Assisted dying

This is the first step.
Sense will prevail eventually.

That's what I think - it'll raise the questions more obviously, and recommendations can then be canvassed again.
The downside for those who want it is that it will be a few years before the next go-round.

I think in general that it's considered acceptable, but with great reservations regarding sufficient protection of the vulnerable.
 
Not sure if this thread has discussed whether the hospital care itself decides if a patient lives or dies.

I remember many years ago with my mum in hospital the consultant told me that if my mum had a heart attack they simply would not resuscitate her.
I argued unsuccessfully that was a fully paid up member of the NHS so deserved full coverage. He said it was hospital policy with older people in my mums condition.
She recovered and left hospital.

She died with a stroke some months later.

My point is that life or death in hospitals appears to be decided by hospitals already without consulting the patient so why this worry about a patient that wants to die?
 
I'd expect that there would be a core of staff who have agreed to do it - as you say, definitely something they shouldn't be forced into.

It's a complicated thing to get the bill right and provide protection for all involved. I don't think the timeframe they have for discussion is long enough really, but I don't know how else it can be done.

Yup. It’s a topic that deserves and demands a lot of time.
 
This is the first step.
Sense will prevail eventually.

It feels like the presented bill is trying so hard to tread a line not to alienate anyone that it doesn’t achieve much - it looks more intended to kick the difficult questions down the road.

Now that’s either due to the time being allocated or it’s rather duplicitous. I fear that it won’t pass for no other reason than the time allowed and it’s being so desperate to avoid difficult questions that it creates more questions leaving MPs to vote to maintain the status quo. And that will be criminal, don’t (or do) pass it for good reasons not just because you don’t have the answers.
 
Not sure if this thread has discussed whether the hospital care itself decides if a patient lives or dies.

I remember many years ago with my mum in hospital the consultant told me that if my mum had a heart attack they simply would not resuscitate her.
I argued unsuccessfully that was a fully paid up member of the NHS so deserved full coverage. He said it was hospital policy with older people in my mums condition.
She recovered and left hospital.

She died with a stroke some months later.

My point is that life or death in hospitals appears to be decided by hospitals already without consulting the patient so why this worry about a patient that wants to die?

Big difference with a DNR is you’re already dead. The hospital aren’t killing you, they are just letting you stay dead.

So not comparable at all mate. Glad your mum made a full recovery and you got some extra time with her. Life is precious and choosing to end it is a very hard and personal choice. I don’t for one minute think folk will be queuing up round the corner to end their lives should this pass - even if it didn’t have the extremely limited cohort that would be eligible as proposed by this bill.
 
It feels like the presented bill is trying so hard to tread a line not to alienate anyone that it doesn’t achieve much - it looks more intended to kick the difficult questions down the road.

Now that’s either due to the time being allocated or it’s rather duplicitous. I fear that it won’t pass for no other reason than the time allowed and it’s being so desperate to avoid difficult questions that it creates more questions leaving MPs to vote to maintain the status quo. And that will be criminal, don’t (or do) pass it for good reasons not just because you don’t have the answers.

The time available is largely down to it not being a government bill, isn't it? I thought that it had more than more backbench bills. What it doesn't have is the committee time to assess options with experts.

My impression was that that is pretty standard for an independent bill.
 
Big difference with a DNR is you’re already dead. The hospital aren’t killing you, they are just letting you stay dead.

So not comparable at all mate. Glad your mum made a full recovery and you got some extra time with her. Life is precious and choosing to end it is a very hard and personal choice. I don’t for one minute think folk will be queuing up round the corner to end their lives should this pass - even if it didn’t have the extremely limited cohort that would be eligible as proposed by this bill.
Thanks for reply.
Does leaving people to die who have say taken an overdose fall into the same category? In fact is trying to save their life an intrusion using your logic?
 
The time available is largely down to it not being a government bill, isn't it? I thought that it had more than more backbench bills. What it doesn't have is the committee time to assess options with experts.

My impression was that that is pretty standard for an independent bill.

You’re probably right as to reasons - it deserves proper time and expert advice IMHO.
 
Thanks for reply.
Does leaving people to die who have say taken an overdose fall into the same category? In fact is trying to save their life an intrusion using your logic?

That’s a really interesting question. My dad had a DNR in place when he was admitted to hospital for the last time. The ward staff / doctors were trying to actively treat which was distressing him. Mrs MB explained it wasn’t his wishes (which they validated) and they stopped active treatment and he was allowed to die peacefully.

So if we take your example of someone having overdosed if they are able to explain they don’t want active treatment to save their life I expect it would likely be an intrusion, if they aren’t able to articulate their wishes at that exact moment then medical staff would say they are acting in a patients best interests and saving their life. By the time we get to the conversation about DNRs it’s likely they would have already performed the life saving interventions. It’s definitely a very interesting dilemma you’ve posed.
 
That’s a really interesting question. My dad had a DNR in place when he was admitted to hospital for the last time. The ward staff / doctors were trying to actively treat which was distressing him. Mrs MB explained it wasn’t his wishes (which they validated) and they stopped active treatment and he was allowed to die peacefully.

So if we take your example of someone having overdosed if they are able to explain they don’t want active treatment to save their life I expect it would likely be an intrusion, if they aren’t able to articulate their wishes at that exact moment then medical staff would say they are acting in a patients best interests and saving their life. By the time we get to the conversation about DNRs it’s likely they would have already performed the life saving interventions. It’s definitely a very interesting dilemma you’ve posed.
Seems to me that if you are an older person unless you ask to be given every chance to live then if your life is threatened then the hospital assumes it can allow you to die.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.