Margo MacDonald's Euthanasia Bill.

[mogling]

I think that having an Advance Directive {Living Will} drawn up whilst you still have full mental capacity and the ability to communicate effectively would be safeguard enough.

 

It has to be discussed with and signed by a Doctor who knows you well.

You can specify whether you specifically want to be kept alive as long as possible, or, to simply have pain-relief with no treatment to artificially prolong life, whatever YOU want. And you can change your mind at any time.

 

I have specified that I want no IV/Tube-feeding, no resuscitation, no antibiotics/treatment for pneumonia, cancer etc. when I have lost mental capacity or am severely incapacitated and no longer able to communicate effectively. Allow me to die as Nature intended. Or, if Margot's Bill is passed, feed me a 'cocktail' of something nice to hasten the inevitable.

 

I am living with a degenerative disease, and got my Living Will in place a few years ago. There are copies with my GP, in my Hospital notes, with my Lawyer and my 'Healthcare Proxy' {Patient's Representative} who can communicate my wishes if / when, I lose the ability to communicate my choices.

 

I have worked in various different "Caring Profession" areas off and on since I was 17, and being a strongly independent person with definite views on various lifestyle choices, I would personally HATE not being able to communicate the fact that that I my certainly do not want to be dressed in a frilly pink skirt or force-fed stew when I have no means of telling folk to F. Off!

 

I have watched friends and relations die slowly, with no dignity, suffering in many different ways...

 

 

I got my Advance Directive from: http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/advance-decisions.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/i]

[wullie m.]

I believe representations to the parliament are overwhealmingly against the bill, I suspect the God Squad have orchestrated their troops. Nice to see so many sensible & decent posters here! wullie m

Michael, try a bit of human empathy, just hope that this predicament never comes to your door!

[Guest Anonymous]

over 80% against the bill so far, not only should religion be banned from schools but politics also

[ArabiaTerra]

over 80% against the bill so far, not only should religion be banned from schools but politics also

Absolutely.

 

I have no problem with people practising their own religion in whatever crazy way they like, but what infuriates me is when they insist on forcing their views on others.

 

If people are opposed to assisted death on religious grounds, then the solution is simple, don't have an assisted death. But don't force your religious views on me!

 

[Michael]

As I've said before, I haven't made up my mind. I can appreciate for many this bill will be beneficial, I do care about that and that's why i've stated that I am in favour of the benefits etc.

 

But even with the advanced directive, I don't believe the scope for abuse is negligible.

 

Doctors are the ones who essentially have all the facts, they will also have an opinion on euthanasia, and an opinion on each specific case. I don't think it's a massive leap to suggest that some doctors, conciously or not, will subtly influence a patients decision towards their opinion of what should happen. I think there is merit in the argument that doctors should not have this massive moral responsibility when the consequences (either way) or so huge.

 

There is the possibility that some people who make living wills will have changed their minds by the time things go really bad, but haven't altered the document. In those cases patients might die against their will.

 

Again for emphasis - I do believe there are cases where euthanasia is the best possible option. But i'm not convinced this bill (or any other euthanasia proposals) will only affect those cases.

 

Edit - Yeah I think the religious opposition to the bill is flawed

[Ghostrider]

Doctors should be the last people charged with influencing and making the decision whether euthanasia is the "best" for a patient, or not. These days they are too budget and target driven by the NHS to have an unbiased opinion.

 

If the decision is to be made, it should be made by totally independent medically qualified personnel, who are incapable of being influenced beyond the material facts. Unfortunately such a thing is fantasy, especially in the UK.

 

That said, there is an argument that once an individual is no longer lucid, or worse, unconscious, as a result of old age or damage from disease, and are not going to recover from that state, and obviously cannot express their own opinion of their condition. That they are in a place that they are unaware of reality anyway, so what does it matter whether every effort is made to ensure they survive as long as possible, or are let to go simply by letting whatever they have go untreated unless for painkillers, and it takes them out in its natural process. Its not like they know the difference, nor are they coming back to quibble about it, the only difference is the date of the Death Certificate.

 

If someone of extended age has been lying in a hospital bed for weeks, slowly deteriorating to the point they have been unconscious for days and are only alive through artificial feeding, and they develop an emergency situation that their "life" can only be "saved" by some time consuming and high staff number committment medical procedure applied immediately. How can going ahead with it be justified when the best they can hope for is a few more days lying unconscious being artifically fed, yet left untreated they'd be dead inside 10-15 minutes tops.

[joenorth]

Doctors and nurses who are involved in palliative care are intensely careful to simply present facts to patients and families so that they can make their own minds up about such existing conventions as 'do not actively resuscitate' orders. I don't like to think that in presenting such facts health professionals allow their own subjective, as opposed to professional, opinions to skew their judgement. Of course, there's always a possibility that this could happen. However, in many years of active involvement in this field, I really can't say I've ever encountered a health professional who has allowed their feelings to adversely affect the dispensing of facts.

 

I have, on the other hand, cared for many people whose lives were an ongoing source of torment for them, with no prospect of remission.

I'm sure that any future provision to legalise euthanasia would include information -giving and decision-making processes involving a number of professionals, family members and the affected person themselves (if they still possess decision-making capacity). The potential for inappropriate application in such scenarios is, I feel, extremely small (and immensely outweighed by the potential humanitarian benefits). There is such a thing as a good death.

[Ghostrider]

I don't like to think that in presenting such facts health professionals allow their own subjective, as opposed to professional, opinions to skew their judgement. Of course, there's always a possibility that this could happen. However, in many years of active involvement in this field, I really can't say I've ever encountered a health professional who has allowed their feelings to adversely affect the dispensing of facts.

 

Whether their feelings affected their dispensing of the facts or not, I couldn't say, however having had relatives decline and die in the GBH over the years, and having spent far too long in the place as a patient myself and expected to die, plus having spent far too long in hospitals on the Mainland as a patient and expected to die, which I believe allows me reasonable grounds for comparison.

 

While there are a large number of excellent people doing a very valuable and appreciated job in the GBH, there are, and have been, over the years, a good handful of total numpties, a disproportionate number of whom, somehow seem(ed) to be in the more senior positions.

 

The quality and value of information supplied to relatives over the years and the quality and value of information supplied to myself as a patient, in all cases when imminent death was a factor to consider, varied an unbelievable amount depending on which member of staff you spoke with. The issue was never more obvious when, as a patient, I was transferred from the GBH to the old RIE and the two could be compared on a side by side basis.

[joenorth]

Of course, Ghostrider, you're right - we can only base our opinions on our own experiences and those of the people close to us. It's a bloody shame that your encounters with our local health services seem to have been largely negative. While this is diverging from the original topic covered by this post, I'm of the opposite opinion, and that's derived from my experiences working in hospitals in and outwith Shetland, in the UK and overseas. I think our local health service is generally excellent. I also think the proportion of local clinicians who are numpties is small. On the whole, our hospital consultants and GPs are a pretty good bunch.

 

Everyone has an opinion about the NHS, which has many flaws. We'd be immeasurably worse off without it, nevertheless.

 

Anyhow, I still think Margo's bill is a good thing!

[crofter-amy]

In an ideal world I would like to die working on the croft, if the sun could shine so much the better. Failing that I would rather be taken out the back and shot, like our poor dog, than spend time suffering in hospital with no hope of recovery. I see that as my choice and it boils my piss that there are people who think they have the right to take the choice from me. Just who the bl***y h*** do they they are

[Ghostrider]

Anyhow, I still think Margo's bill is a good thing!

 

Yes, agreed, it is. Medical science is at a point that arguably some folk are kept alive "because we can", rather than it be in anyone's best interests that that life is preserved.

 

Having crossed paths, and swords with more than my fair share of the few numpties who have managed to get themselves a job in the NHS (shame about the T&C's, or I'd name those I've tangled with locally and we could debate them), and observing from the outside an organisation which appears in recent years to shifted its focus from being patient care led, to being budget and target driven, I have serious misgivings about placing responsibility for euthanasia in their hands.

 

Last time round I was well on my way to making that final exit naturally from natural causes, but I made the mistake of having someone else living in the same house. Who, had they not alerted the NHS, once it became apparent I was no longer lucid, would have been placed in a very difficult situation, and very possibly would have been up in court on charges.

 

I find that a very objectionable and unacceptable situation for anyone. They were forced to choose between respecting my wishes and ending up being made a criminal for not obtaining medical attention for me, or ignoring my wishes because "the law" said they should and would punish them if they didn't.

 

I had consistently for months beforehand dismissed out of hand any suggestion that I should seek medical advice as my condition appeared to be worsening, I forbade in the strongest possible terms the other person staying in the same house from calling any medical assistance for me, regardless of what my condition became, for as long as I remained conscious enough to do so. Yet, when it came down to it, I may as well have held my breath, I didn't die fast enough, and they were forced between a rock and hard place by the "powers that be" where whatever decision they made was wrong.

 

Folk being put in to that situation is something that definitely needs remedying. If the powers surrounding euthanasia are placed in the hands of NHS medical staff I can't see it being the remedy, they are trained first and foremost to save life, not end it. I had no wish to see medical staff, whatever hat they might have been wearing, in my situation a medically trained, but wholly independent of any current medical establishment, who could assess my state of health and hear my wishes, and ensure they were obeyed I could have gone for.

 

My main objection to seeing NHS medical staff was that I was pretty sure that if they got wind of the condition I was in back then, they would do to me, what they ended up doing anyway when they did finally get let in, and I was too far gone to fight them on it. It was completely the opposite of what I wanted, I was content and happy where I was, it was a good day to die, and left in peace lying where I was a few more days and I'd have been ready for the box. The Reaper was cheated of me without my consent or permission, and even today, years later, I still believe my decision was right and their's wrong, it would have been a good day to die back then.

[crofter-amy]

sucks!!!

[wullie m.]

The thing is that easing folk out of this world has been going on for yonks. George V was apparently killed off in time to catch the morning papers, I believe his final words were "B-----r Bognor!". Stepping up the painkillers till oblivion sets in is part of every good doctors work. Much hypocrisy will be spouted in the coming weeks on this subject. wullie m

[crofter-amy]

Well I see on the news tonight that the euthanasia bill was voted out by a huge majority. Dissapointing

[wullie m.]

Small minded people to blame here, their religious convictions have blotted out common sense. Nobody is suggesting compulsion here, it's a matter of personal choice and nobody else's business. Your life is your own, if that's what you believe, if you believe in the Golden Gates & the Toothfairy, don't let this fantasy colour your judgement!

Change will come, but not in time for folks who need this now.