Assisted dying

[mexico1970]

You shouldn't need relatives or anyone else to administer an effective end of life treatment.

Someone fit and well with no history of mental illness wants to kill themselves we should at the very least check them out, you'd get people who have split up with a spouse or partner wanting to bite the bullet,

As for Alzheimer's sufferers and conditions that leave the individual without dignity then "The talk" could happen to establish when death could happen when the condition takes the individual far enough down the path they have effectively become totally helpless.

I was all gung ho for this until I read up on the Canadian problem of poverty euthanasia, I don't trust government with my life and there has to be firm solid caveats in place to stop the authorities from being cunts.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

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.

have a look at Jainism .....an Indian religion who believe that you should be able to choose the method, place and time of your death.

 

[PinkFinal]

I'd like to see it permitted for those suffering long-term serious mental health issues like clinical depression.

The amount of misery in this country (and probably elsewhere) is VAST in the cruel, ruthless 21st century.
I know that certain unpleasant people in power might see it as a good way of getting rid of the underclass but no one will be under pressure to make a.decision if the law is strict on that.

I also believe that having an ever ready painless exit option would make it easier to live for seriously depressed people

 

[stonerblue]

Someone fit and well with no history of mental illness wants to kill themselves we should at the very least check them out, you'd get people who have split up with a spouse or partner wanting to bite the bullet,

This is different To AD for those who are not 'fit and well'

As for Alzheimer's sufferers and conditions that leave the individual without dignity then "The talk" could happen to establish when death could happen when the condition takes the individual far enough down the path they have effectively become totally helpless.

I was all gung ho for this until I read up on the Canadian problem of poverty euthanasia, I don't trust government with my life and there has to be firm solid caveats in place to stop the authorities from being cunts.

I've just had a quick look at Canada and the 'poverty euthanasia' you mention. Can't see anything to support your argument there either.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws.

 

[mexico1970]

This is different To AD for those who are not 'fit and well'

I've just had a quick look at Canada and the 'poverty euthanasia' you mention. Can't see anything to support your argument there either.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws.

The Guardian mentions it and there are a fair few online publications that air my concerns.

Most-read 2022: Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

We’re finishing the year by republishing our ten most popular articles from 2022. Here’s number one: Yuan Yi Zhu’s piece from April on Canada’s euthanasia policy. There is an endlessly repeated witticism by the poet Anatole France that ‘the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well...

www.spectator.co.uk

Soon enough, Canadians from across the country discovered that although they would otherwise prefer to live, they were too poor to improve their conditions to a degree which was acceptable.

 

[flook]

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.

Believers in fairy tales should be nowhere near this debate

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I also believe that having an ever ready painless exit option would make it easier to live for seriously depressed people

This is a viewpoint that I've never heard on this subject, definitely one that makes you stop and think.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Someone fit and well with no history of mental illness wants to kill themselves we should at the very least check them out, you'd get people who have split up with a spouse or partner wanting to bite the bullet,

Most people who kill themselves have no history of mental illness. Which arguably says more about the availability of mental health services than their actually mental state, to be fair.

But yeah, often suicidal thoughts are a temporary condition, and if the person can be supported through them, they will be thankful that they didn't go through with it. One weird one I read about was that the put anti-suicide netting on the Golden Gate Bridge and lots of people said "What's the point? They can just jump of something else." But apparently that's not how it works psychologically. People will have a clear idea of how they want to do it, and if thwarted, they won't suddenly take the next logical option, they won't do it at all.

That's why I'd question making euthanasia available for someone in their 30s or 40s on the grounds of mental health issues. At the very least, it needs to be a reasonably involved process to get approval. I get it for people who have a terminal disease that is only going to get worse and more painful until they die. All you're doing there is avoiding the most unpleasant bit of something that's inevitable. But depression and other mental health issues are treatable and improvable.

 

[domalino]

Believers in fairy tales should be nowhere near this debate

I’m as much of an atheist as anyone, but I always wonder if posters realise how ignorant they come across - even to another atheist - when they try to write off something that is central to the lives of 6,800,000,000 humans on this planet.

It’s pretty much the one thing another atheist can do to make me completely disregard everything else they’re saying, because the arrogance and narcissism need to think 85% of the global population, or 60% of the UK, doesn’t deserve to be involved in a debate like only proves that you shouldn’t be in it.

If you believe assisted dying or legalised suicide should be brought in then you’ll have to accept that the ~33% of the country that says they are not religious are going to need the help of “people who believe in fairy tales” to get it passed.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Thread title should be different. Should be euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Suicide is already legal in the UK. It was decriminalised in 1961.

 

[flook]

I’m as much of an atheist as anyone, but I always wonder if posters realise how ignorant they come across - even to another atheist - when they try to write off something that is central to the lives of 6,800,000,000 humans on this planet.

It’s pretty much the one thing another atheist can do to make me completely disregard everything else they’re saying, because the arrogance and narcissism need to think 85% of the global population, or 60% of the UK, doesn’t deserve to be involved in a debate like only proves that you shouldn’t be in it.

If you believe assisted dying or legalised suicide should be brought in then you’ll have to accept that the ~33% of the country that says they are not religious are going to need the help of “people who believe in fairy tales” to get it passed.

OK I'll rephrase it, stories in fairy tales should not influence any decision made over assisted dying is that better?

Or are you telling me that because a believer (of whatever religion) interprets the religious teachings of said religion in such a manner that assisted dying would be against the will of said god, then that should influence the debate?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

OK I'll rephrase it, stories in fairy tales should not influence any decision made over assisted dying is that better?

Or are you telling me that because a believer (of whatever religion) interprets the religious teachings of said religion in such a manner that assisted dying would be against the will of said god, then that should influence the debate?

They should be irrelevant to the debate as there should be the choice. They can choose not to take up the option, if it goes against their religious beliefs.

 

[flook]

They should be irrelevant to the debate as there should be the choice. They can choose not to take up the option, if it goes against their religious beliefs.

That's pretty much what I said, except your post pre-supposes that AD is legalised. My concern is that religious beliefs influence the debate about the legalisation of AD

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's pretty much what I said, except your post pre-supposes that AD is legalised. My concern is that religious beliefs influence the debate about the legalisation of AD

It‘d only be relevant in a referendum, which would be pointless in any event.

Are U.K. laws allowed to be made with religious context these days?

 

[Two Gun Bob]

I’m as much of an atheist as anyone, but I always wonder if posters realise how ignorant they come across - even to another atheist - when they try to write off something that is central to the lives of 6,800,000,000 humans on this planet.

It’s pretty much the one thing another atheist can do to make me completely disregard everything else they’re saying, because the arrogance and narcissism need to think 85% of the global population, or 60% of the UK, doesn’t deserve to be involved in a debate like only proves that you shouldn’t be in it.

If you believe assisted dying or legalised suicide should be brought in then you’ll have to accept that the ~33% of the country that says they are not religious are going to need the help of “people who believe in fairy tales” to get it passed.

They can enter the debate so long as they keep their delutional observations from out of any sensible discussion. I have no penchant for the 7 billion oddities that have been indoctrinated into belief systems alien to my own. As Hitchens once said .. Do not make me play with your toys, I shall not play with your toys.

Mother in law is dying and in her final thows of life, suffering immensly from vascular dementia. Her weight has seriously plummeted, as she displays little desire to eat, and I guess she has long since departed the vehicle that has kept her rolling along her highways of life.

She's incontinent , can no longer walk, or recognize her closest loved ones, and constantly visualizes things that are not of her surroundings. This has been the case for may months now as her situation deteriorates by the week.

She is in a nursing home, that is not qualified in dementia care, because this is the cheapest option for the governmental bean counters that quite frankly could not give a toss.

She recieves hospice care, once weekly by a visiting team of Mcmillan, that try to maintain comfort/pain levels until her following visitation.

So respectfully, I have no desire to listen in to religious advocates offering up their two penny worth, concerning the meaning of life, when we are dealing with immense suffering at this level.

She may get to live another few months, and occationaly indicates of her wish to just die, owing to mental stress, confusion, pain and diminshing functions.

Is this the mechanics of a civilised society .. well is it?

 

[Koniec]

Fwiw Jesus was almost given assisted death on the cross. If he hadn’t been dead they’d have broken his legs to speed up his death. The people begged Pilot to break his legs, so was assisted death ok amongst early Judaism.

 

[Phil1]

Fwiw Jesus was almost given assisted death on the cross. If he hadn’t been dead they’d have broken his legs to speed up his death. The people begged Pilot to break his legs, so was assisted death ok amongst early Judaism.

Not if you wake up 3 days later it’s not..

 

[flook]

It‘d only be relevant in a referendum, which would be pointless in any event.

Are U.K. laws allowed to be made with religious context these days?

Religious beliefs would influence any debate, which would I believe have a direct impact on any subsequent law (otherwise whats the point of the debate?). This makes your question "are laws allowed to be made with religious context" irrelevant, though I have no clue as to the answer :)

 

[stonerblue]

They can enter the debate so long as they keep their delutional observations from out of any sensible discussion. I have no penchant for the 7 billion oddities that have been indoctrinated into belief systems that are alien to my own. As Hitchens once said .. do not make me play with your toys, I shall not play with your toys.

Mother in law is dying and in her final thows of life, suffering immensly from vascular dementia. Her weight has seriously plummeted, as she displays little desire to eat, and I guess she has long since departed the vehicle that has kept her rolling along her highways of life.

She's incontinent , can no longer walk, or recognize her closest loved ones, and constantly visualizes things that are not of her surroundings. This has been the case for may months now as her situation deteriorates by the week.

She is in a nursing home, that is not qualified in dementia care, because this is the cheapest option for the govermental bean counters that could not quite frankly give a toss.

She recieves hospice care, once weekly by a visiting team of Mcmillen, that try to maintain her comfort/pain levels until her following visitation.

So respectfully I have no desire to listen in to some religious advocates two penny worth on the meaning of life, when we are dealing with immense suffering at this level.

She may get to live another few months yet, and occationaly indicates of her wish to just die, owing to her mental stress, confusion, pain and diminshing functions.

Is this the mechanics of a civilised society .. well is it?

Great post

 

[metalblue]

This is complete bollocks MB

You’re probably right, I’m only going off what Mrs MB tells me who has over 8 years experience as a specialist palliative care nurse (who advise doctors on pain management in EoL patients). Her colleagues I saw over weekend said same as this thread discussion came up. Interestingly they all said they would leave medicine if they were asked to even provide tablets to patients, which I was surprised at.

When my dad was at EoL he was on something like 120mg PRN and his doctor said to Mrs MB (who was their in her capacity as a relative not professionally) shall we put him on a syringe driver starting dose of 20mg? Mrs MB reminded the doctor that policy would suggest he be on 80mg start with view to add breakthrough dose if required and increase SD as necessary. This is an example of how it goes wrong, individual errors, not that the drugs aren’t available nor the expertise to ensure a good death.

Now there is a fine balancing act here as morphine reduces the respiratory system which will naturally lower someone’s stats, too much and you may hastens someone’s death (their roles is to neither hasten nor delay death) so they work on the principles of “you can always increase doses” however these specialist nurses can usually tell when someone is in the final hours so if they are not symptom controlled they will, time allowing, increase doses but that should be very rare that someone on their caseload gets to that stage still suffering from pain or terminal restlessness/agitation.

Anyway you saying it is complete bollocks, how so?