Assisted dying

[Barlow]

2 hours ago, WTF said:

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.

Yes, I see that, and I agree with the principle of the DNR. As it happened the ambulance were called on numerous occasions, and said grandson seemed more concerned that the DNR form was always placed prominently on the mantelpiece after his weekly duty visits. He was also keen to make sure that the array of unused tablets were always promptly taken to the doctors for disposal, but I think that is another story.

[woolley]

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Yes, I see that, and I agree with the principle of the DNR. As it happened the ambulance were called on numerous occasions, and said grandson seemed more concerned that the DNR form was always placed prominently on the mantelpiece after his weekly duty visits. He was also keen to make sure that the array of unused tablets were always promptly taken to the doctors for disposal, but I think that is another story.

Perhaps the patient had made it clear to the relative that they did not want to be resuscitated?

[Barlow]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

Perhaps the patient had made it clear to the relative that they did not want to be resuscitated?

That is a thought, and it gave me a brief feeling of peace.

However, I just found a copy of the form.

There is a tick box section:

• This has been discuused with the patient        [ ]   Date: ..../..../.... Time: .....
• This has not been discussed with the patient  [ ]  specify reason:...............

It had not been discussed with the patient.

 

 

[Apple]

On 12/3/2024 at 11:31 AM, woolley said:

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

I support the change in the policy as long as the safeguards are in place and stringently adhered to and effectively monitored. My concerns remain about what comes further down the line when complacency comes in. Boundaries will be stretched and new rules tested based on each case. Thats how the system works.

The choice of language between the differing opinions is all, and this is where the problems are. It is assisted suicide whatever Dr Allinson chooses to name it. (to avoid any religious connotations I think. Another aspect is to say it is all about choice. Ive said before the individual can make an application for assisted suicide but for various reasons they may be refused.  So then, whose choice is it ? An appeal process may need to be considered. 

Bring it in, but let's be clear on the language used and carry on the debate debate until the words reflect the aims.

 

[Max Power]

As I stated earlier, all in favour of relieving the suffering of terminally ill people, but I have serious concerns about 'mission creep' where further conditions are brought into the fold, such as mental illness and PTSD. This can easily be expanded as the population becomes more accepting and 'hardened' to euthanasia. So called 'safeguards' can be relaxed at the stroke of a pen, and we suddenly find ourselves in a world where all kinds of issues can be solved with a jab! 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/right-die-belgium-inside-worlds-liberal-euthanasia-laws

 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

As I stated earlier, all in favour of relieving the suffering of terminally ill people, but I have serious concerns about 'mission creep' where further conditions are brought into the fold, such as mental illness and PTSD. This can easily be expanded as the population becomes more accepting and 'hardened' to euthanasia. So called 'safeguards' can be relaxed at the stroke of a pen, and we suddenly find ourselves in a world where all kinds of issues can be solved with a jab! 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/right-die-belgium-inside-worlds-liberal-euthanasia-laws

 

Are you going to die with either (most) mental illness or PTSD.  One of thexqualifiers is that you have a terminal illness with a diagnosis of death within a certain period. 

[Max Power]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Are you going to die with either (most) mental illness or PTSD.  One of thexqualifiers is that you have a terminal illness with a diagnosis of death within a certain period. 

I'm certain that that's how Belgium started out too. As I said, mission creep. 

I'd be happy if it stayed with people with terminal illness, and their suffering is curtailed, but afraid of how things develop.

[Gladys]

34 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I'm certain that that's how Belgium started out too. As I said, mission creep. 

I'd be happy if it stayed with people with terminal illness, and their suffering is curtailed, but afraid of how things develop.

It would require a change in legislation surely? 

[Max Power]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It would require a change in legislation surely? 

Yes it would, but once we are on that slippery slope, it becomes easier to accept that we can add other categories to assisted dying, as Belgium and others have done. 

[wrighty]

This whole debate boils down to two principles - Autonomy vs ‘slippery slope’

For me autonomy trumps everything else. If I end up in a terminal painful hopeless condition I want the option to end it. It won’t trouble me at that point in time that it could lead, at some undetermined point in the future, to state-sponsored extermination of the elderly. All the doctors I know who are vehemently opposed to legalising assisted dying will admit privately that they would take the option for themselves in certain circumstances, but worry more that a law change will overall be bad for society, and that the law shouldn’t be changed to help a handful of people while potentially harming many others. 
 

Strict safeguards by all means. Improve and bolster existing palliative care services, sure. But palliative care and assisted dying are not mutually exclusive options. 

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes it would, but once we are on that slippery slope, it becomes easier to accept that we can add other categories to assisted dying, as Belgium and others have done. 

Would we be on even more of a slippery slope than currently, where people are driven to go to Switzerland or kill themselves, possibly ineffectively or painfully?

The views of some of the medical profession as outlined by Wrighty above are completely understandable and I think will influence the profession's approach overall and we will probably only have a very few people who complete their wishes through this legislation successfully. 

For me, and it is personal, it is a matter of choice and autonomy while being in full possession if your faculties.

What concerns me more is the very poor support for people on long term sickness benefit, the ease with which they can get the necessary doctor's certificate which basically condemns them to a life of state dependence and progressively worsening mental health.  There was a Dispatches documentary on Monday on this very subject.  I suspect that process leads to many more suicide attempts than this legislation will ever assist. 

[WTF]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Are you going to die with either (most) mental illness or PTSD.  One of thexqualifiers is that you have a terminal illness with a diagnosis of death within a certain period. 

how accurate are the diagnosis though ?  we must all have heard of people being given a few months live lasting years.

[John Wright]

Slippery slope is just a pejorative description of changing public opinion.

Public opinion will change. It always has, it always will. You can’t pickle society in aspic. 

As long as  qualifiers other than “terminal with less than 6 months to live” remain unacceptable, the legislation won’t change.

There are always useful parallels to be drawn from previous legislative experience. Abortion in England hasn’t changed since it was legalised in 1967. The period hasn’t been lengthened or shortened. For homosexual decriminalisation the changes have been huge in the same period. Age of consent, civil partnerships, same sex marriages and inheritance rights, adoption.

Its impossible to predict.

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, WTF said:

how accurate are the diagnosis though ?  we must all have heard of people being given a few months live lasting years.

All that illustrates is that medicine is an art, rather than a science, at least part of the time.

If someone is given 6 months, the assessing doctors and judge agree, the person can be prescribed the medication to end their life, or they can decide to fight and try and live. They’ve autonomy either way.

[alpha-acid]

On 12/3/2024 at 9:37 AM, Jarndyce said:

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.

Are you being obtuse injection, 8 mins later death