Assisted dying

metalblue said:
Very few, if any, medical professionals will be prepared to take your wishes in to account like that to end your life.

You need the capacity to say “I want to die now”. There can be no doubt in their minds that this is your current wish.

DNR forms - which are the nearest I can think of - only work because you’re already dead and you’re refusing treatment to change that.
Click to expand...
Not sure DNR concerns people already dead.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Having watched the death of my grandma of pneumonia, sitting with her whilst she was unconscious with the syringe driver of drugs sedating her, waiting until her lungs filled with mucus, I’d ask why she had to go through that when it had all been agreed that there was nothing left to try?

Surely, when that decision is made, it’s far more humane to “put her to sleep” than watch what was left of her body to fail and watch her drown?
Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss mate and I hope you got the chance to talk with her and say everything before she died.

She was at the natural end of her life, hopefully comfortable enough even if unconscious. Assisting her death a week or two before natural causes would have likely only been kinder for you and her other loved ones who have to watch her slip away - even if she herself might say I’m done for end it now. I hope that doesn’t come across as insensitive as I’ve also been there - I’m only trying to make the point that death is natural and (should only be) horrible for those left to grieve the loss.
 
I heard a story earlier about Esther Ranson, i might not have it exactly right but it was along the lines that she has seen 3 significant deaths in her close family, her father, her husband and her dog. And of the three the only one that was allowed a dignified death was the dog.

Pretty much sums it up for me.
 
metalblue said:
Sorry for your loss mate and I hope you got the chance to talk with her and say everything before she died.

She was at the natural end of her life, hopefully comfortable enough even if unconscious. Assisting her death a week or two before natural causes would have likely only been kinder for you and her other loved ones who have to watch her slip away - even if she herself might say I’m done for end it now. I hope that doesn’t come across as insensitive as I’ve also been there - I’m only trying to make the point that death is natural and (should only be) horrible for those left to grieve the loss.
Click to expand...
Cheers. I recognise the system isn’t going to suit all deaths. It’s impossible.

The infection cycle lasted about 4 months longer than it should, in my opinion. It took seeing the same doctor twice (totally coincidentally) in two visits in 3 days to get her onto palliative care.

After the first visit, the doctor wrote a letter to her GP with care home CCd to suggested palliative care. They both ignored it and she ended up back in hospital 2 days later, when he said he was happy not to treat and go down the palliative route. If it hadn’t been for him, we may still be in the cycle.

What the putting to sleep at that point stops is the 36 hours or so where the drugs are tinkered with to make the patient pain free.

You're right that death is natural. The vigil of someone being with your loved one is exhausting, but not a reason to request AD.

I just think that a person should be able to put in place how they control their death, within legal parameters.

Doctors have to make decisions all the time to stop treatment and declare death etc. That’s part of their job. It’s not that dissimilar to AD.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I know that currently, having just gone through it and her going in and out of hospital with recurring infections where delirium didn’t clear before the next one hit. Everyone (Care Home, GP, Ambulance, hospital doctor) has their own system, procedures and red flags.

She was blue lighted into resus twice, complete with her DNR form.

This thread is discussing the potential of assisted dying and my grandma had always said and had written that she didn’t want being kept alive for the sake of it and had she been able to sign a form to say she’d want to be put to sleep when a certain limit was met, she would have done.

I’m not trying to argue for family members to be able to make that decision. It should solely be the person’s own viewpoint and if nothing was in place, then it’d continue as it is now.

I guess the crux of the matter is that there is a point where receiving treatment becomes detrimental as it’s prolonging life for the sake of it.

Why can a vet end an animal’s suffering, whilst a doctor can’t?
Click to expand...

I didn’t think you were trying to argue that others should decide mate. The issue is you must be able to repeat your wish to die at the point you want to. You can’t pre-empt it and say should I have dementia then please terminate me when I can no longer remember you. We might all want to be able to do that but we can’t ask that of medical professionals.

Is it cruel? To your loved ones it almost certainly is, but to you with dementia? Who knows what you think then, you maybe completely unaware of your condition and what it means. Your grandma may have still wanted death to come or she may have found joy in knowing you were near by. We can all guess and you could argue her family know her best but - as you say - it’s not for them to decide.

You’re right there is a point treatment is detrimental but that should only be treatment that is maintaining life, withdraw that and let nature take its course.
 
metalblue said:
I didn’t think you were trying to argue that others should decide mate. The issue is you must be able to repeat your wish to die at the point you want to. You can’t pre-empt it and say should I have dementia then please terminate me when I can no longer remember you. We might all want to be able to do that but we can’t ask that of medical professionals.

Is it cruel? To your loved ones it almost certainly is, but to you with dementia? Who knows what you think then, you maybe completely unaware of your condition and what it means. Your grandma may have still wanted death to come or she may have found joy in knowing you were near by. We can all guess and you could argue her family know her best but - as you say - it’s not for them to decide.

You’re right there is a point treatment is detrimental but that should only be treatment that is maintaining life, withdraw that and let nature take its course.
Click to expand...
I’ve deliberately not mentioned dementia as I don’t have enough experience dealing with it to comment with any confidence.

It‘s a horrific condition that is terrible for families to see.

As it’s a condition that doesn’t kill on its own, it’d be hard to argue for AD with it, especially as the lack of capacity would make for a legal minefield.

MND sufferers though should be allowed to have AD as it’s a deteriating condition that ultimately kills.

Obviously it’s only my opinion!
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I’ve deliberately not mentioned dementia as I don’t have enough experience dealing with it to comment with any confidence.

It‘s a horrific condition that is terrible for families to see.

As it’s a condition that doesn’t kill on its own, it’d be hard to argue for AD with it, especially as the lack of capacity would make for a legal minefield.

MND sufferers though should be allowed to have AD as it’s a deteriating condition that ultimately kills.

Obviously it’s only my opinion!
Click to expand...

MND is a very good case study for this topic. I think MND suffers retain capacity but happy to be corrected if that’s not the case.
 
metalblue said:
I get the romantic bravado of it all, it seems so simple and nobody wants to think of dying in pain or having to be fed like a baby but there a deeply practical, legal and moral issues at stake here.

You are asking a medical professional to administer a lethal dose whose oath is to neither hasten nor delay death. How can you possibly force them to do so just because it’s lawful to? You can’t so you won’t be pitching up at your local hospital and going through the process - you’ll be needing to travel to a specialist centre - assuming that you could staff it with enough people who are willing to do this.

Then there is a whole debate to be had around consent. You need to have all your faculties and be able to make an informed decision at time of administering it. Medical professionals cannot rely on a pre signed piece of paper to say you agree as you may have changed your mind and they can’t confirm or otherwise so they won’t do it. To overcome this you will be choosing to die whilst you still have a reasonable quality of life.

Once you make it possible for a medically fit person to be killed you open up all sorts of moral and legal issues.

It is certainly an important debate the country should have and be heard to have. I doubt many people have really thought it through and that’s before you get the religious nut jobs involved.
Click to expand...


At Dignitas you have to administer the fatal dose yourself (by drinking) its contained in their list of prerequisites

  • possess a minimum level of physical mobility (sufficient to self-administer the drug).
The only assistance they offer is provision of the barbiturate by prescription.

 
abu13 said:
My dad passed away several years ago, he died in hospital and there is no doubt in my mind that the medical team helped him along his way at the end. I am eternally grateful if that was the case.
Click to expand...
My wife believes the same of her father, and also believes that her asking for his morphine dose to be increased was instrumental in this, both helping relieve his suffering and hastening him on his way
 
flook said:
My wife believes the same of her father, and also believes that her asking for his morphine dose to be increased was instrumental in this, both helping relieve his suffering and hastening him on his way
Click to expand...
The decision to go fully palliative means that the person is at the end of their lifespan and their body can no longer cope with whatever it is fighting.

The withdrawal of active treatment definitely quickens death as that body becomes overwhelmed with trying to fight whatever it has attacking it.

So, whilst this quickens the actual death, it isn’t causing it.
 
Manchester33 said:
I don't understand the requirement for a public vote on this. If someone is facing a horrific end to their life and has the cognitive ability to CHOOSE this option, why should some delinquent who thinks 'the government is trying to kill us off to harvest our organs' be allowed to have a say in that? Opinion polls show exactly what the voters think, and it would be an overwhelming majority in a referendum, so stop wasting time and change the law so people suffering can die with dignity.

It's one of those scenarios that people will look back on in 100 years and say, 'Why did it take them so long?'
Click to expand...
spot on
 
metalblue said:
I get the romantic bravado of it all, it seems so simple and nobody wants to think of dying in pain or having to be fed like a baby but there a deeply practical, legal and moral issues at stake here.

You are asking a medical professional to administer a lethal dose whose oath is to neither hasten nor delay death. How can you possibly force them to do so just because it’s lawful to? You can’t so you won’t be pitching up at your local hospital and going through the process - you’ll be needing to travel to a specialist centre - assuming that you could staff it with enough people who are willing to do this.

Then there is a whole debate to be had around consent. You need to have all your faculties and be able to make an informed decision at time of administering it. Medical professionals cannot rely on a pre signed piece of paper to say you agree as you may have changed your mind and they can’t confirm or otherwise so they won’t do it. To overcome this you will be choosing to die whilst you still have a reasonable quality of life.

Once you make it possible for a medically fit person to be killed you open up all sorts of moral and legal issues.

It is certainly an important debate the country should have and be heard to have. I doubt many people have really thought it through and that’s before you get the religious nut jobs involved.
Click to expand...
You don't need doctors to administer a pill. And i'm not sure what 'moral' issues there are either.
A fully competent adult with all their mental faculties intact should have an option to end their own life as and when they choose.

And, what's this 'romantic bravado' stuff about? Fuck all romantic about wasting away from chronic bad health.
 
metalblue said:
MND is a very good case study for this topic. I think MND suffers retain capacity but happy to be corrected if that’s not the case.
Click to expand...

Not as clear cut as that.

People with MND appear to fall into four groups: around 50% are unaffected by cognitive change. around 35% experience mild cognitive change, with specific deficits in executive functions, language and/or social cognition. up to 15% develop frontotemporal dementia (FTD), either at the same time or after diagnosis of MND.

Motor Neurone Disease (MND) | Fact Sheet | Health Information | Brain & Spine Foundation

Motor Neurone Disease (MND) | Fact Sheet - information, support and advice from the Brain & Spine Foundation.
www.brainandspine.org.uk www.brainandspine.org.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top