Labour won the pre CoViD election.

[Merseymike]

Apr 20, 2020 16:41:10 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Apr 20, 2020 16:05:14 GMT Merseymike said:

No, we will have to stop spending money on free drugs to keep people alive without being able to lengthen quality of life. Increasing life for people who will permanently 'need care' of the sort we are now talking about needing is only financially viable if:
1. people pay for it themselves, or
2. we pay taxes to cover the cost.
Families will not 'have to' do anything, though no doubt some will turn on the guilt to try and make them. They won't, though.
I would vote for any party which proposed legalising of voluntary euthanasia. I fully intend to take advantage of that and have ensured I have the money to do so if necessary.

I agree with more or less all you say there.

We need to stop funding operations via the NHS just to keep people alive. about financial viability, points 1 & 2 you make are totally right. Regarding 'have to' I would hope it would become more the norm that people 'would do' as have to is almost impossible to acheive. Voluntary Euthanasia, with the correct safeguards, Yes.

I think the problem with expecting families to step in is twofold, first, that some are so old themselves by the time the serious caring kicks in, that they just can't manage it, and then in some cases, the older person is simply in need of more than an untrained relative could provide. And the reality is that for most people of working age, they need to work to simply pay the bills - carers allowances just don't cover the needs of life, and were never intended to. And in many cases the older person doesn't live locally, and has no wish to live with family members - this was certainly the case with my mother, who ended up in an excellent care home because the day care she recieved just wasn't enough to enable her to stay in the sheltered bungalow she lived in before (and the story of how she ended up there is a tale and a half, but lets just say that she wasn't coping in her own house any more). There were a number of factors involved, and I knew perfectly well that living with us wasn't an option on all sorts of levels, and do did she.
We were fortunate. I used to be an advice centre manager, my sister is a nurse, and we knew that the complications of Mum's position meant that her care was covered under Section 117, which essentially means she was sectioned twice for something which was directly related to her needing care, so she didn't have to pay. The state rightly conclude that they cannot charge you for removal of your liberty and care emanating from that, but many people do not realise this and end up doing all they can to stop their relative being sectioned and then aren't told about section 117 rules afterwards. We simply behaved like the most awkward bastards possible, saying Yes and No where needed, to ensure she got what she was entitled to. And I'm content to use that term, because she worked hard throughout her life, and I think her last years were as happy as they could have been. I think she should have been entitled to that.
That experience, together with my fathers very unpleasant death in a hospice , has fashioned some of my views about these issues - I wish we could have the same discussion at a policy level, because the fact is that many of those people calling for lives to be saved at all costs would run a mile if they thought the outcome was that their elderly relative should be looked after by them.

[gwynthegriff]

Apr 20, 2020 17:18:36 GMT Merseymike said:

Apr 20, 2020 16:41:10 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

I agree with more or less all you say there.

We need to stop funding operations via the NHS just to keep people alive. about financial viability, points 1 & 2 you make are totally right. Regarding 'have to' I would hope it would become more the norm that people 'would do' as have to is almost impossible to acheive. Voluntary Euthanasia, with the correct safeguards, Yes.

I think the problem with expecting families to step in is twofold, first, that some are so old themselves by the time the serious caring kicks in, that they just can't manage it, and then in some cases, the older person is simply in need of more than an untrained relative could provide. And the reality is that for most people of working age, they need to work to simply pay the bills - carers allowances just don't cover the needs of life, and were never intended to. And in many cases the older person doesn't live locally, and has no wish to live with family members - this was certainly the case with my mother, who ended up in an excellent care home because the day care she recieved just wasn't enough to enable her to stay in the sheltered bungalow she lived in before (and the story of how she ended up there is a tale and a half, but lets just say that she wasn't coping in her own house any more). There were a number of factors involved, and I knew perfectly well that living with us wasn't an option on all sorts of levels, and do did she.
We were fortunate. I used to be an advice centre manager, my sister is a nurse, and we knew that the complications of Mum's position meant that her care was covered under Section 117, which essentially means she was sectioned twice for something which was directly related to her needing care, so she didn't have to pay. The state rightly conclude that they cannot charge you for removal of your liberty and care emanating from that, but many people do not realise this and end up doing all they can to stop their relative being sectioned and then aren't told about section 117 rules afterwards. We simply behaved like the most awkward bastards possible, saying Yes and No where needed, to ensure she got what she was entitled to. And I'm content to use that term, because she worked hard throughout her life, and I think her last years were as happy as they could have been. I think she should have been entitled to that.
That experience, together with my fathers very unpleasant death in a hospice , has fashioned some of my views about these issues - I wish we could have the same discussion at a policy level, because the fact is that many of those people calling for lives to be saved at all costs would run a mile if they thought the outcome was that their elderly relative should be looked after by them.

I've "liked" this because I think 99% of it is spot on, but . . .

I just wonder how many people are really "calling for lives to be saved at all costs" ?

[Richard Allen]

To go back to the original question. The opposition front bench would have reluctantly supported the measures, at least in principle if not in detail. The Tory press would have been supportive at first but would have nitpicked and waited for an excuse to switch sides. A big chunk of Tory backbenchers would have ranged from mild concern to outright opposition. Steve Baker would have been apoplectic and would have been close to tears of rage instead of tears of shame.

[Merseymike]

Apr 20, 2020 17:44:29 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Apr 20, 2020 17:18:36 GMT Merseymike said:

I think the problem with expecting families to step in is twofold, first, that some are so old themselves by the time the serious caring kicks in, that they just can't manage it, and then in some cases, the older person is simply in need of more than an untrained relative could provide. And the reality is that for most people of working age, they need to work to simply pay the bills - carers allowances just don't cover the needs of life, and were never intended to. And in many cases the older person doesn't live locally, and has no wish to live with family members - this was certainly the case with my mother, who ended up in an excellent care home because the day care she recieved just wasn't enough to enable her to stay in the sheltered bungalow she lived in before (and the story of how she ended up there is a tale and a half, but lets just say that she wasn't coping in her own house any more). There were a number of factors involved, and I knew perfectly well that living with us wasn't an option on all sorts of levels, and do did she.
We were fortunate. I used to be an advice centre manager, my sister is a nurse, and we knew that the complications of Mum's position meant that her care was covered under Section 117, which essentially means she was sectioned twice for something which was directly related to her needing care, so she didn't have to pay. The state rightly conclude that they cannot charge you for removal of your liberty and care emanating from that, but many people do not realise this and end up doing all they can to stop their relative being sectioned and then aren't told about section 117 rules afterwards. We simply behaved like the most awkward bastards possible, saying Yes and No where needed, to ensure she got what she was entitled to. And I'm content to use that term, because she worked hard throughout her life, and I think her last years were as happy as they could have been. I think she should have been entitled to that.
That experience, together with my fathers very unpleasant death in a hospice , has fashioned some of my views about these issues - I wish we could have the same discussion at a policy level, because the fact is that many of those people calling for lives to be saved at all costs would run a mile if they thought the outcome was that their elderly relative should be looked after by them.

I've "liked" this because I think 99% of it is spot on, but . . .

I just wonder how many people are really "calling for lives to be saved at all costs" ?

Far too many - I've seen plenty on Facebook, its vewry much an emotional reaction, but it hasn't been thought through, and no one appears to have the courage to say - enough.