Allinson ~ assisted dying won't be the "cause of death" to get life insurance payouts

[wrighty]

32 minutes ago, Zarley said:

I was thinking the living will would stop the coercion by helping granny stick to her guns against scheming family members. If a person can be so easily led against something they have strong enough conviction over that they went to the trouble of creating a supporting legal document, can they really be said to be of sound mind?

The concern is that coercion will be more subtle than that, and that the only way to avoid it is to not allow assisted dying under any circumstances.  It's not an argument I accept.  It's a bit like not allowing cash to exist in case some people use it to buy drugs. Or not allowing anyone to have a car in case some people drive too fast. I'm sure better analogies exist.  I'd rather the groups wanting assisted dying outlawed completely instead focused their efforts on ensuring it is safeguarded and regulated.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Zarley said:

I was thinking the living will would stop the coercion by helping granny stick to her guns against scheming family members. If a person can be so easily led against something they have strong enough conviction over that they went to the trouble of creating a supporting legal document, can they really be said to be of sound mind?

It won't help granny stick to her guns. If she is susceptible to any coercion, she will also be susceptible to being told her living will is useless.

[WTF]

2 hours ago, Zarley said:

It seems to me that there's a relatively simple work-round for those who oppose assisted dying being legal. 

Get yourself a "living will". Detail what measures you absolutely will not want applied to your end of life care. Explicitly rule out assisted dying. 

Leave it to each individual to decide and make arrangements for themselves and themselves alone. If you think something would piss off your god, don't do it. My god - or lack thereof - may differ, so butt out and deal with the plank in your own eye. 

the thing is when you get there , how ever many years later, you may change your mind at the last minute just for one extra breath.

[woolley]

8 hours ago, Casta said:

You sound an intelligent chap, I wonder could you help me. Does our soul die at the end of life? I realise that is a difficult one, so I have a far simpler one. You know at the very edge of the universe, all those light years away, then what is beyond that?

By all means I can help. The "soul" does not exist. Our functions are purely electrochemical, and they cease on death. Consciousness and freedom of thought often cease before other natural functions of life. I wonder if in turn, you can help me. What happens to our "soul" in cases of dementia and other conditions where the former personality of the individual has been missing for months or years? Is it in some sort of celestial waiting room anticipating the demise of the mortal ruins back on earth?

[Zarley]

5 hours ago, wrighty said:

The concern is that coercion will be more subtle than that, and that the only way to avoid it is to not allow assisted dying under any circumstances.  It's not an argument I accept.  It's a bit like not allowing cash to exist in case some people use it to buy drugs. Or not allowing anyone to have a car in case some people drive too fast. I'm sure better analogies exist.  I'd rather the groups wanting assisted dying outlawed completely instead focused their efforts on ensuring it is safeguarded and regulated.

 

4 hours ago, Gladys said:

It won't help granny stick to her guns. If she is susceptible to any coercion, she will also be susceptible to being told her living will is useless.

 

2 hours ago, woolley said:

Sorry Woolley, meant to quote WTF, not you. 

Fair enough. I was just trying to think of ways to placate those who don't want to see this bill go through.

Back to the drawing board. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Zarley
Misquote

[Gladys]

Just now, Zarley said:

 

 

Fair enough. I was just trying to think of ways to placate those who don't want to see this bill go through.

Back to the drawing board. 

No, it is all good stuff, but you will never placate the religious zealots who oppose it ideologically.  There is no arguable basis for their objections, just 'it is not God's will'.  However, they are quite happy when medical intervention saves a life, which is just as against God's will or he wouldn't have caused whatever life threatening situation that has befallen someone. (Not that I agree, just pointing out the illogicality of their position) 

[Fred the shred]

This bill will probably effect a very, very small number of the population it is crafted to help a minority who have the courage or desperation to make a very difficult decision but it gives them a choice and that is the important part of it.

[Casta]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

By all means I can help. The "soul" does not exist. Our functions are purely electrochemical, and they cease on death. Consciousness and freedom of thought often cease before other natural functions of life. I wonder if in turn, you can help me. What happens to our "soul" in cases of dementia and other conditions where the former personality of the individual has been missing for months or years? Is it in some sort of celestial waiting room anticipating the demise of the mortal ruins back on earth?

Listen to a BBC Radio4 programme from yesterday morning 9:30am 'Life Changing'. You can start about 4 mins in, through to the end. Locked in syndrome. Very frightening. The woman, by the way, wanted to die at some stages, but that is not the point I wish to make now. Her apparently lifeless body had a very strong mind trying to break out. Imagine if dimentia could be like that.

[Stu Peters]

I mentioned in reply to a VOTE NO email from 'a proud Christian' that former Archbishop George Carey had given us a talk and that he had been right through the bible to see if assisted dying was outlawed, and concluded just the opposite (some Old Testament stuff about a warrior being mortally wounded on the battlefield and asking his aide to finish him off).

'Proud Christian' told me the Archbishop was wrong. Thank god I'm an atheist.

[woolley]

2 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I mentioned in reply to a VOTE NO email from 'a proud Christian' that former Archbishop George Carey had given us a talk and that he had been right through the bible to see if assisted dying was outlawed, and concluded just the opposite (some Old Testament stuff about a warrior being mortally wounded on the battlefield and asking his aide to finish him off).

'Proud Christian' told me the Archbishop was wrong. Thank god I'm an atheist.

They'll probably tell you that you'll burn in hell for voting the wrong way too. They're so merciful.

[Fred the shred]

I have noticed that amongst all the discussion and various discourse on the matter that there has been little information regarding other of our neighbours embracing this subject, apparently Jersey in bringing it up early 2024, Scotland is giving it close attention and England is also giving it a lot of thought, although with the number of clergy littering the House of Lords they will have a very difficult way of passage.   The idiot humanist who thinks we will be labeled Death Island has not done his homework and no one has contradicted him and pointed out we are not going solo on this.   In time Dignity in Dying will become law I am certain of that the question is when, how many years will pass before compassion wins and I don’t think we will be the first Nation, in our corner of the world to implement it I bet Jersey will.

[finlo]

On 10/31/2023 at 5:07 PM, Gladys said:

Sorry to ask, but why did the doctor want to get away with naming the cause as pneumonia?  It is often this kind of complication that is the direct cause, but the complication wouldn't have occurred were it not for the terminal illness. 

Sorry for the late reply but I suspect the answer to your question is to cover up/play down the very high cancer rates we seem to have here.

[CATHYJAY]

I have several chronic illnesses, and my own view is that legislation such as this should not only apply to terminal illness but also to chronic conditions. I am 58 and in so much pain my immune system is severely weakened, I catch every virus under the sun and it takes weeks months to get better. I dread to think how I will be physically in 10 years time. So in my view this policy is far more important than some others.

[Lilly]

2 hours ago, CATHYJAY said:

I have several chronic illnesses, and my own view is that legislation such as this should not only apply to terminal illness but also to chronic conditions. I am 58 and in so much pain my immune system is severely weakened, I catch every virus under the sun and it takes weeks months to get better. I dread to think how I will be physically in 10 years time. So in my view this policy is far more important than some others.

Hi CATHYJAY, l was interested in reading your very honest and moving post.  Someone very close to me suddenly became very ill and almost bed-bound.  She spent six months in severe pain, was unable to walk, and was just totally exhausted.  She received some dismissals regarding her illness from some doctors, but not all.  

My friend is living with a condition that almost took away her life, but she is nearly 15 years on now and has modified her life to accept the shutdowns and extreme exhaustion, of which l am guessing you are fully aware.  

You are correct in your view that this is a very important policy.  IT IS.

Lilly

[Newbie]

On 11/2/2023 at 12:54 PM, wrighty said:

The concern is that coercion will be more subtle than that, and that the only way to avoid it is to not allow assisted dying under any circumstances.  It's not an argument I accept.  It's a bit like not allowing cash to exist in case some people use it to buy drugs. Or not allowing anyone to have a car in case some people drive too fast. I'm sure better analogies exist.  I'd rather the groups wanting assisted dying outlawed completely instead focused their efforts on ensuring it is safeguarded and regulated.

I am not sure that I buy the coercion argument. I can see why people might believe it to be a potential problem, but in that case they should surely also be concerned about suicide, which prior to 1961 was illegal. Why would the same people not be concerned that an elderly person might come under undue pressure from unscrupulous relatives to end their own life without assistance.