Dying with Dignity Bill

osarusan

The Dying with Dignity Bill passed stage 2 in the Dail today, by a vote of 81-71 (54/71 votes against were from FF/FG TDs). Still a long way to go yet though. It passes to the committee stage now.


For those interested, here's an extract from the bill itself:

Qualifying persons7.

For the purposes of this Act, a person is a qualifying person if he or she—


(a)is terminally ill,
(b)has a clear and settled intention to end his or her own life and has made adeclaration to that effect in accordance with section9, and

(c)on the day the declaration is made—


(i)the individual is aged 18 or over, and
(ii)is a resident on the island of Ireland and has been for not less than one year.

The devil is in the detail regarding how (a) and (b) are determined and by who, and the broad strokes on those details are here in Sections 8 and 9.


Tentatively, I have no issue with it in principle.

Mules

Where do they get the drugs to do it? Will a doctor have to do it or do they provide the drugs and the person does it themselves?

Parabellum9

osarusan wrote: »

The Dying with Dignity Bill passed stage 2 in the Dail today, by a vote of 81-71 (54/71 votes against were from FF/FG TDs). Still a long way to go yet though. It passes to the committee stage now.


For those interested, here's an extract from the bill itself:





The devil is in the detail regarding how (a) and (b) are determined and by who, and the broad strokes on those details are here in Sections 8 and 9.


Tentatively, I have no issue with it in principle.

Agreed, I don’t see any reason why someone in such a terminal state has to travel to Switzerland or elsewhere to have their wishes fulfilled. Who the **** is anyone else to tell that person they must suffer through life until death? I fully expect we’ll have the usual muppets out in force against this but nobody with a brain or heart ever listens to their wailing so it’s all good.

osarusan

Answers from the bill itself:

Mules wrote: »

Where do they get the drugs to do it?

(3)Any substance or substances prescribed under subsection (1) shall only be delivered to the person for whom they are prescribed—



(a)(i)by the attending medical practitioner, or

(ii)another registered medical practitioner who has been authorised to do so bythe attending medical practitioner,

Mules wrote: »

Will a doctor have to do it or do they provide the drugs and the person does it themselves

Assistance in dying 11.

(1)An attending medical practitioner who has complied with the conditions specified inthis Act may prescribe substance or substances for a qualifying person who has made a valid declaration under section9 to enable that person to end their own life.



(2)Such assistance may be provided by the attending medical practitioner to a qualifyingperson in the following circumstances:


(a)the prescription of substance or substances which can be orally ingested by theperson;

(b)in the case of a person for whom it is impossible or inappropriate to ingest orallythat substance or substances, by prescribing and providing means of self-administration of that substance or substances; and

(c)in the case that it is not possible for the self-administer then the substance or substances may be administered;with the purpose of enabling that person to end his or her own life.

nj27

Loathe the libby victimisation name they put on it, but yeah if you want out nobody should stop. Really hate the libby name on it.

usernamegoes

If this is the most humane approach to suffering (I proposition I agree with it), why should it only available to adults?

osarusan

usernamegoes wrote: »

If this is the most humane approach to suffering (I proposition I agree with it), why should it only available to adults?

I suppose only an adult is considered capable of such a decision.

Parabellum9

usernamegoes wrote: »

If this is the most humane approach to suffering (I proposition I agree with it), why should it only available to adults?

Same as the poster above stated, only an adult would be capable of this decision so it should be restricted as such. Obviously a teenager with a terminal illness in severe pain could be accommodated somehow but this is not a decision to be taken lightly and as such should be age restricted.

1990sman

fuxakes

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

The Dying with Dignity Bill passed stage 2 in the Dail today, by a vote of 81-71 (54/71 votes against were from FF/FG TDs). Still a long way to go yet though. It passes to the committee stage now.


For those interested, here's an extract from the bill itself:





The devil is in the detail regarding how (a) and (b) are determined and by who, and the broad strokes on those details are here in Sections 8 and 9.


Tentatively, I have no issue with it in principle.

Ambiguous: is it A and B, or, A or B

If abortion is allowed, then this is naturally the next step. Good step forwards. People should have the choice.

osarusan

Overheal wrote: »

Ambiguous: is it A and B, or, A or B

A and B.


Qualified persons must be A, B, and C.

eleventh

Deleted User wrote: »

If abortion is allowed, then this is naturally the next step. Good step forwards. People should have the choice.

That's exactly why it should not be allowed!

byhookorbycrook

As someone with a chronic progressive disease , I welcome this . A medication I’m on could also leave me little more than a vegetable, I don’t want to be kept “ alive “ in that case . My best friend’s mother died a dreadful death from MND , her last 48 hours were absolutely harrowing as she struggled for every breath .Do you want that for anyone you love ?

Tom Mann Centuria

Have my doubts it'll make it into law but I hope it does.

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

That's exactly why it should not be allowed!

Why?

I have an elevated chance of getting both Parkinson's, and Alzheimers (through my extreme form of essential tremor). If I do get either or both of them, then I should have the chance to end it. My choice. Dying with dignity, rather than wasting away, pulling my family through hell.


I honestly don't get opinions like yours.

seenitall

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly don't get opinions like yours.

Catholicism idolises suffering. Martyrs, saints and of course the central myth about JC. So, between that and God’s will, who are you to challenge His authority and play God, essentially, by taking the matters of life and death into your own hands? God knows what’s best for ya, scoundrel!

John Hutton

Such a big effort has been put into combatting mental health issues and suicide. Great work has been done to break down stigma and to encourage those suffering from suicidal ideation to "reach out" and "talk to someone" and ultimately to "get help". There has been great success, but much work left to be done.

Sadly it looks like we may be adding an extra layer to this, so that when people suffering from suicidal ideation "reach out" to "talk to someone" and "get help" this help may ultimately be help to kill yourself - that is, once we decide that you have a good enough excuse or reason to want to die. In that instance we can instead make everyone feel a bit better and "right on" by sprucing up and softening the language and make is cosier sounding, "Dying with Dignity" instead of killing yourself, suicide, or assisted suicide.

For now, we have decided that a "good enough excuse or reason" is a terminal illness - but this definition of terminal illness is extremely broad:


With such a broad definition many illnesses could fall under this definition and at different stages than what the words "terminally ill" brings to mind. (In some countries they define "terminal illness" as likely to lead to death in x amount of time, perhaps six or twelve months, in this instance the definition is far looser.).

In many other jurisdictions we have seen a number of other "good enough excuses or reasons" added to the list, including chronic (non terminal) conditions, disability and mental health conditions. And why not? Once you accept the principle that we are happy for, and will help, people kill themselves (or if they are two weak to do it themselves have a doctor kill the patient) once they have a "good enough reason or excuse" then who are we to judge what is a good enough reason and what isn't? How do you decide?

Personally I am strongly against this assisted suicide bill, it represents yet another step and iteration of the commodification of humanity, where when a life is less than optimum it is worth less, and can be discarded.

I think that any individual who is considering suicide or wants to die should receive appropriate counselling, supports, help and in the case of terminal illnesses appropriate palliative and hospice care. Much of Ireland's health system can be terrible but the hospice and palliative care is generally excellent and the people who work in these areas are amazing. Strangely, we have heard very little from these healthcare professionals during this debate.

I believe that the mantra for society should remain "Suicide is never the answer" and should never become "Suicide is never the answer - unless you have a good reason".

kona

All i heard was eamonn dunphy.:pac:

Stihl waters

nj27 wrote: »

Loathe the libby victimisation name they put on it, but yeah if you want out nobody should stop. Really hate the libby name on it.

Libby?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

I think that any individual who is considering suicide or wants to die should receive appropriate counselling, supports, help and in the case of terminal illnesses appropriate palliative and hospice care. Much of Ireland's health system can be terrible but the hospice and palliative care is generally excellent and the people who work in these areas are amazing. Strangely, we have heard very little from these healthcare professionals during this debate.

I believe that the mantra for society should remain "Suicide is never the answer" and should never become "Suicide is never the answer - unless you have a good reason".

So.. let me get this straight. Someone has an incurable disease that puts them (and their family) through absolute hell (along with all the financial costs), with no realistic chance of recovery... and you feel they should just live through it all?

Because a society might include a sub culture that suggests suicide might be allowable under certain circumstances?

NewRed2

It's simplicity complicated by fools. Really it is.

If I'm dying and its terminal, it's my life, I want it to end, that's it. It really is that simple.

It only becomes more complicated than that because we allow it to. We want to complicate the crap out of it because that's what we do but really it's a simple matter.
It's a shame that it has taken this long to even get to the stage it has reached and now the next phase will be to kick it around again but really it's not something that should even be up for debate.

NewRed2

NewRed2 wrote: »

It's simplicity complicated by fools. Really it is.

If I'm dying and its terminal, it's my life, I want it to end, that's it. It really is that simple.

It only becomes more complicated than that because we allow it to. We want to complicate the crap out of it because that's what we do but really it's a simple matter.
It's a shame that it has taken this long to even get to the stage it has reached and now the next phase will be to kick it around again but really it's not something that should even be up for debate.

It's the nature of our society now. To complicate everything so much that making a decision becomes impossible, because every possible concern must be addressed... but there will always be new concerns introduced.

It's stupid really. We make such a big deal about being an adult.. with all the responsibility and costs that comes with it.. but when it comes to giving adults choice over their own future, they're not capable of deciding for themselves. Instead, there must be some psychological deficiency involved.

nj27

nj27 wrote: »

Loathe the libby victimisation name they put on it, but yeah if you want out nobody should stop. Really hate the libby name on it.

What?

Parabellum9

John Hutton wrote: »

Such a big effort has been put into combatting mental health issues and suicide. Great work has been done to break down stigma and to encourage those suffering from suicidal ideation to "reach out" and "talk to someone" and ultimately to "get help". There has been great success, but much work left to be done.

Sadly it looks like we may be adding an extra layer to this, so that when people suffering from suicidal ideation "reach out" to "talk to someone" and "get help" this help may ultimately be help to kill yourself - that is, once we decide that you have a good enough excuse or reason to want to die. In that instance we can instead make everyone feel a bit better and "right on" by sprucing up and softening the language and make is cosier sounding, "Dying with Dignity" instead of killing yourself, suicide, or assisted suicide.

You haven’t a clue what this is about, it’s not some trendy new cop out for mental health cases or people who want to kill themselves ffs. It’s for the terminally ill, those in unbearable pain who are counting and hoping for the day they will pass and end their suffering. It’s giving them the option to go out on their own terms and a time of their choosing

PHG

eleventh wrote: »

That's exactly why it should not be allowed!

Do you care to elaborate on this?

Why shouldn't someone with a terminal illness and suffering not be able to go out on their terms?

Nigel Fairservice

I support the proposed legislation. Nobody is saying you have to use it but gives people the choice at least if they so wish. I have multiple sclerosis, the same illness as some of the campaigners in the area like Marie Fleming had. I hope my MS doesn't progress that far but if it did I'd at least like to have a choice.

John Hutton

Parabellum9 wrote: »

You haven’t a clue what this is about, it’s not some trendy new cop out for mental health cases or people who want to kill themselves ffs. It’s for the terminally ill, those in unbearable pain who are counting and hoping for the day they will pass and end their suffering. It’s giving them the option to go out on their own terms and a time of their choosing

According to the definition of "terminally ill" in the bill it is not only people in the scenario you outline who can avail of assisted suicide.

Under the definition of the bill a person could "avail" of assisted suicide in a situation where they are diagnosed with an illness which is terminal, perhaps many years into the future, and also taking medication that alleviates the symptoms of their illness to the extent that they have very good quality of life. Read the image in my first post, that is the text directly from the bill.

If you are saying that only terminally ill people experiencing unbearable pain and suffering should be able to avail of assisted suicide then you are in stark disagreement with this bill.

Parabellum9

John Hutton wrote: »

According to the definition of "terminally ill" in the bill it is not only people in the scenario you outline who can avail of assisted suicide.

Under the definition of the bill a person could "avail" of assisted suicide in a situation where they are diagnosed with an illness which is terminal, perhaps many years into the future, and also taking medication that alleviates the symptoms of their illness to the extent that they have very good quality of life. Read the image in my first post, that is the text directly from the bill.

If you are saying that only terminally ill people experiencing unbearable pain and suffering should be able to avail of assisted suicide then you are in stark disagreement with this bill.

Read the text of the bill you copied, then read it again, then read it once more and come back.

John Hutton

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Read the text of the bill you copied, then read it again, then read it once more and come back.

Why don't you explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding of the following? It means what I said it did.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

I have an elevated chance of getting both Parkinson's, and Alzheimers (through my extreme form of essential tremor). If I do get either or both of them, then I should have the chance to end it. My choice. Dying with dignity, rather than wasting away, pulling my family through hell.

I wonder whether, in the event of somebody getting one/both of these conditions, or any condition which results in dinimished mental capacity, they would meet the criteria for capacity to make such a decison.

Subsection 4 of the Assessment of Capactity section seems like it was worded to allow for people with such conditions:

(4)The fact that a person is able to retain the information relevant to a decision for a short period only does not prevent him or her from being regarded as having the capacity to make the decision