Euthanasia need to be considered in UK?

Rainmaker said:
Yup. If only it did/they could! My wife's uncle passed away last year, after a severe frontal ischaemic stroke during dialysis.
Click to expand...

Having watched my Dad go, suffering from liver failure and two strokes during it, it was absolutely ludicrous that the palliative care team were so utterly obsessed with not killing him with the palliative care, when he was going to be dead in afew days, at most, anyway. I understand it, I do, they take the oath to do no harm, but he had already been waiting 24 hours for them to give him that care, the doses the ward could give him didn't really do much to help his suffering at all. So to have them turn up then spend another two hours planning, consulting with other doctors, checking things... it was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. I was utterly useless to help, to do much of anything.

Even on that care he didn't really seem truly comfortable until the last hour and he fell into unconsciousness. It was quick from there.

In extreme situations like that where the person is absolutely going to die, suffering horribly within a short window, I don't understand why euthanasia isn't a thing here.
 
Parsley said:
Having watched my Dad go, suffering from liver failure and two strokes during it, it was absolutely ludicrous that the palliative care team were so utterly obsessed with not killing him with the palliative care, when he was going to be dead in afew days, at most, anyway. I understand it, I do, they take the oath to do no harm, but he had already been waiting 24 hours for them to give him that care, the doses the ward could give him didn't really do much to help his suffering at all. So to have them turn up then spend another two hours planning, consulting with other doctors, checking things... it was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. I was utterly useless to help, to do much of anything.

Even on that care he didn't really seem truly comfortable until the last hour and he fell into unconsciousness. It was quick from there.

In extreme situations like that where the person is absolutely going to die, suffering horribly within a short window, I don't understand why euthanasia isn't a thing here.
Click to expand...

Sorry you had to see that and your father had to go through it. I think it might be more they are scared of the consequences of being seen to end a life rather than their oath to do no harm. I'm sure most doctors are compassionate people and if it were legal to help end the suffering of a terminal patient and it was the wishes of that patient they would help. I'm sure there will be some for religious reasons that might refuse, I don't think doctors should be forced to do so.

A friend died of lung cancer a few years ago and was given a choice of hospice or staying at home and being cared for by another friend. It was made clear that if he remained at home they'd be able to provide far more pain relief that if he was in a hospice. When it was clear the end was only a few days away and he'd had enough our friend was able to give him so much pain relief that he just drifted off. Maybe he just got lucky with the palliative care and what that person said to them.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Sorry you had to see that and your father had to go through it. I think it might be more they are scared of the consequences of being seen to end a life rather than their oath to do no harm. I'm sure most doctors are compassionate people and if it were legal to help end the suffering of a terminal patient and it was the wishes of that patient they would help. I'm sure there will be some for religious reasons that might refuse, I don't think doctors should be forced to do so.
Click to expand...

I understand, they may want to assist more, take a few more risks, or even outright just overdose someone and end it. But they can't... it has potential end to their career. I'd have said absolutely nothing, but he did end up being seen/evaluated by the Coroner, and if they pick up anything then that is a career potentially over.

Understanding this didn't help my frustration at the time, though I didn't lash out or anything, it wasn't any particular persons fault. It was just impotent anger. Not a fun time.
 
Last edited:
Parsley said:
Having watched my Dad go, suffering from liver failure and two strokes during it, it was absolutely ludicrous that the palliative care team were so utterly obsessed with not killing him with the palliative care, when he was going to be dead in afew days, at most, anyway. I understand it, I do, they take the oath to do no harm, but he had already been waiting 24 hours for them to give him that care, the doses the ward could give him didn't really do much to help his suffering at all. So to have them turn up then spend another two hours planning, consulting with other doctors, checking things... it was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. I was utterly useless to help, to do much of anything.

Even on that care he didn't really seem truly comfortable until the last hour and he fell into unconsciousness. It was quick from there.

In extreme situations like that where the person is absolutely going to die, suffering horribly within a short window, I don't understand why euthanasia isn't a thing here.
Click to expand...

To be honest.. I'd say the "do no harm" thing is grey here.
Isn't it better to let someone go if they are in perpetual unending discomfort.

Sometimes nothing (death) is less harm than alive.
 
413x said:
To be honest.. I'd say the "do no harm" thing is grey here.
Isn't it better to let someone go if they are in perpetual unending discomfort.

Sometimes nothing (death) is less harm than alive.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. But preserving life seems to trump the suffering aspect of this sometimes. A grey area indeed. I feel a bit like decisions are often made based on monetary ramifications, be they legal or simply the costs of keeping someone alive (on life support, just as a bad example). Pragmatism is to be expected and required though.

But when someone is certainly going to die within a few days and in agony? "Do no harm" is really letting them go as quickly and peacefully as possible, yeah. I feel like keeping someone alive just to stroke and soothe someone's own morality is just selfish at that point.
 
Last edited:
Lots of coverage on the Beeb today. Apparently the Bill was supposed to be introduced in the House of Commons today, a vote on it is due 29th November.

www.bbc.co.uk

Assisted dying bill: What is in the proposed law?

The proposed law would allow some terminally ill adults to end their own lives. But there are requirements.
www.bbc.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk

Assisted dying likely to need Welsh vote, say Labour backbenchers

Plans to legalise assisted dying are likely to need the approval of the Welsh Parliament, BBC told.
www.bbc.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk

Assisted dying: Terminally-ill people discuss proposed new law

Nik is worried assisted dying could lead to coercion - but Elise, who has cancer, wants the choice.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Tykey said:
I sincerely hope it goes through but I'm not hopeful, I think it'll further show just how out of touch MP's are with us mere plebs with there being strong public support for it.
Click to expand...
Same thoughts.
I assume several MPs have lost parents and family to horrible diseases.. I can't get my head around why this wouldn't pass.

It can only happen if you have 6 months to live.
 
413x said:
Same thoughts.
I assume several MPs have lost parents and family to horrible diseases.. I can't get my head around why this wouldn't pass.

It can only happen if you have 6 months to live.
Click to expand...

There will always be a fear of people being pressured in to it. People who feel like they are a terrible burden to the relatives.

And politicians will not do anything unless there is a need to do it. Arguably, there is no need to do this. It's a case of "why open a can of worms when you don't have to?".
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping the bill will pass its first vote in the Commons, but it doesn't look like its a particularly great bill. Still, once the principle is established, perhaps we can move on and improve matters in further bills in future. The whole thing does show up a weakness of the British system, because Labour are not willing to make this a government bill it will be created with much less time and attention than it should have. Surely this is the kind of thing that should really be dealt with by a royal commission so that a considered, balanced bill can be produced that takes seriously the different views, risk and benefits? But that can't happen because the parties aren't willing to make it part of their official platform.

squerble said:
Has there been any word on whether an MP can use religion as their reasoning for being against the bill?
Click to expand...

MPs can vote for any reason at any time. Those who are religious can use that to inform their decision, and can make arguments based on that in the House.
 
Mr Jack said:
MPs can vote for any reason at any time. Those who are religious can use that to inform their decision, and can make arguments based on that in the House.
Click to expand...
interestingly that highlights another weakness in our system.
Should an MP vote based on their personal opinions regardless of if formed by religion or not........................... or should they vote based on what they believe the majority of their constituents feel (and if genuinely undecided what the majority would feel should they not put a few students outside shops taking questionaries so they get an idea?

koolpc said:
My mate wants to add his mother in law to any euthanasia list that becomes available...
:D
Click to expand...

that reminds me of this ;)


more seriously however, this bill desperately needs to pass.... yes i know careful checking needs to happen but having watched my grandmother die of cancer, i would not wish that on my worst enemy........... you wouldnt put a dog through her last few weeks so why force a human through it? (unless they chose to of course)
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
interestingly that highlights another weakness in our system.
Should an MP vote based on their personal opinions regardless of if formed by religion or not........................... or should they vote based on what they believe the majority of their constituents feel (and if genuinely undecided what the majority would feel should they not put a few students outside shops taking questionaries so they get an idea?
Click to expand...

MPs are representatives, not proxies. They're not supposed to merely pass on the collective wishes of their constituents.
 
Mr Jack said:
MPs are representatives, not proxies. They're not supposed to merely pass on the collective wishes of their constituents.
Click to expand...
like i said...... doesnt that show a weakness in the system. Maybe they *should* be more encouraged to represent their constituents views?

if they are representatives of their constituents then they should represent their views where possible / practical imo
 
Last edited:
Tykey said:
I sincerely hope it goes through but I'm not hopeful, I think it'll further show just how out of touch MP's are with us mere plebs with there being strong public support for it.
Click to expand...
That's what's happened the last couple of times this sort of thing was voted on, MPs ignore public opinion.
 
I think it should be up to the patient with the right safeguards in place. Obviously the patient needs to be compos mentis. We don't generally have an issue AFAIK with patient's life support being turned off against the family's wishes and when there is a disagreement on that it has been settled by a court. I don't think the patient should require a diagnosis of only having 6 months or less left to live. The patient should also be able to write a letter and have it witnessed that they don't want to be kept alive under certain conditions / circumstances, in case they are later considered not compos mentis to make that decision.
 
Last edited:
They've put too many conditions on it, lost sight of the point of having it.
But if it loses they'll say "we had a vote and it lost" and never vote on it again in our lifetimes.
So we need it to get through, then fix it later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom