[Flyingfemme]

Politics covers everything. The subject needs to be addressed. Sooner rather than later.

Several years ago my Dad was given a diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer. It’s not moved and the doctors are eerily quiet on the subject. I had “the conversation” with him and established his preferred boundaries. So far, he’s fine.

A few weeks ago my best friend was given a terminal diagnosis of lung and liver cancer. After a course of infusions that did nothing, she has chosen to have no more treatment. Her doctor said she can only offer a small chance of success with a painful, unpleasant course of further treatment. We have discussed her choice of outcomes.

As we get older it becomes closer to home and I believe in letting adults make informed decisions. You wouldn’t let your pet suffer.

[Flyin'Dutch']

@riverrock I think @Rob P wanted to express that this is not party politics of the sort which normally is forbidden and gets threads donked; the process of modifying what is allowed in a civilised country is of course through the legal political channels, ultimately formulated and managed through parliament and the justice system.

Due to my working in several different jurisdictions I have experience in working in one where active euthanasia is allowed and practised, one where unnecessary suffering is avoided and one where even managing a patient's symptoms in an appropriate clinical manner could see you in court.

The latter is extremely undesirable as it results in seriously ill and or elderly to be sent to hospital for futile investigations and treatments; active euthanasia is something that I think is overhyped by proponents and opponents but think that in some cases, undertaken by carefully selected clinicians and settings has a place. I as a medic, for me have decided that it is not for me, also as I don't want any of my patients to think I would apply it to them, it is for me, not as I see I can fulfil my hippocratic oath, but at ease if others do.

I am not very comfortable with the extension currently discussed in the NL, although it is fair to say that even that extension would not mean that it would become 'mainstream' for swathes of people who have some minor ailment.

It is a difficult subject, ditto the pro-choice/pro-life although for that I think fewer men in grey suits should try and make decisions about women's lives. And we certainly should guard against the zealous religious taking away hard won women's rights.

[JonathanB]

My M-i-L died last year in a hospice. Probably in pain, but certainly more drawn out because the doctors there could only prescribe seemingly increasingly ineffective pain relief and very little dignity. If she could have taken a quicker option then I’m sure she would have. There was no possibility of any recovery so why did she have to suffer? We don’t make our pets suffer. It’s inhumane especially when end of life is inevitable that we can’t make it more dignified. Off to send the email now.

[Rob P]

My final post on this thread - there is nothing more for me to add.

Sally the biker by Rob, on Flickr

This is the long version of the interview with Sally McIntosh, my ex-partner, but loved friend to her last day (23 December 2006) that was recorded by the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme as she was in her final days and The Lords were about to discuss assisted dying.

She speaks plainly and simply as a terminally ill believer. Her slot was followed by two old clerics, Rowan Williams and Cormac Murphy-O'Connor who spouted dogma and platitudes and failed to address one word she had said. That recording probably survives somewhere, but makes me homicidal, so I have not stored it.

Please listen once - whatever your opinion at this moment.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hmi9iu7deaxns ... T.wav?dl=0

Thank you.

Rob P

[riverrock]

This has been discussed a number of times on here.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=104290

Anecdotes are difficult in this discussion because they are highly emotionally charged.

The most obvious group of professionals in the UK who deal with the group of people who might be effected are overwhelmingly against it (4% of palliative care specialists are for physician assisted suicide
https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2008.full ).
They deal with people at the end of their lives every day. I suggest listening to them.

[MachFlyer]

This whole thread is a tough read/listen for me. I was diagnosed with incurable lung cancer which has spread to various places including liver, spine etc & the worst was my left femur which snapped in half basically, now replaced with a synthetic hip/femur. I’m currently being treated with immunotherapy which seems to have slowed it down a bit, not reversed anything but it has allowed me to do some things before my time is up. For example I went to Duxford a couple of weeks ago and had a flight in a Tiger Moth. Not massive I grant you but it was something I’ve wanted to do so I thought I’d do it as I can’t be PIC on my own anymore.

Despite my family not really wanting to dicuss things like end of life care etc it’s something I have had to do, advised where I would like to be cared for and a DNR form has been filled in and such like. At the moment I can’t even think of arranging my death in a similar way, she sounds like an extremely brave lady and everybody should have the right to do so in these circumstances.

I would like to think that if I am in pain at the end my palliative care team will be (overly) liberal with the morphine but that is probably unfair of me to expect someone to do that for me as the law stands.

It’s obviously not a nice position to be in but being in this position I would 100% say that people must have the right to choose themselves.

As for me I’m still getting out doing things each day even if it’s just a jaunt around the local park. I’m hopeful of getting to Sleap for the fly in, in fact we drove down there for a coffee and cake a week ago.

See you all there

I wasn’t sure whether to post this but I thought an opinion from someone in a similar position would be useful to the debate and someday someone reading this may be asked to vote on the matter.

[GrahamB]

That's a very humbling post @MachFlyer.

I suppose we all hope not to find ourselves in a similar position, but many of us will.

I hope to meet you at Sleap.

[Miscellaneous]

Sorry, @riverrock, your posts come across to me as a perfect example of the point @Rob P makes. The interference of detrimental religious bias dressed up as logical argument, when in fact the argument offered has no logic.

Religion has no place and should have no voice in a modern society. We are getting there, if rather slowly.

[Rob P]

... she sounds like an extremely brave lady and everybody should have the right to do so in these circumstances.

She was exceptional, and despite everything she retained her belief in God, even if she had a somewhat jaundiced view of his delegates on Earth.

Thanks for the bravery of sharing your situation. It is only by talking about such things freely that the rational view will prevail.

And yes, I know I said it was my last post. But you made me do it.

See you at Sleap.

Rob P

[Flyin'Dutch']

The most obvious group of professionals in the UK who deal with the group of people who might be effected are overwhelmingly against it (4% of palliative care specialists are for physician assisted suicide
https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2008.full ).
They deal with people at the end of their lives every day. I suggest listening to them.

This is not a topic which can just be left to a group of professionals to be dealt with, not only because we are well past the 'doctor knows best' times but especially because this is a moral, ethical, religious and practical issue that affects the whole of society and with that each and everyone of us.

On a different note it is wrong to suggest that a poll under a subsection of medics, albeit specialists in a area of medicine close to death and dying, would give a discreet value which should be societal guidance; especially where that poll and its participation was hotly discussed, but for knowing that you need to read more than the headlines - only possible to those who can log in.

Neither is it a requirement for all medics to support something for it to be able to be undertaken; again terminations of pregnancies are something which is available, provided by the NHS, to eligible women. Those medics who feel unable to be involved with these are free to decide this, they don't even have to refer someone for a TOP, they are only compelled to make sure that information of who will help is available.

[Mike Tango]

They deal with people at the end of their lives every day. I suggest listening to them.

The most recent polls I have seen suggest the general public are significantly in favour of assisted dying and being allowed dignity in death.

I suggest listening to them.

[Propwash]

This is always going to be an emotive topic, but life is personal (and precious) and what suits one individual will not suit another. Everybody is different and has their own tolerance levels for pain, indignity and acceptance. Nobody, medical professional, politician or religious leader, should force others to exceed them.

I can understand those with strong religious belief focussing on the sanctity of life, but their faith is not necessarily shared by another who is suffering. They are entitled to apply their code to themselves but not another who may not share it. I suspect those who suggest that their view should prevail no matter what, would not agree to others forcing them to vote in a particular way, eat a particular diet or behave in any number of other ways which are a matter of personal choice and freedom. And yet it is fundamentally no different.

Once life becomes unbearable for an individual, provided workable safeguards are in place to prevent abuse, it is inhumane to prevent that person ending it should they choose that course.

In my opinion.

PW

[CloudHound]

One change not really factored in has been the effects on life expectancy brought about by medical science advances.

When I were a lad in the 1950s men seemed to disappear from my life when the reached their late 60s. Now I know many 80 year old men some of whom put me to shame with vitality.

So what I believe needs rebalancing is the discrepancy between ever lengthening life expectancy, social care for the elderly and infirm (and don’t get me started on Dementia) and end of life management.

I think it’s 1in 2 of us will develop some form of Cancer, so the question of should I stay or should I go will face a lot of us.

Thank you for raising this . My MP Maria Caulfield is a former nurse; be interesting how she reacts.

[MikeE]

.....it is inhumane to prevent that person ending it should they choose that course.

In my opinion.

PW

I don't think the issue is about preventing anyone from ending their life if they so choose, as there is no law (now) against that, but rather it is about asking someone else - usually a doctor - to end your life for you. And there are issues for debate around that, including the protection of vulnerable people.

Many elderly or sick people already feel they are a burden on their family or even the state. There are concerns that some of these people may choose to end their lives for this reason, or even come under pressure to do so by their family who are thinking of their inheritance. Lord Joffe's Bill in 2003 sought to provide protection, but it failed (the Lord's Select Committee produced an interesting report following that - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... 6/8610.htm)

Interestingly, I think that some of the people who have since called for a change in the law on the basis of their own experience would not have benefitted had that Bill passed.

A very difficult subject that, as @FD suggests, is not really open to decision by polls or surveys as every individual will have a view based on their own experience and ethical standpoint rather than a generally accepted 'public viewpoint' based on rehearsal of the pros and cons.

Personally, I believe that the law should be changed provided sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the vulnerable. This would also provide the reassurance that people with life-limiting illnesses are seeking that they can have control over their death should living become unbearable.

Best wishes

Mike

[Propwash]

I don't think the issue is about preventing anyone from ending their life if they so choose, as there is no law (now) against that, but rather it is about asking someone else - usually a doctor - to end your life for you.

But at present the alternatives for those faced with terminal decline and no possibility of cure would seem to be:

End their life prematurely while still with sufficient physical ability to do that, including travel to a facility abroad that permits assisted dying in appropriate cases, thereby leaving loved ones while there is still some quality of life to be enjoyed.

Or

Accepting a lingering and potentially painful demise, with complete loss of dignity, causing immense distress to the individual and those close to them (like RobP) who are forced to witness it and are legally unable to help.

By the time the personal threshold for the bearing of suffering is reached, many are incapable of ending their life without help. Surely that is the point of this bill?

Those who believe that nobody is asked by their particular Deity to endure more than they can bear and therefore choose to wait for the inevitable would be unaffected. Nobody is suggesting that assisted dying should or would be forced onto those who object.

PW