[smudgie]

If someone is terminal and has 6 months or less to live and is in pain then I see no problem.
My question is who would be allowed to assist them, not easy for loved ones to do, I should imagine that some guilt feelings would follow even though you carried out their wishes.

[Kizzy]

'The bill contains only vague qualifying criteria for assistance with taking your own life, such as having “a settled wish” or being free from undue pressure. But there is no provision within the bill about how robust decisions are to be made in such matters. It doesn’t make provision for any audit of deaths or for a regulatory body to monitor compliance. In short, the proposals are unsafe and unworkable.

Those closest to dying people, professionals in palliative medicine and others involved in end-of-life care, are among the strongest opponents of this legislation. They have firsthand experience every day of the vulnerability of dying people, and they have no wish to become involved in intentional killing. They know that giving everyone fair access to excellent end-of-life care can make all the difference to our experience of death.'

Excellent points from Tanni Grey-Thompson.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ng-bill-reject

[Kizzy]

Davies publishing a book, Choice in Dying, in 1997 and spent much of her life campaigning for a change in the law to let doctors administer lethal medication to patients who wanted to die. She explained that she did not have a terminal illness but suffered from a range of medical conditions including chronic back pain and had suffered increasingly frequent fainting episodes.'

'Davies died on 1 October, five weeks after she stopped eating and a fortnight after she decided to stop drinking water.'

This lady had effectively decided in 1997 that if she was going to end her life on her terms, as she didn't die before her 86th year she then took it upon herself to end her own life in a very distressing way for her and her family, I cannot see any positives in this whatsoever.

Had the vote had a different outcome this lady wouldn't have been eligible in any case her symptoms are all simply age related degeneration, have we to 'bump off' all our old dears?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Davies publishing a book, Choice in Dying, in 1997 and spent much of her life campaigning for a change in the law to let doctors administer lethal medication to patients who wanted to die. She explained that she did not have a terminal illness but suffered from a range of medical conditions including chronic back pain and had suffered increasingly frequent fainting episodes.'

'Davies died on 1 October, five weeks after she stopped eating and a fortnight after she decided to stop drinking water.'

This lady had effectively decided in 1997 that if she was going to end her life on her terms, as she didn't die before her 86th year she then took it upon herself to end her own life in a very distressing way for her and her family, I cannot see any positives in this whatsoever.

Had the vote had a different outcome this lady wouldn't have been eligible in any case her symptoms are all simply age related degeneration, have we to 'bump off' all our old dears?

No she wouldn't have been eligible and it's such a tough area to discuss, it's such an emotive subject with most people I have spoken to bring either staunchly for or against.

In answer to your last sentence though, no we wouldn't have to bump off all our old dears but this lady came to her own conclusion and decided that was how she saw her fate. As I said in my earlier post, and indeed at dignitaries, the person is evaluated to ensure they are of sound mind and it is THEIR decision and theirs alone. They insist on people taking their own medication to end their own life and tape it for legal proof. It can be no one else's decision, only the patients.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

No she wouldn't have been eligible and it's such a tough area to discuss, it's such an emotive subject with most people I have spoken to bring either staunchly for or against.

In answer to your last sentence though, no we wouldn't have to bump off all our old dears but this lady came to her own conclusion and decided that was how she saw her fate. As I said in my earlier post, and indeed at dignitaries, the person is evaluated to ensure they are of sound mind and it is THEIR decision and theirs alone. They insist on people taking their own medication to end their own life and tape it for legal proof. It can be no one else's decision, only the patients.

She may have done, but would that not lead octogenarians country wide to feel obligated to off themselves as they fear becoming a burden?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She may have done, but would that not lead octogenarians country wide to feel obligated to off themselves as they fear becoming a burden?

Obviously I can't answer that. I would like to think not and I would also like to think that doctors who assess them would only grant the right to those who are suffering for untenable pain and facing a terminal illness with no hope of cure or recovery. I really haven't thought that much about how it could affect everyone, my main thoughts when considering assisted suicide have always been with those suffering terminal illnesses, cancer, Huntingtons, motor neurone etc who face the prospect of quite often horrific end of life.....either doped up or in considerable pain which we do not allow animals in this country to suffer.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Obviously I can't answer that. I would like to think not and I would also like to think that doctors who assess them would only grant the right to those who are suffering for untenable pain and facing a terminal illness with no hope of cure or recovery. I really haven't thought that much about how it could affect everyone, my main thoughts when considering assisted suicide have always been with those suffering terminal illnesses, cancer, Huntingtons, motor neurone etc who face the prospect of quite often horrific end of life.....either doped up or in considerable pain which we do not allow animals in this country to suffer.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

No she wouldn't have been eligible and it's such a tough area to discuss, it's such an emotive subject with most people I have spoken to bring either staunchly for or against.

In answer to your last sentence though, no we wouldn't have to bump off all our old dears but this lady came to her own conclusion and decided that was how she saw her fate. As I said in my earlier post, and indeed at dignitaries, the person is evaluated to ensure they are of sound mind and it is THEIR decision and theirs alone. They insist on people taking their own medication to end their own life and tape it for legal proof. It can be no one else's decision, only the patients.

..Indeed Annie, they're not given a lethal injection or anything but the whole process will only be approved if they're able to assist the process of medication themselves...and it costs quite a bit of money, so not everyone would be able to have the option...if it was legal, if it was funded etc and obviously there would be restricted funds like there are in everything...then it makes it available to everyone and not something that is only an option for those who could afford it...the right for everyone to live with healthcare and the right for everyone to die when there is no quality of life and huge suffering... /not go away somewhere else and do it/that's your only choice...

[Kizzy]

It cost 150 euros and a one way ticket, money isn't the issue it's meant to be dignity in death isn't it? I'd like to know what the doctors tasked with performing these 'suicides' feel about the issue. Will it be available on the NHS or private enterprise only?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It cost 150 euros and a one way ticket, money isn't the issue it's meant to be dignity in death isn't it? I'd like to know what the doctors tasked with performing these 'suicides' feel about the issue. Will it be available on the NHS or private enterprise only?

the doctors are against it enmasse as are most other medical professionals

[the truth]

this is a great decision today....we must never go down this path

[Tom4784]

The bill should be passed, it's a strawman argument to deny it based on wild assumptions that people would use it for murder.

[Kizzy]

The removal of many cancer treatments this week basically is assisted suicide isn't it? it will speed up the end for 1000s they don't need this vote sadly.

[AnnieK]

Forget it.....

[the truth]

do you actually read the effects this disaster has had in other nations where thoussands of innocents have died...this is the loony left at its most evil

im delighted this evil bill is voted down unanimously....how these people claim to care for the tiny minority who wish to kill themselves yet say nothing about the thousands who are neglected in the nhs and the most vulnerable many of whom would suffer as a result of this horrific suggestion..as weve seen in Holland thousands have died without consent

We don’t need to speculate. The Netherlands has already gone down this slippery slope and provided the grizzly statistics that should stop us going down the same path.

A 1973 court decision in the Netherlands started the process. Doctors and lawyers set strict guidelines to restrict when doctors could assist a terminally ill patient who wanted to commit suicide, and to protect a terminally ill patient who didn’t want to be euthanized (i.e., killed).

“In only 23 years, Dutch doctors have gone from being permitted to kill the terminally ill who ask for it, to killing the chronically ill who ask for it, to killing newborn babies in their cribs because they have birth defects, even though by definition they cannot ask for it. Dutch doctors also engage in involuntary euthanasia without significant legal consequence, even though such activity is officially prohibited,” writes Wesley J. Smith in Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder.

After the guidelines had been in place for 23 years, doctors were surveyed about people they euthanized. Incidentally, doctors later admitted they had under-reported euthanasia cases, so the following statistics are actually less than what really happened.

In 1990, 130,000 people died in the Netherlands: 2,300 people asked doctors to kill them; 400 asked doctors to provide them with the means to kill themselves; 8,100 died when doctors deliberately gave them an overdose of pain medication to kill them (for which 4,941 patients didn’t consent); 1,040 people died when doctors euthanized them without their knowledge or consent (72 per cent of those never having given any indication they would want their lives terminated).

That’s breathtaking in more than one way.

It’s not so much that nine per cent died at the hands of doctors, which is alarming in and of itself. What should raise our cries of outrage is that 4,941 people (four per cent) did not give their consent to being killed. A doctor who operates on someone without their consent can be successfully sued and made to pay huge dollars for having done so. The same should apply for killing a person without their consent.
And it’s the 1,040 people (one percent) who were killed without their knowledge or consent and the 749 who never wanted to die early that should get us up in arms.

[lostalex]

no one should have to suffer. if someone makes this decision for themselves, they should have support from everyone to make it as nice and comfortable for them as we can.

Most people don't understand the kind of pain and suffering that some diseases can cause. We all like to think that some day we will just pass away quietly in our sleep, but for most people that is not the case.

[Cherie]

There are some very compelling arguments on both sides, I'm really torn on it, people have been given 6 months to live and gone on relatively pain free for years so a one size fits all approach is not the answer either.

[kirklancaster]

Speaking purely from a personal POV; I believe that I could live with physical illness no matter how much pain I was in, until a 'natural' end came, but if the day ever came (God forbid it) that my brain degenerated - dementia, whatever - then I would NOT want to exist in such a condition, and would desire an 'assisted' end.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Cherie

There are some very compelling arguments on both sides, I'm really torn on it, people have been given 6 months to live and gone on relatively pain free for years so a one size fits all approach is not the answer either.

..yeah and I think that it being illegal makes it a one size fits all, Cherie.. except it isn't even just that though because it's legal in other countries so people would have to fund that/be able to afford to end their pain/suffering...and their families would have to be able to take time away from work etc/be granted that leave and be able to afford it etc to be with their loved one through the process...so therefore making it an 'elitist' thing to be able to end suffering, which it basically is now...

[joeysteele]

I respect all the views on this issue,there are compelling arguments both for and against it.

However, had I been able to vote on this issue yesterday,I would have voted against it.
I just feel it would probably be too easy to get the permission for same.

I would hate to see economics and cost of treatments and cost of time, ever being 'secretly' the real reason some people hade their lives terminated.
I can see both sides totally but the people who get in power,driven by profit and economics,then the way the NHS and Doctors can 'appear' to be at times in this modern age,I feel at present, never enough safeguards could be 100% for sure, put in place as to assisting a death.

So on balance, I am pleased this failed again yesterday.

[billy123]

Reading the first page of this thread you would think anyone could just rock up at A&E and collect their free shot of poison.
Yes it should be made legal but of course it has to come with very strict guidlines and used in a tiny minority of people at the end of their lives that have no prospect other than agonising pain,certain death and no prospect of any quality of life left.

Maybe this proposition didnt cover enough bases to make it feasible but it certainly wasnt some easy out for anybody that wanted it. I hope they go back to the drawing board and come up with a viable solution because there is no doubt that this would be a much better,respectable and humane option for some people.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Reading the first page of this thread you would think anyone could just rock up at A&E and collect their free shot of poison.
Yes it should be made legal but of course it has to come with very strict guidlines and used in a tiny minority of people at the end of their lives that have no prospect other than agonising pain,certain death and no prospect of any quality of life left.

Maybe this proposition didnt cover enough bases to make it feasible but it certainly wasnt some easy out for anybody that wanted it. I hope they go back to the drawing board and come up with a viable solution because there is no doubt that this would be a much better,respectable and humane option for some people.

why do you ignore the fact 1000s , tens of thousands are already neglected or abused in nhs hospitals already, causing tens of thousands of avoidable premature deaths, especially on weekends....25 000 died from undiagnosed blood clots per year in uk hospitals...why aren't you saying anything about that? what about the tens of thousands of additional deaths and the mass of abuses and growth of suicide culture in the countries where assisted suicide has been legalised? where is your compassion for these tens of thousands of neglected / abused people who have died because of this insane legislation?
I ask this of all people who want to legalise assisted suicide? where is your compassion for the mass of people neglected or abused?

[Kizzy]

It would be something that the state either had to manage or regulate and let's face it they're trying to offload as much as poss atm so this has no chance.