News

You're not signed in
Sign in
Sign up

Margo MacDonald's End of Life Care Bill is an idea whose time has come

OPINION: We need this dignified exit route, argues David Coyle. Listen to those who have to live with terminal conditions.They know.

David Coyle

By David Coyle

22 January 2010 10:28 GMT

152263
Margo MacDonald's End of Life Care Bill is an idea whose time has come

Brave choice: Margo MacDonald understands the needs of the temrinally ill.

Margo MacDonald’s End of Life Care Bill is one of the bravest and most dignified acts to come before the Scottish Parliament. You’ll also hear it described as euthanasia or assisted suicide, but I think End of Life Care has a certain dignity about it – which is what it’s all about after all.

Obviously it’s going to be debated and opposed but to my mind I really don’t see how it can be opposed when abortion is legal in this country. Different ends of the life span of humans, but essentially the end result is the same. We do have a need to legislate on a person’s right to choose how and when they die if they have some medical condition, because it already happens, either with or without tacit help from doctors or nurses.

I knew someone who had a terminal disease. A particularly complicated cancer had spread through his body. He was receiving all the palliative care the NHS could offer, but in the long-term, it didn’t look too good. It wasn’t much of a life for someone in his early thirties So one day he was found dead in his car. Toxicology reports showed that he’d taken a cocktail of most of the medicines that he had been prescribed by specialists which resulted in an overdose. Seemed like a simple case of suicide, if there ever was such a thing.

Obviously, family and friends were devastated by this. But afterwards, although people spoke in hushed tones, there was element of understanding. Sort of “Well, what would you do if it was you...” Nobody knows for sure whether or not it was deliberate, but maybe if we had legislation in place that allowed that choice to be made, there would be no need for the hushed tones. There would also be no need for the wrangling with official bodies and insurance companies who don’t pay out death benefits on suicide. Check the small print.

But that’s not the only way people’s lives end. It can also happen with intervention by medical professionals, but fear of prosecution leaves the administration of a slightly higher dose of a painkiller in a particularly murky grey area of medical care and legality. But it does happen. It will happen today in a hospice or a hospital ward somewhere in the country. As one medical expert recently put it: ”The difference between a drug and a poison is basically the dose.”

MacDonald’s bill will not make it compulsory for people to get to a certain point and then have to bite the bullet or the black capsule. It’s about informed choice. Various measures are in the bill to ensure that it doesn’t turn into a conveyor belt of people deciding to kill themselves on a whim.
It will be a question of quality of life. Some will argue that any life will have an inherent quality that makes it worth living, and they are entitled to that view. But some will not see it that way.

I don’t have a terminal illness or an incurable degenerative disease and I can’t tell you how people who do have them feel about their quality of life. I can only rationalise it by what I see. Maybe I’m selfish, but I have seen people with certain conditions and thought: “I hope that doesn’t happen to me.”

The only people who know are those living with these conditions. As Margo MacDonald, who has Parkinson’s Disease, told Holyrood yesterday: “There are many people who have progressive, degenerative conditions that are much more vicious than mine. And they only have to look forward to a very, very unhappy, unpleasant and undignified end of life experience.”

We’re brought up being told that we should live life as best we can, with respect and dignity for ourselves and others. We also know that dying is inevitable. It’s time we gave that respect and dignity to those who find themselves in some of the darkest places life takes you.

David Coyle is the winner of stv.tvs 'Write Factor' competition. His views do not necessarily represent those of STV plc
 

Last updated: 22 January 2010, 10:52

Share

The links provided allow you to bookmark this page into your favourite social media website. For users with JavaScript disabled copy and paste the URL from the address bar into your chosen social bookmarking site.

Pick Golden Wonders New Flavour

There are 10 comments

You need to be logged in to comment.

sign in

Don't have a mySTV account? Create one now it's easy

  1. Default avatar

    1. 22 Jan 2010 11:41lifefighter said

    It is an idea whose 'time came'in Oregan 12 years ago and is about to go.See the report on the deadly dangers of this sort of legislaion below, from the Daily Telegraph.

    One of the great concerns about Oregon is the suggestion that the very existence of the right-to-die law means the state's health system now has less of an incentive to provide terminally-ill people with proper care.

    It is something that came to blight 64-year-old Barbara Wagner's last days. Diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005, the former bus driver vowed to fight the disease so she could spend as long as possible with her family.

    Even after her doctor warned last year that she had less than six months left, she refused to give up, pinning all her hopes on a new life-prolonging treatment.

    But her request, at the beginning of last year, for the £2,500-a-month drug was refused by Oregon's state-run health plan as being too expensive. Instead, she was offered lethal medication to end her life.

    Report as unsuitable

  2. Default avatar

    2. 22 Jan 2010 11:57Mort said

    David

    It's a very interesting article and one that I'm sure will pull at the heart strings of all who have read and have seen people they love degenerate in front of their very eyes.

    This will also generate a lot of debate as there will undoubtedly be those with very strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Is a person's right to choose when to end their life more important that the right to live and the commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill"?

    I'm all for freedom of choice but I can't find it in myself to agree completely. I abhor abortion as it goes against all I believe in, but on the other hand in relation to when to die I am torn between what I believe now and how my beliefs may change if I'm ever in that situation or someone I really care about is.

    It's a very emotive subject and well done to Margo for raising it in the first place and to you for highlighting it to a wider audience.

    Mort

    Report as unsuitable

  3. Default avatar

    3. 22 Jan 2010 13:04JungleJim said

    I would like to hear from someone who believes that he has a greater right than I have about what choice I should make were I terminally ill, in great pain and without hope.I would also like him to tell me what gives him that right.

    Report as unsuitable

  4. Default avatar

    4. 22 Jan 2010 13:35fritzsong said

    It's callous and unfeeling to be unmoved by the plight of those in pain and those stripped of human dignity.

    However, no matter which safeguards are built in, any right to die legislation will be abused. Some relatives will exert pressure on those who have become a burden. Some doctors will provide prognoses in such a way that death appears to be the only viable choice. Eventually, the state may participate in the decision making.

    When David Steel legalised abortion, the pro-lobby stressed that terminations would occur in only pretty extreme circumstances. That has not turned out to be the case today nor will it be after any right to die legislation.

    'Hard cases make bad law.' So, the old legal saw goes and there may be something to it.

    Report as unsuitable

  5. Default avatar

    5. 22 Jan 2010 15:25binarystar said

    I have late stage metastatic bowel cancer with tumors spread throughout all lobes of my liver .., at the moment I am undergoing life prolonging treatment which will only hold back the inevitable in for two or three years assuming the cancer doesnt metastisise in other parts of my body, brain, bones, pancreas etc ... once the treatment ceases its effectiveness things will start getting ugly in terms of pain and quality of life ... I dont want to die .. I am in my mid thirties, I have a young family ( a loving partner and two little girls aged 3 and 1 ) so still have so much to to live for .. but some rogue cells in my body have decided my fate for me .. I have made peace with my destiny and have decided that when the disease starts becoming unbearable I am going to leave the planet early ...

    What frustrates and angers me is legislation is put in place to prevent myself who is of sound and rational mind from making a choice about my end of life care .... I am not interested in being palliated to the bitter end ... I want to be able to say good bye to my loved ones while I am still 'me' and not the disease that I am afflicted with ... and then peacefully and with dignity fall to sleep for the last time

    Safe legislation can be implemented for voluntary legislation for people with terminal illnesses ... it is a simply scare mongering to suggest otherwise .. life and death decisions are made everyday by medical professionals regarding complex treatments that may or may not be succdesful ... the old hoary argument that people with a terminal illness will be forced to die is just ridiculous .. ie the person dying eg myself will need to be evaluated by independent doctors and psychologists to ensure that I am making the decision on my own and that I genuinely had a terminal illness ...

    Report as unsuitable

  6. Default avatar

    6. 23 Jan 2010 00:35Paul67 said

    Horrible subject, Davey, brave one for politicians as there are no votes here. Interesting comparison with abortion, never considered that.

    Report as unsuitable

  7. Default avatar

    7. 23 Jan 2010 00:42SFTB said

    It seems so obvious and unarguable that the Margo McDonald approach is the civilised and modern way to take away the stigma (and financial penalties) of suicide.

    And yet, I remain conflicted. Why have societies throughout the ages had such trouble with suicide? Either it becomes a ritual to amend dishonour as in hara kiri, or it is seen as a coward's way out, denying friends and family your company and leaving unresolved guilt behind.

    The instinct to live and continue breathing is evident in all terminal patients. I have seen many people "struggle" to produce one last breath before exhaustion leads to expiry. The instinct to live is so powerful that it seems perverse to see it calmly and rationally overturned.

    And yet, my conflicted views remains because decent, thinking, intelligent people like Margo McDonald and binarystar above have a settled and thoughtful long term view on this. I still carry doubts about the safeguards needed for those who feel pressurised to use this approach, but can find no place in my heart to condemn those who have a considered and settled view on this dificult personal choice.

    Report as unsuitable

  8. Default avatar

    8. 26 Jan 2010 22:23Redness said

    I honestly don't see why other Parties will not Vote "Yes" on this issue to bring in a Bill that will give people the choice to die in their own Country instead of flying some-place else where that person known no-one, whereas, if they had the option to do it in Scotland, they would have family to support them. Just think how lonely the people who travel from Scotland to another Country to get this treatment done... And people will not be foreced in to doing this; no-one is going to force them to go through with this. It is when the person is ready and comfortable that this is what they want done. And the process, to actually get through with the Safegaurds in place, will be very tough. People should be given this choice, and it is not right that people without this conditon should decide. They should just bring it through. What's to say that some of the other Party Members won't have this condition in later life, then they might regret not bringing this through...

    Report as unsuitable

  9. Default avatar

    9. 26 Jan 2010 22:28Redness said

    And to those people who say that the Safeguards won't be here is son many years: If this does happen, and the Bill gets Passed with the Safegaurds, then someone would have needed to bring a Bill forward that either weakens the Safeguards, or Removes them from the Bill. As it would stand, as Margo is presenting it, this Bill would include the Safegaurds, which means that the Safegaurds would be part of the Bill.

    Well done, Margo, for bringing this up,creating a Bill.

    Report as unsuitable

  10. Default avatar

    10. 26 Jan 2010 22:29Redness said

    Correction:

    Should read as the following: "...won't be here is so many years:..."

    Report as unsuitable

You need to be logged in to comment.

sign in

Don't have a mySTV account? Create one now it's easy

Posts are not actively monitored by STV. The views expressed are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of STV.

Buy one, get one free offers on outdoor activities with OUTDOORSaver
Additional support for learning. Take the STV poll now

Poll - Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games logo


What do you think of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games logo?

Related Articles

Video