General News

[Robo61]

33 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m very much on the ‘no’ side and I’m utterly horrified that the vote has gone through. The implications are massive and I just don’t think most MPs could get their heads around them. 

The implications are already massive for those who would like the option and can't afford to travel to Switzerland. So if they get this legislation right, what do you see as the massive inplications in the future. I accept that is a massive "if" but that is what committee scrutiny is for. 

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, Nalis said:

There should be more issues decided in this way without towing the party line. Makes for a more balanced vote.

Here was the final vote btw. I’m glad parties didn’t whip an issue like this 

 

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, FOXYTALK said:

It's the society of today that causes this. 

For me she shouldn't of resigned. 

You could say the same about Gregg Wallace, he's abit of a perv but unless he's committed an actual offence the hysteria is mad. 

 

A fraud conviction isn't the same as ill-judged banter.

 

As for Wallace, being "a bit of a perv", that's no excuse in today's society. He should know better, as should the many others that we never hear about.

 

Also, it doesn't have to be a criminal offence to be sacked as a result of gross misconduct, which could turn out to be the case, pending internal investigations.

 

FYI, Wallace hasn't "resigned" he's stepped down from Masterchef for the time being:

 

"While this review is under way, Gregg Wallace will be stepping away from his role on MasterChef and is committed to fully co-operating throughout the process".

 

 

Edited 29 November 2024 by Parafox

[st albans fox]

Syrian rebels have reached the centre of Aleppo 

there are reports that they’ve taken control of a Syrian weapons facility that holds chemical weapons. 
 

I doubt that either the Russians or Americans will want this stuff in the hands of Sunni islamists - expect swift action!!

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Edit: I struggle with it a lot at a personal level tbh, is pain worse than death, or the other way round?

 

IMO pain is worth than death. Death results in peace if a person has suffered the extreme pain for years with no resolution and only minimal relief and is terminally unwell.

 

Why extend pain and suffering? It makes no sense to me. There certainly needs to be safeguards, reviews and decisions referred to "expert doctors".

 

I don't know what all the concerns and considerations are, that MP's are discussing and voting on. 

 

AFAIC if a person is in terminal illness with no chance of recovery and is in extreme and uncontrollable pain which might go on for years because their life is being extended with the use of drugs to keep that person alive. Is that morally right?

 

IMO if a person has capacity to understand their own decisions and that should be respected.

 

Not long ago, I had to take our elderly cat to the vet because he had become severely unwell having been weak and uncomfortable for 12 months or so. He was howling in pain. The vet gave me a choice. She could give meds to relieve the pain and that would make him feel better for a while or, let him go now, peacefully and without any more suffering.

 

Do you decide on what is best for the person suffering or what is best for your sentiment and reluctance to lose a loved one?

[Izzy]

17 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

IMO pain is worth than death. Death results in peace if a person has suffered the extreme pain for years with no resolution and only minimal relief and is terminally unwell.

 

Why extend pain and suffering? It makes no sense to me. There certainly needs to be safeguards, reviews and decisions referred to "expert doctors".

 

I don't know what all the concerns and considerations are, that MP's are discussing and voting on. 

 

AFAIC if a person is in terminal illness with no chance of recovery and is in extreme and uncontrollable pain which might go on for years because their life is being extended with the use of drugs to keep that person alive. Is that morally right?

 

IMO if a person has capacity to understand their own decisions and that should be respected.

 

Not long ago, I had to take our elderly cat to the vet because he had become severely unwell having been weak and uncomfortable for 12 months or so. He was howling in pain. The vet gave me a choice. She could give meds to relieve the pain and that would make him feel better for a while or, let him go now, peacefully and without any more suffering.

 

Do you decide on what is best for the person suffering or what is best for your sentiment and reluctance to lose a loved one?

My Mum is in palliative care and bed ridden at home now. It's just a matter of time.

 

She's in constant pain, can't get up, has no energy, and isn't eating. She freely admits she's 'ready to go' soon.

 

Watching her waste away is horrible. The cancer is spreading and it's no existence for her.

 

If she had her way, she'd ask to be put to sleep permanently and put out of her misery, and I'd fully support it.

 

I hope the bill is passed so if I'm ever in that position, at least I have the choice.

[Vacamion]

 

Agree with the posts about ending suffering.  I've seen awful, painful, undignified stuff and I have the firm intention to sort myself out sharpish, if I get told I'm on the way out painfully.

 

Another point to add is that it's really easy to be in favour of maintaining the status quo, or working on it, if you have loads of money.

 

If you are poor, you don't have many choices when the Hospice has no room.

 

If you are poor you have to lump it when you are shoved into a packed ward full of screaming strangers in pain and without dignity, and when the hospital (fearful of breaking the law or being sued) prods and pokes you til near the end to see what's wrong instead of letting you slip away in comfort a few weeks earlier.

 

If you are poor, you can't afford a ticket to Dignitas.

 

Don't want to be assisted in dying on your own terms? Fine. 

 

But don't deny me that chance.

 

 

 

[bovril]

28 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Agree with the posts about ending suffering.  I've seen awful, painful, undignified stuff and I have the firm intention to sort myself out sharpish, if I get told I'm on the way out painfully.

 

Another point to add is that it's really easy to be in favour of maintaining the status quo, or working on it, if you have loads of money.

 

If you are poor, you don't have many choices when the Hospice has no room.

 

If you are poor you have to lump it when you are shoved into a packed ward full of screaming strangers in pain and without dignity, and when the hospital (fearful of breaking the law or being sued) prods and pokes you til near the end to see what's wrong instead of letting you slip away in comfort a few weeks earlier.

 

If you are poor, you can't afford a ticket to Dignitas.

 

Don't want to be assisted in dying on your own terms? Fine. 

 

But don't deny me that chance.

 

 

 

If I understand you correctly you are saying assisted dying is a better option for people who can't afford excellent end of life care? Because this seems quite similar to arguments those against the bill are making.

[Danizen]

Anecdotally, I knew someone who was given the, 'weeks, not months' verdict in 2016.

 

He finally passed at the end of 2020.

 

If this bill had been in place, he might have gone down the assisted dying route a few months in, when the cancer was really taking It's toll.

Edited 29 November 2024 by Danizen

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

IMO pain is worth than death. Death results in peace if a person has suffered the extreme pain for years with no resolution and only minimal relief and is terminally unwell.

 

Why extend pain and suffering? It makes no sense to me. There certainly needs to be safeguards, reviews and decisions referred to "expert doctors".

 

I don't know what all the concerns and considerations are, that MP's are discussing and voting on. 

 

AFAIC if a person is in terminal illness with no chance of recovery and is in extreme and uncontrollable pain which might go on for years because their life is being extended with the use of drugs to keep that person alive. Is that morally right?

 

IMO if a person has capacity to understand their own decisions and that should be respected.

 

Not long ago, I had to take our elderly cat to the vet because he had become severely unwell having been weak and uncomfortable for 12 months or so. He was howling in pain. The vet gave me a choice. She could give meds to relieve the pain and that would make him feel better for a while or, let him go now, peacefully and without any more suffering.

 

Do you decide on what is best for the person suffering or what is best for your sentiment and reluctance to lose a loved one?

I think it differs person to person. TBH I dread the end of my life if my family and friends are dead.

 

I remember my grandma at the end. My granddad died 15 years before, all her friends died a few years before. She was too frail to really go out and meet new people, so just sat in the house and watched tv all day for the last 5 or 6 years of her life. It can’t have been much of a life. You’re know you’re going to die soon anyway at that point, what’s the point of living just to exist? 
 

I sometimes think about the the pain and boredom of the final few years and it fills me with dread tbh. Dying scares me like everyone, but mostly because I won’t be able to see my loved ones anymore, if they’re all dead or can’t live for themselves because they have to care for me, what’s the point if I’m in pain or can’t do anything?

Edited 29 November 2024 by Sampson

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I think it differs person to person. TBH I dread the end of my life if my family and friends are dead.

 

I remember my grandma at the end. My granddad died 15 years before, all her friends died a few years before. She was too frail to really go out and meet new people, so just sat in the house and watched tv all day for the last 5 or 6 years of her life. It can’t have been much of a life. You’re know you’re going to die soon anyway at that point, what’s the point of living just to exist? 
 

I sometimes think about the the pain and boredom of the final few years and it fills me with dread tbh. Dying scares me like everyone, but mostly because I won’t be able to see my loved ones anymore, if they’re all dead or can’t love themselves because they have to care for me, what’s the point if I’m in pain or can’t do anything?

Not sure I can word this particularly tactfully, so forgive the clumsy response, but I sincerely hope the bill doesn't mean we're putting people down who are bored. 

[Robo61]

24 minutes ago, bovril said:

If I understand you correctly you are saying assisted dying is a better option for people who can't afford excellent end of life care? Because this seems quite similar to arguments those against the bill are making.

I don't know if that is what the poster is saying, but it is only the relatively wealthy who can travel to Switzerland the exercise the choice they already have.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Syrian rebels have reached the centre of Aleppo 

there are reports that they’ve taken control of a Syrian weapons facility that holds chemical weapons. 
 

I doubt that either the Russians or Americans will want this stuff in the hands of Sunni islamists - expect swift action!!

That’s pretty alarming. Assad is a monster but in terms of regional stability, is probably the person we want in charge? 
 

Who are the Sunni rebels and who is supporting them? Turkey?

[Vacamion]

13 minutes ago, bovril said:

If I understand you correctly you are saying assisted dying is a better option for people who can't afford excellent end of life care? Because this seems quite similar to arguments those against the bill are making.

No, I'm saying those who argue against assisted dying often suggest that instead of changing the law on it, we should work on and improve palliative care facilities.

 

Not only would the government never be able to spend anywhere near enough on palliative care provision to make it a viable option for all, because there just aren't the resources.

 

But also it seems to be really easy for rich people to suggest that dying people avail themselves of these mythical facilities, when they themselves won't be left dying in agony, misery and indignity, because the rich can afford to pay for the care (or the death) they want.

 

Having watched slow painful cancer death at close quarters, frankly, even if there *were* some massive investment and guaranteed excellent, clean dignified hospice care for all, (which, remember is currently nowhere near hapoening) I would still want the option of supping the hemlock or whatever.

 

IMHO, better to finish things sooner rather than later, and not have my hand patted by a dedicated nurse (even if it were on soft furnushings in a clean & dignified setting) while my insides nevertheless painfully consumed me.

 

Millionaires can currently go to Dignitas.

 

Why can't I have the same choice without leaving the UK?

 

 

[Sampson]

7 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure I can word this particularly tactfully, so forgive the clumsy response, but I sincerely hope the bill doesn't mean we're putting people down who are bored. 

Nah that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think we should allow that. It was just a personal philosophical point on the question on whether death is worse than extreme pain, personally I think plenty of things are worse than death, but the thing that scares me about death is not getting to see my loved ones. Not for one second suggesting we should change the laws in that way but I do understand why some people say they’re ready to give up at the end if that makes sense. 

Edited 30 November 2024 by Sampson

[st albans fox]

18 minutes ago, Lionator said:

That’s pretty alarming. Assad is a monster but in terms of regional stability, is probably the person we want in charge? 
 

Who are the Sunni rebels and who is supporting them? Turkey?

I believe so 

assad is supported by Hezbollah (who must have withdrawn fighters last six weeks ) and parts of the IGRC.  The current problems of Iran amd its proxies may affect regional stability in ways that may not have been anticipated. 

[grobyfox1990]

Delighted that the assisted bill has passed, first step towards ingrained religious belief that death is the worst possible that can happen being overridden. But more delighted in this being a free vote, and the population haven’t been so stupid as to be swayed into a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ side and can see the nuance with both arguments. Not seen one person use ‘mental gymnastics’ in this debate thank god 

[ClaphamFox]

6 hours ago, Robo61 said:

The implications are already massive for those who would like the option and can't afford to travel to Switzerland. So if they get this legislation right, what do you see as the massive inplications in the future. I accept that is a massive "if" but that is what committee scrutiny is for. 

It isn’t even a ‘massive if’, though. It’s a stone cold impossibility. They are not going to get this legislation right and we are moving inexorably to a future in which vulnerable people who are not ready to die will be coerced into doing so, either explicitly or implicitly, by their families, the medical profession or societal expectations. I absolutely guarantee you that there is no way of legalising euthanasia  that will not result in horrendous abuses. Tonight’s vote means this country is already a much darker, more sinister and less humane place than it was yesterday. 

Edited 30 November 2024 by ClaphamFox

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

My Mum is in palliative care and bed ridden at home now. It's just a matter of time.

 

She's in constant pain, can't get up, has no energy, and isn't eating. She freely admits she's 'ready to go' soon.

 

Watching her waste away is horrible. The cancer is spreading and it's no existence for her.

 

If she had her way, she'd ask to be put to sleep permanently and put out of her misery, and I'd fully support it.

 

I hope the bill is passed so if I'm ever in that position, at least I have the choice.

 

That's terrible, for you to experience that as a son, but worse for your mum. I cannot imagine the heartache and soul searching that you are all going through and your experience is another reason I would want to support properly administered EOL decisions.

 

When I was working, paramedics were permitted to administer EOL drugs specifically prescribed to the patient, solely for pain relief and sedation at the point of death. We had guidance within our scope of practice which was strictly controlled and the patient had to have signed and agreed to the EOL treatment.

 

That's not to say we would terminate a life (horrible phrase) but that we could ease the final stages of someone who was at the end of life. 

 

I have had 2 occasions where I have administered the prescribed meds to help a person depart calmly and with as little pain as possible. It wasn't a decision I made, it was already made by the person not to be resuscitated but to be comfortable at the end. It was quite emotional, even for me as a seasoned paramedic, used to death, to be with a complete stranger as they left their life and watch them leave.

 

It was dying peacefully, calmly, with loved ones nearby. 

 

My enduring feelings are that we should end suffering when there is no other course that would result in any peace for the person dying.

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

Nah that’s what I’m saying. I don’t think we should allow that. It was just a personal philosophical point on the question on whether death is worse than extreme pain, personally I think plenty of things are worse than death, but the thing that scares me about death is not getting to see my loved ones. Not for one second suggesting we should change the laws in that way but I do understand why some people say they’re ready to give up at the end if that makes sense. 

 

But surely death relieves all the worries and concerns of life?

 

I get the emotional fear of never seeing loved ones again is frightening whilst your alive but, once dead that is negated by being dead?

 

I don't know.

 

We're probably getting into philosophical and theological areas we don't need to be in.

 

 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

It isn’t even a ‘massive if’, though. It’s a stone cold impossibility. They are not going to get this legislation right and we are moving inexorably to a future in which vulnerable people who are not ready to die will be coerced into doing so, either explicitly or implicitly, by their families, the medical profession or societal expectations. I absolutely guarantee you that there is no way of legalising euthanasia  that will not result in horrendous abuses. Tonight’s vote means this country is already a much darker, more sinister and less humane place than it was yesterday. 

 

You're so wrong IMO.

 

The dying person has to have capacity under the Mental Heath Act, to understand the decisions they make about their care and/or treatment. Without capacity the decision about their EOL will not be solely left to the relatives or others. It goes to medical experts and ultimately a court and judges unless the person has consented to a DNR independently and without duress.

 

Any DNR or EOL decision is not made solely by the individual concerned. It's made in consultation with their GP or other medical professional involved in their care as well as immediate family and most importantly, the patient themselves.

 

You make it seem like it's a case of "well, your (relative) is gonna die anyway, sign here"

 

It's so not the case.

Edited 30 November 2024 by Parafox

[Sampson]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

But surely death relieves all the worries and concerns of life?

 

I get the emotional fear of never seeing loved ones again is frightening whilst your alive but, once dead that is negated by being dead?

 

I don't know.

 

We're probably getting into philosophical and theological areas we don't need to be in.

 

 

Yes I agree with you. What I meant is if all my loved ones are dead I’d be happier to go rather than just exist for the sake of it

[Zear0]

7 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Delighted that the assisted bill has passed, first step towards ingrained religious belief that death is the worst possible that can happen being overridden. But more delighted in this being a free vote, and the population haven’t been so stupid as to be swayed into a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ side and can see the nuance with both arguments. Not seen one person use ‘mental gymnastics’ in this debate thank god 

There are many individual reasons to not support this bill outside of being dogmatic about things.

[HighPeakFox]

Well played, everyone.

[bovril]

10 hours ago, Vacamion said:

No, I'm saying those who argue against assisted dying often suggest that instead of changing the law on it, we should work on and improve palliative care facilities.

 

Not only would the government never be able to spend anywhere near enough on palliative care provision to make it a viable option for all, because there just aren't the resources.

 

But also it seems to be really easy for rich people to suggest that dying people avail themselves of these mythical facilities, when they themselves won't be left dying in agony, misery and indignity, because the rich can afford to pay for the care (or the death) they want.

 

Having watched slow painful cancer death at close quarters, frankly, even if there *were* some massive investment and guaranteed excellent, clean dignified hospice care for all, (which, remember is currently nowhere near hapoening) I would still want the option of supping the hemlock or whatever.

 

IMHO, better to finish things sooner rather than later, and not have my hand patted by a dedicated nurse (even if it were on soft furnushings in a clean & dignified setting) while my insides nevertheless painfully consumed me.

 

Millionaires can currently go to Dignitas.

 

Why can't I have the same choice without leaving the UK?

 

 

Fair points and I agree with some of what you say.

 

My opposition to the law change is along the lines of what Clapham Fox posted above about the system being open to abuse or people being coerced into choosing assisted dying. 21st century Britain is a country where the poor and vulnerable are frequently seen - and sometimes see themselves - as a burden on society and on the state, and where the National Health Service is increasingly viewed not just as something to protect sick people but as something that needs to be protected from sick people. So yes I could see "have you simply considered dying?" becoming a frequently asked question. This sounds like worst case scenario but imo worst case scenario is a very good reason not to do something. 

 

I also fear the law being extended as it has been in other countries. Again people will say this is scaremongering and the slippery slope doesn't exist, but there is evidence to the contrary. In Canada the slippery slope looks more like a waterslide. 

 

If there was a guarantee that this was just going to be the terminally ill supping the hemlock I wouldn't be against it. Although I do have a religious background that doesn't really influence my judgement here and in the not so distant past I was probably mostly in the 'Yes' camp. I just don't see how you can safeguard this adequately and I am surprised after the last decade or so how much trust some people have in our lawmakers to enact such a huge change without totally ****ing stuff up. To paraphrase something I saw on twitter yesterday, "I wonder who will chair the first assisted suicide scandal inquest?".