Assisted Dying, for or against?

On the 11th September there is to be a debate and vote in the House of Commons on this very emotive topic. Royston Smith being my MP has sent out a survey to see how people think about the issue prior to him voting.

To be fair I think it is an excellent way of guaging his constituants opinions rather than just voting how he feels.

Should you wish to participate Ive put the link below.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HLFB73P

For

It depends who's doing the dying and who's assisting. In principle I'm for but I am uneasy about it.

For

I'm for it. As long is it is clear that a decision is made without external influence then I have no problem with it whatsoever. I fear nothing more then being a burden to my family and given the choice of a dignified chance to depart over a long, drawn out and painful process for all concerned then the former is an extremely easy choice.

Absolutely completely for it with the agreement of the person (whether at the time or part of an agreed end of life plan).

I don't really understand why people wouldn't be, other than some misguided belief that bad legislation might give murderers a get out somehow - unlikely with "malice aforethought" being required.

For.

I, m all for it. My father in law is loaded.

Of course people should be allowed to do what they want with their lives and deaths. Can it not be made so easy that the person with the terminal illness can set up a system whereby, at the push of a button, the deed happens without the need for others? It's only when you include others in the deed itself that it becomes complicated as far as I can see. A suicide machine. Dragon's Den anyone?

Totally for it.

The amount of money wasted on people with incurable diseases is ridiculous. If they could give a lucid answer most of them would probably ask to die anyway

100% for. I just can't see an argument against it.

For

I watched my Grandmother slowly die over 6 months, she always said she didn't want to be a burden and wished to go quickly without pain and suffering.

One day they moved her into a different ward. she died in a room with strangers, very upsetting.

We were all helpless, in the last months the hospital stopped feeding her, If I remember she was on a drip.

There was no chance of any recovery.

Would not wish that on anyone

For

I can't see any case against it, other than people trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. My Grandmother died of Alzheimer's a few years ago. We knew the day was coming for the best part of a decade after she was diagnosed. I've no idea if she would have wanted to end her life earlier than she did but she at least deserved the option.

100% for

With suitable safeguards in place to ensure that this momentous decision has been arrived at without coercion, then this reform would I feel be a most welcome (and long overdue) one. The hard truth is that for all the claims about how wonderful modern medicine can be, in fact the last year or 6 months of a life can sometimes be a truly miserable experience that many people would prefer to forgo frankly - and I can quite see why.

No responsible pet owner would allow their dog to suffer unduly, but we Humans are expected to drag our lives out to the bitter end for some reason. Time for change Parliament.

For

Absolutely completely for it with the agreement of the person (whether at the time or part of an agreed end of life plan).

 

I don't really understand why people wouldn't be, other than some misguided belief that bad legislation might give murderers a get out somehow - unlikely with "malice aforethought" being required.

I'm for it but I can understand the reasons why people are against it.

I think the main reason is so the elderly don't feel under pressure to end it if they feel they are a burden on their family.

Very much for

I'm for it but I can understand the reasons why people are against it.

 

I think the main reason is so the elderly don't feel under pressure to end it if they feel they are a burden on their family.

Fair argument, but then one of my grandads (under no pressure from anyone) just decided to stop eating when he was admitted to hospital, pretty much has the same effect.

I'm absolutely for it with some decent safeguards.

I'd also like to see an end to this bullcrap where people talk about sufferers of life-threatening illnesses fighting for life (Usually by the media). Sure, let those who want to do that fight all they like, and good luck to them. I wish them well with utmost sincerity.

However, it usually makes those who simply choose to quietly slip away on their own terms look like pussies. That is far from the truth. It takes just as much courage to die gracefully as it does to fight to live while waving a fist in the air.

I've seen both kinds of death in real time. On each occasion, the event suited the personality and sensibilities of the person dying. I have equal respect for them and their situations/decisions.

Well this is a first.... Pretty much a 100% agreement in the lounge.

Add me to those in favour.

If this forum is anything to go by the law should be changed

Against mostly although not personally had situation close to em so could feel differently.

Slightly cynical about medical profession with their over prescription of anti-depressants, statins, antibiotics. Give this as an option an who knows where would lead

If this forum is anything to go by the law should be changed

Well this is a first.... Pretty much a 100% agreement in the lounge.

 

Add me to those in favour.

I think certain media organisations and politicians would still report this as 'a heated debate both sides feel passionately about'.

For !

Against mostly although not personally had situation close to em so could feel differently.

Slightly cynical about medical profession with their over prescription of anti-depressants, statins, antibiotics. Give this as an option an who knows where would lead

I'm not sure what you're suggesting but this is a different world from doctors handing out carefree cold and flu meds. No doctor on the planet is going to suggest euthanasia for someone with a curable or even treatable disease.

It wont be a case of, you've got lung cancer so lethal injection time. More a case of, 'you've got Altzheimers, would you like to be euthanised when you reach the point of drifting in and out of consciousness and surviving off a drip'.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting but this is a different world from doctors handing out carefree cold and flu meds. No doctor on the planet is going to suggest euthanasia for someone with a curable or even treatable disease.

 

It wont be a case of, you've got lung cancer so lethal injection time. More a case of, 'you've got Altzheimers, would you like to be euthanised when you reach the point of drifting in and out of consciousness and surviving off a drip'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247000/Dr-Jane-Barton-escapes-struck-prescribing-potentially-hazardous-levels-drugs.html

I am against .

and yes, I have seen close up the crap side of deadly degenerative disease.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247000/Dr-Jane-Barton-escapes-struck-prescribing-potentially-hazardous-levels-drugs.html

 

I am against .

and yes, I have seen close up the crap side of deadly degenerative disease.

I don't get how that's relevant to this.

We're talking about patients with terminal diseases consenting to euthanasia. You're talking about a doctor carelessly administering painkillers and killing a patient without consent, although that is coming from a Daily Mail article and they love a good sensational NHS story.

As long as you had 2 or 3 separate medical opinions approving euthanasia and the consent of the next of kin, individuals like Dr Barton wont be an issue.

The main question is, what gives you the right to tell someone else in chronic pain they aren't allowed to end their suffering?

The main question is, what gives you the right to tell someone else in chronic pain they aren't allowed to end their suffering?

Actually the 'rights' question is more what gives you the right to end someone's life?

Playing devils advocate as can clearly see the arguments for but is a bit like all the annoyances of free speech and how we want to take it away in some cases such as ISIS as surely that makes sense but a slippery slope once you move into that area.

What right have you got to say that I have to suffer bringing up a Down's syndrome baby? Surely best all round if we just assist the peaceful end?

Sorry a little facetious but I don't think it all is as simple as some make out

I don't get how that's relevant to this.

 

We're talking about patients with terminal diseases consenting to euthanasia. You're talking about a doctor carelessly administering painkillers and killing a patient without consent, although that is coming from a Daily Mail article and they love a good sensational NHS story.

 

As long as you had 2 or 3 separate medical opinions approving euthanasia and the consent of the next of kin, individuals like Dr Barton wont be an issue.

 

The main question is, what gives you the right to tell someone else in chronic pain they aren't allowed to end their suffering?

A couple of parts of that I wouldn't agree with.

I would say that a patient should actively request "euthanasia" not just consent to it. (and be medically deemed to be competent to make such a request)

And the 2 or 3 separate medical opinions should be limited to whether the patient does or does not have a terminal illness.

For, but IMHO need to be multiple checks and balances in place as there are potential pitfalls. Some thoughts...

- should be opt-in only ... either at the time of decision making, or through a living will held with a suitable lawyer

- should have to confirm the decision twice or maybe three times with suitable time-frame between

- a specific list of conditions to which this choice can apply - may not be wholly necessary, but would serve as something of a safeguard

- two (or more?) impartial doctors should agree that (1) the individual making the decision is of sound mind (or was of sound mind at the time of the living will) and (2) has a condition that is seriously impacting quality of life, and with negligible chance of improving and regaining that quality

- regulation of the specific doctors that can make such assessment - i.e. not just any old GP, need to be suitably qualified on the condition in question

- review of the overall decision making by doctors to weed out any statistically abnormal decisions

Actually the 'rights' question is more what gives you the right to end someone's life?

 

Playing devils advocate as can clearly see the arguments for but is a bit like all the annoyances of free speech and how we want to take it away in some cases such as ISIS as surely that makes sense but a slippery slope once you move into that area.

 

What right have you got to say that I have to suffer bringing up a Down's syndrome baby? Surely best all round if we just assist the peaceful end?

 

Sorry a little facetious but I don't think it all is as simple as some make out

It's not really a case of having the right to end someone else's life. It's about them choosing to end their own life but requiring medical assistance to do it peacefully and painlessly at the right time.

In most cases the decision would have to be made prior to illness, such as with dementia, so that the patient is in a competent frame of mind to make such a decision. You could also have a registration system, like with organ donors, whereby you can register certain people you trust to make a decision to end your life, given undisputed medical advice.

For example if you were in a traffic accident and were brain damaged to the point of being beyond any possible recovery. If 2 or 3 neurologists all examined the patient and were unanimously agreed that recovery was medically impossible from such a state, a registered proxy could then make the decision to end your life.

Down's syndrome babies are a different issue as they can still have a life. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with them being euthanised so the couple could then try again for a healthy baby. I know many people will find that absolutely abhorrent and I wont argue for a minute that it should be legal.

It's not really a case of having the right to end someone else's life. It's about them choosing to end their own life but requiring medical assistance to do it peacefully and painlessly at the right time.

 

In most cases the decision would have to be made prior to illness, such as with dementia, so that the patient is in a competent frame of mind to make such a decision. You could also have a registration system, like with organ donors, whereby you can register certain people you trust to make a decision to end your life, given undisputed medical advice.

 

For example if you were in a traffic accident and were brain damaged to the point of being beyond any possible recovery. If 2 or 3 neurologists all examined the patient and were unanimously agreed that recovery was medically impossible from such a state, a registered proxy could then make the decision to end your life.

 

Down's syndrome babies are a different issue as they can still have a life. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with them being euthanised so the couple could then try again for a healthy baby. I know many people will find that absolutely abhorrent and I wont argue for a minute that it should be legal.

Wow! You can see why legislation would be almost impossible when apparently reasonable people try to slip eugenics into a completely different topic.

I understand you are making caveats, but I can imagine that people would try to make an argument that Down's syndrome is a living hell, or they have a girl, or their child has brown eyes.

Anyway, I'm for assisted suicide assuming there is appropriate protection and legislation which others have pointed out. I think people's opinions have changed about this over the last 20 years or so - faced with so much misery and death in a vast media, the sanctity of life has less weight. The logical end to that is the eugenics stuff, but I hope society can understand and navigate the difference.

I have seen people die in pain and without dignity. Absolutely 100% for.

Of course it will have to be carefully monitored to stop abuse of the system. To protect both the patient, the family and the healthcare professionals.

Does it happen now. Well of course it does do a degree, the concept of 'dual purpose' when starting someone on a morphine dose has been used for decades ( a dose high enough to ease pain may also be high enough to expedite death ). 'Just keep him comfortable doc' is a phrase heavy with meaning. Unfortunately that only really then applies to pain and usually cancer deaths. There are many other wasting diseases of the body and mind that do not cause physical pain as such but the suffering can be extreme, and more importantly the loss of dignity in the face of the inevitable.

So yes I am very strongly in favour, but it is a concept bulging with legal and morale problems.

And re downs syndrome mentioned above - make no mistake it is a very serious genetic disorder. Heart problems, severe mental issues, endocrine dysfunction and cancer are not the side you see when you see a smiling happy downs child. the ones most seriously affected are very very ill

Second reading's been defeated in the commons

118-330

arse

A terrible shame. A defeat for dignity.

The bill was weak - it should happen and it should be watertight legally to protect the individual, the family and the health professionals involved

I can't believe so many MPs voted for dying a slow, agonising death at the tax payers expense. Apparently their medical opinion is more valid than 2 doctors and a judge, as per the proposal. I can only assume they are all scared of making such a brave decision and decided to stick with the status quo. Now they can go back to voting on tax rates for local counsillor's expenses or some other dull tripe.

A small part of me hopes those who voted against end up wishing for death on some hospital bed one day. In reality I'm not that sadistic but I can't help but want people to face the consequences of what they're voting for.

Politicians at odds with electorate shocker

I saw a lady today who was in a home after a stroke.

She was paralysed in all four limbs

She was barely concious

She was fed via a tube going into her stomach

She was padded up for her bowel actions and her urine drained via a catheter.

That was her life, day in day out until she dies. No pleasures, not even eating. Unable to communicate with the outside world. Trapped. No dignity, no life.

I saw a lady today who was in a home after a stroke.

 

She was paralysed in all four limbs

 

She was barely concious

 

She was fed via a tube going into her stomach

 

She was padded up for her bowel actions and her urine drained via a catheter.

 

That was her life, day in day out until she dies. No pleasures, not even eating. Unable to communicate with the outside world. Trapped. No dignity, no life.

That's horrible, sad and a terrible scenario.

However, I don't think this bill would have helped her anyway. It allowed the patient to make a conscious decision, if mentally sound and considered to have less than six months to live. My understanding is it didn't permit forward "opt-in" so wouldn't have had any relevance to those who suffer a catastrophic sudden event.

Of course, it might have evolved over time.

The problem with any legislation for assisted suicide is that it cannot be a one-size-fits-all system. Can you treat a stroke victim the same as you would someone with brain damage or a terminal illness? Would something like alzheimers be treated the same as someone with advanced AIDs or Cancer? If it's opt-in when does this need to take place and what happens to those that haven't opted in? What happens to those under 18 years of age? Do they opt-in or don't they get a choice.

That's not even getting into the area of mental illness and if those people should have a right to die if they wish.

But that's the other problem - once you allow it for one thing you open the floodgates for people to say they should have it for other things.

I think the idea of assisted suicide is good in theory but creating actual legislation and a system to implement it is much more problematic. Dignitas relies on the person themselves giving consent on multiple occasions which just wouldn't work with some of the conditions people would want this for (the example above with the stroke victim for example if they were unable to give their own consent).

This is exactly the kind of issue which should be decided by referendum

The problem with any legislation for assisted suicide is that it cannot be a one-size-fits-all system. Can you treat a stroke victim the same as you would someone with brain damage or a terminal illness? Would something like alzheimers be treated the same as someone with advanced AIDs or Cancer? If it's opt-in when does this need to take place and what happens to those that haven't opted in? What happens to those under 18 years of age? Do they opt-in or don't they get a choice.

 

That's not even getting into the area of mental illness and if those people should have a right to die if they wish.

 

But that's the other problem - once you allow it for one thing you open the floodgates for people to say they should have it for other things.

 

I think the idea of assisted suicide is good in theory but creating actual legislation and a system to implement it is much more problematic. Dignitas relies on the person themselves giving consent on multiple occasions which just wouldn't work with some of the conditions people would want this for (the example above with the stroke victim for example if they were unable to give their own consent).

The thing is, it wont be a case of 'this guy is really ill, assisted suicide might be an option.' It will be more a case of 'we've exhausted every possible avenue of medical treatment. We're at a dead end now, let's refer this case to a judge'. I don't think the actual disease leading up to that decision is particularly relevant.

I don't think the logistics are all that hard. You can opt into a system, same as being an organ donor. I'd be quite happy to register for a system whereby if 2 doctors and a judge are unanimous I'm not coming back, they can choose to end it.

The problem with any legislation for assisted suicide is that it cannot be a one-size-fits-all system. Can you treat a stroke victim the same as you would someone with brain damage or a terminal illness? Would something like alzheimers be treated the same as someone with advanced AIDs or Cancer? If it's opt-in when does this need to take place and what happens to those that haven't opted in? What happens to those under 18 years of age? Do they opt-in or don't they get a choice.

 

That's not even getting into the area of mental illness and if those people should have a right to die if they wish.

 

But that's the other problem - once you allow it for one thing you open the floodgates for people to say they should have it for other things.

 

I think the idea of assisted suicide is good in theory but creating actual legislation and a system to implement it is much more problematic. Dignitas relies on the person themselves giving consent on multiple occasions which just wouldn't work with some of the conditions people would want this for (the example above with the stroke victim for example if they were unable to give their own consent).

How about a preemptive system whereby anyone can predetermine what should happen to them in the event of becoming seriously ill? Why should I not be able to decide now (whilst I'm compos mentis and healthy) what should happen to me if I become unable to make those decisions at the time?

Yes, I appreciate things are never black and white but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and come up with a system that allows people to determine what happens to them when they have no meaningful quality of life just because "it's difficult".

In an era where "human rights" are vigorously championed and upheld, surely this is the most basic of human rights we're talking about here. The right to chose when to die when you are mentally capable of doing so.

Because you would be amazed how many people change their mind when they do become seriously ill. Suddenly life although limited becomes infinitely precious. Pre emptive suicidide would be a legal mess

"If the human race never did anything because it was 'too complicated' we'd still be living in caves" - Bobby Davro, Aberystwyth Pavilion, May 1991

Because you would be amazed how many people change their mind when they do become seriously ill. Suddenly life although limited becomes infinitely precious. Pre emptive suicidide would be a legal mess

This isn't for people who are diagnosed as terminally ill, have a few months to live and want to treasure every moment, visit the canals of Venice, go to their daughters wedding etc. This is for people so ill they are physically incapable of leaving their own bed, unconscious and in chronic pain. Their life wont be infinitely precious, quite the opposite.

If you are conscious and you want to live, obviously a doctor isn't going to recommend euthanasia.

This is exactly the kind of issue which should be decided by referendum

Yeah bang in fox hunting, housing refugees. Maybe we could have a list of 10 each year. Will depend on the tabloid stories of the day though judging by the U turn seen recently on the basis of emotion stirred