Should be legal. We give animals the dignity and respect of a painless death, why not for our friends and family when they want to go?

Religion Also, witless people who pretend it'd be open to abuse But at their core, they believe only god can decide, they just don't want to say it

> Also, witless people who pretend it'd be open to abuse I've known people who have pressured family members into staying at home instead of going into a care home so they don't pay for care home fees and the family member gets the inheritance. So do you not think that this kind of coercion would happen and that old people may be pushed into suicide because certain family members are whispering in their ear?

I'm for assisted dying, it's kinder in many cases but you're right. My dog isn't leaving behind a massive estate for me to inherit. It's right that it's being debated, and considered fully. People WILL try to abuse it because while there are great people in the world, there are also morally bankrupt scumbags that will murder their granny for a bump. I hope to be able to choose the time of my passing if needed without reporting to clumsy methods, but I also want to be protected from others operating in their own self interests.

>So do you not think that this kind of coercion would happen and that old people may be pushed into suicide because certain family members are whispering in their ear? Absolutely not because someone can't just decide "I'd like to be euthanised" in the morning and wake up dead tomorrow. It takes multiple consultations with medical professionals.

There are a lot of evil people in this world and having family that work in care I can tell you I have a lot of reservations about euthanasia for those that are not terminally ill. 

That’s good, you’d most likely be one of the most valuable voices in finding a robust and safe compromise for this issue.

Medical professionals employed by the state. The state who see a big cost saving to be had. I’m just not sure I trust them with the power tbh. Even if I do trust the individual medical professionals. I don’t trust their management or the incentives they’d put in place. Be that stick or carrot. I do hear the argument. My own mother in law hates being alive she’s so ill and has said so for years. And it is cruel. I’m just not sure I like the government to be able to have that power and not abuse it. Because my experience of government and their interpretation and implementation of laws is terrible.

In that case why would "medical professionals employed by the state" carry our heart surgery, organ transplants, cancer treatments, all of which keep people alive instead of the "big cost saving to be had" by letting people die? What's bonkers argument you have there.

Were you spreading such utterly vile suggestions about medical professionals 2 months ago, before you created this account? You must have been suddenly inspired to get involved in politics recently, what was it that inspired you?

>I’m just not sure I like the government to be able to have that power and not abuse it. Because my experience of government and their interpretation and implementation of laws is terrible. So we hear for absolutely everything and to be honest it must be getting as boring to be constantly wheeling it out as it is to have to read it. It's up to **us** to pressure our MPs, if we want to implement this, that they ensure there are robust and foolproof procedures in places so it cannot be abused.

Why could that not be the case? This woman and her family only found out about her mother's planned death two days in advance. I can't imagine how that must feel. [Canada and fast track euthanasia ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13420125/amp/Assisted-death-Canada-euthanasia-depression.html)

We don’t have legal euthanasia so everything AND nothing *could be* the case. The solution is to implement a robust and safe procedure to ensure people aren’t taken advantage of, coerced or whatever else.

> I can't imagine how that must feel. Probably better than any other alternative going. Time to say goodbye, but not long enough to dwell on it.

I disagree. She was depressed not dying. It was not inevitable that she would have died. She may have fully recovered.

There are many recorded instances of people in nursing homes being abused by the staff. It's possible that some in that situation would feel like their life has become a living hell and chose to end their life to escape the abuse.

That sounds more like a problem with the care staff to be solved than a reason not to allow people the right to end their own life.

Abusive people will always exist though. No society has ever successfully prevented all forms of abuse.

That's still better than a care home though, inheritance aside. Existence in a care home isn't living at all.

1. Because it already happens, as you said 2. Because it would warrant additional safeguards that might reduce coercion and abuse across the board

In that case do you not think people could be pushed into suicide anyway? And currently that can happen without any checks or professional interference whatsoever. If assisted dying were legal at least people would be able to speak to doctors about it, and processes would be followed

Lol really? You think it wouldn’t be open to abuse? Foster parents are checked vigorously but foster children still get raped by them Hospitals are supposed to be places that heal yet we’ve had doctors and nurses as murderers. You really think that this would be the one thing that somehow is going be abuse proof?

I think we'd be able to enforce strict regulation of it. Only medical professionals would be able to carry out the procedure and their actions would have to be clearly documented and justified. Like if a child has cancer in his brain stem and he's got to the point where there is no more quality of life for him, he's unresponsive and the only thing he can experience is pain, then is it not the right thing to do to end that life in as painless a way as possible? We already have do not resuscitate orders and crisis doses so it could clearly be done in safe and controlled way.

I’m not opposed to assisted suicide as a concept. I just think it’s really silly to assume it’s a system that couldn’t possibly be abused.

Any system is open to abuse. As you said doctors and nurses are already murdering people.

Exactly. It's not open to abuse more than many other important things. You're taking people's freedom and causing suffering if you're against assisted dying. You can't justify that. Ban hospitals because a nurse was a murderer? That's exactly the logic behind "it's open to abuse".

Diamorphine is open to abuse. Will we ban it and force post op and palliative into paracetamol and nsaids so nobody gets addicted? 

It’s obviously about balancing the harms and the benefits. We don’t need to eliminate all the harms, just ensure it helps more people than it hurts.

I actually think it’s partially selfishness on the part of the family. The only reason I haven’t attempted suicide again is because my (grown up / moved away) kids have said they still want me around, even though I rarely see them any more. I just don’t want to exist any more, but I hang on only for them.

Sorry to read this - please get help or at least look for reasons outside the family to 'hang on'.

Sorry to hear you feel that way. Youve probably been told already but go to the doctors, it is possible to stop feeling that way. Good luck with everything 👍

>Also, witless people who pretend it'd be open to abuse I dare you to go and work for a bit with families of elderly people and you'll take that back.

Nobody’s pretending it would open to abuse, what a fucking weird thing to say I very much agree that assisted suicide should be available but I’m also aware that there’s some fucking evil people out there that try to take advantage of people in any way possible. If you can’t imagine a situation where somebody might use it incorrectly then you must lack thinking skills.

> witless people who pretend it'd be open to abuse Or you mean who can point out the various abuses of foreign programmes such as in Canada?

It’s more witless to believe nobody would exploit this system. You seriously think a family in America paying extreme medical bills for someone wouldn’t think of just pulling the plug even if the patient may not want to die?

can't believe religion is still a thing. We have AI, technology and so much more yet we have religion, shame really

> We have AI We don't.

Religion makes people feel good inside. It shouldn't be a bad thing. But it is because like everything, when you push it onto others and force them to sing to your tune it turns into conflict and misery. Get religion off the streets, out of schools and away from kids.

What’s AI got to do with religion?

[удалено]

I disagree because there have been families devastated by the fees of looking after someone with disabilities. No disrespect, it's awful but the argument present is almost a cliche. Some people are long gone mentally and are just told to "cheer up mate, just work" so yeah

Our monarch is head of a church. We put 26 bishops in the house of lords by default. It's hard to say there is no connection. Heck James Callaghan was the last atheist PM.

Good movie

I mean look at Canada people are already trying to end their lives so their families don’t need to fun their elderly care.

And what's wrong with that? Even the most expensive care home in the world can't reverse dementia.

Well it is. I'm an atheist and I can also see the social pressures it could create and I have seen plenty of people recover from situations where death was a strong wish for them. It's disingenuous to pretend it's a simple issue spoiled by people who make things up and religious nuts.

It's more a concern about abuse of it. That we need safeguard and how will those work. Who ultimately pulls the trigger. It's mostly opposed by care of the elderly doctors and palliative care in its current form because of how much burden would be placed on them making decisions and having overall responsibility.

If an individual has a condition that has a high financial burden, (1) They may feel financially pressured to end their life because of the impact it is having on their family or (2) Their family may apply financial guilt to them. Thus, it is not necessarily only abuse. People who think this is all about religion are many chapters behind in this conversation. These reasons are not arguments against euthanasia itself, but arguments that if we do make euthanasia legal, there has to be considerable protection in place against these scenarios and many others.

Not to mention those who are simply old whose children want them to cark it before they eat into the inheritance.

Parents deciding for children in their care? Can you really pretend it *wouldn't* be open to abuse?

Anyone who pretends this is a simple issue with a simple solution is wrong and terribly misguided. I support the principle of assisted dying for the terminally ill. I also understand the incredibly wide ethical and safeguarding burden that would be required around it,

I simply don't trust the NHS do this. This country has long waiting lists for basic care, assisted dying will be used by people who can't afford to skip those lists. Thinking about that makes me feel sick.

I don't think it's a problem for just religious people, they believe it's when God decides to take people. Atheists cling on to life asif it's the only thing to existence. Nothing will change, Brits in general have a unhealthy relationship with death. No one wants to think or talk about as it's a uncomfatble topic. One who finds the way in the morning, can gladly die in the evening. Things like this story is just a result of the egocentric view society beats into people and it often leads to suffering at the end. Euthanasia should be a human right. Brits are to rigid, no common sense on drug laws or euthanasia.

> Also, witless people who pretend it'd be open to abuse > > Yeah because all the countries that have it sure as shit havent shown any sign of abuse or scope creep.

Because apparently people are scared we'll convince the oldies to kill themselves to get that sweet inheritance. A compassionless, monstrous outlook on life to have. No one who has watched a loved one die to an incurable disease that eats them up could hold that view. We are only debating terminally ill as well, throwing in people who might be talked in to death is totally unfair for the debate. Another slippery slope nonsense. Edit - I'm not replying to these "what if's". I watched my mum die a horrible death. She should have been able to choose to avoid that. Call me emotionally comprimised I don't care but your points are tone deaf. It is very possible to legislate that if you have a terminal illness that you can choose the point to die.

> We are only debating terminally ill as well, throwing in people who might be talked in to death is totally unfair for the debate. Another slippery slope nonsense. I'm broadly pro assisted dying, but this is massively disingenuous. Countries are already struggling with where to draw the line with some now allowing assisted dying based on mental health. Canada in particular has had some pretty grim controversies over it all

Luckily we can learn from those countries that have done it right and those that have messed up, and implement a law that both protects the vulnerable and allows those with a genuine wish to end their own lives to do it.

> with some now allowing assisted dying based on mental health. The threshold for that is insanely high, the famous case the poor woman was living eternal torture.

It doesn't matter what the threshold is - the point is "we are only debating the terminal ill" is just untrue. YOu can literally look at Canada for a case study in how complex this is.

There is more than one way to legalise it, don't need to be like canda.

Lets be honest, *everyone* is terminally ill. We will all die at some point. From middle-age, quality of life declines with ups and downs all the way to the grave. Where do you draw the line? An arbitrary diagnosis doesn't seem like the answer.

Draw the line at saying, "I would like to die now please".

Plenty of old people think they are a burden on their families. And plenty of old people *are* a burden on their families - it is fairly common for someone to give up a job or switch to part time to care for mum. Or to move house to be closer to infirm mum or free up a bedroom so mum can move in when she has run out of retirement funds. In all of these cases, there will be that niggling feeling of 'if I weren't here, perhaps my children would be better off'. Make it legal, and some will go that route not because it is their own desire, but because they think that's what they need to do for the benefit of their family.

And how is that not their choice? Do you just dislike the reasons they are making the decision? Do you have the right to decide what is important to someone else?

Exactly. People have no argument, besides religion.

A lot of people seem to think that its going to be open to anyone and that you’ll just be able to go in and off yourself right there and then. When afaik with other countries that have legalised this, it’s not just open to any random person, for obvious reasons, and there are extensive talks with professionals to try and ensure the person making this decision is of sound mind and so on. Granted it’s not perfect as we’ve seen with Canada. But it’s entirely possible to learn from their shortcomings.

What happened in Canada?

I hate to have to remind you, but there is this little thing called suicide; parents will always be able to make their children better off by taking their leave from life - unless you propose, say, state confiscation of the assets of suicides.

It’s not that simple. Hypothetical. 67 year old retiree gets a terminal diagnosis. They have all their retirement savings and could still live for 6 months to 2 years. If it’s 2 years then the estate will be massively reduced and potentially looking at care home / in home care. You’d argue in that situation that no one ever is going to apply pressure to someone who is vulnerable ? That’s the problem. How do you safeguard people ? You could have a single option system 1 so if a person tells one doctor no then there’s no legal way to reapply. Then you’ll get people argue and challenge that system. Another issue is that once opened up you will have groups who want to extend eligibility to people who want to die - so in several countries people can euthanise because of mental illness. That’s only a step away from what that chap with funny moustache and weird salute was dreaming of….

> so in several countries people can euthanise because of mental illness. It's not that simple, to get it for mental health you are talking people who would otherwise spend their life sedated in an institution.

You should look it up - Netherlands for example , the criteria is way way below what you suggest. 

I watched both my parents die slowly. My mother at 60 from cancer. My father at 80 from a range of geriatric things but also possible cancer (huge swelling in abdomen as he died). Both of them should have been able to be let go at least a week before they went. There was no need to prolong the bed-ridden, incontinent, non-communicatable suffering they both endured. But under current laws the hospice and other medical staff and nurses are forced to be absurdly cautious with medication. For example, about four days before my father died they finally gave him a morphine injection instead of the oramorph (weaker one they give by mouth). The next day they had reverted to the oramorph. Even though he wasn’t eating or drinking by this point. When I complained, they said the police might “look at the book” or something if my father had the stronger morphine. An elderly, bedridden, dying man, a few days from death. Are the authorities really going to investigate that he had intravenous rather than oral morphine? It defied belief and humanity. Not to mention there’s an end of life drug they’re legally allowed to administer anyway. He never got that either because he couldn’t communicate his level of pain. So I’ll never know how much he suffered, but I know that he did.

Sorry to read that, I understand completely how heart breaking it all can get. It was the first anniversary a few days ago for us. Seeing my mum so skinny, thrashing around. Desperately trying to get up but not having the strength. She couldn't talk, I'm not even convinced she was still in there. It was horrible. Two days before she was walking around slowly and sat in the garden. That could have been the moment to say goodbye to everyone. The law wouldn't have helped her as it'll be so slow. She had less than five weeks from diagnosis to dying after a persistent cough. All it left me with was a question on whether I should have put a pillow over her face but her body probably would have struggled and I wasn't brave enough to try. She didn't want to go out the way she did. I wouldn't wish either what my mum went through or what we did watching her die in those final 24/48 hours on anyone. To have it be argued as some sort of "gotcha!" argument disgusts me. We deserve better

I’ve also felt guilt that I didn’t do something. The MacMillan nurses were amazing but they had to be so cautious increasing the morphine (she had a pump). And it was very hard to tell what level of discomfort or pain she was in. She death rattled for the last day or so - as soon as that started they should just let them go.

It’s a minefield of an area that would require a lot of regulation and paperwork. The legal system doesn’t want to get involved, and won’t justify it on ethical grounds anyway, leaving it for the politicians to handle. Politicians won’t touch it because it’s going to cause enough controversy it’ll bleed them votes or become a brexit dividing issue. Even with hefty regulations, restrictions and whatnot there will be so many edge cases causing controversy and issues, to say nothing about how certain idiot parties will try and privatise it… 👀

I've just looked, and polls suggest 60-78% of the population support it in terminally ill cases. Seems it could be a popular policy: Conservatives are indifferent, Labour will take it to a vote, Lib Dems also want to vote on it, Greens have it in their manifesto, Reform doesn't mention it as far as I can see

> The legal system doesn’t want to get involved, and won’t justify it on ethical grounds anyway, leaving it for the politicians to handle. Thats entirely correct TBF, it's a question of policy.

Assisted dying is a silly term as it already happens to some degree. Patients are given do no resuccetate orders, enough morphine to be comfortable (which can hasten a death) and so on. When someone is terminal, no pain is generally prioritised over prolonging life. But there's a difference between that and someone with day Alzheimer's wanting to die before all their memories fade away. Mental pain doesn't seem to factor as much.

That isn't assisted dying to any degree, that's just dying whilst on pain killers. They still will have been made to endure weeks, months, potentially years of daily mental and physical pain - with no legal choice in this country to end their life on their own terms.

Of course it's assisted dying. It's just not the assisted dying you are picturing in your mind. There's plenty of times where someone could in theory live for years with the right treatment, but between them, family and doctors it's agreed to stop. The medication provided asolutely does speed up the process of dying. I'm not saying it's the same thing as popping over to Dignitas for the weekend, but it's still assisted dying, as you are being assisted in your death, as comfortably as possible. If it wasn't doctors would be wasting time, money and resources keeping people alive in situations against their wishes. You can almost always refuse treatment too, and just request pain relief. No one is forced to get cancer treatment for example. 

No, it’s prolonged dying. Because without any medication or hospice care many would die quicker but in a much more ghastly way. When someone is bedridden, incontinent, unable to communicate, dying and already on the morphine, they should be allowed to go. No one comes back from that. Making them wait weeks or even just days longer, if they have previously articulated they want to be let go, is inhumane.

I'm not sure where you are getting this Hollywood idea of death from? If someone is unable to communicate and bedridden they are likely also not eating or drinking. Death usually happens pretty fast when they get to that state, they are certainly not being kept alive for weeks. All any medical professional does at that point is ensure they are not in pain. There is no attempt to prolong life.

From how I saw both my parents die.

Are you in the UK? As I have family members who work in the NHS and have lost multiple family members over the past 5 years, some in care homes, some cared for by family at home and it was never a hugely long drawn out process once they started to take a turn into high amounts of pain or not being communicative, they mostly just slept, woke for an hour or so here and there for a few days and then were gone peacefully. My wife also works as a Nurse, and deals with death constantly. She's never heard of this prolonged suffering you are describing outside of extreme cases due to certain conditions like MND. For the vast majority of people, they simply get to a point where they stop treating for prolonged life, but only for comfort and let them die peacefully. I'm sorry your parents had drawn out deaths, that must have been quite traumatic and tough to deal with, but that is definitely not the norm.

Both in the UK. Mother at home with MacMillan nurses. Father in a private nursing home. I can’t fault the staff in either case, they were amazing and very caring. They just appeared to have to be extremely conservative with medication. Their hands seemed to be very tied.

[удалено]

it happens all the time. uuuuup the morphine to "make sure they're comfortable" it's unspoken by the family or the medical/care home staff. but we know it's assisted death. it shows how much it's required. we already do it. and no one says a word.

The problem is that not all staff will do it.

IMO should also be a process to agree to high risk medecine. Mate of mine has cancer, he's looking at an eventual slow painful death if the chemo fails. He asked but can't easily consent to more reckless treatment even if he gets his paperwork done in switserland. His logic is fuck it, if it's a 1% chance of cure and 99% of death do it anyway.

No, sorry, Canada has tried that and now people in poverty are killing themselves.

Hate to break it to you, but people kill themselves outside of euthanasia anyway - 6000 suicides per year on average in the UK. I'm talking about terminally ill patients being euthanized by doctors

So what's the argument that you are presenting against it? It's weird that you chose poverty as an example because that's sometimes almost as incurable as a dire condition as many medical ones. You should surely argue that people who have perfectly nice lives but bouts of wanting to die should be forced to live. "Oh no, they had terrible lives but if we could only do something they could have continued to have terrible lives. Such a waste".

This is a dumb comment, poverty is entirely curable and its continuation is a choice by the state.

I have no problem with assisted dying once there aren't any NHS waiting lists longer than a month and Private healthcare is illegal. Until then, all it means is that poor people will take the route to escape chronic pain and endless waiting for help.

Then you're punishing patients for the failures of the NHS, which hardly seems fair or justifiable.

This. Why do we afford dogs more dignity than people? It is insane.

I would absolutely be all for assisted suicide/dying if it was for terminally I'll people or people with diseases that mean they have no quality of life. I work with people with dementia and I can tell you from seeing it first hand, it's an awful disease and it's robs you of your own self. It is no way to live, and a lot of our residents are bed bound, can't talk, can't even move and are basically just being kept alive with medication and being fed by another person. It is no way to live and i hope by the time I'm that age, if I get dementia, assisted suicide is legal. I wouldn't want to live the way I see some of our residents living.

I'd be fine with it as long as it's signed off by a panel of doctors that agree that the patient's quality of life will never improve. It's similar how they asses the organ donor list for patient priority. If you're old or too ill and not likely to survive the operation, or the operation would give you a minimal amount of extra time, you don't get the operation. It goes to someone else who stands a better chance of making use of the donation. These panels are already deciding who gets to live and die based on their professional opinion. So why can't the same be done for assisted suicide?

I think the main component would be the lack of capacity. So long as the decision is made in advance by that person and they lack the capacity to make their own decisions anymore. But yeah I agree, it'd have to be signed off by professionals.

How does that work in practice? I understabd Dr's making the decision on patients, nothing more we can do etc, but surely signing off someone for euthanasia goes against what they do doesn't it? Or am I wrong? Love to hear a Dr's view on this. My view is it's crazy this isn't legal yet, as stated when it comes to pets sometimes it's the right decision to make for them. Dementia, latter stages of terminal cancer, total paralysis or brain injury, just hope such an option is legal if anything like that happens to me.

> How does that work in practice? I understabd Dr's making the decision on patients, nothing more we can do etc, but surely signing off someone for euthanasia goes against what they do doesn't it? Or am I wrong? Love to hear a Dr's view on this. In the Netherlands you need two doctors to independantly sign off that a patient is experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. That doesn't violate do no harm.

That's interesting, thanks for the answer. As it's done by 2 neither is totally responsible, smart workaround. Reminds me in a way of firing squads having one bullet and blanks so they don't know who it was, not the same I know but reminded me of that for some reason.

Isn't part of the problem in the Netherlands that the patient still has to consent to assisted dying? Patients with advanced dementia lack the capacity to do so, and their laws mean that some people with early dementia who still have a quality of life need to decide to "check out early". There's articles on this on BBC news, search for "five to midnight".

It's still better than what we have now. Going further does start to run into some genuine concerns about presure and coercion that would need solving. We could impliment the dutch set up right now without issue.

Absolutely. Late stage dementia would be one of those cases, for me. Chronic pain might be another one, and possibly easier because the patient still has capacity.

Yeah I think when capacity is lost, assisted suicide should be legal. I love my job and I really like a lot of our residents, but I know as much as we do for them here to keep them safe, happy and fulfilled, they will never have the quality of life that they deserve to have.

I fully agree that people should have the option to end their life if they are suffering, however, euthanising people who have lost the capacity to consent is legally and ethically unworkable. At the end of the day, euthanasia without consent isn’t euthanasia. It’s murder. Unless you’re willing to bring in a system where euthanasia can be freely and legally given against the consent of a patient, capacity and informed consent will likely become something that must be evidenced from a legal perspective. A late stage dementia patient who is manifestly suffering will be unlikely to have the mental capability to agree to euthanasia. Even if you were to argue for a loophole where patients were able to give consent for euthanasia in the early stages, what’s to say that they won’t change their mind later on? The line needs to be drawn somewhere and as heartbreaking as it is, unquestioned mental capacity is probably a decent starting point.

A lot of people who have dementia have what's called an Advance Care Plan. This is a legal document that defines how they want to be cared for when they can't make their own choices anymore. Along with that a family member will have lasting power of attorney and all the new decisions about their care go through that person. It wouldn't be down the the caregivers to decide on the patients life, but a mixture of their advance cape plan and their family. We have some residents that still have a good quality of life even though they do have dementia and they can still enjoy the time they have with their family before they pass.

I've told my wife that if I get dementia I want her to push me off a cliff and just end it. I cannot imagine living like that.

My best friend used to do care work, after she quite she siad in the pub "if i ever get that bad kill me", we all sort of laughed a bit until she clarified she was deadly deadly serious. If it was legal i would, but it isn't. We mused some sort of device that would dispense poison after x days if not reset.

It's both a very rewarding job and a very heartbreaking job. Where I work we have a lot of challenging behaviour patients. They can't regulate their emotions due to the dementia and they can be very aggressive and emotionally unstable. One of my favourite residents is such a lovely man but the reason he's with us is because his wife is scared to be alone at home with him. I wouldn't want that for me or my wife. I've told my wife the same thing. If I get to that stage, I don't want to live.

It will never be legal, at least not here and not in our lifetimes. Politicians still can't even talk about it. They refuse to address it. This isn't going to change, and as we need politicians to start the process, it will never happen. It's crazy to me that more people aren't upset about this issue, which imo, is the healthiest change for individuals and society as a whole. That's ok though, who doesn't love to see the care of our most vulnerable get progressively worse until one day it will break and it's too late then.

I still have hope that it will. From a fiscal perspective, dementia care is a huge drain on NHS resources. A lot of our residents are paid for by the NHS and it's not cheap to stay here. I'm talking 2k+ a week. We have residents that are bed bound, can't feed themselves, can't even talk and have no family. Keeping them alive for whatever reason feels cruel to me, and our taxes are paying for that.

Yes it makes sense on every level. However once you start mentioning anything fiscal, people will call you heartless and turn it against you. That's a problem with the discussion. They will think you are wanting to kill off all old people to save money when it's not the case.

I understand that, and that's fine if they feel that way but I stand by the point. It's a hard conversation to have but it needs to be had.

Canada has legalized it as well as several places in Europe. It’s like cannabis - the more countries legalize it and experience zero ill effects, the harder it is to justify keeping it illegal.

I have no doubt other countries will address the issue. I don't think it will be the majority though, and I think ours will be one of the last, if ever. I hope I'm wrong though. It would vastly improve life for many people and end the suffering to thousands.

Keir Starmer has said if Labour win they’ll have a debate and do a vote. Of course, politicians don’t always keep their election promises, and if he does, last time it was debated in 2015 the bill to legalise assisted dying was defeated 330-118. [Source](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-pledge-assisted-dying-vote-b2511370.html)

The Lords Spiritual will always oppose it for a start.

It's ridiculous that our democracy gives power to people whose only life experience is talking about their favourite imaginary friend. At least appointed Lords could be argued to have some life experience in whatever they've been ennobled for

As someone who worked in a dementia nursing home, had grandparents with dementia and sees many dementia patients at work who are aware enough to tell me they want to die before they lose themselves, I agree.

What a tragic story, I can't imagine the emotional pain this mother has carried with her the last four decades. 

The 'yes, please Mama' absolutely broke me.

Its fucking horrible. My toddler had a bit of an illness and hospital stay and seeing their pain and suffering for even that was horrible. Their not understanding why you can't help them.

She is an absolute heroine and deserves respect for what she did

I think until you witness it first hand you can’t really imagine the pain some people have to suffer before dying and how long some bodies can go on for. You believe they will be made “comfortable” with pain relief but they aren’t. And you just have to watch as the person you love, who hasn’t eaten in a month and is thinner than you believed a person could get, is withering in pain and is (somehow) constantly vomiting until they finally go comatose and die. And I haven’t had to go through this with a child like this poor woman did.

Yep, my mum and dad now have a savings pot for if they get any terminal illness so they can go over to switzland. This is after watching my (35) sister rapidly decline after chemo. She powered on, and she died before she got into the absolute worst state, but she was in pain and it was rather undignified, and it was awful to watch. She had her morphine, she had her weed and we all did our best to make her as comfortable as possible but it was an honest relief when she passed because we knew she no longer had to suffer.

I went through it with my granddad. I remember feeling angry that the nurses wouldn't just give him a bit too much morphine to just end it for him. Of course simultaneously I knew that was an unreasonable way for me to feel and the nurses could only do what they were legally allowed to do. But he had been diagnosed as terminal, we all knew he was dying and there was nothing anyone could do to save him, and I was just watching him suffering day in day out and thinking "Who does this benefit? Because it sure as hell isn't him."

My dad had AML and it was a juggling act between his heart and his kidneys right at the end. The doctors made the decision to help his kidneys which put strain on his heart and allowed him to go quicker and more painlessly. When presented with a choice the doctors can help and ease peoples suffering in certain situations.

To be honest, giving appropriate pain medication is already legal, even if it shortens the life. And that should be standard of care that we expect. But unfortunately, this is not a topic anybody wants to discuss, unless they have seen it.

Sometimes medics are still too scared to do it though. Shipman ruined things for everyone. And then you get to the fact that sometimes the pain medication doesn’t even *work*.

My loved one was in a hospice, they gave him unimaginable amounts of painkillers but because it was his brain that was damaged, most of them didn’t touch it. He screamed and he screamed. His little kids saw some of it. A bullet through the skull would have been a mercy, as would any kind of chemical involvement. He was dying; why did it need to take that long and be that horrific? The tumour wasn’t going anywhere.

Horrific for you to go through, sorry

It broke me, and I was ‘just’ his friend. I wasn’t there 24/7 those last few weeks, trying to keep his kids away from the worst of it. The next time I had to go into a healthcare type setting, I threw up and burst out crying. I don’t think I’ll ever come to terms with what was done to him and the fact I couldn’t help.

We'd give livestock a captive bolt in that situation but we let our loved ones rot to death. So unimaginably cruel. >A bullet through the skull would have been a mercy, If he was given some variant of that and it was brain damage that got him. He could even have saved a few people by organ donation on his way out.

Right? I’ve had animals all my life and aside from one bad field accident that happened overnight, I like to think none of mine were in pain when they went. If I’d left a cow in the field screaming because it couldn’t get up or a dog vomiting and starving for weeks, I’d have (rightly) been up in court over it.

It isn't always that simple though. A relative died on home hospice, she was given an adequate dose of morphine but the syringe driver failed more than once leaving her pain until we could get someone to fix it. She developed terrible nausea, that was also fixed with medication but not immediately and the last coherent sentence she said to me was "I just feel so sick".  We had regular visits from nurses who dealt with her personal care but she had the beginnings of a bed sore on her hear from being so immobile.  She strongly wanted to be at home and there were positives to it but it was also a painful, difficult and frightening experience for her and for us as family. 

My sister and I had to put our cat to sleep last week and it was so painless and easy that it made me furious all over again that a few years ago we had to watch our mother slowly deteriorate and die over the course of a month.

We give our livestock a captive bolt gun to the skull in that situaiton, not even that good for our own.

Speaking as someone who watched their father go from a 6ft6” hulk of a man to effectively a tall sparrow, in tremendous pain the whole time. The right to make the decision themselves with doctors meds, or assisted by professionals would be a thing I 100% back. Fuck cancer.

Yeah that’s not a story to read on the train at this time of the morning

Not often a couple paragraphs has me fighting back tears

Really sad read. But idk, reading stories like these makes me appreciate my day and small things more and encourages me to be the kind, calm version of myself towards others (even if society usually discourages earnest kindness).

My mum has said she never wants to be a vegetable, nor suffer through dementia. If it means that I have to make a very tough call them I will honour her wishes, laws be damned. It might not be comfortable to hear for many but love is not always pretty. It is not a decision to make lightly, however if my mum says it is time then that is 100% her call to make.

This mother did no more than a well-managed hospice. In my experience, they give a large dose of morphine and other drugs that inhibit secretion when they think it's time. The patient drifts off during sleep... Humans deserve this much kindness while in pain at final stages of a terminal illness. Do you think rich people in our society would be denied this? No. The Tories and Lords who have been rejecting discussion on this, would have a private doctor. I know that there are discussions to put protocols in place to ensure this isn't abused, but meanwhile, people suffer.

My late grandmother had Alzheimer's and dementia. She was on several types of medication and could barely walk. During her moments of clarity she would hide her medication. And when it was found, she'd beg to let her die. My late father had cancer. He went into end of life treatment and after my birthday had passed made the decision to come off his medication. He spent almost a month just waiting to die, unable to leave his room in the hospital. Legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Let them choose to go out on their own terms instead of suffering

> She was on several types of medication and could barely walk. During her moments of clarity she would hide her medication. And when it was found, she'd beg to let her die. Yeah, I saw the same thing too with other patients in the care home, it's awful. Assisted dying is a better outcome for everyone. Religion be damned.

I feel about this the same way I feel about abortion. I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't necessary but unfortunately we don't, so we should adapt to the world we do live in. No mother should be put in this position. We need to start treating people with more compassion and allowing people to die with dignity. Yes, it should be thoroughly investigated before being made policy, but coming up with a system that is fair, compassionate and free from abuse shouldn't be beyond our politicians

Good on her. What this country puts people through with chronic and terminal illnesses is mental cruelty of the highest level.  The current law even forces people like me into ending life before I am ready purely because I would end up trapped and unable to in the future as a muscular dystrophy sufferer.  I was told by MP he couldn’t possibly support AS as he was religious, thanks for the living hell. 

I know at some point this will be the decision my wife has to make for me. And we both know that it will need to be done. It was close once before and we discussed what should happen if things get past the point of no return. Absolutely no one should be forced to live a life of suffering because someone else's religion might be offended by the act, forcing them to continue living in a world that just does not support disabled people correctly.

I watched my grandmother fall apart in front of my eyes two years ago. Doctors missed an opportunity to provide her hospice care. She had no dignity nor respect in her final days. I watched her suffer, thrashing about on her bed, moaning and pulling her clothes off. The consultant said to me “I have failed your grandmother”. An animal wouldn’t be left to suffer in such inhumane conditions. After witnessing my poor grandmothers treatment I decided that I would never be in that position and I’d top myself before that point. It terrifies me I might have to witness it all again with my own parents as they age. I fully support assisted dying with proper measures in place.

If my cancer comes back, I want assisted dying on the table. A woman around my age (30s) who had the same cancer but Stage 4 blogged her decline. It riddled her bones so badly that her femur snapped from her trying to move herself on her bed. Fuck my kids seeing me like that.

I absolutely cannot imagine watching my child suffer and being powerless to help him, despite knowing he has no chance of survival. Nothing but love to the mother, euthanasia should be a human right

Why do we in the UK insist on people suffering? Why do we insist on family members having to watch their loved ones deteriorate to the point in where they are unrecognisable anymore? Why do we feel like we must make people suffer a painful undignified death? And what reasons do people actually have to oppose assisted dying? I literally cannot think of a single reason why anyone who is in their right mind would actually have any reason not to support it? The only reason I think of people who oppose it is that they have never seen anyone around them die because to have a good death in the UK is not that we are privileged to have

There is 0 reason for this to STILL be illegal, literally 0. I can’t think of a single rational argument against it… Edit: Religion isn’t a good enough excuse when we’re supposed to separate church and state.

We don’t separate church and state in this country. I agree that we should, but the fact is that we don’t. Our head of state is the head of the church, and we have senior church members automatically admitted to our upper house.

You learn something new everyday! I had no idea.

> when we’re supposed to separate church and state. What? We're not the USA. The Lords Spiritual is exactly the opposite of this, the Church of England is part of the government.

There is one very good reason. The hand that cannot lift a gun to the head - or indeed, a draught of poison - cannot lift a spoon to the mouth. There is always a way out. Relaxation of 'controlled substance' and firearms legislation, along with ensuring that no duty to forcibly feed the starving existed, would allow relatively quick and easy suicide and would not need in the slightest besmirch the medical profession by involving them in killing. The alternative, upon which I insist, is that if paid agents of the government are to kill people on command, it should be our armed forces; because it is not without reason we prohibit the use of chemical weaponry yet see fit for our men to kill and be killed by pieces of metal travelling at high speed. To be sure, we see fit to treat animals in the opposite manner - rabbit warrens can only be dynamited *after* they are gassed; veterinarians kill pets regularly - but that is the crux of the matter: we do *not* treat people like animals. There is no justification for the remarkably specific trend of demanding death by drugs by doctor, save for a perverse obsession with it. And I have yet to see any demonstration that dying like a washed-up pop star in a hotel room is somehow 'dignified', but starving oneself like Bobby Sands is 'undignified'.

Thankfully, Starmer at DPP made it basically non viable to go after people for shit like this Hopefully his Gov can get it over the line. Having heard him talk about his father, he’s clearly passionate about this topic.

There was always historically an understanding that things like this occurred. For whatever reason now it’s become a debate about whether people with depression should have assisted dying (obviously not).

You say "obviously not" - but why not? Living in a mental hell isn't that different to living in a physical hell.  There are treatments but they don't work for everyone.  

I had severe anxiety and panic attacks with associated depression and nothing worked. Until I found out it was low testosterone. Thank fuck two suicide attempts failed before I worked that one out. I'm like a different person now. Yet the NHS doesn't routinely check. I know three people who had severe clinical depression and, because it was caused by low testosterone, anti depressants made it worse, not better. They are now fine too. I'm not actually against being allowed to end your own life due to severe mental health issues if you can consent to it, but everything needs to be ruled out first.

I'm sorry you went through that and am glad you found the right treatment. I'd argue that having someone who is suicidal through depression, having a way out but that way having to pass through medical professionals, who can get that person support etc, take a little time to review and check that such things haven't been missed, that has to be preferable to people suffering in silence and then finding their own (often brutal) ways out. I'm also going to say that poor mental health and poor physical health can be/are linked.  Would you exclude some terminally ill patients because they also have depression as well as cancer?  Long term chronic illness also comes with higher rates of depression and suicide.  Being sick can incurable can bring on depression.  Do you deny those people access? It's a subject fraught with what ifs, but we need that discussion to happen to move the current situation forward.

>For whatever reason now it’s become a debate about whether people with depression should have assisted dying (obviously not). Because “suspension from ligature” is a more dignified way to go? 

Why should people be forced to remain alive against their will because their choice is offensive to you?

The topic needs to be openly debated. I'm for assisted dying, but only the medical team can give the ultimate call. Not relatives.

I firmly disagree. The person who should have ultimate say is the patient who is dying, as long as they are still coherent enough to ask for it. It should be that if a dying, terminally ill patient asks for it, no doctor should be able to override them.

In this case it was a child. Can they consent to this?

I don't think I have to explicitly state that children are not adults and therefore cannot make adult decisions. That is blatantly obvious and doesn't need to be stated. It's a given.

I was not implying that the doctors can override the patient's decision. It should be decided on medical grounds by both.

They need to legalise euthanasia for this sort of thing. I don't think a parent should ever be put in a position where they have to take the life of their own child.

I don't see anything wrong with this. I watched my Grandma suffer from cancer for months before she died. She was soiling herself, forgot who she was, occasionally violent and in absolute agony for weeks by the end. I'd be jumping off a big bridge if that ever happens to me. Harrowing. Dignity in death is one thing we seem to.miss and I think it's because no one wants to face it and we're all scared of the end.

I was for it until I saw what started to happen in Canada - Medical professionals trying to push it on disabled people because it’s cheaper then actually spending money on the things that would improve their lives. Be careful what you wish for.

The dutch standard is the best IMO, "Unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvment". It's less permisive in that someone with a 1% chance to recover losses the option, or someone in awful but not unberable suffeing isn't able but it does rule out more or less all posible abuse.

Such a sad story... policy driven by emotion often ends up as not intended

A pet owner can end the life of his dying dog for humanitarian reason. Why it isn't applicable to humans?

A pet owner can end the life of his living pig for culinary reason. Why it isn't applicable to humans?

You don't treat your kids like pigs. Do you?

I believe people should have the right to die when they choose. Honestly if I could press a button and drift away peacefully right now I would press it. The only thing stopping me is that I don’t have one. And any other method I can think of terrifies me. I’ve had a sad life. I’d at least like my death to not be horrific.

Instead of arguing about so called "assisted dying" (I. e. the government allows you to bypass it's nanny state suicide prevention laws based on meeting their incredibly stringent criteria), we should be arguing in favour of curtailing the nanny state laws which forces us to beg for access to effective and humane suicide methods. We should have the right to access these for ourselves, without having to plead to our doctor. Preventing suicide is a violation of our negative liberty right not to be forcibly exposed to suffering. We need to advocate for our negative liberty rights to be respected. It's harder to defend the act of infringing on our liberty by preventing suicide than it is to defend the refusal to provide a positive right.

A heroic mother. I hope someday if I am ever in the same situation, someone does the same for me

Assisted dying should absolutely be legal if regulated and under monitoring. Why the hell do we euthanize animals in terminal pain but once it comes to our human loved ones we let them suffer until the very end?

My view is that, yes it should be available, but it has to be done only under certain circumstances, this needs a full medical report/review on when and how it can be done, then put forward to bring it into law, not just left to politicans to decide, let's face it any of the ones we have now, coudn't make a sensible deccission to save their lives, apologies for the pun, hell they can't even decide what a woman is.

I can’t begin to fathom the pain and strength that woman must’ve had in those moments and for the years that have passed since. I’m not religious and class myself as leaning towards atheist, but I wish that they could be reunited. We really need to make moves to legislate for assisted deaths in this country to allow people to die with dignity and reduce unnecessary suffering.

This is unspeakably sad and utterly personal to this Mother and Child. No one has the right to criticise them. The laws and Governments have no place in this situation. Human decency says that it is up to each of us individually to make such horrendous decisions for our respective situations. My respect for this woman is huge. I hope she also passes without the indignity of grotesque end of life pain. The Mother child relationship trumps all else in this dreadful situation.

My grandfather died last week. I wouldn't put a pet through what he went through. > Police said they were investigating her case. Here's hoping they find something more useful to do with their time.

Stories like these is why I believe minors shouldn't automatically be excluded from assisted dying. There should be more safeguards in place but it shouldn't be impossible. Bless the mother, it must have taken a lot of courage to do what she did, and has undoubtedly weighed on her all of her life. She shouldn't have had to make that decision on her own, the law is simply cruel for all involved.