A Duty To Die?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by georgepomone

I knew something like this would happen. I'm 64 this year, before I'm able to draw anything they will send me a gun to shoot myself.

That's what the increase in the State pension is for! Happy saving!

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I personally think the German model would work better for us as a country, providing the funding required.

I'd be inclined to agree. The manner in which the NHS is funded is one no other democratic nation follows, and for good reason.

I think I have a history of preferring single payer insurance with private top-ups and co-pays on here. Brings in more private sector money which is, obviously, a good thing.

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Which you have to question why these drugs costs so much.

is it because the ingredients have been specially collected from a far away galaxy where no man has ventured before?

in other words. could these 'expensive' drugs be sold for £5 a pop in the real world. if you take greed and profit out of it?

The development costs are massive, Gary, and of the drugs trialled only a fraction actually make it out to the marketplace.

Producing them tends to be pretty cheap, it's the massive investment in research and development the prices have to recoup, and they have to recoup them before the drugs become generic.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I had not actually read your post before this one, however a comment on that article says what I would have.



The last year of life is a huge proportion of a person's entire lifetime's healthcare bill. It's one of the key places where lack of funding of the NHS will manifest unfortunately.

I've said it through this thread I don't trust the safe guards, I don't trust them not to be watered down and I don't trust politicians to act in our best interests. The evidence from Europe backs up what I've been saying all along. If we could guarantee it'd only be used in the final hour/days/weeks of someone's life when they're in intolerable pain no one here would argue against it but it won't be, Europe has shown us that already. I can see it now as well someone who is very ill goes to court with the best of intentions so they can be assisted and it'll be eroded that way.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Which you have to question why these drugs costs so much.

is it because the ingredients have been specially collected from a far away galaxy where no man has ventured before?

in other words. could these 'expensive' drugs be sold for £5 a pop in the real world. if you take greed and profit out of it?

if we did that then we'd have no drug companies left in the real world

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Which you have to question why these drugs costs so much.

is it because the ingredients have been specially collected from a far away galaxy where no man has ventured before?

in other words. could these 'expensive' drugs be sold for £5 a pop in the real world. if you take greed and profit out of it?

Are you for real?
I'm no fan of a lot of what big pharma does but if they spend millions developing a drug, take it through all the trial stages and finally get it to market, and the market is for one in 20 million people, then that drug is going to cost a lot to buy.
Also don't forget that a lot of the drugs they try to develop don't make it to market. Those R&D millions are down the drain. That loss has to be covered by the drugs that do make it to market.
I agree with the 'greed' part of your final statement but 'profit'?......these companies couldn't exist without making a profit.
Numpty

[Arthurgray50@blu]

This Baroness should hang her head in shame.

Wether you have dementia or any other serious illness, the NHS should look after you till your demise.

I look at life this way. I have lived on this planet for 63 years, l have paid into the coffers since l started work.

Therefore, l strongly believe that ALL medical care should be made available to help either cure the condition or ease the pain.

Last Friday, a very good friend of mine passed away with bowel cancer and is being cremated on Friday, he decline medical care on similar care BUT he was told that medical care would only give him several more months.
To me if the care is there - then you should have it

[Ignitionnet]

That would be the ideal but it's not possible unfortunately. It's all well and good paying into the coffers but on the most recent stats I read 38% receive more, even during their working lives, than they put in.

We need more privately funded healthcare to compliment the NHS, alongside abandoning funding from general taxation in favour of single payer insurance.

Would help pull the NHS away from being a political football amongst other things.

EDIT: Incidentally I don't think anyone advocates involuntary euthanasia. At least I'd hope not. That's a bit much. However there has to be some pragmatism over what the NHS can afford and even more so with our ageing population. Cold as it may seem throwing hundreds of thousands of pounds at someone to give them a very few more months of extremely low quality life is a tough sell.

I am still utterly convinced that the option of euthanasia should be open to people though.

[TheDaddy]

Back in the news with another tragic case, how can anyone not to sympathise with them and their families

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-32881161

Rob George, president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said he was concerned about any possible law change.

He said: "This is a dangerous distraction from providing decent health care, and actually it's the dying that we need to look after.

"Our job is to look after people as they die... not in order that they die."

I understand your concerns Mr George

[rogerdraig]

we can sympathise but still not agree

[TheDaddy]

This is what we want here? Struck of doctors sending depressed non terminally ill people to a clinic that loots the deads valuables and is happy to let people die in cars if there are no rooms available. Those safeguards they have in place are looking hollow which was my fear all along.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-suicide.html

[TheDaddy]

Death party fundraisers, sounds worse than it is actually and they might find it actually helps aid their cause

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...s-suicide.html

[TheDaddy]

Finally something Dave and I agree on, albeit my stance has softened over the years admittedly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34208624

[Ignitionnet]

*Sigh*

Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, welcomed the rejection of the legislation, saying the current law existed to protect those who were sick, elderly, depressed or disabled.

He said: "It protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion, it acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing."

Under the proposals, people with fewer than six months to live could have been prescribed a lethal dose of drugs, which they had to be able to take themselves. Two doctors and a High Court judge would have needed to approve each case.

I could understand if there were concerns about safeguards, in which case the obvious response would seem to be to table amendments to remedy the issues, however I'm approaching it from a logical point of view which is something our elected representatives appear to struggle with.

Usual BS from the SNP I see.

"We should support letting people live every day of their lives till the end," she said, and she urged MPs to vote for "life and dignity, not death".

Indeed. Because few things say life and dignity quite like forcing a terminally ill person to spend their last months in agony enjoying the dignity of their body breaking down, right?

It's astounding. We euthanise animals even though we have advanced veterinary medicine as their quality of life becomes severely impaired, we consider this 'humane', however despite the majority of the population supporting it our elected representatives refuse to extend this to human beings. Death isn't a pleasant thought but it's going to happen to all of us, and whether we like it or not some of us will be unfortunate enough to know that we are going to die imminently, and may suffer horribly in the interim as our bodies fail us. At some point many of the terminal ill stop living even though they're still breathing and are simply dying, and for some each day will become increasingly wearisome. If it's clear there's no chance of recovery, and continuing to breathe is prolonging torment (it's a stretch to call it 'living') there should be a choice.

Base emotion, alongside some religious fervour, has managed to override humanity

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

This is what we want here? Struck of doctors sending depressed non terminally ill people to a clinic that loots the deads valuables and is happy to let people die in cars if there are no rooms available. Those safeguards they have in place are looking hollow which was my fear all along.

No it isn't, which is why it wasn't what was on the table. 2 doctors both of whom are not struck off and a High Court judge's agreement required. Not that it made any difference of course.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

*Sigh*





I could understand if there were concerns about safeguards, in which case the obvious response would seem to be to table amendments to remedy the issues, however I'm approaching it from a logical point of view which is something our elected representatives appear to struggle with.

Usual BS from the SNP I see.



Indeed. Because few things say life and dignity quite like forcing a terminally ill person to spend their last months in agony enjoying the dignity of their body breaking down, right?

It's astounding. We euthanise animals even though we have advanced veterinary medicine as their quality of life becomes severely impaired, we consider this 'humane', however despite the majority of the population supporting it our elected representatives refuse to extend this to human beings. Death isn't a pleasant thought but it's going to happen to all of us, and whether we like it or not some of us will be unfortunate enough to know that we are going to die imminently, and may suffer horribly in the interim as our bodies fail us. At some point many of the terminal ill stop living even though they're still breathing and are simply dying, and for some each day will become increasingly wearisome. If it's clear there's no chance of recovery, and continuing to breathe is prolonging torment (it's a stretch to call it 'living') there should be a choice.

Base emotion, alongside some religious fervour, has managed to override humanity

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------



No it isn't, which is why it wasn't what was on the table. 2 doctors both of whom are not struck off and a High Court judge's agreement required. Not that it made any difference of course.

Was that what the Swiss were expecting when they legalised it then, people left to die in cars whilst their valuables are looted, all under the observation of struck of doctors to boot, their existing laws watered down so not just the terminally ill can benefit but those who are simply a bit tired can to and if it's not what they were expecting how long before the same happens here, saying a high court judge is involved so all will be fine isn't what it seems either, from what I've heard they will be there as a tidying up exercise for the paperwork and none of that sounds very humane to me either

All I see here is the boomer generation once again agitating for what they want, when they want it. And, for once, I see legislators standing up for the benefit of wider society as being more important than the unfettered free choice of an individual.

Years ago when my wife phoned our GP surgery to make an appointment to confirm a pregnancy, the very first thing the secretary asked her over the phone was "do you want to keep it?". A small point I know, but it illustrates how, in the minds of some at least, something which is framed in legislation as a closely-controlled last resort has become just another lifestyle choice.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that legal assisted dying, regardless of the safeguards, would result in social pressure and a shift in attitudes amongst younger people towards the frail, elderly, bed-blocking members of our society who cost us all a fortune in medical bills and pensions.

The weight of social and legal pressure is firmly against suicide and that's as it should be. Some people undoubtedly suffer as they approach death. I have watched it happen at close quarters and it is tragic. It is, however, unavoidable if we wish to continue to exist as a society in which we have connection with and responsibility towards everyone else, even those whose names we never knew.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

All I see here is the boomer generation once again agitating for what they want, when they want it. And, for once, I see legislators standing up for the benefit of wider society as being more important than the unfettered free choice of an individual.

Surveys of the public over a reasonable period seem to disagree.

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Was that what the Swiss were expecting when they legalised it then, people left to die in cars whilst their valuables are looted, all under the observation of struck of doctors to boot, their existing laws watered down so not just the terminally ill can benefit but those who are simply a bit tired can to and if it's not what they were expecting how long before the same happens here, saying a high court judge is involved so all will be fine isn't what it seems either, from what I've heard they will be there as a tidying up exercise for the paperwork and none of that sounds very humane to me either

You presumably mean as hasn't happened with legalised abortion in the 48 years since the Abortion Act of 1967 was passed - conditions actually being made more strict by a change from a limit of 28 weeks to 24?