welshbairn Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It happens all the time already to the terminally ill. A doctor will say to the relatives that all he can really do now is up the morphine, making clear what that will mean, and do they agree it's for the best. Having it enshrined in law would be dangerous imo. Elderly people who feel they have become a burden could feel pressured into ending it, without any intervention by anyone. Someone who feels they've had enough one day could feel like carrying on the next. Sometimes too much clarity and publicity can be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It happens all the time already to the terminally ill. A doctor will say to the relatives that all he can really do now is up the morphine, making clear what that will mean, and do they agree it's for the best. Having it enshrined in law would be dangerous imo. Elderly people who feel they have become a burden could feel pressured into ending it, without any intervention by anyone. Someone who feels they've had enough one day could feel like carrying on the next. Sometimes too much clarity and publicity can be a bad thing. You make it sound like its across the board and semi official. If this practise happens it's not guaranteed that your doctor will offer this 'service' so personally I'd prefer to have the 'right' to make arrangements if I end up cabbaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It happens all the time already to the terminally ill. A doctor will say to the relatives that all he can really do now is up the morphine, making clear what that will mean, and do they agree it's for the best. Having it enshrined in law would be dangerous imo. Elderly people who feel they have become a burden could feel pressured into ending it, without any intervention by anyone. Someone who feels they've had enough one day could feel like carrying on the next. Sometimes too much clarity and publicity can be a bad thing. This is a bit different, all the morphine does is relieve the pain with the potential side-effect of reducing the patient's body's resistance to whatever they are succumbing to (Usually cancer, or just old age) What is proposed is a dignitas style glass of orange juice which is effectively giving yourself a lethal drug, much like the injections that the Yanks give to prisoners. For the question itself, I'm in favour of it being allowed, but I don't think I'd ever go down the route myself. I fear death far too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 This is a bit different, all the morphine does is relieve the pain with the potential side-effect of reducing the patient's body's resistance to whatever they are succumbing to (Usually cancer, or just old age) What is proposed is a dignitas style glass of orange juice which is effectively giving yourself a lethal drug, much like the injections that the Yanks give to prisoners. For the question itself, I'm in favour of it being allowed, but I don't think I'd ever go down the route myself. I fear death far too much. Don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty on here that will ease you through your fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I don't particularly fear my own death (I'm not looking forward to it either), I find myself more frightened of those I'm close to passing away or the upset that my death might cause them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It happens all the time already to the terminally ill. A doctor will say to the relatives that all he can really do now is up the morphine, making clear what that will mean, and do they agree it's for the best. Having it enshrined in law would be dangerous imo. Elderly people who feel they have become a burden could feel pressured into ending it, without any intervention by anyone. Someone who feels they've had enough one day could feel like carrying on the next. Sometimes too much clarity and publicity can be a bad thing. Almost everyone can chose to commit suicide already. People who are unable to do it themselves should have the same choice available. As for those who are capable of suicide but want help, I'd rather they were given a dignified death here than have to go to Switzerland or jump off a cliff. This bill isn't about making suicide an option. It already is, it should be about giving the same options everyone else has to those who currently don't have it and letting those who are determined to die have a bit of dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Almost everyone can chose to commit suicide already. People who are unable to do it themselves should have the same choice available. As for those who are capable of suicide but want help, I'd rather they were given a dignified death here than have to go to Switzerland or jump off a cliff. This bill isn't about making suicide an option. It already is, it should be about giving the same options everyone else has to those who currently don't have it and letting those who are determined to die have a bit of dignity. Having the ability to kill yourself (ie throwing yourself off a bridge or under a train) is one thing but it has a knock on effect. Surely the 'glass of orange' then a snooze is a little more dignified and 'acceptable' to a lot of people ? Personally I'd prefer that option rather than having to throw myself of the Forth road bridge if I was terminally ill and in pain. The chances are I'd be in hospital and it would be difficult to actually do it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I've a similar arrangement with Mrs Root, well I say arrangement, she's not aware of it yet and its not restricted to her being traditionally terminally ill, her nagging could be the death of her though I suppose. Jacksgranny's nagging could be the death of me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Jacksgranny's nagging could be the death of me... Amen brother, I hear you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Amen brother, I hear you. I don't mind hearing you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It happens all the time already to the terminally ill. A doctor will say to the relatives that all he can really do now is up the morphine, making clear what that will mean, and do they agree it's for the best. Having it enshrined in law would be dangerous imo. Elderly people who feel they have become a burden could feel pressured into ending it, without any intervention by anyone. Someone who feels they've had enough one day could feel like carrying on the next. Sometimes too much clarity and publicity can be a bad thing. This is slightly different though. This is death as a side effect of the palliative treatment rather than the intended outcome. Edit: in fact, it's not even slightly different. This is someone else making the decision to increase treatment rather than the individual who is facing death. If death was the intended outcome in this instance, it would be murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 This is slightly different though. This is death as a side effect of the palliative treatment rather than the intended outcome. Edit: in fact, it's not even slightly different. This is someone else making the decision to increase treatment rather than the individual who is facing death. If death was the intended outcome in this instance, it would be murder. It's deliberately shortening someone's life to spare them more pain. I don't see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It's deliberately shortening someone's life to spare them more pain. I don't see the difference. It's not deliberate because it's not the intended outcome. The intended outcome is the reduction of pain. The shot of morphine is not guaranteed to kill someone and if it was, they wouldn't be able to give it. There is certainly the possibility of death due to suppression of respiratory function but it's by no means a definite. This is where the difference lies. A doctor prescribing that shot of morphine has to balance the risk/benefits and in someone who is in the last hours, the benefits of pain relief far outweigh the risks because they're dying anyway. If the shot was designed to kill someone and we knew that was a definite and intended outcome, that is currently murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'm sympathetic to assisted dying but it is a difficult undertaking to find a set of procedures that make it work in the real world without potentially very dangerous consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It's deliberately shortening someone's life to spare them more pain. I don't see the difference. It's not deliberate because it's not the intended outcome. The intended outcome is the reduction of pain. The shot of morphine is not guaranteed to kill someone and if it was, they wouldn't be able to give it. There is certainly the possibility of death due to suppression of respiratory function but it's by no means a definite. This is where the difference lies. A doctor prescribing that shot of morphine has to balance the risk/benefits and in someone who is in the last hours, the benefits of pain relief far outweigh the risks because they're dying anyway. If the shot was designed to kill someone and we knew that was a definite and intended outcome, that is currently murder. I can see both your views here and why there are two sides. Generally when the syringe driver comes into play we all know what the final outcome will be. So there is definitely an argument there that it is helping the person pass away; so how is it not technically 'assisting' them to pass away? But as Mrs M says, it's not officially given for that intention, even if we know what's coming (well, that's how I've picked it up what you are trying to say?) It's an absolute minefield this one. I'm definitely on the "Yes" side on both counts. But we seem to be thinking purely about terminally ill and disabled/less abled folk here. Talks of tribunals for each individual case is a great idea certainly, but it wouldn't be that simple in some cases. In the last 18 months I've had to watch both my Nana and Papa die of pneumonia. It's a f*cking horrendous thing. They are lying in a bed, unable to communicate, struggling to breathe; and you physically see them trying to grasp every single breath. If you saw your pet lying in that condition you would phone a vet in an instant. Can you imagine if they came, took a look with the lethal in hand and then said "we'll let nature take it's course"? You'd be furious! My papa passed while we were heading back up to the hospital but my nana passed with me at her bedside. Her breathing became shallower and I felt she was about to go, so we called in the nurse. My mum and I were standing at the side of her bed and were verbally saying we just wanted her to go. It may sound cruel but that's how difficult it was to see her like that. We obviously wanted her to get up and walk out of the hospital but we both knew it wasn't going to happen, so we would rather her suffering came to an end rather than this prolonged inevitability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Tricky indeed. I'm all for it but and feel many anti assisted dying groups scaremonger and put it about that we will all be running around willy nilly bumping off relatives. The god botherers have too much say in this too, even though most of the population have no time for such nonsense we are all expected to beleive that god wants us to suffer and it's some kind of test. It would need mega fail-safes and stringent rules though. Don't see this happening any time soon. I know for a fact though that if I had MND or some other terrible condition I would want someone to do me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'm more than willing to help a few of you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Tricky indeed. I'm all for it but and feel many anti assisted dying groups scaremonger and put it about that we will all be running around willy nilly bumping off relatives. The god botherers have too much say in this too, even though most of the population have no time for such nonsense we are all expected to beleive that god wants us to suffer and it's some kind of test. It would need mega fail-safes and stringent rules though. Don't see this happening any time soon. I know for a fact though that if I had MND or some other terrible condition I would want someone to do me in. If you keep using P&B to choose meals that are not up to scratch you're good lady will be seeing to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I can see both your views here and why there are two sides. Generally when the syringe driver comes into play we all know what the final outcome will be. So there is definitely an argument there that it is helping the person pass away; so how is it not technically 'assisting' them to pass away? But as Mrs M says, it's not officially given for that intention, even if we know what's coming (well, that's how I've picked it up what you are trying to say?) It's an absolute minefield this one. I'm definitely on the "Yes" side on both counts. But we seem to be thinking purely about terminally ill and disabled/less abled folk here. Talks of tribunals for each individual case is a great idea certainly, but it wouldn't be that simple in some cases. In the last 18 months I've had to watch both my Nana and Papa die of pneumonia. It's a f*cking horrendous thing. They are lying in a bed, unable to communicate, struggling to breathe; and you physically see them trying to grasp every single breath. If you saw your pet lying in that condition you would phone a vet in an instant. Can you imagine if they came, took a look with the lethal in hand and then said "we'll let nature take it's course"? You'd be furious! My papa passed while we were heading back up to the hospital but my nana passed with me at her bedside. Her breathing became shallower and I felt she was about to go, so we called in the nurse. My mum and I were standing at the side of her bed and were verbally saying we just wanted her to go. It may sound cruel but that's how difficult it was to see her like that. We obviously wanted her to get up and walk out of the hospital but we both knew it wasn't going to happen, so we would rather her suffering came to an end rather than this prolonged inevitability Must have been awful. It should be easier for doctors, with the agreement with the patient and relatives to pull the plug, without the risk of a murder charge. What happens now in many cases is more or less that, but it's no written down in law as a legal right. I'm worried that if it becomes a legal right, then it could be more open to abuse, and as I said before, elderly or very ill or disabled people could ask for it to spare their relatives the trouble of looking after them. My parents are both very elderly and I'm caring for them, and hoping for another 10 years out of them at least. Keep meaning to get a stock of smack in just in case they find themselves in intolerable pain, and the doctor won't help out. Doubt a court would be too harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 It's a tough one and I can definately see both sides. My own opinion is that they should vote no. I think that people may feel under pressure from relatives, Hospitals - they might see a duty to die when there isn't pressure. Nobody should really have to deal with that. I also think that for every system, if it can be abused then it will be abused. There might be systems in place but it doesn't mean some won't try to find ways around them and people who shouldn't die, might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.