because you don't want to put your family through extended grief?
All of you preaching about what should or shouldn't be done should hold your tongues unless you were directly in a situation that required you watching someone you love suffer.
All of you preaching about what should or shouldn't be done should hold your tongues unless you were directly in a situation that required you watching someone you love suffer.
It's absolutely reasonable that in the fullness of time that anyone who is mentally sound and wants to die is enabled to do so, with proper safeguards. This is a finite life and I don't really see why anyone feels a right to have control over another's most fundamental decision, no matter how illogical they may feel their choice is. Slippery slope away!
Don’t see any issue with that. Being 100% reliant on other people for all your self care (no longer able to feed, wash, toilet yourself) might be a deal breaker for a lot of people. If you believe in the right of the terminally ill to have agency in their own death then that would be one of the more obvious end points to take into consideration.
Yeah, agreed. It’s sad the way this is being politicised the way it is. That’s the nature of this shitty culture war so many people are so completely wrapped up in, I guess.
Tbh Pogue my guess is you’ve not given the issue much thought or are taking it that seriously.
Here’s a good bbc documentary arguing against assisted suicide
Last edited:
I’m aware there are arguments to be made for and against. And I also have professional experience of the very hard decisions made at end of life, having worked at a palliative care unit for six months as a junior doctor. Where there’s always been an incredibly thin and blurred line between doing your best to keep dying people comfortable and actively assisting their death. So I’d say I’m bringing more relevant experience than most. Although not yet had a loved one go through any of this. Thank Christ.
I’ll admit that was a hit and run post though. I saw the tweet and was irritated by it, so felt obliged to respond. Haven’t waded through any of the discussions in this thread prior to that post.
Speaking personally because it is personal - I want the option for me. If I want the option for me then I want other people to have to have that option for themselves.
Some people who die aren't ready to die, they should be able to fight for their lives with all the support they need for as long as they want that life. That isn't me though, I can see reasons why I might choose to end that fight faster. So I'm glad the principle has been accepted.
I'm not so comfortable with some of the details of how it's drafted. I'm not convinced by the pathway of diagnosis, approval 1, pause, approval 2, judicial review and how that would play out in the reality of an under stress health service and judicial system.
Personally I'd also like to be handed the drugs at that time to take home (or wherever my bed is) to use at the moment when I'm ready - which might be a month away or never. I don't like that the bill talks in terms of the drug being dispenced for immediate use under medical supervision. Again, I want that timing and location to be my choice not an appointment in a medical unit.
There's a lot of discussion needed. I'm glad the vote has started (not ended) that discussion.
.
Some people who die aren't ready to die, they should be able to fight for their lives with all the support they need for as long as they want that life. That isn't me though, I can see reasons why I might choose to end that fight faster. So I'm glad the principle has been accepted.
I'm not so comfortable with some of the details of how it's drafted. I'm not convinced by the pathway of diagnosis, approval 1, pause, approval 2, judicial review and how that would play out in the reality of an under stress health service and judicial system.
Personally I'd also like to be handed the drugs at that time to take home (or wherever my bed is) to use at the moment when I'm ready - which might be a month away or never. I don't like that the bill talks in terms of the drug being dispenced for immediate use under medical supervision. Again, I want that timing and location to be my choice not an appointment in a medical unit.
There's a lot of discussion needed. I'm glad the vote has started (not ended) that discussion.
.
With the arguments made by disability activists their point is how introducing assisted suicide into society could effect disable/vulnerable people in the future.
Assisted suicide does seem to get expanded beyond the original group it was intended for. Canada has delayed to expand assisted suicide for the mentally ill but this seem to be because it’s health system hasn’t got the resources yet. During the UK parliament vote a politician was arguing the bill needs to be expanded. Even the guardian article posted we’ve gone from suffering to now people who feel like a burden.
Assisted suicide also seems to increase in at least some of the countries that it’s implemented in. In 2022 4% of deaths in Canada were from euthanasia and 2023 it was 5.4% in the Netherlands(both increases from the previous years).
Imo the disability activist argument is a strong one and can’t be easily argued against by professional or personal experience.
Last edited:
I hope medical professionals have the right to opt out of this. I'd hate to be responsible for taking a person's life deliberately.
I hope they can't. In the same way they can't opt out of assisting people with cancer by giving chemotherapy. It is part of the job. If you are too religious to do the job get another job.
I don't see how all that happens with any rigour in a very short timeframe. Particularly if you're talking about doctors, psychiatrists and others signing off the decision, plus ideally some check on family and finances etc...
The drugs being administered immediately does sound very clinical. I suppose they don't want the risk of people wandering round with lethal does and potentially self-administering somewhere random though.
Hell of a lot to iron out, even if the principle is something I agree with.
chemo keeps people alive, it doesn't kill them.
Surely you don't think this is something that every qualified doctor is going to be doing routinely?
This is obviously going to be highly specialised. So not an issue for the vast majority of physicians any more than, say, having to terminate unwanted pregancies.
I don't think either side of the debate can be "easily argued". This is about as contentious a subject as you can get in medicine. If not, the most contentious. So there are no easy answers or obvious rights and wrongs. Although I'm willing to bet that those who aren't directly affected and still see this in binary, black and white, terms are primarily motivated by their political allegiances.
That's the problem for me right there with this absolutist assertion of consumer type rights. It's not like being soldier, where the deal is clear when you join up. Or being discriminated against when buying a cake from a shop.
While I can accept the law can allow suicide in restricted cases, whether issues of religion or not, I can't see how anyone has the right to demand that another person pulls the trigger.
If you want to end your life, then you should be prepared to do it yourself (or at worst, go to someone who arranges things so you can do it yourself).
Last edited:
It is not that simple, because 'mentally sound' 'wants' 'enabled' 'and 'proper safeguards' are all terms which can be defined broadly or narrowly depending on the wider culture, systemic incentives, legal precedent, technological progress and medical opinion.
And the degree of control exercised by the state (ie by the rest of us) directly affects the number and type of people enabled to suicide, including some people who will not have needed to.
Last edited:
I would be interested to know whether and how public attitudes to the medical profession have changed in countries where euthanasia was introduced.
I hear the health professionals involved will be working on commission.
I get the point you’re making, but I can absolutely confirm, as a physician who prescribes chemo on a daily basis, that it can. Of course it’s not the intention, but there are a number of patients who’ve died as direct side effects from treatment I have prescribed.
I’ll add that they, and their families, were well aware of the risks.
I’m not sure where this assumption has come from? Not every doctor gives people chemo, and the decision to go ahead with treatment lies solely with the prescribing physician.
I have advised against systemic treatment on numerous occasions because I know it would probably kill the patient and would offer no benefit. I have explained my reasoning to these people and all have understood. We’re under no obligation to give chemo just because a patient demands it.
I see it becoming specialised clinics, not within the remit of the NHS that are run privately. With regards the specialist involved, these would probably be palliative care docs who are already hard to come by. I support assisted dying, but fear about the smoothness of the process and technicalities within the current medical and judicial infrastructure. I reckon it could get very messy if these are not ironed out and ready to go before any act is passed by law.
Last edited:
The point is that a doctor shouldn't be able to opt put of doing an essential part of their job.
When you advise against further chemo it is for the benefit of that patient and not to satisfy your religious beliefs. If assisted dying was law then refusing a patient would be on these grounds if they had followed the procedure. The same goes for refusing to perform an abortion or a blood transfusion.
Of course in most cases the specialised nature of medicine will allow many religious people to avoid procedures their God doesn't like, but the point remains.
Who are you to decide who needs to? Legislation should endure people taking g this course are of sound mind and not subject to family coercion but not judge peoples reason for the request. Otherwise we are back to people botching it themselves for other's religious beliefs.