stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Let's get this straight.
Are you saying that people who have been given 6 months or less to live will be forcibly made to die a bit sooner by relatives or friends?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Assisted dying
- Thread starter law74
- Start date
Are you saying that people who have been given 6 months or less to live will be forcibly made to die a bit sooner by relatives or friends?
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,012
Since when did the bill just apply to the last 6 months of a person's life?Let's get this straight.
Are you saying that people who have been given 6 months or less to live will be forcibly made to die a bit sooner by relatives or friends?
As sure as eggs are eggs the NHS will set targets for deaths. The Liverpool Care Pathway scandal will be reborn the way things are.
Oh and BTW, I'm actually in favour of legislation in this area, however, the protections against state and coercive relative and also for medical professionals are poor.
As my daughter (Senior Geriatrician Consultant) says this act walks a very fine line with the GMC medical ethics standards that all doctors sign up to. Eminently summed up in the phrase "Do no harm".
Their right of refusal to take part WITHOUT impacting their career and job prospects is, apparantly, as good as NHS whistle Blower Protection in practice (I.e. non existant).
Last edited:
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
These extracts from the HoC debate you referenced above summarise the issues involved hereSince when did the bill just apply to the last 6 months of a person's life?
As sure as eggs are eggs the NHS will set targets for deaths. The Liverpool Care Pathway scandal will be reborn the way things are.
Oh and BTW, I'm actually in favour of legislation in this area, however, the protections against state and coercive relative and also for medical professionals are poor.
As my daughter (Senior Geriatrician Consultant) says this act walks a very fine line with the GMC medical ethics standards that all doctors sign up to. Eminently summed up in the phrase "Do no harm". Their right of refusal to take part WITHOUT impacting their career and job prospects is, apparantly, as good as NHS whistle Blower Protection in practice (I.e. non existant).
"there will be some people who have six months of their life to go who will then feel, “Ought I to do this? Is this something that I now should do?” That brings into play a whole set of considerations—“Is it better for my family? Is it financially better for my family?”—in ways that, at the moment, are out of scope. Rather than simply focusing on the individual suffering, which we all recognise is acute, we must broaden the debate to the impact that the legislation will have on society as a whole."
The assessments have to determine whether the patient is terminally ill, whether they have mental capacity to make the decision, and then whether they have been coerced or pressured into the decision. In many ways the whole issue turns on the question of whether someone is terminally ill. I am afraid that it is a term of great elasticity, almost to the point of meaninglessness. It is well known that it is impossible for doctors to predict with any accuracy that somebody will die within six months. It is a purely subjective judgment, made in this case by a doctor whose job will be approving assisted deaths. They simply have to determine not whether it is reasonably certain that death will occur, but that it can be reasonably expected—in other words, that it is possible.
The thrust of the Bill, as I understand it, is to ease suffering and pain in a patient who has a diagnosis and will die of the condition that has been diagnosed. But that right could only be exercised within a six-month period, and the pain and discomfort could last a lot longer than that. Has my hon. Friend heard—because I have not—what the importance of six months is? Why not eight, 10 or 12? What would stop people challenging it on the grounds that the dam has been breached, the six months is entirely arbitrary and it could, and indeed should, be extended by negative resolution in a statutory instrument?
My hon. Friend makes the right point, and I am afraid to say that is absolutely the case. The six-month cut-off is completely arbitrary and impossible to determine. It is a line in the sand, and of course it could be challenged, as so much of the Bill could be challenged, on human rights grounds. Every one of the safeguards that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley would in fact be a barrier and a discrimination against the new human right that has been awarded to one group but should of course be awarded to all—if the point is conceded in this
Earlier this week, colleagues and I met two eminent doctors who were former presidents of the Association for Palliative Medicine, and they raised serious concerns about the Bill, including that the doctor or medical practitioner who makes the assessment need never have met the person they are assessing, or been involved in their care at all.
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I will not get into the question of public opinion and the polling, because it is so contested, but there is clear evidence that the doctors who work with the dying—the palliative care professionals—are opposed to a change in the law by a great majority. They see the damage that it would do to the palliative care profession and services, and they see the danger for vulnerable patients.
The whole question of the six-month cut-off is very important. I acknowledge all the points that have been made, but there is another problem with the definition of terminal illness. Almost anybody with a serious illness or disability could fit the definition. I recognise that these are not the cases that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has in mind—of course they are not—but that is the problem with the Bill. All that someone needs to do to qualify for an assisted death—for the definition of terminal illness—is refuse treatment, such as insulin if the person is diabetic. In the case of eating disorders, a topic on which I have worked with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), a person just needs to refuse food. The evidence from jurisdictions around the world, and our own jurisprudence, shows that that would be enough to qualify someone for an assisted death.
Last edited:
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
MPs have backed proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales in a historic vote which paves the way for a change in the law.Since when did the bill just apply to the last 6 months of a person's life?
As sure as eggs are eggs the NHS will set targets for deaths. The Liverpool Care Pathway scandal will be reborn the way things are.
Oh and BTW, I'm actually in favour of legislation in this area, however, the protections against state and coercive relative and also for medical professionals are poor.
As my daughter (Senior Geriatrician Consultant) says this act walks a very fine line with the GMC medical ethics standards that all doctors sign up to. Eminently summed up in the phrase "Do no harm".
Their right of refusal to take part WITHOUT impacting their career and job prospects is, apparantly, as good as NHS whistle Blower Protection in practice (I.e. non existant).
In the first Commons vote on the issue in nearly a decade, MPs supported a bill which would allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their own life by 330 to 275, a majority of 55.
grunge
Well-Known Member
Since when did the bill just apply to the last 6 months of a person's life?
As sure as eggs are eggs the NHS will set targets for deaths. The Liverpool Care Pathway scandal will be reborn the way things are.
Oh and BTW, I'm actually in favour of legislation in this area, however, the protections against state and coercive relative and also for medical professionals are poor.
As my daughter (Senior Geriatrician Consultant) says this act walks a very fine line with the GMC medical ethics standards that all doctors sign up to. Eminently summed up in the phrase "Do no harm".
Their right of refusal to take part WITHOUT impacting their career and job prospects is, apparantly, as good as NHS whistle Blower Protection in practice (I.e. non existant).
Its in the link you posted.
For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if that person—(a) has been diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having aninevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment(“a terminal illness”), and(b) as a consequence of that terminal illness, is reasonably expected to die within six months.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
The problems raised are also in the link he posted (as extracted above) which you seem not to take account of. These will be the obstacles to the bill going through at third reading if not adequately addressed at committee stage.Its in the link you posted.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
Let's get this straight.
Are you saying that people who have been given 6 months or less to live will be forcibly made to die a bit sooner by relatives or friends?
Can’t see how anyone can forcibly be made to do it. That implies being frogmarched to the doctors and a judge and being force fed the pills (or whatever the method).
I’d like to see a psychometric type test as part of the “2 doctor assessment” to assess for undue influence - I’m sure the physiologists can figure out a suitable set of questions etc. Unfortunately that only covers undue influence on those who elect to go through the process rather than on those who wanted to but were persuaded against.
A lot of detail to be worked out still, which we know, and it’s absolutely right to flag all the concerns and risks now so whatever is eventually passed in to law is fit for purpose.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,012
And, I repeat, what has this to do with the issues at hand? It has passed in principle but many have said things with the bill have to be fixed to get past the next hurdle into ping-pong with the Lords.MPs have backed proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales in a historic vote which paves the way for a change in the law.
In the first Commons vote on the issue in nearly a decade, MPs supported a bill which would allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their own life by 330 to 275, a majority of 55.
grunge
Well-Known Member
The problems raised are also in the link he posted (as extracted above) which you seem not to take account of. These will be the obstacles to the bill going through at third reading if not adequately addressed at committee stage.
I wasn’t attempting to address them hence bolding the line I was referring to.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Neither can i metal, hence my questioning 'coercion'.Can’t see how anyone can forcibly be made to do it. That implies being frogmarched to the doctors and a judge and being force fed the pills (or whatever the method).
I’d like to see a psychometric type test as part of the “2 doctor assessment” to assess for undue influence - I’m sure the physiologists can figure out a suitable set of questions etc. Unfortunately that only covers undue influence on those who elect to go through the process rather than on those who wanted to but were persuaded against.
A lot of detail to be worked out still, which we know, and it’s absolutely right to flag all the concerns and risks now so whatever is eventually passed in to law is fit for purpose.