Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fully support. It should be up to the individual to choose their path. I'd rather not go through something as devastating as terminal illness and I think it's wrong (and often selfish) that others get to choose. I've been signing petitions for this for ages. " A qualified for. I am not convinced that the NHS is in the best shape to safely implement this at present. We already see mistakes happening more than they should do, due to understaffing, poor morale etc. I think these things should be addressed first, also across the board improvements to end of life care (it really should not be left in the hands of charity). Then we can revisit this question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Definitely for it. Watching a loved one suffer is horrendous and heartbreaking and the person suffering just wants their pain to end. If we let animals suffer we can be sent to prison, yet the law insists we let people suffer until the very end. Where is the logic in that?" Unfortunately it's money. "Big Pharma" make billions from end of life care. Hence they prolong life to maximise profit. Once a person is gone there's no more income from them. It's absolutely heinous. I'm for by the way. If every possible avenue has been explored and there is no possibility of anything other than decline then it's right that the person should have a choice. It's not morbid and it's not selfish. It's humane. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 hopefully by then we have caught up with the civilized world | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies " There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance." I think the point being made is that many terminally ill people could, if they so wished, already attempt suicide using the powerful pain meds they are provided. Of course, that would be a random calculation of what is needed to be successful and being unsuccessful is a real possibility. Assisted suicide would do away with the element of chance. Most people though, are not talking about assisted suicide in the face of terminal illness, which is what the Bill is about. They're talking about being very old and decrepit, reliant on a wheelchair, house bound etc. This Bill isn't going to address assisted suicide in those situations. But, as I put in a lengthy post above, some of us disabled people do fear the "slippery slope", whereby in the future, assisted suicide due to non-terminal disability would be legal. I fear things like less support being available to live well with disability because of an assumption within healthcare that this isn't possible. That the availability of assisted suicide in non-terminal illness in the future might lead people to commit suicide to alleviate burden on their families, rather than because their lives are genuinely unliveable. I feel constantly that I am a burden to my family. I've contemplated all sorts to try and alleviate the burden on them. If assisted suicide was an option, would it be presented to me as a possible sensible option? I don't know. Would I feel any kind of pressure to do that? I don't know. I hope not. I don't oppose the Bill for assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness but I do fear the slippery slope that every other country has gone down. Most countries started with terminal illness only, but now allow assisted suicide for pretty much any reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hard to say. Father had kidney failure but didn't want to go but mum was his career and she suffered looking after him. " And here is my exact brain fuck. I don't want to die. But I'm a fucking huge burden on my family and my disability is costing us a fortune. Would me dying be a blesséd relief to my family? I hope not. But I don't know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am for the bill as is written at the moment . I am all for more money for end of life and palliative care, i give money to my local hospice and the hospice that helped my mum All that I would ask is not to put doctors in the middle of making the decisions " Who, if not doctors should be involved? Hopefully not social care people because if they would have any involvement, I'll be opposing everything and anything. Social care people who find my Dad to have capacity for only one decision and one decision only. The decision that might cost the council money. He HAS capacity for that, apparently. Just not for anything else at all, including whether or not to spend a fiver at Tesco. This country needs to fix the health and social care crisis before we give ANY professionals involvement in effectively killing people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am for the bill as is written at the moment . I am all for more money for end of life and palliative care, i give money to my local hospice and the hospice that helped my mum All that I would ask is not to put doctors in the middle of making the decisions Who, if not doctors should be involved? Hopefully not social care people because if they would have any involvement, I'll be opposing everything and anything. Social care people who find my Dad to have capacity for only one decision and one decision only. The decision that might cost the council money. He HAS capacity for that, apparently. Just not for anything else at all, including whether or not to spend a fiver at Tesco. This country needs to fix the health and social care crisis before we give ANY professionals involvement in effectively killing people. " I think I may have put the doctor point in incorrectly… I don’t want doctors to be held legally liable, if a doctor feels they can’t, then I hope that won’t be held against them Hope that clarifies it a bit better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am for the bill as is written at the moment . I am all for more money for end of life and palliative care, i give money to my local hospice and the hospice that helped my mum All that I would ask is not to put doctors in the middle of making the decisions Who, if not doctors should be involved? Hopefully not social care people because if they would have any involvement, I'll be opposing everything and anything. Social care people who find my Dad to have capacity for only one decision and one decision only. The decision that might cost the council money. He HAS capacity for that, apparently. Just not for anything else at all, including whether or not to spend a fiver at Tesco. This country needs to fix the health and social care crisis before we give ANY professionals involvement in effectively killing people. I think I may have put the doctor point in incorrectly… I don’t want doctors to be held legally liable, if a doctor feels they can’t, then I hope that won’t be held against them Hope that clarifies it a bit better " Yes that makes sense. I expect it'll be like abortion though. A doctor can conscientiously object but they must refer the patient to someone else who does not conscientiously object, in that case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance." There really isn't. The bill states clearly you have to take the drugs yourself.The only drug that would allow a person to pass peacefully is morphine as far as I know. Having it handed to you by a nurse or getting it yourself from the cupboard is little different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance. There really isn't. The bill states clearly you have to take the drugs yourself.The only drug that would allow a person to pass peacefully is morphine as far as I know. Having it handed to you by a nurse or getting it yourself from the cupboard is little different " The difference is being capable of getting to the cupboard or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance. There really isn't. The bill states clearly you have to take the drugs yourself.The only drug that would allow a person to pass peacefully is morphine as far as I know. Having it handed to you by a nurse or getting it yourself from the cupboard is little different The difference is being capable of getting to the cupboard or not. " Although you are being facetious, I will point out that unless you are in the very last days you are mobile. Not the case for everyone I know but even then the patient can access drugs. Towards the end my mother had an automatic syringe morphine driver direct into her stomach. There was an override button so she could "top up" should the pain become too much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance. There really isn't. The bill states clearly you have to take the drugs yourself.The only drug that would allow a person to pass peacefully is morphine as far as I know. Having it handed to you by a nurse or getting it yourself from the cupboard is little different The difference is being capable of getting to the cupboard or not. Although you are being facetious, I will point out that unless you are in the very last days you are mobile. Not the case for everyone I know but even then the patient can access drugs. Towards the end my mother had an automatic syringe morphine driver direct into her stomach. There was an override button so she could "top up" should the pain become too much." My friend, I am not in the last days of my life and I am not mobile. I use a wheelchair daily. When I came home from hospital recently, with a bottle of morphine sulphate to use "as required", my husband placed it away from our daughter's reach. In doing so, he also placed it out of MY reach (including with my litter picker) and so I had to put up with my severe pain until someone could get it for me. That was several hours. Please don't try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. The only difference is my disability isn't terminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most people in this situation already have the means to end their lives if they wish. When my mother died after a long battle with cancer she had enough morphine (heroin) to supply most of the towns junkies There is a massive difference between doing it yourself and having assistance. There really isn't. The bill states clearly you have to take the drugs yourself.The only drug that would allow a person to pass peacefully is morphine as far as I know. Having it handed to you by a nurse or getting it yourself from the cupboard is little different The difference is being capable of getting to the cupboard or not. Although you are being facetious, I will point out that unless you are in the very last days you are mobile. Not the case for everyone I know but even then the patient can access drugs. Towards the end my mother had an automatic syringe morphine driver direct into her stomach. There was an override button so she could "top up" should the pain become too much." And no, I was not being facetious. Not even slightly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm very conflicted about it. Very. I'm not against the Bill as it stands, with assisted suicide only allowed in cases of terminal illness etc, BUT that's how most other countries started and many now have far wider ranging assisted suicide options. I do worry about the "slippery slope" effect and unless you've sat in a hospital and watched exactly how dysfunctional the NHS is, at close quarters, then you might not appreciate how very ill equipped it is to implement these things by the book. While I was an inpatient, on one day, we suddenly had a flurry of DNR notices (on lilac paper) pinned at the end of the beds of several of the women on the ward with me. These women had been inpatients for several days or weeks by the time the lilac paper appeared. None of them had the capacity to consent to this themselves. I wondered a LOT as to where these DNRs suddenly came from and why. They correlated with the hospital calling a serious incident due to the overwhelming of A&E and lack of beds. I am deeply skeptical as a disabled woman who is often treated as those I have a very different quality of life than I actually do have. Most of the time, clinical staff are astonished when I tell them I work FT and what my job is. The expectation of what disabled people look like and do in their lives is very skewed and I worry that once this tightly controlled Bill is law, there will be a slippery slope that has disabled people almost encouraged or suggested to carry out assisted suicide to alleviate issues that stem from a lack of proper care or a lack of proper treatment, due to NHS and social care failings, rather than due to a genuinely terrible quality of life. " Sadly DNR'S don't always need consent, found that out when my father in law was given one by a consultant whilst in Arrowe Park, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm very conflicted about it. Very. I'm not against the Bill as it stands, with assisted suicide only allowed in cases of terminal illness etc, BUT that's how most other countries started and many now have far wider ranging assisted suicide options. I do worry about the "slippery slope" effect and unless you've sat in a hospital and watched exactly how dysfunctional the NHS is, at close quarters, then you might not appreciate how very ill equipped it is to implement these things by the book. While I was an inpatient, on one day, we suddenly had a flurry of DNR notices (on lilac paper) pinned at the end of the beds of several of the women on the ward with me. These women had been inpatients for several days or weeks by the time the lilac paper appeared. None of them had the capacity to consent to this themselves. I wondered a LOT as to where these DNRs suddenly came from and why. They correlated with the hospital calling a serious incident due to the overwhelming of A&E and lack of beds. I am deeply skeptical as a disabled woman who is often treated as those I have a very different quality of life than I actually do have. Most of the time, clinical staff are astonished when I tell them I work FT and what my job is. The expectation of what disabled people look like and do in their lives is very skewed and I worry that once this tightly controlled Bill is law, there will be a slippery slope that has disabled people almost encouraged or suggested to carry out assisted suicide to alleviate issues that stem from a lack of proper care or a lack of proper treatment, due to NHS and social care failings, rather than due to a genuinely terrible quality of life. Sadly DNR'S don't always need consent, found that out when my father in law was given one by a consultant whilst in Arrowe Park, Mrs x" I realise. Basically all the people who couldn't consent suddenly all had lilac DNR forms placed on the end of their bed on a clipboard, on the same day. On the same day the Trust declared a serious incident re: hospital occupancy levels, A&E congestion etc. The DNRs were not in place when the people were first admitted. Some had been inpatients for two weeks at that point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be blunt. The way I feel at the moment, if assisted suicide for non-terminal disability was legal, I might be very tempted. But I don't know if I'd feel differently if my medical care on the NHS was better. And if I didn't have to pay for my own care in full. If I didn't feel like such a massive waste of space and a burden to my family. Frankly, I don't want that option to exist personally, because I couldn't trust myself to ignore it right now. I know the current Bill isn't about non terminal illness, but we'll definitely get to that in the future, if this Bill passes. " This just makes me want to give you the biggest hug, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm very conflicted about it. Very. I'm not against the Bill as it stands, with assisted suicide only allowed in cases of terminal illness etc, BUT that's how most other countries started and many now have far wider ranging assisted suicide options. I do worry about the "slippery slope" effect and unless you've sat in a hospital and watched exactly how dysfunctional the NHS is, at close quarters, then you might not appreciate how very ill equipped it is to implement these things by the book. While I was an inpatient, on one day, we suddenly had a flurry of DNR notices (on lilac paper) pinned at the end of the beds of several of the women on the ward with me. These women had been inpatients for several days or weeks by the time the lilac paper appeared. None of them had the capacity to consent to this themselves. I wondered a LOT as to where these DNRs suddenly came from and why. They correlated with the hospital calling a serious incident due to the overwhelming of A&E and lack of beds. I am deeply skeptical as a disabled woman who is often treated as those I have a very different quality of life than I actually do have. Most of the time, clinical staff are astonished when I tell them I work FT and what my job is. The expectation of what disabled people look like and do in their lives is very skewed and I worry that once this tightly controlled Bill is law, there will be a slippery slope that has disabled people almost encouraged or suggested to carry out assisted suicide to alleviate issues that stem from a lack of proper care or a lack of proper treatment, due to NHS and social care failings, rather than due to a genuinely terrible quality of life. Sadly DNR'S don't always need consent, found that out when my father in law was given one by a consultant whilst in Arrowe Park, Mrs x I realise. Basically all the people who couldn't consent suddenly all had lilac DNR forms placed on the end of their bed on a clipboard, on the same day. On the same day the Trust declared a serious incident re: hospital occupancy levels, A&E congestion etc. The DNRs were not in place when the people were first admitted. Some had been inpatients for two weeks at that point. " It's awful isn't it, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be blunt. The way I feel at the moment, if assisted suicide for non-terminal disability was legal, I might be very tempted. But I don't know if I'd feel differently if my medical care on the NHS was better. And if I didn't have to pay for my own care in full. If I didn't feel like such a massive waste of space and a burden to my family. Frankly, I don't want that option to exist personally, because I couldn't trust myself to ignore it right now. I know the current Bill isn't about non terminal illness, but we'll definitely get to that in the future, if this Bill passes. This just makes me want to give you the biggest hug, Mrs x" I would give my right leg (the more functional of the two) for a hug right now. I hate being on my own at home all day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For or against? I am most definitely for, so long as the correct safeguarding measures are in place. It's really about time we catch up " im for | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be blunt. The way I feel at the moment, if assisted suicide for non-terminal disability was legal, I might be very tempted. But I don't know if I'd feel differently if my medical care on the NHS was better. And if I didn't have to pay for my own care in full. If I didn't feel like such a massive waste of space and a burden to my family. Frankly, I don't want that option to exist personally, because I couldn't trust myself to ignore it right now. I know the current Bill isn't about non terminal illness, but we'll definitely get to that in the future, if this Bill passes. This just makes me want to give you the biggest hug, Mrs x I would give my right leg (the more functional of the two) for a hug right now. I hate being on my own at home all day. " I'll be honest, hard job holding back the tears right now, thinking of you, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To the mods… I get why you moved it.. but it was a great and positive and respectful discussion in the lounge Sometimes, someone screaming politics feels like a cop out " Agree with this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To the mods… I get why you moved it.. but it was a great and positive and respectful discussion in the lounge Sometimes, someone screaming politics feels like a cop out " Ultimately everything is politics isn't it? I think the Politics forum is a good place for the argumentative left/right beliefs and policy stuff. This thread has a much further reaching interest, and the conversation has been (as in Parliament) rather healthy and respectful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"MPs have done the right thing. I saw a poll today showing 71% in favour of the Bill, 5% undecided. That's a mandate. The emphasis now must be on safeguards and procedure. What will it say on the Death Certificate I wonder?" The death certificate will have to be truthful, so something like "assisted suicide with X drug" as one of the primary causes, with the terminal illness as either another primary cause or as a secondary cause. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How will this affect life insurance?" Interesting as the premature death will not have been caused by terminal illness. This is a big issue looming | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How will this affect life insurance?" It's something that will need to be added to polices | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How will this affect life insurance?" For many of us with ore existing health conditions, we can't get life insurance 
Interested to know the answer though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be blunt. The way I feel at the moment, if assisted suicide for non-terminal disability was legal, I might be very tempted. But I don't know if I'd feel differently if my medical care on the NHS was better. And if I didn't have to pay for my own care in full. If I didn't feel like such a massive waste of space and a burden to my family. Frankly, I don't want that option to exist personally, because I couldn't trust myself to ignore it right now. I know the current Bill isn't about non terminal illness, but we'll definitely get to that in the future, if this Bill passes. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How will this affect life insurance?" dont they pay early on terminal illness anyway? Or some? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How will this affect life insurance?dont they pay early on terminal illness anyway? Or some? " I think it depends on the policy but I think you'd have to have a terminal illness that's expected to lead to death in a very short time frame. Many terminal illnesses have time spans of many years, of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To the mods… I get why you moved it.. but it was a great and positive and respectful discussion in the lounge Sometimes, someone screaming politics feels like a cop out " Totally | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To the mods… I get why you moved it.. but it was a great and positive and respectful discussion in the lounge Sometimes, someone screaming politics feels like a cop out " It's literally a vote in Parliament by politicians. Of course its a politics thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not support it. Plus I think you would need a few pennies to go through the legal system for the judge to allow it. So if you have no cash for the legal proceeding your out. Plus I would need cash for the actual deed. So no I do not support this." Where does it say people would pay for it? It seems to be intended that it would be a service provided as part of palliative care on the NHS. And no-one would need to go to court. It would be consented like any other medical procedure - explained and discussed verbally, documented and then some sort of consent document signed by all involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be blunt. The way I feel at the moment, if assisted suicide for non-terminal disability was legal, I might be very tempted. But I don't know if I'd feel differently if my medical care on the NHS was better. And if I didn't have to pay for my own care in full. If I didn't feel like such a massive waste of space and a burden to my family. Frankly, I don't want that option to exist personally, because I couldn't trust myself to ignore it right now. I know the current Bill isn't about non terminal illness, but we'll definitely get to that in the future, if this Bill passes. This just makes me want to give you the biggest hug, Mrs x I would give my right leg (the more functional of the two) for a hug right now. I hate being on my own at home all day. " Sending virtual hugs x You give more to your family than any amount of money that being with them costs. You give love and energy that has no limit to its value. I am for the bill as it stands currently as I understand it and I too am surprised by the divide and difference in vote numbers. Altho I am ambulatorily mobile my fine motor skills are diminishing so even things like pushing pills out of a blister pack and opening a bottle of drinking water are problematic for me on bad days. I would be able to administer liquids via a straw currently but I wouldn’t necessarily be able to prepare a solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not support it. Plus I think you would need a few pennies to go through the legal system for the judge to allow it. So if you have no cash for the legal proceeding your out. Plus I would need cash for the actual deed. So no I do not support this." An average credit card limit will be adequate to fund this, maybe two. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not support it. Plus I think you would need a few pennies to go through the legal system for the judge to allow it. So if you have no cash for the legal proceeding your out. Plus I would need cash for the actual deed. So no I do not support this. Where does it say people would pay for it? It seems to be intended that it would be a service provided as part of palliative care on the NHS. And no-one would need to go to court. It would be consented like any other medical procedure - explained and discussed verbally, documented and then some sort of consent document signed by all involved. " it said on the news 2 doctors and a judge would need to sign it off 🤷 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not support it. Plus I think you would need a few pennies to go through the legal system for the judge to allow it. So if you have no cash for the legal proceeding your out. Plus I would need cash for the actual deed. So no I do not support this. Where does it say people would pay for it? It seems to be intended that it would be a service provided as part of palliative care on the NHS. And no-one would need to go to court. It would be consented like any other medical procedure - explained and discussed verbally, documented and then some sort of consent document signed by all involved. it said on the news 2 doctors and a judge would need to sign it off 🤷" I'd imagine the judge sign off would be on paper. Good luck on getting terminally ill people to attend court. The 2 doctors things will possibly in the same vein (pun not intended) as with abortion, which also has to be signed off by 2 doctors. I suggest it will be Doctor 1 fills in/sign paperwork with the person who is applying for assisted suicide. Doctor 2 (from a different team/medical practice) reviews the case notes and application and either countersigns or declines. Assuming both doctors have signed, something will be lodged on paper with the Court of Protection, much the same as many application made on paper re: people lacking mental capacity, and a judge makes a paper judgment, based on the case history/notes and the consent/application via the two doctors. If this is going to cost people money, then it's going to create a two tier health system. I can't see how the NHS will charge, save the possible payment of a prescription charge for the medications prescribed to bring about death. Abortion requires many of the same safeguards but can be obtained free of charge from the NHS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not support it. Plus I think you would need a few pennies to go through the legal system for the judge to allow it. So if you have no cash for the legal proceeding your out. Plus I would need cash for the actual deed. So no I do not support this. Where does it say people would pay for it? It seems to be intended that it would be a service provided as part of palliative care on the NHS. And no-one would need to go to court. It would be consented like any other medical procedure - explained and discussed verbally, documented and then some sort of consent document signed by all involved. it said on the news 2 doctors and a judge would need to sign it off 🤷 I'd imagine the judge sign off would be on paper. Good luck on getting terminally ill people to attend court. The 2 doctors things will possibly in the same vein (pun not intended) as with abortion, which also has to be signed off by 2 doctors. I suggest it will be Doctor 1 fills in/sign paperwork with the person who is applying for assisted suicide. Doctor 2 (from a different team/medical practice) reviews the case notes and application and either countersigns or declines. Assuming both doctors have signed, something will be lodged on paper with the Court of Protection, much the same as many application made on paper re: people lacking mental capacity, and a judge makes a paper judgment, based on the case history/notes and the consent/application via the two doctors. If this is going to cost people money, then it's going to create a two tier health system. I can't see how the NHS will charge, save the possible payment of a prescription charge for the medications prescribed to bring about death. Abortion requires many of the same safeguards but can be obtained free of charge from the NHS. " id think it will be outsourced through a seperate company working in partnership with the nhs so nhs will fund it but it seperates the 2 names legally for any possible problems down the line 🤷maybe not just thinking how a business would approach this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How anyone can support this Bill, which was only published 3 weeks ago, after the horrors of assisted suicide in Holland and Canada is beyond me." What horrors have been seen in Holland and Canada? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also only needs a junior district judge, who are very overworked, to sign off, not a High Court Jugde as Kim Ledbetter had falsely claimed." so a rubber stamper then lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How anyone can support this Bill, which was only published 3 weeks ago, after the horrors of assisted suicide in Holland and Canada is beyond me. What horrors have been seen in Holland and Canada?" Many examples but the heartbreaking case of Aurelia Brouwers is one that stands out.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To the mods… I get why you moved it.. but it was a great and positive and respectful discussion in the lounge Sometimes, someone screaming politics feels like a cop out It's literally a vote in Parliament by politicians. Of course its a politics thread." Because it had been decided by all the parties that it would be a free vote, I don’t see it as political If the vote and debate had literally not been today people would have talked about it in generality and I don’t think any of the posts were of a political nature before it was moved It’s a subject that isn’t political as such… it’s way beyond that The reason why I am happy that the 2nd reading passed is that all today was , was an “in principle” vote…. Nothing more A no vote today would have stifled conversation and ended it Now the process is going to have to answer all the in process questions… Who does what? How? On NHS or private? Who would be eligible? What safeguards? .. and those just the “health” questions.. you then have a bunch of judicial questions as well… Nothing is going to change or happen tomorrow, this is going to be in committee and report for a while, without even thinking about amendments…. We get to see what an actual full bill looks like, we get to vote on that bill and again it will be a free vote…… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am for it, your life, your choice." The choice will be on two doctors and a judge | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am for it, your life, your choice. The choice will be on two doctors and a judge " I truly hope decisions will be properly scrutinised. Other medical matters requiring 2 doctors etc. have become less scrutinised (potentially both positive and negative, depending how you look at it). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to be slightly in favour of it but now I am slightly against. Hardly any countries actually have laws permitting assisted suicide, so the UK will be amongst a very small minority who do (less than a dozen out of 190 odd countries). Over time the circumstances where it can be used will just massively expand. I was watching some interview with a guy in Canada recently who was going down the assisted suicide route because he was suffering from chronic back pain and couldn’t work and couldn’t survive on benefits and he was going to end up homeless. So basically the state was using assisted suicide as a way of avoiding paying properly for vulnerable people to survive. It always starts off with narrow criteria for qualification and then gradually expands." I am strongly against, but for all those reasons. This is not a power we should be giving the state, especially with a broken and dysfunctional national health system that has failed so many time in its basic duties of care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x" I don’t think my sick dog is able to offer much of an opinion on its situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x" I think any vet will tell you terrible stories of pets being euthanized because they were simply unwanted or too much hassle to look after. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x" If you saw someone on a bridge about to jump would you play Van Halen to them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x" I think the vet might get a bit twitchy if you turned up with granny and asked him to end her suffering | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x I think any vet will tell you terrible stories of pets being euthanized because they were simply unwanted or too much hassle to look after." A bit like some people find with their relatives. I think the word is "burden". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x" Based on the whole dignity, suffering blah blah, if I were the family pet, I'd have been 6ft under some time ago. We apply different criteria to humans than animals, probably rightly so, although I know some people would like equity of treatment across all living beings. I'm not clear if to achieve equity, we should treat animals better, humans worse or some other combination therein. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x Based on the whole dignity, suffering blah blah, if I were the family pet, I'd have been 6ft under some time ago. We apply different criteria to humans than animals, probably rightly so, although I know some people would like equity of treatment across all living beings. I'm not clear if to achieve equity, we should treat animals better, humans worse or some other combination therein. " I'm not equating animals and humans I'm just saying as we are animals guardians we have a duty of care over them. As a human you can determine what you want and your wishes should be respected. I meant more about those that have lost capacity and cannot make that decision for themselves. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x I think any vet will tell you terrible stories of pets being euthanized because they were simply unwanted or too much hassle to look after. A bit like some people find with their relatives. I think the word is "burden". " Tragically yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x Based on the whole dignity, suffering blah blah, if I were the family pet, I'd have been 6ft under some time ago. We apply different criteria to humans than animals, probably rightly so, although I know some people would like equity of treatment across all living beings. I'm not clear if to achieve equity, we should treat animals better, humans worse or some other combination therein. I'm not equating animals and humans I'm just saying as we are animals guardians we have a duty of care over them. As a human you can determine what you want and your wishes should be respected. I meant more about those that have lost capacity and cannot make that decision for themselves. Mrs x" But the Assisted Dying Bill only applies (rightly imo) to those with that capacity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x Based on the whole dignity, suffering blah blah, if I were the family pet, I'd have been 6ft under some time ago. We apply different criteria to humans than animals, probably rightly so, although I know some people would like equity of treatment across all living beings. I'm not clear if to achieve equity, we should treat animals better, humans worse or some other combination therein. I'm not equating animals and humans I'm just saying as we are animals guardians we have a duty of care over them. As a human you can determine what you want and your wishes should be respected. I meant more about those that have lost capacity and cannot make that decision for themselves. Mrs x But the Assisted Dying Bill only applies (rightly imo) to those with that capacity." My Father in Law died from Vascular Dementia. He survived for over 8 years with the disease but he and everything about him, which made him, him, disappeared after about three years. His decline was such that not only did he lose his memory, he lost executive function and couldn't process any information. He lost the ability to walk because he just 'forgot' how to. He became faecally and urinalysis incontinent. He basically then starved himself to death as he first forgot to recognise he was hungry and then he forgot how to 'chew' before finally forgetting how to swallow. He recieved his DNR whilst in hospital after intubating food into his airways instead of his gullet. So yes I think there are times when you should be allowed for a love one or nominated person to decide you have suffered enough and to bring it all to an end peacefully. Degenerative brain conditions means, in lots of cases, you lose your love ones twice. I know if I couldn't think for myself, walk, talk, whilst sitting in a puddle of piss and shit I'd want someone to help me end it. I know my Father in Law would have wanted that but he wasn't allowed it. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x Based on the whole dignity, suffering blah blah, if I were the family pet, I'd have been 6ft under some time ago. We apply different criteria to humans than animals, probably rightly so, although I know some people would like equity of treatment across all living beings. I'm not clear if to achieve equity, we should treat animals better, humans worse or some other combination therein. I'm not equating animals and humans I'm just saying as we are animals guardians we have a duty of care over them. As a human you can determine what you want and your wishes should be respected. I meant more about those that have lost capacity and cannot make that decision for themselves. Mrs x But the Assisted Dying Bill only applies (rightly imo) to those with that capacity.My Father in Law died from Vascular Dementia. He survived for over 8 years with the disease but he and everything about him, which made him, him, disappeared after about three years. His decline was such that not only did he lose his memory, he lost executive function and couldn't process any information. He lost the ability to walk because he just 'forgot' how to. He became faecally and urinalysis incontinent. He basically then starved himself to death as he first forgot to recognise he was hungry and then he forgot how to 'chew' before finally forgetting how to swallow. He recieved his DNR whilst in hospital after intubating food into his airways instead of his gullet. So yes I think there are times when you should be allowed for a love one or nominated person to decide you have suffered enough and to bring it all to an end peacefully. Degenerative brain conditions means, in lots of cases, you lose your love ones twice. I know if I couldn't think for myself, walk, talk, whilst sitting in a puddle of piss and shit I'd want someone to help me end it. I know my Father in Law would have wanted that but he wasn't allowed it. Mrs x " My father is following the same set of problems for the same reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you had a pet, who had very little quality of life and was in pain, you'd be accused of cruelty if you didn't take them to the vets to end their suffering. Surely your loved ones deserve to be treated with such dignity, Mrs x Based on the whole dignity, suffering blah blah, if I were the family pet, I'd have been 6ft under some time ago. We apply different criteria to humans than animals, probably rightly so, although I know some people would like equity of treatment across all living beings. I'm not clear if to achieve equity, we should treat animals better, humans worse or some other combination therein. I'm not equating animals and humans I'm just saying as we are animals guardians we have a duty of care over them. As a human you can determine what you want and your wishes should be respected. I meant more about those that have lost capacity and cannot make that decision for themselves. Mrs x But the Assisted Dying Bill only applies (rightly imo) to those with that capacity.My Father in Law died from Vascular Dementia. He survived for over 8 years with the disease but he and everything about him, which made him, him, disappeared after about three years. His decline was such that not only did he lose his memory, he lost executive function and couldn't process any information. He lost the ability to walk because he just 'forgot' how to. He became faecally and urinalysis incontinent. He basically then starved himself to death as he first forgot to recognise he was hungry and then he forgot how to 'chew' before finally forgetting how to swallow. He recieved his DNR whilst in hospital after intubating food into his airways instead of his gullet. So yes I think there are times when you should be allowed for a love one or nominated person to decide you have suffered enough and to bring it all to an end peacefully. Degenerative brain conditions means, in lots of cases, you lose your love ones twice. I know if I couldn't think for myself, walk, talk, whilst sitting in a puddle of piss and shit I'd want someone to help me end it. I know my Father in Law would have wanted that but he wasn't allowed it. Mrs x My father is following the same set of problems for the same reason. " My sympathies to you and your Father, it's an horrendous disease Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My twopenn'orth? The stats from Dignitas show a little over 3,900 clients (for want of a better word) in the 25 years from 1998 to 2023. That's an average of 156 per year. Can't see any floodgates opening in the UK if the Bill is passed. Then factor in that only people who are mentally competent can apply - so what? There's nothing stopping them from killing themselves now, stockpile enough Oramorph perhaps, or go out on a freezing hillside one night with next to no protective clothing. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Those poor souls who are not competent or who are physically unable to do the deed would not be eligible anyway." Thank you for your empathy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My twopenn'orth? The stats from Dignitas show a little over 3,900 clients (for want of a better word) in the 25 years from 1998 to 2023. That's an average of 156 per year. Can't see any floodgates opening in the UK if the Bill is passed. Then factor in that only people who are mentally competent can apply - so what? There's nothing stopping them from killing themselves now, stockpile enough Oramorph perhaps, or go out on a freezing hillside one night with next to no protective clothing. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Those poor souls who are not competent or who are physically unable to do the deed would not be eligible anyway." 1) Going to Dignitas is expensive. 2) Anyone giving even the slightest assistance to travel to Dignitas are currently breaking the law and the fear of incriminating family and friends puts a lot of people off. 3) It's impossible to be certain you would achieve the desired outcome of death by chugging Oramorph (prescriptions for which are highly controlled and regulated) nor frankly by most methods the average terminally ill person is likely able to access. 4) Many terminally ill people seeking suicide are not able to get to the medicine cabinet or go waltzing around various pharmacies trying to obtain enough medication to achieve death. Anyone aiding them to stockpile, obtain excess or have excess in their reach (if usually bed bound or otherwise unable to self medicate), then again, the law is being broken. 5) Medical professional who prescribe or dispense excess controlled drugs are also liable to be prosecuted. Can you spot any issues with your earlier post? And I don't even support this Bill, particularly. (I'm very conflicted for reasons I've already explained). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm for the bill but I understand the concerns of those against. However, I think it's a disgrace that 38 MPs failed to vote... there's no excuse for that, voting by proxy is the answer unless they don't have the bottle to make a decision in which case they shouldn't be MPs " I am assuming that number has taken out the Sinn Fein MPs who are never present, plus the SNP, who decided to abstain as they don’t vote on issues that specifically don’t relate to Scotland ( the Westminster bill relates to England and wales only, although there is a specific bill with the same language that is going to be debated in holyrood in a few weeks time) Actually at 2nd reading I am not as bothered that 38 decided not to vote… because it still has a long way to go… if I were an mp I might have been tempted to abstain just because if you were a very soft yes, or a very soft no, I would want to see what the actual bill looked like and the mechanics of how it would look and work If they don’t vote at 3rd bill stage, then that is the stage where unless there were very good reasons.. I would raise questions at my mp… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My twopenn'orth? The stats from Dignitas show a little over 3,900 clients (for want of a better word) in the 25 years from 1998 to 2023. That's an average of 156 per year. Can't see any floodgates opening in the UK if the Bill is passed. Then factor in that only people who are mentally competent can apply - so what? There's nothing stopping them from killing themselves now, stockpile enough Oramorph perhaps, or go out on a freezing hillside one night with next to no protective clothing. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Those poor souls who are not competent or who are physically unable to do the deed would not be eligible anyway. 1) Going to Dignitas is expensive. 2) Anyone giving even the slightest assistance to travel to Dignitas are currently breaking the law and the fear of incriminating family and friends puts a lot of people off. 3) It's impossible to be certain you would achieve the desired outcome of death by chugging Oramorph (prescriptions for which are highly controlled and regulated) nor frankly by most methods the average terminally ill person is likely able to access. 4) Many terminally ill people seeking suicide are not able to get to the medicine cabinet or go waltzing around various pharmacies trying to obtain enough medication to achieve death. Anyone aiding them to stockpile, obtain excess or have excess in their reach (if usually bed bound or otherwise unable to self medicate), then again, the law is being broken. 5) Medical professional who prescribe or dispense excess controlled drugs are also liable to be prosecuted. Can you spot any issues with your earlier post? And I don't even support this Bill, particularly. (I'm very conflicted for reasons I've already explained)." My point was that for all the talk and fuss about this bill I genuinely believe it's being over-thought. I'm very have no strong opinion about it either way. I happen to think there are other issues affecting more people which are more deserving of parliamentary time, but hey, it's on the table and MPs are free to vote how they wish. I just don't see why so many people seem to think it will unleash a torrent of assisted deaths where the person concerned been coerced or something. Dignitas may be expensive but their stats are for the whole of the world and the numbers don't suggest that the right to end your own life is serially misused. I know that a person assisting someone to go to a Dignitas clinic may be liable to prosecution in this country, which in and of itself might be a good argument in favour of the bill, but that's not part of the original question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My twopenn'orth? The stats from Dignitas show a little over 3,900 clients (for want of a better word) in the 25 years from 1998 to 2023. That's an average of 156 per year. Can't see any floodgates opening in the UK if the Bill is passed. Then factor in that only people who are mentally competent can apply - so what? There's nothing stopping them from killing themselves now, stockpile enough Oramorph perhaps, or go out on a freezing hillside one night with next to no protective clothing. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Those poor souls who are not competent or who are physically unable to do the deed would not be eligible anyway. Thank you for your empathy." You may have missed my point, please see above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My twopenn'orth? The stats from Dignitas show a little over 3,900 clients (for want of a better word) in the 25 years from 1998 to 2023. That's an average of 156 per year. Can't see any floodgates opening in the UK if the Bill is passed. Then factor in that only people who are mentally competent can apply - so what? There's nothing stopping them from killing themselves now, stockpile enough Oramorph perhaps, or go out on a freezing hillside one night with next to no protective clothing. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Those poor souls who are not competent or who are physically unable to do the deed would not be eligible anyway. 1) Going to Dignitas is expensive. 2) Anyone giving even the slightest assistance to travel to Dignitas are currently breaking the law and the fear of incriminating family and friends puts a lot of people off. 3) It's impossible to be certain you would achieve the desired outcome of death by chugging Oramorph (prescriptions for which are highly controlled and regulated) nor frankly by most methods the average terminally ill person is likely able to access. 4) Many terminally ill people seeking suicide are not able to get to the medicine cabinet or go waltzing around various pharmacies trying to obtain enough medication to achieve death. Anyone aiding them to stockpile, obtain excess or have excess in their reach (if usually bed bound or otherwise unable to self medicate), then again, the law is being broken. 5) Medical professional who prescribe or dispense excess controlled drugs are also liable to be prosecuted. Can you spot any issues with your earlier post? And I don't even support this Bill, particularly. (I'm very conflicted for reasons I've already explained). My point was that for all the talk and fuss about this bill I genuinely believe it's being over-thought. I'm very have no strong opinion about it either way. I happen to think there are other issues affecting more people which are more deserving of parliamentary time, but hey, it's on the table and MPs are free to vote how they wish. I just don't see why so many people seem to think it will unleash a torrent of assisted deaths where the person concerned been coerced or something. Dignitas may be expensive but their stats are for the whole of the world and the numbers don't suggest that the right to end your own life is serially misused. I know that a person assisting someone to go to a Dignitas clinic may be liable to prosecution in this country, which in and of itself might be a good argument in favour of the bill, but that's not part of the original question. " How can you describe it as "over thinking" when the outcome of the Bill passing into law is likely to be that doctors will be able to provide medication and assist with the administration of that medicine, for the purposes of suicide? We NEED to over think this kind of thing! There's perhaps nothing more that requires more thinking, than making it legal for certain people to assist others to die. There are too many ways such powers could be abused, both by medical professionals and relatives of sick people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over thinking in the sense of everyone who is not an MP over thinking it to the extent that they seriously believe it will result in many thousands of assisted suicides per annum. When the evidence suggests otherwise. " Again. It's not the volume of assisted suicides that people are "over thinking". It's the rights and wrongs of how it might work and the very real potential for abuse and coercion. There's also very real concern about the limited scope of this Bill opening up the "slippery slope" in the future, for wider ranging assisted suicide options. The evidence for that is countries like Canada and the Netherlands, where the current fairly wide ranging options are an evolution of originally narrow scoping legislation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
