A Political Thread pt. 2

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think some of the concerns are raised from how the bill or law potentially escalates.

Totally this. And attempts to do so down the line are inevitable.

Oddly apparently age is the most discerning factor the idea being once you've experienced death and/or suffering personally your more likely to pro this.

And this. Personal experience is likely to strongly influence your views.

I guess I really want there to be no grey areas but I'm not sure that's really achievable. For every cut and dried obvious case there will be others much more borderline with pressures applied even if well meaning.

 

[Saintjay]

I've found the whole debate on this really quite difficult tbh. Nobody wants to see friends, family, loved ones or anyone suffering and in pain.

Yet some days I'd give almost anything to have spent one last day with my mum and dad.

That can seem extremely selfish but i know it's me remembering how they were during the good days and not in there later years.

 

[Which Tyler]

The one thing I will to, to all those MPs voting against this because palliative care is a mess - introduce a member's bill to address palliative care then - these things are NOT mutually exclusive.

I've found the whole debate on this really quite difficult tbh. Nobody wants to see friends, family, loved ones or anyone suffering and in pain.

Yet some days I'd give almost anything to have spent one last day with my mum and dad.

That can seem extremely selfish but i know it's me remembering how they were during the good days and not in there later years.

Completely understood.
For me, it would come down to - one last day with them in screaming agony or off with the fairies, or one last day as you ~(hopefully) remember them - compus mentus, true to themselves and (relatively) pain free.

But that's me, other views are valid, I just haven't come across other arguments that seem to be (I hadn't really come across the "but palliative care" or the "but self-coercion" before, the former isn't relevant to this, the latter... isn't an issue I@m worried about, if the self-coercion is intolerable, then it's intolerable).


ETA: the bill passes, and goes to committee - where the fun will start!

 

[ncurd]

Completely understood.
For me, it would come down to - one last day with them in screaming agony or off with the fairies, or one last day as you ~(hopefully) remember them - compus mentus, true to themselves and (relatively) pain free.

This I'd give anything to have my mother as she was Boxing Day even for a short time.

I'd give anything to erase my memories of the following month and no amount of palliative care beyond sedating for the entireity her would of made it easier.

 

[Reiser99]

The one caveat I have is that this is all or nothing. If you get it wrong then people die wrongly.

I'm all for people who are suffering and terminal to be given the right to choose. Nobody should be able to choose for them. But you need to be 100% certain it's what they want.

I haven't had time to read up on the bill, but for me there should immediately be a conversation with a psychiatrist or counsellor when a person is diagnosed as terminal as to what their wishes would be. Especially if the illness will affect their mental capacity in future. The decision made in the past needs to be clear, unambiguous and free of any undue influence. Then the family only has to honour the wishes, not make the case for them.

However, as I'm thinking about it,that wouldn't cover everything. What about people in a sudden accident who are left in a coma...I don't know.

 

[ncurd]

Current bill requires two separate doctors and the person to compus mentus to apply for it. They also need to be given 6 months to live.

Those provisions don't go far enough IMO but it's a massive stepping stone.

(I personally have no issue with where Canada ended up).

 

[Reiser99]

Current bill requires two separate doctors and the person to compus mentus to apply for it. They also need to be given 6 months to live.

Those provisions don't go far enough IMO but it's a massive stepping stone.

(I personally have no issue with where Canada ended up).

Hmm, many people will fall outside that, especially if it's a long disease that affects the brain.

 

[General Melchett]

I would have no issue in formally adding my wishes/consent to my medical records now (as a hypothetical) in the same way organ donation can be. The onus would then be on me to update my record if I change my mind in the future or the NHS could request that I review and re-submit my consent every few years. This could supplement the two doctor requirement and six months to live requirement and make everything more watertight. Wouldn't need to be mandatory but optional for those who would like their choice to be on record.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Interesting/good to see such a mix voting for/against - a proper vote not just being whipped to vote a certain way like most votes

 

[Which Tyler]

As I've written a fair bit on this over the last 2 weeks, I think it's fair to share.

I've always been "your body, your rules" and pretty vehement about it, and always felt that people should have the right to die, and felt that assisting someone to do so should not be illegal, but it was a background thought. Informed and arrived at, but not spending much time at the front of my thought processes once reached.

First thoughts I was 13, my grandmother essentially made the decision to die, by suffering in silence and isolation with what she knew must have been cancer (she was a nurse) until we collected her for Christmas, but took her to hospital instead; metastasised to multiple systems, and absolutely terminal. Once there, she was either in agony, or away with the fairies and simply not her. She took about 6-7 weeks to die, and that in the days when doctors could prescribe pain relief even if it would reduce life-length (1990).

The one that really firmed my mind up that "something must be done" was my grandfather's death 2010 - kidney cancer.
His wife had died 4 years previously, he'd seen his grandchildren married off, and 3 great-children, and he was ready to go; but not to hasten the end - until the cancer.
He didn't have any fight left in him, and didn't feel he had anything left to live for - so he declined treatment for the cancer, and declined intubation for feeding.
The medical staff tortured him.
They took the view that if he declined treatment, then he was declining everything - they withdrew everything except a drip for hydration; coming in several times a day to ask if he was willing to receive treatment again, whilst he screamed and writhed in agony.
It took a couple of days and threats of legal action for the staff to agree to offer him pain relief, and try to arrange palliative care. Of course, he was gone before it could be arranged. From memory, he had about 36 hours of appropriate care, and about 3 days of torture - from multiple care givers - doctors, nurses & managers.


My grandmother would have chosen assisted dying, as palliative care couldn't have made her her. She was either in agony or an empty shell.
My grandfather would have chosen assisted dying (and did beg for release), but palliative would have been a valid option for him, as they were able to manage his pain without removing everything that made up him.


Obviously, these are not my only experiences - direct or otherwise. I'm a medical professional from a medical family (2 parents, 1 grandparent), and a mental health sufferer for... well about 6 years old is the first I remember trying to suicide (incompetently). The above are the most direct experiences in informing my opinions.

 

[Which Tyler]

However, as I'm thinking about it,that wouldn't cover everything. What about people in a sudden accident who are left in a coma...I don't know.

You already have the right to refuse care - and can sign a Do Not Resuscitate in advance if you so wish.

None of the problems here are new, and without solutions already in existence in other area of our society, or other similar societies.

Current bill requires two separate doctors and the person to compus mentus to apply for it. They also need to be given 6 months to live.

Those provisions don't go far enough IMO but it's a massive stepping stone.

(I personally have no issue with where Canada ended up).

And a high court judge.
And a 14 day cool-off period.

I don't have a problem with where I understand Canada to have ended up (but I'm not all that familiar) - but I can see problems with how they got there - which was by getting the legislation wrong in the first place.
A problem familiar to us rugby fans, where the law may say one thing, but in order to meet the real world, needs to be "interpreted" by judges

 

[Saintjay]

Not sure if it's weird the left wing MP's seemed against. Interested on Ed Davy due to his family situation.

Another take i had on this whole thing. Over the years I've dealt with several families where loved one's have all committed suicide.

Common threads were all had considerable love from family and friends. All were mental health cases anxiety, depression etc and all the deaths could have been prevented with appropriate mental health support.

It's more musings on how poor are mental health support and care in the community is really. That suicide prevention is **** poor. With people often medicated left to fend for themselves and only dealt with if they become a problem to others.