Assisted dying

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, alpha-acid said:

Are you being obtuse injection, 8 mins later death

No, it is not being obtuse, but how do you know it was the injection?  Not going to question too deeply, but how sure are you that it was the injection that caused the death, rather than the natural causes? What was their state before the injection? 

 

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, alpha-acid said:

Are you being obtuse

Not deliberately, I assure you - but I won’t respond to you again, on this subject.  Apologies for any offence caused.

[Apple]

5 hours 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

 

Thanks for posting this. A fascinating insight into the Belgium way. Tragic stories.

[Apple]

4 hours ago, Gladys said:

It would require a change in legislation surely? 

The Liverpool Pathway didn't and now it is generally accepted that patients died of thirst and hunger. 

Reports today saying Hospices in UK "short" of 300 beds as it is. They are asking for more funding.

[Gladys]

24 minutes ago, Apple said:

The Liverpool Pathway didn't and now it is generally accepted that patients died of thirst and hunger. 

Reports today saying Hospices in UK "short" of 300 beds as it is. They are asking for more funding.

The Liverpool Pathway was not set out in legislation in the first place, was it?  It was more a procedure, pretty shameful one though.

On hospices, yes, palliative care in the UK is in need of funding.  

Not sure how either could be argued to be part of the slippery slope as in each case those slippery parts already exist(ed) whether or not assisted dying legislation is passed. 

[Apple]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The Liverpool Pathway was not set out in legislation in the first place, was it?  It was more a procedure, pretty shameful one though.

Evidence based practice apparently (shameful is right) but again demonstrates how things can emerge, develop and change under that umbrella term.

Watched relatives go through that method of "assisted dying". 

Bring back Brompton's cocktail or is that what is being proposed.....

 

[Gladys]

Just now, Apple said:

Evidence based practice apparently (shameful is right) but again demonstrates how things can emerge, develop and change under that umbrella term.

Watched relatives go through that method of "assisted dying". 

Bring back Brompton's cocktail or is that what is being proposed.....

 

And without any of the legislative safeguards that assisted dying has!

 

[Apple]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

And without any of the legislative safeguards that assisted dying has!

Agreed, but we are still a long way from ensuring those safeguards are in place and will remain there. I have a feeling we don't yet know what we don't know (or whatever Donald Rumsfeld said).

There are bound to be some surprises along the way and eventually technology will be considered. We will just have to wait and see.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Apple said:

Agreed, but we are still a long way from ensuring those safeguards are in place and will remain there. I have a feeling we don't yet know what we don't know (or whatever Donald Rumsfeld said).

There are bound to be some surprises along the way and eventually technology will be considered. We will just have to wait and see.

As I see it, the main safeguards are that the person is suffering from a terminal illness which can reasonably be expected to result in their death within 6 months and the legislation sees the process as being driven by the person themselves who has made an informed decision. 

You are right there may be some unintended outcomes, and the draft bill only provides the framework- it is remarkably short for such a fundamental issue.  The devil will be in the detail of the regulations that are implemented in support of the law. 

I suppose I keep coming back to a very basic premise that when faced with intolerable suffering for which there is only one outcome, in that position, I would rather have the choice of an exit on my terms which is possibly the only control over my life I would have left. 

 

[woolley]

17 hours ago, Apple said:

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.

 

Why is the choice of language all? Why does it matter? Suicide is just a word. It hardly even applies to someone who is imminently going to die anyway, and merely wants to alleviate their suffering. Religious commentators have insisted on calling the process suicide to give it an air of being somehow unwholesome or maybe sinful. 

[Jarndyce]

25 minutes ago, woolley said:

Why is the choice of language all? Why does it matter? Suicide is just a word. It hardly even applies to someone who is imminently going to die anyway, and merely wants to alleviate their suffering. Religious commentators have insisted on calling the process suicide to give it an air of being somehow unwholesome or maybe sinful. 

On that basis, how do you feel about the use of the word “euthanasia” in this context (see various posts on this thread)?   I take your point in the round, but would suggest the language used to frame it does matter.

[Auntie Depressant]

33 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

   I take your point in the round, but would suggest the language used to frame it does matter.

I agree the language matters. It’s one of the reasons bereavement services, and other professional bodies, no longer use the term ‘committed ’ suicide, but instead use, died by suicide. ‘Committed’ suggests the person who died was to blame and harks back to the days when suicide was an offence and a ‘sin’. The language used in the assisted dying bill is important. 

[WTF]

12 hours ago, Apple said:

The Liverpool Pathway didn't and now it is generally accepted that patients died of thirst and hunger. 

 

but were they conscious when they died of thirst and hunger ?  the level of pain relief people get given near the end is such that they are asleep , the body keeps going as long as it can at that point on the bodily reserves that are no longer being replenished orally , we don't last long without water if we are in our teens and healthy.  it could be argued that if the levels of pain relief aren't supposed to expediate death then the body should be fed intravenously until that source of sustenance is no longer able to prolong things, but they don't do that.  

[Barlow]

15 hours ago, Apple said:

The Liverpool Pathway didn't and now it is generally accepted that patients died of thirst and hunger. 

Reports today saying Hospices in UK "short" of 300 beds as it is. They are asking for more funding.

14 hours ago, Gladys said:

The Liverpool Pathway was not set out in legislation in the first place, was it?  It was more a procedure, pretty shameful one though.

On hospices, yes, palliative care in the UK is in need of funding.  

I had a friend who was seriously ill in Nobles. Sellotaped to the door of the room was a scrawled note "Not To Be Given Food Or Water". They died a few days later.

I was on talking terms to the Health Minister and mentioned this. They immediately replied "Oh, we don't practice Liverpool Pathway in Nobles". I hadn't suggested they did, and I was surprised that the health Minister would have such definite knowledge of procedures.

It seems a horrible way to die.