I think I've said this before, but how would someone who is totally incapacitated, but of sound mind, be able to follow the assisted dying route they are proposing . They keep saying you have to do the final act yourself. This also means you have to do the job possibly before you need to in order to make sure you have not lost the ability at the stage you would want to take that step.
I feel slightly better after reading that there are lots of neighbours that aren't particularly friendly because it has shown me, I'm on a pretty friendly road actually. I was comparing it with the past where everyone would say hello and want to chat but it turns out that still having as many nice neighbours is a bit of a luxury today. We regularly look after 6 houses when the owners are on holiday and feed the cats at two of those quite often. There are also plenty of other neighbours that won't let you past without catching up. We do have friendly people in the local area and you do get the odd hello, mostly from the older folk. I think this has been dwindling over the recent years but I try to make eye contact and smile at least. One friend if completely blanked by a hello, just continues with a "I'm very well thanks, nice of you to ask" or other sarcastic remark.
If I open a door for someone or stand back to let them through and they just walk past without acknowledgment, I say loudly "You're welcome".
Difficult thought process indeed. Have no clue over your regulations etc over there. The company I retired from after 19 years over saw group homes. Some of the folks elderly or born with diagnosis which would shorten their life . The first time I was involved with an individual that was extremely poor of health I had to endure the companies philosophy to keep them alive no matter what. Coming from a hospital and nursing home back ground, I was totally upset that they wanted to keep this sad human alive in such a state. Finally they did pass. But the next person that was on her /him way out, I immediately got two doctors to write the terminal diagnosis, and got hospice on board. The company could not do anything then. So my individual would then gently go, and pass on in their own home, not in some hospital with tubes coming out of everywhere.
@pete At least the Labour Party have shown they are fast learners. Last time round Blair denounced the corruption and self-serving in the Conservatives party and was going to clean things up. Once in power they didn't just immediately get their noses in the trough, they swam in in. This time the accused the Tories of financial mismanagement, and then showed the Tories that they were just beginners at it!
Two things on the assisted dying bill.... firstly, one of the main proponents of the bill, Esther Rantzen, is still alive many, many months after she was allegedly going to die of terminal cancer. If that doesn't prove just how little that doctors can actually be sure that someone is going to die in a certain timeframe, then I don't know what does. Also, riddle me this - those who are the very ones that are calling for assisted dying would also, on the other hand, decry any thought of a debate on bringing back the death penalty for monsters like Axel Rudakabana etc...
Assisted dying and the death penalty are different issues, FC. I am against the death penalty mostly on the grounds it is no punishment at all. It lets the guilty person off the hook, no time served. Esther Rantzen may well not be relying on the NHS, so getting more timely care and expensive treatments than you or I would have access to. She will doubtless be in relatively comfortable surroundings as well, either at home or in a hospital setting. All these things make a huge difference to your final months.
But you have raised my earlier point, there seems to be this assumption that the doc says you have 6 months to live and you do it tomorrow, it shouldn't be like that, I think most that are against it seem to think that's how it would work. I also dont get the disabled people arguing against it, they are in most cases not terminal, so they are, IMO, to be discounted from the argument. IMO the doc says its terminal, but you chose when its done, I'm thinking of people with incurable disease, they know its going to kill them but it should be their choice of when to go. Basically we are all terminal from the day we are born, it's just a matter of when, and people should have the right to choose. I'm all for a death sentence on murderers of certain types, but that is a totally different issue, cant even see where that fits the discussion of assisted dying.
The re introduction of the death penalty is entirely different. Some of those convicted and executed may have been happy to die - others may not have been and there is always the possibility of wrongful convictions resulting in executions. The justice system is not foolproof. Assisted Dying is simply offering the right to assist death when life has become unbearable for someone - mainly health related. Who knows, it could also be offered to convicted murderers who have no desire to spend the rest of their lives incarcerated. I'd agree that the 6 month limit is extremely debatable but it should be accepted that everyone of sound mind has the right to decide for themselves. This govt has no intention of introducing such a law - just endless debates with ever more hoops to jump thru
I hear about it, but do not know for sure, have not explored it much. I left out that the individuals I spoke about that I got hospice for were very mentally handicap, either the courts deemed them incompetent, or involved family had taken on the task as guardian of the individual. All families were onboard with the end results, certainly a cumulation of years of working with the families and their individual. Sadly, I had some individuals that the families wanted nothing to do with them. Even parents. Had a case that the siblings knew nothing about their sister until they were 25 years old. Another case where the mother dumped her child at 3 years old in an institution and told them to call her when he dies.
It's not so much that the doc says that it is terminal and it is done the next day - the point for me is that docs get so much wrong that it might not even be terminal at all. Don't forget, when I was in hospital, I was told I wouldn't walk again, I wouldn't see again, and would be on dialysis for the rest of my life. At that point, if I'd have had a way out... fair chance I'd have taken it to not be a burden on my family. Yet, whilst I won't run any marathons in the future, I am able to work, provide for myself and family, I can walk, I can garden (I can drink pints and I can pee!)... they didn't just get my prognosis a little bit wrong, they were so far off the mark, they may as well have been in a different continent.
So if the doc gets it wrong and you dont reach the point of wanting to do it, you dont do it. I dont think its the kind of thing like, Oh I made the decision 6 months ago so now I have to do it, obviously if the Docs are wrong and you seem to recover you dont do it, surely??????
Doctors can know that a condition is terminal, but they can't determine exactly how long a person will survive. You only have to look at MND for proof of that. However, MND is currently virtually untreatable, let alone incurable. If a person with MND decided they didn't want to suffer the indignities of the decline, be it fast or slow, who are we to say they should have to?
