To think people should not use 'we put pets to sleep' as an argument to allow assisted dying?

It's difficult though because those with mental health issues without effective treatment ma still be capable of choosing AD and giving informed consent. If someone told me that I had to live with an incurable mental health condition such as depression then I may well choose not to live? Is that not a rational choice? Why do we presume that living is the only rational choice?

You don't have to accept the full implications of the comparison to accept this part of it - like any metaphor, it only stretches so far.

So yes, animals aren't people and people aren't animals. And a pet is a particular kind of animal, and many other animals are treated badly. And yes, sometimes pets are put to sleep as much for the owner as for the animal.

But if we accept the argument that sometimes the kindest thing to do for a pet who has no quality of life is to let it go and help it on its way, it does seem to me to make sense that we would extend the same dignity to a human being who is in pain with no possibility of recovery.

This is domestic abuse and murder. AD would be just another potential cover for these in the same way that suicide can be. We haven't made suicide illegal though.

One could argue that many of these women would die anyway irrespective of AD being legalised or not. The question is just whether the perpetrators would be brought to justic.

Yes, my concern mostly lies in this area:

The issue is when it comes to patients with mental health issues, because that just seems like the state enabling suicides, and patients without the capacity to consent in the moment, because then it's just murder.

Adopt. From a rehoming centre. In the same way that it is acceptable to adopt a child that needs a home, but not buy one. And certainly not breed them in captivity to be sold for profit.

The limits you reference in relation to bodily autonomy are blurry in themselves.

We don't let people cut off healthy limbs and yet they can remove healthy breasts or penises if they decide they want to change sex. You can't sell organs and yet you can donate them.

Basically it's all trade offs and often the logic is pretty flawed and flakey as to why someone can cut off a penis but not a leg for example. Why we allow abortion but not AD when someone is giving clear informed consent. Why we don't criminalise suicide but criminalise AD. It's all hard to truly rationalise.

I agree though that in the risk Vs potential benefit analysis of AD then the risk of some terminally ill people losing a few months of pretty poor quality life is small compared to forcing many to live against their will in pain and discomfort.

Yes, those kinds of 'mercy killings' are worryingly frequent – and I believe far, far rarer when women are caring for their husbands? It seems like typical sex based violence.

Animal liberation? Although, rights come with responsibilities – they'll have to get jobs 😁 I'm not sure my cats would appreciate that...

I have to agree with this. I often say (as a joke) I want to come back as a pet. Both my parents and my in laws have pets and they have the most amazing life!

I don’t at all accept it as normal to buy and sell animals and control who they have children with. The argument “if it’s ok for animals why isn’t it ok for humans” is correct, but it should be used to elevate animal rights rather than reduce human rights.

Then that's something you'd need to take care of yourself while you still have capacity, if we live in a society where we don't kill people who can't consent to it at the time of the killing.

Because they can choose this ahead of time. They can write it down, talk to counsellors, make a choice about when and how it happens when they have capacity. Far more complicated in the case of people who never had that capacity to begin with but for Alzheimer’s, cancer, MND, endless other situations there’s time to make this choice when you’re able. To say ‘if I’m on IV morphine I’m done‘ or ‘when I don’t recognise my daughter I’m done’ or whatever the line is for people. There are so many ways to make this an empowering thing for everyone.

Like organ donation - the organ donor can’t choose in that moment so they put their wishes down ahead of time.

I think it’s infantilising to tell people they can’t know what’s best for them and they need to suffer endlessly. There was no reason for my friend to have to go through the last 3 months of her life. I only saw the beginning of it (she didn’t want to see anyone except her husband once it got really bad) and I was scarred from that. She begged to die constantly. Literally begged. I have no idea how my friend will ever recover from that (he literally sold up and bought a cabin on a remote island and we pretty much never see him now as he has panic attacks if he comes back to the city where she died). She’d be absolutely heartbroken to see the state of him today.

There are limits on autonomy. For instance, we don't allow people to sell organs, or cut off healthy limbs, or give their flesh to other people to eat.

I do think that in the last few months of a terminal illness (while I'm still ambivalent), I can see it makes sense to allow a person either as much morphine as they want, or assisted suicide. Even if coercion is involved (although it needs to be very carefully screened for) the person is only losing a few months with poor quality of life.

The issue is when it comes to patients with mental health issues, because that just seems like the state enabling suicides, and patients without the capacity to consent in the moment, because then it's just murder.

Either way, making the comparison of, 'we put down our sick dog so he wouldn't suffer' isn't a good one.

I totally agree with all this. I've watched 3 relatives dying of incurable diseases, 2 with cancer, the last one (last year) of motor neurone disease.
All 3 were in physical and mental agony and BEGGED to be allowed to die.
Palliative care my arse!

You are not just refusing to kill someone. You are threatening anyone that assists someone to die with criminal action. That means that a person that wants to die is effectively being forced to live otherwise they would risk a loved one going to jail. How is this not coercion? It is the ultimate coercion.

@Jane3212 Well, the outcome of the disease is pretty well known. But the time of death is impossible to predict. An AD bill that allows for euthanasia as long as it is within 6 months of predicted death is no good for an Alzheimer’s patient, because at that stage they can’t consent, as they’re too far gone. I can only speak for myself (and a family member who has only within the last few weeks or so uttered the words “who are you?” to a beloved spouse of 50+ years) but I think I should absolutely have the right to NOT live the last years (and it can be years) of my life catatonic and doubly incontinent and having no idea who I am, or who my family is. And I don’t want my family, at that time, to make the decision to starve or dehydrate me to death.

This isn't a debate on abortion but the parallels between the two topics are very obvious in my mind and I find it hypocritical that the same people that think that women should have the autonomy over their own bodies and be in control of ending life on the one hand, believe the same woman should lose their bodily autonomy and have no control over when they end their life with AD.

The coercion argument is weak when coercion can happen in almost all of our decision making processes. It doesn't mean we ban everything to avoid coercion. Currently a greedy relative could bully and coerce an old or disabled person to kill themselves but we don't see this happening in great numbers and yet people are convinced AD would bring about lots of cases of this. It makes absolutely no sense to me and seems that for some reason we apply a completely different set of logic to AD than we do to lots of other similar topics.