To say that if the assisted dying bill isn't passed....

Yep..look where commen sense is taking Canada

Decisions should be made in parliament. The bill is complex and nuanced so it is not just a yes/no vote on the issue. I am supportive but it needs proper scrutiny and debate. What worries me is the dark money coming in from America to the likes of Danny Kruger to influence opinions.

Thankfully common sense will prevail and it will become legal in the not so distant future. Our kids generation will ask why we let humans die a miserable, painful and prolonged death, despite wanting to slip away when they chose.

It’s inhumane to prolong the inevitable against someone’s wishes and there would be uproar if we made animals suffer in the same way.

If you don’t like it then don’t do it but don’t think you can dictate other people’s choices.

Totally agree with you. We put far too much emphasis on a long life. Everybody I speak to including myself. Thinks that if you want to go, you should be able to go. And that is very unpalatable.But the truth is for some people, including myself.Sometimes you get sick of existing people sometimes just don't want to be here

All they have to do is up the morphine on many cases if they gave more morphine then they should then people would pass away to. There are risks to everything you do and take

But I also heard on the radio yesterday. The any doctor that does this has to go straight to the police station and register in a book

In Rotterdam my parent was killed by injection by a doctor who made the decision without my parent or me agreeing.
It's a secretive process, paperwork is often not fully completed and culturally, as an accepted process, operates on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis.
The year my parent died, another thousand received the same treatment.

It was a mercy-killing, there was no quality of life - dementia and a series of devastating strokes had done the damage - but there were no adequate safeguards that would have prevented a Shipman.

I'm not worried about a slippery slope with assisted dying but I do worry about this need for everyone to be labelled as vulnerable so others can "protect" (control) them and take away their rights. That's very scary to me. Someone already mentioned earlier in the thread that a woman chose assisted dying against her families wishes-I thought family weren't supposed to have any say? But apparently they should be consulted if the person is "vulnerable" and chooses something their family disagrees with, as long as it's not AD of course. Terrifying! I have depression so no doubt I'd be deemed vulnerable too, and others are seeking to take away my rights and choices for the end of my life in order to "protect" me. How bloody patronising.

Suppose it goes with the nanny state though.

It is normal for any study to state their limitations. It doesn’t mean that the same drugs on other humans won’t also have similar complications, unless you think Canadians are a distinct species.

The study also referenced other countries, the citations link to studies on the Netherlands and Oregon.
“This is worrisome, as data from other countries suggest that clinical problems with MAID care are common, including poor communication between healthcare providers and patients, inconsistent application of eligibility criteria, unequal access and technical problems with medication administration.6–10”

As I said it is one of many studies, you are free to browse and see the different cocktails used and different rates and types of complications. The bill doesn’t say what protocol would be used here, but it is isn’t likely be an expensive one. It’s good to be aware of what drugs are currently in use and approved for assisted dying.

• Not read it all but first question why are we just using canadas detail that is what the study says when it says Our study is limited by its emphasis on Canadian practice, which is likely due both to most authors being Canadian and the more standardised approaches to MAID provision in European countries compared with North America.

@anchorage81
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e036054

One of many studies on complications.

When law making you should sound switched off and detached though.

Emotion shouldn't be part of law writing. Because that's how you make mistakes with it, because it causes you to be blind to unintended consequences.

You have to look at it from every angle. Not just the angle of having witnessed a loved one die in terrible circumstances.

I genuinely worry about any lawmakers who doesn't approach this in 'a detached ' or 'cold' fashion for this reason.

Emotion has it's place in this debate at the earliest stages of public consultation, but reasoning should ultimately take over and replace that. It's precisely the role of an MP in a representative democracy to bridge the gap between emotions and implementation though reasoning.

You can't reason properly if you are too emotionally compromised. You can only give one view point. This needs consideration of many viewpoints.

Assisted dying is done by lethal injection in some countries- ie Maid in Canada. Oral ingestion and lethal injection are the two main methods for assisted dying (this term includes assisted suicide and euthanasia),

You're talking about two completely different things, lethal injection and assisted dying.

I have to say you're coming across quite switched off and strange here with the tone of your posts and some of the language you use.

I've seen several drown slowly in their own secretions. It is terrifying for them

This is also a known possible complication of the drugs given for assisted dying.

Oral ingestion has caused people to aspirate on their vomit.

Lethal injection has caused the lungs to fill with fluid - autopsies show pulmonary edema occurring before the paralytic drug takes effect meaning the recipient feels themselves drowning/gasps for air.

Has anyone actually watched someone die from MND. I've seen several drown slowly in their own secretions. It is terrifying for them.
Beyond cruel to make people endure that if they don't want to.
The proposed law has a caveat that the patient must have an incurable illness and be within 6 months of death so it's not every older person.

I've also watched my beloved mum die from kidney failure post COVID. Her death was horrific even though she was in a hospice she was sobbing in uncontrollable pain. There was no way back for her, she was a nurse and knew she was dying and actually begged my DH to put a pillow over her head.
Three fucking weeks it took for her pain to end. She did not deserve that.

Me too, and unfortunately many of them are in our government and managing our health system.

They aren’t unlikely scenarios though. I really think you have not researched how this has played out in other countries which are just as liberal, Democratic and advanced as we are.

Absolutely- but not at the expense of vulnerable people, and this bill doesn't guarantee this.

I'd rather live in a society that values all lives equally.

Yes I have. My Dad (kidney failure), my great aunt(pneumonia), and my grandmother(breast cancer)

Our rights end where another’s rights begin.

If the right to a chance at a better death did not cause the deaths of others, as we have learned will happen by examining other similar modern rich countries with this right, then it might be a reasonable right.

No. You're talking about hypothetical, unlikely scenarios that can be prevented by putting proper safeguards in place versus the unimaginable suffering that people endure every day.

A lot of people here don't know what they're talking about. That's how they're able to say these things like "so the privileged can avoid a bit of suffering".

See this is where I am.

We cant have nice things because of the people who ruin it for everyone.

It's just too open to abuse. In theory the choice would be nice. But I don't think any amount of safeguarding will ultimately prevent harms to certain vulnerable groups.

Have you ever experienced a loved one dying in agony?

You don’t think having the ability to make a decision whether to face an agonising death or spare yourself the the horror is a reasonable right to have?

I find it disturbing you are ignoring the many deaths of innocents that will come with this as it has happened everywhere that has legalised this.

Are their lives worth so little to you?

And why should the discomfort of seeing the reality of death trump another’s right to life?

Grow up. Death is called the grim reaper for a reason. If you truly want to make death better for some people, put your focus on a way that does not involve others paying for it with their lives.