Assisted Dying Debate

The religious thing confuses me. Most (all?) religions believe in an afterlife, one that is better than this one. Why therefore do they oppose the idea of dying so much?

One better than this one? No, it all depends in the way a person lives the present life.  Do good in present life then good afterlife, do bad in present life then suffer the consequences.  Not difficult to comprehend.  At the end of the day we all die.  If you belief there is an afterlife then try your best to do good, but if you think we will just turn into fertiliser then do as you wish after all you are responsible for whatever you are in this life.

Note, I am presenting a viewpoint from my understanding of religion.  The basic fundamental of all religions is not to force others but to persuade others with their reasoning.  But this true teaching is corrupted over the centuries by politics and those that proclaimed in the name of whoever.  I mean most don’t even understand what religion means but they certainly know all the symbols associated with religions and the way they can hijack religions for their own desire.

I have never come across a single true religious teaching that says go force others to convert. Is that logical?  Nope. The logic is very simple, if you belief the teaching do you good then you follow for your own good.  The rest can do as they wish until they come to their senses. Save the world?  Why?   A better approach would be to save yourself first.  I am not saying being selfish. I am saying that a person should set a good example and live the life as he believes.  If people wish to learn then learn from the good examples.

Remember the “pioneer” or the founder of the religions never forced others to believe them but to let others come to him for advice?  If his advice was logical or made sense people followed.  The moment the founder died, that’s where all the imperfection started and the political corruption set in to rule.

Prophets can from various teachings from various religions.  The delivery and the format might be different but the fundamental of the teachings is the same.

How a person wish to live or to die is entirely their own.  No one is perfect when s/he still walks this earth (there are exception but I don’t know who they are in this life).

The other thing that confuses me are people who say we shouldn’t have assisted dying, we should have better palliative care. Can we not aspire to have both? It really doesn’t need to be either or

The former is a decision that is not natural, while the latter in palliative care means a “natural” death. i.e. in most religious beliefs (my understanding) if a person cut short own life or because the person cannot bear the suffering, then the person has Not completely paid off the life debts (pain, suffering whatever happening to self is part of debt repayment).  This will then be passed onto the next life wherever the person will be.  The cycle continues until such time as the person understand and pays it off in whatever future life they have.

That’s one reason I said it’s not a good idea to cut short own life because the debts have not been repaid. But to those without religious belief, this is just illogical. i.e. in the mind of those without religion, a pain must be cured.  If it cannot be cured (assuming it is beyond cure and in extreme pain) then it must be cut short to avoid further suffering, and that’s logical.

As Buddha once said, the ceremony for the dead is actually Not for the dead but for the living. i.e. in those days free food was offered to the people who attended the funeral or in another word, something to be gained.

Fast forward to the notion of assisted dying.  Is that for the living or for the sufferer?  There is a very thin veil between compassion and deliberate. i.e. the intention.  Remember, although the sufferer is suffering, they are not the only person suffering but everyone associated with them suffer because they are linked or know the person very well.  Sometimes, we get tired and the suffering is difficult to bear and we just want a quick solution.  When we offer such a quick solution we feel “compassionate” for the sufferer.  We think we have done the right thing.  From a religious perspective, the debts have not been repaid and the person will continue to suffer in the next life, and instead of helping this actually creates more problems for that person.   From a none religious perspective it is over and the pain is gone.

As Buddhist, we say bear with it but this is easier said than done until one is faced with the dilemma.

Therefore, walk your own path.

Do as you wish but remember if there is such thing as after life then face the consequences.  But if there is no afterlife then live well in this remaining life and make sure you fertilise the ground so we can plant vegetables for food after life expires.

it can when the hospice system costs the tax-payer nothing/very little as it’s mostly a charity funded enterprise. Bringing hospice care within the remit of NHS would be a societal benefit but costly.

A hospice is not the only source of palliative care. NHS and community care.  People die all over the place.

The way this type of law would work ( drawing on experience from other jurisdictions) is that one you receive your terminal diagnosis you make your application then.  Keep the big blue pill for if and when needed.  Sometimes its enough to know its there.  It could be weeks or months later you take it if at all but you get the paperwork done

Is also the case. I don’t think it’s fair to single out the religious.

Ironically, the saying “If God is for us, who can be against us?” springs to mind.

I can only draw on my limited life experiences personally, but Mrs FD is directly involved in dealing with terminally ill cancer patients and palliative care.

We had a dog that died about 7 yrs ago. She started goi g deaf, changes in behaviour then one morning she clearly was in pain and being sick. We got our vet out and with an 1hr she was at peace and her suffering was over. It was a very dignified death for all involved

On the other hand my Brother in Law had brain cancer. Now we don’t know the details because obviously we were not involved in consultations ie we are not even sure that my BIL talked to his wife about the details, but the long and short, it appeared they both ignored the situation. He rapidly became unwell, she had to stop working, he then quickly ended up in a hospice where he died. It wasn’t a good death unfortunately as both had not talked through the elephant in te room (death)

Mrs FD tells many people a week that they have a terminal condition. She says everyone deals with the news differently, but she does say that many ask and don’t want a bad/painful death , and don’t like the fact that for possibly for the first time in their life things are out of their control

I have directly asked her would she find it hard to be a doc enabling the assisted dying. She said no as at that point it takes away the pain and suffering, gives the patient back some control and gives them a dignified, good death

She does have concerns however that Palistive care needs to be better in some areas and safeguarding in place

As I would imagine you are all already aware . At end of life docs do already provide pain relief which a side effect can be that the body can no longer sustain. I know that conversations are already had that we can stop your pain, but the consequences are that your body may well not be able to keep going.

My personal view is that death needs to be less of a taboo. Talk to your family about what you want to happen / not happen. The only thing we can all be certain of is that we will die, yet not many people talk to their family and friends about how they can have a dignified and good death .

The Dutch have had euthanasia since 2002. They’ve gradually extended its scope to include psychological pain and dementia.

In 2023 – 5.4% of all deaths were by euthanasia.

They seem to be getting on with it okay (mostly).

@dyna-ti I remember very well the deceptively named ‘Scotland for Marriage’ group campaigning against same sex marriage. Likely the same people.

Does that make them bad people? I’m sure they think they are saving us from ourselves and giving us a chance however that’s their help to offer but not something anyone should be compelled to take.

For all those people claiming GPs shouldn’t be compelled to refer folk how is this any different to abortion, organ transplants or blood transfusions for certain religions? These matters have already been dealt with, this is just one more thing to add to the list.  If you don’t want to deal with this then maybe find another area to specialise in.

Raising questions once again over the state of palliative care in England and Wales, Abbott told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme: “We’re moving to a situation where it will be cheaper for a GP to get a very ill person to sign on the dotted line for assisted suicide than to find them a place in a hospice.”

WTF is going on in her head?  She has got seriously weird as she has got older.  Where is the militant pro choice campaigner?  There is zero real evidence of anything like this happening worldwide bar one Canadian case which the antis have distorted out of all recognition

Its literally impossible for this to happen as things are suggested in the Westminster bill.  Idiot.

If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death and euthanasia. Coercion will be systemic.

And the safeguarding will be in the hands of our cash strapped NHS and judiciary.

I support it in principle, but I can’t support it now

I’m wondering, reading all the discussions about intervention and religious perspectives, how does the UK work this out. Abbot and others today, trying to gain traction for an opposing view. Raising fears of coercion, while the bill seems to have safeguards for that. Religious pressure groups trying to bring some kind of morality and ethics, sanctity of life to the discussion to justify their opposition.
But in almost every other medical intervention, we don’t rely on religious viewpoints, we look at evidence that examines outcomes that improve life, or reduce pain and suffering. I have been involved with programs that involve discussion about how pain should to be regarded as the 4th vital sign and should be treated with as much urgency. (Sickle cell disease as an example).
So, for assisted dying, how can we look at some kind of objective outcome of improved experience resulting from the decision to end things earlier? Ability to reduce pain and suffering; ability to engage with family and friends to do this with dignity in a place and time of your choosing.
If it might be possible to take some of the overly hyperbolic discussion out of the argument, would it be possible to show that this is a better option for those who wish to take this path. Religious types can choose suffering as religion seems to reward earthly suffering, the rest of us can take a more dignified road and celebrate the end of our journey properly with the people we hold dear.

If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death

Not sure if I misunderstood your point, but good palliative care does not mean you won’t necessarily have pain or suffering, or wish you could end it.

Good palliative care is there to explain your options, provide support in your last weeks, and not just leave someone thinking the only option is to take a pill to prevent dying without appropriate care.

If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death and euthanasia. Coercion will be systemic.

If this law does not go thru then people will have no choice at all.  Its not a zero sum game.  You can do both and should do both

People are already choosing to forgo palliative care when they would otherwise have gone with it were it not for the current law. People are choosing to die earlier because they know they can not ask for help to die later. They are administering their own drugs or going abroad. The current law is shortening some people’s lives. People seem to be forgetting that.

Medication in the last weeks of life:

Our current law allows for treatment to be given to cover symptoms and at the end of life to do so “recklessly” ie without significant consideration for ill effects.

The norm is a syringe driver which slowly pumps a mix of drugs.  Usually an opiate with sedation used often.  You can only administer painkillers if the person is in pain, you can only administer sedatives if the person is distressed or agitated.  Normally there are both “top up” drugs available – again usually a sedative and painkiller.  At home this is either oral and can be administered by the family or injection from district nurses.  Every day a decision about dosage is made looking at current dosage and top ups and assessing the patient.  There are algorithms to help in dosage decisions.  Because of tolerance after weeks you have huge dosages and a serious opiate addiction.

Good palliative medication under our current law can only alleviate pain fear and distress.  It can never eliminate it because of the way the law works.  You have to be in pain to get painkillers, you have to be in fear and distress to get sedatives.  Done well with some anticipation these periods need only be short but they can never be eliminated

“If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death and euthanasia. Coercion will be systemic.”

“Palliative care isn’t always adequate so let’s make people suffer an avoidable torturous death by force of law.”

I’m really baffled that people think this is a valid argument to make.

“Palliative care isn’t always adequate so let’s make people suffer an avoidable torturous death by force of law.”

I’m really baffled that people think this is a valid argument to make.

Exactly!  Not to mention this bit:

Coercion will be systemic

So if palliative care is not good enough, what we have today is “coercion” to stay alive and suffer because assisted death/suicide are “wrong” and anyone who helps you faces the risk of criminal prosecution.