Yes. The law is as bad as the abortion laws in Ireland.
Agree with the BIB. I can't believe a woman is forced by law to have a child she is either unable to have or simply doesn't want, ensuring the child is brought into the world where they're basically not wanted!
But going back on topic........
I think this subject should basically be a nonstarter......The fact that we have to carry on living despite repeated requests to let ourselves die should our life become something too terrible to contemplate, only because someone up in parliament has decided this, really makes me feel sick.
I think that if and when it ever happens, if my Mum or Dad are in a position where they're unable or they just don't want to carry on living anymore, and they need my help, then most definitely I will help them regardless of what Law is changed etc.
In principle, I'm all for allowing people with terminal conditions etc to have the option to end their lives with dignity, either through express choice or a 'living will' (a 'DNR' with conditions in effect)
I had to vote other because I have no idea how you would write this into law in such a way that prevents abuse and misapplication of the law.
I'm with you there. It is hard to see how you can put in the right safeguards to stop relatives abusing the process through either mis-guided belief of what is best for someone or with inheritance motives at the back of their mind.
I've come round to Yes. Especially as people 'live' longer, I've seen many people reduced to being an inanimate shell for many years, with family obliged to come and sit by their bedside for a few hours a week.
If I ever got a terminal disease, like MND or something, that was going to end up with a protracted and unpleasant end for all concerned, I would prefer to go out at a 'not too bad' point than force my family to watch all the unpleasantness to come.
I think it would be a mark of a truly modern society to have this. The only problem is accepting it as a society, ensuring 100% it's not misused, and not having it a long expensive process with heavy paperwork.
The thing is you cant. Its the same argument as the death penalty. You cant guarantee no innocent person will be put to death and with euthanasia you cant guarantee vulnerable people wont be put to death. Thats why doctors have voted and dont want the change in the law. What you can do is commit suicide. It is against the law to assist suicide but people are prosecuted under that law if the person does not have capacity or there is financial gain by the person who assists etc:
It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically follow where the evidential stage of the Full Code Test is satisfied. This was recognised by the House of Lords in the Purdy case where Lord Hope stated that: "t has long been recognised that a prosecution does not follow automatically whenever an offence is believed to have been committed" (paragraph 44). He went on to endorse the approach adopted by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General in 1951, when he stated in the House of Commons that: "t has never been the rule... that criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution".
Accordingly, where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
In cases of encouraging or assisting suicide, prosecutors must apply the public interest factors set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the factors set out in this policy in making their decisions. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour.
A prosecution is more likely to be required if:
the victim was under 18 years of age;
the victim did not have the capacity (as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to reach an informed decision to commit suicide;
the victim had not reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide;
the victim had not clearly and unequivocally communicated his or her decision to commit suicide to the suspect;
the victim did not seek the encouragement or assistance of the suspect personally or on his or her own initiative;
the suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim;
the suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide;
the suspect did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person had not pressured the victim to commit suicide;
the suspect had a history of violence or abuse against the victim;
the victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance him or herself;
the suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication;
the suspect gave encouragement or assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other;
the suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for his or her encouragement or assistance;
the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer [whether for payment or not], or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care; [1]
the suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present;
the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a person involved in the management or as an employee (whether for payment or not) of an organisation or group, a purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.
A prosecution is less likely to be required if:
the victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide;
the suspect was wholly motivated by compassion;
the actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the offence, were of only minor encouragement or assistance;
the suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide;
the actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide;
the suspect reported the victim's suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.
I reached the same decision - that people should be able to choose , after watching my mum go blind , incontinent , and cut off from the world with dementia .
I joined Dying With Dignity and wrote to my M.P. He wrote back saying - no people should be prosecuted and there just needs to be more hospice care >:( How would that have helped my mum ? she never wanted to linger for years - regardless of a care home bed or a hospice bed - neither would have given her the relief she wanted because it's currently (as the MP kept repeating ) a crime !
The thing is you cant. Its the same argument as the death penalty. You cant guarantee no innocent person will be put to death and with euthanasia you cant guarantee vulnerable people wont be put to death. Thats why doctors have voted and dont want the change in the law. What you can do is commit suicide. It is against the law to assist suicide but people are prosecuted under that law if the person does not have capacity or there is financial gain by the person who assists etc:
How? It's not easy to kill yourself and most suicide attempts fail. Often leaving the person in a far worse state. Why should anyone have to take that risk?
I agree that if someone has no quality of life, e.g. is in terrible, chronic pain which will never get better, or has a terminal illness and they are suffering, they should be allowed to die. it seems cruel to prolong their pain in many cases, but Gill Pharaoh was not one of these cases. In cases like hers, how easy would it be to kill someone off for their money or property for example by egging them on to think they would be better off dead?
It should be down to me and nobody else. If the time comes and I can't function on my own and I have no quality of life then I want to go. Same goes for if the worst happens and I end up paralysed and confined to a wheel chair unable to feed, dress or wash myself. To me that is not a life I would want to live, I admire those that do but that's not me.
I agree that if someone has no quality of life, e.g. is in terrible, chronic pain which will never get better, or has a terminal illness and they are suffering, they should be allowed to die. it seems cruel to prolong their pain in many cases, but Gill Pharaoh was not one of these cases. In cases like hers, how easy would it be to kill someone off for their money or property for example by egging them on to think they would be better off dead?
I don't agree with you about Gill Pharaoh. She was becoming increasingly frail and had lost the ability to do many normals things. She made a very realistic, informed decision, given her age and awareness of the realities. Ageing in itself is a degenerative terminal illness, for some people faster than others. Only the individual knows there own limits and fears. I see it as one of the most fundamental and important human rights, which is being denied.
The amended UK Assisted Dying Bill will depend on a Judge's decision and only apply to terminally ill patients with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. That person has to be of sound mind to make the decision and the ability to administer the medicine themselves.
Nov. 2014. http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/dignity-news/breakthrough-assisted-dying-debate/
This afternoon, Peers in the House of Lords have unanimously accepted an amendment to the Assisted Dying Bill, tabled by Lord Pannick and supported by Lord Falconer, which introduces the safeguard of judicial oversight.
The amendment would require a judge in the family division of the High Court to confirm that a terminally ill patient, with less than six months to live, has reached “a voluntary, clear, settled and informed” decision to control the time and manner of their death. This amendment was preferred to a more onerous model of judicial oversight, which would have required a judge to reach a decision on whether a patient’s request was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was tabled by Lord Carlile, who has long opposed a change in the law. Lady Mallalieu, who co-signed Lord Pannick’s accepted amendment, described Lord Carlile’s proposal as a “legalistic and bureaucratic obstacle race for dying people”.
Sarah Wootton, Chief Executive of Dignity in Dying, said:
“Today in the House of Lords we are seeing a battle between those who are seeking a constructive way forward, and those who, rather than identifying appropriate safeguards, are seeking to place barriers in the way of dying people having control over their death. Whether the law should change seems to have been settled, it is about how the law changes.
I voted yes. I'm a former nurse who cared for many terminally ill patients, and I believe some of them would have welcomed that option. I was asked sometimes to 'give them something' to end it and of course I had to explain that I couldn't do that.
Having said that, it would have to be a very carefully thought out law, because no one should ever feel pressurised to end their own life, either by relatives or health care professionals.
I voted yes. I'm a former nurse who cared for many terminally ill patients, and I believe some of them would have welcomed that option. I was asked sometimes to 'give them something' to end it and of course I had to explain that I couldn't do that.
Having said that, it would have to be a very carefully thought out law, because no one should ever feel pressurised to end their own life, either by relatives or health care professionals.
no thats not euthanasia surely..if someone is trying to talk someone into it.. its up to the person who wants to die..
I voted yes. I'm a former nurse who cared for many terminally ill patients, and I believe some of them would have welcomed that option. I was asked sometimes to 'give them something' to end it and of course I had to explain that I couldn't do that.
Having said that, it would have to be a very carefully thought out law, because no one should ever feel pressurised to end their own life, either by relatives or health care professionals.
Assisted Dying Bill.
I'd be interested in your thoughts, if you have the time.
Yes , we kill them out of compassion because we don't want their suffering to continue .Yet any old state we are in which may drag on for years - we have to put up with it as do gooders believe we should.
We are living longer and longer.Medical science has outstripped evolution.No wonder care homes are a boom industry.
We treat our ill pets better than ourselves.
So many cases in the news recently.People being tortured within their non functioning mind/ body.
Religious and moral arguements come into play.
Do you think it's time to change the rules regarding the right to die with dignity?.
Why do you assume the only way to die with dignity is to change the law?
Many people die with great dignity, in their own homes surrounded by their loved one's. As a district nurse I myself have witnessed many.
Of course not everyone has a 'good death'.However, to assume the only alternative is to change the law is wholly inaccurate and does not reflect the reality for some.
I voted yes. I'm a former nurse who cared for many terminally ill patients, and I believe some of them would have welcomed that option. I was asked sometimes to 'give them something' to end it and of course I had to explain that I couldn't do that.
Having said that, it would have to be a very carefully thought out law, because no one should ever feel pressurised to end their own life, either by relatives or health care professionals.
As a district nurse who cares for those dying at home I quite agree some people would welcome this option. I have been asked by both patients and relatives to ' give them something' to end it (and change their minds the following day).
However, the enormous responsibility on those who have to administer a dose 'of something' (for many cannot do it themselves) is horrendous and not one health professionals should have to face.
Yes I'm a firm believer in this. I knew a man who was 47 but had a debilitating disease, he used to beg his wife that when he couldn't feed himself or talk, started going blind could she please put a pillow over his head as he would hate to be trapped inside not being able to communicate and the frustration would make him wish he was dead.
She had been running marathons, bake sales, carboot sales everything she could to raise money to take him abroad but he died just before christmas last year. I feel the same as him, I wouldn't want to live trapped inside like that and I believe it should be everyones right (over the age of 21) to die with dignity.
However, the enormous responsibility on those who have to administer a dose 'of something' (for many cannot do it themselves) is horrendous and not one health professionals should have to face.
This is fair enough but it doesn't have to be a health professional. Probably the best way to go is a nitrogen tent and that doesn't need expert ability just someone with enough compassion and no ethical problems with the procedure.
However, the enormous responsibility on those who have to administer a dose 'of something' (for many cannot do it themselves) is horrendous and not one health professionals should have to face.
I think that should be up to personal choice much like participating in abortion is. Some health professionals would see it as an enormous responsibility on themselves and others as an enormous good that they can do for their patients
As a district nurse who cares for those dying at home I quite agree some people would welcome this option. I have been asked by both patients and relatives to ' give them something' to end it (and change their minds the following day).
However, the enormous responsibility on those who have to administer a dose 'of something' (for many cannot do it themselves) is horrendous and not one health professionals should have to face.
In Switzerland no-one administers the medicine, sodium pentothal, but the person themselves. They have to be able to take it themselves followed by an anti emetic, handed to them by a health professional. That is what Dignity in Dying are campaigning for, only for terminally ill patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months to live and with the final decision made by two Doctors and a High Court Judge.
In Switzerland no-one administers the medicine, sodium pentothal, but the person themselves. They have to be able to take it themselves followed by an anti emetic, handed to them by a health professional. That is what Dignity in Dying are campaigning for, only for terminally ill patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months to live and with the final decision made by two Doctors and a High Court Judge.
I am aware of this Anne and although I generally agree with the approach I do have some concerns.
I know this is not what the current campaign is about, but I feel we have to be careful about starting a 'slippery slope'. What about those who are unable to take the medication themselves? They don't have a choice and I do not feel the responsibility to end lives should be placed on health professionals. It's not about compassion it's about control and the possible destruction of trust. It's such a difficult area as anybody knows who has had the privilege of caring for the dying and their loved one's.
I also feel we should be looking more about improving care for the dying while they are alive - for not everyone who is dying wants to go via the Dignitas route. As others have said it is about choice.
However, I also have a problem with a 'less than six month to live' prognosis. The times frames are simply a guide and for many are wholly inaccurate. Some people will die within this time frame others will not. My own mother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in April 1989 and was given a 12 month prognosis. She actually died in July 1993 only taking to her bed a week before she died.
I have seen many others who have survived with a good or reasonable quality of life months and even years after the initial time frame given. We simply do not know and cannot predict very well when death is likely to occur.
I am not saying I am against it I simply see lots of issues which need to be clarified first.
Comments
Agree with the BIB. I can't believe a woman is forced by law to have a child she is either unable to have or simply doesn't want, ensuring the child is brought into the world where they're basically not wanted!
But going back on topic........
I think this subject should basically be a nonstarter......The fact that we have to carry on living despite repeated requests to let ourselves die should our life become something too terrible to contemplate, only because someone up in parliament has decided this, really makes me feel sick.
I think that if and when it ever happens, if my Mum or Dad are in a position where they're unable or they just don't want to carry on living anymore, and they need my help, then most definitely I will help them regardless of what Law is changed etc.
If I ever got a terminal disease, like MND or something, that was going to end up with a protracted and unpleasant end for all concerned, I would prefer to go out at a 'not too bad' point than force my family to watch all the unpleasantness to come.
The thing is you cant. Its the same argument as the death penalty. You cant guarantee no innocent person will be put to death and with euthanasia you cant guarantee vulnerable people wont be put to death. Thats why doctors have voted and dont want the change in the law. What you can do is commit suicide. It is against the law to assist suicide but people are prosecuted under that law if the person does not have capacity or there is financial gain by the person who assists etc:
People should be able to choose.
I joined Dying With Dignity and wrote to my M.P. He wrote back saying - no people should be prosecuted and there just needs to be more hospice care >:( How would that have helped my mum ? she never wanted to linger for years - regardless of a care home bed or a hospice bed - neither would have given her the relief she wanted because it's currently (as the MP kept repeating ) a crime !
How? It's not easy to kill yourself and most suicide attempts fail. Often leaving the person in a far worse state. Why should anyone have to take that risk?
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics
I don't agree with you about Gill Pharaoh. She was becoming increasingly frail and had lost the ability to do many normals things. She made a very realistic, informed decision, given her age and awareness of the realities. Ageing in itself is a degenerative terminal illness, for some people faster than others. Only the individual knows there own limits and fears. I see it as one of the most fundamental and important human rights, which is being denied.
The amended UK Assisted Dying Bill will depend on a Judge's decision and only apply to terminally ill patients with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. That person has to be of sound mind to make the decision and the ability to administer the medicine themselves.
Nov. 2014.
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/dignity-news/breakthrough-assisted-dying-debate/
The second reading is on 11th Sept.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/assisteddyingno2.html
Having said that, it would have to be a very carefully thought out law, because no one should ever feel pressurised to end their own life, either by relatives or health care professionals.
No we don't. We kill them.
Exactly. But someone could be pressurised into presenting it as their own choice.
Assisted Dying Bill.
I'd be interested in your thoughts, if you have the time.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0006/lbill_2014-20150006_en_1.htm
Yes , we kill them out of compassion because we don't want their suffering to continue .Yet any old state we are in which may drag on for years - we have to put up with it as do gooders believe we should.
Why do you assume the only way to die with dignity is to change the law?
Many people die with great dignity, in their own homes surrounded by their loved one's. As a district nurse I myself have witnessed many.
Of course not everyone has a 'good death'.However, to assume the only alternative is to change the law is wholly inaccurate and does not reflect the reality for some.
As a district nurse who cares for those dying at home I quite agree some people would welcome this option. I have been asked by both patients and relatives to ' give them something' to end it (and change their minds the following day).
However, the enormous responsibility on those who have to administer a dose 'of something' (for many cannot do it themselves) is horrendous and not one health professionals should have to face.
She had been running marathons, bake sales, carboot sales everything she could to raise money to take him abroad but he died just before christmas last year. I feel the same as him, I wouldn't want to live trapped inside like that and I believe it should be everyones right (over the age of 21) to die with dignity.
This is fair enough but it doesn't have to be a health professional. Probably the best way to go is a nitrogen tent and that doesn't need expert ability just someone with enough compassion and no ethical problems with the procedure.
I think that should be up to personal choice much like participating in abortion is. Some health professionals would see it as an enormous responsibility on themselves and others as an enormous good that they can do for their patients
In Switzerland no-one administers the medicine, sodium pentothal, but the person themselves. They have to be able to take it themselves followed by an anti emetic, handed to them by a health professional. That is what Dignity in Dying are campaigning for, only for terminally ill patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months to live and with the final decision made by two Doctors and a High Court Judge.
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/safeguards/
I am aware of this Anne and although I generally agree with the approach I do have some concerns.
I know this is not what the current campaign is about, but I feel we have to be careful about starting a 'slippery slope'. What about those who are unable to take the medication themselves? They don't have a choice and I do not feel the responsibility to end lives should be placed on health professionals. It's not about compassion it's about control and the possible destruction of trust. It's such a difficult area as anybody knows who has had the privilege of caring for the dying and their loved one's.
I also feel we should be looking more about improving care for the dying while they are alive - for not everyone who is dying wants to go via the Dignitas route. As others have said it is about choice.
However, I also have a problem with a 'less than six month to live' prognosis. The times frames are simply a guide and for many are wholly inaccurate. Some people will die within this time frame others will not. My own mother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in April 1989 and was given a 12 month prognosis. She actually died in July 1993 only taking to her bed a week before she died.
I have seen many others who have survived with a good or reasonable quality of life months and even years after the initial time frame given. We simply do not know and cannot predict very well when death is likely to occur.
I am not saying I am against it I simply see lots of issues which need to be clarified first.