Assisted dying bill

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Forgive me for using your situation to make a point. But, you are a religious person are you not? Do you think that your Religious beliefs are what is influencing your opinion on this matter?

It must be so much easier to form an opinion on this when you are not religious. It's such a Black/White issue to me.

Yes I am 'religious' - I have a christian belief and a faith. So yes I wondered how much my thoughts were reflections on biblical teachings and my beliefs - but to be honest they didn't really figure that much - though my beliefs are certainly helping help me cope with the situation as I find it today and how it might be in 6months time. I hope my mum's are helping her likewise.

But as you say - my mum has gone downhill very rapidly in the last 5weeks and only now seems to have been stabilised by the steroids. But I know that the very significant loss of cognitive function she has suffered is irreversible - and can only through time worsen. That is why I mentioned that my view is that of today and based upon what my mum has said about being a burden on us. I can well imagine it changing in the coming months, but I prefer to not go there at the moment.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Interesting reading through the various posts on here. We've all had family and relatives who have had a terminal illness and watched in despair as their condition worsened and awaited the end game and welcomed it with relief. I wonder how we would feel if it was our own self who was in the position of the patient ?

Eighteen months ago I had a fairly innocuous fall which over a period of 36 hours caused almost total paralysis from the neck down. Emergency surgery was required to "try to give me some beneficial use of my hands". Had the damage been one vertebrae higher, I'd most likely have stopped breathing by myself, it was really that serious. Anyway, a successful operation actually gave me a far better chance of recovery than was initially expected. At no time did I give up and want to chuck it all in, either before the op or after it. From my point of view, the fact I survived the surgery meant I'd be okay in the long term. And, to cut a long story short, that is what has happened after lots of hard work by the medical professionals and by myself.

Until we are in a position where we are actually facing down a situation that has life changing consequences for our own selves, we really don't know just how we will think and react. I've been there and based on my own experiences I'm happy with the outcome of the vote this week.

I think this is such an important point. Many pro the legislation quoted 'the opinion of the public being overwhelmingly in favour'. But how can the public actually know? And so in my view 'public opinion' on this matter would not have been a good basis for the legislation being passed.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I think there's are a number of facets to this. But, ultimately, without wishing to dissect things to the nth degree like protection of the terminally ill, are they in a fit state to make a decision etc, I feel there should be one overriding factor. That it should be the choice of the individual that is terminally ill. Someone may be virtually taking their last breath but want to live, whilst another might appear reasonably fit but have a diagnosis/prognosis that isn't good. If "we" take that choice from them and terminate them, "we" are murdering them. Equally, if "we" keep them alive, leaving them in horrendous pain, suffering and taking away their dignity "we" are subjecting them to the ultimate cruelty.

The choice to terminate life should never, ever reside with a clinician, judge nor anyone other than the person choosing death. Yes, the clinician will and should inform the individual on how the disease/condition with progress and how the body will deteriorate but they should never tell that person they should terminate their life. Nor should the right to have that wish changed reside with a family member. We all wish our relatives will live forever but sometimes we have to put our wishes to one side and respect those made by the terminally ill relative.

All of the above is just my opinion.

Whatever choice one person feels is right, another might want the opposite. There's no wrong opinion in this, and the ultimate decision, either way, should be the choice of the person that is suffering.

Another excellent post.

Interesting reading through the various posts on here. We've all had family and relatives who have had a terminal illness and watched in despair as their condition worsened and awaited the end game and welcomed it with relief. I wonder how we would feel if it was our own self who was in the position of the patient ?

Eighteen months ago I had a fairly innocuous fall which over a period of 36 hours caused almost total paralysis from the neck down. Emergency surgery was required to "try to give me some beneficial use of my hands". Had the damage been one vertebrae higher, I'd most likely have stopped breathing by myself, it was really that serious. Anyway, a successful operation actually gave me a far better chance of recovery than was initially expected. At no time did I give up and want to chuck it all in, either before the op or after it. From my point of view, the fact I survived the surgery meant I'd be okay in the long term. And, to cut a long story short, that is what has happened after lots of hard work by the medical professionals and by myself.

Until we are in a position where we are actually facing down a situation that has life changing consequences for our own selves, we really don't know just how we will think and react. I've been there and based on my own experiences I'm happy with the outcome of the vote this week.

And that is absolutely fine; your choice was to fight it, and no-one should be denied that. However had the vote gone the other way your situation doesn't change as you would have elected not to accept the offer. By the vote going the way it has people will be denied that choice. As Hobbit said, it should be the right of the individual.

As Ricky Gervais said, assisted dying won't increase dying, but it will reduce suffering.

 

[Fyldewhite]

This is a human rights issue, not a religious one. It irritates me whenever this subject is in the news that the "establishment" wheel out the Archbishop of Canterbury or whoever to explain how dangerous this legislation would be despite it working very well in many other countries.

It's a personal choice, one that I am currently denied by the law. If people have either the faith or strength to die a long and painful death then that is their choice. All I want is to have my choice, should I choose to end my own suffering, respected in the same way.

 

[Ethan]

Interesting reading through the various posts on here. We've all had family and relatives who have had a terminal illness and watched in despair as their condition worsened and awaited the end game and welcomed it with relief. I wonder how we would feel if it was our own self who was in the position of the patient ?

Eighteen months ago I had a fairly innocuous fall which over a period of 36 hours caused almost total paralysis from the neck down. Emergency surgery was required to "try to give me some beneficial use of my hands". Had the damage been one vertebrae higher, I'd most likely have stopped breathing by myself, it was really that serious. Anyway, a successful operation actually gave me a far better chance of recovery than was initially expected. At no time did I give up and want to chuck it all in, either before the op or after it. From my point of view, the fact I survived the surgery meant I'd be okay in the long term. And, to cut a long story short, that is what has happened after lots of hard work by the medical professionals and by myself.

Until we are in a position where we are actually facing down a situation that has life changing consequences for our own selves, we really don't know just how we will think and react. I've been there and based on my own experiences I'm happy with the outcome of the vote this week.

Sounds hideous but with all due respect that sort of acute injury is not even close to the type of scenario that is appropriate for assisted dying and no doctor would advocate that. You are right that it is hard to know until you are in the scenario so a large part of the process is about making sure the person knows their options and has capacity.

 

[GB72]

I am currently watching someone go through aggressive early onset dementia. Only in her 50s and whilst she can still remember people she now cannot remember how to switch on a light and is rapidly forgetting normal functions like how to walk. It is frightening and painful to watch this happen to a bright and life loving person. I can only hope that if this ever happened to me in the future somebody would have the guts to vote in a system that would let me go on my own terms when I still could recognise and say goodbye to my loved ones.

 

[craigstardis1976]

This is a subject I have very emotive views on that are hard to admit and even harder to rationalize.

At one point in my life I trusted someone I should never have trusted and lost everything as a result. Here in the USA there is not the safety net there is in the UK and I ended up homeless on the streets for a year. Really the only reason I came through it was the love I have for my dog who I refused to split with.

If I did not have my dog and if there was a legal way of ending my life such was my depression and anxiety I would have found a way out. Had I access to a firearm, I would have terminated my life.

Even though I am on the road back now, there is still a long way to go and the trauma of what happened is something I have to cope with on a daily basis. I apologize if I sound melodramatic...but I do think there has to be a relatively simple way people can end their lives if that is their wish.

Craig.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The bill is about giving people the choice to end their live when faced with a crippling terminal illness. It was about allowing people the choice to stop now instead of suffering with incredible pain for the last couple years of their live

It's not about legalising suicide

Whilst your scenario is very sad and hopefully you are on the up - this bill isn't to cover your scenario

 

[pokerjoke]

I think there's are a number of facets to this. But, ultimately, without wishing to dissect things to the nth degree like protection of the terminally ill, are they in a fit state to make a decision etc, I feel there should be one overriding factor. That it should be the choice of the individual that is terminally ill. Someone may be virtually taking their last breath but want to live, whilst another might appear reasonably fit but have a diagnosis/prognosis that isn't good. If "we" take that choice from them and terminate them, "we" are murdering them. Equally, if "we" keep them alive, leaving them in horrendous pain, suffering and taking away their dignity "we" are subjecting them to the ultimate cruelty.

The choice to terminate life should never, ever reside with a clinician, judge nor anyone other than the person choosing death. Yes, the clinician will and should inform the individual on how the disease/condition with progress and how the body will deteriorate but they should never tell that person they should terminate their life. Nor should the right to have that wish changed reside with a family member. We all wish our relatives will live forever but sometimes we have to put our wishes to one side and respect those made by the terminally ill relative.

All of the above is just my opinion.

Whatever choice one person feels is right, another might want the opposite. There's no wrong opinion in this, and the ultimate decision, either way, should be the choice of the person that is suffering.

I totally disagree with you last paragraph.

What if the person suffering cant make that decision due to their illness but others could do the right thing and end their life to end the suffering.

 

[Hobbit]

I totally disagree with you last paragraph.

What if the person suffering cant make that decision due to their illness but others could do the right thing and end their life to end the suffering.

I think that's for wiser people than me Tony. There will be someone who understands the issues way better than me. Although anecdotal, I know someone whose brother had a stroke a few months back. The only way he can communicate is via vertical eye movement. How do you phrase the question to someone like that, and how do you know he understands the question fully? I know my father-in-law, after his stroke, had days when he was very vague. And in the early months after his stroke he was a mess.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think that's for wiser people than me Tony. There will be someone who understands the issues way better than me. Although anecdotal, I know someone whose brother had a stroke a few months back. The only way he can communicate is via vertical eye movement. How do you phrase the question to someone like that, and how do you know he understands the question fully? I know my father-in-law, after his stroke, had days when he was very vague. And in the early months after his stroke he was a mess.

I so now know what you mean. A few weeks ago I wouldn't really.

 

[pokerjoke]

I think that's for wiser people than me Tony. There will be someone who understands the issues way better than me. Although anecdotal, I know someone whose brother had a stroke a few months back. The only way he can communicate is via vertical eye movement. How do you phrase the question to someone like that, and how do you know he understands the question fully? I know my father-in-law, after his stroke, had days when he was very vague. And in the early months after his stroke he was a mess.

Yes mate its a bloody tough one.

 

[Tashyboy]

Asked Missis T re this one, and she said how can you have one rule fits all. Not quite that simple. For some yes, others ?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Asked Missis T re this one, and she said how can you have one rule fits all. Not quite that simple. For some yes, others ?

No one is suggesting you can, but you could have had a rule that helps some, which would be a step forward in my opinion. Unfortunately the "honourable members" denied us even that.

 

[Tashyboy]

No one is suggesting you can, but you could have had a rule that helps some, which would be a step forward in my opinion. Unfortunately the "honourable members" denied us even that.

Exactly and I think that's what Missis T was trying to say. Wonder where our "honourable members " get there opinions/ information from when it comes to voting.

 

[Jacko_G]

Exactly and I think that's what Missis T was trying to say. Wonder where our "honourable members " get there opinions/ information from when it comes to voting.

They're pockets!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

They're pockets!

Are you suggesting that their views aren't worth tuppence? Because I don't buy into the rather lazy assertion that all MPs are in it for the money and have no actual conscience and consideration for the views and needs of their constituents and the general weel. You might scoff (as many do) but I just don't buy it. I am prepared to accept that they gave the matter full and proper consideration, and that each reached their own conclusion in the own way - seeking and getting all the advice and information they asked for and needed to come to an informed decision.

 

[freddielong]

I would guess the problem with this is always going to be how do you make it watertight so that it doesn't become a way to legally murder someone. I would hope it wasn't rejected on any other grounds.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Well I'm currently sitting in the middle of the dilemma that is at the core of the debate with my mum - it is terrible and I honestly could not say what I think would be the best thing for her. My emotions are such that it can change day-to-day - sometimes from morning to afternoon. What my mum actually feels about the future I really don't know - she certainly is in despair over her predicament. But is that reason enough - I really don't know.

And so I maybe can ask - how can anyone who has not been in the situation really understand - and so do they have any right to make a decision that results in a change in the law? Pass.