极速赛车168最新开奖号码 Comments on: The bill to legalise assisted dying explained

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Robert Yates

Robert Yates — Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:20:08 +0000

It is very simple, making it legal doesn’t make it right, another one in the eye for humanity, where does this lead us?, when will it stop? basically giving lawyers and politicians the right to say who lives and who dies, wow, this is scary, again power, money and Rupert Murdoch win.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Debbie

Debbie — Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:23:20 +0000

In reply to Hmmmm. Unfortunately symptoms cannot always be alleviated. My father suffered pain, which was never controlled, and mental distress as a result of mixed progressive dementia. During his lucid moments he begged me, his carers and his GP to help him die as he was in such mental turmoil and pain. This continued for 10 months until his horrud death. The memory of his suffering and begging will haunt me till the end of my days.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Annie

Annie — Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:38:44 +0000

In reply to Wesley.

Your examples of ‘assisted dying’ do not meet the proposed legal criteria for assisted dying. You are talking about decisions made by by others to shorten someone’s life, usually without even requiring the person’s consent.

Any case where the person has been found to have mental capacity to make the decision themself (by 2 doctors s.12 qualified, not a SW, of a person’s decision for an assisted death, at a time of their own choosing) has to then be scrutinised and agreed by the High Court. Personally, I think that sounds reasonable. A judge would only be looking at the objective facts set out in terms of the prognosis for the person’s life expectancy and likely deterioration, the documented capacity assessments and their own consultation with the person. It would be far more objective than someone who knows them well might be. However, knowing how long deprivation of liberty cases take to get a COP hearing, I do think it is unlikely that many cases would ever get to the High Court in time.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Laura Morris

Laura Morris — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:58:55 +0000

This bill is utterly irresponsible. As social workers we must first address the unmet needs of any individual who has a life limiting condition by expanding palliative care to all. Palliative Care is a human right and yet instead of this government exploring ways of ensuring this, a bill by the rich that starts off for the rich is introduced. First it starts with the wealthy who can afford this legal process but then what? It’s a slippery slope. Do we put down our unwanted people just like sadly people put down their unwanted pets? Why is there no palliative care for all? This country invented palliative care social work. Dame Cicely Saunders would be very disappointed to see how matters have devolved in this country. Shameful and this website in particular has failed to offer a fair and balanced approach to this bill. It’s almost as if it is pushing the matter.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Wesley

Wesley — Sun, 17 Nov 2024 07:21:34 +0000

If social workers really cared about alleviating the suffering of people they would actually do the real work rather than made in to uphold what they think is a moral high ground. People whose lives would be terminated under the current health and legal frameworks have no autonomy so would not be making decisions without external pressures. To truly give people the choice they would need to have GPs who truly know them. GPs who’ve seen them over many years and who knows their real medical history over time. In a system where getting an appointment is rare the chances of having a consistent GP who not only knows your medical history but also knows your circumstances and how you live your life, in other words knows you as a person as well as a patient, does not exist. Making decisions on seeing only ‘today’ by professionals who have no relationship with people is not informed let alone safe. Nor first it give the power to end life to people themselves. Social workers are good at pronouncing on headlines, they should be more interested in the substance of issues if they are to have opinions to be respected. I am from a Dutch background, I have family who live in the Netherlands so I happen to have been part of this conversation for many years. In the Netherlands there is very high anxiety about the narrative around ‘assisted’ dying being people centered when there have been many recorded instances of what turned out to be coercive pressure on people. And that’s in a country where the health and social care systems would shock UK social workers with it’s resources and paper checks and balances. Health care is politicised, social care is politicised there as it’s in the UK except it’s more subtle. In an environment of toxic debates about pensions, immigration, housing, benefit claimants and the like ‘assisted’ dying decisions are highly unlikely to be effected by those. If you really cared you’d criticise the back door ‘assisted’ dying that already exists with no involvement or choice by people. MHRA and NiCe daily ration availability of drugs or refuse to approve them on cost and “prolonging” life criteria every day. I’ve never heard a social worker talk about how people are suffering and are denied treatment on those grounds. If you can’t get newly developed medicines because they are thought to be too expensive to be made available and if you don’t get them because they would “only prolong life for 6 months” so aren’t “cost effective” that’s assisted dying. If a doctor without discussion with you or your family increases the dosage of your “pain relief” medication knowing it will end the life of an 80 year old, that’s ‘assisted’ dying. Talk about these before feeling you are on the right side of history by endorsing even more control over people’s lives by professionals who see cost and bed blocking before they see the person. If a social worker visits a person twice in 4 years and then decides they know all they need to know about them I’d imagine most of their colleagues and I would hope at least their supervisor would not accept it on faith. Yet that is the real health service today. If care homes have no proper independent oversight, and they don’t, how confident are you as social workers doing a fleeting visit that when staff tell you a person has deteriorated they aren’t making that judgement because they think the person is demanding too much time from their more than likely depleted workforce? If you want “assisted dying” with proper safeguards and true power in the hands of people themselves advocate seriously that professionals can prove they really do know the person. Otherwise we are back at that all encompassing get out for professionals of “informed consent” and “capacity to consent” aren’t we?

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Hmmmm

Hmmmm — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:10:18 +0000

In reply to Stuart Galey. I understand this if suffering is great and there's no option to alleviate symptoms however focus should be on alleviating symptoms so the person doesn't suffer. It may be for some but may be dangerous. Danger of medical mistakes. Danger of members of family pressing a person that they don't want to take care of or their suffering is hard on them. I'm afraid it could contribute to possibility for further development of law where life of terminally or seriously ill people including children could be decided by person responsible for them even when they want to live. It may be right for some but somehow it feels like slippery slope.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Clare Owen

Clare Owen — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 06:44:48 +0000

You only have to look at Canada- people are being offered assisted dying because they are poor, or have disabilities that can be aided by simple adaptations.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Carol

Carol — Thu, 14 Nov 2024 22:39:29 +0000

With Judges involved and delays involved with such Courts, I can’t see anybody ever being granted this in an appropriate timeframe to ‘self administer’ anything. I find it fascinating that it is OK for health professional to administer the 4 Core Drugs which hastens death when they consider it the ‘right time’ but individuals can’t choose themselves when it’s the right time! Also Wes Streeting needs to shut up and butt out!

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Kenneth Burkhill

Kenneth Burkhill — Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:26:23 +0000

will life insurance companies class assisted dying as suicide.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Stuart Galey

Stuart Galey — Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:11:14 +0000

We are a society predicated on the principle of autonomous choice which is enshrined in medical ethics. The law supports these principles. To deny someone the choice when death is a greater attraction than life is a denial of these principles. To distract from that personal choice by saying it devalues people is a power issue and denies control to people to whom life is worse than death. As long as safeguards are in place ( and there are plenty of examples worldwide) only the fear of death by people who do not wish to allow qualifying patients that choice is really the only bar to this law.