• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.

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

nonethewiser said:
Firm believer in assisted dying, when you see a loved one in pain & distress to the bitter end you realise it's a inhuman way of leaving this world, so everyone should have a choice how they go in terminal circumstances.
Click to expand...
I guess this issue really prompts the importance of finding cures and treatments, i'm sure that would be the prefered option to anyone.

The other point i'd make is that, given the state of our NHS, many will have ended up in situtations (late diagnosis for example) through no fault of their own. So in essence, led into an avoidable situation. The thought of a failed NHS leading to assisted dying is tragic in itself.
 
dannybgoode said:
Why not call Kim by her name? And she didn't push it through parliament. It was debated and all MP's given a free vote.
Click to expand...
I just recognise her as Jo Cox's sister, that's why.
dannybgoode said:
Why not call Kim by her name? And she didn't push it through parliament. It was debated and all MP's given a free vote.
Click to expand...
Not according to this report.

Why is the assisted dying bill being rushed through parliament?

"It’s increasingly apparent that this proposal is being treated more as if it were some urgent infrastructure project that needs to be cleared and got under way as soon as decently possible. We have already seen this in the short notice given to parliament of the Bill’s terms and the minimal time allocated for debate. It was also visible in the determined efforts by those in charge of the private member’s bill committee to seemingly skew the evidence it receives towards those in favour of the Bill and limit as far as possible the number of opponents it is prepared to listen to. (The committee had to be shamed into hearing even from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, having previously voted to exclude it because of alleged shortage of time.)"

www.spectator.co.uk

Why is the assisted dying bill being rushed through parliament?

The Bill currently requires a High Court judge to sign off on every request for assisted dying: a protection criticised as a waste of time.
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dannybgoode said:
Ah, a right leaning publication criticises a policy being introduced by Labour. No bias at all then...
Click to expand...
That's as may be. However, many of us have strong views about this topic regardless of our politics. For example, I'm 'left leaning' and yet I have concerns about this Bill based purely on my experiences of working with vulnerable people who lack capacity to make decisions about complex matters. That doesn't mean that I lack sympathy for people who have strong personal reasons for wanting some form of assisted dying to become legal ASAP.

As painful as it is (and I apologise if any of my posts have upset anyone), I do think that this is a valid subject for debate on here, given that an MP has raised the question of Diabetes. I think that it's an incredibly complex and difficult subject, with no 'villains' on either side: everyone whom I've heard speak (in public or in private) about it has people's best interests at heart - just not necessarily the same group(s) of people.
 
CliffH said:
I do think that this is a valid subject for debate on here, given that an MP has raised the question of Diabetes.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely a valid subject for debate but invoking eugenics and ethnic cleansing as potential outcomes is taking things way too far.

The article cited isn't evidence the bill has been pushed through though which Amity has tried to argue. It is simply an opinion piece by someone with some political bias. Yes, people of all political leanings - given the emotive nature of the matter - may agree with those opinions but it is not evidence that the bill was pushed through.

It was debated and MPs given a free vote. Yes, if Labour had whipped the vote then it could be deemed pushing through given their huge majority, but that wasn't the case.

I've seen loved ones suffer terribly in the final weeks and months of their lives. Unnecessary suffering that could do easily have been avoided. The care they were recieving was good by the standards of palliative care but it was still just dragging out the inevitable.

I too want the choice to end my life a handful of weeks early if I'm ever in that position and without my family facing potential legal consequences. I don't see any reason at all to deny me that choice.

Yes, any such legislation needs to be very carefully thought through and I think it is being. However, it is needed and with the correct processes in place I think it'll be a relief for so many people. Don't forget the majority of the public in favour of a change in the law is quite substantial.
 
I think “pushed through” is a common phrase in relationship to Bills, legislation and the like. I’m not fond of tribalism and whether something is ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ shouldn’t affect the subject under discussion. @Amity Island raises interesting topics and even if I don’t agree with them, I like to read the threads. A discussion is a discussion. We all have our own opinions.
 
dannybgoode said:
It's absolutely a valid subject for debate but invoking eugenics and ethnic cleansing as potential outcomes is taking things way too far.

The article cited isn't evidence the bill has been pushed through though which Amity has tried to argue. It is simply an opinion piece by someone with some political bias. Yes, people of all political leanings - given the emotive nature of the matter - may agree with those opinions but it is not evidence that the bill was pushed through.

It was debated and MPs given a free vote. Yes, if Labour had whipped the vote then it could be deemed pushing through given their huge majority, but that wasn't the case.

I've seen loved ones suffer terribly in the final weeks and months of their lives. Unnecessary suffering that could do easily have been avoided. The care they were recieving was good by the standards of palliative care but it was still just dragging out the inevitable.

I too want the choice to end my life a handful of weeks early if I'm ever in that position and without my family facing potential legal consequences. I don't see any reason at all to deny me that choice.

Yes, any such legislation needs to be very carefully thought through and I think it is being. However, it is needed and with the correct processes in place I think it'll be a relief for so many people. Don't forget the majority of the public in favour of a change in the law is quite substantial.
Click to expand...
I think the maxim, 'Hard cases make bad law' is very apposite in this case. There are terribly sad real-life situations on both sides of the debate and I spend much of my professional life aiming to get the (usually silent) voices heard of people who are often deemed by society to lack capacity to make important decisions.

Hopefully, the voices of a wide range of people will continue to be heard by the people who have responsibility for actually making decisions about this complex issue.

As a matter of detail, I'm perturbed by the potential suggestion that assisted dying might be regarded as 'condition-specific' - that is, "You can opt for assisted dying if you have X condition but not if you have (for example) Diabetes". Surely it's the person's capacity to make the decision (based on having the information necessary to make an informed decision) that's key? Otherwise, we're creeping away from it being an individual's decision towards society making the decision. That's part of the reason why the Mental Capacity Act isn't 'condition-specific'.
 
Inka said:
I think “pushed through” is a common phrase in relationship to Bills, legislation and the like. I’m not fond of tribalism and whether something is ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ shouldn’t affect the subject under discussion. @Amity Island raises interesting topics and even if I don’t agree with them, I like to read the threads. A discussion is a discussion. We all have our own opinions.
Click to expand...
... and if Amity Island is a GP (is that correct?), then their views on 'health' issues interest me particularly, even when (or perhaps especially when) I disagree with them!

GPs will certainly be involved in any legal assisted dying scenarios and so need to have informed views about the subject.
 
I don’t know if @Amity Island is a GP @CliffH But I do think it’s right to have concerns about Assisted Dying. One can agree with the basic idea but still express concerns at the way it would be implemented. There have been a few disturbing cases from countries where it’s already legal.
 
CliffH said:
... and if Amity Island is a GP (is that correct?), then their views on 'health' issues interest me particularly, even when (or perhaps especially when) I disagree with them!

GPs will certainly be involved in any legal assisted dying scenarios and so need to have informed views about the subject.
Click to expand...
From what I know. GP’s can sign off on the metal capacity with a patient decision to grant “power of attorney.” (Before the legal stuff. ) So it stands to reason regarding assisted end of life? Though in my experience I’ve known of 3 people who’ve decided to (4 if you count my dad.) spend the time at home. One of which just wished to get the house in order & wheeled down the road for a long missed pint. With regards to T1 potentially added to the terminal illness list? I feel the artical highlighted is a storm in a teapot. But I do feel we are (and have been for decades.) edging toward an American (style) health care system.
 
It took just 5 years for the goal posts to be widened. Just as I predict for the UK.

Canada introduced assisted dying in 2016 for adults with a terminal illness. In 2021, it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled.

On 17 March 2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible.

Campaigners in Canada argue that the programme, known as MAID [medical assistance in dying], has gone too far.

news.sky.com

Canada's assisted dying programme has gone too far, says lawyer who tried to take his own life

Orlando Da Silva, who has struggled with crippling depression, argues that people like him need help with their condition - not help to die.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
That’s the thing @Amity Island When it’s discussed, we often see people desperate to have it, and, even if we disagree, we can understand their wish in their circumstances. What we don’t see are other people who’ve had assisted dying, like those with mental health problems, who, in other circumstances, might have made a different decision. These people are often young.

Apart from the potential ‘rightness or wrongness’ of their decision, I think there can sometimes be an element of….can’t think of the right word…control?pleasure?satisfaction?validation?…..in involving others in what, for the physically able, could be a personal action.
 
Inka said:
That’s the thing @Amity Island When it’s discussed, we often see people desperate to have it, and, even if we disagree, we can understand their wish in their circumstances. What we don’t see are other people who’ve had assisted dying, like those with mental health problems, who, in other circumstances, might have made a different decision. These people are often young.

Apart from the potential ‘rightness or wrongness’ of their decision, I think there can sometimes be an element of….can’t think of the right word…control?pleasure?satisfaction?validation?…..in involving others in what, for the physically able, could be a personal action.
Click to expand...
The chap in that article said it wasn't the assisted dying he wanted, it was help with his mental health that he needed.
 
The other thing I'd add is that, none of us are party to the discussions, meetings, conversations that go on. We have no idea what the motivations are of others.

What we think we know (on the face of it), is not always what is actually going on. We get told a narrative, which might actually be very different from what is really going on.
 
Can I put my moderators hat on and thank members for taking a thread that looked as if it was heading for acrimonious argument and putting it back on the rails.

Taking my mods hat off... at the bottom of this (and many other debates) is how you balance the harm to a few against the greater good. When this bill is passed, it will be of little relevance to most, be welcomed by some but pose a danger to others. The problem is to fashion a law which allows those who will benefit from it to take the benefit, whilst minimising the harm to those who might be exploited. It is a tricky problem to solve because the lower the bar is set, the more cumbersome become the processes involved. It is asking too much for all risk to be eliminated, that would need processes that would be inordinately cumbersome and quite absurd for the vast majority of cases.

I am sure that within the parliamentary system all angles and aspects will be considered and a bill will be fashioned. I just hope that it will sensibly done with clear conditions which will allow somebody to assist another to end their life without that somebody being guilty of a crime. Above all, the bill needs clarity and if anything concerns me is that the bill will be a complete mess, open to varieties of interpretation and consume more legal time than is appropriate.
 
Satan’s little helper said:
From what I know. GP’s can sign off on the metal capacity with a patient decision to grant “power of attorney.” (Before the legal stuff. ) So it stands to reason regarding assisted end of life? Though in my experience I’ve known of 3 people who’ve decided to (4 if you count my dad.) spend the time at home. One of which just wished to get the house in order & wheeled down the road for a long missed pint. With regards to T1 potentially added to the terminal illness list? I feel the artical highlighted is a storm in a teapot. But I do feel we are (and have been for decades.) edging toward an American (style) health care system.
Click to expand...
The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) reflects that 'capacity' isn't a simple matter. A key principle is proportionality: for example, a carer isn't expected to spend too long worrying about whether or not someone who (for example) has an intellectual disability or dementia has capacity to decide whether they'd prefer tea or coffee.

However, what about capacity to engage in a sexual relationship? That's one of the most common reasons that I've been asked to give an opinion on capacity, as a Clinical Psychologist specialising in working with people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum conditions.

Deciding whether or not someone has capacity to decide whether or not have an abortion is another issue that involves the courts in complex, often distressing cases - particularly when the individual in question is found to lack capacity to decide whether or not to have an abortion, in which case the court has to decide (with the help of people who know the individual well and usually with the assistance of expert witnesses) whether or not it's in the person's 'best interest' to have an abortion.

Similar heart-wrenching debates (to which there's often no obvious 'right or wrong' answer) will also have to take place if assisted dying is made legal: simply saying that 'only people with mental capacity' can opt for it is to ignore a raft of existing legislation that would intersect with any assisted dying legislation. For example, if assisted dying is deemed to be a good thing for someone who has capacity to opt for it, why should people who lack capacity to opt for it be denied it?

There's also the Mental Health Act (MHA) to consider - and in practice the MCA and the MHA often come into conflict as it is! So, if someone with a history of significant psychological ill-health says that they want to end their life, I imagine that the court will want an opinion on that person's current state of mind. That will probably also apply to older people, if there's any suggestion of dementia.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top