Assisted dying

[PinkFinal]

If people are suffering long-term social isolation and severe depression (which many are nowadays) ideally they'd be helped , but they're not being helped, aside from tablets and if they're lucky , local mental health groups.
I really believe that modern life is so stressful , mentally demanding and frankly cruel that it's actually a fate worse than death for some and I don't know why those who are suffering should be expected to tolerate it.
We have hundreds dying on railway lines every year and it's an absolute tragedy for everybody concerned.
I believe that the always available option of voluntary-assisted euthanasia would perhaps make life easier - knowing that they wouldn't have to choose a violent method of exit that may not be successful and may leave them with terrible injuries.
I don't expect this to ever be allowed here cos I strongly suspect that many more than they might expect would try to exit.. And it would just look awful.

I personally am struggling and it might end with electro convulsive therapy.
I keep on going even though things are almost always bleak as fcuk.
As I'm autistic the world is a semi- nightmare anyway, mentally.

I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I agree with terminally ill people who are never getting better and are in constant pain having the opportunity to die with dignity on their own terms. As most people do I feel.

I just hope this isn't a slippery slope to a Canadian like system where you get stories like this. https://care.org.uk/news/2023/08/ca...-assisted-suicide-after-lack-of-hospital-beds

That is absolutely abhorrent. People with depression don't need to be offered suicide at a price instead of help.

That example sounds like misconduct by the person she spoke to rather than an actual policy.

Get it in all sorts of healthcare or therapeutic roles , people taking their personal views to work when it isn't warranted, e.g abortion counsellers with religious views offering to pray with the woman for the aborted foetus.

 

[SilverFox2]

They aren’t dead

Agreed, one wants to die but has their decision overturned, the other cannot choose to live so is allowed to die.
Just my opinion.

 

[mackenzie]

If people are suffering long-term social isolation and severe depression (which many are nowadays) ideally they'd be helped , but they're not being helped, aside from tablets and if they're lucky , local mental health groups.
I really believe that modern life is so stressful , mentally demanding and frankly cruel that it's actually a fate worse than death for some and I don't know why those who are suffering should be expected to tolerate it.
We have hundreds dying on railway lines every year and it's an absolute tragedy for everybody concerned.
I believe that the always available option of voluntary-assisted euthanasia would perhaps make life easier - knowing that they wouldn't have to choose a violent method of exit that may not be successful and may leave them with terrible injuries.
I don't expect this to ever be allowed here cos I strongly suspect that many more than they might expect would try to exit.. And it would just look awful.

I personally am struggling and it might end with electro convulsive therapy.
I keep on going even though things are almost always bleak as fcuk.
As I'm autistic the world is a semi- nightmare anyway, mentally.

I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

I hope you are OK and I wish you well.
You are a very valued poster on here and I hope you know that xx

 

[metalblue]

If people are suffering long-term social isolation and severe depression (which many are nowadays) ideally they'd be helped , but they're not being helped, aside from tablets and if they're lucky , local mental health groups.
I really believe that modern life is so stressful , mentally demanding and frankly cruel that it's actually a fate worse than death for some and I don't know why those who are suffering should be expected to tolerate it.
We have hundreds dying on railway lines every year and it's an absolute tragedy for everybody concerned.
I believe that the always available option of voluntary-assisted euthanasia would perhaps make life easier - knowing that they wouldn't have to choose a violent method of exit that may not be successful and may leave them with terrible injuries.
I don't expect this to ever be allowed here cos I strongly suspect that many more than they might expect would try to exit.. And it would just look awful.

I personally am struggling and it might end with electro convulsive therapy.
I keep on going even though things are almost always bleak as fcuk.
As I'm autistic the world is a semi- nightmare anyway, mentally.

I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

This absolutely shouldn’t be seen or used as an alternative “treatment” to allow the system to keep failing you and others mate.

Fuck that.

I really don’t know how to answer your post though mate. Take good care of yourself fella and many on here are always about for a chat.

 

[stonerblue]

This absolutely shouldn’t be seen or used as an alternative “treatment” to allow the system to keep failing you and others mate.

Fuck that.

I really don’t know how to answer your post though mate. Take good care of yourself fella and many on here are always about for a chat.

This 'treatment' utopia you think should exist doesn't. In the last ten years my wife has seen an MS nurse twice. She got her first appointment with a physio last month; 8am at Oldham hospital. She can't even get the right inhalers for asthma.
Yes, it would be great if she got tailored treatment, constant supervision, counselling, physio or even the path outside our house fixed so she could get out on her scooter but she doesn't.
In the real and brutal world many are left with the basics of pain relief and anti-depressants that turn them into emotional zombies.
Now imagine if all that help existed. It would not alter the one daunting fact that MS and other debilitating disease mean symptoms will only get worse.
Why shouldn't people be able to 'check out' whenever they want? I'd guess that in a lot of cases the patient would feel a lot better mentally if they had the means to without even resorting to it.

 

[metalblue]

This 'treatment' utopia you think should exist doesn't. In the last ten years my wife has seen an MS nurse twice. She got her first appointment with a physio last month; 8am at Oldham hospital. She can't even get the right inhalers for asthma.
Yes, it would be great if she got tailored treatment, constant supervision, counselling, physio or even the path outside our house fixed so she could get out on her scooter but she doesn't.
In the real and brutal world many are left with the basics of pain relief and anti-depressants that turn them into emotional zombies.
Now imagine if all that help existed. It would not alter the one daunting fact that MS and other debilitating disease mean symptoms will only get worse.
Why shouldn't people be able to 'check out' whenever they want? I'd guess that in a lot of cases the patient would feel a lot better mentally if they had the means to without even resorting to it.

Of course there are people (and diseases) where dying is preferable- and I fully respect and support that - but it shouldn’t be preferable because the system has failed them.

Sadly that is where we are today. Utopia? Maybe mate but a society that is prepared to accept people want to die instead of investing in its services doesn’t have the right to call itself civilised. I suppose the dead don’t complain or vote whereas tax payers do.

Best wishes to you and Mrs SB mate, I know you’ve both been through it fighting tooth and nail for everything. And that’s bloody wrong.

 

[Marriedtoablue]

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?

DNAR should always be discussed with patients/family however ultimately remains a medical decision which is based on the patients medical condition, likelihood of recovery should resuscitation be required and quality of like for that patient.

So many family’s want resuscitation on their elderly, frail relatives which by the time these decisions are even considered the likelihood of survival is very limited, and to any quality or length of time very slim. There is absolutely nothing appealing about jumping on the chest of a 90 year old frail patient whose body is naturally at the end of their time.

There’s a huge difference in attempting CPR on someone in their 50’s who’s cardiac function could perhaps be surgically intervened with to give them another 20-40 odd years to doing the same for someone who may live a few more days/weeks during which time they’d be bed ridden, and have zero quality.

This decision is completely different, it is not a conversation about not trying to revive a person already deceased, but to take direct action that results in them being so.

An elderly, frail person who’s heart gives out has reached their natural death, someone able to make the decision to end their life 6 months ahead of what would be their bodies natural death albeit caused by a terminal illness is not reaching a natural death.

Palliative Care is grounded in not taking decisions that either prolong life or hasten death.

Where does assisted dying fit into this and what does that mean for the practice of Palliative care?

Prognosis in life limiting illness can be difficult to predict at times, I myself have known people given a years prognosis to live double and more. By the time people enter the terminal phase where impending death is obvious, many would be unable to make clear, thought out decision which is why a 6 month prognosis is mentioned I’d assume.

Only this month I have supported my friend as her dad died, he became unwell had 2-3 admissions and despite the fact my own Palliative Care nursing experience meant I could clearly see he was dying, he continued to be given fluids which kept an old frail gentleman alive, each time they were stopped he deteriorated again ( no ability/desire to drink independently) and therefore fluid repeated again and again.

At no point was my friend told he was dying except from me.

He wanted resuscitation, as did the family, thankfully that at least was recognised as not in his best interests but for me this whole situation was a failure to correctly identify impending death.

If there are errors in judgement for the very frail, how exactly can we be certain someone has 6 months of life left?

 

[SilverFox2]

DNAR should always be discussed with patients/family however ultimately remains a medical decision which is based on the patients medical condition, likelihood of recovery should resuscitation be required and quality of like for that patient.

So many family’s want resuscitation on their elderly, frail relatives which by the time these decisions are even considered the likelihood of survival is very limited, and to any quality or length of time very slim. There is absolutely nothing appealing about jumping on the chest of a 90 year old frail patient whose body is naturally at the end of their time.

There’s a huge difference in attempting CPR on someone in their 50’s who’s cardiac function could perhaps be surgically intervened with to give them another 20-40 odd years to doing the same for someone who may live a few more days/weeks during which time they’d be bed ridden, and have zero quality.

This decision is completely different, it is not a conversation about not trying to revive a person already deceased, but to take direct action that results in them being so.

An elderly, frail person who’s heart gives out has reached their natural death, someone able to make the decision to end their life 6 months ahead of what would be their bodies natural death albeit caused by a terminal illness is not reaching a natural death.

Palliative Care is grounded in not taking decisions that either prolong life or hasten death.

Where does assisted dying fit into this and what does that mean for the practice of Palliative care?

Prognosis in life limiting illness can be difficult to predict at times, I myself have known people given a years prognosis to live double and more. By the time people enter the terminal phase where impending death is obvious, many would be unable to make clear, thought out decision which is why a 6 month prognosis is mentioned I’d assume.

Only this month I have supported my friend as her dad died, he became unwell had 2-3 admissions and despite the fact my own Palliative Care nursing experience meant I could clearly see he was dying, he continued to be given fluids which kept an old frail gentleman alive, each time they were stopped he deteriorated again ( no ability/desire to drink independently) and therefore fluid repeated again and again.

At no point was my friend told he was dying except from me.

He wanted resuscitation, as did the family, thankfully that at least was recognised as not in his best interests but for me this whole situation was a failure to correctly identify impending death.

If there are errors in judgement for the very frail, how exactly can we be certain someone has 6 months of life left?

Thanks for reply.

In my mother's case she had septacemia from which she recovered without any hospital intervention and thankfully no heart attack.

The consultant told me it was hospital policy to not treat my mum if she had a heart attack but was unable to show me that in their written COP or policy statement.

My point is that decisions regarding elderly patients can be made that allow death to happen without medical intervention yet those who want to die by suicide are medically treated to prevent their actions being effective ie they try to save their life.

Perhaps I am wrong but have the hospitals got it the wrong way round? Are older people really not able to judge whether they should or want to live a little longer or not?

 

[mackenzie]

DNAR should always be discussed with patients/family however ultimately remains a medical decision which is based on the patients medical condition, likelihood of recovery should resuscitation be required and quality of like for that patient.

So many family’s want resuscitation on their elderly, frail relatives which by the time these decisions are even considered the likelihood of survival is very limited, and to any quality or length of time very slim. There is absolutely nothing appealing about jumping on the chest of a 90 year old frail patient whose body is naturally at the end of their time.

There’s a huge difference in attempting CPR on someone in their 50’s who’s cardiac function could perhaps be surgically intervened with to give them another 20-40 odd years to doing the same for someone who may live a few more days/weeks during which time they’d be bed ridden, and have zero quality.

This decision is completely different, it is not a conversation about not trying to revive a person already deceased, but to take direct action that results in them being so.

An elderly, frail person who’s heart gives out has reached their natural death, someone able to make the decision to end their life 6 months ahead of what would be their bodies natural death albeit caused by a terminal illness is not reaching a natural death.

Palliative Care is grounded in not taking decisions that either prolong life or hasten death.

Where does assisted dying fit into this and what does that mean for the practice of Palliative care?

Prognosis in life limiting illness can be difficult to predict at times, I myself have known people given a years prognosis to live double and more. By the time people enter the terminal phase where impending death is obvious, many would be unable to make clear, thought out decision which is why a 6 month prognosis is mentioned I’d assume.

Only this month I have supported my friend as her dad died, he became unwell had 2-3 admissions and despite the fact my own Palliative Care nursing experience meant I could clearly see he was dying, he continued to be given fluids which kept an old frail gentleman alive, each time they were stopped he deteriorated again ( no ability/desire to drink independently) and therefore fluid repeated again and again.

At no point was my friend told he was dying except from me.

He wanted resuscitation, as did the family, thankfully that at least was recognised as not in his best interests but for me this whole situation was a failure to correctly identify impending death.

If there are errors in judgement for the very frail, how exactly can we be certain someone has 6 months of life left?

My Gran had dementia for the last 10 years of her life and was in a nursing home.
In the last 2 years of her life she had recurring pneumonia. She kept getting through it though (she had always been physically strong before this). The staff invited myself and my aunt and uncle in for a talk, and they told us that whilst she kept "recovering" her quality of life was diminishing due to the dementia really getting a grip (which we could see). They suggested that the next time she got pneumonia they would give her medication to make her comfortable, but not for the condition itself.
To be honest, it was a relief for everyone in the family and we readily agreed. We were absolutely sure we were speaking for her too, as we knew her better than anyone else did.
She died aged 88 the next time she contracted it and death came naturally.