Assisted dying

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920287#Comment_121920287

"mechanism to reduced the unfunded state pension liability." No conspiracy theory at all

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920223#Comment_121920223

Canada is a special case of lunatic government though - I’ve been a supporter of assisted dying for decades, yet I clearly think they go way too far. We would hopefully follow the Swiss model and ignore theirs.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920420#Comment_121920420

You don't have to have a terminal illness, or to be dying, or even to have a shortened life expectancy, to qualify for MAID. Indeed, you don't have to be ill at all, if you have a disability.

There are three criteria:

• a serious illness/disease/disablity
• advanced, irreversible state of decline
• unbearable physical or mental suffering from the illness/disease/disability or the state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that the patient considers acceptable

So, if you have a disability (first criterion) that means you are permanently wheelchair-bound (second criterion) and being in a wheelchair causes you unbearable mental suffering, you've ticked all the boxes, if your mental suffering can't be relieved.

In the case that SeanW refers to, the person concerned wasn't seeking MAID — they were objecting to it being offered to them when they hadn't sought it — so the question of whether their condition was causing them unbearable mental suffering never came up.

But imagine a hypothetical case in which somebody found the constraints of living with a disability unbearable. They ask for assistance and support in relieving those constraints — the installation of a lift, a powered wheelchair, a home help, a subsidy for wheelchair-accessible transport, whatever. This, they feel, would relieve their suffering. But this is refused because there isn't a scheme to provide it, or their isn't a budget to pay for it.

The question is: Are they excluded from MAID because their suffering could be relieved by measures like this, even though they're not available? Or do they qualify for MAID because their suffering can't be relieved, because those measures are not available?

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920448#Comment_121920448

That's some leap to take being in a wheelchair as an advanced irreversible state of decline.

You forgot to look up the process of actually receiving MAID.

Hodors Appletart

My dad has dementia, and has no sort of life. Doesn't know me, my mam or siblings, he's in a facility where the staff are absolutely amazing with him - but he doesn't know them, where he is, what he's doing - and worse, when he sees us there is something in his brain that tells him he knows us and had a relationship with us, and this makes him very, very upset and emotional and that is his suffering.

We either don't visit him, and he never suffers emotionally. Or we keep visiting and he suffers very extreme bad emotions and gets upset, crying, often can't be handled by the staff for a time afterwards.

He's barely mobile, has literally forgotten how to stand up from a seated position - he can just about feed himself, but more often than not needs to be fed mush.

It's no life, and I want to sign something now that states when/if I get that way, I want out. I do not want my wife and child, siblings and friends to go through what we are going through with my dad.

It would also free up the staff to deal with patients who they actually can help.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920459#Comment_121920459

Being permanently wheelchair-bound is, by definition, irreversible. Are you saying being wheelchair-bound is not an advanced state of decline? Would you accept paraplegia as an advanced decline? Quadriplegia? Where are you drawing the line?

I'm aware of the process. In the context of the hypothetical we are discussing, it involves (among other things) informing the patient of appropriate services to relieve their suffering, including community services, counselling services and mental health and disability support services, and it involves agreeing that the patient has seriously considered those services. But in my hypothetical the services the patient requires are not available.

Tony EH

The case in Canada is more than likely a screw up in administration than anything else. Someone in Veterans Affairs got a request in and didn't understand what was being asked for or the state of mind the person was in when asking, nor did they fully understand the ramifications of what they were subsequently offering in suggesting MAiD. The fact that it seems to be a completely isolated incident, too, means there's not much to be worried over.

In any case, if Christine Gauthier had then requested MAiD on the back of that suggestion for consideration, she probably wouldn't have qualified.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920515#Comment_121920515

My heart goes out to you - that was my dad’s experience to a t. It is soul crushing and I’ve zero intention of going through that myself.

People who are against this Bill like the very well meaning medics in the palliative care sector don’t understand.

When you have your father crying in front of you because you are keeping him his wife (who had died 25 years prior) and who doesn’t know you, his first born child, who thinks you are trying to poison him because one of his pills changed shape or who almost chokes daily as he forgets the mechanism of eating …. There’s no palliative care for that no matter how much you want there to be.

We need this bill for the sake of our humanity - my dog passed months after my lovely dad, he was old and couldn’t walk and his life was pain - he was treated with dignity and allowed to leave this world with me at his side telling him I loved him. My dad passed alone gasping for every single breath.

We treat animals better than humans at the end of their life and we need to stop.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920659#Comment_121920659

Your last line has always stuck with me, I can't remember who said it on some debate years ago. But we do the kind thing for old animals to ensure they don't suffer but if it's a person? Suffer on... Such a weird dichotomy.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920863#Comment_121920863

It was staggering it really was - my pup had such a peaceful end, being looked after and yet my dad was not. We cannot call ourselves civilised if we leave people to die without dignity.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121918795#Comment_121918795

Conspiracy theories is that way >>>>

Redliketoast

By labeling any worries as "conspiracy Theories" is ignoring the realities

Irish people by very nature "dont want to be a burden".

In Canada it only came in 8 years ago and was for people who would be in decline, in pain and with no decent quality of life. That is fair terms. But successive governments have chiselled away at it. In the near future they hope to be able to offer it to people with mental health issues. THIS IS NOT TINFOIL HAT. If you think it is you really dont belong in an adult conversation.

We all have people in our lives who wouldnt want to be a burden. Could you imagine facing MS and complete paralyses. Would you want your family to have to wipe your arse and rely on them to feed you, bath you etc. Thats not even considering the HUGE medical costs involved. Of course you would probably choose assisted dying. You can currently get MAID in Canada in such a scenario. You may have to stop eating for a few days first but you qualify.

Lets even reverse the situation. Lets say you friend has MS and complete paralyses. But they are a little older and their kids are complete C***s. The Kids dont really want to look after them and see it as hassle. Do you not think its possible that they might just give up.

We need to look at the actual reason why Assisted Dying is attractive.

• Medical costs to the patient
• Care for the patient ("being a burden")
• Access to care
• Quality of care/life

In Ireland we are trying for some insane reason, to replicate Americas Healthcare system. Everything privatised. That needs to be reversed immediately. People should have access to full free healthcare.

Every town should have "GP Centres" (Small "quick hospitals"). This would be to treat minor injuries and illnesses. Have multiple GP's and nurses working form there.

Every City should have both "GP Centres" and large Hospitals capable of treating serious and major illnesses/injuries.

Anything that shouldnt need a doctor, should be moved to pharmacies. The "Pill", contraception, Vaccines, Boosters etc all just need a nurse. Do that in Pharmacies. Doctor signatures for certain things is ridiculous. If it is for Social Welfare stuff just have a doctor or nurse at the Social Welfare.

We need a proper healthcare system designed to help people and reduce their ailments. We do not need to just kill people to reduce the queues.

StrawbsM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920515#Comment_121920515

Sending you and yours my best thoughts x

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920863#Comment_121920863

It’s a silly analogy.

Sometimes animals are put down for convenience or economic reasons, and the animal has no choice in the matter.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921272#Comment_121921272

It’s very much not a “silly analogy” when you have gone through that.

magicbastarder

if the argument is 'we shouldn't have assisted dying because Canada', why can't we have an argument of 'we should have assisted dying because spain' or 'we should have assisted dying because new zealand'?

the case usually cited about Canada - it's rather a spoiler alert, but the lady in question is still alive. she was incorrectly offered it, which is very much not the same as forced into it.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921320#Comment_121921320

It really is, a pets owner can decide to have a pet put down for a variety of reasons, including the owners own suffering, would you want that scenario for a human, where a child/parent decides it’s time for the person to go to the next world, because it upsets them or they don’t want to look after the family member anymore?

Redliketoast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921366#Comment_121921366

When looking at Life and Death changes we HAVE TO look at the red flags and the "what if's".

When it was sold to Canada it seemed like a great idea. Now it looks like a terrible idea. They are trying to get it passed for depression ffs.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121920935#Comment_121920935

The unfunded-pension issue is a huge problem for the government. Most certainly not a conspiracy theory.

Redliketoast

This conversation requires tough questions and mature questions

One Question is should Assisted Dying be available to children?

If not then why not?

If A child is going through pain should they not be able to avail of the same service as a 19 year old? Or is it the fact that this service is not a good idea?

Waving away tough questions like this means it is not a well thought out idea.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921425#Comment_121921425

I would argue that it shouldn't - a child isn't legally responsible for their own medical care until they turn 16 or 18 I believe? So then it would be up to their parents. And I don't think anybody should have the authority to make the decision for a family member without that family member first giving the okay.

So if you have somebody with dementia as an example, I would think that a legal document could be signed by the patient while they are compos mentis to give the power to somebody they choose at a later date to make that decision for them.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121915632#Comment_121915632

In fact its even worse as they are now populated by GOv funded NGOs so the model is fobar from an Irish context, it was a global standard but now is just like what Orban would run

BrianD3

Introducing assisted dying into the sh*tshow that is the Irish health service - Jesus wept. We have fundamental, structural and systemic problems in our health service that will take many years and billions to address, how about we concentrate on those first. I think people who support assisted dying without having very serious concerns are naïve and probably don't understand human nature and how selfish people are. A HSE senior manager with a budget to protect does not give a crap about you and would much rather see you dead than have any of his precious budget spent on providing actual healthcare to you. Now I'm not suggesting that a HSE bean counter would ever be given clear authority to approve euthanasia for you - but the motivation will be there.

Comparisons with veterinary medicine are extremely naive for various reasons.

Even in a best case scenario, human medicine is complex and not an exact science. Doctors make mistakes, are sometimes negligent, working in chaotic conditions, tired, have a list to get through etc. They don't have a crystal ball. One of the things that healthcare professionals get wrong IME is failing to differentiate between delirium and Alzheimer's disease - the former is something that will often respond to treatment, the other is a terminal condition. Research has found that dementia patients may be denied interventions including pain relief that could help them and improve the DELIRIUM that they are experiencing superimposed on their dementia. I've regularly run up against physicians and other healthcare professionals who don't seem to grasp this and effectively write off the person.

When I hear people supporting assisted dying because they watched a relative spend the last few months of their life agitated and miserable, I often wonder if minor interventions such as the below have been done. Imagine if you put in place an advance directive that if you develop dementia and can no longer do x, y and z, you wish to be euthanised. You develop dementia and can no longer do x, y and z. But wait, has anyone checked your ears to see if they have impacted wax that is affecting your ability to do x, y and z.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24650066/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dangers-of-excessive-earwax/

It goes far beyond impacted earwax though, social care in Ireland and other countries is also a sh*tshow. In recent years we had a HSE nursing home where an employee was sexually abusing and raping residents for a considerable period of time with no action taken. He was eventually convicted but we're not allowed to discuss that case on boards because of the nationality of the perpetrator. There have been other recent cases of financial abuse. We've had sexual and other abuse in St Joseph's in Stranorlar, Aras Attracta, Leas Cross and if there is a proper inquiry on the handling of Covid, no doubt a lot more will come out. Going back further, we have a long history of institutional abuse of vulnerable people. At the time, people thought this was "grand",shur it's for their own good, isn't it great that we have somewhere for the mothers and their babies to go. Ah, shur I'd like to go there myself if I got pregnant outside of marriage.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921505#Comment_121921505

there are contexts for the state stepping in and removing the parents from the equation when it comes to medical care for kids; not in this context yet, obviously.

i was talking to a woman several years ago whose son and daughter in law had been coolly informed by their kid's doctor that he was willing and able to get the courts involved - and that they would side with him - if he did not take his advice on their kid. the woman who was telling me this was delighted. the reason i mention this is just an observation that such power can be wielded without a visible high court or supreme court case.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921558#Comment_121921558

Why is it when some people disagree they have to be snotty about it ?

I assure you I personally explored every single possible outcome, practice, treatment, care plan etc for my dad. Everything.

He expressed a wish not to be kept in that state and were it an option I would have ensured his wishes were carried out. I’m making sure mine will be.

I understand the situation and the concerns and it is low to suggest the only reason people support assist dying is ignorance.

Redliketoast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921505#Comment_121921505

I get that part about consent etc. But if we as parents make medical decisions in "whats best for the child". So if our child is suffering then why wouldnt we give them the best solution? Unless its not the best solution?

Not trying to be pedantic. Just trying to explore the difficult question

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921772#Comment_121921772

I would say in that situation you'd want courts involved. Or some sort of third party.

downtheroad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121918916#Comment_121918916

TDs are elected to govern. Citizens Assembly is a load of crap. They should be scrapped. Why do we elect TDs and then require a CA?

Mr. CooL ICE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921558#Comment_121921558

That's a whole lot of whataboutery that'll convince nobody

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121921817#Comment_121921817

TDs are politicians. In an ideal world they would make decisions based purely on the public good. In an ideal world people wouldn't get addicted to drugs. In an ideal world there would be no need for abortions. In an ideal world there would be no need for divorces. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. Politicians are mere humans with all their inherent flaws - as such they are driven by their own set of incentives - which is mostly to get re-elected and become a minister some day.

Most voters are exactly the same. Most people vote based on their own personal incentives. Old people vote for those who pledge to protect pensions. Rich people vote for people who pledge to cut taxes. People queue up at TDs clinics to ask for things that they are not entitled to.

The Citizens Assembly provides a forum where all of those narrow incentives are stripped away and people, who unlike TDs ,don't have to worry about any consequences to their job, try and make informed decisions. This then gives politicians the cover to make decisions that they probably otherwise never would - the classic example being the Abortion referendum. If it weren't for the CA the politicians would probably still be avoiding legislating on an issue that it turns out the vast majority of the electorate wanted changed.

Is any of that ideal? No, of course it isn't but that's the reality of the situation. Good luck in trying to find a collection of politicians that are going to act any differently.