I no longer fear the financial hardships of retirement I now fear being put to death for ageing. Yes I can see the need for assisted death in some circumstances but it is so open to misuse. If I can’t trust the Government to look after the country I certainly don’t want to trust it with my end of life
I strongly oppose assisted dying. I was a full-time carer for my dad, who had Parkinson’s, then for my mum, who had motor neurone disease. Both my parents had been enthusiastic advocates of assisted dying, but when it came to the crunch, neither of them wished to be “put out of their misery”, their final months, weeks and days were full of insight and spiritual growth. I could no more have assisted them to die than I could have murdered a wee baby in its crib. The very thought was heinous to me. What I would advocate for, however, is better support for carers. I would quadruple Carer’s Allowance and devote far greater resources to end-of-life care.
🔹 *_So reduce NHS funding & treatment plans, break the free on demand service & stop Hospice tax relief, but then introduce assisted deαth as a convenient alternative! Nothing sinister in this, is there? This will make a lot of ill people very vulnerable. If you want to live through your illness might not be a tangible choice in the future._*
My best friend’s teenage son took his own life many years ago. Everybody said it was an appalling tragedy, based on the low number of years he had lived, so the main factor seems to be numerical. In fact, suicides are a continuum, not a binary. A young, healthy person may have a poor quality of emotional life, clearly he did. An old, physically decrepit person may have a fantastic social and psychological life - I know many such. There is no neat little formula you can apply.
We've been down this road before with the Liverpool Care Pathway, assisted dieing under the guise of paliative care for the terminaly ill, but as always there was mission creep and it ended up being applied to any patient over 70.
And in an investigation the BBC (back when the BBC still did decent journalism) found that hospitals had been incentivised to meet targets of patients on LCP. Incentives, to do something that was illegal.
And in an investigation the BBC (back when the BBC still did decent journalism) found that hospitals had been incentivised to meet targets of patients on LCP. Incentives, to do something that was illegal.
@@steveatkins814 The supposed 'freedom to choose' assisted suicide does not exist. That's what MPs will decide: whether or not to give people the right to choose assisted suicide. 'Rights' only 'exist' when Lawmakers make laws to create those rights.
@ You’re right. Many MP’s will vote to take away the freedom for people to choose what they want to do at the end of their lives. I’m sure if end of life care was financed and implemented in the interests of terminally ill people this vote would not be happening anyway.
Most of my working life was caring and nursing the Elderly and many younger other patients with terminal illness. Many were suffering with Incurable painful Disease. I have witnessed agonising pain and suffering no longer helped with the strongest pain relief. In many cases people crying and praying to be helped to be put out of their misery and pain. Many people and organisations are against assisted dying. I, and a large percentage of British people are hoping for a change in the law. Why should those against tell me I can not have that choice? I do not tell them they must accept assisted dying. They should not tell me I can not have assisted dying if I choose that option when my time comes. Should I not have the human right to live my last days with my family in my own home And be able choose my time to die when life becomes intolerable? Where is the care, thought and humanity for me when I may have to cut my life short by months even years by travelling to an unknown country to be helped to end my life, alone,away from everything and everyone I loved, known and cherished before I am physically unable to do so..Because strangers with a differing opinion to mine have decided my fate. If Everyone against assisted dying lived with a terminally Dying patient for several months to see the end of life agonising pain many people suffer, when no amount of medication will take away their pain and suffering before they die. It would, make them think about their opinion if they thought it could possibly be how they or their loved ones end of life would be. The repeated view from the NO campaign of "Doctors would be playing God". Is wrong, Doctors play God everyday with medicine and surgery to keep the elderly and dying alive. with no thought for their on going quality of life. Transplants, blood donation, insulin injections, heart medication and many other treatments that keep people alive, who would otherwise have died. I never ever want my loved ones or myself to endure this awful agonising end to life. We would not allow an animal to suffer this misery and torment, we should not allow it to happen to any human being. The choice of when to end our lives in these terminal circumstances should be ours alone. It is our human right to decide when and no one should take that choice away from us.
There are medications that help with pain and other symptoms, that given in sufficient quantities do get to your aim. The problem is the slippery slope, of those who’s family want it for them, or those who feel they are being a burden. I have seen far more families though demanding treatments for bed ridden elderly/ frail people, when it prolongs unnecessary suffering.
@ Some pain can not be controlled. The slippery slope argument doesn’t help extreme suffering which I’ve seen many. Maybe in hospital it can be controlled. Not in someone’s home. You should not dictate how my life ends.
Without mandatory ultra secure safeguards, we could find many cases of Dr Harold Shipman, who killed 284 patients over 30 years. He was discovered in 2003, but his killing spree started in 1975. Why did it take so long? Govs have already said people live too long.
of course none of this debate would be necessary if the required suicide drugs were available on the open market; the "assisted" only comes in because you are prevented from acquiring these drugs legally; if they were available, no change in law would be required
Who are you to tell me I cannot take control of my illness . We have assisted dying in NZ - not that many people choose this option, but at least it is kind.
It's one of society's guard rail issues I believe. Assisted Suicide and Abortion. How we deal with people at their most defenseless and vulnerable will greatly effect the way humans are treated generally. Each demands a huge debate because they are such potent indicators of a culture's view of the individual. Get it wrong and dystopian terror lies in our future.
ANOTHER CASE OF 'VICTIM BLAMING' AND SHIRKED RESPONSIBILITY - All of the arguments against Assisted Dying are *NOT* actually arguments against people having the choice, but against the potential of criminal behaviour by other family members. To force anyone to accept a slow, unbearably painful, death is criminal. To not take action against family members who are abusing vulnerable people is also criminal. We must separate and deal with these things separately. Refusal to respect anyone's genuine plea on the grounds that someone might be manipulating them is Victim Blaming and shirking our cultural responsibilities.
How on earth could the Police investigate coercion by relatives before a person decides he/she wants to die and wants a doctor to assist him/her to do it ? How could the Police prove coercion? Who is going to alert the Police that coercion may be taking place? It's too late for the victim if an investigation takes place post mortem. Recognition of a factor against assisted dying is necessary in order to properly assess whether it should be initiated. ''To force anyone to accept a slow, unbearably painful, death'' is not necessarily 'criminal' but it is something, obviously, for Lawmakers to consider. However, proper funding for hospices and palliative care is also a factor to consider and, is an answer to your concern about a 'slow painful death'.
@hezkyden you'd be surprised, but people have been prosecuted. It's also a moral problem that society needs to deal with. Not so long ago, you'd have been saying that drink driving could never be stopped. Yet society has pretty much eradicated that problem. In any case, we mustn't conflate the two issues, else you are "victim blaming", my friend.
Freedom for who? That's the whole point of the discussion here. They're saying there is a great deal of evidence to say that the criteria for this will be gradually widened until almost anyone would qualify, if, for example, they're anorexic! There have been cases in Canada where young people simply feeling a bit depressed have been offered assisted dying - and they've taken it. What about the coercion of the elderly or very sick to agree to end their lives because someone convinces them that they're a burden? So I say again ... freedom for who exactly?
Which 'guys'? People have different views about this issue, as with many issues. What is 'individual freedom'? People are already 'free' to take their own life. What's under discussion is whether another person, or persons, medically qualified persons, should be granted the right to assist an individual to die.
I no longer fear the financial hardships of retirement I now fear being put to death for ageing.
Yes I can see the need for assisted death in some circumstances but it is so open to misuse. If I can’t trust the Government to look after the country I certainly don’t want to trust it with my end of life
I strongly oppose assisted dying. I was a full-time carer for my dad, who had Parkinson’s, then for my mum, who had motor neurone disease. Both my parents had been enthusiastic advocates of assisted dying, but when it came to the crunch, neither of them wished to be “put out of their misery”, their final months, weeks and days were full of insight and spiritual growth. I could no more have assisted them to die than I could have murdered a wee baby in its crib. The very thought was heinous to me. What I would advocate for, however, is better support for carers. I would quadruple Carer’s Allowance and devote far greater resources to end-of-life care.
🔹 *_So reduce NHS funding & treatment plans, break the free on demand service & stop Hospice tax relief, but then introduce assisted deαth as a convenient alternative! Nothing sinister in this, is there? This will make a lot of ill people very vulnerable. If you want to live through your illness might not be a tangible choice in the future._*
Exactly.
Palliative care could be the next “post-code lottery” or the purview of the wealthy.
My best friend’s teenage son took his own life many years ago. Everybody said it was an appalling tragedy, based on the low number of years he had lived, so the main factor seems to be numerical. In fact, suicides are a continuum, not a binary. A young, healthy person may have a poor quality of emotional life, clearly he did. An old, physically decrepit person may have a fantastic social and psychological life - I know many such. There is no neat little formula you can apply.
We've been down this road before with the Liverpool Care Pathway, assisted dieing under the guise of paliative care for the terminaly ill, but as always there was mission creep and it ended up being applied to any patient over 70.
@@whylie74 exactly
And in an investigation the BBC (back when the BBC still did decent journalism) found that hospitals had been incentivised to meet targets of patients on LCP.
Incentives, to do something that was illegal.
And in an investigation the BBC (back when the BBC still did decent journalism) found that hospitals had been incentivised to meet targets of patients on LCP.
Incentives, to do something that was illegal.
Some disabled people are finding this vote very worrying.
One way or another, all disabled people should be worried if their freedom of choice is taken away.
@@steveatkins814 The supposed 'freedom to choose' assisted suicide does not exist. That's what MPs will decide: whether or not to give people the right to choose assisted suicide. 'Rights' only 'exist' when Lawmakers make laws to create those rights.
@ You’re right. Many MP’s will vote to take away the freedom for people to choose what they want to do at the end of their lives. I’m sure if end of life care was financed and implemented in the interests of terminally ill people this vote would not be happening anyway.
Most of my working life was caring and nursing the Elderly and many younger other patients with terminal illness.
Many were suffering with Incurable painful Disease.
I have witnessed agonising pain and suffering no longer helped with the strongest pain relief. In many cases people crying and praying to be helped to be put out of their misery and pain.
Many people and organisations are against assisted dying.
I, and a large percentage of British people are hoping for a change in the law.
Why should those against tell me I can not have that choice? I do not tell them they must accept assisted dying. They should not tell me I can not have assisted dying if I choose that option when my time comes.
Should I not have the human right to live my last days with my family in my own home And be able choose my time to die when life becomes intolerable?
Where is the care, thought and humanity for me when I may have to cut my life short by months even years by travelling to an unknown country to be helped to end my life, alone,away from everything and everyone I loved, known and cherished before I am physically unable to do so..Because strangers with a differing opinion to mine have decided my fate.
If Everyone against assisted dying lived with a terminally Dying patient for several months to see the end of life agonising pain many people suffer, when no amount of medication will take away their pain and suffering before they die. It would, make them think about their opinion if they thought it could possibly be how they or their loved ones end of life would be.
The repeated view from the NO campaign of "Doctors would be playing God". Is wrong, Doctors play God everyday with medicine and surgery to keep the elderly and dying alive. with no thought for their on going quality of life.
Transplants, blood donation, insulin injections, heart medication and
many other treatments that keep people alive, who would otherwise have died.
I never ever want my loved ones or myself to endure this awful agonising end to life. We would not allow an animal to suffer this misery and torment, we should not allow it to happen to any human being. The choice of when to end our lives in these terminal circumstances should be ours alone. It is our human right to decide when and no one should take that choice away from us.
There are medications that help with pain and other symptoms, that given in sufficient quantities do get to your aim.
The problem is the slippery slope, of those who’s family want it for them, or those who feel they are being a burden.
I have seen far more families though demanding treatments for bed ridden elderly/ frail people, when it prolongs unnecessary suffering.
No, it's not a human right. You are dressing up a significant increase in suicides under the guise of fake compassion.
@ Some pain can not be controlled. The slippery slope argument doesn’t help extreme suffering which I’ve seen many. Maybe in hospital it can be controlled. Not in someone’s home. You should not dictate how my life ends.
@@toniche3577 Suicide is immoral.
Without mandatory ultra secure safeguards, we could find many cases of Dr Harold Shipman, who killed 284 patients over 30 years. He was discovered in 2003, but his killing spree started in 1975. Why did it take so long? Govs have already said people live too long.
of course none of this debate would be necessary if the required suicide drugs were available on the open market; the "assisted" only comes in because you are prevented from acquiring these drugs legally; if they were available, no change in law would be required
I've been hoping for the law to be passed.
Who are you to tell me I cannot take control of my illness . We have assisted dying in NZ - not that many people choose this option, but at least it is kind.
Can any doctor be the "assistant"? How many would agree to that?
You will stand there revelling at the suffering before you ?
People dont even let their pets go through that.
*_Do we give our pets the choice? No, we make the decision for them! If they had the choice, what do you think they would chose?_*
@@Two_Tier_Britain So you believe it should be the pets choice then.
It's one of society's guard rail issues I believe. Assisted Suicide and Abortion. How we deal with people at their most defenseless and vulnerable will greatly effect the way humans are treated generally. Each demands a huge debate because they are such potent indicators of a culture's view of the individual. Get it wrong and dystopian terror lies in our future.
ANOTHER CASE OF 'VICTIM BLAMING' AND SHIRKED RESPONSIBILITY - All of the arguments against Assisted Dying are *NOT* actually arguments against people having the choice, but against the potential of criminal behaviour by other family members. To force anyone to accept a slow, unbearably painful, death is criminal. To not take action against family members who are abusing vulnerable people is also criminal. We must separate and deal with these things separately. Refusal to respect anyone's genuine plea on the grounds that someone might be manipulating them is Victim Blaming and shirking our cultural responsibilities.
To prevent people from committing suicide is a moral position. Take your death cult elsewhere.
How on earth could the Police investigate coercion by relatives before a person decides he/she wants to die and wants a doctor to assist him/her to do it ? How could the Police prove coercion? Who is going to alert the Police that coercion may be taking place? It's too late for the victim if an investigation takes place post mortem.
Recognition of a factor against assisted dying is necessary in order to properly assess whether it should be initiated. ''To force anyone to accept a slow, unbearably painful, death'' is not necessarily 'criminal' but it is something, obviously, for Lawmakers to consider. However, proper funding for hospices and palliative care is also a factor to consider and, is an answer to your concern about a 'slow painful death'.
@hezkyden you'd be surprised, but people have been prosecuted. It's also a moral problem that society needs to deal with. Not so long ago, you'd have been saying that drink driving could never be stopped. Yet society has pretty much eradicated that problem. In any case, we mustn't conflate the two issues, else you are "victim blaming", my friend.
I thought you guys were in favour of individual freedom. Apparently not
Do not commit suicide.
Freedom for who? That's the whole point of the discussion here. They're saying there is a great deal of evidence to say that the criteria for this will be gradually widened until almost anyone would qualify, if, for example, they're anorexic! There have been cases in Canada where young people simply feeling a bit depressed have been offered assisted dying - and they've taken it. What about the coercion of the elderly or very sick to agree to end their lives because someone convinces them that they're a burden? So I say again ... freedom for who exactly?
Which 'guys'? People have different views about this issue, as with many issues. What is 'individual freedom'? People are already 'free' to take their own life. What's under discussion is whether another person, or persons, medically qualified persons, should be granted the right to assist an individual to die.