Soldato
The longer people live the more is spent on drugs etc. Obviously politicians work in their own self interest so they must be getting paid one way or another.
Euthanasia need to be considered in UK?
- Thread starter area51_for_psx
- Start date
Caporegime
I don't think its a matter of the higher ups, I think its that most people don't want to die and their loved ones don't want them to die, and doctors are (rightly) heavily trained and biased into preserving life. Mostly that's a good thing, but it goes wrong at the end of life where medical technology's ability to keep people alive has gone past the point where it is beneficial to do so.
You also speak nonsense
I'm not completely against the bill, I just think it's crucial to properly fund and provide palliative care first.
I appreciate someone's want to die if they are in pain. But it's clear the desire for hastened death diminishes when symptoms are managed.
I have seen countless people die a wonderful, peaceful, controlled, pain free death, surrounded by loved ones when they have had appropriate care. The most rewarding part of my career has been this.
Suffering can be managed in the vast majority of patients. I acknowledge and agree the few that can't deserve the right to choose, my fear is that too many will choose to die unnecessarily sooner because of the lack of palliative care. Fund this first, and then introduce assisted suicide.
Caporegime
We should fund better palliative care, but then we should also better fund (or better provide) a lot of things in the NHS. I'm not sure palliative care makes it to the top of that list, but either way, the lack of good palliative care surely makes the need for good law on assisted dying stronger not weaker. Yeah, maybe in the imaginary other world, more people would choose to prolong their final months with better palliative care but if they're not getting that care doesn't that make the grounds for allowing them to end their suffering stronger not weaker? Because they're opting out of more suffering not less.
it al right saying we need to fund better palliative care, but what would better care be, they all ready got strongest pain killers,and the GP, Marie Curie nurses, and pharmacist could not have been better and worked hard to give him his dying wish of dying at home, but nothing can change the fact that for the last month of his life he was in misery, and it something he did want. as we had "the talk" and had planned to give himself a massive overdoes of insulin, but was talked out of it, by mother as she is a woman of faith and believe he wouldn't get into heaven.
also we already do have a form of euthanasia
if your being mechanical keep alive (life support machine) with no hope of recovery , you will be given the option of turning it off and letting nature take it corse
also we already do have a form of euthanasia
if your being mechanical keep alive (life support machine) with no hope of recovery , you will be given the option of turning it off and letting nature take it corse
I think you're missing my point. I accept many people don't get appropriate palliative care, and for those, assisted dying would be preferrable. I'm not disputing that.
Of course the NHS has other pressing needs. But those nearing the end of life, it is the top of the list. I agree the lack of appropriate palliative care strengthens the argument something needs to change, but jumping to assisted dying for many is a shortcut. It would be the easier option - financially, medically, administratively - it doesn't make it the better option.
If someone really wants to end it because they are suffering, again, I think there is a role for it. But you can't jump to that without giving care to relieve that suffering. If someone opts for assisted dying because they feel abandoned by the NHS, it can't meet their needs, then the NHS has failed yet again.
We need to fix the foundation first. Without doing this, how do we ensure people aren't choosing it for the wrong reasons? Like feeling liek a burden? No other alternative?
I've seen firsthand what happens when palliative care is done properly. It transforms what might have been unbearable suffering, into peace, acceptable, invaluable time with loved ones. We owe it to everyone to at least try and give them that.
For context on my opinion, i've worked in palliative care for years, palliative GP, and trustee of a hospice. I have been priviliged to have involved in hundreds, if not thousands, of dying people's care.
There is so much more to palliative care than the things you have mentioned. You perfectly illustrate the issue.
What is the form of ethanasia?
And re. your "mechanical keep alive with no hope of recovery", there is already an existing system in place for this, it is known as an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT). It's a legally binding decision where a patient says they do not wnant to receive specific treatment in the future if they lose capacity to make that decision, or lack ability to communicate that decision. For example, a degenerative condition where you know you will lose the ability to breathe on your own, you can state in advance you do not want it.
Caporegime
No, I think we just don't agree, you say this:
And I agree with you that everyone should have the best end of their life, and if they choose assisted dying because the NHS can't provide their needs then that's a negative reflection on the NHS. Where we disagree is this: I think this makes is more imporant to permit assisted dying. It's not a foundation that needs to be fixed first; it's a reality that needs to be faced. If there are people who are choosing euthanasia because the NHS/system is failing to provide them with a quality of care that would mean they choose to continue their life then that's a bad thing; but making them continue to live in the reality that is making them want to choose euthanasia is a worse thing.
No snark here: thank you. The world needs more people like you.
Both in terms of mentality, and just pure numbers. My dad didn't get that care soon enough because the palliative care team was so massively over stretched that they simply couldn't work fast enough to meet demand. Though when they spend hours trying not to kill the dying person, I do think some streamlining (either in process or in terms of the treatment regulations they have to meet) would be useful.
I will, however, never forget the relief I felt when they did finally arrive. Unsung heroes perhaps? That might be hyperbolic but I do feel that.
Last edited:
I think the point about having the choice is important. Many/most people will doubtless want to hang on as long as possible and want any care that is available. But if someone decides that they don't fancy grinding out that end stage of losing the plot and fading away, why should they be forced to endure it rather than go out when they feel they have made their peace and still feel they have some control over their life? The end result is the same, give or take a few weeks or maybe months.
Obviously I don't have your experience and don't dispute anything you say about the value of palliative care. What I will say is that I have visited people receiving end stage care in hospital and at times it has seemed bordering on cruel. For example the withholding of fluids.
Soldato
I think the mistake is thinking there are "wrong reasons". A person's reasons are always valid even if others don't agree.
For example: my gran tried to kill herself at about 75 because she was old and alone and didn't see the point anymore. She failed and made it to about 95.
You might assume that's a good thing, 20 more years of life, brilliant.
Actually she hated it and was miserable the whole time, to her the extra 20 years were not a good thing.
My opinion is she should have had a safe way to go at 75 when she wanted to.
I know the proposed law doesn't go this far, but I'm supporting it as a stepping stone.
Last edited:
Withholding fluids is only cruel if there is any need for fluids. Thirst for example. If this is ever a case, this is neglect and needs reporting. I have never seen it happen.
What can look cruel though, is not giving fluids when someone is dying. Death is a process. During that process, your body does not need to drink. It is shutting down . Dry lips does not mean thirst when death is very close, and can be well managed with wet sponges, although this is often done for families benefit. I have been asked that question an awful lot. Families are normally reassured when it is explained.
A lot of arguments in this thread are based on n = 1. There will always be individual cases which help form an opinion. I think it's important to consider the wider picture. Which, of course, will always fail a small number, but benefit a larger number.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,040
Thats never-never politics. You may as well wait for the sun to die or the world to end. Its a comforting and convenient excuse to avoid passing a bill on an emotive subject.
Life isn't binary. It's not perfect palliative care or nothing. It just needs to be better for the reasons previously explained.
Man of Honour
Religion should have no say in it. What gives them the right to prolong a persons suffering based on fairy tales? If I should be unlucky enough to suffer a terminal illness I don't want to spend the last of my days in agony or as a vegetable peeing and crapping myself, where is the dignity in that? If you did that to a animal you would be in court for animal cruelty. In a case like that I want the option to go out on my own terms but no, they have to prolong life no matter how much pain and suffering someone is in and sod the dignity. It comes to something when a animal has more rights than a human at the end of it's life!!
Last edited: