Suicide is not illegal but it is an indictment of our government if folk are driven to it by lack of palliative end of life care. I see the good people of Denmark now allow those over 70 in perfect health but are 'tired of life' to get a final drink on the house. The costs of an ageing population do need to be taken into account by the younger generations though.What annoys me is those who think that ill people should just be left to rot away against their wishes.
With decent end of life care state assisted suicide wouldn't be needed. The disability groups are 100% correct though - it is the poor and vulnerable and hard to help who the private sector will be queuing up to charge the government to eliminate.Finally, btw the disabled groups spreading fear like the state is going to murder disabled people are a fucking disgrace, i am happy this bill has passed, nobody should be made to go right to the end of life if that means they are bedriden and in pain, having to endure a horrible death should not be happening in 2025
How does decent EOL care cater for those either in so much pain or totally out of it on drugs?With decent end of life care state assisted suicide wouldn't be needed. The disability groups are 100% correct though - it is the poor and vulnerable and hard to help who the private sector will be queuing up to charge the government to eliminate.
Spot onFinally, btw the disabled groups spreading fear like the state is going to murder disabled people are a fucking disgrace, i am happy this bill has passed, nobody should be made to go right to the end of life if that means they are bedriden and in pain, having to endure a horrible death should not be happening in 2025
Listen to the hospices and specialists and provide the funding they need to meet demand. Their professional organizations all opposed this bill because of the fundamental change in patient/practitioner relationship it entails.How does decent EOL care cater for those either in so much pain or totally out of it on drugs?
That doesn’t answer my question though, does it?Listen to the hospices and specialists and provide the funding they need to meet demand. Their professional organizations all opposed this bill because of the fundamental change in patient/practitioner relationship it entails.
Specialist EOL care could provide pain relief for all of those who need it given the extra resources are provided. Eliminating pain through the use of opioids is a legal way to assist a dying person who cannot be helped while conscious.That doesn’t answer my question though, does it?
You can have the best EOL care in the world but if the only option to keeping a person alive is to either see them in excruciating pain or drug them so much they have no idea who or where they are, then surely granting them a choice is humane.Specialist EOL care could provide pain relief for all of those who need it given the extra resources are provided. Eliminating pain through the use of opioids is a legal way to assist a dying person who cannot be helped while conscious.
I have witnessed a relative who was in a top PC hospice. All they could do for her was keep her sedated until she passed.In the most recent edition of his well-known textbook Practical Ethics, the philosopher Peter Singer questions the effectiveness of palliative care:
‘…some will reply that improved care for the terminally ill has eliminated pain and made voluntary euthanasia unnecessary. But it is not only physical pain that makes people wish to die : they may suffer from bones so fragile they fracture at sudden movements, uncontrollable nausea and vomiting, slow starvation due to a cancerous growth, inability to control one’s bowels or bladder, difficulty in breathing, and so on. These symptoms often cannot be eliminated, at least not without keeping the patient unconscious all the time.’
I don’t know enough about the current state of EOL care to be able to tell whether his concerns are valid. Are they? Are there limits to what palliative treatments can achieve?
Thanks for replying. I have only been at the sharp end of things once with a relative so I only know about all this from books, not personal experience.I have witnessed a relative who was in a top PC hospice. All they could do for her was keep her sedated until she passed.
It's a fine line between keeping someone continuously sedated until they pass and administering a lethal dose. Until Shipman many more doctors were prepared to cross the line earlier and the situation you describe was much rarer but I'm not sure it was ever a 'free choice' as such, more a withdrawal of other treatment options. That was the case with my mum, she had dementia and got pneumonia, which the hospital told us they would allow to take its course despite our objections.You can have the best EOL care in the world but if the only option to keeping a person alive is to either see them in excruciating pain or drug them so much they have no idea who or where they are, then surely granting them a choice is humane.
Do you disagree?
We shouldn’t lose sight of the bill only affects those in their last six months of life and is aiming to provide an option to bring that terminal date fwd.It's a fine line between keeping someone continuously sedated until they pass and administering a lethal dose. Until Shipman many more doctors were prepared to cross the line earlier and the situation you describe was much rarer but I'm not sure it was ever a 'free choice' as such, more a withdrawal of other treatment options. That was the case with my mum, she had dementia and got pneumonia, which the hospital told us they would allow to take its course despite our objections.
I agree with this, on the proviso the sufferer is compos mentis and has made peace with the decision, along with the blessing of family. It's a thorny issue for a reason, but your third paragraph sums it up.Tugenhat pointed out in the debate that suicide is legal.
It is indeed, but it is strongly discouraged, and society does not facilitate it in any way. So, unless you can afford to go to Switzerland (££££s), the only way to do it for sure is by methods that involve trauma and inconvenience to others, and which potentially could lead to the death or injury of innocents.
I'm afraid I take the view that our lives are our own, and that if we want to clock off, for whatever reason, it should be possible to do so in a humane and civilised way, in one's own home.
If this offends your conscience, fine. I am not suggesting it should be compulsory. What it should be is a choice that the individual can choose without let or hindrance.
The opposing point was made many times during the debate inside and outside parliament. A service enabling the state to assist your suicide as a dignified escape from pain will thenceforth be seen by many vulnerable people as a way of lifting the burden they mistakenly believe they are on others. "Your choice becomes my duty".We shouldn’t lose sight of the bill only affects those in their last six months of life and is aiming to provide an option to bring that terminal date fwd.
I suspect (and hope), it will get through the Lords and allow a dignified death, rather than be forced to endeavour a non existent way of life whilst further declining.
Sadly, they are going to die in a matter of weeks anyway. If they desire, let them set the timeframeThe opposing point was made many times during the debate inside and outside parliament. A service enabling the state to assist your suicide as a dignified escape from pain will thenceforth be seen by many vulnerable people as a way of lifting the burden they mistakenly believe they are on others. "Your choice becomes my duty".