Assisted dying

[Jarndyce]

22 minutes ago, alpha-acid said:

But it does not matter one way or the other as a Doctor can prescribe end of life medication, if the person is in a care home and the staff will administer it when the time is right, IE overdose of heroin

Still pushing this “oft-quoted truth” (although it’s heroin instead of morphine this time around)?
Glad puts it much better than me (she’s more polite as well).

On 11/12/2024 at 11:44 PM, Gladys said:

Is that really an argument for or against?  I know it has been something of an oft quoted 'truth', but isn't the prime intention in those circumstances to ease pain at the latter stages, an outcome of which may be an earlier death rather than the prime intention being to accelerate death?   

 

[Apple]

5 hours ago, woolley said:

The patient will be the person making the decision, and that's how it should be.

It could be viewed that the patient is making their application but the ultimate decision to proceed may be with medical staff and / or the courts.

The issue of disagreement with the patients wishes and the process / procedures that will need to be dealt with and what role will the General Practitioner have in supporting or denying the application. Will the hospice have any role in the procedures, if now why not? Will patients have to pay for the service (as per Dignitas).

Still a lot of thinking to do here to try and make this foolproof and safe.

[Fred the shred]

There has been assisted dying for years and years it as called the Liverpool Path and patients were deprived of food and then water at the end of their days.    I don’t know whether this still goes on but it was prevalent not so long ago.   Of course people who are gravely ill usually lose their appetite and when they stop drinking this accelerates their ending this was spoken about as a merciful ending.    People are overthinking the Assisted dying bill, all it needs is a legally approved document signed by the patient and medics who are willing to supervise the person taking the drugs.    It may seem a harrowing way to end a life but if you have ever had a friend or relative who have hung themselves or taken their life by another method that is far worse.

[Gladys]

40 minutes ago, Apple said:

It could be viewed that the patient is making their application but the ultimate decision to proceed may be with medical staff and / or the courts.

The issue of disagreement with the patients wishes and the process / procedures that will need to be dealt with and what role will the General Practitioner have in supporting or denying the application. Will the hospice have any role in the procedures, if now why not? Will patients have to pay for the service (as per Dignitas).

Still a lot of thinking to do here to try and make this foolproof and safe.

Agreed, but these things would be covered in the regs, you would hope. 

[alpha-acid]

3 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Still pushing this “oft-quoted truth” (although it’s heroin instead of morphine this time around)?
Glad puts it much better than me (she’s more polite as well).

 

morphine, and is a fact I know I have witnessed it

[Barlow]

I don't want to widen the topic too much, but I have concerns with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. A close friend had their DNR signed by a grandson ( a beneficiary of the will but of course that has nothing to do with it). It was the first item the ambulance personnel looked for on the occasions they came to the house.

I do understand why there are DNR orders.

[woolley]

21 minutes ago, Barlow said:

I don't want to widen the topic too much, but I have concerns with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. A close friend had their DNR signed by a grandson ( a beneficiary of the will but of course that has nothing to do with it). It was the first item the ambulance personnel looked for on the occasions they came to the house.

I do understand why there are DNR orders.

Because if you have someone in a really bad state and they (say) go into cardiac arrest which will kill them naturally, why would you try to resuscitate them to their really bad state?

[Apple]

6 hours ago, Barlow said:

I have concerns with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. A close friend had their DNR signed by a grandson ( a beneficiary of the will but of course that has nothing to do with it). It was the first item the ambulance personnel looked for on the occasions they came to the house.

I do understand why there are DNR orders.

A couple of years ago it came to light in some quarters that residents to long stay facility were being asked to contemplate agreeing to signing a DNR on their day of admission. A quick word to the local MHK soon put a stop to that I understand.

There is a time and place for DNRs but it should be a part of the overall Care Plan signed by all involved. The current system of medical staff signing them but the (non) actions and the responsibilities being left with others has always seemed like a 'bolt on' that once done never gets revisited. Like all Care Plans they should be subject to regular review as situations can change.

 

[TheTeapot]

I was reading a story where someone spent several hours talking someone down from a bridge. Coercion. Interesting moral quandary. 

[Casta]

19 hours ago, Private Sector Pete said:

People like you annoy me. You don’t have to imagine a world like that as Logan’s Run is a film that portrays this. And as a film it’s work of fiction. It isn’t a reality that exists or likely will exist other than in the mind of a fiction writer. I’m guessing you haven’t watch a loved one writhe in agony in front of you as a cancer slowly eats away at them? The IOM had the chance to do something good and unique here and once again the usual moaning Manx muppets and religious lunatics have held it back. Well done all concerned hope you don’t end up dying a slow lonely painful death from cancer when you didn’t have to. 

I'm sorry I annoy you. 

I do understand your point of view. Maybe you should try and understand others' than your own.

I am at a loss as to how you have concluded religion, "moaning Manx Muppet" or Logan's Run from my post 

[WTF]

9 hours ago, Barlow said:

. It was the first item the ambulance personnel looked for on the occasions they came to the house.

 

and it should be if the patient is at home because if there is a DNR in place and they miss/ignore it they could be in court and looking for a new job.

Edited December 3, 2024 by WTF

[Jarndyce]

10 hours ago, alpha-acid said:

(…) and is a fact I know I have witnessed it

Apologies, but are you sure this “is a fact”?   Did the clinician actually state to you, a witness, that they were accelerating death (a big risk, legally and professionally)?  If not, you may have witnessed what Glad described above: “to ease pain at the latter stages, an outcome of which may be an earlier death”.   A difficult time, I’m sure, but not necessarily what it looked like.

[code99]

The argument that 'quality of life is preferable to quantity of life' is precisely the kind of choice against which opponents of assisted dying have been campaigning. Some campaigners believe that the proposed overhaul of palliative care and its funding (the UK Government is already considering various options) will be sufficient to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.

The proponents of assisted dying must surely understand that name calling and being self-righteous will antagonise the opponents and will hinder this process. For the Bill to become a law in the foreseeable future, it will require mutual respect on both sides of the debate, concessions and compromises. Any signs that the debate is degenerating into an ugly brawl will risk alienating public support, which do-date has unequivocally been in favour of the Bill.

Personally, I would rather be dead than old and lose my dignity and my independence, e.g., by losing my eyesight. Yet other people such as blind comedian Chris McCausland, who could win this year’s Strictly, is perfectly content and happy with the quality of his blind-life.

I won’t post anymore on this emotive subject until the outcome of the process, one way or another, has been declared.    

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, code99 said:

The argument that 'quality of life is preferable to quantity of life' is precisely the kind of choice against which opponents of assisted dying have been campaigning. Some campaigners believe that the proposed overhaul of palliative care and its funding (the UK Government is already considering various options) will be sufficient to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.

The proponents of assisted dying must surely understand that name calling and being self-righteous will antagonise the opponents and will hinder this process. For the Bill to become a law in the foreseeable future, it will require mutual respect on both sides of the debate, concessions and compromises. Any signs that the debate is degenerating into an ugly brawl will risk alienating public support, which do-date has unequivocally been in favour of the Bill.

Personally, I would rather be dead than old and lose my dignity and my independence, e.g., by losing my eyesight. Yet other people such as blind comedian Chris McCausland, who could win this year’s Strictly, is perfectly content and happy with the quality of his blind-life.

I won’t post anymore on this emotive subject until the outcome of the process, one way or another, has been declared.    

Quality of life is entirely subjective and can be assessed only by that person. My argument that quality of life should be the focus rather than longevity is entirely for the individual to assess.  Even though they may be severely physically restricted, some people may think that for them the quality of life is to remain alive, even with all the impediments they have.  For others, what they expect from their quality of life may be different.  But that is a decision for them whichever way they choose and it should not be for society more widely to deny that that choice in favour of living on.  That is my point of view. 

[woolley]

55 minutes ago, code99 said:

The argument that 'quality of life is preferable to quantity of life' is precisely the kind of choice against which opponents of assisted dying have been campaigning. Some campaigners believe that the proposed overhaul of palliative care and its funding (the UK Government is already considering various options) will be sufficient to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.

The proponents of assisted dying must surely understand that name calling and being self-righteous will antagonise the opponents and will hinder this process. For the Bill to become a law in the foreseeable future, it will require mutual respect on both sides of the debate, concessions and compromises. Any signs that the debate is degenerating into an ugly brawl will risk alienating public support, which do-date has unequivocally been in favour of the Bill.

The nub of the problem is that the two sides are not coming at it from opposite directions with equal force. I don’t believe it's the proponents who are the most self-righteous, and here's why.

The proponents seek choice only for the individual, whereas the antis want to deny choice not only for themselves but for everyone. Why do they assume to have agency over the most personal life and death decisions of those who disagree with them? What could possibly be more self-righteous? People taking it upon themselves to withhold the freedom to choose from others is what then degenerates into an ugly brawl. 

The unseemly row will not make this go away, though. It will only heighten the clamour and sense of indignation. There's a large majority in favour, and change is coming.