Euthanasia need to be considered in UK?

I don't understand Streeting's concerns here regarding cost: isn't end-of-life care usually the most expensive part, as people flit back and forth between hospital, hospice and home and on and off expensive critical care machines? Wouldn't it be expected to save money?

He seems to be saying that palliative care needs to be boosted to ensure "a genuine choice" but isn't it even more important to have good palliative care if you're forcing people to suffer through the miserable end months of their life?
 
throwaway4372 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that assisted dying has been debated or voted on 10 times in the last 20 years. Death as "treatment" is not going away, even in the unlikely event this horribly written piece of legislation fails.
 
Mr Jack said:
I don't understand Streeting's concerns here regarding cost: isn't end-of-life care usually the most expensive part, as people flit back and forth between hospital, hospice and home and on and off expensive critical care machines? Wouldn't it be expected to save money?

He seems to be saying that palliative care needs to be boosted to ensure "a genuine choice" but isn't it even more important to have good palliative care if you're forcing people to suffer through the miserable end months of their life?
Click to expand...
I think the argument is that if you have assisted dying and poor quality palliative care then people might feel forced into the choice. If good quality palliative care was available then maybe people would want to live for a bit longer, or at least feel they had a genuine choice with dignity in both cases.
 
thenewoc said:
That is the worry, that doctors will throw their morals out the window and end people's lives early to save money.
Click to expand...
It is ensuring the choice is valid for patients. If I had to choose between a hospice waiting list that was beyond capacity and poorly staffed or assisted dying, it is not a fair choice.

Doctors are not paid or incentivised for this. They will not care about the associated costs involved. They will only care that the decisions met the criteria as they will have an investigation for any issues that arise. It is not not a role I would ever wish to be a part of given the issues involved, but I would highly respect those that do.
 
GreatAuk said:
I think the argument is that if you have assisted dying and poor quality palliative care then people might feel forced into the choice. If good quality palliative care was available then maybe people would want to live for a bit longer, or at least feel they had a genuine choice with dignity in both cases.
Click to expand...
I agree with the above.

however the quality of our palliative care is so bad in this country that people may choose to die rather than suffer the indignity and discomfort of things as they are now, is an argument to improve our palliative care

its not an argument to block Euthanasia (imo)
 
PikeyPriest said:
It is ensuring the choice is valid for patients. If I had to choose between a hospice waiting list that was beyond capacity and poorly staffed or assisted dying, it is not a fair choice.

Doctors are not paid or incentivised for this. They will not care about the associated costs involved. They will only care that the decisions met the criteria as they will have an investigation for any issues that arise. It is not not a role I would ever wish to be a part of given the issues involved, but I would highly respect those that do.
Click to expand...
They might not be directly incentivised for it but indirectly they're judged on performance or value of the service that a specialty is providing in terms of the number of patients being treated. If you have more bed blockers then you have less capacity to treat more patients.
 
Mr Jack said:
I don't understand Streeting's concerns here regarding cost: isn't end-of-life care usually the most expensive part, as people flit back and forth between hospital, hospice and home and on and off expensive critical care machines? Wouldn't it be expected to save money?

He seems to be saying that palliative care needs to be boosted to ensure "a genuine choice" but isn't it even more important to have good palliative care if you're forcing people to suffer through the miserable end months of their life?
Click to expand...
Its basically saying that palliative needs to be improved to offer a viable alternative to euthanasia except thats unlikely to ever happen so its a convenient excuse to preserve the status quo i.e. either rubbish care or a trip to Dignitas. In other words its stonewalling.
 
Why not give people the option? After all, it is *our* painful death isn't it? If you don't agree with it then fine, don't consider it for your own terminal illness.

I look at the other countries and parts of the USA who allow it under strict regulations, afaik there aren't a load of horror stories coming out about people bumped off for nefarious reasons.

It's an absolute travesty we don't have a choice imo. Oh I forgot, if you have the cash and don't mind dying alone we do, in Switzerland.
 
thenewoc said:
They might not be directly incentivised for it but indirectly they're judged on performance or value of the service that a specialty is providing in terms of the number of patients being treated. If you have more bed blockers then you have less capacity to treat more patients.
Click to expand...
Being treated in this regard is patients having euthanasia. I suspect there will be concerns if the rate of approved cases is to high rather than having a pressure to increase numbers. They will be looking to block applications with any doubt rather make it easily available. There is also a high ranking judge on the panel who again is not incentivised to agree with the clinicians financially.
 
throwaway4372 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just get it through.
I can't believe this is even not a done deal.
Is seeing loved ones suffer a rare thing?

Because I can't understand how anyone who's seen it would want anything other than to support it.

If this doesn't go through it's yet another example of the many that I see myself as different in my important views vs the majority of the population.

But the majoriy(I think) want this. Just get it passed.
 
It's a slippery slope though once you start allowing it people will feel forced into it if they feel they're a burden on the family. And then how long before mental health reasons are added to the list of qualifying illnesses? It's a can of worms to be opened, and once it's opened there's no going back.
 
uber soldat said:
It's a slippery slope though once you start allowing it people will feel forced into it if they feel they're a burden on the family. And then how long before mental health reasons are added to the list of qualifying illnesses? It's a can of worms to be opened, and once it's opened there's no going back.
Click to expand...
It's not guaranteed that mental health reasons will be added, I think it's only happened in a small number of cases (Holland, Canada?), afaik most places still don't allow it for that reason.

One could argue why not though? If someones life is mentally a living hell, they've tried all possible treatments over a long time span and are mentally able to fully comprehend such decisions, why should you because of your beliefs make them suffer more? Who do our lives belong to? To politicians? To those who oppose things? Or ourselves?

The can of worms argument against has no substance imo, please link me to the numerous credible horror stories of euthanasia gone wrong that surely must exist if it's a can of worms? No doubt there probably are some negative stories out there about it of course but I bet there are multitudes more accounts of suffering people having dignified death with no or much less suffering.
 
adidan said:
The worry of who?

Anybody sane on that list who thinks medical professionals will, en masse, suddenly lose their morals and forget the reasons they entered the profession?

Absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...
I didn't say on mass. It's not been unheard of in the past for some doctors to over step the mark so there does need to be enough checks and balances in place so that it is actually the patient's choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom