Assisted dying: Parliamentary public consultstion

How do you know he did? Now we can add what we like to make it sound better, but the story was that a tramp turned up at the hospital very ill and the doctor decided the best thing to do was euthanise him. We don't know if the doctor spoke to him first, or if he was beyond help, or how long he would have lived. He was a poor chap, outside society, so off he went. It makes my blood boil, really it does.

The fact that he was a tramp is completely irrelevant, but Caleo's friend made a point of including that detail. Not that he was poor, not that he was alone in the world, not that he was really old. But that he was a "tramp".

Thank goodness we've moved on in 100 years.

How do you know he did not ask to be taken out of his suffering. It is clear in the 'story' that no amount of care would have saved him, and that he would have lived hours or days of unbearable pain. Tramp, or no tramp.

Caleo

When my friend told me the patient who was mercy killed was a tramp and there was nothing that could be done to help him she meant that tramps in those days did not get medical care, and the old man would have arrived at the hospital to die.

Right then.

Poor people didn't get proper health care so the doctor put them out of their misery.

I would venture to say that you're not making this sound any better.

I think we best move on now.

No comparison Caleo.

The process is just unbearable if someone's intention was very different.

For me, the most important thing is to protect spouse, ACs and GCs, family and close friends. The event has to be totally safe, painless, sure and dignified. For their sake.

Please, Blondiescot, a stomach washout is not unduly unpleasant, so please revise what you wrote as it may alarm someone who needs a simple stomach washout ((gastric lavage_).

When my friend told me the patient who was mercy killed was a tramp and there was nothing that could be done to help him she meant that tramps in those days did not get medical care, and the old man would have arrived at the hospital to die.

Exactly, Fleurpepper - if someone is determined that the time has come to end their suffering, surely it is better that they have access to a safe (and legal) method to do so, rather than resort to methods which may not succeed, and may even leave them worse off than before. Having your stomach pumped is not a pleasant procedure...

One more reason Delila that people whould be helped, as they are in other countries, if compos mentis and of free and determined will, to die with a potion or injection which is proven to be quickly and painlessly effective.

In the UK, people will have to do extensive research to be as certain as they can. Others have the medical knowledge and experience that gives them certainty.

www.amazon.co.uk/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Deliverance-Assisted/dp/0385336535?tag=gransnetforum-21

Blondiescot, thankyou, but I have no intention of asking you which ones. I am not looking for detailed information. I’ve merely expressed my curiosity and surprise about other people’s certainty that they have the means for when/if the time comes.

Caleo has given useful information, should I ever feel the need to look further into the subject.

Ill not I’ll.

I have no doubt that my mother was put on the ‘Liverpool Pathway’ without my knowledge or consent, after I agreed to DNR. I can prove nothing but at least her suffering was eased. However I think it was probably more a matter of convenience for the hospital to free up a bed after she was judged too I’ll for transportation to a hospice, which I had discussed with the doctor, than compassion. I can prove nothing after all these years and probably it was the best thing for her but it will always haunt me and I don’t want my child to have the same experience if I can possibly avoid it.

I agree with those who are saying that consent should be paramount.

I’m not sure that saying ‘well, they were killed for what the person who killed them considered good reasons’ is a great rationale.

On the other hand, I have nothing but sympathy for those who accede to their loved ones’ pleas for help with dying., and the law which makes this approach necessary is an ass indeed.

I do not understand this comment in response to your quote. I am talking about individual people, making clear choices for themselves, and themselves alone, or their own volition.

Fleurpepper

Siope

Since this thread will now almost certainly get pulled, just a quick reminder that today is the last day to participate in the consultation.

There is absolutely no reason for this thread to be pulled. but it cannot contain actual advice on pills or process.

No Volver, there is nothing at all to be smug about. None. And no-one is or has been. People can prepare, best they can, for most eventualities. They can join Dignity in Dying, or indeed Exit in Switzerland, and become members. They can make enquiries about Dignitas, or Life-Circle. And know how they work.

There is absolutely nothing smug, or easy, or simple about it. But it can be done, for those who wish to.

For me, and many I know, there is a limit beyond which I do not want to live, or rather not really live- and I will take the necessary action. And no-one should have to travel to another country to do so.

I find that quite shocking. Isn’t that what H Shipman used to do?

I have seen high permitted doses of pain relief being administered to relieve suffering in the terminally ill, but never with the aim of killing someone, although sometimes it may shorten life.

I’m in favour of legally assisted dying with strict guidelines and safeguards.

I just don’t like the idea of a professional or relative taking matters into their own hands without knowledge of the patient’s wishes (as described)

At the risk of making things worse, I think it happened more than once to "tramps". 😕

Of course. I do believe something is missing from the 'story' and that this person (who happened to be a tramp) was unable to give his opinion on the matter.

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks shinamae but I find volver’s attitude very upsetting.

Why? I'm sorry that I have upset you.

I think people should be involved with decisions about themselves whether they are tramps or royalty.

Delila

I re-read your post Volver and I get what you’re saying now. Yes, it does sound so simple, but is it? That’s what got me wondering - how and what do people know and can they be certain?

You are on the internet. You can, quite literally, find out almost anything about everything. There are websites devoted to the subject which explain in minute detail how to do it. And no, don't ask me which ones. It would be irresponsible to provide links etc - but the information is out there if you really want to find it.

All we know about the person in the anecdote is that they were elderly and that they were a tramp, and that they were in a very bad way with a terminal illness.

Had the anecdote been about elderly people who came in and were beyond treatment, then the actions of the medical staff would have been obviously compassionate.

But we don't know that. It is not relevant that they were a tramp and I don't know why that would be included, other than to draw attention to the fact that tramps could be put to sleep if the doctor thought it was the right thing to do.

I'll say this again - I support assisted dying.

Thanks shinamae but I find volver’s attitude very upsetting.

I will return simply to say that I didn’t consider the fact that he was a tramp was remotely relevant. He was a man who was suffering, beyond medical help and presumably alone in this world. As he was a tramp should he not have been entitled to compassion? It’s not a matter of deciding on someone’s behalf that they should be dead, but knowing that nothing but death will take away their suffering and that you alone have the means to end that suffering. Would you not do that for a beloved pet, as I have done several times when no further treatment is possible?

In the past a doctor would have done the same for anyone with any occupation when they reached a certain point.

Germanshepherdsmum

Oh dear. No point in my contributing further to this thread.

Why are you saying that GSM you make a valuable contribution to this thread? 🥺

I just find it untenable that any doctor or nurse could think that anyone - even "a tramp" - is in such a situation that they can decide on their behalf that they should be dead. Maybe it was particularly the description of a "tramp" that gets me. That implies that the person was of not much use to society so the doctor could decide.

What if the original post had said "Sometimes an elderly Member of Parliament would be a patient." Or an "elderly librarian".