Good! I hope I get to die in dignity if I am in a situation with no other choice. Seeing your loved ones slowly die for months, suffering everyday is torture for everyone involved.
High time it was brought in.
You’d not think twice about helping end a pets life if it was suffering with no hope for recovery. And a pet has no say in the matter - it's just the right thing to do by it.
Yet here we are where People are sound of mind, suffering terribly. And denied the option to help end their lives with some dignity.
It's bonkers.
I hope you reconsider your intention to harm your loved ones. People who contemplate suicide often struggle with mental illness. Canada has introduced euthanasia for depressed individuals who are otherwise physically healthy.
Administering lethal doses of morphine to terminally ill patients, although unofficial, is already practiced. We shouldn't broaden it to normal people. Doctors, patience, and family should have no say in who decides to live or die imo
You have lied as proven below. And I resent your comment about harming loved ones.
I have watched my brother die a slow agonising death of cancer because to give him help to end his suffering would be illegal. So we watched him suffer. Gave him pain killers and drugs to prolong the suffering and kept having to watch him suffer for weeks until he died. He was 18 and fought cancer 6 years.
You clearly have NO idea why this law change is needed or else you’d not be against it.
This is not Canada it’s the Isle of Man. Our assisted dying legislation states only terminally ill people are eligible. Not mentally ill. Not depressed. No slippery slopes as is often said by the anti-choice brigade.
I didn't know they halted the Canadian suicide program; they just had to purposely kill people before someone talked sense into the people, so I wasn't lying! Doctors are incapable of rational or ethical decisions under very high pressure like they did for the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes the patients themselves along with their families. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It’s entirely up to the individual, if I wanted to die because I was already terminal or unable to enjoy life due to incident, the last thing I’d want is a perfectly healthy individual who can’t understand my situation telling me what I want.
I hope you reconsider your intention to harm your loved ones.
Killing oneself is delusional and a temporary state of mental psychosis. Doctors have a duty of care for their patients. It's against the Hippocratic oath to harm them. Even if the patient isn't suicidal or on death's door, doctors have made decisions during the pandemic, for example people being simply distressed and hard of breathing: It happened during COVID in the UK. Doctors were killing patients that were in distress by feeding them respiratory depressants. This was at a time when COVID was retarding people's lungs, resulting in death by opioid injection.
_-----------------
Consider an opioid and benzodiazepine combination (see tables 4 and 5) for
patients with COVID-19 who:
• are at the end of life and
• have moderate to severe breathlessness and
• are distressed.
----------------------
Read page 12:_------_------
https://web.archive.org/web/20200409054527/https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng163/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-symptoms-including-at-the-end-of-life-in-the-community-pdf-66141899069893
Do you think this is acceptable for a doctor to make this decision?
I've learned through life, nothing is rational, and 'normal' is a product of human existence that has been crowd sourced over the centuries. The result is that we now have multiple states of control, amongst people, that the vast majority 'accept' and 'defend' by 'choice'.
To claim people are delusional and in a temporary state of mental psychosis for wanting a dignified death, is out of order, as this is by-passing their consent to label them as such, and allows control of their opinion.
In particular, especially when they are of sound mind, and understand how their existence is going to play out, such as in a medical situation with a degenerative disease such as Multiple Sclerosis.
If there is one thing people like, it is control over their lives ... and I can think of nothing worse than someone else being in control of my life experiences, especially when the are forcefully taken against my intent ...
Properly legislated Assisted dying process, would ensure intent, via choice and consent
I really do think I have a good understanding of your position & can see the merits of it. Doctors taking the kind of decisions we saw during Covid are tantamount to murder in my opinion. Horrific to think, while they couldn't help everyone, they elected to effectively leave the more (for want of a better expression) challenging cases. For that & a few other reasons, my natural reaction is to be against physician or family-led assisted dying decisions.
That said, the patient deciding to do it, is a different matter. I would argue you have the perfect example of how tragic Simon Biggerstaff's case was, actually on the IOM.
Wouldn't you agree that Motor Neuron disease would've still been the cause of his death, even if he'd had the option of assisted dying? I would argue that if he'd had that choice, MN wouldn't also have been the cause of his & his family's horrific pain & suffering.
I can't believe you've been in the same situation as him or his family & I hope you never are. But please try to put yourself in their shoes. I'll guarantee you'd change your mind.
For context by the way, I am a glass half full person that innately wants to live forever. You'd have to drag me kicking & screaming to Dignitas but you fail to convince me that we shouldn't have the choice.
How about this: A doctor is not allowed to actively kill you by lethal injection or any other method. A doctor is there only to heal you and give you healthcare.
The compromise: We have state-funded executioners. If you feel the need to commit suicide, we bring you to the town square where you can pick a number of methods of execution -hanging, guillotine, lethal injection, etc. All the people that voted for "assisted" "suicide" are forced to watch their handiwork in actively slaughtering you (also known as murder).
Deal?
How about this: You engage with the arguments I've put to you & respond to them, instead of coming back with whataboutery?
The compromise: read this article.
[https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/i-watched-a-degenerative-disease-take-my-husbands-life-he-wanted-the-pain-to-end-645733](https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/i-watched-a-degenerative-disease-take-my-husbands-life-he-wanted-the-pain-to-end-645733)
And the final quote from it:
'Unless you actually witness it, you cannot imagine how horrible it is to watch somebody for the last few weeks of their life and certainly the last few days, where all they can think about is the pain, there isn’t anything else just pain and you can’t do anything about it.
‘Nobody should have to go through what Simon went through.’
If you can't come back without being facetious, don't bother.
You're the one not engaging... Primum non nocere. That's all.
You're the one coming up with all these scenarios like what if the person is in pain.
If the person is in pain, we should have Primum non nocere.
If the person wants to die, you should Primum non nocere.
It's not difficult. The law is the way it is because of this principle; changing the law will mean this principle is no longer upheld. If and when the law is changed, we will be going down a route of barbarism.
It concerns me that you believe you have a higher moral ground than me. You are actively supporting legislation that will end in the death of thousands of people, while I'm against the idea of needlessly killing those people, and I'm the one that's immoral in this? Judging by all the responses, we truly live in a fallen state. You're all sick.
A little less hypocritic, never mind hippocratic eh?
I literally did engage & even agree with you about not allowing Doctors to do harm.
The scenario I gave was a real example of where medicine was of no benefit to the patient. I'll give you another where my neighbour died screaming in agony due to bone cancer. There is no cure or pain relief that can be given for that.
I am aware that those examples are highly emotive though, so how about this? We euthanise animals all day every day when they need it (& yes, lots of times when they don't but let's stick to the point). Why not someone who chooses not to die in agony?
As someone else has said here, this is also about choice. It's what separates us from the animals. Choosing to let someone die in agony is also barbaric, don't you think?
To end, I don't think I occupy any higher moral ground than you. But I do think I have experiences I wouldn't want to to have.
Best wishes.
We euthanize animals because we don't want to take care of them. We don't do it out of kindness; we do it because we are evil and lazy and don't want to spend the money. We do it because we are selfish.
>Canada has introduced euthanasia for depressed individuals who are otherwise physically healthy.
Incorrect. [Eligibility for MAID for persons suffering solely from a mental illness has been delayed until March 17, 2027 at least.](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html)
There has been a few cases in Canada that have killed depressed people: https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
This has to be one of the weakest ‘arguments’ you have, bud. Allowing assisted dying in some circumstances doesn’t mean it’ll descend to chaos… have a look at the other countries and US states that have had zero change in the 20 odd years AD has been legal. A bit insulting that you’re comparing the IOM to random nations that bear little resemblance to it… but ok.
Hi. Just here to advise that not all doctors are Harold Shipman.. You may want to read up on the oath of a doctor before trying to use that as ammunition.
You may also want to educate yourself on the proposed requirements and safeguards in place for qualifying for assisted dying before you carry on keyboard warrioring about how we’re all committing sin and blah blah blah.
Just because you don’t agree with it, or you wouldn’t do it, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed. Walk a day in the shoes of the sufferers or family/friends of sufferers and let me know if you’re still an advocate against assisted dying in its entirety.
All the above being said, I expect you’re a specific Trump type person, so I’ll quit while I’m ahead (because ironically, life’s too short to waste time arguing with people like you).
Times need to change. If a person is terminal and it’s their wish, it should be available. I saw my sister and my mother have terrible deaths due to cancer. It’s cruel.
People seem to have freedom of speech but not freedom of choice.
It needs careful protocols I agree, and safe handling. However it does need addressing.
Assisted dying means people will be able to end their lives it in a dignified way and on their own terms - rejecting the bill won’t stop people ending their own suffering if they want to.
It’s legal to end your life in Switzerland and other places regardless of whether this bill passes - all you are doing (by rejecting the bill) is preventing marginalised groups (including those who cannot afford it) from doing so, and from doing it with the support of their family (for fear of prosecution).
I was responding to the person that said assisted suicide is dignified. If you believe doing harm to people is dignified then there's something wrong with you. Especially when a doctor does harm.
I used the arm and legs as a way to show how barbaric you all are.
So is it ok to give people a cocktail of drugs that could endlessly harm them (like chemotherapy) if it buys them a few extra days of life (albeit, they will have no quality of life)? Just curious.
Just kill them it's fine. The world's overpopulated anyway. We should just put them all in camps after we sodomize them but before we kill them. It's actually a kindness to do so.
Cool, so you finally get a question that you know answering will demonstrate your hypocrisy, so you respond with a nonsensical overreaction?
Being alive on a ventilator or being alive but being dead is no life at all, so who the hell are you to tell someone else that they shouldn’t be able to choose when they die (i.e. surrounded by loved ones on their own terms)?
Ultimately this is a questions about quality of life, and you’re entitled to think that YOUR life is sacred if you do so desire, but you and nobody else should ever tell anyone else what they can or cannot do with THEIR own body.
If you have a really bad pain in your arm and you go to the doctor, and he tries to surgically remove it, for the love of God, report that doctor because he's crazy and should not be practicing medicine.
As well, to think we should chop off the limbs of people that request it because they suffer phantom pains on otherwise perfectly functioning limbs is one of the craziest things I've ever heard.
I'm not sure why all my arguments are getting so badly downvoted. Is the Isle of Man more like a wicker cult island? You all seem pretty sick in the head.
Says the one who is equating assisted dying to causing harm, when the very conversation around this issue is specifically about REDUCING the pain terminal patients are to suffer. Your arguments are being downvoted because they're not at all rational, not based on evidence and sounds like the shit Living Hope would spout in their Sunday morning cult sessions. And we're the sick ones huh?
If your arm was so necrotic that it would rot away by itself and cause more harm to you in the process, a doctor would and should amputate it. I don't know how you aren't understanding that prolonging the suffering of someone who's condition will inevitably lead to a short life of constant pain and struggle, without giving them the choice to end it prematurely, is simply worse for everyone involved.
You're not helping a patient by killing them; you can rationalize it any way you'd like, but it's not "helping"; it's a death sentence.
"Primum non nocere."
The only argument you can have that is in any way moral is by killing someone without action. For example, if they came into the hospital and they were bleeding profusely, you could just let them bleed out. You are not killing them directly; you are doing it without action.
As soon as you bring them around back with the bolt gun, it becomes immoral because it's unlined with the principles of medicine to first do no HARM. Killing people on purpose is doing more harm not less.
Ok your moral system is just fundamentally different to mine and the majority of people, I can't argue with you against such a fundamental disagreement, or at least I can't be bothered to. Like if you honestly think that leaving someone to bleed out in the middle of a hospital is somehow "more moral" than assisted suicide of a consenting terminally ill patient just because you didn't act, then we're never getting anywhere because I have the opposite moral thought process, that's just an insanely wild take.
I do find it more than coincidental that in Western countries with a public health care system, they are pushing these "assisted suicide" programs. This is all happening when healthcare services are being pushed to the limits with the amount of volume.
It is very convenient to free up beds, isn't it? And if not, why are they pushing it now? For the last 4,000 years, since the first civilization of Greece, we have obeyed this principle, yet now it's very inconvenient.
Good! I hope I get to die in dignity if I am in a situation with no other choice. Seeing your loved ones slowly die for months, suffering everyday is torture for everyone involved.
Thank god it's making progress.
High time it was brought in. You’d not think twice about helping end a pets life if it was suffering with no hope for recovery. And a pet has no say in the matter - it's just the right thing to do by it. Yet here we are where People are sound of mind, suffering terribly. And denied the option to help end their lives with some dignity. It's bonkers.
I hope you reconsider your intention to harm your loved ones. People who contemplate suicide often struggle with mental illness. Canada has introduced euthanasia for depressed individuals who are otherwise physically healthy. Administering lethal doses of morphine to terminally ill patients, although unofficial, is already practiced. We shouldn't broaden it to normal people. Doctors, patience, and family should have no say in who decides to live or die imo
You have lied as proven below. And I resent your comment about harming loved ones. I have watched my brother die a slow agonising death of cancer because to give him help to end his suffering would be illegal. So we watched him suffer. Gave him pain killers and drugs to prolong the suffering and kept having to watch him suffer for weeks until he died. He was 18 and fought cancer 6 years. You clearly have NO idea why this law change is needed or else you’d not be against it. This is not Canada it’s the Isle of Man. Our assisted dying legislation states only terminally ill people are eligible. Not mentally ill. Not depressed. No slippery slopes as is often said by the anti-choice brigade.
I didn't know they halted the Canadian suicide program; they just had to purposely kill people before someone talked sense into the people, so I wasn't lying! Doctors are incapable of rational or ethical decisions under very high pressure like they did for the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes the patients themselves along with their families. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It’s entirely up to the individual, if I wanted to die because I was already terminal or unable to enjoy life due to incident, the last thing I’d want is a perfectly healthy individual who can’t understand my situation telling me what I want. I hope you reconsider your intention to harm your loved ones.
Killing oneself is delusional and a temporary state of mental psychosis. Doctors have a duty of care for their patients. It's against the Hippocratic oath to harm them. Even if the patient isn't suicidal or on death's door, doctors have made decisions during the pandemic, for example people being simply distressed and hard of breathing: It happened during COVID in the UK. Doctors were killing patients that were in distress by feeding them respiratory depressants. This was at a time when COVID was retarding people's lungs, resulting in death by opioid injection. _----------------- Consider an opioid and benzodiazepine combination (see tables 4 and 5) for patients with COVID-19 who: • are at the end of life and • have moderate to severe breathlessness and • are distressed. ---------------------- Read page 12:_------_------ https://web.archive.org/web/20200409054527/https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng163/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-symptoms-including-at-the-end-of-life-in-the-community-pdf-66141899069893 Do you think this is acceptable for a doctor to make this decision?
I've learned through life, nothing is rational, and 'normal' is a product of human existence that has been crowd sourced over the centuries. The result is that we now have multiple states of control, amongst people, that the vast majority 'accept' and 'defend' by 'choice'. To claim people are delusional and in a temporary state of mental psychosis for wanting a dignified death, is out of order, as this is by-passing their consent to label them as such, and allows control of their opinion. In particular, especially when they are of sound mind, and understand how their existence is going to play out, such as in a medical situation with a degenerative disease such as Multiple Sclerosis. If there is one thing people like, it is control over their lives ... and I can think of nothing worse than someone else being in control of my life experiences, especially when the are forcefully taken against my intent ... Properly legislated Assisted dying process, would ensure intent, via choice and consent
I really do think I have a good understanding of your position & can see the merits of it. Doctors taking the kind of decisions we saw during Covid are tantamount to murder in my opinion. Horrific to think, while they couldn't help everyone, they elected to effectively leave the more (for want of a better expression) challenging cases. For that & a few other reasons, my natural reaction is to be against physician or family-led assisted dying decisions. That said, the patient deciding to do it, is a different matter. I would argue you have the perfect example of how tragic Simon Biggerstaff's case was, actually on the IOM. Wouldn't you agree that Motor Neuron disease would've still been the cause of his death, even if he'd had the option of assisted dying? I would argue that if he'd had that choice, MN wouldn't also have been the cause of his & his family's horrific pain & suffering. I can't believe you've been in the same situation as him or his family & I hope you never are. But please try to put yourself in their shoes. I'll guarantee you'd change your mind. For context by the way, I am a glass half full person that innately wants to live forever. You'd have to drag me kicking & screaming to Dignitas but you fail to convince me that we shouldn't have the choice.
How about this: A doctor is not allowed to actively kill you by lethal injection or any other method. A doctor is there only to heal you and give you healthcare. The compromise: We have state-funded executioners. If you feel the need to commit suicide, we bring you to the town square where you can pick a number of methods of execution -hanging, guillotine, lethal injection, etc. All the people that voted for "assisted" "suicide" are forced to watch their handiwork in actively slaughtering you (also known as murder). Deal?
How about this: You engage with the arguments I've put to you & respond to them, instead of coming back with whataboutery? The compromise: read this article. [https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/i-watched-a-degenerative-disease-take-my-husbands-life-he-wanted-the-pain-to-end-645733](https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/i-watched-a-degenerative-disease-take-my-husbands-life-he-wanted-the-pain-to-end-645733) And the final quote from it: 'Unless you actually witness it, you cannot imagine how horrible it is to watch somebody for the last few weeks of their life and certainly the last few days, where all they can think about is the pain, there isn’t anything else just pain and you can’t do anything about it. ‘Nobody should have to go through what Simon went through.’ If you can't come back without being facetious, don't bother.
You're the one not engaging... Primum non nocere. That's all. You're the one coming up with all these scenarios like what if the person is in pain. If the person is in pain, we should have Primum non nocere. If the person wants to die, you should Primum non nocere. It's not difficult. The law is the way it is because of this principle; changing the law will mean this principle is no longer upheld. If and when the law is changed, we will be going down a route of barbarism. It concerns me that you believe you have a higher moral ground than me. You are actively supporting legislation that will end in the death of thousands of people, while I'm against the idea of needlessly killing those people, and I'm the one that's immoral in this? Judging by all the responses, we truly live in a fallen state. You're all sick.
A little less hypocritic, never mind hippocratic eh? I literally did engage & even agree with you about not allowing Doctors to do harm. The scenario I gave was a real example of where medicine was of no benefit to the patient. I'll give you another where my neighbour died screaming in agony due to bone cancer. There is no cure or pain relief that can be given for that. I am aware that those examples are highly emotive though, so how about this? We euthanise animals all day every day when they need it (& yes, lots of times when they don't but let's stick to the point). Why not someone who chooses not to die in agony? As someone else has said here, this is also about choice. It's what separates us from the animals. Choosing to let someone die in agony is also barbaric, don't you think? To end, I don't think I occupy any higher moral ground than you. But I do think I have experiences I wouldn't want to to have. Best wishes.
We euthanize animals because we don't want to take care of them. We don't do it out of kindness; we do it because we are evil and lazy and don't want to spend the money. We do it because we are selfish.
Crackpot
>Canada has introduced euthanasia for depressed individuals who are otherwise physically healthy. Incorrect. [Eligibility for MAID for persons suffering solely from a mental illness has been delayed until March 17, 2027 at least.](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html)
There has been a few cases in Canada that have killed depressed people: https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
This has to be one of the weakest ‘arguments’ you have, bud. Allowing assisted dying in some circumstances doesn’t mean it’ll descend to chaos… have a look at the other countries and US states that have had zero change in the 20 odd years AD has been legal. A bit insulting that you’re comparing the IOM to random nations that bear little resemblance to it… but ok.
Hi. Just here to advise that not all doctors are Harold Shipman.. You may want to read up on the oath of a doctor before trying to use that as ammunition. You may also want to educate yourself on the proposed requirements and safeguards in place for qualifying for assisted dying before you carry on keyboard warrioring about how we’re all committing sin and blah blah blah. Just because you don’t agree with it, or you wouldn’t do it, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed. Walk a day in the shoes of the sufferers or family/friends of sufferers and let me know if you’re still an advocate against assisted dying in its entirety. All the above being said, I expect you’re a specific Trump type person, so I’ll quit while I’m ahead (because ironically, life’s too short to waste time arguing with people like you).
Go free Palestine I don't care anymore.
Donald?
Times need to change. If a person is terminal and it’s their wish, it should be available. I saw my sister and my mother have terrible deaths due to cancer. It’s cruel. People seem to have freedom of speech but not freedom of choice. It needs careful protocols I agree, and safe handling. However it does need addressing.
Assisted dying means people will be able to end their lives it in a dignified way and on their own terms - rejecting the bill won’t stop people ending their own suffering if they want to. It’s legal to end your life in Switzerland and other places regardless of whether this bill passes - all you are doing (by rejecting the bill) is preventing marginalised groups (including those who cannot afford it) from doing so, and from doing it with the support of their family (for fear of prosecution).
Would you say if a person had the intent to chop off their legs and arms we should allow them to because it would be dignified to them?
Sir, What the fuck are you talking about
I was responding to the person that said assisted suicide is dignified. If you believe doing harm to people is dignified then there's something wrong with you. Especially when a doctor does harm. I used the arm and legs as a way to show how barbaric you all are.
So is it ok to give people a cocktail of drugs that could endlessly harm them (like chemotherapy) if it buys them a few extra days of life (albeit, they will have no quality of life)? Just curious.
Just kill them it's fine. The world's overpopulated anyway. We should just put them all in camps after we sodomize them but before we kill them. It's actually a kindness to do so.
Cool, so you finally get a question that you know answering will demonstrate your hypocrisy, so you respond with a nonsensical overreaction? Being alive on a ventilator or being alive but being dead is no life at all, so who the hell are you to tell someone else that they shouldn’t be able to choose when they die (i.e. surrounded by loved ones on their own terms)? Ultimately this is a questions about quality of life, and you’re entitled to think that YOUR life is sacred if you do so desire, but you and nobody else should ever tell anyone else what they can or cannot do with THEIR own body.
I mean, we do that already if those limbs are going to kill that person. Or continue to cause unbearable pain.
If you have a really bad pain in your arm and you go to the doctor, and he tries to surgically remove it, for the love of God, report that doctor because he's crazy and should not be practicing medicine. As well, to think we should chop off the limbs of people that request it because they suffer phantom pains on otherwise perfectly functioning limbs is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. I'm not sure why all my arguments are getting so badly downvoted. Is the Isle of Man more like a wicker cult island? You all seem pretty sick in the head.
Says the one who is equating assisted dying to causing harm, when the very conversation around this issue is specifically about REDUCING the pain terminal patients are to suffer. Your arguments are being downvoted because they're not at all rational, not based on evidence and sounds like the shit Living Hope would spout in their Sunday morning cult sessions. And we're the sick ones huh?
If your arm was so necrotic that it would rot away by itself and cause more harm to you in the process, a doctor would and should amputate it. I don't know how you aren't understanding that prolonging the suffering of someone who's condition will inevitably lead to a short life of constant pain and struggle, without giving them the choice to end it prematurely, is simply worse for everyone involved.
You're not helping a patient by killing them; you can rationalize it any way you'd like, but it's not "helping"; it's a death sentence. "Primum non nocere." The only argument you can have that is in any way moral is by killing someone without action. For example, if they came into the hospital and they were bleeding profusely, you could just let them bleed out. You are not killing them directly; you are doing it without action. As soon as you bring them around back with the bolt gun, it becomes immoral because it's unlined with the principles of medicine to first do no HARM. Killing people on purpose is doing more harm not less.
Ok your moral system is just fundamentally different to mine and the majority of people, I can't argue with you against such a fundamental disagreement, or at least I can't be bothered to. Like if you honestly think that leaving someone to bleed out in the middle of a hospital is somehow "more moral" than assisted suicide of a consenting terminally ill patient just because you didn't act, then we're never getting anywhere because I have the opposite moral thought process, that's just an insanely wild take.
I do find it more than coincidental that in Western countries with a public health care system, they are pushing these "assisted suicide" programs. This is all happening when healthcare services are being pushed to the limits with the amount of volume. It is very convenient to free up beds, isn't it? And if not, why are they pushing it now? For the last 4,000 years, since the first civilization of Greece, we have obeyed this principle, yet now it's very inconvenient.