Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Lizzie Mintdrop

VIP Member
I completely agree with you. I don't see why physical illness and mental illness should be treated differently, isn't that what people with mental illness keep saying?
If you've gone through treatment for whatever mental or physical illness and nothing is or can help your suffering stop whichever it may be and you don't want to live anymore then why isn't euthanasia a valid way to 'treat' you and end suffering.
As others said we can euthanase our animals to end their suffering, at least we'd have a saying what happened to ourselves. Obviously the mental health side would be harder to decide and less ethical? Which imo is true for the animal side of things as well with behavioural euthanasia being less accepted but I think it's something that happens less than it should and that some animals live an unhappy life as they are too stressed/aggressive to live a normally happy life but us humans want to help and since they are physically well wouldn't want to euthanase
Yes, the way I see it is, we aren't giving people an extra choice. People can already, and do, kill themselves. It's just giving them an option to do it with dignity, without risk of further harm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Millennial Pink

VIP Member
Our generation faces working til we're 70. Caring for elderly parents will absolutely not be on the agenda for me on top of that and I feel zero guilt on that front. Years ago the older women of the family were free to care for elderly relatives; they worked part time or the household could manage on one wage. My own mum hasn't worked since the early 80s, at my age she was free to pootle about seeing to ageing parents. We don't live like that now. I don't know a single family with school age kids where the mum works anything less than FT. The expectation that we should also want to care for elderly parents no matter what is just another way of guilt tripping and shaming women.
100%. The days of housewives and single breadwinners are long gone. Something desperately needs to be done on the provision of social care for the elderly and disabled. It's not cheap and frankly, why should it be? These are highly skilled roles often paid an absolute pittance. My elderly MIL has mobility issues and the package of care when she recently came out of hospital was paltry. She needs someone to help her with cleaning, but even finding a cleaner to come in once a week was difficult.

I'm all for giving people the choice of AD but as others have said, it can't be used as another option in place of a broken social care system.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 4

Kaylarina

Chatty Member
Even DNRs are a risk as it can be misunderstood to mean no medical intervention rather than just not resuscitating
It's usually the family rather than the patient objecting to a DNR even though Ethel is 92, blind, on a drip, suffering with no hope of improvement and her baby bird ribs would be smashed to bits with resus. We seem to have collectively forgotten that people do die. They don't last forever.
My husband deals with a lot of DNRs (Cardiothoracic surgeon) for this exact reason. He has dealt with situations where the family doesn't know about the DNR, which is completely within the patients right, but had them yelling at him and threatening legal action if he doesn't resuscitate. I've luckily never been in the position of being the lead doctor on a case with a DNR but one has always stuck with me from med school regarding a child and a custody battle. Was absolutely heartbreaking.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Wow
Reactions: 4

Miss polar

VIP Member
I wonder how many people on this thread championing assisted dying are going to be happy when the NHS has to divert funds away from other treatments and resources!
Also, how many will be happy when the courts system is clogged up by judges having to rule on cases of people wanting to take this option.
Personally, I want the courts to deal with criminals.
I heard a judge talking about this, and he said it will have an adverse effect on the use of court and judges time!
Not a fan of Wes streeting, but very glad to see as health secretary he voted against this bill.
Ditto the Justice secretary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Piff paff puff

VIP Member
Looked back on this thread against my better judgment, but heartened to see at least some voices of doubts!

According to experts in palletive care, that system is now going to see a diversion of resources away from it, and excuse for not funding it, as now there’s the option of assisted dying!
I really fear for people being coerced, especially the disabled, and non verbal.
I do t get upset easily, but this really felt like a terrible decision to pass this bill.
The fact that Rantzen is behind it( friend and defender of saville) and her overbearing daughter, and the opportunist Leadbeater leaves a really sour taste in my mouth!
Went off Rantzen when she said anyone who didn't want a covid jab should be left to die. I also echo your thoughts on Leadbeater and the over bearing daughter. They all give me an unsettling feeling in that they could turn very nasty when they don't get their own way and ofc their way is always right and as such we don't need to listen to any opposing views. I have mixed feelings about euthanasia and seeing these type of people advocating it makes me want to keep the law as it is though that most definitely isn't the only reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Foxvint

VIP Member
I'm conflicted on a referendum. There's danger in letting elites decide and danger in the uninformed who've only read their mates Facebook comment getting a say. It would become toxic and divisive aswell. Ppl acting like those in favour are about to run at their disabled loved ones with a giant syringe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Lizzie Mintdrop

VIP Member
We put everything in place (POA) when he had the first signs of Parkinson's and there are copies everywhere they are needed.
But anyway I wanted to say that my husband passed away today and it was quite peaceful and so glad I was there holding his hand and talking to him when it happened, quite suddenly. It was something I wanted as it was cruel keeping him like that and sure he would have said the same as we have talked lots about it and he should not have been left for 7 days like this - not NHS fault as they have been faultless but something has to be done about this.
So sorry for your loss
 
  • Heart
  • Like
Reactions: 3

BearOnChair

Chatty Member
The easy solution is for people to be able to lodge their wishes with their GP before they get ill so there can be no accusations of coercion.
I watched a documentary on people in comas and families having to make the decision to turn off life support. There was one guy who the family was adamant he'd want to be switched off but it turned out he had some awareness of what was going on around him. To cut a long story short they worked out how to communicate with him and he didn't want to be switched off. I remember the nurse saying its easy to say what you'd like if you aren't facing it so i think an advance order in some cases is the right thing.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3

Foxvint

VIP Member
I thought Diane Abbotts speech against it was really strong. I think concerns about the fascist adjacent concept of who gets to matter are entirely valid but i find you really can't predict where ppl stand on this by knowing where they stand on something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

bluefoot

VIP Member
One of the things that cemented my anti position was understanding that some medical professionals take fairly harsh views on who’s lives they consider to be valuable or not.

I also think people may be more likely to receive a terminal diagnosis in future where they don’t currently
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

MaineCoonMama

VIP Member
I had no idea this was possible in my state, I only knew of the Northern Territory having assisted dying. I expect one would have to be almost at death's door already to access the service but it's there.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

bluefoot

VIP Member
Even DNRs are a risk as it can be misunderstood to mean no medical intervention rather than just not resuscitating
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Miss polar

VIP Member
Watched some of the debate in parliament today. Ledbetter is all kinds of wrong. She’s a narcissist who wants to make a name for herself.
she refuses to listen to all of the palliative care orgs who are against this bill.

Sadly I think this is going to pass , as there are lots of vested interests involved.

As for the idiot Esther Rantzen- I thought I couldn’t detest her any more!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

bluefoot

VIP Member
The realities of old age seem very different when you are young though. Language is also important. The current law change being discussed is about assisted dying not euthanasia. It’s part of the slippery slope some of us are worried about.

I will keep pointing out I have seen close relatives experience very lengthy and upsetting process of dying. This has also cemented my anti view rather than the opposite
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Miss polar

VIP Member
Of course it’s a money saving plan. That’s the whole point!!
The more dead people, the less you have to invest in palliative care, which is already hugely underfunded!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Rosie878

VIP Member
I have two very conflicting views:
1) one of the strongest arguments I've heard for assisted dying was Tony Nicklinson, an MND sufferer. Under this bill, he wouldn't have been eligible and therefore I feel it doesn't help those in the worst circumstances.
2) The law will be passed and I am 90% sure it will be further loosened to allow the above. Where will the line be drawn? Will it ever be drawn. It could possibly spawn an entire industry. People will feel compelled to die earlier than they wish in some cases due to financial pressures, feeling like a burden etc. I feel very uncomfortable about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Piff paff puff

VIP Member
I've got no beef with choice. My big worry is it being watered down to old people and broke people using it as a lifestyle choice. It has to be water tight without interference from lawyers, European courts and politicians meddling and finding loopholes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3