Assisted dying

[denislawsbackheel]

But, surely, that would need someone enabling you in some respect?
If only to prepare the meds etc?

I have no real "side" in any of this by the way.

Yes.
Let me buy the necessary drugs.
If that’s enabling then so be it.
Change the law.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

The death pod seems to be the solution.

The US nitrogen hypoxia execution of Kenneth Smith didn’t go too well did it?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The death pod seems to be the solution.

Does that try to reach the Titanic wreckage?

 

[supercity88]

I brought this up at work today and there were a few people on the fence, which surprised me. I guess if you've been fortunate to never see someone go through a painful illness you may not appreciate the need for change.

I like to be balanced and understand the counter arguments but I have read them and find them to be nonsensical. There was an interview with someone with terminal cancer who was pro-assisted dying and then someone with MND who was against it. And their reasoning was on the fact it changes conversations around death and dying and that wouldn't have a positive impact.

I didn't really get what they were saying...

We probably need to change the conversation. How many people die peacefully with family by their side? Like fuck they did. They were pumped full of drugs and didn't know what the fuck was going on and died due to the amount in their system. There was probably a lot of pain before they got the medication too. Otherwise they died in some amount of pain and it's just not acceptable socially to write "they died in fucking agony".

 

[metalblue]

Well, yes there would have to be a process but considering the current situation regarding both medical and legal waiting times I can't see an easy fix to suddenly find the required professionals to make these decisions.

6 months isn't a long time. To deliver that prognosis is exceptionally difficult for starters, but then to find two separate professionals to confirm you can go ahead and then book a slot with a High Court judge - who may need to call witnesses...not happening.

All very valid points.

 

[metalblue]

Yes.
Let me buy the necessary drugs.
If that’s enabling then so be it.
Change the law.

That won’t happen mate. Will need the guardrails in place, 2 doctors, a judge, then a proper setting where drugs provided by medical staff - probably checking your consent again. That you administer it is probably sufficient- my only point is if a nurse / doctor doesn’t want to do it they should be protected by law to do that as a right - it won’t be a case that you won’t find someone who is prepared to do it so it won’t change your right to die, just allow medical staff to opt out up front then everyone knows where they are.

The alternatives is a free for all with the obvious risks that brings.

I don’t think this bill will necessarily help very many people in any case but it does change our relationship with the NHS and could be vulnerable to changes in the future.

 

[stonerblue]

But, surely, that would need someone enabling you in some respect?
If only to prepare the meds etc?

I have no real "side" in any of this by the way.

At the moment, if i help my wife in any way i can be prosecuted and imprisoned as, i presume, would a medical professional.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That won’t happen mate. Will need the guardrails in place, 2 doctors, a judge, then a proper setting where drugs provided by medical staff - probably checking your consent again. That you administer it is probably sufficient- my only point is if a nurse / doctor doesn’t want to do it they should be protected by law to do that as a right - it won’t be a case that you won’t find someone who is prepared to do it so it won’t change your right to die, just allow medical staff to opt out up front then everyone knows where they are.

The alternatives is a free for all with the obvious risks that brings.

I don’t think this bill will necessarily help very many people in any case but it does change our relationship with the NHS and could be vulnerable to changes in the future.

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.

 

[hammocity]

I brought this up at work today and there were a few people on the fence, which surprised me. I guess if you've been fortunate to never see someone go through a painful illness you may not appreciate the need for change.

I like to be balanced and understand the counter arguments but I have read them and find them to be nonsensical. There was an interview with someone with terminal cancer who was pro-assisted dying and then someone with MND who was against it. And their reasoning was on the fact it changes conversations around death and dying and that wouldn't have a positive impact.

I didn't really get what they were saying...

We probably need to change the conversation. How many people die peacefully with family by their side? Like fuck they did. They were pumped full of drugs and didn't know what the fuck was going on and died due to the amount in their system. There was probably a lot of pain before they got the medication too. Otherwise they died in some amount of pain and it's just not acceptable socially to write "they died in fucking agony".

Many years ago a friend of mine had a heart attack, once in hospital the Doctors diagnosed he had Stage 4 lung cancer as well (he was a smoker).

So, a few weeks later he's back in hospital for his end of life care, another friend who he used to share a house with went to visit him, he was on morphine and "out of game". His housemate asked the Nurse if anything would happen if he released more morphine (it was on a drip), she said no one would bother so the dosage was increased to the max, he died the next day, no post mortem required. He did what most people want, put his friend out of any distress he may have been feeling and quickened up his death, that's how it should be but I doubt it's as easy as that these days.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

That won’t happen mate. Will need the guardrails in place, 2 doctors, a judge, then a proper setting where drugs provided by medical staff - probably checking your consent again. That you administer it is probably sufficient- my only point is if a nurse / doctor doesn’t want to do it they should be protected by law to do that as a right - it won’t be a case that you won’t find someone who is prepared to do it so it won’t change your right to die, just allow medical staff to opt out up front then everyone knows where they are.

The alternatives is a free for all with the obvious risks that brings.

I don’t think this bill will necessarily help very many people in any case but it does change our relationship with the NHS and could be vulnerable to changes in the future.

This is the first step.
Sense will prevail eventually.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

 

[SilverFox2]

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?

 

[metalblue]

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.

 

[metalblue]

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.

 

[metalblue]

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.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

 

[SilverFox2]

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?

 

[metalblue]

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.

 

[metalblue]

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.

 

[SilverFox2]

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.