Very Interesting Kathleen Stock article

I think it must be hard to decide to kill oneself while there is still a life worth living, when one has agency. I did know of someone who stockpiled opiates and suffered pain as a consequence but bottled out when it came to it, and ended up in prolonged palliative care.

I am in good health now, i like to think i would be able to suffer what agony be at the end of my life, as part of a natural process. But I cannot know how i will feel nearer my time.

I just do not trust the state someone said upthread about safeguards re power of attorney, i know of so many cases where this is not true in reality

I used to be in favour of assisted dying. After seeing Canada's maid program I have absolutely changed my mind.

Why don't these people who are suffering at the end of their life have agency, why didn't they end their life when they did have agency, nobody needs the governments permission or assistance to commit suicide.

I appreciate that those arguing against assisted dying are looking to prevent harm. But if you want to look at it philosophically, also look at it from the other angle - people are currently suffering at the end of their lives and have no agency over this. Is it morally correct for these people to suffer to protect others from a more notional harm (which may or may not materialise). I’m not trying to upset, or cause a bun fight btw, this is just my own view. It is useful for these matters to be aired and discussed I think.

Assisted dying is a slippery slope and one thing I've noticed about the debate is how personal and myopic people have been about it.

It reminds me a bit of the Brexit debates where everyone had a personal reason for voting leave, very rarely looking at the actual consequences and how they affected everyone else.

First we have failing social services, care services and medical services and assisted dying would save a lot of money. Second care homes are very expensive and eat into inheritances and elderly people can be easily manipulated.

It's common for elderly people to be depressed and feel like a burden on their families. Dementia patients can't give consent and neither can those with severe mental illness. Drs who have budgets and bed availability to think about may make pragmatic decisions.

Well put, I too have many concerns about this - giving the state the power to 'assist' it citizens to die, what could go wrong with that.

And it looks like I'll be on Kathleen Stocks side in the new war too.

I think people are squeamish and like to put off thinking about possibly painful death.

Medics - My understanding is that doctors are not obliged to carry out abortions, but some do. Similarly it should be up to doctors who are willing to be on a relevant list.

Law - We already have laws which allow people to control others’ money and health decisions. Those laws work pretty well to keep sharks at bay. Laws should be carefully and tightly drafted and enforced and that should suffice IMO.

Esther Rantzen has spoken about her husband, mother and dog dying within a short time of each other. She says that the dog had the best death, due to being euthanised. I know that's what I'd prefer too, given the choice.

I think the problem is that we distance ourself from death and stop ourselves from contemplating what could be a nasty end. I have a friend whose husband begged her to help him end it, just to shorten suffering. I have another friend who has worked as a carer who has been begged in this way by patients. Another acquaintance whose aunt starved herself to death to end it. How can it be right that people should suffer in this way rather than be helped with extra painkiller?

I am deeply worried about the idea of “assisted” dying. I thought her article was brilliantly put.

Never trust the state to get these sorts of things right.

And she highlights that with the lack of sensible debate from our politicians, this proposal cannot be trusted.

@MarieDeGournay i deeply respect your own desire when it comes to the end of your life, but i have no faith in the state to keep all people safe.

I give thanks to the TRA’s for hoiking our Kathleen out of obscurity into the public domain, her musings and work are a wonder to behold.

Thank you for sharing it - I find it really interesting that some of the most articulate challenges to this come from gender critical writers - as Stock suggests, they’ve been here before with the boundary-pushing, dressed up in the language of kindness. Sonia sodha wrote a very good column a few months back, focusing on the vulnerability of domestic abuse victims https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/07/conflicted-legalising-assisted-dying-sonia-sodha I would never downplay the distress degenerative illness causes but I really think the celebs and mps pushing for this need to think beyond the confines of loving, middle class families and take seriously the likely effect on extremely vulnerable people.

I just don’t see why the autonomy of the sufferer should be removed because of the qualms of others, including the religious beliefs of third parties. If I’m in unbearable pain in the future, I want to be able to say “enough” and I want my loved ones to have the same choices, whether the Archbishop of wherever thinks it’s a good idea or not. Canada is a basket case on assisted dying, but other countries have such laws that seem to work effectively.

"The people involved" is every one of us. Whether currently healthy and looking after elderly family members or nearing end of life ourselves.

The idea that introducing an assisted dying law will only affect some is foolish,

I don't see anything wrong with her article, it's an opinion piece setting out the problems with such legislation. I find it very worrying because it changes the emphasis from relieving suffering to just ending lives.

I'm shocked at not just the content but the tone of this article. I expected more rigour, objectivity, neutral language, balance, understanding ..

To take a sentence at random:
Deep down, everybody knows that the introduction of assisted dying legislation will create a new tier of vulnerable people who decide to jump before nature pushes them, and who would not have done so otherwise.

'Everybody knows'? Any evidence, back-up, justification - anything at all?
'queasily syrup-laden'
'lazy heartstring-plucking'
'a pillowy, feminine-coded assault.'
'happy to talk simplistically of kindness and cruelty as if they are in primary school'

Linking incurable illness or intolerable suffering [I'll decide what's tolerable for me, thank you] to gender surgery is offensive - my medical conditions are unfortunately very real, not like 'a badly fitting body that required hormonal and surgical realignment to fit the inner world. ;

Some disabled people are against assisted dying; others, like me, are in favour of it. Both sides have voiced their opinions. But according to the writer
Protests from disabled people, ....seem to be falling on strategically deaf ears.
'Deaf ears'? Appropriate language when talking about disability?

I could go on, but I'll stop because I actually find this article deeply upsetting and dismissive of lives lived in real pain, real distress. The subject, and the people involved, deserve better.