35. Esther Rantzen

[friedbutty 41]

13 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

I mean, you can't be punished for a successful suicide....

 

The article says that if a law were to be passed, the first death would still be 2-3 years away. But I guess only very few people here believe she can make it to 2026.

 

Which is better? That's No More Life or if she has the death needle, Esther Rat Poisoned?

[Grim Up North 3,727]

24 minutes ago, friedbutty said:

 

Which is better? That's No More Life or if she has the death needle, Esther Rat Poisoned?

Neither they are both shit.

 

That’s Death

 

is the only acceptable option using the KISS principles.

[The Old Crem 3,611]

Feels like she might die just after the assisted dying bill is rejected on the 29th November. 

[An Fear Beag 1,535]

1 hour ago, Grim Up North said:

Neither they are both shit.

 

That’s Death

 

is the only acceptable option using the KISS principles.

 

That's Life host is toast

 

Using the principle that it's a whole year since it was used, and if it was shit enough to use then, it's shit enough to re-use now.

[Bibliogryphon 9,597]

"This is nothing to do with me"

 

I do feel she is betraying all those people she previously supported for the Silverline support network. I think this has the biggest potential for abuse and manipulation of older sick people.

[The Old Crem 3,611]

21 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

"This is nothing to do with me"

 

I do feel she is betraying all those people she previously supported for the Silverline support network. I think this has the biggest potential for abuse and manipulation of older sick people.

She will never go through with it herself despite the majority of cancer suffers being able to commit suicide through certain methods till pretty close to the end, 

 

(Through because of high profileness her family would be more likely to be prosecuted than an ordinary person.)

[Bibliogryphon 9,597]

3 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I don’t know why she doesn’t just commit suicide. She is still presumably capable of taking enough pills to overdose by herself or another method of suicide. 

 

Here is where I will defend her. She may be capable of taking an overdose or another way of doing that but not everyone does have that ability and choice. It can also be difficult for people to obtain drugs to do this without being deceitful. What she is looking for is dignity in dying and protection for loved ones who have to provide assistance.  

 

However I still feel that there are risks in the approach being adopted

[The Old Crem 3,611]

11 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

Here is where I will defend her. She may be capable of taking an overdose or another way of doing that but not everyone does have that ability and choice. It can also be difficult for people to obtain drugs to do this without being deceitful. What she is looking for is dignity in dying and protection for loved ones who have to provide assistance.  

 

However I still feel that there are risks in the approach being adopted

I fully get why but it feels so risky. Maybe a ban on Inheritance being accessible for three - five years could remove some of that issue throigh that would also be unfair as well. 

[Ulitzer95 12,690]

Cancer is normally a peaceful death. Horrible end of life experiences tend to come from things like Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease, Alzheimer’s etc.

 

Esther just loves a bandwagon.

 

If she wants it that bad she should go to Switzerland and be done with it.

 

Even in her dying days she’s got to be a social justice warrior for something.

[Sean 6,340]

18 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Cancer is normally a peaceful death. Horrible end of life experiences tend to come from things like Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease, Alzheimer’s etc.

 

Esther just loves a bandwagon.

 

If she wants it that bad she should go to Switzerland and be done with it.

 

Even in her dying days she’s got to be a social justice warrior for something.

Cancer can cause horrific deaths .Lung cancer is one of the worst ones to die from.

[Ulitzer95 12,690]

4 minutes ago, Sean said:

Cancer cab cause horrific deaths .Lung cancer is one of the worst ones to die from.

The key word there being "can", but not usually.

[Sean 6,340]

5 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

The key word there being "can", but not usually.

Lung cancer is usually extremely unpleasant in its final stages even with good palliative care.I agree that there are worse slower ways to die.

[Ulitzer95 12,690]

11 minutes ago, Sean said:

Lung cancer is usually extremely unpleasant in its final stages even with good palliative care.I agree that there are worse slower ways to die.

Just as well I quit smoking then!

[Toast 16,161]

27 minutes ago, Sean said:

Lung cancer is usually extremely unpleasant in its final stages even with good palliative care.I agree that there are worse slower ways to die.

 

Even with palliative care there can be other stuff going on.  My mum was sedated with morphine as usual on the last day of her life, and she was very distressed, thrashing about violently in her sleep.

The nurse came and gave her another dose and she settled.  It was a fatal dose - that happens all the time but nobody talks about it.

[Ulitzer95 12,690]

4 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

Even with palliative care there can be other stuff going on.  My mum was sedated with morphine as usual on the last day of her life, and she was very distressed, thrashing about violently in her sleep.

The nurse came and gave her another dose and she settled.  It was a fatal dose - that happens all the time but nobody talks about it.

The NHS also stop feeding people who they know are on their way out, even if they're still conscious. Also something that's never spoken about.

A relative of mine went to see a friend in her mid-90s several weeks ago. She was frail but conscious and speaking as normal. Hospital were not feeding her properly. Every time she visited she brought her a decent meal and she'd perk up. They need the beds at the end of the day but I think it's really immoral.

[friedbutty 41]

On 12/11/2024 at 16:26, The Old Crem said:

She will never go through with it herself despite the majority of cancer suffers being able to commit suicide through certain methods till pretty close to the end, 

 

(Through because of high profileness her family would be more likely to be prosecuted than an ordinary person.)

 

Maybe that's her intention. She wants a more real life method of haunting them.

[Master Obit 841]

On 13/11/2024 at 13:08, Ulitzer95 said:

The NHS also stop feeding people who they know are on their way out, even if they're still conscious. Also something that's never spoken about.

A relative of mine went to see a friend in her mid-90s several weeks ago. She was frail but conscious and speaking as normal. Hospital were not feeding her properly. Every time she visited she brought her a decent meal and she'd perk up. They need the beds at the end of the day but I think it's really immoral.

In fairness, at least some of the time it will be that the patients aren't eating it because hospital food is notoriously horrible. It isn't that they aren't being fed, it's that they aren't being fed anything that is appetising because it's quite difficult to make gourmet meals for hundreds of patients so everything tends to be quite simple and batch cooked. It's just not appetising at all, when I was in A&E last year and they took me to a ward I was more worried about finding a relative to bring me a decent meal than I was about whether there was anything wrong with me.

 

The guy I'm currently speaking to works for the NHS, and assures me that the staff food isn't really any better. 

[lobius 30]

On 13/11/2024 at 13:08, Ulitzer95 said:

The NHS also stop feeding people who they know are on their way out, even if they're still conscious. Also something that's never spoken about.
 

 

Often it's not that the food is bad - a part of end-of-life is the digestive system packing in so eating becomes painful, and appetite evaporates.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/end-of-life-care/your-wellbeing/changes-in-the-last-hours-and-days/

[Toast 16,161]

6 hours ago, lobius said:

Often it's not that the food is bad - a part of end-of-life is the digestive system packing in so eating becomes painful, and appetite evaporates.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/end-of-life-care/your-wellbeing/changes-in-the-last-hours-and-days/

 

Or the meal is just left in front of the patient who isn''t physically able to feed him/herself. The staff are too busy to sit down and help them. 

I've known people with a relative in hospital who have gone in at mealtimes expressly to feed their relative becasue they can't manage without help..

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,347]

11 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

Or the meal is just left in front of the patient who isn''t physically able to feed him/herself. The staff are too busy to sit down and help them. 

I've known people with a relative in hospital who have gone in at mealtimes expressly to feed their relative becasue they can't manage without help..

I was one of those relatives  and  I observed a nurse telling  another patients family  visitors that their mother/nan was refusing to eat / left their food untouched,  when the issue was not patient  refusal. The awful stories I could tell.  This incident was back in 2005 but based on what I hear from friends and family, today the problem seems both still  endemic and systemic sadly. 

[lobius 30]

10 hours ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I was one of those relatives  and  I observed a nurse telling  another patients family  visitors that their mother/nan was refusing to eat / left their food untouched,  when the issue was not patient  refusal. The awful stories I could tell.  This incident was back in 2005 but based on what I hear from friends and family, today the problem seems both still  endemic and systemic sadly. 

 

I think you have to be careful with how you frame this sort of thing. I know it's fashionable to hate on the NHS and sympathize with the elderly patients, but there's a balance, a lot of is down to the patient losing interest in food and no longer wanting to put the effort into eating, despite what the relatives might want to think. (If they were _really_ that desperate to eat I'm sure they'd be making a hell of a fuss about it. Dying involves just  'giving up' on a lot of basic stuff which is usually hard to accept)

 

To quote House MD - "death is never dignified, it's always ugly"

 

[Toast 16,161]

3 hours ago, lobius said:

I know it's fashionable to hate on the NHS

 

That's a ridiculous thing to say.  Nobody hates the  NHS. We hate what successive governments have done to it.

I made a point of saying that the ward staff are overworked.

 

And the word 'on' is superfluous in the quoted sentence.  Note how I haven't used it.

[msc 18,490]

52 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

That's a ridiculous thing to say.  Nobody hates the  NHS. We hate what successive governments have done to it.

I made a point of saying that the ward staff are overworked.

 

And the word 'on' is superfluous in the quoted sentence.  Note how I haven't used it.

Overworked, underpaid because the entire system is vastly understaffed. People can point to money being spent in the wrong areas (consultant doctor pay, overpriced medicine etc) but that's government incompetence again.

[Sleepiestpeep 158]

5 hours ago, Toast said:

 

That's a ridiculous thing to say.  Nobody hates the  NHS. We hate what successive governments have done to it.

I made a point of saying that the ward staff are overworked.

 

And the word 'on' is superfluous in the quoted sentence.  Note how I haven't used it.

I don't agree that it's superfluous - the two have different meanings.

 

Hating something can be passive - you can hate the NHS, in this example, without ever saying something about it. 

 

Hating on something, on the other hand, is vocally and publicly criticising it - which is something you can also do if you don't feel hatred towards the thing.

[Toast 16,161]

1 hour ago, Sleepiestpeep said:

I don't agree that it's superfluous - the two have different meanings.

Hating something can be passive - you can hate the NHS, in this example, without ever saying something about it.

Hating on something, on the other hand, is vocally and publicly criticising it - which is something you can also do if you don't feel hatred towards the thing.

 

I disagree, "hating on" is a new turn of phrase which is increasingly being substituted for the verb "hate".