Dying with Dignity Bill

Akrasia

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, I’m scared shitless. Absolutely bricking it. I put it out my mind because thinking about death freaks me out so much. I was always afraid of death and when I got my diagnosis, well firstly I felt like the universe was laughing at me and secondly, I didn’t feel a calm wash over me, I went into pure panic mode. And that hasn’t really diminished much over the years. I’ve just learned to compartmentalise it better.

This morning, a new lump has popped up in my armpit. Oh joy.

I totally get your fear of death, I’m terrified of death too, not that dying itself is terrible, or that I’m worried about an afterlife, it’s that I hate not being there for my kids or my wife etc

I want to be remembered as who I am now, not as someone wasting away in hospital or palliative care

I’m sorry if I’m projecting myself onto you

1990sman

well morgan freeman certainly isnt getting involved....

so ye can draw your conclusions

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.

Does that mean the person must satisfy a), b) and c)?


If so, I think the parameters need to be broadened. There is a myriad of conditions which in themselves are not terminal but are all a suffering of hell which it's conceivable someone would want to escape from.



Obviously, getting this Bill pushed through would be a start, but, it needs to be broadened, is my point.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Akrasia wrote: »

I totally get your fear of death, I’m terrified of death too, not that dying itself is terrible, or that I’m worried about an afterlife, it’s that I hate not being there for my kids or my wife etc

I want to be remembered as who I am now, not as someone wasting away in hospital or palliative care

I’m sorry if I’m projecting myself onto you

No way, not at all! It’s interesting!

The guilt is the worst part. My husband thought we’d have decades together. I hoped to be there for my parents when they get older. They’ve done so much for me. So yeah, the people you leave behind, that’s the hardest part.

I actually want to be alone at the end because being surrounded by loved ones saying goodbye sounds unbearable. Sadly, I don’t think that will happen because it’s not just about me.

1990sman

well guess who i wont be seeing in heaven. haha.

Gervais08

I signed up to Dignitas a few years ago but to be able to end my leave in a manner and at a time of my choosing would be preferable.

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

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.

I’d imagine the declaration would be signed in the presence of a solicitor or a person appointed to represent the States interest.

This is why though I would prefer that the decision to permit a medical professional specialising in termination of life care would have to make an application to the courts in each case, so that the decision would be made by the courts, and not by medical professionals or solicitors or even the individual who is seeking assistance to end their own life.

I don’t support assisted suicide in any case, and I don’t imagine there are many medical professionals who do, which is why I’m glad to see a conscience clause included - many medical professionals, apart from any particular individual moral objections, simply won’t have the training or the experience not to fcuk it up, frankly.

So it’s better for all concerned that the person performing the procedure is an objective party and has experience and training, though how compassionate that person may be is another matter entirely. I wouldn’t expect them to be compassionate, personally, though some people may be offended or upset by the idea that an objective party doesn’t appear to care for their individual welfare.

Having said all that, I can still see this bill being passed into law, which means it’s just another pain in the arse to have to urge anyone to reconsider their decision when they find themselves confronted with the reality that this bill is suggested accommodates. I’m not too concerned the idea that hospitals and hospices will be over-run with patients clamouring for advance healthcare directives, difficult enough as it is to convince people of the benefits of making a valid will in this country already, never mind a declaration that they want to end their own life.

mvl

just throwing here info from the NZ referendum, they have proposed following conditions // quote from the article i linked in my earlier post
<<

• Be aged 18 years or over.
• Be a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
• Suffer from a terminal illness that's likely to end their life within six months.
• Have significant and ongoing decline in physical capability.
• Experience unbearable suffering that cannot be eased.
• Be able to make an informed decision about assisted dying.

The Government says those whose only reason for requesting euthanasia is that they are suffering from a mental disorder or mental illness, have a disability, or are of advanced age are not eligible.
>>

TBH, I do feel there is more protection from abuse with the NZ law described above, they seem to target it for the terminal cases -> and this format is more favorable in my view.

One eyed Jack

mvl wrote: »

TBH, I do feel there is more protection from abuse with the NZ law described above, they seem to target it for the terminal cases -> and this format is more favorable in my view.

The terms of the bill being proposed seem to offer the same protection from abuse as the NZ law, targeting very specifically terminal cases which any form of alleviating the symptoms would only be prolonging the inevitable -


For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if that person—

(a) has been diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having an incurable and progressive illness which cannot be reversed by treatment, and the person is likely to die as a result of that illness or complications relating thereto (“a terminal illness”), and

(b) treatment which only relieves the symptoms of an inevitably progressive condition temporarily is not to be regarded for the purposes of paragraph (a) as treatment which can reverse that condition.

John Hutton

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The terms of the bill being proposed seem to offer the same protection from abuse as the NZ law, targeting very specifically terminal cases which any form of alleviating the symptoms would only be prolonging the inevitable -


For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if that person—

(a) has been diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having an incurable and progressive illness which cannot be reversed by treatment, and the person is likely to die as a result of that illness or complications relating thereto (“a terminal illness”), and

(b) treatment which only relieves the symptoms of an inevitably progressive condition temporarily is not to be regarded for the purposes of paragraph (a) as treatment which can reverse that condition.

You can have a terminal illness and live for ten years or more with it, receiving treatment to stall things or keep it at bay. There are countless people living good lives with cancer for example, but know that it will get them eventually because it can't be cured. Under the wording of this law, in the absence of a defined time frame for death (i.e. expected to die in 6 months) these people, living with cancer, would be eligible on day one of their diagnosis.

When one reads "terminal illness" they think of people wasting away on their death bed, and when you read "treatment which only relieves the symptoms" you think of someone on their death bed being kept barely alive in great pain. In reality though, this is not always, or even often, the case.

Gervais08

John Hutton wrote: »

You can have a terminal illness and live for ten years or more with it, receiving treatment to stall things or keep it at bay. There are countless people living good lives with cancer for example, but know that it will get them eventually because it can't be cured. Under the wording of this law, in the absence of a defined time frame for death (i.e. expected to die in 6 months) these people, living with cancer, would be eligible on day one of their diagnosis.

When one reads "terminal illness" they think of people wasting away on their death bed, and when you read "treatment which only relieves the symptoms" you think of someone on their death bed being kept barely alive in great pain. In reality though, this is not always, or even often, the case.

Dementia would not be covered under our Bill I believe but that is a condition that will have me flying to Switzerland.

I just can’t go through it.

One eyed Jack

John Hutton wrote: »

You can have a terminal illness and live for ten years or more with it, receiving treatment to stall things or keep it at bay. There are countless people living good lives with cancer for example, but know that it will get them eventually because it can't be cured. Under the wording of this law, in the absence of a defined time frame for death (i.e. expected to die in 6 months) these people, living with cancer, would be eligible on day one of their diagnosis.

When one reads "terminal illness" they think of people wasting away on their death bed, and when you read "treatment which only relieves the symptoms" you think of someone on their death bed being kept barely alive in great pain. In reality though, this is not always, or even often, the case.

I agree with you on everything you’ve just said, and it’s wonderful for those people who want to avail of those treatments to prolong their lives. Cystic fibrosis for example is a terminal illness, it doesn’t simply disappear after a lung transplant - born with it, will die with it, and in the meantime there have been amazing strides made in terms of medical advances.

But for those people who simply do not want to avail of those medical advances which could prolong their lives, and they don’t want to take their own lives, and they can’t be convinced otherwise, I’d rather the decision was in the hands of the courts as to whether their application to avail of assisted suicide could be permitted or not, than them asking a family member to put them out of their misery.

You’re contradicting yourself with the part in bold btw and I just thought it was worth pointing out that if you don’t think of people with a terminal illness that way, what are your reasons for thinking anyone else thinks any differently?

I’d say it would very much depend upon people’s own individual experiences, or indeed lack thereof and what they imagine constitutes a terminal illness, but that would have no bearing on an actual diagnosis of a terminal illness, which is what the proposed legislation requires.

Ten of Swords

1990sman banned from the CA forum

suicide_circus

Gervais08 wrote: »

I signed up to Dignitas a few years ago but to be able to end my leave in a manner and at a time of my choosing would be preferable.

I see Dignitas offer assisted suicide to those with mental illness, dont think Ireland's quite ready for that one!

biko

Don't worry, once the gates are open I'm sure they will widen to eventually allow assisted suicide for people with depression as well.

It is possible for minors over the age of 12 to seek assisted suicide in the Netherlands, under certain conditions. If there, why not here...

biko

biko wrote: »

Don't worry, once the gates are open I'm sure they will widen to eventually allow assisted suicide for people with depression as well.

It is possible for minors over the age of 12 to seek assisted suicide in the Netherlands, under certain conditions. If there, why not here...

Why not!

biko

We don't trust them to drink, to drive, or to vote - because they are children and their brains are still developing/adjusting.
But some trust them to make a life ending decision.

Seems a bit rash to me.

How many of them are actually ever assisted to die?
Just because there is an option there, doesn't mean there's too many actually succeed.

Devastating for any parent to come home & find their child has killed themselves, if anything, I would imagine this option means that teenagers come forward about these issues instead of hiding them. Probably means a lot more of them receive help.

biko

Can you not just use the Google machine and make a statement backed up by sources?

biko

biko wrote: »

Can you not just use the Google machine and make a statement backed up by sources?

I don't have to. I'm not making any assertions or claiming any facts.
I'm merely saying that, in my opinion, it could be a good thing.
Don't see anything wrong with it anyway

Kivaro

New Zealand citizens have voted to make assisted dying to be legal for terminally ill people. Preliminary results showed 65.2% of voters supported the End of Life Choice Act coming into force as a new law.

Wonder why the Irish are not allowed to have a referendum on this issue like the Kiwis? (Rhetorical question really .....).
This type of choice should be available in all progressive and modern countries, but it seems Ireland is only progressive in some aspects of our lives.
We should be allowed to directly vote on this choice.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

New Zealand citizens have voted to make assisted dying to be legal for terminally ill people. Preliminary results showed 65.2% of voters supported the End of Life Choice Act coming into force as a new law.

Wonder why the Irish are not allowed to have a referendum on this issue like the Kiwis? (Rhetorical question really .....).
This type of choice should be available in all progressive and modern countries, but it seems Ireland is only progressive in some aspects of our lives.
We should be allowed to directly vote on this choice.

The reason we have referendums is because there's constitutional requirements to. In this case, there's nothing preventing it under the constitution and I'd doubt the government have a desire to add an amendment to the constitution for it as that tends to make things messier, eg recognising the right to death with dignity. It's something that should be handled by legislation imho.

Loafing Oaf

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason we have referendums is because there's constitutional requirements to. In this case, there's nothing preventing it under the constitution

Gino Kenny thinks a referendum might be needed, not sure why

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-may-be-needed-for-dying-with-dignity-bill-says-gino-kenny-1.4376033

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason we have referendums is because there's constitutional requirements to. In this case, there's nothing preventing it under the constitution and I'd doubt the government have a desire to add an amendment to the constitution for it as that tends to make things messier, eg recognising the right to death with dignity. It's something that should be handled by legislation imho.

There is a bill out there and it has been moved to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice for "examination". Their report could take many months or maybe years or may never be produced. The legislation faces significant resistance from members of the medical profession as happened in New Zealand.

If there was certainty that our loved ones (and ourselves) could be pain free near the end of life then this bill would not be necessary, but too many of us have seen the suffering that terminal patients go through, which is barbaric .... for a modern society.