Whilst this is not very upbeat for the new year, there has been some debate of the issue of assisted suicide in the past few days. This is taken from NHS England website
Legal position
Types of euthanasia
- active euthanasia – where a person deliberately intervenes to end someone’s life – for example, by injecting them with a large dose of sedatives
- passive euthanasia – where a person causes death by withholding or withdrawing treatment that is necessary to maintain life, such as withholding antibiotics from someone withpneumonia
- voluntary euthanasia – where a person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do this
- non-voluntary euthanasia – where a person is unable to give their consent (for example, because they are in a coma or are severely brain damaged) and another person takes the decision on their behalf, often because the ill person previously expressed a wish for their life to be ended in such circumstances
- involuntary euthanasia – where a person is killed against their expressed wishes
End of life care
Other countries
The person is usually given an overdose of muscle relaxants or sedatives. This causes a coma and then death.
- The person has made an active and voluntary request to end their life.
- It is thought that they have sufficient mental capacity to make an informed decision regarding their care.
- It is agreed that the person is suffering unbearably and there is no prospect for an improvement in their condition.
Will this position change? Quite Possibly.This is taken from Dignity in Dying Website.
Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill
Dignity in Dying advocates a change in the law on assisted dying. They believe that, subject to strict upfront safeguards, the law should allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to request life-ending medication from a doctor. The dying patient would then have the choice to self-administer that medication at a time that was right for them.
Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill was tabled in the House of Lords in June 2014.
Second Reading – the first time the Bill was debated
The Bill received its Second Reading on Friday 18 July 2014. During a debate lasting over nine hours the Bill was debated in detail but not voted on, as no wrecking amendment was tabled, meaning law change moved one step closer as the Bill progressed to the committee stage.
Committee Stage – the whole house debates the Bill clause by clause
The Bill had its first day of Committee Stage on Friday 7 November 2014. This was an important step forward because the House of Lords accepted the principle of law-change and voted in unanimous support for an amendment to the Bill, put down by Lord Pannick, which set out a model for judicial oversight of assisted dying. This requires a judge in the family division of the High Court to confirm that a terminally ill patient, with less than six months to live, has reached “a voluntary, clear, settled and informed” decision to control the time and manner of their death. This amendment was preferred to a more onerous model of judicial oversight, which would have required a judge to reach a decision on whether a patient’s request was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights
A recent YouGov poll (pdf) found 73% of adults in England and Wales support the proposals in this Bill.
The Assisted Dying Bill: What’s next?
The Assisted Dying Bill is a specific, focused piece of legislation based on a recognition – repeatedly expressed by the courts – that the issue is one for Parliament to address. A change in the law that every opinion poll has shown is supported by an overwhelming majority of the public.
You can view the Bill in full and track its progress on Parliament’s website here.
If enacted it would:
Result in fewer adults facing unnecessary suffering at the end of their lives, subject to strict upfront safeguards, as assessed by two doctors.
Above all it will give dying adults peace of mind that the choice of assisted dying is available if their suffering becomes too great for them in their final months of life.
Without a change in the law, terminally ill patients will continue to take decisions without adequate safeguards, whether by travelling to Dignitas to die, ending their lives themselves or being illegally helped to die by doctors.
Impact of the Assisted Dying Bill
The Bill draws on the experience of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.
This law has been in force for 17 years and has enabled a small number of people who were terminally ill to request the choice of an assisted death. In practice only a very small number of patients have an assisted death – less than 80 in total in 2013 out of the annual 30,000 deaths in Oregon. There has been no evidence of abuse since its inception.
The Assisted Dying Bill would:
Provide safeguarded choice and control to terminally ill adults and prevent prolonged suffering among these dying adults who want to have choice over how and when they die.
Ensure that terminally ill adults who have assistance to die do so having met clear pre-determined criteria and have explored all their alternatives; rather than as at present, in secret, when checks are only made after someone dies (as set out in the prosecuting policy on assisted suicide).
The Assisted Dying Bill would not:
I was 100% in favour of this – always have been – until last year when a close relation became terminally ill with liver failure (and a host of other problems). She was bed-ridden, doubly incontinent, losing sight, had to be fed, was declining mentally and losing her speech. When the hospital could do no more for her, she was put in a care home where she needed 24-hour care. After six weeks or so, her husband was told that henceforth her care would be chargeable, because under the NHS guidelines, her condition was not severe enough for 'continuing (i.e NHS-funded) care' . We couldn't believe it – the woman was clearly going to die within weeks. I did some research and discovered how unbelievably stringent the criteria for continuing care are. I was also shocked at the multiple processes, committees etc. involved to get this money. I further discovered that PCTs are adept at applying the guidelines in a way which I can only describe as jesuitical. There are even (no surprises here!) lawyers who will 'help you through the system'. My brother was facing costs of more than £1000 a week but we had an amazing stroke of luck. Completely by chance, an NHS inspector did an unannounced visit to the home and looked at their paperwork. He saw my sister-in-law's medical notes and on the spot reversed the 'no' decision. She died three weeks later.
Now that I know how truly cash-strapped the system is, I cannot see how the proposed reforms would be safe. We clearly do not have the cash needed to care adequately for the dying. Any decisions on ending life should surely be taken independently of financial aspects. In countries with a bigger health spend, e.g. in Scandinavia, I can see this happening and a good thing it would be. Here in 21st century Britain, we are simply not able to remove money from the equation.
I wouldn't be so sure about Scandinavia; please read this article in the latest NEJM. It is clear that socialism is too expensive even for the wealthiest of countries. We need an alternative solution.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1411430
If England is like the U.S., over half of all medical expenses occur in the last 6 months of life. It is an incredible economic burden to leave behind with often so little to gain, and much of what is gained is unwanted. If my dog is in pain with no hope for recovery, I cry as I put her to sleep. I do so because I would not ask her to live a life of pain for my personal gain. Yet in much of the U.S., I would not have the options for end of life treatment afforded my dog. Why do I deserve less?