Assisted Dying Proposal

[Winnersaint]

21 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 and I and I was 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.

No of course not.  She was your wonderful wife, you had signed up for the duration and you were privileged to have spent your last days together looking after her. No selfishness there, all that reflects my experience. To be fair, I think if the option of an assisted end had been there my wife would have taken it if it weren't for our daughter's wedding the following Spring. Sadly she didn't make  that. Please take care.

[hypochondriac]

3 hours 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.

 

Here's another Tory MP desperate for headlines pointing out that the safeguards in place are not adequate:

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Here's another Tory MP desperate for headlines pointing out that the safeguards in place are not adequate:

 

Does Tim, nice but dim, realise that this only applies to people who have been diagnosed with less than 6 months to live?

Somehow, they aren't going to be realising 'years later' that they have been co-erced, even if that were true.

Not sure he's entirely understood the bill. A shame really that people like him will get to vote on it!

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Does Tim, nice but dim, realise that this only applies to people who have been diagnosed with less than 6 months to live?

Somehow, they aren't going to be realising 'years later' that they have been co-erced, even if that were true.

Not sure he's entirely understood the bill. A shame really that people like him will get to vote on it!

Not sure you've understood what he said. He was saying that coercive control is often not realised by the victim until years later. Clearly in these cases where abuse has happened they would be unable to come to this realisation because they would be dead. That was his point. 

Edited November 12 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Here's another Tory MP desperate for headlines pointing out that the safeguards in place are not adequate:

 

No, he’s another practicing Christian whose god commands him to preserve life and is wilfully misunderstanding the bill to make it appear immoral.

Two independent doctors have to confirm that a patient is terminally ill, that is the main safeguard. You might be able to coerce a person into believing they need to die but you will not be able to convince two doctors to go along with it. If they did, for no valid medical reason, they end up struck off and in prison.

[egg]

32 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure you've understood what he said. He was saying that coercive control is often not realised by the victim until years later. Clearly in these cases where abuse has happened they would be unable to come to this realisation because they would be dead. That was his point. 

He has misunderstood it, and your interpretation is correct. I haven't read the bill, but my earlier concerns would be allayed largely if the process involves both doctors speaking with person to be satisfied, as far as is possible, that they have freely elected to die. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No, he’s another practicing Christian whose god commands him to preserve life and is wilfully misunderstanding the bill to make it appear immoral.

Two independent doctors have to confirm that a patient is terminally ill, that is the main safeguard. You might be able to coerce a person into believing they need to die but you will not be able to convince two doctors to go along with it. If they did, for no valid medical reason, they end up struck off and in prison.

It's not. It's the freedom of choice part that is the main safeguard. You can't approach something as serious as this on the basis that the person is definitely going to pass within the next 6 months and accept that as the main safeguard. Crazy approach. It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me. 

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not. It's the freedom of choice part that is the main safeguard. You can't approach something as serious as this on the basis that the person is definitely going to pass within the next 6 months and accept that as the main safeguard. Crazy approach. It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me. 

The fact that this is a free choice isn’t in itself a safeguard, although I think it goes without saying that this proposal is not compulsory for the terminally ill. The safeguard is the thing that prevents this choice from being corrupted or manipulated in some way, I.E. there has to be a verified, independent medical diagnosis backing it up.

[Weston Super Saint]

31 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not. It's the freedom of choice part that is the main safeguard. You can't approach something as serious as this on the basis that the person is definitely going to pass within the next 6 months and accept that as the main safeguard. Crazy approach. It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me. 

If a doctor is not as certain as they can possibly be that someone will have six months to live, then they won't give that diagnosis.

As Lighthouse says, the ability to choose only comes once that diagnosis has been received.

Frankly, in my humble opinion, anyone who is given the horrendous news that they are going to die within the next six months, has every right to chose whatever they want to do during the time they have left. If that involves undertaking a process (that will take at least a month) to end their suffering sooner, then that is their right. If they want to live on until the end, again, that's their choice to make.

Coercive behaviour becomes irrelevant when someone has only 6 months to live, surely?

[egg]

31 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

The fact that this is a free choice isn’t in itself a safeguard, although I think it goes without saying that this proposal is not compulsory for the terminally ill. The safeguard is the thing that prevents this choice from being corrupted or manipulated in some way, I.E. there has to be a verified, independent medical diagnosis backing it up.

To be clear, are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice? 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If a doctor is not as certain as they can possibly be that someone will have six months to live, then they won't give that diagnosis.

As Lighthouse says, the ability to choose only comes once that diagnosis has been received.

Frankly, in my humble opinion, anyone who is given the horrendous news that they are going to die within the next six months, has every right to chose whatever they want to do during the time they have left. If that involves undertaking a process (that will take at least a month) to end their suffering sooner, then that is their right. If they want to live on until the end, again, that's their choice to make.

Coercive behaviour becomes irrelevant when someone has only 6 months to live, surely?

1st part. The choice part (free choice) has to be satisfied imo.

2nd part. Is that a genuine question? Of course it matters. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

1st part. The choice part (free choice) has to be satisfied imo.

2nd part. Is that a genuine question? Of course it matters. 

Of course eit matters as you said. That's leaving aside the fact that a 6 months to live diagnosis is often wrong. A friend of mine has a brain tumour and was told they would be fortunate to make Christmas last year and still going strong. 

Edited November 12 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

To be clear, are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice? 

What? That's nothing like what I said. You said the freedom of choice was the safeguard, it isn't. A choice is a choice, a safeguard is something which then stops that choice being abused and manipulated. In this case, you need the agreement of two independent doctors that a terminal illness has been objectively diagnosed. That way you cannot be euthanised simply by virtue of the fact that someone has told you that you probably ought to.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

1st part. The choice part (free choice) has to be satisfied imo.

2nd part. Is that a genuine question? Of course it matters. 

Are you saying someone will undertake the process if it isn't their 'free choice'?

I get what you are saying, there are heartless twats in the world who will want to get their hands on the inheritance, but if their family are diagnosed with a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live, is that really relevant?

Whilst the argument will be that the loved one may want to end their life sooner so as not to be a 'burden' and may feel pressured to do so, isn't that their choice to do so?

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

What? That's nothing like what I said. You said the freedom of choice was the safeguard, it isn't. A choice is a choice, a safeguard is something which then stops that choice being abused and manipulated. In this case, you need the agreement of two independent doctors that a terminal illness has been objectively diagnosed. That way you cannot be euthanised simply by virtue of the fact that someone has told you that you probably ought to.

And a judge...

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Of course eit matters as you said. That's leaving aside the fact that a 6 months to live diagnosis is often wrong. A friend of mine has a brain tumour and was told they would be fortunate to make Christmas last year and still going strong. 

Given choice, do you think he'd want to have been euthanised immediately or carry on for as long as possible until existence became unbearable?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Given choice, do you think he'd want to have been euthanised immediately or carry on for as long as possible until existence became unbearable?

100% he wants to continue. Largely because his granddaughter is now old enough that she will remember him. Every moment is precious and they've made so many memories in the past year it's been amazing. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

What? That's nothing like what I said. You said the freedom of choice was the safeguard, it isn't. A choice is a choice, a safeguard is something which then stops that choice being abused and manipulated. In this case, you need the agreement of two independent doctors that a terminal illness has been objectively diagnosed. That way you cannot be euthanised simply by virtue of the fact that someone has told you that you probably ought to.

Worth pointing out that the words in the bill say medical professional and not doctor so even that safeguard-flawed as it is-is ambiguous to a concerning degree. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Are you saying someone will undertake the process if it isn't their 'free choice'?

I get what you are saying, there are heartless twats in the world who will want to get their hands on the inheritance, but if their family are diagnosed with a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live, is that really relevant?

Whilst the argument will be that the loved one may want to end their life sooner so as not to be a 'burden' and may feel pressured to do so, isn't that their choice to do so?

Even though I don't agree with the 6 months to live thing, can you guarantee to me that this will stay with a 6 months to live terminal diagnosis forever? 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Worth pointing out that the words in the bill say medical professional and not doctor so even that safeguard-flawed as it is-is ambiguous to a concerning degree. 

If that is the wording, I agree. It will need to be changed and should be 'consultant' I'd assume - not something a first year nurse of doctor should be dealing with.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

What? That's nothing like what I said. You said the freedom of choice was the safeguard, it isn't. A choice is a choice, a safeguard is something which then stops that choice being abused and manipulated. In this case, you need the agreement of two independent doctors that a terminal illness has been objectively diagnosed. That way you cannot be euthanised simply by virtue of the fact that someone has told you that you probably ought to.

Don't misquote me. I said  "It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me". The freedom of choice, and it being satisfied, is the safeguard at 1st instance after the verification of terminal illness. 

I'm not misinterpreting what you've said. You've said throughout, and yet again, that the terminal diagnosis is pretty much all that is needed. That's the beginning. It's the need for freedom choice to elect to die thereafter that you don't seem to understand. 

I'll ask my question again - are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice? It's a yes or no. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Even though I don't agree with the 6 months to live thing, can you guarantee to me that this will stay with a 6 months to live terminal diagnosis forever? 

No, I can't.  But that is what's on the table now.  I can only consider what is being proposed right now. To take away the opportunity for terminal patients to ease their suffering now because a law may be changed in the future seems heartless.

[aintforever]

Looks like plenty of safeguards there, I would vote for it. There’s obviously risks involved but think the amount of suffering it would stop makes it worthwhile.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

100% he wants to continue. Largely because his granddaughter is now old enough that she will remember him. Every moment is precious and they've made so many memories in the past year it's been amazing. 

My father was given less than 2 years just before he was 70. He's 79 soon. My mother in law was given 4-6 months and survived another 4 years, enough time to see various significant events. Horrific to think that people in her position could be made to feel a burden and feel compelled to elect death without anyone feeling the need to explore whether that's what she really wants. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If that is the wording, I agree. It will need to be changed and should be 'consultant' I'd assume - not something a first year nurse of doctor should be dealing with.

Glad we can agree on that at least. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

No, I can't.  But that is what's on the table now.  I can only consider what is being proposed right now. To take away the opportunity for terminal patients to ease their suffering now because a law may be changed in the future seems heartless.

That would only be one reason I wouldn't support the bill. The other reasons are all over this thread. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Even though I don't agree with the 6 months to live thing, can you guarantee to me that this will stay with a 6 months to live terminal diagnosis forever? 

There would be scope for amendment, up or down, if this gets off the blocks. I haven't got any thoughts on the timescale personally. 

The posts from winnersaint and whitey were really touching on this and have made me a little more open to the principle of it, but I remain very concerned of the coercion aspect that would be very difficult to police, if indeed it's going to be. I'd imagine it'll be little more than a sound mind assesment though as per making a will. 

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

My father was given less than 2 years just before he was 70. He's 79 soon. My mother in law was given 4-6 months and survived another 4 years, enough time to see various significant events. Horrific to think that people in her position could be made to feel a burden and feel compelled to elect death without anyone feeling the need to explore whether that's what she really wants. 

Were they suffering intolerable pain and/or having a particularly poor quality of life?

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

My father was given less than 2 years just before he was 70. He's 79 soon. My mother in law was given 4-6 months and survived another 4 years, enough time to see various significant events. Horrific to think that people in her position could be made to feel a burden and feel compelled to elect death without anyone feeling the need to explore whether that's what she really wants. 

Worth remembering with the state of palliative care and the NHS in general that there's zero guarantees that some 'medical professionals' won't feel pressure to relieve the burden on hospitals by ending lives a bit earlier than they otherwise would have been. Think how much better the figures will look. 

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Don't misquote me. I said  "It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me". The freedom of choice, and it being satisfied, is the safeguard at 1st instance after the verification of terminal illness. 

I'm not misinterpreting what you've said. You've said throughout, and yet again, that the terminal diagnosis is pretty much all that is needed. That's the beginning. It's the need for freedom choice to elect to die thereafter that you don't seem to understand. 

I'll ask my question again - are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice? It's a yes or no. 

I don't get your point. Of course there's going to be discussion and enquiry into what the patient wants and a very detailed explanation of the exact details surrounding their condition and the options available to them. That's literally a doctor's job when dealing with a patient, there's absolutely no reason to think this would somehow be different for a condition serious enough to warrant euthanasia being an option.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

There would be scope for amendment, up or down, if this gets off the blocks. I haven't got any thoughts on the timescale personally. 

The posts from winnersaint and whitey were really touching on this and have made me a little more open to the principle of it, but I remain very concerned of the coercion aspect that would be very difficult to police, if indeed it's going to be. I'd imagine it'll be little more than a sound mind assesment though as per making a will. 

Exactly. Weston Super Saint has already summed up the attitude there will be from some. If they've been given a 6 months to live diagnosis then what does it matter if granny gets it out of the way now? Might be worth reminding her of her choices again and she doesn't really want to hang around longer than she has to. Lighthouse would call this scenario farfetched but personally I think it's naive. This twitter thread paints an entirely realistic scenario:

 

https://x.com/TradSkowronski/status/1853131894621106537?t=Eud2I7XNbSvlIdz5Goanxg&s=19

[egg]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Were they suffering intolerable pain and/or having a particularly poor quality of life?

Yes, but she wanted to hang on to see various things happen, and managed to. She even told us at the end which day she'd finish on. Remarkable really. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I don't get your point. Of course there's going to be discussion and enquiry into what the patient wants and a very detailed explanation of the exact details surrounding their condition and the options available to them. That's literally a doctor's job when dealing with a patient, there's absolutely no reason to think this would somehow be different for a condition serious enough to warrant euthanasia being an option.

So you do agree that it's more than a terminal diagnosis and that there needs to be an exploration as to views. Not sure why you were so reluctant to say that. 

[Lighthouse]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

100% he wants to continue. Largely because his granddaughter is now old enough that she will remember him. Every moment is precious and they've made so many memories in the past year it's been amazing. 

Right, so he clearly wouldn't have chosen euthanasia then, at least not until the point that his condition because unbearable and his quality of life was so low as to drop below the threshold of wanting to live every moment we can. The fact that he has no outlived his original diagnosis isn't really relevant to the discussion. Once you reach the point that you are choosing to die, you are clearly well beyond the point of a wrong or inaccurate diagnosis.

The most relevant personal example I can give would be my grandmother who died from dementia. She lived about 7-8 years beyond her original diagnosis and for the most part she still enjoyed life to an extent. In the last two years her attachment to reality became progressively weaker and the final year was spent in a care home. She and my grandfather were fairly pragmatic and when intitally diagnosed would probably have agreed to AD but it wouldn't have been until the final couple of months when she was bedridden, drifting in and out of consciousness and unable to comprehend the world around her. By that point there would be no chance, literally zero, that the doctors had made some mistake and she could have sprung back into life, had she not been euthanised.

That's how this law will be implemented. You give examples as if someone will be diagnosed with 6 months to live and immediately ask to book a euthanasia appointment next week, no questions asked. That wont happen.

[sadoldgit]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Yes, but she wanted to hang on to see various things happen, and managed to. She even told us at the end which day she'd finish on. Remarkable really. 

Indeed, but the thing here is choice. I doubt that everyone who is suffering will chose to end their lives early.

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

So you do agree that it's more than a terminal diagnosis and that there needs to be an exploration as to views. Not sure why you were so reluctant to say that. 

No idea what your point is, I've never not said that. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No idea what your point is, I've never not said that. 

I asked a question. You failed to answer. Your thrust throughout, until then, was that a terminal diagnosis was enough. We got there eventually. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Indeed, but the thing here is choice. I doubt that everyone who is suffering will chose to end their lives early.

Absolutely, and not everyone who says they want to wil really want to. 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I asked a question. You failed to answer. Your thrust throughout, until then, was that a terminal diagnosis was enough. We got there eventually. 

That was not my thrust at all, I've no idea what you inferred that from. When I was 15 and went to a GP for acne medication he sat and spoke to me about different treatments available. I'd have thought it went without saying that process would also follow for the slightly more serious issue of medically assisted death but never mind. Glad we agreed in the end.

[hypochondriac]

This is an analysis of the bill from someone who isn't a politician. Worth digesting even for those who support it. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

That was not my thrust at all, I've no idea what you inferred that from. When I was 15 and went to a GP for acne medication he sat and spoke to me about different treatments available. I'd have thought it went without saying that process would also follow for the slightly more serious issue of medically assisted death but never mind. Glad we agreed in the end.

This is tedious and that's a pathetic comparison. Perhaps try being less awkward and explaining what you mean. 

[hypochondriac]

Why is an issue as important as this one only being given 5 hours of debate? 

[hypochondriac]

Another interesting point to consider - were top quality palliative care available as needed, would some terminal patients change their mind about assisted suicide? If the answer is yes then that's a giant problem in itself and another reason not to bring it in. 

[Lighthouse]

34 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Another interesting point to consider - were top quality palliative care available as needed, would some terminal patients change their mind about assisted suicide? If the answer is yes then that's a giant problem in itself and another reason not to bring it in. 

Could paliative care be better? Perhaps, the care given to my grangmother was as adequate and comfortable as you can reasonably ask for, but I wouldn't doubt other people who found their own provision substandard.

TBH though, that's just a distraction argument and doesn't do anything to tackle the main issue at heart. I'd be interested to hear what you think specifically is inadequate, which would potentially drive people towards unnecessary suicide. This bill is aimed at people whose condition has deteriorated beyond what medical science is able to treat, to the point that even palliative measures don't provide a meaningful quality of life.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Could paliative care be better? Perhaps, the care given to my grangmother was as adequate and comfortable as you can reasonably ask for, but I wouldn't doubt other people who found their own provision substandard.

TBH though, that's just a distraction argument and doesn't do anything to tackle the main issue at heart. I'd be interested to hear what you think specifically is inadequate, which would potentially drive people towards unnecessary suicide. This bill is aimed at people whose condition has deteriorated beyond what medical science is able to treat, to the point that even palliative measures don't provide a meaningful quality of life.

It's not. It will be available to those people AND to others as well as has already been discussed. Palliative care and the lack of it in many cases is not a distraction by any means, it's a fundamental issue. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And a judge...

Almost certainly a family court judge that already have no spare capacity will have to hear 400 applications each per year. And that's an acceptable safeguard? 

Edited November 12 by hypochondriac

[Tamesaint]

 

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Right, 

The most relevant personal example I can give would be my grandmother who died from dementia. She lived about 7-8 years beyond her original diagnosis and for the most part she still enjoyed life to an extent. In the last two years her attachment to reality became progressively weaker and the final year was spent in a care home. She and my grandfather were fairly pragmatic and when intitally diagnosed would probably have agreed to AD but it wouldn't have been until the final couple of months when she was bedridden, drifting in and out of consciousness and unable to comprehend the world around her. By that point there would be no chance, literally zero, that the doctors had made some mistake and she could have sprung back into life, had she not been euthanised.

 

 

Sorry to hear about your grandmother.

It is recognised by the advocates of this bill that safeguards need to be put in place to protect the vulnerable. But how long lasting would these safeguards be? 

When she was drifting in and out of consciousness your grandmother would presumably have failed  to have sufficient mental capacity to make an AD choice. This is one of the safeguards in the proposal. AD would not have been possible for her. If  the AD proposal is passed as it  is there would doubtless soon be movements to amend or remove this safeguard.

Similarly there would be arguments why should people in constant pain have to wait for a 6 month diagnosis. "Couldn't the 6 month rule be amended to include them?" There would be objections to a lay person like a judge being expected to adjudicate on medical matters. "Why involve them in this process when judges are so busy and their time and resources are limited?" 

I fear that safeguards designed to protect the vulnerable will be gradually eroded. This has happened in other countries where AD legislation has been passed and I fear that the same would happen here. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Winnersaint]

My wife needed palliative care from the beginning of November 2021 after she had surgery in hospital in Carmarthen when on holiday. Guess what? NHS Wales and NHS England have systems which don’t speak to each other so the hospital had to take things at face value and operate whereas it was the last thing she needed. Had they been able to access her patient record they’d have realised that non surgical intervention was more appropriate and would have allowed her to restart chemotherapy which was impossible with an open wound. While the palliative care was very good It only kicked in three days befores she died so yes, yes, yes palliative care needs to be so much better.

[Lighthouse]

32 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

When she was drifting in and out of consciousness your grandmother would presumably have failed to have sufficient mental capacity to make an AD choice. This is one of the safeguards in the proposal. AD would not have been possible for her. If  the AD proposal is passed as it  is there would doubtless soon be movements to amend or remove this safeguard.

The implication being, and I'll admit I haven't seen any mention time limit imposed in this proposal, that she would have made that decision at some point following her initial diagnosis. In cases of dementia a slightly more challenging set of circumstances would be presented in that there would have to be an agreement from doctors that the point of zero QoL has been reached, with the patient having previously consented to AD whilst of sound mind.

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Almost certainly a family court judge that already have no spare capacity will have to hear 400 applications each per year. And that's an acceptable safeguard? 

High Court Judge's apparently, almost undoubtedly Family Division. If there's lots of cases I wouldn't be surprised if the jurisdiction trickles down to court of protection or family court judges.