Assisted Dying Bill

It is. They are voting away Parliamentary oversight on ending lives by the state. One wonders how many of them truly read and understood it, and if they know what regulations by negative procedure means.

What about the rest of the world?

So many countries? 6 in Europe out of 44.

Yes, so so happy about this.

How on earth did we leave it so late when so many other countries have had it for decades.

Actually, I know exactly why. It is the Tory party. They against the "Nanny State" so it is fine for junk food to kill everyone. But when the Nanny State decides that we aren't capable of making a basic decision about our own lives, that is all fine.

They are so hypocritical.

Very surprised but incedibly pleased to hear it go through. Lots more scrutiny needed for the details but I see this as a progessive step.

Thank goodness!This is from a personal and professional level.

Pleased. It's the right thing.

Really worrying outcome

No it really doesn't - do you understand how polls work? The idea that a couple of thousand people self selected actually represent the public view is nonsense.

You need far greater samples and far more controls to have any hope of meaning. As I said - opinion polls like this consistently support capital punishment. The job of MPs is to dig into the issues properly and make a decision which is why it hasn't returned.

If my MP voted based on a self selected opinion poll of 2000 people then they are incompetent and should lose their seat.

MPs are not there to rubberstamp self selected polls of randoms (if they did then hanging would have been restored decades ago). They are there to dig into the issues, understand the risks and issues as well as read the thoughts of their constituents.

I think my point is more: we don't have the sufficient either safeguards or oversight for systems we currently have in place (DNRs, Mental Capacity Act assessments, the commissioning to ensure people have access to safe, appropriate care and avoiding the postcode lottery). Firstly, if we cannot manage these systems currently, we should think very carefully about what this means for our ability to manage in practise the Assisted Dying law. Secondly, without those things in pace, we need to think about how that impacts on the Assisted Dying law -I.e. are people choosing to die because they don't have the appropriate care package to make life worthwhile? Even worse, do they only not have that care because of their socioeconomic status and where they live in the country?

In theory, I would love for people to have the right to Assisted Dying, from a free will, dignity, choice perspective. As things are at present, I cannot see how you could free it from collusion, undue influence and protect the vulnerable. If we had a better track record at protecting the vulnerable, my confidence in it would be much higher.

There aren't safeguards in the proposed PMB. It's riddled with holes. Great for lawyers though as it's all billable hours

The reference to safeguards related to the content of the bill and the process outlined therein, not the process for getting it through parliament.

Do you think that in a barely functioning NHS, resources will be poured into hospices and palliative care if there's a cheaper alternative?

Many people in favour of the bill have suffered through the pain of a loved one who didn't receive appropriate end of life care.

Our? More safeguards than anywhere in the world? Five hours of debate? Apologies as I can’t tell if this is a joke post.

I agree with everything you say but still fervently want assisted dying. The idea of dying in pain with total loss of dignity is horrifying to me.

Separately, people seem to have unrealistic expectations of palliative care, what it can achieve and how much of it is even available in the UK.

MPs can't win votes by voting for but certainly where there is a significant religious element in their constituency then the MP will vote agianst. Any betting which way Jess Phillips will go?

My feeling is that can this truly be a vote of individual MPs conciious? I think both Wes Streetin g and the justice Secretary should have remained silent on this issue as they are senior member s of governments with remote that cover the potential implementation of this bill.

I did find out justice secretaries comments quite stark in a sensitive debate where popular opinion is towards assisted dting. Cloning the state will offer death as a service does not add to the debate really and i is unnecessarily evocative.

the bill won't be passed as we are a conservative country and until we are a world purpose there won't the force in parliament to pass such a monumental bill.

Good palliative care and assisted dying are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.

I think it's because the "public" or the person thinks about themself in the situation whereas the politician has to consider other factors which are that: this will inevitably expand in scope as other individuals insist on it and that impact on what it will have on the vulnerable (chronically suicidal people with pd have accessed it on the continent) and then when (not if) it becomes about quality of life, the messages it will send to society as a whole.

Once this option is out if the box, it can never be put back in.

Our draft bill has more safeguards than any comparable legislation around the world. There will be five hours of debate in the House, followed by the usual procedure of scrutiny and amendment, both in the Lords and in committee.