Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    Aye.

    The state should afford its people a choice. It is not for the state to force terminally ill people to spending time in absolute pain and misery. Citizens should not be forced to travel to foreign lands to spend their final days. We should show mercy on the terminally ill and, with the right checks in place, allow them, if they desire, a peaceful and dignified passing - freeing them from pain and suffering.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by MattElves)
    Hi,

    When writing this I did consider dementia as it is now considered a terminal illness. The issue is, however, that many in the medical field would classify it as a different type of terminal illness to those such as terminal cancer due simply to the fact that it is firstly much more difficult to estimate when a person will die and at the same time is effectively also a mental illness which manifests in such a unique way that it can become difficult for even the most established and experienced doctors to say accurately what stage the dementia is in.

    It is only once the patient is in the last stage, in which speech is limited to sporadic words which do not make sense, daily activities become almost impossible to do individually and they begin to have an inability to walk or stand in, that doctors can give a clear estimate of how long the patient has to live. Once that time comes, it is indeed impossible for such patients to make these decisions themselves.

    As such, I concluded that terminal illness in this bill would be defined as there being a reasonable belief that the patient will die within six months. I know that this means that dementia patients would not be able to use this option but for now I feel like that is the correct decision due to the fact that it is such a unique illness in which it is not primarily a terminal illness, but rather a mental illness which would immediately bring in the mental capacity question.

    Believe me, I did not make the decision likely but I sincerely think that it is the best option due simply to how unique dementia is.
    Spot on here...

    Aph Due to the wide ranging symptoms of Dementia and the way challenging behaviours may exhibit themselves, whilst the umbrella condition is classified as a Progressive Neurological Disorder (even when it can be static) it may also come under the treatment of Neuropsychiatry teams who, the majority of the time, would have already bypassed the MCA 2005 through either DoLS or Section 2/3 of the MHA 1983.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People who sadly have to suffer day and night with incurable terminal illnesses should not have to go on like this, especially where they are in pain and sadly will never recover.

    Should they feel they wish to pass away peacefully themselves without going through the suffering, then we should do all we can to ensure their final days are as peaceful as possible to put them out of their suffering before going through with this process!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by adam9317)
    People who sadly have to suffer day and night with incurable terminal illnesses should not have to go on like this, especially where they are in pain and sadly will never recover.

    Should they feel they wish to pass away peacefully themselves without going through the suffering, then we should do all we can to ensure their final days are as peaceful as possible to put them out of their suffering before going through with this process!
    You mean like so many illnesses we can now cure used to be like? Should we just save people the hassle and install a glass chamber in ever hospital, with part of the doctor's rounds being to say "sorry, no treatment for this today, to the chamber with you!"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Generally, aye. The Bill has been very well-written and its policy is commendable.

    However, there are a couple of things I'd add. First, I'd like it to be added that neither of the relevant doctors can be related not only to each other, but also the patient and/or the witnesses.

    Second, requiring a High Court order is a massive waste of time and money. Put it in front of a magistrate, or at most, a county court. This is procedural, not a complex legal matter.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'll try and read it all tomorrow and give a full account, but I reckon with the changes mentioned by tda it would be an aye.

    Out of pure curiosity does LP know about this bill and approved of it? Or is this something which was done in his absence?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I'll try and read it all tomorrow and give a full account, but I reckon with the changes mentioned by tda it would be an aye.

    Out of pure curiosity does LP know about this bill and approved of it? Or is this something which was done in his absence?
    LP knows and approves of it. It's in our coalition agreement.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    LP knows and approves of it. It's in our coalition agreement.
    Cheers Petros, I only wondered due to Jammy's resignation
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Generally, aye. The Bill has been very well-written and its policy is commendable.

    However, there are a couple of things I'd add. First, I'd like it to be added that neither of the relevant doctors can be related not only to each other, but also the patient and/or the witnesses.

    Second, requiring a High Court order is a massive waste of time and money. Put it in front of a magistrate, or at most, a county court. This is procedural, not a complex legal matter.
    Hi,

    Just to let you know we are considering your suggestions for a second reading of this bill.

    Thanks for your input!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Cheers Petros, I only wondered due to Jammy's resignation
    No, I just have principles. Lp and Mobbsy thinks that the threat of losing our seats is enough to force some of us into line with something that was a known source of disagreement from day 0, appeasing the liberals is clearly more important, epitomised by the fact that under the most recent form of the party constitution mandating votes on all items put forwards by the party this would have been rejected.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean like so many illnesses we can now cure used to be like? Should we just save people the hassle and install a glass chamber in ever hospital, with part of the doctor's rounds being to say "sorry, no treatment for this today, to the chamber with you!"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Unfortunately even with today's medical advances, we still have many incurable terminal illnesses!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    aye!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by MattElves)
    Hi,Just to let you know we are considering your suggestions for a second reading of this bill.Thanks for your input!
    TDA's changes would be an aye from me as long as a Social Worker does a family assessment and judges the family will not be affected in an adverse way that is unexpected from the loss of the family member, as well as confirming the family is not in a position of manipulation etc. In reality, a Doctor, no matter how skilled, is trained in this sort of assessment. All Assistive Technology supplied by the NHS should also be returned.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    Aye
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    I applaud Matt for writing this Bill.

    I wholly support it, as it should not be up to the state to stop people who wish to die when they have terminal illness, from dying. I think this gives relevant safeguards in the form of an independent doctor's opinion, and ensuring that the person is psychologically sound, and so those people should be able to do this in the comfort of their own country, rather than having to fly off to Switzerland or somewhere else, perhaps with someone, who then has the risk of legal issues when they return back to the UK.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, I just have principles. Lp and Mobbsy thinks that the threat of losing our seats is enough to force some of us into line with something that was a known source of disagreement from day 0, appeasing the liberals is clearly more important, epitomised by the fact that under the most recent form of the party constitution mandating votes on all items put forwards by the party this would have been rejected.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? I'm really getting tired of explaining this to you:

    1. When I posted the coalition agreement with this policy included, only you and Rakas said something against it, four people explicitly supported it, and the rest were presumably indifferent. Since then, I've heard no more voices against the bill except for one person's concerns about voting aye.

    2. Asking Liberals to uphold the coalition agreement and then letting you defy it would be gargantuan hypocrisy. We are going to proceed in the same way we (including yourself) expected them to when some of them ‘had principles’.

    3. As I already told you yesterday, it would not have been rejected. Judging by the petition, the ‘no’ vote would be at about 30%, i.e. 10% less than needed to reject the policy.

    4. You. Are. Not. The. Centre. Of. The. Universe.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? I'm really getting tired of explaining this to you:

    1. When I posted the coalition agreement with this policy included, only you and Rakas said something against it, four people explicitly supported it, and the rest were presumably indifferent. Since then, I've heard no more voices against the bill except for one person's concerns about voting aye.

    2. Asking Liberals to uphold the coalition agreement and then letting you defy it would be gargantuan hypocrisy. We are going to proceed in the same way we (including yourself) expected them to when some of them ‘had principles’.

    3. As I already told you yesterday, it would not have been rejected. Judging by the petition, the ‘no’ vote would be at about 30%, i.e. 10% less than needed to reject the policy.

    4. You. Are. Not. The. Centre. Of. The. Universe.
    https://youtu.be/YQHsXMglC9A
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? I'm really getting tired of explaining this to you:

    1. When I posted the coalition agreement with this policy included, only you and Rakas said something against it, four people explicitly supported it, and the rest were presumably indifferent. Since then, I've heard no more voices against the bill except for one person's concerns about voting aye.

    2. Asking Liberals to uphold the coalition agreement and then letting you defy it would be gargantuan hypocrisy. We are going to proceed in the same way we (including yourself) expected them to when some of them ‘had principles’.

    3. As I already told you yesterday, it would not have been rejected. Judging by the petition, the ‘no’ vote would be at about 30%, i.e. 10% less than needed to reject the policy.

    4. You. Are. Not. The. Centre. Of. The. Universe.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZcqBgCS74
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 23, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.