| Assisted dying in Wales 22:00 - Jun 25 with 521 views | SullutaCreturned |
I have said several times I back the assisted dying law going through Westminster but now it could be that living in Wales means we won't get that choice. The Senedd has voted against this law once already and now, well read it,
walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-nhs-only-help-terminally-31934708
So if the Senedd says no then the right to end your own life (in Wales) won't be allowed.
Will we see people heading to England to exercise what I believe should be a personal right. A right that could save Welsh health services millions too. |  | | |  |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 22:07 - Jun 25 with 511 views | Dr_Winston |
We already see Welsh people travelling to Switzerland to end their pain peacefully, so we undoubtedly will see them going to Shrewsbury to do it. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 03:16 - Jun 26 with 463 views | AnotherJohn |
I think Wes Streeting may be right to say the AD policy is more likely to have significant costs rather than cost savings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14835865/Wes-Streeting-money-NHS-assist
My own view is that we must respect the democratic vote, but that the pace of implementation would depend on identifying the necessary resources, and weighing the priority of the new policy against other priorities. When a government bill is enacted the financial aspect will have already have been factored in, but this does not apply in the same way with a private member's bill.
The thing that worries me with the "it will save money" aspect, is that a perception that this is so amounts to another subtle pressure on persons who might see themselves as a burden. The central argument of the pro-AD camp has always been that this is about individual choice, but there tends to be a slippage between talking about the viewpoint of the suffering person and wider considerations. For example, when I mentioned deep palliative sedation in an earlier discussion, Cat's response was to say that this extended the misery for the relatives or carers. If the policy is about individual choice then surely the person considering AD needs to be protected from these pressures.
Since Streeting's statement Starmer had stepped in to say that the NHS will find the money for AD, but I think it will be difficult. I'm still worried that already under-funded palliative care services will lose out further if and when funds are transferred to AD, and that before that happened it would have been logical to make sure there was a good palliative care service in all areas, which there isn't at present.
In many areas of public policy there is a tension between arguments about rights and the associated resource implications. In a series of classic judicial review cases from the 1980s and 90s representatives of patients who had been unable to get the treatments they needed argued that this was unlawful because the Secretary of State for Health had a duty under the primary NHS legislation to provide comprehensive health services (the so-called Birmingham heart babies were among the cases). In all cases the courts found that there was no absolute right to treatment and that decisions had to be made in the light of available resources as determined by the government of the time (which today would include devolved governments). The courts seem more interventionist these days, so we shall have to see whether the likely tension between AD and the resources needed leads some people to go to court when they don't get what they want. [Post edited 26 Jun 5:07]
| | | |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 07:52 - Jun 26 with 394 views | trampie |
I'm sure it will save the nhs millions and millions of pounds every year, I've seen figures banded about that are all projections but it's certain it's a case of how many millions it will save the country in time and not whether it will cost the country, there will be an initial cost in setting it up (obviously there is no budget for this yet as the service does not exist) that will be small as regards the overall nhs budget and there would be ongoing running costs but that will probably be far outweighed by the savings made in not having to keep alive very ill dying patients for months.
I've seen figures how much other countries save because of assisted dying.
I know this is not a money thing but its probably not correct for anyone to suggest it will cost the country after a relatively short period of time the nhs/country will be quids in. |  |
| |
| Assisted dying in Wales (n/t) on 12:54 - Jun 26 with 351 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 03:16 - Jun 26 by AnotherJohn |
I think Wes Streeting may be right to say the AD policy is more likely to have significant costs rather than cost savings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14835865/Wes-Streeting-money-NHS-assist
My own view is that we must respect the democratic vote, but that the pace of implementation would depend on identifying the necessary resources, and weighing the priority of the new policy against other priorities. When a government bill is enacted the financial aspect will have already have been factored in, but this does not apply in the same way with a private member's bill.
The thing that worries me with the "it will save money" aspect, is that a perception that this is so amounts to another subtle pressure on persons who might see themselves as a burden. The central argument of the pro-AD camp has always been that this is about individual choice, but there tends to be a slippage between talking about the viewpoint of the suffering person and wider considerations. For example, when I mentioned deep palliative sedation in an earlier discussion, Cat's response was to say that this extended the misery for the relatives or carers. If the policy is about individual choice then surely the person considering AD needs to be protected from these pressures.
Since Streeting's statement Starmer had stepped in to say that the NHS will find the money for AD, but I think it will be difficult. I'm still worried that already under-funded palliative care services will lose out further if and when funds are transferred to AD, and that before that happened it would have been logical to make sure there was a good palliative care service in all areas, which there isn't at present.
In many areas of public policy there is a tension between arguments about rights and the associated resource implications. In a series of classic judicial review cases from the 1980s and 90s representatives of patients who had been unable to get the treatments they needed argued that this was unlawful because the Secretary of State for Health had a duty under the primary NHS legislation to provide comprehensive health services (the so-called Birmingham heart babies were among the cases). In all cases the courts found that there was no absolute right to treatment and that decisions had to be made in the light of available resources as determined by the government of the time (which today would include devolved governments). The courts seem more interventionist these days, so we shall have to see whether the likely tension between AD and the resources needed leads some people to go to court when they don't get what they want. [Post edited 26 Jun 5:07]
|
| | | |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 13:10 - Jun 26 with 349 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 03:16 - Jun 26 by AnotherJohn |
I think Wes Streeting may be right to say the AD policy is more likely to have significant costs rather than cost savings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14835865/Wes-Streeting-money-NHS-assist
My own view is that we must respect the democratic vote, but that the pace of implementation would depend on identifying the necessary resources, and weighing the priority of the new policy against other priorities. When a government bill is enacted the financial aspect will have already have been factored in, but this does not apply in the same way with a private member's bill.
The thing that worries me with the "it will save money" aspect, is that a perception that this is so amounts to another subtle pressure on persons who might see themselves as a burden. The central argument of the pro-AD camp has always been that this is about individual choice, but there tends to be a slippage between talking about the viewpoint of the suffering person and wider considerations. For example, when I mentioned deep palliative sedation in an earlier discussion, Cat's response was to say that this extended the misery for the relatives or carers. If the policy is about individual choice then surely the person considering AD needs to be protected from these pressures.
Since Streeting's statement Starmer had stepped in to say that the NHS will find the money for AD, but I think it will be difficult. I'm still worried that already under-funded palliative care services will lose out further if and when funds are transferred to AD, and that before that happened it would have been logical to make sure there was a good palliative care service in all areas, which there isn't at present.
In many areas of public policy there is a tension between arguments about rights and the associated resource implications. In a series of classic judicial review cases from the 1980s and 90s representatives of patients who had been unable to get the treatments they needed argued that this was unlawful because the Secretary of State for Health had a duty under the primary NHS legislation to provide comprehensive health services (the so-called Birmingham heart babies were among the cases). In all cases the courts found that there was no absolute right to treatment and that decisions had to be made in the light of available resources as determined by the government of the time (which today would include devolved governments). The courts seem more interventionist these days, so we shall have to see whether the likely tension between AD and the resources needed leads some people to go to court when they don't get what they want. [Post edited 26 Jun 5:07]
|
I didn't only say it extends the suffering of relatives and carers. I also said that all it did was render the victim in to a state of zombuehood. They lay there unaware, unfeeling, completely knocked uncious and left there for days, weeks or even longer to die.
Why is that better than being able to make a personal choice to end it sooner?
My sister was in deep palloative care for 4 days, 4 days where 3 of us sat in the room with her just waiting for her to die. It was emotionally and psychologically damaging to deal with after having had to watch her in so much pain and suffering for over 15 months.
Having to deal with that and try to support my brother in law, neice and nephew it ended with myself having a breakdown and taking 5 weeks off work.
What was the cost of all the pain meds for the last 6 months of her life, the cost of the nursing care, the ambulances between home, the hospital and hospice? There had also been some medical equipment sent to her home because she really wanted to die at home, all extra costs before you get to the financial burden on the family and that was something nobody complained about.
Yes my sister worried about us, when she was concious, she hated watching us watche her suffer because she jnew we were suffering too. The pain and anguish she felt was beyond what any person should have to deal with in a truy "humane" society, she should have had the choice.
If the choice is there some will take it and some won't. Yes there needs to be strict safeguards. Other countries have this law so we have a starting point, we can look at oters, ask others what problems they faced, what worked and what didn't, we can do it properly so no dying person is taken advantage of.
How do you protect a terminal patient from the pressure of watching their loved ones suffer too? | | | |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 14:00 - Jun 26 with 325 views | Boundy |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 13:10 - Jun 26 by SullutaCreturned |
I didn't only say it extends the suffering of relatives and carers. I also said that all it did was render the victim in to a state of zombuehood. They lay there unaware, unfeeling, completely knocked uncious and left there for days, weeks or even longer to die.
Why is that better than being able to make a personal choice to end it sooner?
My sister was in deep palloative care for 4 days, 4 days where 3 of us sat in the room with her just waiting for her to die. It was emotionally and psychologically damaging to deal with after having had to watch her in so much pain and suffering for over 15 months.
Having to deal with that and try to support my brother in law, neice and nephew it ended with myself having a breakdown and taking 5 weeks off work.
What was the cost of all the pain meds for the last 6 months of her life, the cost of the nursing care, the ambulances between home, the hospital and hospice? There had also been some medical equipment sent to her home because she really wanted to die at home, all extra costs before you get to the financial burden on the family and that was something nobody complained about.
Yes my sister worried about us, when she was concious, she hated watching us watche her suffer because she jnew we were suffering too. The pain and anguish she felt was beyond what any person should have to deal with in a truy "humane" society, she should have had the choice.
If the choice is there some will take it and some won't. Yes there needs to be strict safeguards. Other countries have this law so we have a starting point, we can look at oters, ask others what problems they faced, what worked and what didn't, we can do it properly so no dying person is taken advantage of.
How do you protect a terminal patient from the pressure of watching their loved ones suffer too? |
So sad reading that mate , events like that are never forgotten ,maybe the pain lessens but never the memory. My Dad passed away 26 years ago and the memory of his passing is as fresh now as it was then , although thankfully his circumstances were different. I know that doctors do speed up the dying process by increasing pain relief but that's obviously not always the case. I'm with you , I believe it should be the individuals choice on how and when they die with safe guards in place. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 14:08 - Jun 26 with 323 views | AnotherJohn |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 13:10 - Jun 26 by SullutaCreturned |
I didn't only say it extends the suffering of relatives and carers. I also said that all it did was render the victim in to a state of zombuehood. They lay there unaware, unfeeling, completely knocked uncious and left there for days, weeks or even longer to die.
Why is that better than being able to make a personal choice to end it sooner?
My sister was in deep palloative care for 4 days, 4 days where 3 of us sat in the room with her just waiting for her to die. It was emotionally and psychologically damaging to deal with after having had to watch her in so much pain and suffering for over 15 months.
Having to deal with that and try to support my brother in law, neice and nephew it ended with myself having a breakdown and taking 5 weeks off work.
What was the cost of all the pain meds for the last 6 months of her life, the cost of the nursing care, the ambulances between home, the hospital and hospice? There had also been some medical equipment sent to her home because she really wanted to die at home, all extra costs before you get to the financial burden on the family and that was something nobody complained about.
Yes my sister worried about us, when she was concious, she hated watching us watche her suffer because she jnew we were suffering too. The pain and anguish she felt was beyond what any person should have to deal with in a truy "humane" society, she should have had the choice.
If the choice is there some will take it and some won't. Yes there needs to be strict safeguards. Other countries have this law so we have a starting point, we can look at oters, ask others what problems they faced, what worked and what didn't, we can do it properly so no dying person is taken advantage of.
How do you protect a terminal patient from the pressure of watching their loved ones suffer too? |
My point was simply that the advocates of this policy keep saying that persons considering AD should not be pushed towards a decision based on what is better for their carers. However, that is the argument you ended up making, and you now add that it will also cost less. If you cannot see that this stands in tension with the "its all about personal choice" line then there is nothing more I can really say. You will see as the debate moves to the Lords that I am not the only one concerned that tacit pressures may affect a decision to opt for AD.. As I said, I think the policy should be allowed to go ahead given the HoC vote, but there are going to be more practical complications than many suppose. | | | |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 15:32 - Jun 26 with 289 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 14:08 - Jun 26 by AnotherJohn |
My point was simply that the advocates of this policy keep saying that persons considering AD should not be pushed towards a decision based on what is better for their carers. However, that is the argument you ended up making, and you now add that it will also cost less. If you cannot see that this stands in tension with the "its all about personal choice" line then there is nothing more I can really say. You will see as the debate moves to the Lords that I am not the only one concerned that tacit pressures may affect a decision to opt for AD.. As I said, I think the policy should be allowed to go ahead given the HoC vote, but there are going to be more practical complications than many suppose. |
That is not the argument I am making. The final choice is always with the patient, nobody should be pushed into any decision but when making this law all aspects have to be considered.
If you think I would have pushed my sister into ending her life early because it was easier for myself then we could end up in a proper argument.
The reality of the situation is that where people want to choose their time instead of suffer in agony AND end up a drugged up living corpse who rots in the bed until the cancer finally wins, it will save money.
There are realities of the situation and while they are distasteful, they are still realities. That is why very strict safeguards need to be in place.
There will always be greedy relatives happy to see someone shuffle off early to get their hands on some cash. On the other hand most of just want the suffering to stop.
As I said, there are other countries who operate assisted dying, we should look to them to see what works best. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Assisted dying in Wales on 16:07 - Jun 26 with 258 views | trampie |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 14:08 - Jun 26 by AnotherJohn |
My point was simply that the advocates of this policy keep saying that persons considering AD should not be pushed towards a decision based on what is better for their carers. However, that is the argument you ended up making, and you now add that it will also cost less. If you cannot see that this stands in tension with the "its all about personal choice" line then there is nothing more I can really say. You will see as the debate moves to the Lords that I am not the only one concerned that tacit pressures may affect a decision to opt for AD.. As I said, I think the policy should be allowed to go ahead given the HoC vote, but there are going to be more practical complications than many suppose. |
You brought the costs into it at the start of your first post by saying " I think Wes Streeting may be right to say the AD policy is more likely to have significant costs rather than cost savings."
I seen that and thought that can't be true, I read the Daily Mail link you put up and Streeting is quoted as saying
''Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply."
So even that is telling you Streeting knows it will save money, he is being very disingenuous by basically saying it will initially cost and there is no budget for that and that it might/will have to come from other nhs budget areas, when he should know that it will save millions and millions of pounds every year, the initially costs will probably be paid off in a short space of time.
When arguments for and against I've seen ive been struck by the fact that those that are arguing for assisted dying are not using the cost benefits angle, they seem to be majoring on the individual having the choice, many people do not want to be in agony unable to do anything just getting worse and worse knowing they are going to die anyway and they just want the agony and misery to end. | |
| |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 16:59 - Jun 26 with 235 views | Boundy |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 15:32 - Jun 26 by SullutaCreturned |
That is not the argument I am making. The final choice is always with the patient, nobody should be pushed into any decision but when making this law all aspects have to be considered.
If you think I would have pushed my sister into ending her life early because it was easier for myself then we could end up in a proper argument.
The reality of the situation is that where people want to choose their time instead of suffer in agony AND end up a drugged up living corpse who rots in the bed until the cancer finally wins, it will save money.
There are realities of the situation and while they are distasteful, they are still realities. That is why very strict safeguards need to be in place.
There will always be greedy relatives happy to see someone shuffle off early to get their hands on some cash. On the other hand most of just want the suffering to stop.
As I said, there are other countries who operate assisted dying, we should look to them to see what works best. |
and yet the option should an elderly person suffer a heart attack whilst in the care of the hospital allows DO NOT RESUITATE to be the decision of a relative .I understand why that is a formal request but people do survive from attacks . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 17:20 - Jun 26 with 229 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
No doubt the Senedd will do it differently in Wales. |  |
| |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 18:22 - Jun 26 with 182 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Assisted dying in Wales on 16:59 - Jun 26 by Boundy |
and yet the option should an elderly person suffer a heart attack whilst in the care of the hospital allows DO NOT RESUITATE to be the decision of a relative .I understand why that is a formal request but people do survive from attacks . |
Very good point, I should have thought of that.
So to anybody arguing against assisted dying, why is a DNR ok when it may not be the choice of the patient? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
