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

Some religions actually believe that a death with suffering/ more awareness/ clarity is a 'better/ more worthy' death, and these people think they can force their values and belief on to other people.

But that is the reality of not voting for this bill.

I think it would be murder currently in the UK if a doctor gave you a lethal injection? Perhaps I am wrong.

The way people talk about it on here sounds like a doctor will turn up and inject you. Like a vet would.
From what I have read of the proposals for UK AD, people would have to be able to administer the medication themselves. No one injecting them. They would be swallowing medication, or turning a little wheel on an IV line. No one involved at all apart from ensuring they carried it out correctly, and being there to confirm death.

There are a few ways someone who is paralysed from the neck down can kill themselves but it would be against talk guidelines give specifics.

But this is something that transcends personal choice. It's making something lawful that is currently statutory murder. In a parliamentary democracy our MPs get to make these decisions on our behalf, and they make them according to their conscience. I'm not sure what else would be a better system.

For what it's worth, I am currently living in a country where the government voted to approve MAID so it is now legal and commonplace. Colleagues talk about their parents and in-laws choosing MAID very matter of factly. The required paperwork and documentation is all in place in advance, and they are apparently assured they can change their mind at any time (thankfully!). I find it chilling. I will be back in the UK eventually and would prefer this not to be one of the options presented to me when my time comes.

@Che456yes but it’s a lottery getting high quality opioid pain relief, especially if there’s a way to go

What about people who are paralysed or who have a condition such as Motor Neurone Disease? How can they kill themselves without help?

Its not worth getting into a big discussion about an analogy. My overall point was that there are scenarios when we accept people choosing death or highly likely death. I think the question of potential abuses and the question of libertarian rights are separate. Some on here agree with the principle of autonomy but are held back by the difficulties of safeguarding, others oppose AS on the grounds that we should not have autonomy to that extent. Those are two different debates.

But that's what people on here seem to think will happen, it isn't happening in other countries and it definetly won't happen here. They think either their relatives will wheel them in for euthansia to avoid care home fees/ access their inheritence, or that their much loved parents who are elderly but not suffering will volunteer themselfs for it so as 'not to be a burden'.

I don't get this rationale. The type of assisted dying that Parliament voted on was limited to terminally ill people with less than a year to live. There would be safeguards that would identify if patients were being coerced.

The sort of people that would put pressure on dying relatives to apply for assisted dying could just as easily put pressure on them to take their own lives.

I think we first should look at enforced saving of life - force feeding someone for example or pumping people full of drugs to extend life perhaps against their wishes.

We already have this in the form of Advanced Decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) and Last Power of Attorney for health and welfare, which are both legally binding, also TEPs and RESPECT forms which are advisory. The fact that you don't know this is a reflection of UK cultural attitude to death and dying and the fact that a lot of people, even health professionals, can't even talk about it properly - how many ways can you say some one has died, without actually saying the 'D' word!! We also need to educate health professionals to respect these documents/laws not ignore or bully the patient/ attorney into life extending treatment.

We need a public education campaign about what a normal death is and what health interventions are and what they mean. There are people on here who think DNRs are the be all and end all (CPR - is an emergency medical procedure designed to restart a suddenly stopped heart, not a medical treatment or cure for the natural, expected process of dying), but then you have the NMC once again dragging a nurse over the coals for not starting CPR in a clearly futile situation (as supported by the Resus council UK amongst other organisations).

The idea that we are suddenly going to move from a culture of over treating patients and routinely putting quantity of life over quality, to one of wholesale murdering elderly and disabled people if MAID was legalised is laughable, it just isn't part of the UK or NHS culture.

Yes, suicide is not illegal, but assisting is. If you commit suicide with your family around you, they will be considered complicate until proven otherwise.
So despite suicide being legal, you have to do it alone. Either take a load of pills at home and hope they do the trick, or jump off a car park or in front of a train.
The latter two will cause immense trauma for witnesses and drag other people into your attempt... the first will still mean a post mortem and investigations.

AD will allow people to check out on their own terms with their loved ones with them, with no fear their family will all be arrested and questioned afterwards.

Soldiers are brainwashed, you have to be to be able to kill other humans as well as be able to instinctively run towards bullets & death instead of away from them.

Why? Both involve sacrificing their lives for the benefit of others. The difference is that in war its a split second decision and the soldier presumably would much rather live. In the case of AS the person actively and for a settled period has made a considered decision.

I also think the method is important. In Oregon, if I recall correctly, the method is a self administered drink, entirely at the time and place of the person's choosing. It is provided by a physician who is allowed to choose not to offer such services. This avoids medical professionals being asked to do anything directly, though those ive seem in Canada who do carry it out absolutely see it as part of their caring role.

I don’t think the war analogy is a very convincing argument.

@WestisBestt
There's no law against suicide.

People already have the option.

I've noticed this about the pro-AD crowd, they're a bit like little children stomping their feet because they want something, not a thought for those in the medical professions who have to do the assisting.
The idea that a person has to take the drugs themselves is splitting hairs.

Not a thought of unnatural it is to assist in killing another person.
Killing is something only the sociopathic do coldly.
Most kill in the heat of the moment or just snap after prolonged abuse.

I don't judge anybody for suicide, however, as the option's already there, nothing needs to change.

To be blunt, nobody's stopping anyone from taking their own life as things are.

Why do the rest of us straightforward people who want this always have to be prevented by the “vulnerable”.

And it's that kind of remark that has led many people to have concerns about assisted dying...

The problem with registering a choice well in advance is that people change their minds.

Au contraire, looking at Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Oregon there is empirical proof of the slippery slope:

The slippery slope argument has been shown not to be a fallacy but rather to be a valid form of argument. In considering how it may be applied to the question of assisted suicide, as proposed by the Leadbetter Bill, the empirical form of the argument has been shown to hold, as those countries where assisted suicide has been legalised have seen rapid expansion in the numbers of cases, extension of indications, and weakening of safeguards. However, the logical form of the argument has been shown to be less applicable in this situation as, once the premise of taking a patient’s life at their request has been accepted, there is little logical reason to prevent this principle being extended to other similar circumstances. Hence, it seems to be not so much a slippery slope but rather a cliff edge. The medical profession, and indeed society as a whole, should be wary of this precipice.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12042852/

Oregon is often cited at parliamentary committees as a challenge to the cogency of the slippery slope argument against legalization of assisted suicide. While acknowledging the main reasons for the citation’s plausibility, the present paper argues that there are features of Oregon’s evolving practice that evidences an empirical slippery slope – albeit one with a hitherto relatively low gradient. Empirical evidence of a morally interesting trajectory is ascertainable from increases in each of the annual case numbers, the percentage of assisted suicide patients citing burden-based concerns, the margin of error in misprognoses of terminal illnesses, and the reporting of qualifying illnesses that are not normally (or at least predictably) terminal in character. Part-explaining these increases may be two aspects of normative slippage worthy of increased attention. One is slippage from a sort of voluntariness contemplated by the initial public justification for assisted suicide, one which intentionally did not include burden-based concerns in its account, to a now widespread assisted suicide voluntariness that is motivated by burden-based concerns. Potentially, the slippage may even be to a newly evolved public justification: to one that affirms burden-based voluntariness in assisted suicide provision. The other aspect of moral-logical slippage raised by Oregon’s practice is expansion of the terminal illness ground to accommodate chronic illnesses effectively rendered terminal due to a legally protected right to refuse treatment. There are reasons to think that this de facto expansion has occurred in Oregon.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2024.2338317#d1e330

This is exactly where I am. I used to be very much in favour but having read about other systems and potential problems, Im very fearful of this.

Thank you tbats helpful, I'll take a look at those. Overall though, just on the stats you've given, that doesn't seem overly prohibitive or enough to warrant a refusal to allow it. As with all treatments there are risks and these are balanced against the desired benefit.