Dignitas

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Oh hell no, not in this country.

We are already prematurely killing off many hundreds a year due to the NHS not treating treatable cancers because it inconveniences them, do not give them the power officially to decide who lives or dies. It. Will. Be. Abused.

See also: Netherlands, Canada,  ad nauseum.

Thank you. I agree.

[welsh1]

My Dad was told he had leukemia and if he didn't start treatment straight away he would be dead in weeks, he took the treatment and lasted 3 years, but the chemo was brutal and affected him, and he got pneumonia a couple of times and ended up in hospital, this affected him due to his body not getting enough oxygen, so he went from a man known for his sharp and quick brain to repeating himself and struggling to get about.

He knew he was getting very much worse and was in constant pain, he told my Mum one day no more treatment, she agreed and two weeks later my Dad died in his sleep, no doubt helped by the "small"doses of morphine given by the Marie Curie nurses.

My Mum has made it quite clear that she will not hesitate to go if she is suffering, I fully support her.

Why do we accept that our pets should not suffer and yet are prepared for those we love to go through so much pain.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Thank you. I agree.

It does not have to be a decision for anyone but the person concerned. Certainly not a role for the NHS. My daughter (doctor) wont entertain the idea its against her ethical promise. 

2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

My Dad was told he had leukemia and if he didn't start treatment straight away he would be dead in weeks, he took the treatment and lasted 3 years, but the chemo was brutal and affected him, and he got pneumonia a couple of times and ended up in hospital, this affected him due to his body not getting enough oxygen, so he went from a man known for his sharp and quick brain to repeating himself and struggling to get about.

He knew he was getting very much worse and was in constant pain, he told my Mum one day no more treatment, she agreed and two weeks later my Dad died in his sleep, no doubt helped by the "small"doses of morphine given by the Marie Curie nurses.

My Mum has made it quite clear that she will not hesitate to go if she is suffering, I fully support her.

Why do we accept that our pets should not suffer and yet are prepared for those we love to go through so much pain.

This ^^^^ 

[Agriv8]

Welsh 1 your last paragraph sums it up very well

[udderlyoffroad]

11 hours ago, Genghis said:

I can understand not wanting to give an institution that power, but in instances where the individual is still capable of making the decision themselves, what moral right does anyone have to prevent that?

I think all of you are being naiive in the extreme - euthanasia is *not* about going the individual the power to decide, it's about giving the state the power to do so.  Oh sure, it'll start with putting the poor **** with end-stage MND out of their misery, but it will end with pensioners getting on a bus to the clinic when their care goes over x amount on a spreadsheet.

The "not if it's done properly/safeguards in place" arguments are as bunk as the "communism has never been done properly" heard so often in Student Union bars, and for the same reason.

If that doesn't convince you, just what about the horrendous treatment of pensioners in care homes in the last 3 years has convinced you the medical establishment in this country should be given any more powers over life and death than they already have?

[manthing]

As long as the correct safeguarding is in place I don't see a problem. It is after all your life. I've always found it strange that attempting suicide is against the law. Its also strange that if you collapse in the street any Tom,  **** or Harry can, and is actually encouraged to administer cpr but should you recover to a vegetative state the decision to end live support has to be decided by Dr's or Judges and can be dragged on for months.

In a time when people are trying to give power over their bodies to kids for gender recognition we are denying everyone's right to end their life when they see fit.

It's all very mixed up.

[Genghis]

40 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I think all of you are being naiive in the extreme - euthanasia is *not* about going the individual the power to decide, it's about giving the state the power to do so.  Oh sure, it'll start with putting the poor **** with end-stage MND out of their misery, but it will end with pensioners getting on a bus to the clinic when their care goes over x amount on a spreadsheet.

The "not if it's done properly/safeguards in place" arguments are as bunk as the "communism has never been done properly" heard so often in Student Union bars, and for the same reason.

If that doesn't convince you, just what about the horrendous treatment of pensioners in care homes in the last 3 years has convinced you the medical establishment in this country should be given any more powers over life and death than they already have?

Conversely, I could argue what right does a medical establishment/the government have to force an individual to live in agony if they decide they would rather die in a dignified and humane manner. The only safeguard that is required is a psychological examination to ensure that the individual requesting to end their life is of a sound mind. If this is written into law, the scenario that you are describing cannot come to pass - no third party will be able to make this decision on their behalf. I have no desire to empower the NHS.

 

The Communism ideology is a very vague one, and could be applied to almost anything. People who oppose gun ownership use a similar argument - that no amount of safeguards work and only a total ban will suffice.

[udderlyoffroad]

31 minutes ago, manthing said:

As long as the correct safeguarding is in place I don't see a problem.

This is a contradiction in terms when it comes to giving the state the power to kill you.

2 minutes ago, Genghis said:

People who oppose gun ownership use a similar argument - that no amount of safeguards work and only a total ban will suffice.

Correct, if guns, alcohol, or cars for that matter, had been invented yesterday, they wouldn't let us have them.  No amount of safeguards will work in this case.

6 minutes ago, Genghis said:

he only safeguard that is required is a psychological examination to ensure that the individual requesting to end their life is of a sound mind. If this is written into law, the scenario that you are describing cannot come to pass - no third party will be able to make this decision on their behalf.

Did you miss the last 3 years?  The most fundamental, egregious removal of our civil liberties ('human rights' if you prefer), i.e. locking us in our homes unable to see our families, was done with little, if any, recourse to law.  It simply happened, ministers made up rules, police enforced them brutally.  Pensioners were all but executed because of one man's ego.

Honestly, if you personally wish euthanasia as an option, you have the internet. Or, pay for dignitas membership and spend your last moments on an industrial estate outside Zuerich.

[Aled]

Can i say some very honest and heart tearing posts on here. Offering my sympathies and condolences to those of you who have or are suffering hardships. 

Comments based on personal experiences have highlighted both sides of the argument well, and understandably should make us all think hard about where we stand on this, and which route we should follow. As is often the case there can be no one size fits all, and maybe that is what the issue is, there are some many grey areas! 

Cheers. Aled

[Scully]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I think all of you are being naiive in the extreme - euthanasia is *not* about going the individual the power to decide, it's about giving the state the power to do so.  Oh sure, it'll start with putting the poor **** with end-stage MND out of their misery, but it will end with pensioners getting on a bus to the clinic when their care goes over x amount on a spreadsheet.

The "not if it's done properly/safeguards in place" arguments are as bunk as the "communism has never been done properly" heard so often in Student Union bars, and for the same reason.

If that doesn't convince you, just what about the horrendous treatment of pensioners in care homes in the last 3 years has convinced you the medical establishment in this country should be given any more powers over life and death than they already have?

It’s not about giving the state power over anyone, it’s about an individual having the right to choose. 
The state doesn’t play any part other than to give an individual the choice. 
If an individual hasn’t made that choice then it’s not for others to make that decision for them. 
My family sorted power of attorney some time ago; you don’t have to be a pensioner or on your last legs to do so. 
You can be hit by a bus or whatever at any age, if power of attorney is in place that person can then fulfil the wishes of the unfortunate. 
It can be done; Terry Pratchett made great roads into setting out the criteria for it to come about, but the default setting whenever it is mooted, is ‘ah, but, you’d have relatives killing off their elders to inherit’. 
If power of attorney is in place when all are fit and well, then it is to be acted upon, if it isn’t in place then nothing happens. 
It isn’t a charter for state sponsored euthanasia or the bumping off of relatives. 

[old man]

1 hour ago, Genghis said:

Conversely, I could argue what right does a medical establishment/the government have to force an individual to live in agony if they decide they would rather die in a dignified and humane manner. The only safeguard that is required is a psychological examination to ensure that the individual requesting to end their life is of a sound mind. If this is written into law, the scenario that you are describing cannot come to pass - no third party will be able to make this decision on their behalf. I have no desire to empower the NHS.

 

The Communism ideology is a very vague one, and could be applied to almost anything. People who oppose gun ownership use a similar argument - that no amount of safeguards work and only a total ban will suffice.

Succinct. Agreed on all points.

[udderlyoffroad]

I do admire your idealised versions of things, I really do.

But we all know it practice it would be different.  We can't even get GP's to treat patients as part of their contracts in this country.  Doctors about to go on strike, again, perfectly timed to give them the maximum time off over the Christmas period, and it's barely being talked about in the media.  People will die, prematurely, as a result of this.

What hope of 'sensible safeguards' and 'individuals right to choose' do we really, honestly have?  I'd suggest somewhere between zero and none.

Fix the basics in health care first, before we start ending people anymore than we already are.

To Scully's point, I would agree, having a power of attorney in place before you lose your faculties ought to be legal requirement over the age of, say, 35.

1 hour ago, Aled said:

Can i say some very honest and heart tearing posts on here. Offering my sympathies and condolences to those of you who have or are suffering hardships. 

Wholehartedly seconded, even if my posts give the opposite impression

[Penelope]

17 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Yes it is indeed time it was allowed within the UK.

Agreed. Said it for years

[FOXHUNTER1]

Always advocated this option . We should all have the right to make decisions about ending our own life if we have a terminal disease. 

 

[Penelope]

17 hours ago, Scully said:

And another. 
OH has a friend who has two daughters, the youngest of which was diagnosed with MND at the age of 26 during the start of the pandemic. 
I’ve met her; she is gorgeous and understandably very angry. She was an aspiring artist, but back then could no longer hold a pencil and spoke in whispers. She was carried everywhere. 
Her predicament weighed heavily on me and the next morning she was my first thought. I wept. 
She lives at home with her Mother; Father couldn’t cope and hasn’t been seen since. 
They are fortunate in that her married sister lives next door, and her mother’s partner is an upright bloke. The only respite available was a hospice where this bright young thing was expected to spend some time amongst people old enough to be her grandparents. She no longer goes. 
You can’t give someone like this a cuddle and say it’s going to be ok, because it isn’t; there’s only one outcome, and that will probably consist of suffocating when her lungs stop functioning. 
A month or so ago she started choking and her Mother understandably thought ‘is this it?’ 
It wasn’t. Staff and medics fought hard to bring this beautiful and terrified young thing back, and they did. Why? Now she knows what to expect and unfortunately will have to go through it all again sometime. 
It is the stuff of nightmares for all concerned. 

A friend of mine passed through the same condition. she was a 31 year old mum of one. Tragic to see her deteriorate so much.

16 hours ago, Scully said:

We are kinder to dogs. 

This!!!

[JohnfromUK]

17 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Yes it is indeed time it was allowed within the UK.

/\. This.  and this \/

16 hours ago, Scully said:

We are kinder to dogs. 

 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I do admire your idealised versions of things, I really do.

But we all know it practice it would be different.  We can't even get GP's to treat patients as part of their contracts in this country.  Doctors about to go on strike, again, perfectly timed to give them the maximum time off over the Christmas period, and it's barely being talked about in the media.  People will die, prematurely, as a result of this.

What hope of 'sensible safeguards' and 'individuals right to choose' do we really, honestly have?  I'd suggest somewhere between zero and none.

Fix the basics in health care first, before we start ending people anymore than we already are.

To Scully's point, I would agree, having a power of attorney in place before you lose your faculties ought to be legal requirement over the age of, say, 35.

Wholehartedly seconded, even if my posts give the opposite impression

I think you are conflating issues. The Swiss model has no state involvement and could work here. The cost is £10000 for Dignitas membership which could be off putting to some but the number going from the UK is apparently increasing each year. 

[udderlyoffroad]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

think you are conflating issues. The Swiss model has no state involvement and could work here

No.

If you've ever tried to get something done in Switzerland without state involvement, especially medical/elderly care - at which they beat us, hands down all day -  you're doing well.  My elderly parents live there.  Seen the inside of far too many Swiss hospitals.

What I think you're alluding to is, it's a paid sub you buy into*, and neither the health insurance companies or the state elderly care are directly involved.

So, in a UK context, you're suggesting voluntary membership of an euthanasia organisation, operating entirely outside of the NHS or social services?  It will not happen, or if it does, it will make Shipman look like a warm-up act. 

In any case, where, precisely, would we be drawing the 'death panel' pool of doctors from who would decide if you were fit candidate for execut...sorry, voluntary euthanasia?  The NHS of course. 

*This is not unusual, this is how they fund the e.g. Swiss air ambulance or the paraplegic support organisation.  You actually pay a certain amount per yer to be a 'member' of the organisation and can expect not to be presented with a bill should you be unfortunate enough to require their services.  The tie is not as good as WAGBI's though.

 

21 minutes ago, oowee said:

but the number going from the UK is apparently increasing each year. 

The Swiss hate this 'death tourism' from the UK, and want to see the back of it.  Specifically Dignitas  providing their services to non-Swiss nationals.

But whilst our 'envy of the world' system remains so broken, we should not touch so-called 'voluntary euthanasia' with a barge pole.

Once again, we for some reason, allowed our health system to *stop* treating people with serious, but treatable illnesses in the pandemic and clapped for them.   The rest of the world did the latter but not the former.

[discobob]

I agree with @udderlyoffroad in the fact that the state can not have these powers. In Canada it was brought in for good intentions - except we all know that that is what paves the road to hell - and now it is being offered to people of various degrees of psychiatric conditions and also physical disabilities. Indeed - a former Canadian Paralympian was offered it when she put in for a stair-lift - aged in her forties.... and also homeless people!!

But I also agree that people should have the choice - a lot of money and resources is being spent keeping people alive beyond their time as well for reasons beyond me. I, for example, if given the choice between going into a home and losing everything or being able to go peacefully in my sleep with help and leaving everything to my children, I know what I would chose....

To quote a famous comedian - "I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my dear old dad - not screaming in terror like his passengers" - to bring a bit of light to the thread

 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, discobob said:

But I also agree that people should have the choice

Which is the key.  Personally, I would like to have that option should some condition/ailment make it desirable.  To quote a recent phrase (said by Esther Ranzen?) heard,

"I'm not worried about death, it will come to all of us - but I am worried about the dying bit".

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

No.

If you've ever tried to get something done in Switzerland without state involvement, especially medical/elderly care - at which they beat us, hands down all day -  you're doing well.  My elderly parents live there.  Seen the inside of far too many Swiss hospitals.

What I think you're alluding to is, it's a paid sub you buy into*, and neither the health insurance companies or the state elderly care are directly involved.

So, in a UK context, you're suggesting voluntary membership of an euthanasia organisation, operating entirely outside of the NHS or social services?  It will not happen, or if it does, it will make Shipman look like a warm-up act. 

In any case, where, precisely, would we be drawing the 'death panel' pool of doctors from who would decide if you were fit candidate for execut...sorry, voluntary euthanasia?  The NHS of course. 

*This is not unusual, this is how they fund the e.g. Swiss air ambulance or the paraplegic support organisation.  You actually pay a certain amount per yer to be a 'member' of the organisation and can expect not to be presented with a bill should you be unfortunate enough to require their services.  The tie is not as good as WAGBI's though.

 

The Swiss hate this 'death tourism' from the UK, and want to see the back of it.  Specifically Dignitas  providing their services to non-Swiss nationals.

But whilst our 'envy of the world' system remains so broken, we should not touch so-called 'voluntary euthanasia' with a barge pole.

Once again, we for some reason, allowed our health system to *stop* treating people with serious, but treatable illnesses in the pandemic and clapped for them.   The rest of the world did the latter but not the former.

That's a very broad statement. Any evidence? The service provision is wider than Dignitas.

This could be simply a private business in the UK. 

7 minutes ago, discobob said:

I agree with @udderlyoffroad in the fact that the state can not have these powers. In Canada it was brought in for good intentions - except we all know that that is what paves the road to hell - and now it is being offered to people of various degrees of psychiatric conditions and also physical disabilities. Indeed - a former Canadian Paralympian was offered it when she put in for a stair-lift - aged in her forties.... and also homeless people!!

But I also agree that people should have the choice - a lot of money and resources is being spent keeping people alive beyond their time as well for reasons beyond me. I, for example, if given the choice between going into a home and losing everything or being able to go peacefully in my sleep with help and leaving everything to my children, I know what I would chose....

To quote a famous comedian - "I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my dear old dad - not screaming in terror like his passengers" - to bring a bit of light to the thread

 

For assisted dying the state should not be involved other than having to agree the rules and parameters of service. 

In all other aspects of health service provision the State already has that input through life outcome evaluation process which is economics based. 

 

[udderlyoffroad]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

That's a very broad statement. Any evidence? The service provision is wider than Dignitas.

Correct; the are numerous organisations offering this but only Dignitas has extended it to non-Swiss nationals as far as I'm aware.  

'Exit' is another one, these offer a come to you service, as chosen by a family friend.

As for 'evidence' to back up my assertion that your country becomes known for death tourism, is somehow not popular in Switzerland...really?  How do you think it would go over?

[shaun4860]

Good thread this.

im in the “I should be able to choose when I die camp”

Lets say for instance that I and up being paralyzed from the neck down.

I personally do not wish to continue, so I should be able to say I’ve had enough.

Over the last 12 months I’ve watched one of best friends deteriorate from being a shooter and beater to losing half his body weight, to having to use oxygen just whilst sitting and having to stop to catch his breath just going to the toilet to then being bedridden in hospital before slowly dying.

I was there when he died and for the last few months of his life he just wanted it to be over.

They couldn’t cure him, he was terminal.

What purpose did it serve just keeping him going, watching him wither away, the last couple of weeks of his life he was barely awake.

[oowee]

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Correct; the are numerous organisations offering this but only Dignitas has extended it to non-Swiss nationals as far as I'm aware.  

'Exit' is another one, these offer a come to you service, as chosen by a family friend.

As for 'evidence' to back up my assertion that your country becomes known for death tourism, is somehow not popular in Switzerland...really?  How do you think it would go over?

Why would it be generally unpopular? It's simply business rather than tourism (its far from a holiday but you could call it visiting a place of interest). There are a number of countries where it's legal now. Spain will soon be in (and a few states) and I am guessing that some of these countries will take visitors? I can understand that some may be uncomfortable with it but as to it being a generally held view I am sceptical? 

Seems to me that as we all start to live longer the service is likely to grow. It would be a shame for the UK to miss out on a business opportunity if that is to be the case. 

[discobob]

Logan's run comes to mind!!!