They Shoot Horses, don't they?

[denso13]

They do not give fatal doses.

In my experience they absolutely do. Again, no complaints.

 

[Odds]

I don’t believe they do.

...does not necessarily mean it doesn't happen.

And this bill does not allow someone else to administer the lethal dose.

who does, in the case of a patient too infirm to do so themselves?

Doesn’t really help much at all. Other than give a person access to lethal drugs after they have applied for their divorce from life.

The Bill will be a work in progress, as most legislation, adjusting to new circumstances when they arise.

 

[denso13]

The Bill will be a work in progress, as most legislation, adjusting to new circumstances when they arise.

I don't think for a minute we've seen the Bill in it's final form.

 

[Odds]

I don't think for a minute we've seen the Bill in it's final form.

The wheels of government move even slower than those of Lady Law, but in this matter it's probably a good thing to scrutinise every element to ensure no loopholes can be exploited.

 

[ellal]

I don't think for a minute we've seen the Bill in it's final form.

It'll change due to the fanatics...

Or fail altogether...

But then the fanatics don't care about the pain and misery they'll cause...

Until it happens to them and their families

 

[motorbiking]

...does not necessarily mean it doesn't happen.

True, but I reckon someone would have done an undercover investigation and a lot of hospices have links to the Church.

who does, in the case of a patient too infirm to do so themselves?

Around half of doctors aren't interested in prescribing lethal drugs at all.

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/3367/bma-physician-assisted-dying-survey-report-oct-2020.pdf

But as others have said, what the bill says and what we get (if anything at all) may be very different. Currently it is illegal to administer fatal doses of drugs, the DPP guidance is clear (already posted). They will prosecute a medical professional who administers a lethal dose to someone in their care. BMA guidelines are clear (and worth a read).

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1424/bma-guidance-on-responding-to-patient-requests-for-assisted-dying-for-doctors.pdf

 

[JohnD]

the Church.

You mean "a church?"

Or do you live on a planet where there is only one?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

They do not give fatal doses. They do give lots of drugs that reduce e pain, minimise mental suffering and all the other symptoms associated with dying.

If your definition of assisted dying is going out high as a kite and oblivious to the pain and symptoms, for me that is just good palliative care

It is assisted dying, no matter how you dress it up.

It's just that the patient has no choice at that stage, despite all that they (and any close family) may have been through to get to that stage, including asking for the end to come.

Nobody seems to be able to explain why the patient shouldn't have that choice when they are fit and able (enough) to decide, for themselves

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The wheels of government move even slower than those of Lady Law, but in this matter it's probably a good thing to scrutinise every element to ensure no loopholes can be exploited.

Fully agree.

But it has to start somewhere

 

[blup]

Very high doses are given but on a medical basis to deal with pain, not with the sole aim of death, and death can still take days because the human body varies and is remarkably resilient even at the end

 

[denso13]

Very high doses are given but on a medical basis to deal with pain, not with the sole aim of death, and death can still take days because the human body varies and is remarkably resilient even at the end

Not in my experience.

 

[motorbiking]

You mean "a church?"

Or do you live on a planet where there is only one?

valuable contribution from JohnD as always.

 

[motorbiking]

It is assisted dying, no matter how you dress it up.

It's just that the patient has no choice at that stage, despite all that they (and any close family) may have been through to get to that stage, including asking for the end to come.

Nobody seems to be able to explain why the patient shouldn't have that choice when they are fit and able (enough) to decide, for themselves

It is why I am not in favour of the bill. It delivers nothing of value but will place a burden on doctors, the family court and make people waste money and time they don't have, applying for a "divorce from life".

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It is why I am not in favour of the bill. It delivers nothing of value but will place a burden on doctors, the family court and make people waste money and time they don't have, applying for a "divorce from life".

So let them suffer instead.

People should have the choice, in advance. Simple

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Very high doses are given but on a medical basis to deal with pain, not with the sole aim of death, and death can still take days because the human body varies and is remarkably resilient even at the end

Not solely maybe.

But it's still assisted dying. That the Patient has no choice about.