Assisted dying according to Blurs drummer

[Massive Attack]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 38863.html

Hear, hear! Long overdue law changes on assisted dying. 

[Mike Oxsaw]

There are a few people I wouldn't mind assisting to die.

Would that group include the people who don't understand the difference between being alive and living (a pain-free life)?

[F 129 Row66]

There are a few people I wouldn't mind assisting to die.

[wils]

What disturbs me most is the global lockstep of stuff like this, especially if you look at where canada and holland started with this and where they are now.  Its not normal and its a further chipping away of christian values which we are supposed to stand for.

Better palliative care is the answer not a combination of Soylent Green and Logan's Run which is where we are heading.

Nothing christian about prolonging someone's suffering when they've clearly had enough, I had to witness my father constantly pulling he feeding tube out, plead and plead to be just allowed to go with dignity, but having to limp on and pointlessly suffer for 2 weeks. I'm sure all of us would welcome this step if we found ourselves in this horrific sitiation

Nobody is prolonging anyone's suffering by being against assisted suicide. If you think the doctors have a nice neat solution so you nod off peacefully in your sleep and escape a death agony you need to think again. The drugs they administer can take up to 6 days to put you out of your misery and no one really knows how much excruciating misery these drugs pile on to your suffering.

Doctors currently work by the principle of "do no harm" which doesn't mean they prolong life for the sake of it. They do and can already make decisions that bring forward your expected death whilst doing everything they can to alleviate suffering.

I saw someone on Twitter make the point "the assisted dying bill debate separates, on the right, conservatives from libertarians; on the left, socialists from progressives." This is true, when you look at the people from all parties that voted for it, it was an alliance of libertarians and progressives. Neither of those two groups have ever had the wider interests of society at heart. 

I have said before that I don't know what horror awaits me in own death or how strong I will be in facing it. But I know for the sake of my children and those that come after me I have a duty to muster everything I have to let nature take its course. I pity those who think the alternative will bring them peace. You only have to look at Canada, Belgium and Holland to glimpse that for yourself.

[Mr Anon]

christian values were conceived 2000 years ago, they didn't foresee our ability to keep people clinging on indefinitely on the cusp of death. They'd probably say denying the will of God at that point was heresy to be honest

[Hammer I am]

What disturbs me most is the global lockstep of stuff like this, especially if you look at where canada and holland started with this and where they are now.  Its not normal and its a further chipping away of christian values which we are supposed to stand for.

Better palliative care is the answer not a combination of Soylent Green and Logan's Run which is where we are heading.

Nothing christian about prolonging someone's suffering when they've clearly had enough, I had to witness my father constantly pulling he feeding tube out, plead and plead to be just allowed to go with dignity, but having to limp on and pointlessly suffer for 2 weeks. I'm sure all of us would welcome this step if we found ourselves in this horrific sitiation

[Westside]

I thought assisted dying was already on the statute books, but then I realised it was just the abolition of the winter fuel allowance, for millions of pensioners.

[riosleftsock]

What disturbs me most is the global lockstep of stuff like this, especially if you look at where canada and holland started with this and where they are now.  Its not normal and its a further chipping away of christian values which we are supposed to stand for.

Better palliative care is the answer not a combination of Soylent Green and Logan's Run which is where we are heading.

[goose]

Although I’d vote differently from nurse, I agree with her assessment.

[Nurse Ratched]

To me, this feels like too big an issue to have been settled via a free vote of MPs in parliament. I'm uncomfortable with it being decided in this way. Many of you might groan at the idea, but I think something of this nature should have been decided in a referendum with a full national debate, as we had with Brexit.

For what it's worth, I would have voted in favour of an assisted dying bill, but the way it's been handled doesn't sit right.

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

If we're able to euthanize a pet because we ASSUME it's in pain (it isn't able to tell us after all) and with no quality of life, I fail to see why someone of sound mind who may well be in incredible pain (I've known more than my fair share of cancer suffferers) isn't able, legally, to make that decision for themselves.

[Massive Attack]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky ... e-13262868

Good to see this finally put through the vote.

[wils]

Except for the fact there is no "God" in my life, whatever the pious & reasonable religious bigots want/need to believe and impose on others.

Non sequitur. 

How so? People poking their noses into areas that are of no impact to them attempting 

It's a non sequitor in the true dictionary defination of a non sequitor: "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement."

In fact you made no reference at all to anything in the post you quoted, you just took a tangent to bring the conversation to religion which no one in the entire thread had previously mentioned before you did. 

[Mike Oxsaw]

You're position is just as open to the same accusation.

Except for the fact there is no "God" in my life, whatever the pious & reasonable religious bigots want/need to believe and impose on others.

Non sequitur. 

How so? People poking their noses into areas that are of no impact to them attempting to prolong the suffering of others is what it is. Selfish, uncompassionate and irresponsible.

Their "God" is not everybody's God.

Given the range of options on which of the available "God" can be the true "God", I believe the chances of picking the right one are less than 10%, no matter how many people make that choice.

[wils]

But for somebody racked with pain and in so much discomfort, wanting to keep them alive as long as possible stinks of the ultimate in personal agenda-setting - the ultimate in virtual signalling.

You're position is just as open to the same accusation.

Except for the fact there is no "God" in my life, whatever the pious & reasonable religious bigots want/need to believe and impose on others.

Non sequitur. 

[goose]

local church have been very vocal in their disagreement with this bill.
there was even a pre-recorded message at mass from the local bishop asking us to write to our local MP about it.

one of their main arguments is around it being a slippery slope to more and more opportunity to end yourself for all sorts of reasons.

having never been in the situation i cannot comprehend watching someone suffer when they are beyond medical help. as long as it is policed properly then i dont see a moral issue with it. goes against my beliefs but you have to give people freedom of choice (to a point).



 

[Mike Oxsaw]

But for somebody racked with pain and in so much discomfort, wanting to keep them alive as long as possible stinks of the ultimate in personal agenda-setting - the ultimate in virtual signalling.

You're position is just as open to the same accusation.

Except for the fact there is no "God" in my life, whatever the pious & reasonable religious bigots want/need to believe and impose on others.

[zico]

Mum passed last year after 5 years or so with dementia.  She had it outlined in the Power of Attorneys wishes section that if she had an accident or illness that she would not recover from she just wanted to be made comfortable and free of pain.  When she had a stroke that incapacitated her the home was very good with the palliative care and checked with us if we wanted her in hospital or the care home.  Of course we chose the home.  I can't fault them at all they were outstanding.  With just dementia though they continue to treat other afflictions, for instance in mum's case atrial fibrillation.  Would mum have wanted assisted dying if she ever got dementia?  She never really mentioned it but of course they would never allow it for dementia because surely you would have to be of sound mind to make that decision.  As others will know with dementia it feels like mourning someone when they are still alive.  Now of course I would do anything to have mum back, but not the mum that was suffering in her last years.

[wils]

But for somebody racked with pain and in so much discomfort, wanting to keep them alive as long as possible stinks of the ultimate in personal agenda-setting - the ultimate in virtual signalling.

Your position is just as open to the same accusation.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Those who want to keep suffering people alive against their will are perfect examples of somebody wanting to play "God".

The only time I think adopting such a role is acceptable is in the cases of severe depression - and that's only because we don't yet know enough about what makes the mind - as opposed to the brain - work.

But for somebody racked with pain and in so much discomfort, wanting to keep them alive as long as possible stinks of the ultimate in personal agenda-setting - the ultimate in virtual signalling.

[Massive Attack]

In both of my patents cases I “wanted” them to die 6 months before they did.

Dad had cancer and his last 6 months was almost unrecognisable, lost a shed load of weight and was bedridden with a load of morphine. 

mum had dementia and even tho she forgot my sister and one of her grandchildren she always seemed happy. Up until the last few months where she was shouting at the walls and pretty much zonked out on meds.

when she fell and knocked herself out the family told the hospital that there was a DNR in place and to make sure she wasn’t in pain. 

they understood. Still took ten days or so tho. 

It's heart wrenching. You want to end the suffering of someone you love very much, but you don't want to end their life.

Sadly, at the stages we've been discussing, it's either/or, not both, however much you want that option.

Difficult to contemplate not living as it all stops at the last breath - it's not like forgetting something.

For me, the over-riding driver was that they are no longer suffering, and it kind of aggravates me when people insist on keeping them in that state of suffering (just) to "preserve the sanctity of life"; would they willingly and without question swap places with those they insist on making "live" in hell on earth?

 

 

And whether people like to admit it or not, it can also lead to selfishness from other's that comes in to play to want to keep them alive, even when those suffering don't wish to. It shouldn't be anyone's ultimate decision but those that wish to do so. I can understand why but it doesn't make it right against their wishes. Everyone only has 1 life to live and I think it's up to them what they do with it, to live or die when they're ready to.

[Ladysmith]

A nice and humane idea in principle, bound for disaster when it is decided that deviants like paedophiles and homosexuals should be helped on their way before any impulse is acted upon.

homosexuals?

[wils]

For me, the over-riding driver was that they are no longer suffering, and it kind of aggravates me when people insist on keeping them in that state of suffering (just) to "preserve the sanctity of life"; would they willingly and without question swap places with those they insist on making "live" in hell on earth?

 

I appreciate your argument here and it is indeed heart wrenching and reasonable sounding, but the "sanctity of life" is not the empty abstract concept you imply. As a principle its implications reach far beyond the interests of the terminally ill. Abandoning it as a guiding principle in the belief that you are reducing the collective suffering of mankind is, I don't doubt, motivated by compassion but you need to take a step back see what else falls away after its abandonment. Some of which I have touched on in previous posts below, but in my view that's just the tip of an iceberg and it will bring much more suffering as it diminishes what it means to be human.

No one wants to suffer a painful death and I like everyone else would like to go quietly in my sleep. But it's beyond my control and as much as I wont pretend that I am sure that I won't be screaming for someone to put me out of my misery when the end comes, I will at least try and face it with as much courage and dignity as I can muster. That's not out of bravado but out of compassion. As calling for the violation of the sanctity of life to avoid my own suffering will inevitably lead to a diminishing of the quality of life of those that come after me.

[One Sunny Day]

There was a very good documentary about this, several years ago, presented by Terry Pratchett where they showed a guy ending his life at dignitas. I'm still very much on the fence about the whole thing. The guy doing it didn't exactly die a peacefully as it sounds, was gasping and pleading for water for a few seconds before he slumped into a sleep. Fully pro choice about it but worried relatives might guilt trip someone into doing it. Should at least be very strict laws and background checks before opening the door for someone to do it.

[Mike Oxsaw]

In both of my patents cases I “wanted” them to die 6 months before they did.

Dad had cancer and his last 6 months was almost unrecognisable, lost a shed load of weight and was bedridden with a load of morphine. 

mum had dementia and even tho she forgot my sister and one of her grandchildren she always seemed happy. Up until the last few months where she was shouting at the walls and pretty much zonked out on meds.

when she fell and knocked herself out the family told the hospital that there was a DNR in place and to make sure she wasn’t in pain. 

they understood. Still took ten days or so tho. 

It's heart wrenching. You want to end the suffering of someone you love very much, but you don't want to end their life.

Sadly, at the stages we've been discussing, it's either/or, not both, however much you want that option.

Difficult to contemplate not living as it all stops at the last breath - it's not like forgetting something.

For me, the over-riding driver was that they are no longer suffering, and it kind of aggravates me when people insist on keeping them in that state of suffering (just) to "preserve the sanctity of life"; would they willingly and without question swap places with those they insist on making "live" in hell on earth?

[joe royal]

In both of my patents cases I “wanted” them to die 6 months before they did.

Dad had cancer and his last 6 months was almost unrecognisable, lost a shed load of weight and was bedridden with a load of morphine. 

mum had dementia and even tho she forgot my sister and one of her grandchildren she always seemed happy. Up until the last few months where she was shouting at the walls and pretty much zonked out on meds.

when she fell and knocked herself out the family told the hospital that there was a DNR in place and to make sure she wasn’t in pain. 

they understood. Still took ten days or so tho.