Is it me misunderstanding the provisions of this bill, or are people opposed to it just being (wilfully) obtuse? Twitter last night was full of references to dementia - the Scottish politician Neale Hanvey wrote this:
After my mum passed away, my dad came to live with us. Over the following four years his care needs eventually became unmanageable at home and he was placed in a local care home, just around the corner. His final two years were during the pandemic and he slowly withered away to a tiny frail and helpless soul. The nurses at his care home were phenomenal, kept him clean, safe and comfortable and kept us regularly informed. I am forever grateful that they were able to let me sit with him in his final hours until he gently passed away. Never once did I consider that killing him would be a ‘kindness’. That level of end of life care should be available to everyone, but legalising state suicide or murder will render that less and less possible. Killing vulnerable people is not progress.
It's been made clear that the bill will not apply to people who have lost capacity to consent! A 'frail and helpless soul' cannot administer a lethal dose of life-ending drugs to themselves. I understand that people are uneasy that the law, if passed, will be modified or amended over time to include them (like Canada's), but these deliberate misinterpretations are really annoying me. Anyway, rant over.