New Tory health chief Anna Soubry slams law that forces terminally ill Brits to die abroad

NEWLY promoted UK health minister Anna Soubry said terminally ill people should be able to receive assistance in ending their lives in the UK.

DAVID CAMERON’S new health minister yesterday slated current laws on assisted ­suicide as “ridiculous”.

Newly promoted UK health minister Anna Soubry said terminally ill people should be able to receive assistance in ending their lives in the UK.

Last night, her comments were ­welcomed by independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who has fought to have assisted suicide legalised in Scotland.

MacDonald said: “These comments are very welcome. They are more realistic and in tune with public opinion than what we have heard from politicians in all parties, with one or two laudable exceptions.

“I am absolutely delighted that the wind is blowing that way.”

The Lothian MSP, who has Parkinson’s disease, has attempted to change the
law in Scotland with her End of Life ­Assistance Bill.

The bill was rejected by MSPs last year but she has vowed to reintroduce it.

She said: “I think this will help MSPs, particularly the newer ones, feel freer about supporting it and we will have a greater chance of success this time.”

Soubry called for greater “honesty” about when prosecutions would be brought for helping relatives to die.

She said: “You can’t say to a doctor or a nurse, ‘You can kill this person’.”

Soubry added: “I think it’s ridiculous and appalling that people have to go abroad to end their life instead of being able to end their life at home. The rules we have about who we don’t prosecute allow things to happen but there’s a good ­argument that we should be a bit more honest about it.”

Her comments came after locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson died a week after he lost his legal bid to end his life with a doctor’s help.

His widow Jane welcomed Soubry’s comments.

She said: “We’re pleased that she has come forward and said this. It does open the debate even more, having an MP who’s willing to stick her neck out and actually support assisted suicide.”

But anti-euthanasia group SPUC ­Pro-Life general secretary Paul Tully said: “The goodwill among the public towards people with disabilities has never been higher than at the Paralympic Games.

“Suddenly they are faced with the ­prospect that if they struggle with suicidal feelings, they will be given help to die instead of care and support.”

Complete Article HERE!

Take Control Of Life, Death

By Dr. Aroop Mangalik

If you want to be comfortable, happy and be with your family and friends when you are facing a serious illness or are likely to die in the near future, you need to take control.

In recent decades, there has been what some have called “medicalization of death.” There have been many advances in medicine and a lot of people are living healthier, longer lives.

But ultimately, we all have to die.

Medicalization of death has occurred, to a significant degree, because we – society, patients and doctors – have not taken into account the fact that there are limits to life and that medical interventions can only do so much.

Understanding this reality is a major step that must be taken to get the best outcome for the patient.

How does one understand this? How do we take control of the situation?

The knowledge you need to get will necessarily come from your medical provider. The best decisions are made by having the facts – available treatment options and the likely outcomes.

Ask your provider about the nature of the illness and what is expected without any treatment.

The next steps will be to get a clear picture of what treatments are available. You should be able to get some idea of how likely it is that the treatments will improve the outcome for you.

This includes information on previous success and failures with available options. At least try to find out if the treatment is “very likely,” “likely,” or “not likely” to help.

Equally, important, you need to know what will be the side-effects of treatment. Will the treatments be harsh or mild, will they last for a short time or will they be persistent.

The cost in dollars is also something that must be considered. In this day of uncertainty we cannot ignore that factor. Many families face bankruptcy because of “long shot” medical treatments.

Once you have the information, you need to decide. It should be your decision based on the best information and input you can get.

If you feel that the treatments available to you are not going to help you achieve your goals, you can refuse those treatments. No one can force you to have a treatment you do not want.

If you choose the path of not taking the treatment, the focus changes from controlling the disease to making your life as comfortable as possible.

The medical team will work with you to control your symptoms. They will help you with pain control, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath or difficulties in performing day-to-day activities. They will work with you to get the best out of life for whatever time you are alive.

There are many types of experts who are trained to help you. They have overlapping roles and expertise and they work together.

They are referred to as Palliative Care Specialists, Hospice Teams or Symptom Management experts. They all have the goals of making your life better and focus on you.

They also help you and your family so that you die comfortably and with dignity with your family and friends around you.

In certain circumstances, despite their efforts, living may feel like a burden. There are other options that can be utilized.

This is the option of you willfully ending your life at the time you choose. This option has been given a number of names. Physician-assisted death (and) assisted suicide being two common ones.

The option is currently available in Oregon and Washington State. In New Mexico, we are waiting for the courts to decide if such an action would be legal.

In summary, when faced with a serious illness, you should take control of your life and decide what is best for you.

Complete Article HERE!

Massachusetts voters support medical marijuana and ‘death with dignity’ ballot initiatives

A majority of Massachusetts voters seem to be in favor of two controversial ballot initiatives that supporters say would ease the suffering of ill Massachusetts citizens.
Sixty percent of Bay State voters said they support allowing terminally ill people to legally obtain medication to end their lives, according to the latest survey from Western New England University Polling Institute in partnership with The Republican and MassLive.com.

Sixty-four percent of voters, meanwhile, backed legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes and 27 percent opposed the idea, according to the survey of 504 registered voters conducted from May 29 to 31.

Under state law, more than 68,000 certified voters must sign an initial petition to place an issue on the November ballot, with not more one-quarter of all the signatures coming from the same county. If the legislature does not take up the issue, an additional 11,000-plus signatures are needed by June 19th to put it on the ballot.

So as long as the initiatives fulfill the legal requirements, Massachusetts voters will have their say on the respective issues on election day.

“Polling on ballot questions is tricky because responses can be highly sensitive to question wording,” said Tim Vercellotti, associate professor of political science and director of the Polling Institute at Western New England University. “The actual questions that the voters see on the ballot tend to be longer and more complicated. Our questions attempt to get to the essence of each issue.”

The survey asked voters whether they supported or opposed “allowing people who are dying to legally obtain medication that they could use to end their lives,” according to Vercellotti.

Support for the “death with dignity” proposal outnumbered opposition by a margin of two to one in the Western New England University survey, with 60 percent of voters saying they support the idea, 29 percent opposing it and 11 percent saying they did not know or declining to provide a response.

John, a former high school teacher living in Holyoke who asked not to be identified by his last name, said his family’s experiences with cancer and other terminal illnesses shaped his support of the “death with dignity” option.

“I think it should be a matter of personal choice,” he said. “If someone is at the end of their life with a terminal illness and it may continue for six months or a year with terrible suffering and pain, why not give them the option? To me, it is freedom of choice.”

And although John identifies as Catholic, he said that he does not attend services and his religion holds no impact on his stance on the subject.
According to the data, opinions varied along party lines, with 67 percent of Democrats favoring the proposal, compared to 58 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans.

Support for the measure also varied by age, Vercellotti said.
While 61 percent of voters ages 18 to 49 and 72 percent of voters ages 50 to 64 support the idea, the same was true for only 46 percent of voters ages 65 and older.
Respondents who were 65 and older also were the most likely of any demographic group to say they were not sure or to decline to answer the question, with 20 percent choosing those options.

“I told them I didn’t know because I didn’t want to just give a quick answer. It’s a complicated issue,” said Robert Sandwald, a retired resident of Hopkinton, Mass. “I don’t want to give an answer I believe in. I’ll be thinking about it in case someone asks me in the future but I just don’t know how I feel about it.”
Views about the “death with dignity” proposal also varied by religion and religious observance.

Vercellotti said that although a majority of Catholic and Protestant voters said they support the proposal, their opinions tend to vary based on how often they attend religious services.

Fifty-two percent of all Catholic voters said they support the idea, 36 percent said they oppose it, and 12 percent said they did not know or declined to answer. But among Catholic voters who attend church at least once a week or almost every week, 52 percent opposed the “death with dignity” proposal and only 37 percent said they support it.
Deborah Greene, a 56-year-old Catholic from Milton who said she attends church services almost every week, opposes the “death with dignity” option.

“I’m against it because I just don’t think it’s right,” Greene said. “It is a religious conflict.”

Catholic voters who attend church less frequently – about once a month, seldom or never – backed the idea by more than a two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 25 percent.
Among all Protestant voters, 56 percent supported the proposal, and 28 percent were opposed. Opinion was much more narrowly divided among Protestant voters who attend services at least once a week or almost every week, with 42 percent opposed and 38 percent in favor.

“The results indicate that religious identity is not the only distinguishing factor when it comes to views on this issue,” Vercellotti said. “Responses varied not just by religious identity, but also by religious observance. When it comes to Catholics and Protestants, the more ‘churched’ you are, so to speak, the more likely you are to oppose the ‘death with dignity’ proposal.”

Voters from other religious backgrounds overwhelmingly supported the measure, with 76 percent in favor and 19 percent opposed. Voters who identified themselves as atheists or agnostic backed the idea by an almost nine-to-one margin.

On the topic of allowing people to obtain marijuana for medical purposes with the prescription of a licensed physician, the results varied by political affiliation, gender, age and education level.

If the proposed law legalizing medical marijuana appears on the ballot and is approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 6, then Massachusetts would join 16 other states in the U.S. by allowing such a treatment option, despite federal law which prohibits it.

The proposed law would allow a physician to prescribe a 60-day supply of marijuana to a patient with a “debilitating medical condition,” such as cancer, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease or a broad category that includes “other conditions.”

The law would also permit up to 35 nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries or treatment centers across the state, including at least one in each county.
The idea of legalized medical marijuana in Massachusetts has stirred passionate conversation among the commonwealth’s citizens and legislators.

John, the former high school teacher in Holyoke, said he opposes medical marijuana primarily because of the possibility of it being a precursor to full legalization.
“When I was a teacher, I saw the destruction that marijuana caused in the lives of so many young people,” he said. “I’ve seen kids with a tremendous amount of potential just go down the tubes. And I know you can’t completely blame it on marijuana, but it was a contributing factor. I guess I’m opposed to this if it is opening the door to overall legalization.”

Greene, a devout Catholic, said she is open to the concept because of research on the issue.

“As I understand it, there are properties in marijuana that can ease the pain of cancer that come with certain developments in the disease,” Greene said. “So as I understand it, it would be beneficial under medical direction, so I’m open to that.”
When asked whether they would support or oppose legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, 74 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents endorsed the measure, while Republican voters were almost evenly divided, with 47 percent opposed and 45 percent in favor.

More than two-thirds of female voters supported legalizing medical marijuana, while the same was true for 58 percent of male voters. Younger voters also responded more favorably than did senior citizens. Sixty-eight percent of voters ages 18 to 49 and 50 to 64 supported legalizing medical marijuana compared to 54 percent of voters age 65 and older.
Views also varied by education, with 68 percent of voters with college degrees endorsing the measure, compared to 61 percent of voters with some college or with a high school diploma or less.

The survey has a 4.4. percent margin of error.

Complete Article HERE!