Assisted Dying Proposal

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

First point, stuff like that was said by many people to try and discredit many issues they disagreed with. If you don’t want to accept that people say that kind of thing but we’re talking about a much higher level of hysteria here, literally Nazi levels of social cleansing were the elderly and disable are being coerced into unnecessary euthanasia as a matter of public convenience.

You and hypo have repeatedly ignored the same point throughout this discussion; this law will need to be based on medical sound diagnosis’ of a terminal illness. It’s not something you can just pop into Boots for on your lunch break, you will need a doctor (with a second opinion) to sign off on the fact that you are terminally ill and/or of seriously degraded quality of life. If you’re 83, fit as a fiddle and tell a doctor, "well I want my grandkids to have a deposit for a house," your application is going to be rejected.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, we’ll see what gets said in parliament. It’s just a shame that if it does get defeated, people in unbearable pain will have to go through the discomfort of travelling abroad to end their life humanely.

You're the only person who has mentioned nazi levels of social cleansing. You're deliberately creating wild exagerratiobs to try to discredit the very valid point. I've already explained to you that it was the case in both Canada and Belgium that a terminal medical diagnosis was required abd then the rules changed. I explained to you that a tiny percentage of applications get turned down in Canada. De Corte was 23 and deeply traumatised after witnessing a terrorist attack. How can it possibly be OK for her to be out to death in that scenario? All signed off by two psychiatrists by the way. Or Raikin above who had lots of terrible illnesses but decided that nobody cared about her and that her problems were mostly mental but decided to ask to be killed anyway because she considered herself to be a burden. 

If as seems likely this passes, it will be a tragedy that cases like I have described will happen (and there plenty more so let's not try to pretend they don't exist anymore) and it's also tragic that you utterly fail to see a differing and perfectly valid alternative point of view from your own. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

First point, stuff like that was said by many people to try and discredit many issues they disagreed with. If you don’t want to accept that people say that kind of thing but we’re talking about a much higher level of hysteria here, literally Nazi levels of social cleansing were the elderly and disable are being coerced into unnecessary euthanasia as a matter of public convenience.

You and hypo have repeatedly ignored the same point throughout this discussion; this law will need to be based on medical sound diagnosis’ of a terminal illness. It’s not something you can just pop into Boots for on your lunch break, you will need a doctor (with a second opinion) to sign off on the fact that you are terminally ill and/or of seriously degraded quality of life. If you’re 83, fit as a fiddle and tell a doctor, "well I want my grandkids to have a deposit for a house," your application is going to be rejected.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, we’ll see what gets said in parliament. It’s just a shame that if it does get defeated, people in unbearable pain will have to go through the discomfort of travelling abroad to end their life humanely.

The point you overlook is the risk that people could arrive at that decision with outside influence or coercion. The risk of abuse is just too great for me. As you say though, points have been made and as much as I disagree with your opinion, people will have differing opinions on this and everyone is entitled to the opposite view. 

[Lighthouse]

Okay, I get our concerns death of loved ones is never a pleasant topic to discuss and if you start adding a choice into equation it starts to get pretty heavy. The criteria of this bill are pretty clear and definitive to me:

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/55997/documents/4980
 

It states quite clearly the need for multiple safeguards against the issues people are concerned about. All of the arguments were taken into account when the bill was drafted, hence the need for a clear informed decision, signed by an independent witness, who cannot stand to profit from the will. That’s as well as a sound, independent medical diagnosis of terminal illness, and a certified second opinion from a doctor who cannot be a colleague of the original doctor. People with disabilities and mental illness are specifically mentioned as being excluded. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Okay, I get our concerns death of loved ones is never a pleasant topic to discuss and if you start adding a choice into equation it starts to get pretty heavy. The criteria of this bill are pretty clear and definitive to me:

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/55997/documents/4980
 

It states quite clearly the need for multiple safeguards against the issues people are concerned about. All of the arguments were taken into account when the bill was drafted, hence the need for a clear informed decision, signed by an independent witness, who cannot stand to profit from the will. That’s as well as a sound, independent medical diagnosis of terminal illness, and a certified second opinion from a doctor who cannot be a colleague of the original doctor. People with disabilities and mental illness are specifically mentioned as being excluded. 

There were multiple safeguards in place in Canada (they lasted less than two years) and Oregon. Other countries as well though I would have to get the details. 54 MPs are trying to get the bill to be expanded already:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/05/widen-access-to-assisted-dying-say-labour-mps/

They want the bill to apply. To the terminally ill and "the incurably suffering" 

From Canada: 

“When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.”

But “that’s what happened” 

 

[whelk]

If you take up the offer will it void any life insurance ? One of my policies clearly states won’t payout for suicide 

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

If you take up the offer will it void any life insurance ? One of my policies clearly states won’t payout for suicide 

No policies pay out for suicide.

[aintforever]

57 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There were multiple safeguards in place in Canada (they lasted less than two years) and Oregon. Other countries as well though I would have to get the details. 54 MPs are trying to get the bill to be expanded already:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/05/widen-access-to-assisted-dying-say-labour-mps/

They want the bill to apply. To the terminally ill and "the incurably suffering" 

From Canada: 

“When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.”

But “that’s what happened” 

 

Doesn’t mean it has to happen here. The concerns over mission creep are obvious but I don’t see that as a reason for not easing the suffering of the terminally ill. Anyway, expanding the criteria will only ever happen if the existing legislation is considered successful.

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Doesn’t mean it has to happen here. The concerns over mission creep are obvious but I don’t see that as a reason for not easing the suffering of the terminally ill. Anyway, expanding the criteria will only ever happen if the existing legislation is considered successful.

Again, it depends what you mean by successful. Certain people in power in Canada obviously considered it to be successful which is why they have expanded it in such short order and caused so many problems that have already been outlined. At least you've stated that the concerns about misson creep are obvious, it seems we only disagree about whether that should stop bills like this from going through or not. I can respect your difference of opinion on that even if I can't agree with it. 

[whelk]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

No policies pay out for suicide.

That wasn’t the question 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, whelk said:

If you take up the offer will it void any life insurance ? One of my policies clearly states won’t payout for suicide 

Most insurance policies will pay out for 'terminal' illness.

[hypochondriac]

I think the main question is whether you trust the state to carry this out in an ethical and extremely limited manner. I don't believe it can:

 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I think the main question is whether you trust the state to carry this out in an ethical and extremely limited manner. I don't believe it can:

 

More information is needed regarding this one specific case.

Was the 'inflammatory bowel disease' a terminal diagnosis?  If not, it would not be relevant to what the UK is proposing.

The rest of it regarding the family not being consulted is likely to be whataboutery (again, more info is possibly needed), as it states the man was over 40, therefore legally an adult that can make his own decisions.

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

More information is needed regarding this one specific case.

Was the 'inflammatory bowel disease' a terminal diagnosis?  If not, it would not be relevant to what the UK is proposing.

The rest of it regarding the family not being consulted is likely to be whataboutery (again, more info is possibly needed), as it states the man was over 40, therefore legally an adult that can make his own decisions.

How many times? Canada proposed the exact same thing. They expanded the definition within 4 years, something a significant number of MPs are already pushing for before they have even got this bill through. 

[Lighthouse]

41 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How many times? Canada proposed the exact same thing. They expanded the definition within 4 years, something a significant number of MPs are already pushing for before they have even got this bill through. 

We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it, for what is currently being proposed I see no reasonable cause for concern. As Weston said, more information would be needed for that specific case and whether or not two doctors would sign him off as being terminally ill.

[sadoldgit]

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied.

The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it, for what is currently being proposed I see no reasonable cause for concern. As Weston said, more information would be needed for that specific case and whether or not two doctors would sign him off as being terminally ill.

The issues in Canada include people being able to shop around for doctors until they find two willing to sign it off even if others have already turned them down. Did you look into the De Corte case where she was allowed to kill herself in Belgium at 24 after being traumatised by a terror attack? 

From Canada: 

“When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.”

But “that’s what happened” 

Why would we think things would be different here? There's at the very least a reasonable risk of that happening once it has been normalised so it warrants being part of the discussion. 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The issues in Canada include people being able to shop around for doctors until they find two willing to sign it off even if others have already turned them down. Did you look into the De Corte case where she was allowed to kill herself in Belgium at 24 after being traumatised by a terror attack? 

 

We aren't Canada!

Good luck 'shopping around' for doctors in the UK.  I can't get mine to look at the blood test results they received a week ago!

I think you are drawing far too many inferences from specific, isolated cases and believing the worst case will always happen.  Anyone who is so determined to kill themselves (legally) by 'shopping around' for doctors after being traumatised or whatever, is not going to be put off from suicide (killing themselves illegally) if the legal route is not open to them (which it won't be in the UK).

Checks and balances need to be put in place.  So far, from what I've heard of our proposals, that is what will happen.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We aren't Canada!

Good luck 'shopping around' for doctors in the UK.  I can't get mine to look at the blood test results they received a week ago!

I think you are drawing far too many inferences from specific, isolated cases and believing the worst case will always happen.  Anyone who is so determined to kill themselves (legally) by 'shopping around' for doctors after being traumatised or whatever, is not going to be put off from suicide (killing themselves illegally) if the legal route is not open to them (which it won't be in the UK).

Checks and balances need to be put in place.  So far, from what I've heard of our proposals, that is what will happen.

We absolutely are comparable to a country like Canada, particularly when we already have a number of MPs putting pressure on to expand those eligible for this bill. You can also see similar scenarios in Ohio, Holland and Belgium where assisted dying was also introduced along similar lines to what is proposed here. I don't think the worst case will always happen, my entirely valid concern is everything that I have already articulated in numerous posts but also that there is a greater risk that some people will lose their lives unnecessarily, that life will become less valued, that those who are old or disabled will feel coerced overtly or covertly to end things now that the option is available to them etc etc. I understand the other side of the argument but IMO it's an unacceptable risk to take and it will be a sad day if/when this is passed for those reasons. 

Edited October 22 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

We absolutely are comparable to a country like Canada, particularly when we already have a number of MPs putting pressure on to expand those eligible for this bill. I don't think the worst case will always happen, my entirely valid concern is everything that I have already articulated in numerous posts but also that there is a greater risk that some people will lose their lives unnecessarily, that life will become less valued, that those who are old or disabled will feel coerced overtly or covertly to end things now that the option is available to them etc etc. I understand the other side of the argument but IMO it's an unacceptable risk to take and it will be a sad day if/when this is passed for those reasons. 

I disagree. The handful of cases you’ve highlighted (going purely by media articles and without having the information or expertise to give them an accurate medical assessment) do not negate the right of thousands of people every year do have their pain and suffering ended quickly and with dignity. Even that is assuming all your fears about mission creep are realised and dubious cases start to creep through the net, which at the moment there is no suggestion will happen.

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I disagree. The handful of cases you’ve highlighted (going purely by media articles and without having the information or expertise to give them an accurate medical assessment) do not negate the right of thousands of people every year do have their pain and suffering ended quickly and with dignity. Even that is assuming all your fears about mission creep are realised and dubious cases start to creep through the net, which at the moment there is no suggestion will happen.

I know you disagree. You've mischarictarised what I've said again. What accurate medical assessment is required to condemn the death of DeCorte? 

Edited October 22 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied.

The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

Watch out it may come to extend to silly old men who make a fool out of themselves on football forum 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Watch out it may come to extend to silly old men who make a fool out of themselves on football forum 

In that case maybe I'll change my deeply held beliefs and vote in favour. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied.

The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

Decent and well considered post, although my view remains that this is a bad idea, and I disagree with you in the slippery slope issue. However, I respect that views are for and against, and I've read some well thought out stuff for both sides of the argument.

Just on the highlighted part. No mp can possibly hope to vote on this knowing the conscience of the group they represent, and I suspect will vote based on their personal opinion. Changes to the law, and the scope of who is included, will follow in the same way.

I appreciate that's our democracy, but I see no reasonable way of allowing us, the voting public, to put our views on such a massive subject to the few hundred people who will determine who can elect to die and in what circumstances. 

Tough subject is this, and nice to see it being discussed mostly sensibly. 

Edited October 22 by egg

[Picard]

Recent report on euthanasia in Canada.

Euthanasia report

[sadoldgit]

My understanding is that, under our system, only the terminally ill will be considered.  What others do is down to them and doesn’t mean that we will end up following suit.

[sadoldgit]

I’d be interested to know if those who are strongly against the policy of assisted dying for those who are terminally ill -

a) If you are also against abortion and

b) do you agree or disagree with making an anti-resuscitation decision for next of kin or dependants?

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I appreciate that's our democracy, but I see no reasonable way of allowing us, the voting public, to put our views on such a massive subject to the few hundred people who will determine who can elect to die and in what circumstances. 

We managed to do it with the question of whether or not we should leave the EU, so it should be possible.

Actually, that was a poorly judged, ill-thought out clusterfuck that has inflicted massive damage to this country, so let's not do that again.

[egg]

59 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

We managed to do it with the question of whether or not we should leave the EU, so it should be possible.

Actually, that was a poorly judged, ill-thought out clusterfuck that has inflicted massive damage to this country, so let's not do that again.

😂

That highlights the good and bad of our system. This one is such an emotive issue. Is it best to leave it to the masses or MP's voting on personal beliefs/experiences, not the view of their constituents? 

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I’d be interested to know if those who are strongly against the policy of assisted dying for those who are terminally ill -

a) If you are also against abortion and

b) do you agree or disagree with making an anti-resuscitation decision for next of kin or dependants?

a) apples/pears. And personally I have no wish to see a decent thread dragged down by debating a discrete issue on a moral equivalence basis. 

b) ditto.

Don't derail another thread SoG. 

[sadoldgit]

21 hours ago, egg said:

a) apples/pears. And personally I have no wish to see a decent thread dragged down by debating a discrete issue on a moral equivalence basis. 

b) ditto.

Don't derail another thread SoG. 

If the argument against the use of assisted dying is the “sanctity of life” then it isn’t apples and pears at all. It is all about choice and who gets to make those choices. Your attempt to swerve a perfectly reasonable attempt at dealing with a difficult subject by claiming that I am trying to derail the thread is something I expect from the others. I thought you were better than that.

[sadoldgit]

21 hours ago, egg said:

😂

That highlights the good and bad of our system. This one is such an emotive issue. Is it best to leave it to the masses or MP's voting on personal beliefs/experiences, not the view of their constituents? 

The issue is completely polarised, like Brexit. Those who are pro life will be deeply unhappy if they loose the vote as will those who support the motion. Whether it is just MPs or a referendum is doesn’t really matter. One way or another an awful lot of people will not accept the decision as being the right one.

From my point of view though those who will benefit personally from the assisted dying motion through less suffering stand to gain a lot more than anyone else if the motion is passed.

[Tamesaint]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If the argument against the use of assisted dying is the “sanctity of life” then it isn’t apples and pears at all. It is all about choice and who gets to make those choices. Your attempt to swerve a perfectly reasonable attempt at dealing with a difficult subject by claiming that I am trying to derail the thread is something I expect from the others. I thought you were better than that.

If you read back through this thread, the opponents of assisted dying are not objecting necessarilyon the sanctity of life argument. There are other issues involved which are being debated in a sensible, rational manner. 

[sadoldgit]

7 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

If you read back through this thread, the opponents of assisted dying are not objecting necessarilyon the sanctity of life argument. There are other issues involved which are being debated in a sensible, rational manner. 

Why is it not sensible or rational to ask people who oppose the assisted dying of terminally ill people if they agree with abortion or not and the giving of a non resuscitation order? It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. I can understand why people might oppose it on the grounds that all life is sacred. I do struggle to understand why someone would stand in the way of a terminally ill person with months to live being given the opportunity to die with dignity at a time of their choosing. You shouldn’t have to fly to Switzerland or put your family and loved ones through the trauma of a suicide or attempted suicide.

I get the argument about the system being abused, but that should get in the way of the basic principle. Strict procedures need to be in place, but should well meaning people really get in the way of the wishes of someone who is suffering and is very close to the end of their life?

[egg]

17 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Why is it not sensible or rational to ask people who oppose the assisted dying of terminally ill people if they agree with abortion or not and the giving of a non resuscitation order? It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. I can understand why people might oppose it on the grounds that all life is sacred. I do struggle to understand why someone would stand in the way of a terminally ill person with months to live being given the opportunity to die with dignity at a time of their choosing. You shouldn’t have to fly to Switzerland or put your family and loved ones through the trauma of a suicide or attempted suicide.

I get the argument about the system being abused, but that should get in the way of the basic principle. Strict procedures need to be in place, but should well meaning people really get in the way of the wishes of someone who is suffering and is very close to the end of their life?

I can't speak for others, but as tamesaint says, the actual issue is being discussed sensibly. Abortion is a different issue and I'm not even getting into a discussion about that unrelated issue. 

[Tamesaint]

18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Why is it not sensible or rational to ask people who oppose the assisted dying of terminally ill people if they agree with abortion or not and the giving of a non resuscitation order? It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. I can understand why people might oppose it on the grounds that all life is sacred. I do struggle to understand why someone would stand in the way of a terminally ill person with months to live being given the opportunity to die with dignity at a time of their choosing. You shouldn’t have to fly to Switzerland or put your family and loved ones through the trauma of a suicide or attempted suicide.

I get the argument about the system being abused, but that should get in the way of the basic principle. Strict procedures need to be in place, but should well meaning people really get in the way of the wishes of someone who is suffering and is very close to the end of their life?

I understand with what you are saying and cannot disagree with some of your points. 

I believe however that the risk of any assisted dying  system evolving into one that encompasses more than the terminally ill is far too great. Everyone has their own views on this subject. My views are coloured by having lived with a very disabled wife. At least MPs are being allowed to vote with their consciences. 

 

[sadoldgit]

I’m sorry to hear that and completely understand where you are coming from. I don’t believe for one minute that it would be extended that far and if there were attempts to do so I am sure there would be a huge amount of opposition. The important word is choice. No one is going to be forced into anything they don’t want to do and if we ever get to the point where a Government is bringing in mandatory measures to euthanise people we will have plenty more to worry about as we will be living in a dictatorship.

In the end it doesn’t really matter what I think. It matters to those that it will affect now and in the future. That is why I would like people to have a choice about their end of life care under certain circumstances, fully supported by our health care system.

I see Wes Streeting is going to vote against the bill.

[hypochondriac]

As expected, the bill doesn't do anywhere near enough to provide necessary safeguards and is open to abuse:

https://x.com/danny__kruger/status/1856131887212745194?t=hU6qDylUl92pCJhukhmyWQ&s=19

[rallyboy]

I'm not sure that Mr Kruger was looking to offer a balanced analysis, the clue was when he literally started with - it's just as bad as all the other efforts to license doctors to kill patients.

Not a constructive way to start any debate on a serious subject.

Personally I thought the two independent doctors plus a judge, and only for people in the last six months of life looked like significant controls in place, then again I'm not a Tory MP with a fragile majority, desperate for headlines.

 

[hypochondriac]

56 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

I'm not sure that Mr Kruger was looking to offer a balanced analysis, the clue was when he literally started with - it's just as bad as all the other efforts to license doctors to kill patients.

Not a constructive way to start any debate on a serious subject.

Personally I thought the two independent doctors plus a judge, and only for people in the last six months of life looked like significant controls in place, then again I'm not a Tory MP with a fragile majority, desperate for headlines.

 

It's not a good enough control if it allows people to shop around to get the answer they want abd if it allows medical professionals-not just doctors- to bring it up unprompted. He's also right that a significant number of MPs are trying to get the process 'simplified', sped up and expanded under the guise of compassion.

Legitimate concerns are not confined to Tory MPs with a slim majority as you well know. 

Edited November 12 by hypochondriac

[rallyboy]

Indeed they're not, and there are legitimate concerns to be discussed and this bill may not go far enough to address them.

But for him to lazily define assisted-suicide as 'doctors killing patients' confirms that he's a fucking clown who has no sensible or balanced views to offer in a serious debate.

 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Indeed they're not, and there are legitimate concerns to be discussed and this bill may not go far enough to address them.

But for him to lazily define assisted-suicide as 'doctors killing patients' confirms that he's a fucking clown who has no sensible or balanced views to offer in a serious debate.

 

He reported on the contents of the Bill. I'd be interested to hear an opposing opinion that refuted what he says is and isn't in the bill and the obvious problems that presents if what he has said is accurate. 

[Winnersaint]

I'm so conflicted over this as three years ago I was watching my wife die from bowel cancer.  At the end she was largely sedated and well cared for by the Sue Ryder palliative care team before she slipped away early on a December Sunday morning. The one commodity in short supply during that Autumn was time and as it began to noticeably run out those days, hours and minutes were among the most precious we had in 30 odd years of marriage. Neither of us wanted to deny each other that time. That is why I am indeed conflicted between what may have been better on a practical level to what was best for both of us on an emotional level.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

As expected, the bill doesn't do anywhere near enough to provide necessary safeguards and is open to abuse:

https://x.com/danny__kruger/status/1856131887212745194?t=hU6qDylUl92pCJhukhmyWQ&s=19

Maybe to someone who is absolutely opposed to the bill and the premise that terminally ill people who want to die with dignity shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

I'm so conflicted over this as three years ago I was watching my wife die from bowel cancer.  At the end she was largely sedated and well cared for by the Sue Ryder palliative care team before she slipped away early on a December Sunday morning. The one commodity in short supply during that Autumn was time and as it began to noticeably run out those days, hours and minutes were among the most precious we had in 30 odd years of marriage. Neither of us wanted to deny each other that time. That is why I am indeed conflicted between what may have been better on a practical level to what was best for both of us on an emotional level.

Excellent post. I'm glad you could find some positivity during what must have been a difficult time. 

[sadoldgit]

5 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

I'm so conflicted over this as three years ago I was watching my wife die from bowel cancer.  At the end she was largely sedated and well cared for by the Sue Ryder palliative care team before she slipped away early on a December Sunday morning. The one commodity in short supply during that Autumn was time and as it began to noticeably run out those days, hours and minutes were among the most precious we had in 30 odd years of marriage. Neither of us wanted to deny each other that time. That is why I am indeed conflicted between what may have been better on a practical level to what was best for both of us on an emotional level.

I am deeply sorry to hear this mate. I can’t imagine what you both went through.

There is an argument that palliative care should be improved, but shouldn’t necessarily mean that we don’t go forward with this bill. The whole point is personal choice about how and when we go in certain circumstances. I am glad that you were able to share that time together. I would not want to deny anybody the end of life that works for them.

[Winnersaint]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

There is an argument that palliative care should be improved.

On this we can agree. Although good, it was only for the final three days and actually should have been in place weeks prior to this.

[Lighthouse]

25 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

I'm so conflicted over this as three years ago I was watching my wife die from bowel cancer.  At the end she was largely sedated and well cared for by the Sue Ryder palliative care team before she slipped away early on a December Sunday morning. The one commodity in short supply during that Autumn was time and as it began to noticeably run out those days, hours and minutes were among the most precious we had in 30 odd years of marriage. Neither of us wanted to deny each other that time. That is why I am indeed conflicted between what may have been better on a practical level to what was best for both of us on an emotional level.

Sorry to hear about your loss. Stories like this reiterate that this should be a personal choice and isn’t necessarily for everyone.

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

I'm so conflicted over this as three years ago I was watching my wife die from bowel cancer.  At the end she was largely sedated and well cared for by the Sue Ryder palliative care team before she slipped away early on a December Sunday morning. The one commodity in short supply during that Autumn was time and as it began to noticeably run out those days, hours and minutes were among the most precious we had in 30 odd years of marriage. Neither of us wanted to deny each other that time. That is why I am indeed conflicted between what may have been better on a practical level to what was best for both of us on an emotional level.

My situation was very similar to yours. Last summer my wife had duodenal cancer and although there was a lot of talk about a possible operation the initial procedures had caused a blood clot that eventually caused her intestines to break down.

After ten days in Winchester Royal Hants I brought her home. She knew her days were numbered but despite two more stays in Southampton General eventually she had had enough and decided to come home and spend her last few days in familiar surroundings and with our two children and seven grandchildren able to call in and see her. The day I brought her home was our 53rd wedding anniversary. We had been together from the age of sixteen, four years before we were married.

She spent her last three weeks in our bed and kept apologising for what she was putting us through. Her sedation was gradually increased until by the last week she was barely aware of anything but before that she kept saying to me “I want to go”. I have no doubt that given the option of being assisted she would have taken it because she didn’t want to cause us any bother. 

Things got messy but she was my wonderful wife and I had signed up for the duration and I was privileged to have spent my life with her and I was privileged to have spent our last days looking after her. She suggested that she should go to a hospice like her sister had twenty years before but I didn’t want to ship her off somewhere to die without her family being with her.

One hundred days after leaving Winchester she slipped away quietly in her own bed on a Sunday morning. I still miss her terribly. Every day is a torment.

Was I selfish to have kept her here? My children say that I did the right thing.

[Winnersaint]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Sorry to hear about your loss. Stories like this reiterate that this should be a personal choice and isn’t necessarily for everyone.

Thank you. We did indeed discuss it, and she was broadly in favour of it, but had was put off that summer when she had an encounter with a new oncologist who on first meeting presented her with a DNAR to sign. This was at a time when palliative treatment as opposed to care was still very much viable. Unfortunately, it was not received and she felt that she was being left to die by those treating her. It has to remembered we're talking 2021 here and the ongoing backdrop of the second COVID summer to winter period so it was probably a bit more nuanced than that. However it does highlight the need for good decision making and communication by medical professionals. 

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

My situation was very similar to yours. Last summer my wife had duodenal cancer and although there was a lot of talk about a possible operation the initial procedures had caused a blood clot that eventually caused her intestines to break down.

After ten days in Winchester Royal Hants I brought her home. She knew her days were numbered but despite two more stays in Southampton General eventually she had had enough and decided to come home and spend her last few days in familiar surroundings and with our two children and seven grandchildren able to call in and see her. The day I brought her home was our 53rd wedding anniversary. We had been together from the age of sixteen, four years before we were married.

She spent her last three weeks in our bed and kept apologising for what she was putting us through. Her sedation was gradually increased until by the last week she was barely aware of anything but before that she kept saying to me “I want to go”. I have no doubt that given the option of being assisted she would have taken it because she didn’t want to cause us any bother. 

Things got messy but she was my wonderful wife and I had signed up for the duration and I was privileged to have spent my life with her and I was privileged to have spent our last days looking after her. She suggested that she should go to a hospice like her sister had twenty years before but I didn’t want to ship her off somewhere to die without her family being with her.

One hundred days after leaving Winchester she slipped away quietly in her own bed on a Sunday morning. I still miss her terribly. Every day is a torment.

Was I selfish to have kept her here? My children say that I did the right thing.

I am sure that was a difficult post to write and thank you for it. You absolutely did the right thing. One day you may be able to look back and appreciate the end that you had with her even if it's too painful to do so now. I have met you a number of years ago and you were very friendly and stories like this are harder when you can put a face to a name. I am sure your wife would be proud of you for carrying on.