Diabetic MP’s bid to ensure her condition is not included as cause for assisted death.

[Amity Island]

An MP who developed type 1 diabetes has spoken of her fears that the proposed assisted dying legislation is so vague her condition could be included as a valid reason to end someone’s life.

Sarah Bool, the new Tory MP for South Northamptonshire, laid an amendment to Kim Leadbeater’s controversial bill last week to highlight the issue, and is calling for a list of conditions that should or should not included. Ms Leadbeater though disputes the need for such a list arguing that diabetes is “not a terminal illness”.

Diabetic MP’s bid to ensure her condition is not included as cause for assisted death

Sarah Bool is calling for a list of conditions that should and should not be included in the controversial bill, due to concerns about its vagueness

www.independent.co.uk

 

[rebrascora]

Can't say I am at all worried about my Type 1 being a cause for legal assisted dying, although if I got to the stage that I couldn't take care of myself with no hope of improvement, I think I would probably be quite happy for someone to make that decision for me.

 

[Satan’s little helper]

Hmmm, not everybody would choose this as “end of life.” I had a colleague who was insulin dependant. T2. He had terminal cancer. (Liver, he told me. “I’m sorry,” I said. “Not your fault’” he replied.) I was moved into his department to help him out. One day after a month. he upped & walked away to spend more time with his family. & that’s where it ends. He has my respect.

 

[rebrascora]

Maybe those of us who would want it to be ended for us should be able to sign up to it whilst we are of sound mind and body, a bit like signing up to being an organ donor.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

An MP who developed type 1 diabetes has spoken of her fears that the proposed assisted dying legislation is so vague her condition could be included as a valid reason to end someone’s life.

That's obviously not the intent of the legislation.

The broad aim of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to end their life.​

I suspect what she really wants is to get some publicity as a newly elected MP in a much reduced opposition party.

(Maybe there are some issues with the wording of the bill that might allow its use in people who don't have mental capacity, and that's of course worth fixing.)

 

[CliffH]

That's obviously not the intent of the legislation.

The broad aim of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to end their life.​

I suspect what she really wants is to get some publicity as a newly elected MP in a much reduced opposition party.

(Maybe there are some issues with the wording of the bill that might allow its use in people who don't have mental capacity, and that's of course worth fixing.)

I have worries about any 'assisted dying' legislation from my perspective as someone who's worked with people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum conditions for more than 30 years.

The issue of "mental capacity" is a complex one and is covered (in England and Wales) by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). There are two issues that would need to be tested in court:
1) How do we assess whether or not someone has capacity to decide whether or not to end their life, when their capacity to make that decision is called into question?
2) If someone lacks capacity to make an important decision, the MCA requires people who have responsibility for supporting that person (including the courts, if necessary), to make a decision in that person's 'Best Interest'. How will that decision be made in the context of whether or not to end someone's life?

My (very limited) understanding is that 'mission drift' tends to occur in countries that have brought in 'assisted dying' legislation, in that gradually it becomes easier and easier for people to choose to end their lives - possibly including people who worry that they've become a burden to their family.

In the same way that people with disabilities have been given (unlawful) 'Do Not Resuscitate' directives in hospital when they lack capacity to make that decision, I worry that, very gradually, it will become easier and easier for society to kill people with disabilities who lack capacity to make that decision for themselves.

I'm also concerned that palliative care funding will be diverted to fund assisted dying. If not, where will the money come from, given that it will be enormously expensive, not least in the cost of legal challenges in individual cases?

I should say that I have enormous sympathy for people with (for example) terminal cancer - and I might well fly to Switzerland myself if I were in such a situation. I have no religious objection to suicide. However, on professional and personal levels, my concern is more about people who find it hard to speak up for themselves and (in my experience) are always seen by society as a burden, rather than about people who can argue cogently and loudly why they should be allowed to kill themselves.

 

[Amity Island]

I have worries about any 'assisted dying' legislation from my perspective as someone who's worked with people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum conditions for more than 30 years.

The issue of "mental capacity" is a complex one and is covered (in England and Wales) by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). There are two issues that would need to be tested in court:
1) How do we assess whether or not someone has capacity to decide whether or not to end their life, when their capacity to make that decision is called into question?
2) If someone lacks capacity to make an important decision, the MCA requires people who have responsibility for supporting that person (including the courts, if necessary), to make a decision in that person's 'Best Interest'. How will that decision be made in the context of whether or not to end someone's life?

My (very limited) understanding is that 'mission drift' tends to occur in countries that have brought in 'assisted dying' legislation, in that gradually it becomes easier and easier for people to choose to end their lives - possibly including people who worry that they've become a burden to their family.

In the same way that people with disabilities have been given (unlawful) 'Do Not Resuscitate' directives in hospital when they lack capacity to make that decision, I worry that, very gradually, it will become easier and easier for society to kill people with disabilities who lack capacity to make that decision for themselves.

I'm also concerned that palliative care funding will be diverted to fund assisted dying. If not, where will the money come from, given that it will be enormously expensive, not least in the cost of legal challenges in individual cases?

I should say that I have enormous sympathy for people with (for example) terminal cancer - and I might well fly to Switzerland myself if I were in such a situation. I have no religious objection to suicide. However, on professional and personal levels, my concern is more about people who find it hard to speak up for themselves and (in my experience) are always seen by society as a burden, rather than about people who can argue cogently and loudly why they should be allowed to kill themselves.

Well said.

As you say, the goal posts will be widened over time. Look to Canada for an example.

Let's not forget long standing issues, for example, cold and damp houses cost around 5,000 deaths a year, none of these people agreed to die this way.

 

[CliffH]

Well said.

As you say, the goal posts will be widened over time. Look to Canada for an example.

Let's not forget long standing issues, for example, cold and damp houses cost around 5,000 deaths a year, none of these people agreed to die this way.

I can imagine, in years to come, conversations along these lines:
Diabetes clinician: "I'm very sorry to hear, now that diabetics have to pay for prescriptions, that you can't afford your insulin. Do you realise that you'll probably go blind and/or have to have amputations?"
Patient: "It can't be helped: I'll just have to go for assisted dying if that happens, as I couldn't face living if I were blind or lost a limb".

I worry that assisted dying will come to be seen as a money-saving option for society, with people coming under all kinds of subtle (and not so subtle) pressures to 'choose' it. It won't be well-off, articulate people who'll come under those pressures though: it will be the people who already get overlooked and discriminated against.

 

[Amity Island]

I can imagine, in years to come, conversations along these lines:
Diabetes clinician: "I'm very sorry to hear, now that diabetics have to pay for prescriptions, that you can't afford your insulin. Do you realise that you'll probably go blind and/or have to have amputations?"
Patient: "It can't be helped: I'll just have to go for assisted dying if that happens, as I couldn't face living if I were blind or lost a limb".

I worry that assisted dying will come to be seen as a money-saving option for society, with people coming under all kinds of subtle (and not so subtle) pressures to 'choose' it. It won't be well-off, articulate people who'll come under those pressures though: it will be the people who already get overlooked and discriminated against.

Sadly it will come to pass, I reckon within 5 years of the law passing, we will see these things becoming commonplace. Alongside this, of course, will be a cultural societal change in attitude coupled with plenty of propaganda promoting it. "Do it for others", "do it for your country", "do it for your grandkids". It's all so predictable.