I feel it should be allowed, but strictly only in a medical setting, where at least 3 or more doctors and next of kin and person themselves if able to agrees that there is no chance of surviving with any quality of life and prolonging the patients life would just bring needless suffering. I'm totally against people who are otherwise healthy but feeling low at the time deciding they want to end their life and being allowed to. That would be such a tragic waste of life and cause so much devastation to the people around them who love them
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
So very sorry for your loss. Sending you love and strength. X
Lots of excellent (for once) content on both sides of this subject on twitter in light of the assisted dying bill. I paraphrase but I saw one about any legislation needing to be interrogated to see how it will be abused by bad faith actors before it can pass. There's no party line on it from Labour either, MPs can vote however they wish which takes a lot of careerist considerations out the picture. I think it'll pass, meet a lot of opposition in house of lords but ultimately still pass.
I think it's very telling that the people who've watched a loved one die are almost unanimously in favour of assisted dying. Same for all the nurses I've met.
I think most opposition goes back to deeply entrenched religious ideas of how only God gets to take you.
I watched both my wonderful parents die long, drawn-out and horrible deaths from cancer. My lovely grannie died with hideous dementia, no longer the woman we knew. Would I have released them from that if I could? You bet! Do I think it should be brought into law? NO!
My opposition has nothing to do with my Christian faith, and everything to do with the fact that the "watertight" laws surrounding it would very soon be fudged and abused until people were being guilted or pushed into assisted death, or governments began killing people who were going to cost too much to provide healthcare for.
I greatly fear these conditions (or similar) for myself and would truly rather be dead than be in such pain or, in the case of dementia, giving such grief to my children - but I still oppose it.
This is a very steep and slippery slope and I dread the country stepping onto it.
Last edited:
I appreciate your post. I know there's strong valid arguments against. I think when people strongly object to something there's a danger that they start acting like it's becoming compulsory rather than an option. I'm not saying that's what you've done in the above but I notice a lot of the convos around this head straight to that extreme. If someone strongly objects to abortion or assisted dying they have the right to reject that for themselves- they don't have the right to deny me that option.
I'm interested in why it's countries with a strong human rights record and high standard of life that have been first to accept AD aswell. If dying is a part of life we have the right to exercise more control and autonomy around it.
I'm here because the priest at church yesterday went off on one about this topic, it kind of went over my head beforehand. (Unsurprisingly the Eastern Orthodox Church is not in favour of assisted dying, just in case anyone was desperate to know!).
I'm in favour of allowing assisted dying because if I was almost completely mentally gone through dementia, or knew I was terminally ill to the extent I only had pain to look forward to, I would definitely want to choose the manner and timing of my dying. Also, on a purely logical level, I'm in favour of abortion on request (and think our abortion laws should be loosened up to make it easier to access) so I can't exactly agree with ending life at its very start but disagree with ending it at the other end of the timeline, if you see what I mean?
But what gives me pause is how open it could be to abuse. Very ill people are mentally and emotionally vulnerable, what if they felt pressured? If you're whacked out on heavy duty painkillers, how much can you really be said to be making fully formed and unforced consent? Same with someone with dementia?
I'd also be worried about people potentially trying to use it in instances where they are not terminally ill, for example I'm sure there was a case of a youngish Danish (?) woman choosing to end her life at Dignitas because of chronic depression, for me that's just dreadful, I really think it sends a terrible message to people struggling with their mental health: basically saying, well we might not be able to cure you and if you happen to be an intractable case, well we won't bother to try new avenues or be patient and bear with you - might just be easier if you self-delete. Given that, at the acute end, MH treatment is about suicide prevention, that would just be a contradiction too far.
I also do worry if it might cheapen or reduce the value in certain kinds of human life. Like, accidentally giving the message that if you are very infirm or profoundly disabled, then really you should be thinking about ending it all rather than instead striving and fighting for the best possible life you can attain. I worry that it might create two tiers of human life, one more worthy than the other, if you see what I mean.
extremely difficult one and glad I don't have to personally make the decision on this.
I'm in favour of allowing assisted dying because if I was almost completely mentally gone through dementia, or knew I was terminally ill to the extent I only had pain to look forward to, I would definitely want to choose the manner and timing of my dying. Also, on a purely logical level, I'm in favour of abortion on request (and think our abortion laws should be loosened up to make it easier to access) so I can't exactly agree with ending life at its very start but disagree with ending it at the other end of the timeline, if you see what I mean?
But what gives me pause is how open it could be to abuse. Very ill people are mentally and emotionally vulnerable, what if they felt pressured? If you're whacked out on heavy duty painkillers, how much can you really be said to be making fully formed and unforced consent? Same with someone with dementia?
I'd also be worried about people potentially trying to use it in instances where they are not terminally ill, for example I'm sure there was a case of a youngish Danish (?) woman choosing to end her life at Dignitas because of chronic depression, for me that's just dreadful, I really think it sends a terrible message to people struggling with their mental health: basically saying, well we might not be able to cure you and if you happen to be an intractable case, well we won't bother to try new avenues or be patient and bear with you - might just be easier if you self-delete. Given that, at the acute end, MH treatment is about suicide prevention, that would just be a contradiction too far.
I also do worry if it might cheapen or reduce the value in certain kinds of human life. Like, accidentally giving the message that if you are very infirm or profoundly disabled, then really you should be thinking about ending it all rather than instead striving and fighting for the best possible life you can attain. I worry that it might create two tiers of human life, one more worthy than the other, if you see what I mean.
extremely difficult one and glad I don't have to personally make the decision on this.
I'm entirely in favour of assisted dying. For any reason you choose. If you want to end your life you shouldn't have to do it in a way that may cause you or others more pain. No one should have to throw themselves off a bridge, no one should have to throw themselves in front of a train and no one should survive a failed attempt and now be profoundly disabled by it, further enhancing their suffering.
Ethics committees exist, there's no reason to assume that doctors would persuade people to end their lives when it isn't in their best interests, they swear an oath now and we don't suspect them of not following those promises now, do we? Doctors don't force women to have abortions so why would they start forcing the elderly or the disabled to choose a quick death?
Ethics committees exist, there's no reason to assume that doctors would persuade people to end their lives when it isn't in their best interests, they swear an oath now and we don't suspect them of not following those promises now, do we? Doctors don't force women to have abortions so why would they start forcing the elderly or the disabled to choose a quick death?
I totally understand concerns about a crumbling NHS being unfit to administer these decisions in an ethical way. I also think you'd have to be a bit of psycho not to feel profound moral unease about things like a healthy but depressed person in their 20s being given state assistance to off themselves. Like millions I've suffered from major depressive episodes and I'm very happy I'm here today enjoying life and didn't throw the towel in. Would I have gone for AD if it was freely available, destigmatised and an option? Maybe. It's a sobering thought. Maybe I wouldn't be around to enjoy my adult kids and very happy second marriage. At the same time I don't think these personal anecdotes are a basis for legislation either way.
I read that an arl girl in Canada was left with a leaflet about AD because they couldn't install a stairlift for her. Obviously outrageous and completely ducked up athough it also made me laugh cos I've got a bit of a twisted sense of humour. People who insist no one will be leant on to take such a decision don't understand human nature very well. Choices aren't made in a vacuum. There's a reason none of us are bouncing about in recency clobber. We choose from the range of options available to us. Suicide can be an impulse like everything else. And impulses pass.
Did anyone see the case where the young Downs girl went to the court of human rights hoping to bring a legal challenge to mothers of Downs babies being offered termination? I thought it was very unfair and irresponsible of her parents to allow that. If mothers of Downs babies or any other disability decide to keep their baby they are supported to do so via the disability benefits and free at the point of use healthcare this country provides. The termination of these babies could only be described as a 'genocide' as it is by some extremist activists if these mothers were told well you were warned so no benefits for the special needs you'll face, no support to stay home as a carer and no free healthcare for their issues. The point is the choice. Meanwhile that poor girl was crying on her mothers shoulder outside the court, confused and feeling like a failure for having had her innocent one dimensional understanding of the issue exploited by her parents for the cameras.
Genuinely interested in all views on this. I certainly don't think I have all the answers.
I read that an arl girl in Canada was left with a leaflet about AD because they couldn't install a stairlift for her. Obviously outrageous and completely ducked up athough it also made me laugh cos I've got a bit of a twisted sense of humour. People who insist no one will be leant on to take such a decision don't understand human nature very well. Choices aren't made in a vacuum. There's a reason none of us are bouncing about in recency clobber. We choose from the range of options available to us. Suicide can be an impulse like everything else. And impulses pass.
Did anyone see the case where the young Downs girl went to the court of human rights hoping to bring a legal challenge to mothers of Downs babies being offered termination? I thought it was very unfair and irresponsible of her parents to allow that. If mothers of Downs babies or any other disability decide to keep their baby they are supported to do so via the disability benefits and free at the point of use healthcare this country provides. The termination of these babies could only be described as a 'genocide' as it is by some extremist activists if these mothers were told well you were warned so no benefits for the special needs you'll face, no support to stay home as a carer and no free healthcare for their issues. The point is the choice. Meanwhile that poor girl was crying on her mothers shoulder outside the court, confused and feeling like a failure for having had her innocent one dimensional understanding of the issue exploited by her parents for the cameras.
Genuinely interested in all views on this. I certainly don't think I have all the answers.
I think we should dissuade people from committing suicide, not aid them. Not least because all the literature and research on the subject strongly suggests that the suicidal state is rarely continuous and can be made worse through alcohol or drugs (which are a factor in 90% of cases). I think we should be wrapping our arms round the suicidal and trying to help them see that despite all its faults and terrors, life is beautiful, and worth living.
The way you feel in one month may not be the way you feel the following month. If an easy way out were offered on tap then I'd've definitely taken it when I was in my 20s (in and out of mental hospitals and ED units). But now, I'm so glad I didn't, and so grateful to be alive even though it was a long slog and hard work to get to the good mental health I enjoy today.
I don't think death should be presented as just one more consumer choice in our hypercapitalist culture. I really think we as human beings would lose something precious and profound, if we did that.
The choice is already there, people are just taking it without guidance. They are also taking the most dangerous and painful options
there's no reason to assume that doctors would persuade people to end their lives when it isn't in their best interests, they swear an oath now and we don't suspect them of not following those promises now, do we?
You can honestly say that when there are doctors prepared to prescribe life-damaging drugs, and carry out major surgery on children to "change their gender" - often after only a phone call? If you think that there aren't a lot of doctors who aren't prepared to chuck the Hippocratic oath out of the window for these of a nice large profit, you are very naive.
Yes, I can honestly say that because I don't just get my info from the Daily Mail
Oddly enough, nor do I.
Couldn’t it be decided when you’re young and able to decide without any pressure from family in old age? Like I know if I get any illness, the second I have to go into a home I would want to be euthanised.
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
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
We have a smidgeon of it anyway. Morphine is upped incrementally in a sufferers final days knowing it'll supress the respiratory system and speed up the inevitable so plenty of ppl are already assisted along by medicine rather than the beckoning scythe of the grim reaper. I personally don't see much of a distinction between that and the proposed window of less than 6 months left to live that'd allow for AD. The potential to experience catastrophic suffering is more frightening to me than the potential for an overly pessimistic diagnosis or one of the tiny minority of bad apple or gung ho doctors pushing me in an unnecessary direction.
My dad was given midazolam in his final days and it couldn't have come soon enough as he was suffering with terminal restlessness, which was absolute hell to watch and I'm sure, would be even worse to go through
Same. I do not want the assets that I have accrued over the years to be spent keeping me alive for no real purpose, particularly if I have dementia and no longer recognise my Son. Nor do I want my Son to waste his time coming to visit me in a nursing home where I sit all day every day just waiting for my next meal, what a bleeping grim way to end my life.
Of course the opposite argument to those who say what about the families that would encourage their sick and elderly family members to agree to euthanasia is what about the families now that put their loved ones through medical procedures and resuscitation when they're old and sick and it isn't in their best interests.
A leading story on BBC news today cos the Archbishop of Canterbury is of course opposed to it but unless you're CofE his opinion is worth no more than mine or yours. He's not one of our elected representatives. The article points out he's out of step with the general public who are majority in favour. Religious leaders shouldn't have anymore influence on this issue than anyone else given most of the British public don't look to them for guidance.