|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 9:51:36 GMT
The law on right to die is being voted on, but in dealing with the fear of coercion, it prevents the rights for by far the biggest group who would opt to end their lives.
Those with dementia.
This is because you must administer the drugs yourself.
My mum is 93 and is dying, her heart is failing and this has lead to vascular dementia. Her mind has gone, she remembers none of us children and each time we go to see her she begs us to fetch my dad to help her. My dad died 4 years ago.
She can no longer understand books, tv or even speech. It is impossible to reassure her and its heart breaking.
She is frightened and confused and her children's memory of her is going to be of this lady babbling and being fed small amounts of mash potato or custard.
Instead of the feisty woman she was.
I don't want to die like that.
My living will would say. When Zany can no longer describe the meaning of any on of the following words, he is ready to go.
Those words are. Table, Cow, Tree, Car.
If I cannot even attempt to describe the meaning of these simple words then I am no longer here.
Thus if I am unable to make the decision myself it can be made for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2024 12:37:11 GMT
Therein lies the problem.
We have mission creep even before the law is established.
You have a very good case to extend the right to die for Alzheimer’s.
My relation is in constant pain with osteoporosis and has told me that he wishes he was dead.
Should we allow him the right to die?
If we establish that perceived quality of life is a qualification for the right to die then mental illness, Parkinson’s ,MS etc might qualify.
The right to die could become a solution to a social problem as abortion has become .
I that may be a good thing and it may not .
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Nov 24, 2024 12:40:24 GMT
I was in a similar position a few years ago . The carers we employed for the home help did leave us with the duty of administering the drugs when they were not there . In the final weeks we were instructed to give whatever she needs .
Thankfully Mum passed before she got to the point of not being able to recognise her sons and for that Im thankful . But your right Zany, when that point arrives its over , you are dead anyway and it should be just a matter of turning off the lights
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 13:54:01 GMT
Therein lies the problem. We have mission creep even before the law is established. You have a very good case to extend the right to die for Alzheimer’s. My relation is in constant pain with osteoporosis and has told me that he wishes he was dead. Should we allow him the right to die? If we establish that perceived quality of life is a qualification for the right to die then mental illness, Parkinson’s ,MS etc might qualify. The right to die could become a solution to a social problem as abortion has become . I that may be a good thing and it may not . What you call mission creep, I call cowardice. Cowardice because for fear of the dark we would deny a large number of people autonomy over their own lives. Should we allow someone who wants to die, the right to die. Damned right we should. Assuming proper procedures are followed. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Nov 24, 2024 13:57:45 GMT
The trouble with this is that people will be put to death who dont want to die, and who will be the executioner? Not me. I could say more but i wont, by the way im anti abortion, its the modern holocaust. A hell like situation,...killing children. Oh go on then say it, they are not children. Yes they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 24, 2024 14:07:48 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves.
No other person can full stop
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Nov 24, 2024 14:57:43 GMT
On May 9th 1994 the House of Lords debated 'The Lords Select Committee Report on Medical Ethics'... which the Media had been calling "The Euthanasia Bill". Much to the surprise of many the Lords came out very much against any form of legalisation of Euthanasia or Right to Die. They said that ... "There was a risk that there would be a medical holocaust ... because of the appalling attitude of a significant section of the population".
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Nov 24, 2024 15:06:54 GMT
On May 9th 1994 the House of Lords debated 'The Lords Select Committee Report on Medical Ethics'... which the Media had been calling "The Euthanasia Bill". Much to the surprise of many the Lords came out very much against any form of legalisation of Euthanasia or Right to Die. They said that ... "There was a risk that there would be a medical holocaust ... because of the appalling attitude of a significant section of the population".
One opinion mentioned was: "... that for those without religious belief the individual is best able to decide what manner of death is fitting".
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2024 16:01:56 GMT
Therein lies the problem. We have mission creep even before the law is established. You have a very good case to extend the right to die for Alzheimer’s. My relation is in constant pain with osteoporosis and has told me that he wishes he was dead. Should we allow him the right to die? If we establish that perceived quality of life is a qualification for the right to die then mental illness, Parkinson’s ,MS etc might qualify. The right to die could become a solution to a social problem as abortion has become . I that may be a good thing and it may not . What you call mission creep, I call cowardice. Cowardice because for fear of the dark we would deny a large number of people autonomy over their own lives. Should we allow someone who wants to die, the right to die. Damned right we should. Assuming proper procedures are followed. You can call it Kevin if you want but it’s still mission creep. The fact that call it cowardice merely means that you want to virtue signal and be argumentative behind the mind zone . You have been around enough to have seen that good intentions tend to lead to not so good intentions. If you want it to be all about you then tell us that . If you want to have a rational debate about a very controversial and emotional subject then don’t insult views that might not suit your current emotional state . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2024 16:07:25 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves. No other person can full stop The current bill might . That doesn’t mean it always will. There will always be situations where the law as it stands will be unfair . |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 24, 2024 16:16:27 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves. No other person can full stop The current bill might . That doesn’t mean it always will. There will always be situations where the law as it stands will be unfair . I doubt if the present Bill will come to pass. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2024 16:23:47 GMT
The current bill might . That doesn’t mean it always will. There will always be situations where the law as it stands will be unfair . I doubt if the present Bill will come to pass. I’m not sure whether that’s a good thing . |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Nov 24, 2024 18:12:39 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves. No other person can full stop They'll get it through and progress to the next step, which will be the next of kin and eventually it will fall to some government medical board. Things like this always go through stages to allow the population to absorb and accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by honestjohn on Nov 24, 2024 18:57:24 GMT
From personal experience I can say that sometimes a matriarch is in a hospice, old people's home, care home and the like and the family can see the inheritance draining away quicker than the life draining away from the matriarch. At that point there could be an unethical pressure in favour of ending that person's life, which is unwarranted. The fact the matriarch's life does not seem worth living is not really relevant, as she will eventually die and may not be in a good mental state to make that decision for herself.
There has to be some really strong safeguard in place to protect people from state approved murder.
I do note that when there is a debate on capital punishment comes up, the argument is that one potential mistake means that there should never be capital punishment.
Are the same people saying that one potential mistake should disqualify assisted suicide? I think not.
It is always painful to see loved ones die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 24, 2024 19:04:07 GMT
I doubt if the present Bill will come to pass. I’m not sure whether that’s a good thing . Personally I would like to see in succeed too many people spend years in serious pain no quality of life they should be able to decide enough is enough |
|
