|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 28, 2024 12:40:16 GMT
Im not scared of dying but im scared of a long drawn out death from somthing horrible, being in constant pain, watching my family suffer
the law needs to be introduced but managed correctly
lots of pros and cons but MPs need to do the right thing
|
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 28, 2024 12:45:34 GMT
Yeah, they should make it a national vote.
I don't agree with it, there are too many flaws and you can guarantee it will lead to people dying unnecessarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc1234 on Nov 28, 2024 12:52:21 GMT
With the right checks and balances I don't see why it shouldn't be introduced. If there is any doubt then the default should be to refuse. I would welcome it. Remember, the main criterion is the 6 months terminal diagnosis. It'll be signed off by two medical professionals. I have a bad feeling people will pull back from voting Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Nov 28, 2024 12:54:42 GMT
My granny has dementia and doesn’t know what day it is whilst the care home hoovers up the equity in her house.
The worry is it being the thin end of a wedge given aging population. Once you’re no longer producing and your assets are gone do they just leave no option other than being fucked off?
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 28, 2024 13:00:34 GMT
its flawed because 6 months isnt long enough if you get early onset dementia and you may never be of sound mind to make a decision so you are fucked
if you get MND you may never know when you have 6 months
Think of how much suffering Chris Hoy has between now and his last 6 months
The law is a start, hopefully once in it can be amended. With the correct checks and balances will eliminate abuse. It needs to be on dignosis of terminal illness to include early dementia, the process will take months anyway.
In the case of dementia and alzheimers i would sign up now allowing my death if i lose my mind
|
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Nov 28, 2024 13:10:50 GMT
its a terrible thing to discuss but very needed
i have no religious conviction against it but i do believe in the sanctity of life but i am all for personal choice
the argument against that has most struck me is the unintentional idea that you are a burden and should end it to save everybody else the bother
i have seen family be left to die in a bed with no food, no water, no meds until they slip away and its not right
nobody is wrong in this debate at all and that makes it even more difficult
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 28, 2024 13:21:12 GMT
Im not scared of dying but im scared of a long drawn out death from somthing horrible, being in constant pain, watching my family suffer the law needs to be introduced but managed correctly lots of pros and cons but MPs need to do the right thing What does MP stand for? Military police, ready with their guns? |
|
|
|
Post by stiggerstackle on Nov 28, 2024 15:48:19 GMT
I really do not know where I stand on this.
I've seen relatives die due to dementia, and my father is currently 'disappearing' before my eyes, and I can imagine circumstances in years to come where I will want the decision to end things in my own terms if needs be.
However, the potential for coercion from families who either don't want the burden of caring for a loved one, or just want their inheritance early will be huge and open to all kinds of abuse, never mind the guilt of the person requiring care and not wanting to be a burden.
I can see both sides, but cannot reconcile with either.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 28, 2024 16:27:30 GMT
I really do not know where I stand on this. I've seen relatives die due to dementia, and my father is currently 'disappearing' before my eyes, and I can imagine circumstances in years to come where I will want the decision to end things in my own terms if needs be. However, the potential for coercion from families who either don't want the burden of caring for a loved one, or just want their inheritance early will be huge and open to all kinds of abuse, never mind the guilt of the person requiring care and not wanting to be a burden. I can see both sides, but cannot reconcile with either. Yes you will get kids telling their parents they are costing too much money to keep alive so why don't they do everyone a favour and just die because living is taking away their inheritance. It won't be that direct but many will be guilt tripped along those lines. I get why some people want the law especially around illness like dementia but for me I'm a fighter and will fight until the end suffering or not. I would rather be experimented on than just give up. Science is incredible and can do amazing things and knowing my luck I would top myself and a miracle drug would come out the next day which would have cured me. I've never believed nothing can't be reversed it just takes one genius to change the world, someone who can see things other people can't and that's how I will always feel about life |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 28, 2024 16:34:33 GMT
I really do not know where I stand on this. I've seen relatives die due to dementia, and my father is currently 'disappearing' before my eyes, and I can imagine circumstances in years to come where I will want the decision to end things in my own terms if needs be. However, the potential for coercion from families who either don't want the burden of caring for a loved one, or just want their inheritance early will be huge and open to all kinds of abuse, never mind the guilt of the person requiring care and not wanting to be a burden. I can see both sides, but cannot reconcile with either. Yes you will get kids telling their parents they are costing too much money to keep alive so why don't they do everyone a favour and just die because living is taking away their inheritance. It won't be that direct but many will be guilt tripped along those lines. I get why some people want the law especially around illness like dementia but for me I'm a fighter and will fight until the end suffering or not. I would rather be experimented on than just give up. Science is incredible and can do amazing things and knowing my luck I would top myself and a miracle drug would come out the next day which would have cured me. I've never believed nothing can't be reversed it just takes one genius to change the world, someone who can see things other people can't and that's how I will always feel about life A glass half full kind of guy 👍 Fair comments. I still wouldn't know which way to vote on it though. I had an abscess a few years back and no pain killer would touch it no matter how strong so I had to wait for 2 or 3 days for some antibiotics to kick in. If I'd have had a gun I'd have been tempted to blow my own brains out the pain was that bad 😬 |
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Nov 28, 2024 16:34:34 GMT
Its about choice. I want that choice to live my life or end it with dignity......
|
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 28, 2024 16:37:47 GMT
Yes you will get kids telling their parents they are costing too much money to keep alive so why don't they do everyone a favour and just die because living is taking away their inheritance. It won't be that direct but many will be guilt tripped along those lines. I get why some people want the law especially around illness like dementia but for me I'm a fighter and will fight until the end suffering or not. I would rather be experimented on than just give up. Science is incredible and can do amazing things and knowing my luck I would top myself and a miracle drug would come out the next day which would have cured me. I've never believed nothing can't be reversed it just takes one genius to change the world, someone who can see things other people can't and that's how I will always feel about life A glass half full kind of guy 👍 Fair comments. I still wouldn't know which way to vote on it though. I had an abscess a few years back and no pain killer would touch it no matter how strong so I had to wait for 2 or 3 days for some antibiotics to kick in. If I'd have had a gun I'd have been tempted to blow my own brains out the pain was that bad 😬 One day it might be legal |
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Nov 28, 2024 16:48:39 GMT
I really do not know where I stand on this. I've seen relatives die due to dementia, and my father is currently 'disappearing' before my eyes, and I can imagine circumstances in years to come where I will want the decision to end things in my own terms if needs be. However, the potential for coercion from families who either don't want the burden of caring for a loved one, or just want their inheritance early will be huge and open to all kinds of abuse, never mind the guilt of the person requiring care and not wanting to be a burden. I can see both sides, but cannot reconcile with either. Yes you will get kids telling their parents they are costing too much money to keep alive so why don't they do everyone a favour and just die because living is taking away their inheritance. It won't be that direct but many will be guilt tripped along those lines. I get why some people want the law especially around illness like dementia but for me I'm a fighter and will fight until the end suffering or not. I would rather be experimented on than just give up. Science is incredible and can do amazing things and knowing my luck I would top myself and a miracle drug would come out the next day which would have cured me. I've never believed nothing can't be reversed it just takes one genius to change the world, someone who can see things other people can't and that's how I will always feel about life Let's see how much of a fighter you are when you've got Dementia and you've been lying un-responsive shitting yourself for 10 years. Its got absolutely fuck all to do with wether you think you are a fighter. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 28, 2024 17:07:08 GMT
My mum had MS and eventually decided she didn’t want treatment again the next time she got a cold. She didn’t want to suffer any more. She got a cold and then pneumonia and she died comfortably, without pain and with dignity, surrounded by her loved ones. You couldn’t ask for a more dignified death. She went to sleep one evening, and she didn’t wake again. I was with her the moment she died in her own bedroom.
She was incredibly lucky. She got to choose to die without more suffering and on her own terms. Others are not so lucky. I fully support the bill and I am confident there will be enough safeguards in place to protect against abuse. But I also understand the views of others who oppose it.
I think it is brilliant that there will be a free vote on it and that is how all decisions in the Commons should be taken in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 28, 2024 17:08:34 GMT
Im not scared of dying but im scared of a long drawn out death from somthing horrible, being in constant pain, watching my family suffer the law needs to be introduced but managed correctly lots of pros and cons but MPs need to do the right thing What does MP stand for? Military police, ready with their guns? Member of Parliament |
|
|
|
Post by supersimonstainrod on Nov 28, 2024 17:30:33 GMT
its flawed because 6 months isnt long enough if you get early onset dementia and you may never be of sound mind to make a decision so you are fucked if you get MND you may never know when you have 6 months Think of how much suffering Chris Hoy has between now and his last 6 months The law is a start, hopefully once in it can be amended. With the correct checks and balances will eliminate abuse. It needs to be on dignosis of terminal illness to include early dementia, the process will take months anyway. In the case of dementia and alzheimers i would sign up now allowing my death if i lose my mind I lost my father to Alzheimers and I'm currently going through the experience again with my mother. It is a tortuous process watching the people which begat you slowly and insidiousy being reduced to the level of helpless,imbecilic children. I've already made the decision that given such a diagnosis in my own case,I'm doing as much of my bucket list as possible and then it's off to Switzerland or Belgium while I'm still mentally and physically capable.It seems an absurdity that no-one from my immediate family would be able to accompany me for fear of becoming an 'accessory to..' In the most advanced stages of his illness my father's existence seemed to consist of pacing up and down tbe corridors of his care home examining objects he'd inspected maybe only 60 seconds ago,but of which he had no recollection,being vulnerable to numerous falls which lead to breaks and hip replacements before eventually becoming bed ridden,incontinence,cramps,pains and infections that he could no longer articulate to carers or Doctors because his language structures were utterly shot and the quotidian threat and fear from perceiving practically everyone as a stranger. I cannot begin to apprehend the potentially maddening,infernal nature of his day to day existence and often wonder whether he was aware of his predicament or blissfully ignorant. I also often wonder for who's benefit did we extend his laboratory rat like existence? His or my mother's and mine because it brought us some succour to have our husband/father still with us? Very occasionally,the gibberish he almost exclusively spoke at this point,would be punctuated with the phrase "if this is living,you can finish me off now...." it always hit me like a thunderbolt. The guilt is always there,lurking,the omnipresent feeling that somehow we failed him,that our hearts would sink when you heard him waking up and that he hadn't just passed peacefully in his sleep. You heave the guilt around until life simply fills your head and heart up with other stuff. But they shoot horses don't they. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 28, 2024 18:08:09 GMT
Its about choice. I want that choice to live my life or end it with dignity...... And there you have it I’m a nutshell. a majority of the UK public supports assisted dying under certain conditions. According to an Ipsos poll conducted in October 2024, two-thirds of UK adults support legalizing assisted dying. The tone of discussions around assisted dying has shifted from concerns about the sanctity of life to a more general acceptance that people should be allowed to choose to end their lives in some circumstances. I don’t think all the MPs have the nous to make this judgement for us. If it’s one of the rare occasions MPs get a free vote maybe it should be one of those occasions when it’s put to the national vote |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 28, 2024 18:15:10 GMT
I agree with it so long as the appropriate safeguarding measures are put in place which is by far the most dubious thing about the whole issue for me
|
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 28, 2024 18:23:42 GMT
It's very strange that we quite happily take it upon ourselves to decide when and where an animal is suffering to the extent that its quality of life is no longer considered 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom, exactly? I'm not aware of any animal ever having asked to be euthanised, yet we deem ourselves quite capable of being qualified to make that decision. Probably quite accurately in most cases too.
Yet, when it comes to humans, who, in contrast to animals, are quite capable of making it clear that their suffering is so great that they'd prefer to end their lives painlessly and with dignity, we take the opposite stance. It's very odd.
I also don't get why people seem to think unscrupulous characters will somehow be able to 'force' the old, the ill and the mentally incapable into a position of effectively killing themselves. There will be a requirement for two independent assessments by doctors, without any relatives present to coerce or pressurise the patient, in order to be satisfied that the patient is competent to make the decision, is free from external pressure and is terminally ill.
In places where this has been introduced already, in most cases they have subsequently gone further and allowed people who are not terminally ill to end their suffering with dignity if they so desire. So it clearly works.
As a final thought, all religious grounds should be totally excluded from the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 28, 2024 18:30:17 GMT
It's very strange that we quite happily take it upon ourselves to decide when and where an animal is suffering to the extent that its quality of life is no longer considered 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom, exactly? I'm not aware of any animal ever having asked to be euthanised, yet we deem ourselves quite capable of being qualified to make that decision. Probably quite accurately in most cases too. Yet, when it comes to humans, who are quite capable of making it clear that their suffering is so great that they'd prefer to end their lives painlessly and with dignity, we take the opposite stance. It's very odd. I also don't get why people seem to think unscrupulous characters will somehow be able to 'force' the old, the ill and the mentally incapable into a position of effectively killing themselves. There will be a requirement for two independent assessments by doctors, without any relatives present to coerce or pressurise the patient, in order to be satisfied that the patient is competent to make the decision, is free from external pressure and is terminally ill. In places where this has been introduced already, in most cases they have subsequently gone further and allowed people who are not terminally ill to end their suffering with dignity if they so desire. So it clearly works. As a final thought, all religious grounds should be totally excluded from the debate. Your last point is 100% on the money and should extend to absolutely every decision. Religious groups should have little to no influence over the government. |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Nov 28, 2024 19:13:56 GMT
its flawed because 6 months isnt long enough if you get early onset dementia and you may never be of sound mind to make a decision so you are fucked if you get MND you may never know when you have 6 months Think of how much suffering Chris Hoy has between now and his last 6 months The law is a start, hopefully once in it can be amended. With the correct checks and balances will eliminate abuse. It needs to be on dignosis of terminal illness to include early dementia, the process will take months anyway. In the case of dementia and alzheimers i would sign up now allowing my death if i lose my mind I lost my father to Alzheimers and I'm currently going through the experience again with my mother. It is a tortuous process watching the people which begat you slowly and insidiousy being reduced to the level of helpless,imbecilic children. I've already made the decision that given such a diagnosis in my own case,I'm doing as much of my bucket list as possible and then it's off to Switzerland or Belgium while I'm still mentally and physically capable.It seems an absurdity that no-one from my immediate family would be able to accompany me for fear of becoming an 'accessory to..' In the most advanced stages of his illness my father's existence seemed to consist of pacing up and down tbe corridors of his care home examining objects he'd inspected maybe only 60 seconds ago,but of which he had no recollection,being vulnerable to numerous falls which lead to breaks and hip replacements before eventually becoming bed ridden,incontinence,cramps,pains and infections that he could no longer articulate to carers or Doctors because his language structures were utterly shot and the quotidian threat and fear from perceiving practically everyone as a stranger. I cannot begin to apprehend the potentially maddening,infernal nature of his day to day existence and often wonder whether he was aware of his predicament or blissfully ignorant. I also often wonder for who's benefit did we extended his laboratory rat like existence? His or my mother's and mine because it brought us some succour to have our husband/father still with us. Very occasionally,the gibberish he almost exclusively spoke at this point,would be punctuated with the phrase "if this is living,you can finish me off now...." it always hit me like a thunderbolt. The guilt is always there,lurking,the omnipresent feeling that somehow we failed him,that our hearts would sink when you heard him waking up and that he hadn't just passed peacefully in his sleep. You heave the guilt around until life simply fills your head and heart up with other stuff. But they shoot horses don't they. A remarkable post . |
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 28, 2024 19:33:14 GMT
It's very strange that we quite happily take it upon ourselves to decide when and where an animal is suffering to the extent that its quality of life is no longer considered 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom, exactly? I'm not aware of any animal ever having asked to be euthanised, yet we deem ourselves quite capable of being qualified to make that decision. Probably quite accurately in most cases too. Yet, when it comes to humans, who are quite capable of making it clear that their suffering is so great that they'd prefer to end their lives painlessly and with dignity, we take the opposite stance. It's very odd. I also don't get why people seem to think unscrupulous characters will somehow be able to 'force' the old, the ill and the mentally incapable into a position of effectively killing themselves. There will be a requirement for two independent assessments by doctors, without any relatives present to coerce or pressurise the patient, in order to be satisfied that the patient is competent to make the decision, is free from external pressure and is terminally ill. In places where this has been introduced already, in most cases they have subsequently gone further and allowed people who are not terminally ill to end their suffering with dignity if they so desire. So it clearly works. As a final thought, all religious grounds should be totally excluded from the debate. So you would exclude a group you disagree with from the debate, democracy in action! Once you go down that route which would be the next group to be excluded? This is a one way street to a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 28, 2024 21:49:52 GMT
It's very strange that we quite happily take it upon ourselves to decide when and where an animal is suffering to the extent that its quality of life is no longer considered 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom, exactly? I'm not aware of any animal ever having asked to be euthanised, yet we deem ourselves quite capable of being qualified to make that decision. Probably quite accurately in most cases too. Yet, when it comes to humans, who are quite capable of making it clear that their suffering is so great that they'd prefer to end their lives painlessly and with dignity, we take the opposite stance. It's very odd. I also don't get why people seem to think unscrupulous characters will somehow be able to 'force' the old, the ill and the mentally incapable into a position of effectively killing themselves. There will be a requirement for two independent assessments by doctors, without any relatives present to coerce or pressurise the patient, in order to be satisfied that the patient is competent to make the decision, is free from external pressure and is terminally ill. In places where this has been introduced already, in most cases they have subsequently gone further and allowed people who are not terminally ill to end their suffering with dignity if they so desire. So it clearly works. As a final thought, all religious grounds should be totally excluded from the debate. So you would exclude a group you disagree with from the debate, democracy in action! Once you go down that route which would be the next group to be excluded? This is a one way street to a dictatorship. Religion cannot trump logic. It's not the middle ages. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 28, 2024 21:54:31 GMT
Anyone who’s watched a parent suffer with Dementia right until their death would surely vote for it in my opinion🤔But I suppose it’s an individual thing
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 28, 2024 21:57:50 GMT
I really do not know where I stand on this. I've seen relatives die due to dementia, and my father is currently 'disappearing' before my eyes, and I can imagine circumstances in years to come where I will want the decision to end things in my own terms if needs be. However, the potential for coercion from families who either don't want the burden of caring for a loved one, or just want their inheritance early will be huge and open to all kinds of abuse, never mind the guilt of the person requiring care and not wanting to be a burden. I can see both sides, but cannot reconcile with either. Completely agree mate with that. I think if the time came where I felt the need to die that I'd be comfortable enough to find the means for myself to do it without needing a NHS. It's a difficult one when you think of cases like dementia. But then like someone else said does thst mean when we no longer have any productivity worth to the state that they'll just give us shit treatment till we decide to kill ourselves. It's the opposite of NHS investment or trying to find cures to treat people. Great way to show some nice bar graphs of waiting lists going down when a load of people who maybe could be treated but are getting subpar care just decide to kill themselves to end the pain. A sign of the state of the country right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 28, 2024 21:57:56 GMT
It's very strange that we quite happily take it upon ourselves to decide when and where an animal is suffering to the extent that its quality of life is no longer considered 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom, exactly? I'm not aware of any animal ever having asked to be euthanised, yet we deem ourselves quite capable of being qualified to make that decision. Probably quite accurately in most cases too. Yet, when it comes to humans, who are quite capable of making it clear that their suffering is so great that they'd prefer to end their lives painlessly and with dignity, we take the opposite stance. It's very odd. I also don't get why people seem to think unscrupulous characters will somehow be able to 'force' the old, the ill and the mentally incapable into a position of effectively killing themselves. There will be a requirement for two independent assessments by doctors, without any relatives present to coerce or pressurise the patient, in order to be satisfied that the patient is competent to make the decision, is free from external pressure and is terminally ill. In places where this has been introduced already, in most cases they have subsequently gone further and allowed people who are not terminally ill to end their suffering with dignity if they so desire. So it clearly works. As a final thought, all religious grounds should be totally excluded from the debate. So you would exclude a group you disagree with from the debate, democracy in action! Once you go down that route which would be the next group to be excluded? This is a one way street to a dictatorship. I didn't say that. I said religious grounds should be excluded. In other words, any argument at any time about any subject, including the one in this thread, that relies heavily on "what God wants" or what's written in a special book or what a collection of people choose to believe in without much, if any, tangible evidence should be excluded from any rational decision-making. I'm perfectly happy for any religious person or group to say what they like, but as soon as they come out with anything approaching the above, it would be better if those utterances were not taken seriously as part of law-making or any other consequential impact on society. Sadly, that probably won't be the case and far too much credence (and credibility) will, once again, be given to those kind of views. History has demonstrated many times over that a theocratic approach to law-making and governance in general is a very, very bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by longdistancekiddie on Nov 29, 2024 1:52:37 GMT
After the covid shite who would trust the medical so called profession and the government,
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 29, 2024 3:58:52 GMT
It really comes down to a case of will you be prosecuted for assisting someone's death. The deceased can hardly be prosecuted
There have been numerous cases where people have assisted death but CPS have declined to prosecute, although its illegal
I know its an ambiguity but I see no reason to change the law as it stands.
Personally if confronted with a prognosis of inevitable death preceeded by extreme pain, if in a position to do so, I'd take steps to prematurely intervene, or if incapacitated be comfortable on relying on someone to assist.
As far as I'm concerned the State has no business in legislating on one of life's two inevitabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 29, 2024 8:25:31 GMT
It really comes down to a case of will you be prosecuted for assisting someone's death. The deceased can hardly be prosecuted There have been numerous cases where people have assisted death but CPS have declined to prosecute, although its illegal I know its an ambiguity but I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Personally if confronted with a prognosis of inevitable death preceeded by extreme pain, if in a position to do so, I'd take steps to prematurely intervene, or if incapacitated be comfortable on relying on someone to assist. As far as I'm concerned the State has no business in legislating on one of life's two inevitabilities. Isn't a significant part of this new law, if it goes ahead, to remove that ambiguity about what happens if you help someone to die? In other words, to have it all above board and transparent and to remove the risk and worry that a dying person inevitably feels for their loved one who may face prosecution if they help them. That, in itself, will be a massive comfort to the terminally ill. I'd rather that than a reliance on the CPS to decide someone's fate. Moreover, that CPS doesn't prosecute in many cases is a tacit acceptance of how it works already, even without the additional checks and balances that this law will impose. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 29, 2024 9:21:08 GMT
It really comes down to a case of will you be prosecuted for assisting someone's death. The deceased can hardly be prosecuted There have been numerous cases where people have assisted death but CPS have declined to prosecute, although its illegal I know its an ambiguity but I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Personally if confronted with a prognosis of inevitable death preceeded by extreme pain, if in a position to do so, I'd take steps to prematurely intervene, or if incapacitated be comfortable on relying on someone to assist. As far as I'm concerned the State has no business in legislating on one of life's two inevitabilities. in addition, why should I have to travel in Switzerland in secret, I should be able to go to a nice facility in the UK. Also I believe the bill is for England and Wales - It should be outside of devolution. |
|
