Assisted Dying

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

I think it's potentially quite a dangerous line to cross, with ramifications that might not seem obvious at the outset

Why should it be permitted for terminally ill people given a prognosis of six months or less, but not, for example, people without a terminal diagnosis but are living with chronic or debilitating pain?

Or people diagnosed with dementia

Or people with severe, clinical depression

As this thread would indicate, it's very likely there will quickly be pressure to lower the threshold

[Zico]

50 minutes ago, Ani said:

Did he 'just' stop medication ? 
 

I think refusing medication and letting nature takeover is different than giving nature a helping hand so to speak. 

both I think

as in

he was now able to end it with a helping hand

so knowing that was coming, he stopped taking the medication, presumably because that made him feel wonky, or may be he had to as part of the process, dunno

[gonzo]

MND is the one for me. 

I get diagnosed with that I won't need any assistance. Be off the end of that pier by next high tide.

[Cheese]

34 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think it's potentially quite a dangerous line to cross, with ramifications that might not seem obvious at the outset

Why should it be permitted for terminally ill people given a prognosis of six months or less, but not, for example, people without a terminal diagnosis but are living with chronic or debilitating pain?

Or people diagnosed with dementia

Or people with severe, clinical depression

As this thread would indicate, it's very likely there will quickly be pressure to lower the threshold

We've got to start somewhere, I suppose. If it passes, any future proposals will have to be debated and analysed accordingly.

[gonzo]

They need to at least start with people on end of life. 

I watched my mum die for a week. Her body literally breaking apart. 

You wouldn't let a dog suffer like that.

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think it's potentially quite a dangerous line to cross, with ramifications that might not seem obvious at the outset

Why should it be permitted for terminally ill people given a prognosis of six months or less, but not, for example, people without a terminal diagnosis but are living with chronic or debilitating pain?

Or people diagnosed with dementia

Or people with severe, clinical depression

As this thread would indicate, it's very likely there will quickly be pressure to lower the threshold

From what I understand, those with a terminal illness will be the ones that qualify. Beyond that, ie any other criteria within this qualification, I don't know.

On that basis, depression for example, wouldn't qualify, and rightly so.

[bwfcfan5]

2 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think it's potentially quite a dangerous line to cross, with ramifications that might not seem obvious at the outset

Why should it be permitted for terminally ill people given a prognosis of six months or less, but not, for example, people without a terminal diagnosis but are living with chronic or debilitating pain?

Or people diagnosed with dementia

Or people with severe, clinical depression

As this thread would indicate, it's very likely there will quickly be pressure to lower the threshold

I think there are risks and dangers with anything that involves state intervention or support in these sorts of issues. But as a principle do you agree with people having a right to decide? I agree on the risks but do think a lot are hiding behind that because they don’t want to say they disagree with people being able to decide when their end of life is at all. 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

13 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

From what I understand, those with a terminal illness will be the ones that qualify. Beyond that, ie any other criteria within this qualification, I don't know.

On that basis, depression for example, wouldn't qualify, and rightly so.

Terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less

[green genie]

1 hour ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less

Needs two doctors to sign off before a judge so feck all chance of it ever being implemented in 6 months 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 minutes ago, green genie said:

Needs two doctors to sign off before a judge so feck all chance of it ever being implemented in 6 months 

Maybe that's what the health secretary was getting at in his reasonings for voting against?

[Casino]

I havent heard his reasons, but id put god botherer right up there

Fair enough, each to their own

[Tonge moor green jacket]

He's concerned about the effect upon resouces/costs.

[gonzo]

Surely it costs more to keep dying folk alive?

My mum worked in palliative care for decades. It's a money pit.

[MancWanderer]

5 hours ago, gonzo said:

They need to at least start with people on end of life. 

I watched my mum die for a week. Her body literally breaking apart. 

You wouldn't let a dog suffer like that.

 

Like my dad. In Bolton Royal for three weeks. First week responsive but full blown dementia. Second week pretty much slipped into a coma. Third week being kept alive with fluids only. My mum kept saying at the time “if he was a dog I could do the decent thing and have him put down”. Sounds harsh but she couldn’t stand just watching him ebb slowly away with zero chance of recovery. Upsets me know thinking what we and him went through 

[Cheese]

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

Surely it costs more to keep dying folk alive?

My mum worked in palliative care for decades. It's a money pit.

I get your point, but it's pretty sad that "cost" tends to be a primary consideration when topics like this are discussed (not saying it's yours). Virtually every aspect of health care is a "money pit" really. Why bother paying Cardiothoracic surgeons to perform heart surgeries every day? It's just a waste of money, because every single heart they operate on is going to stop one day anyway. The money we spend on saving/extending peoples' lives doesn't just disappear.

(This isn't a criticism of your post at all)

[Dimron]

21 hours ago, gonzo said:

They need to at least start with people on end of life. 

I watched my mum die for a week. Her body literally breaking apart. 

You wouldn't let a dog suffer like that.

 

In the case I quoted his organs didn't fail within 24-48 hrs as expected and he carried on for the best part of a week.

In the end the visiting nurse administered some of the sealed bag of painkillers that had been delivered some weeks ago (it was a home death), she warned us that you might not be able to speak with him again as the intention was to keep him under... I sometimes wonder whether the "deed" was done unofficially.

We need to legitimise this to protect the professionals

[Ani]

16 hours ago, Cheese said:

I get your point, but it's pretty sad that "cost" tends to be a primary consideration when topics like this are discussed (not saying it's yours). Virtually every aspect of health care is a "money pit" really. Why bother paying Cardiothoracic surgeons to perform heart surgeries every day? It's just a waste of money, because every single heart they operate on is going to stop one day anyway. The money we spend on saving/extending peoples' lives doesn't just disappear.

(This isn't a criticism of your post at all)

Cost is a factor in loads of calls in medicine, for instance a new 'wonder' drug can cure a specific illness but costs thousands a time and it needs regular use, the NHS may choose not make it available.

In this instance I think personal choice, dignity and quality of life are the real drivers. I was 'lucky' when my dad died, stroke one day, lasted 2-3 more days so we all got to see him. My mum died of cancer 45 plus years ago, I still remember visiting in her last days in Christie's and she thought I was the tax man. Whilst I am sure treatments have improved since what is the logic to simply keep someone alive that has no chance of recovery , no quality of life, has lost their senses and is only getting worse ?

A counter argument is that a lot of people I know are losing their parents these days ( just an age thing) and a lot talk about how the death is in many ways a relief, would that be replaced by guilt in some instances ? 

[Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Ani said:

Cost is a factor in loads of calls in medicine, for instance a new 'wonder' drug can cure a specific illness but costs thousands a time and it needs regular use, the NHS may choose not make it available.

In this instance I think personal choice, dignity and quality of life are the real drivers. I was 'lucky' when my dad died, stroke one day, lasted 2-3 more days so we all got to see him. My mum died of cancer 45 plus years ago, I still remember visiting in her last days in Christie's and she thought I was the tax man. Whilst I am sure treatments have improved since what is the logic to simply keep someone alive that has no chance of recovery , no quality of life, has lost their senses and is only getting worse ?

A counter argument is that a lot of people I know are losing their parents these days ( just an age thing) and a lot talk about how the death is in many ways a relief, would that be replaced by guilt in some instances ? 

Yes I know, and I think it's sad.

[gonzo]

A good friend of ours has just been diagnosed with breast cancer.

They took a biopsy before her MRI scan.

The biopsy apparently disturbs the cancer and should in reality be after the MRI scan, which can determine whether a biopsy is needed in the first place.

The reason they do the biopsy first and disturb the cancer and make things worse is that that bit costs about £200 to do where as the MRI costs £4k.

Pretty shit that. 

[Ani]

25 minutes ago, gonzo said:

A good friend of ours has just been diagnosed with breast cancer.

They took a biopsy before her MRI scan.

The biopsy apparently disturbs the cancer and should in reality be after the MRI scan, which can determine whether a biopsy is needed in the first place.

The reason they do the biopsy first and disturb the cancer and make things worse is that that bit costs about £200 to do where as the MRI costs £4k.

Pretty shit that. 

My brother in law (if I was married 😀) has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, went for a check up last week and they took him in for emergency radiotherapy on his spine. 
 

No idea what his prognosis is till the next scan. 

[kent_white]

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

A good friend of ours has just been diagnosed with breast cancer.

They took a biopsy before her MRI scan.

The biopsy apparently disturbs the cancer and should in reality be after the MRI scan, which can determine whether a biopsy is needed in the first place.

The reason they do the biopsy first and disturb the cancer and make things worse is that that bit costs about £200 to do where as the MRI costs £4k.

Pretty shit that. 

To be fair - there are loads of reasons why you would do a biopsy instead of an MRI. Only a biopsy can definitively indicate it's a cancer. MRI is just a puzzle piece. 

The biopsy will also help determine the type and how aggressive the cancer is. It's also used for cell analysis to determine the best course of treatment. 

Hopefully this is a bit of reassurance. And best wishes to your friend 🙏 

[CambridgeBWFC]

On 26/11/2024 at 17:07, gonzo said:

 

The reason they do the biopsy first and disturb the cancer and make things worse is that that bit costs about £200 to do where as the MRI costs £4k.

No way a MRI costs £4k. Yes machines are expensive and tech jobs etc to run, but you pay hundreds privately £2k tops depending on scan type. Biopsy is more valuable data anyway. MRI is just to see extent or also spread. 

On the wider topic though, mum has dementia and it is deteriorating rapidly. I know for a fact she would not want to put the family through the pain it is causing and if available would choose this option. Care cost are ~£80k per year and it will bleed any assets available down to cover it until the state picks up the tab. It is crazy and removes all dignity and adds unnecessary pressure to families. I hope this goes through so more sensible discussions can take place about expanding access 

Edited November 27 by CambridgeBWFC

[Underpants]

Why should someone who has been told they have a year or two to live have to wait, maybe painfully, until they have mentally and physically decomposed before they hit the 6 month threshold? It seems daft.

But there's other issues to take into consideration so it's not black & white. I think I'm for assisted dying but I wouldn't like to be an MP on this vote.

[gonzo]

Anyone that votes against it hasn't watched a family member suffer a prolonged, agonising and somewhat humiliating death. 

Fact.

[Underpants]

4 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Anyone that votes against it hasn't watched a family member suffer a prolonged, agonising and somewhat humiliating death. 

Fact.

I don't want to sound cruel but isn't that a good thing?