The reports I've seen suggest the House conducted itself with real dignity and respect for the nature of the debate throughout. A shame that Parliament is usually so denuded of a real role in making and scrutinising legislation that it cannot always be so.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Assisted Dying
- Thread starter mikeg
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I recorded and watched Kim Leadbeater, Danny Kruger and Kim Malthouse. I didn’t watch it live because I was out and about. I sensed that a lot of MPs were listening seriously to what was said. I’m personally happy with the immediate result but there is still a way to go to change the law as it stands.
My two cousins died from Huntingdon’s disease, which is heriditary and does not affect me, but sadly they fell victim to a 25% chance of both getting it. The older one I played the organ for at her wedding, but once she knew she had a 50% chance she chose not to have children, but her husband wanted children, so that marriage ended. The younger one I got second-hand clothes from as I grew up, which I thought was great.
Anyway, Heather died in the end by being starved to death. I have always felt that we - collectively, as a society - could do better. Her quality of life was reduced to being pushed round Dunham Massey in a wheelchair and given ice cream as a treat. Knowing her from her younger days I don’t think she wanted this. Every case is unique and has its own problems.
We’ll see what happens with this legislation. I hope it goes somewhere. I’m more likely to die from stroke or similar but I know what I want for myself if otherwise. I probably need to write it down just in case.
Last edited:
I haven't been following the detail of this, I will admit, so don't know the ins and outs, but my feeling is that it is possibly good progress, though like the OP mentions, it may be too restrictive in some cases, with the 6 month "window", but at the same time any such law needs to protect those from using it "just because" or misuse.
From personal experience, one of my grandparents spent the last 9 or so months of their life between care home and hospital and generally speaking was bed bound (this was having lived a fairly active life up to that point). Mentally they were very much with it (unlike another grandparent who suffered for years from dementia, but was physically ok/was mobile) and I know they were incredibly unhappy and hated "being moved around like a piece of meat" with no prospect of improving. Notwithstanding this, when the time eventually came for palliative care (off the back of double pneumonia), all fluids etc were withdrawn and they eventually passed 5 days later, though out of consciousness for all bar the first few hours. To have to go through that is awful, to be honest.
From my point of view, having seen the likes of care homes (vice residential homes) I have zero desire to be resident of one, particularly should I end up like my grandparent did in the last few months of their life and would probably rather go peacefully and on my own terms.
EDIT: I forgot to add, there is no way I would support something like this going to a referendum - we all know how well they work for the biggest decisions going...
From personal experience, one of my grandparents spent the last 9 or so months of their life between care home and hospital and generally speaking was bed bound (this was having lived a fairly active life up to that point). Mentally they were very much with it (unlike another grandparent who suffered for years from dementia, but was physically ok/was mobile) and I know they were incredibly unhappy and hated "being moved around like a piece of meat" with no prospect of improving. Notwithstanding this, when the time eventually came for palliative care (off the back of double pneumonia), all fluids etc were withdrawn and they eventually passed 5 days later, though out of consciousness for all bar the first few hours. To have to go through that is awful, to be honest.
From my point of view, having seen the likes of care homes (vice residential homes) I have zero desire to be resident of one, particularly should I end up like my grandparent did in the last few months of their life and would probably rather go peacefully and on my own terms.
EDIT: I forgot to add, there is no way I would support something like this going to a referendum - we all know how well they work for the biggest decisions going...
Last edited:
Thread reopened.
bahnause
Member
The law has too many restrictions. It excludes an enormous number of those affected. Regardless of their life expectancy, people should be able to decide for themselves when they want to die if they wish to do so because of their suffering. Swiss legislation regards euthanasia as a form of assisted suicide that is not prohibited in principle. Article 115 from 1937(!) of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) criminalises assisted suicide if it is carried out for selfish motives. The mentally ill in particular are once again penalised. For years, people have fought for mental illnesses to be taken seriously and recognised as illnesses. Now they are once again being degraded to second-class patients who do not have the same rights as ophysically ill people.
The original text from Articel 115:
The original text from Articel 115:
Last edited:
brad465
Veteran Member
Yes someone with dementia cannot make use of this, as by the time they only have 6 months left chances are they are completely unable to consent. I would have dementia and associated degenerative illnesses no.1 in terms of where euthanasia as an option is most necessary, given how long the condition can last and the massive mental, physical and financial burdens on the sufferer and their families.
I'm not against assisted dying in principle provided there is no reasonable chance of recovery for a terminally ill patient, but what exactly do you mean when you talk about mental illnesses? Because if we're talking about a young person in their 20s with depression, then the idea that they would be treated as second class patients because they couldn't receive an assisted death as easily as someone in their 80s with a debilitating physical condition is frankly ludicrous.
Gloster
Veteran Member
To a certain extent I agree, but it has taken an awful slog to get this far. Any further easing of the limits could well have lead to its defeat and that would be it for, I would reckon, at least two parliaments. This is a case where the best is the enemy of the good, but the good has been allowed to win
bahnause
Member
It is ludicrous (at best) to assume that a 20-year-old mentally ill person is less suited to make such a decision than an 80-year-old physically ill person. This brings us back to the presumption that mentally ill people are unable to make decisions for themselves. But they are. They are not all floating in a vacuum without realising what is going on around them or what is happening to them. Many are fully aware of their situation and their prospects. They are also aware that they will never receive the help that they would need and that may(!) exist in theory. The same self-righteous and self-appointed protectors of morality and ethics in parliament will not hesitate for a second to cancel offers of help for reasons of cost and to leave those in need of assistance in the cold.
The main point is and remains the same. It is not up to me and not up to you to decide about other people's lives.
dangie
On Moderation
I feel exactly the same. I really don’t know which side of the fence I’m on, so I’ll probably keep off it altogether.
Mental health is far from being untreatable though, and the solution for a 20-year-old dealing with mental illness should not be to end their life without possibly exhausting all other options first, and most people will not be so beyond help that the only choice for ending their suffering would be death. Anyone who found themselves in such an unfortunately dire situation would be the exception, not the norm.
You might think these people would still be fit to make such decisions but in reality mental illness can warp the mind and an individual's way of thinking, so arguably they are not fit to make this decision, and I would question any doctor who wouldn't challenge someone's decision to end their life for mental illness without trying other options first, especially since it's a permanent decision that cannot be undone.
We can adopt a live and let live (or die) attitude towards it, but frankly I would hate to live in such a nihilistic world where assisted death is an accepted first choice solution to mental illness.
bahnause
Member
Are you seriously not of the opinion, that the wish to die is the first thought of the people concerned? These people already have a history of suffering with unsuccessful therapies behind them, not just in front of them. They are very clearly aware of their prospects. Even if there is a minimal chance of (perhaps under certain circumstances with enough money and enough places on a treatment program) improving the quality of life in 10 or 30 or 30 years, this cannot be a reason to inflict years of agony on a person against their will. Making them wait and suffer for all eternity may give some people a warming feeling of moral superiority. Unfortunately, it is at the expense of the weakest.
Incurable diseases exist in the physical and psychological realm. There are enough illustrative cases from the Dutch system, where such investigations were carried out and mentally ill patients were also attested incurable and unbearable suffering. But this eventuality is not even considered in the current bill. And it doesn't matter if we like it or not, it is the reality.
I am of the opinion that most people with mental health issues are not so incurable and beyond any other form of treatment that they should be allowed to receive assisted dying without any other forms of treatment. Sometimes failed therapy can be from just having the wrong therapist, or maybe said person could be suffering from other conditions that are treatable. I don't believe most people are beyond help though, and we shouldn't treat anyone as if they are.
If ever we were in that so highly unlikely situation where no form of medication, therapies or treatments have proven effective, and appropriately qualified doctors genuinely believe it is within the patient's interest to receive assisted dying then maybe the patient should be allowed the choice, but it's not a decision anyone should be making lightly, and it most definitely should not be a decision that the patient alone should decide on.
If the patient is of an age nearing the end of their life I'd be fine with them talking to a doctor about it even if their physical health is good. Letting them go out on their own terms would be a good choice for them. But if the patient is an otherwise healthy young person with a reasonable chance at life then why shouldn't we try to preserve it through proper treatment? For me it's not a case of gaining a warm sense moral superiority, it's a genuine valuing of human life.
I think it’s deeply worrisome for the state to become involved in killing its young people who have the bodily and mental agency to commit suicide themselves, but otherwise would not without the state’s approval.
I feel as though the focus on mental illness detracts slightly.
In no western country do you just rock up at a surgery and ask to die and be assisted in doing so.
Whether you are a 70 year old with a progressive physical illness, or a 20 year old with a mental health condition; you'll have to satisfy clinicians that you are aware of what you are asking for, and that you are of sound mind to do so. Somebody presenting at a hospital as suicidal for the first time is going to be detained under the mental health act and see mental health experts. even if they are granted a talking therapist and they continue to emphasise their desire to end their life, they will have to undertake further steps with other clinicians. I don't believe that even the greatest proponents of assisted dying legislation in Parliament believe this should be some quick process, or based on a single attempted psychology intervention.
If you go to Dignitas in Switzerland (the classic go-to example at the moment), it takes months between submitting your medical records and getting the go-ahead from a doctor, to the point at which you are provided with the medication, and during those months you are regularly in contact with clinicians who ensure it is certainly your wish.
Absolutely we need safeguards, but I don't believe we should exclude people from assisted dying on the basis of them having a mental health condition.
In no western country do you just rock up at a surgery and ask to die and be assisted in doing so.
Whether you are a 70 year old with a progressive physical illness, or a 20 year old with a mental health condition; you'll have to satisfy clinicians that you are aware of what you are asking for, and that you are of sound mind to do so. Somebody presenting at a hospital as suicidal for the first time is going to be detained under the mental health act and see mental health experts. even if they are granted a talking therapist and they continue to emphasise their desire to end their life, they will have to undertake further steps with other clinicians. I don't believe that even the greatest proponents of assisted dying legislation in Parliament believe this should be some quick process, or based on a single attempted psychology intervention.
If you go to Dignitas in Switzerland (the classic go-to example at the moment), it takes months between submitting your medical records and getting the go-ahead from a doctor, to the point at which you are provided with the medication, and during those months you are regularly in contact with clinicians who ensure it is certainly your wish.
Absolutely we need safeguards, but I don't believe we should exclude people from assisted dying on the basis of them having a mental health condition.
Agreed. I suspect that just knowing you have less than six months left could be a mental strain. I’m glad about the vote’s outcome and hope to see a pragmatic law.
I’m opposed on principle but, if we must have assisted dying, this legislation and the way it’s been brought about are a poor advertisement for either the concept or the legislative process.
Her politics are a world away from mine, but I agreed with every word said by Diane Abbot on the risk this legislation, as written, provides to the most vulnerable in society.
I totally respect your position. I am disappointed that my own MP voted against based on their own views and not those of constituents. (We franchise them and they disenfranchise us.)
However, I hope that those in Westminster who are opposed will cause the legislation to be as safe as possible.
My concern is more that those behind the legislation are taking a very blasé view of risk, for example that of coercion, and closing down all proposed amendments.
spyinthesky
Member
Listening to some of the justifications on both sides as ever in the political world makes me cringe.
The most ironic statement I heard yesterday was that the medication has side effects and you may wake up.
The most ironic statement I heard yesterday was that the medication has side effects and you may wake up.
That’s a perfectly reasonable thing to say if it’s true. Most of the people who will commit suicide by this method will not be “locked in” to their bodies without agency, but actually have the capacity to end their lives anyway outwith the law. The attraction with Doctor-assisted suicide is supposed to be, unlike most methods of ending one’s life, reliable, controlled, humane and allow for a dignified disposal of the body afterwards. If that can’t be guaranteed it’s important for people to know that. (I have no idea if that is true, though)
It struck me on reading about the bill that this must be unique
I can think od no other case where assisting a legal action is illegal
Suicide used to be illegal, so much of the law relates to when that was decriminalised. Legislators have also rightly been concerned to ensure a clear line between killing oneself and killing others.
One of the weaknesses in this legislation is that it provides very limited safeguards against the exercise of influence, and very limited transparency about applications.
Assault, for one. You can’t consent for someone to perform an assault on you which occasions serious harm, for example.
Perfectly legal to cut your own arm off. Not legal for me to do it for you with your consent.
spyinthesky
Member
I do agree.
With most medications there are side effects with which some could in certain circumstances cause death.
While this one may maintain life, that’s the irony.
WARNING this medication may keep you alive. I have yet to see such a statement on packaging.
scotrail158713
Established Member
Is it that simple though? In any given constituency there will be people who support and oppose this bill, so it will be impossible for an MP to truly represent the views of all their constituents. They will have to make a decision either way that inevitably some will disagree with.
dangie
On Moderation
I don’t think 650 MP’s can truly represent the views of the UK’s population. Each MP will only be representing their own view. Having said this, I really don’t know a satisfactory answer.
Surely this is just a reality of living in a representative, rather than direct, democracy? We elect an individual to go to Parliament and represent us in the making of the laws that impact on our lives and oversight of the Government that governs us. In doing that of course they will do so broadly in line with their own views, usually informed by those of their Constituents because they know that if we're really not happy with the representation that that individual provides they risk being booted out at the next election, but they were sent as a representative so they will represent us as they see fit.
Just to observe on this point that MPs are our representatives, not our delegates. As a representative democracy, we empower MPs to use their judgment on issues, rather than purely acting to give voice to the opinions of their constituency.
If MPs were required to vote in line with the opinions of their constituents, you would have to find a reliable way of ensuring that MPs have that information to know how to vote - which in practice means a never ending series of referenda. Without that, the likelihood is that "the views of their constituents" would actually be the views of a few, highly motivated, shouting loudest. That might or might not be desirable (views vary!), but would be a massive change to the underlying constitutional plumbing of the country.
scotrail158713
Established Member
That’s kind of the point I was getting at. For issues like this, where no MP has been elected with a certain viewpoint in their manifesto, we just have to let them vote on it and hope they come to an appropriate conclusion. As you say, it’s not entirely satisfactory - but short of holding a referendum (which isn’t viable to do multiple times every parliamentary cycle) then the current system is the next best solution.
- Status