Assisted suicide bill

Here's an archive link for the first article

https://archive.ph/U6luX

I knew Ellen Wiebe would be involved. She's killed more people than Shipman. I think she's trying to beat malaria.

These two articles on the situation in Canada really opened my eyes to the reality of what happens when this is legalized.

https://www.thefp.com/p/determined-to-die

https://www.thefp.com/p/death-in-one-day-inside-canadas-assisted

I have always been supportive of assisted dying for people who are terminally ill and in extreme pain. But the Canadian law includes all sorts of people who are not actually dying, and 16,499 people in one year (2024, the last year with data) seems crazy high. And that number will only get bigger because, as of next year, Canada will open up eligibility to people whose only diagnosis is a mental illness, which I believe is an absolutely terrible idea.

And this part in the first article nearly stopped my heart:

"A parliamentary committee has recommended studying whether to extend MAiD eligibility to “mature minors,” Canadians who are younger than 18 but deemed capable of making their own medical decisions."

"Mature minors" in BC are allowed to make medical decisions without parental consent because of the Infants Act. As a parent living in Canada, this scares me so much. I already have to be hypervigilant because the act includes medical gender transition treatments. Now Canada is well on its way to helping kids with only mental heath issues end their lives without their parents being involved! Dystopian indeed.

The more cynical side of me also wonders how all these governments can think it's a good idea to implement these super lax assisted dying laws that include young people with no physical issues when they are simultaneously freaking out about low birthrates and the inability of the next generation of workers to pay for older generations' retirement benefits. I don't know about the countries in Europe that have these lax laws, but if these articles are to be believed, many doctors in Canada are suggesting MAID as a treatment option very quickly, and some are performing it the same day that someone asks for it. If that attitude extends to kids suffering from depression or anxiety or whatnot, we are in big trouble.

I was extremely relieved that the Bill was rejected.

One of the most shocking things I heard was one of the politicians supporting the Bill asserting that in all the countries where assisted dying was legal it was not abused, otherwise therewould have been moves to repeal the legislation. Either he was very ill informed or being deliberately misleading because I have heard of some of the shocking cases in Canada where pressure has been put on people to end their own lives.

I have no faith whatsoever that vulnerable people here in Scotland wouldn't be coerced into ending their own lives.

I was very severely depressed throughout my teens and most of my 20s, to the point that I would regularly beg my mother to kill me. I'm still not really content with life but I'm able to feel small amounts of pleasure here and there, whether that be from good food/music/whatever.
I used to be fully onboard with assisted dying. But, considering how things have developed in other countries, I have no faith at all that it would remain limited to those who are already close to the end of their life. I know that if I had lived in a country with laws like the Netherlands or Belgium when I was younger, I wouldn't be here right now.
If I ever get the the point where life feels unbearable again, I've already done the research on suicide methods and have narrowed it down to two options that seem like they would be relatively reliable and painless. The only occasion where I think I would ask someone for help is if I was quadriplegic and could not possibly do it myself. Even then I understand that would be quite a burden to put on someone else though.

And that includes the state.

Any safeguards put in place would be chipped away at. The world is becoming a more difficult place. Old, ill and disabled people dying early saves a lot of money for the state and there are obvious advantages for their relatives. Think of all those people who are waiting for their parents to die so that they can inherit. And then they see their parents spending "their inheritance" on care homes or medical treatment. Unfortunately the people whom old people trust most are the people who benefit from their death.

Some countries with legalised assisted dying and/or euthanasia have had to put in place PTSD counselling for both the medics assisting and relatives witnessing the deaths of their relatives.

Remembering that the Scottish bill banned medical staff from opting out of providing death.

I'm not sure how that means others aren't involved or implicated. It really isn't particularly different if Joan asks me to shoot her and I do, or if she asks me to hand her a gun so she can shoot herself, and I do. I am involved either way.

MAiD in Canada seems dystopian. You need the agreement of two physicians (I believe) but you can shop round until you find them. I think there's at least one who's hung their shingle up as being a go to person for getting the boxes ticked if you want to die. Disabled people say they've been asked if they've considered MAiD when asking for help, like a wheelchair ramp. In other cases people have asked for MAiD not because they wanted to die but because they couldn't access the help that would make their lives liveable.

I don't believe most of the politicians who legalised MAiD foresaw this situation. In fact I'd be willing to bet more than one will have voiced regret that they ever voted for it.

Scotland is not Canada but there's no reason to believe it wouldn't go down the same road as everywhere else that has legalised this.

As I put in my previous post, I'm not against legalising assisted suicide. It is inhumane to prolong the lives of people who are hopelessly suffering. There have to be safeguards though, which this attempt seems to have been lacking.

The assisted dying bill raises profound ethical questions that deserve careful and open debate. My concern is that, rather than strengthening investment in high-quality palliative care and support, it risks creating a pathway where those who are already vulnerable—whether through illness, financial hardship, or isolation—may feel an unspoken pressure to choose death.

In countries such as Canada, there have been widely reported cases that prompt difficult questions about how safeguards are applied in practice, and whether eligibility criteria can gradually expand over time. While these policies are often framed with compassion and autonomy in mind, it is essential that we examine their real-world implications with clarity and honesty.

This is not simply a medical issue, but a societal one. We should be asking whether enough is being done to ensure that people facing suffering are supported, valued, and given genuine alternatives—rather than feeling that their lives have become a burden.

I am relieved it has not passed.

I’m pretty sure I read that Esther is planning to go to Dignitas when the time comes?

And let's not forget that in Scotland thousands of elderly people died when Nicola Sturgeon told hospitals to send Covid sufferers back to their care homes, in the knowledge that they would infect the other care home residents. That must have saved a lot of money.
Scottish ministers failed to visit any care homes during two years of Covid pandemic - Daily Record

I think people do understand that. How many of us don't have a close relative who has died of cancer? How many of us don't worry about dying that way ourselves?
But once the law is introduced, the hard work has been done. The concept becomes acceptable. It will then very probably in my view be extended from people who are expected to die within 6 months to people who have a terminal illness, and then to people who don't have a terminal illness but are in pain, and then to people who don't have any physical pain but have a mental illness. And to people who are disabled and can't afford the disability adjustments or treatment they need and can't get state assistance. At some point in that line of events, it will be extended to children.
In Canada the law is seen as "progressive" and has developed at great speed. The law will cover people with a (non-terminal) mental illness from next year. In 2023, 7.4% of deaths in Quebec were assisted suicide. It's often suggested to people as a good idea.
I remember a case in Belgium where a young woman of about 20 suffered from PTSD after seeing the aftermath of a bomb going off in an airport. She was otherwise completely healthy. She was accepted for assisted suicide.

I know that, but at the moment (or was when it came up in the HoC) about people being a burden, not being able to provide or find support.

Which isn't that I want anyone to die a horrible and painful death, but that is only one arguement within a whole lot of others.

So in an ideal world if palliative care was available and easy to access, then it is much clearer what the arguement for assisted suicide is.

Just as it would be great if we all knew that families or carers would be the most altruistic and empathatic people.

Some of the strongest arguements against assisted dying during the HoC debate was that the most vulnerable would come under undue pressure including not just the elderly but members of the BME community, and idividuals without family or friends.

Not forgetting that during Covid GPs were prepared and did send out DNR letters to all the people registered with them over a certian age (75? 80?).

For anyone with no advocate there is no evidence it would not be abused.

Exactly this

no one wants to make individuals suffer at the end of life. But there are big problems with the bill, both the risk of people feeling pressure/coercion/not being a burden, mission creep and the implications for clinical staff.

if you ask a room full of people to put up their hand if they would want assisted dying, many would put up their hand. Not so many would keep them up if they were asked to assist in the death of someone else. And not just once, for workers in this sector it could be multiple times a week.

I am a vet, the situation is of course different for us, but repeated euthanasia can take its toll on our staff and the whole process of consent, deciding when, having the whole family on board and present is very difficult at times, even with pets.

I looked for a thread last night, wanting to discuss the outcome, started writing a new one myself but decided against posting it after writing it out. I’m very glad and relieved it didn’t pass, but I’d hate a discussion to any tone of anyone agreeing with me crowing about it as a victory. It’s deeply uncomfortable when you feel for those who sincerely feel it’s the right way to go, I can see their point of view but disagree that it is a helpful move for our society as a whole.

Even with the best palliative care, dying from something like cancer can be unspeakably horrific. It is not a quiet fading away like on TV and films, it is brutal and undignified pain, fear and suffering as you lose bowel control in front of your loved ones and scream in distress that this is what you have been reduced to and how you will be remembered by your children.

That is why people want to have the choice so that when they have had enough they can peacefully die.

Rather than being forced to wait in agonising pain and distress for cancer to kill them as they cry and beg and plead for it to be over.

If you had bothered to listen to any of the stories people shared at such personal expense, you would have understood that.

Is the difference between the 2 that with assisted suicide the person who is choosing to die presses the button which releases the liquid which kills them, for instance? The debate certainly used to be around "euthanasia".

You are 💯 % right.

And the solution to that in the countries with legal assisted dying is to legalise euthanasia where the lethal dose is administered via a feeding tube or injection or intravenously. It’s the same drugs as used for executions in countries with the death penalty.

We know from the data that chemically induced death by execution, assisted dying or euthanasia has a complication and failure rate. It’s not the romanticised drift off to sleep with dignity for everyone. It can be quite a traumatic death in some cases.

Some countries with legalised assisted dying and/or euthanasia have had to put in place PTSD counselling for both the medics assisting and relatives witnessing the deaths of their relatives.

Euthanasia and assisted dying are different things.

Because it is very difficult to access any humane or reliable methods - they have all been removed and shut down as part of zero suicide strategies taken by the state to deny people the choice to end their lives - which means the available methods are painful, violent and unpredictable and cause additional suffering and risk leaving the person alive but in an even worse state of suffering.

Because they have to be undertaken alone and without warning anyone otherwise your loved ones could be prosecuted or you could be sectioned and lose your freedom.

Because it is traumatic for the dying person and the person who finds them in whatever violent state.

Because it denies people the opportunity to die calmly, peacefully, with their pain managed and the people they love by their side.

Because it is painful, distressing and frightening for people to attempt such violent brutal methods.

Because it's barbaric and inhumane.

Yes, that's what people will point to. And that this is not "fair" because it means people who are disabled through no fault of their own don't get the choice able bodied people do.

The flip side is that by making it an apparatus of the state, it is no longer a private matter, other people and the state itself are involved and implicated. And that it also can provide for relatives who are in fact nefarious.

There was a really unpleasant and aggressive pro euthanasia campaign in Scotland. They sent an online question you were supposed to answer. It went something like this: "Are you, like ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE IN SCOTLAND, in favour of the right to die, or do you ENJOY WATCHING OTHERS IN TERRIBLE TORMENT?" So I took their claim that almost everyone was in favour with a big pinch of salt.

I think one of the reasons is for some people with a debilitating illness may not have the physical capacity to, for instance, take pills without someone assisting them.

One part of the arguement for assisted dying it to protect relatives etc..

I used to be in favour of legalising euthanasia. But if you look at what's happening in countries where euthanasia is legal, and if you know anything about how Scotland is being governed (with no end in sight), it's hard not to picture large numbers of inconvenient elderly and/or disabled people being disposed of for the convenience and enrichment of others, and to save the state money. From a personal point of view, I like the idea of being able to go at a time of my choosing, etc. But not at such a high cost to others, and to the health and humanity of our society. And after all, Switzerland is available. Esther Rantzen could avail herself of that if she wanted to.