I'll put this on this thread as it has been part of the smoking debate. I saw an advert that caught my attention showing an inhaling device called FUM also goes by other names, quite a few 'claims' made in the advert that got my mind questioning it - I've never seen this product before and much like other devices I've never been an e-smoker. But due to it's persistent health claims it got me looking closer...quick google gave me this link https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9041544/ just goes to show don't believe claims in adverts. please log in to view this image
If you have an addictive personality in this modern world you are ****ed The stuff they prescribe to wean you off hard drugs is in itself addictive and long term can/will cause you damage Same goes for smoking, unless you can give it up without substitutes you will become addicted to the substitutes
Don't think medical professionals are allowed to administer the drugs in the bill are they? People have to give themselves the lethal dose I believe. Which is why I'm somewhat hypocritical on this debate, as I both don't think it covers enough situations but also am worried about the slippery slope effect. Still in favour overall but although I agree in principle that people suffering should have the right to choose I don't think it'll be quite that simple in practice.
They can supply a device to allow the"patient" to administer the drug and / or assist in the administration . I read the bill (surprrisingly concise tbh) when Brb put up a post including unbearable suffering as i was sure that wasn't included.
'Unbearable suffering' is a subjective term, but I guess that is down to the person themselves to decide. My only concern with giving a patient a device to administer a drug themselves is that quite often at the end, people are no longer capable to do so. It's a heavy burden to ask a Doctor to do that though and one which I think would go against a lot of Hippocratic oaths that Doctors have taken
That video literally shows the info where he and he wife had loads of assets BEFORE he became President of Ukraine. Wasn't he a comedian and TV personality before that ? Don't agree with them stashing their wealth in offshore tax havens, but that's what the rich do. Bloke in the Vid is claiming that US Tax dollars have funded his Hotel purchase, but then shows the evidence where he and his wife are already very wealthy lol It's bait bro.
I’m just listening to the debate in Parliament now. It’s not an easy listen. The MP bringing the bill forward is just recounting some accounts of the excruciating ways in which some people die, begging for it to end. One bloke had cancer that obstructed his bowel, at the end he was perpetually vomiting his own **** and eventually choked to death on his own faeces. His family watched this happen and his wife ended up with PTSD as a result. There are accounts of people taking their own lives in horrendous suicides and being found by family members who are then questioned by Police who have suspected them of either aiding them or killing them. Having watched my own father die over the course of 10 days through starvation and dehydration, all of these accounts simply reaffirm by belief that people should have the choice of a compassionate death at a time of their own choosing
and i just look at the expansion of abortion since the original Act . Oh and being in a couple where both are classified as severely disabled one of which i know from experience medical practitioners have little or no interest in their views on treatments they intend to give i oppose it
I think there are a multitude of issues within this bill that would need further debate and assurances. And I think people’s personal experiences with medical practitioners varies widely. Ultimately the choice has to be with the person who wants to end their life. And that includes capacity to make that decision. I think if it were introduced it would probably only be applicable in a narrow set of circumstances. If it doesn’t pass today, I hope it’s something that the house come back to at another time if it’s rejected on the basis of fears about safeguarding.
It doesn’t really matter about my faith or opinion on medical practitioners. Just as long as if it’s put into law, the necessary safeguards are put in place. that said, I do recognise that there have been some serious failings in the health service over the years, the contaminated blood scandal being just one, and it’s crucial that something like this isn’t rushed through without all of those potential pitfalls being for abuse and misuse being ironed out
nope medical practitioners i.e, someone with a medical qualification which must include for example Physician Associates .
interestingly i got that about medical practitioners not needing to be actual Drs from the debate which was never challenged but can't see that in the bill . confused you will be .
I’m listening to the debate and know the part you’re referring to. It was actually challenged, can’t remember the MP’s name but he used to be a nurse on A&E But yeah, it has to be robust. You don’t want some GP receptionist on a bad day signing off your death warrant
