AIBU to see the government vote against assisted Dying, as preventing personal choice in how we might want to die?

The risk of abusing vulnerable people is too great to introduce this.

I'm not sorry to say that I won't be sad if those who voted against AD, end up wanting it for their own needs at some point in future.

The very fact that not everyone has good intentions towards all their fellow humans is one of the reasons it was right that this bill was defeated.

That you are wishing painful, unpleasant illnesses and a desire for suicide on people because they came to a different conclusion from you about a complex and far-reaching ethical decision really does not speak well of you.

Again the poorest of people will suffer the most as they can't afford to go to Switzerland. Wealthier people can, if they are able to, and if they choose to.

But also the poorest people might have chosen euthanasia rather than be a financial burden. A question was asked about this in parliament and it wasn't answered.

Suicide is not illegal. And @DoTreadCarefully is absolutely right. Your approach is shared by the architects of a particularly shoddy piece of legislation which was thankfully voted down once the depths of its utter awfulness was widely realised. Plenty of us agreed with assisted death in principle and changed our minds as a result of the recent process. Leadbetter is a ghoul, Faulkner is as bad. Parliament made the right decision and I was hugely relieved.

I'm not sorry to say that I won't be sad if those who voted against AD, end up wanting it for their own needs at some point in future.

What does this mean then, if it doesn’t mean you hope those who voted against the bill become sufficiently ill and their lives sufficiently full of suffering that they want to end their lives and wish that assisted suicide was available to them?

I mean you could argue you’re not actually wishing it on them, you’re just saying you wouldn’t be sad, but you certainly sound like you hope that’s what happens to them.

In what way have I projected?

In what way have “those who have voted against AD HAVE WISHED FOR UNSTOPPABLE 'painful, unpleasant illnesses' on people”?

You seem to be approaching a very difficult subject with huge societal implications from an extremely adversarial standpoint. I don’t understand why you hold such bad feeling towards people who did what they believe is right for society, even if you disagree.

I am 100% in favour of AD and would like a bill that allows for a wider application of it than a 6m terminal diagnosis but I do agree that this bill had flaws and our current palliative system that is shamefully underfunded by gov needs to be top class as an alternative for more people (I know its not right or effective for everyone) before a bill is passed.

I think personal autonomy is massively important and in 99% of cases should be the top priority in all legislative matters as far as possible.

I am so grateful to be in Canada, MAID helped my own grandmother pass , when she was in terrible agony.

I agree with this. I don’t know all of the intricacies of the bill but I know that the greedy and despicable would make it work to their advantage if they had a vulnerable relative and mounting care bills and/or possibly declining inheritance.

You’ve not read about what’s been happening in Canada then?

What about the death of Tine Nys in Belgium?

I see it more as a civilised society protecting its most vulnerable. It’s a very tough call. It protects families from themselves as well, saving potentially appalling rifts.

I personally want ad to be legal for me. Because I would hate the alternate. I am in favour philosophically speaking. Firmly so. HOWEVER I don’t think our system and social structure is capable of responsibly managing AD as it stands. The NHS is failing, the wealth gap widening and poverty increasing. I’m thus forced to conclude that the government have made the right choice. I do not wish an unstoppable painful unpleasant illness upon anyone. But I do think the current system would be too open to corruption, failures, and then litigation should AD go ahead, which wouldn’t be sustainable. But that’s just my opinion and I’m not an expert.

YABU. Everyone has freedom of choice. Suicide is not illegal. We shouldn't introduce a system that risks pressurising people into choosing suicide as an alternative to being a burden on the state or their relatives.

Sort palliative care out first. Make it adequate, easily available and universally free. Then, people who choose suicide will be doing so freely, not as a pressurised alternative to dreadful care.

Meanwhile, all that is necessary for freedom of choice is for judges and police to act with common sense in cases where death has been helped along by relatives.

That was the only ask, originally. I don't understand how allowing individuals to choose to support a suicide morphed into this weird programme of enlisting the state to do it - when the state is proving itself so massively incapable of performing the services that might take away the pain of being alive a little longer.

From the article Canada’s assisted dying laws in spotlight as expansion paused again (my bolding in the article)

In a survey of those 13,102 Canadians who ended their lives under Maid, the vast majority cited the “loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities” as the reason for wanting to die. But other responses have troubled healthcare experts. More than one-third of respondents said their decision was, in part, informed by a feeling they were a perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers.

In one instance, a Canadian Forces veteran claimed she had been offered Maid in response to a request for a wheelchair lift or ramp at her house. While a subsequent investigation found no record that assisted death was offered, Veterans Affairs discovered four cases in which Maid had been inappropriately suggested. The case manager was suspended and the incident was referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted police.

In another case, the family of Alan Nichols said he died by euthanasia, with hearing loss listed as the sole criterion. The family reported it to police and health authorities- but neither saw cause to investigate further. The RCMP told the family that Nichols “met the criteria” for assisted death.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/canada-assisted-dying-laws-in-spotlight-as-expansion-paused-again

DH is 80+. He has been in heart failure for years, had two lots of surgery, and also has a slow growing cancer, for which the treatment, if he chooses to take it, is lengthy and unpleasant. On a personal level, he is disappointed that the bill wasn’t passed. There are many situations where rather than prolonging good quality life, we are just prolonging death. I might have had a different view as a younger person, but in older age, I understand why some of us may not wish to face an undignified, and possibly agonising and lengthy decline.

I'm in Canada. My cousin was diagnosed with terminal cancer and accessed MAID here. It was their choice and my cousin's immediate family were supportive of the decision which was made after extensive medical consultation.

eta I'm also aware of some of the challenges and issues with our program which is being investigated, as it should be, but doesn't negate need for it.

But surely all that proves is that, depending on how he feels about his situation, he may have good reason to commit suicide, and relatives may have good reason to respect and even support his choice. How do we get from that to a programme of state-enacted suicides?
Particularly given how badly the NHS is functioning in relation to the responsibilities it already has, why should we be taking suicide out of the private realm and into the scope of the state?
Why can't we just do the hard work of setting parameters for when relatives who facilitate a death should be left alone, and when they might need to be investigated and punished?
Additionally, why can't we just ensure that hospitals are functioning well enough for doctors to liaise adequately with patients and relatives about the point at which they switch from treating an illness to making a dying person comfortable. In my recent experience they do that very badly. SO badly that it is hard to imagine assisted suicide as being anything other than an escape from NHS failure, for most people who choose it.

Assisted suicide as it was proposed in the defeated legislation was a horrible mess. At best it would have offered a workaround to prevent govt and the NHS from having to work out how to do terminal care better

It is more complicated than you imply, OP.

Many of those who voted against this bill as drafted are in favour of assisted dying in principle but see this draft as profoundly flawed. Have you read it?

YANBU. Assisted dying is already legal in so many other countries similar to the UK ( Australia, Canada, NZ, Spain and maybe even Jersey soon) that I don’t believe the argument about vulnerable people is either valid or insurmountable either. Just look at how the safeguards elsewhere! Hopefully it will be legal by the time I may need it.

I think that all of us would support assisted dying, in a perfect world.
In reality, the bill was simply untenable.

Look in to setting up robust Advanced Care planning either via a Advanced decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) or lasting power of attorny for health and welfare (LPoA) (with a strong assertive advocate not necessarily his closest next of kin), these are both legally binding. Then educate yourself of end-of-life and palliative care (KAthryn Mannix - 'With the end in mind'), or there are clinicians who will advise on advance care planning.
Refusing antibiotics can be a powerful and controlling tool at your/ your DH disposal, also it is totally reasonable to have morphine at home to manage terminal breathlessness and no allow people to push him in to going to hospital, unless that is what he wants..

No it isn't. Nobody is going to drag people to the death chamber. 🙄