Assisted Dying Bill

Sorry, I didn't see your questions because you didn't tag me.

1.Is a someone who is killed in a traffic accident not as valuable as someone who is is assisted to die in error?
No life is more valuable than another hence terminally ill should not be the only consideration.
If all life is equal then why won't the bill expand?
2.And who is to say that anyone will ever be assisted to die in error?
History.
3.They probably won't be,
That's not enough. Do you support capital punishment?
4.but we know that thousands of people will die in road accidents every single year, but you seem to be ok with that for some reason???
Which other use does assisted dying have?

1. Well, it will be expanded if people want it and the MPs vote for it. What is wrong with giving people what they want if MPs vote for it?
2. What history
3. I don't supprot capital punishment because I don't think juries would ever convict anyone murder if they knew they would be killed in case they made a mistake
4. It will give people like me the choice of when and how I die. For me that is very useful indeed.

@IMustDoMoreExercise Could you respond to my questions?

The state will not deliberately kill someone by mistake so it is not intended at all.

Someone coerced to end their life has been killed by mistake. No one can prevent coercion.

No, it isn't. You are talking about mistakes and somehow equating that with the state deliberating killing someone.

The state will not deliberately kill someone by mistake so it is not intended at all. Just like the state allowing someone to drive a car which could kill them by mistake.

There is no difference.

You’ve tied yourself up in knots there.

Driving cars and assisting someone to kill themselves is completely different. For the one death is a risk. For the other it’s the intended aim. It’s silly to try to compare them.

Is a someone who is killed in a traffic accident not as valuable as someone who is is assisted to die in error?

No life is more valuable than another hence terminally ill should not be the only consideration.

If all life is equal then why won't the bill expand?

And who is to say that anyone will ever be assisted to die in error?

History.

They probably won't be,

That's not enough. Do you support capital punishment?

but we know that thousands of people will die in road accidents every single year, but you seem to be ok with that for some reason???

Which other use does assisted dying have?

No, you must be a bit dense if you can't see that the state does not want to murder someone in error in the same way that the state does not want someone to be killed in a road accident.

If either happens, it is a risk of the relevant legislation.

If you aren't going to stop people driving, why are you so keen to stop people using AD if they want to?

Is a someone who is killed in a traffic accident not as valuable as someone who is is assisted to die in error?

And who is to say that anyone will ever be assisted to die in error? They probably won't be, but we know that thousands of people will die in road accidents every single year, but you seem to be ok with that for some reason???

It's not just about the individual - it's what is unleashed and the consequences for the vulnerable that follows. It's not just about you or me

That was especially clearly put, @ByMerryKoala, but TBH I don't think there can now be any doubt as to why people are worrying about the vulnerable

So in brushing this aside I can only think that some simply don't care - and failing to care is exactly what will lead to the things being worried about in the first place

Shouldn't end its life* sorry

Aborting a foetus, which is a person growing inside a womb, and the murder of a person who lives outside a womb, are both the deliberate ending of a life.

So removing that fetus from the womb should end its life. That doesn't add up.

Not comparable lives. A foetus can’t survive without the womb. The person alive outside one can even if terminally ill. They are fundamentally different.

Aborting a foetus, which is a person growing inside a womb, and the murder of a person who lives outside a womb, are both the deliberate ending of a life.

No, I was pointing out the person saying their friends mother in law would go along with being coerced into doing it, when they wouldn't have capacity so happy memories/their quality of life don't come into it

Says who?

This is the crux of it. You think you can tell someone else when they should die. That's crazy.

@username8348 exactly ! That's why I was questioning the poster bringing dementia into it ?!

Patients in their last six months of dying of dementia will not have capacity to make a decision about assisted dying.

So I presume all the people in favour of assisted dying and talking about dementia patients are already thinking in terms of expanding the proposed legislation. But apparently its not a slippery slope?

This is my fear, in a nutshell.

This bill isn't about dementia! You need capacity to make the decision and those with dementia don't have capacity.

@username8348 I'm not, I'm just pointing out there is no decent quality of life the last 6 months of dying from dementia. So the poster who was arguing that didn't make sense. And I would know looking after residents/service users inflicted by it.

The problem is that by giving the choice of 'assisted death' to those who want it, you are giving 'choice' to everybody. So sick and disabled people who are eligible but don't choose assisted dying are making a 'choice' to continue their lives.

My main concern is that it becomes much harder to argue that people should get properly funded care and support, when their continuing existence is now 'their choice'.

Nice deflection. I'm concerned that this will be a slippery slope, that people will be coerced into ending their lives prematurely.

That's the difference between us. You are thinking about what you want and I'm concerned about the repurcusions for others.

I've seen how people see the elderly and vulnerable and powerless and don't want them disabused by the state.

In fact thousands of health care professionals have come forward to warn that this bill could turn into a cost cutting exercise.

However as long as you're happy, that's what counts.

Who are you to decide someone's QOL?

But you must know the inconvenient truth that this kind of legislature changes the manner in which society talks about what is a valuable life and what is not, and who is a burden and who is not and what it means to live a life with suffering.

Do you think that Canada started where we are today knowing that the population would then go on to support a radical extension in eligibility. That there is support for those suffering with poor mental health to access assisted dying and 1 in 4 Canadians think homeless people should be eligible.

It's not just about the individual - it's what is unleashed and the consequences for the vulnerable that follows. It's not just about you or me.

Hold on, I thought you had to have a diagnosis of less than 6 months to live? Those people with dementia who have got 6 months or less aren't having any quality of life. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true. So the argument of having happy moments and being coerced doesn't really fit with dementia does it ? I've worked on a dementia ward and it's fucking awful.