Assisted Dying Bill passed by slim majority

[smallglassbottle]

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-starmer-assisted-dying-trump-israel-iran-labour-12593360

Exactly this

I've no issue at all with people signing advance directives or researching suicide for themselves if that's what they wish to do, and though we wouldn't be allowed to link them on here there are excellent sources available, but enacting something which will clearly endanger others is a step too far

Thanks for the pass agg snark - I was obviously sharing the bare minimum for those who just knee jerk at a headline.

Excellent summary just now on the Today Programme given by Nikki Da Costa on the 5 Royal Colleges who can’t support this, 3 Parliamentary committees have raised concerns.

Charlie Falkner is being absolutely obnoxious saying he will use the Parliament Act to get this through. Outrageous arrogance to be invoking that on such an ethical, social, financial mess as this.

Assisted Dying shouldn’t be introduced because they can’t make it safe and they can’t make it non discriminatory. Nikki Da Costa shows Falkner that and his answer is just to try to drive it through

She said he hadn't turned up to debates. He said he had but had simply disagreed with Their points. Also a political nerd point but the mechanisms he says are blocking the progress are for Actual formally introduced and drafted legislation by an actual government rather than a private members bill.

I'm assuming Faulkner/ Ledbeater are hoping the government will instead take on the drafting of this, but it's a big ask. Maybe the Lib Dems or possibly one of the #BeKind leftish political parties will put it in their manifesto to make it a formal pledge that can be voted for at the election.

The risks outlined by Da Costa were pretty hair raising. If someone has downs syndrome then doctors will be able to decide on their behalf , likewise it would be ok for someone to seek it if they feel they are a burden.

Thank you this is really helpful. So can the parliament Act actually not be used here because this is a PMB? How come Faulkner is threatening it?

Da Costa’s points were so powerful. The ones that you mention, and also the fact that people who are ‘just’ depressed and in poverty will also be able to ask for and get assisted suicide.

Faulkner had a golden opportunity to refute all Da Costa’s concerns and say no no and that he all those people will be protected. Instead he was just rude personally back to her. He didn’t give a straight answer because he knows perfectly well that those things would be allowed. It’s an absolutely horrendous prospect.

I’m an atheist and I really resent Faulkner trying to divisively bat off objections by saying they’re ‘religious’. (As if that means automatic disregard)

That’s arrogant given religiosity is increasing in the UK population. It is also vastly out of touch with all the other non-religious reasons why less well off people’s daily experiences given them every good reason to distrust assisted dying being brought in.

As the cost of living bites and stress in the population increases and public health gets worse and worse, as it has since the 2010 coalition government’s austerity programme which has never been reversed. More and more of us who know how frightening it is to have to rely on the crumbling NHS and healthcare and on barely existing state social care. We know how disempowered and vulnerable and often depressed that makes us and other people feel.

The idea someone in government is tacitly pushing that we don’t really support people any more, but we just give people the ‘choice’ to end their lives, is chilling. Of course this ‘choice’ will in a few years become ultimately coercive, because the social atmosphere, government. the media, social media, public finances, is not going to get any more supportive for anyone who needs that help. And then assisted suicide won’t be a choice. It will be an expectation.

I am an atheist, broadly lefty, and I really object to bringing in assisted dying because things are really bad out there already, right now, for families with disabled children and for families who can’t find any support for disabled and elderly parents, just to name a couple of vulnerable groups.

Public services have been more and more all falling apart over the past 15 years and it is now all falling on the shoulders of families (if there is any) to pick up the pieces. Vulnerable people aren’t immune to social pressure around them and this will cause needless deaths. I think this is a real ‘let’s have an honest look at ourselves’ moment in politics.

The people who support assisted dying have so much privilege. They have absolutely no idea what it is to have to rely on public services for their income, their housing, their care needs and their education. Zero understanding. Zero experience.

They are condemning people who don’t want assisted dying to be killed, alongside those who do want to make a choice use assisted dying. That’s not an acceptable price to demand off the rest of society.

I saw earlier that there are already calls to extend assisted dying to those with dementia - when can't possibly understand or make an informed decision!
This is exactly why I was against this bill and I am so relieved that it may not pass in it's current state.

Autism is not a stand alone reason for euthanasia is Canada - unbearable suffering is though.

Why are people trying to force people who believe their lives are unbearable to stay alive? I have a fantastic 20 year old DS with ASD so it's certainly not as if I think it's reasonable for anyone with a disability to be euthanised.

I 100% believe though if some has been living for years in what they consider to be unbearable suffering and nothing that has been offered or that they've tried has helped them then they should be allowed to choose to die. People are 'allowed' to choose to commit suicide, why shouldn't people be allowed to choose euthanasia if they feel their life is that terrible. We talk all the time about body autonomy - why aren't we allowing it here?

No what's privileged is thinking it's your right to force people that have been suffering unbearably for years to remain alive because you are a bit uncomfortable with the possibility of them being euthanised.

You also seem to think that people should be forced to live, feeling like they are a burden, unable to do anything for themselves. Why are you so keen for people to be made to carry on in misery if that's how it makes them feel?

Yes but you'd have to make that decision while you had capacity.

I would love to have that option, I don't want to live if I can't even recognise my own family and have to have someone else wipe my arse - why do you want to force people to live in that misery? Why is there so much nonsense on these threads. People trying to make out that everyone is just going to be suddenly killed off. It's such a complete load of bullshit.

If you don't ever want to have the option of euthanasia then that's absolutely fine and will be your choice. But don't force the many, many people who do want that option to have to suffer because of you, It's such entitled behaviour.

I think that's a very priviledged position you are taking. People like my ds lack capacity and when i'm not here the LA will be making decisions on his behalf. Currently there are many many people with autism and/or ld locked away in secure units in worse circumstances than crimunals in prison because ultimately it is cheaper for the LA to have them in an nhs ward than living in the community with the correct care. Cost of provision and the ability of those who advocate for them plays a huge part. It is very naive to think that this won't be used as a cost cutting means for those who are most vulnerable.

If people want to take their own lives, let them crack on. Why should they have to make already vulnerable people even more vulnerable to do it. That is selfish.

Just to add the vulnerable people i'm talking about aren't able to stand outside and protest because they wouldn't understand. They aren't able to organise themselves and go onto tv to advocate against this, they are fulky reliant on their carers to try to protect them. Most of the carers are shattered and some as i've mentioned are under the LA. These people aren't capable of being as vocal and forthright as those who are pushing the legislation through without good enough safeguards for these people because they want it. It is disgusting. Have legal euthanasia by all means but have a robust law and system so everyone is protected.

Then perhaps people need to make these decisions whilst they do have capacity to do so, for themselves so there is no possibility of coercion.
People need to plan ahead for all eventualities, why not how we want to live and die

Looks like the Bill only passed the Commons vote on the promise that hard scrutiny would take place in the Upper House.

Scrutiny that Falconer is now complaining is taking too long

https://nitter.net/ddhitchens/status/2017865840998137914#m

I think you are right. But why are we letting people die in agony and pain? Why do we need an ‘assisted dying bill’ ? Why can’t doctors just ensure that adequate pain relief is given to prevent these tragedies. If someone is at the end of their life with no remote possibility of a cure, let them go with as much pain relief as they need. It seems that doctors are terrified of being accused of hastening someone’s death, so they let them suffer, sometimes for weeks in terrible pain. It’s cruel and inhumane.

I’ve seen it. I’ve lived with it. I’m still not convinced it is safe in the hands of those who would be administering it.

I have seen it first hand with someone I love but why can't we have adequate safeguards for those who need it? Why does someone elses need to die trump someone elses need to live?

My husband had cancer - we had palliative care nurses, McMillan nurses and 2 pain consultants from the hospital. They tried many drugs and combinations but couldn't get adequate pain relief. From speaking to the nurses it's not uncommon with certain cancers

Sometimes pain isn’t the issue

There are particular head and neck cancers where the end usually comes when a tumour ruptures the jugular vein, and you simply bleed out. I genuinely can’t imagine a more dreadful way to go, both as a dying person or a loved one having to watch

As incredible as palliative care can be, there are certain conditions that it simply cannot help

Can anyone confirm the veracity (or otherwise) of this story about a woman being euthanized against her wishes in Canada?

I agree with the bill in principle but it does chill my blood that it's happening at a time when hatred of ill or disabled people is being stirred up by the government and media and when healthcare and social care is under-resourced.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15489605/canadian-woman-euthanized-ontario-maid.html

We can't eliminate suffering, it's not possible.
So the question is, on balance, will the assisted dying bill lead to more suffering, or less?
In it's current form, I think more.

Wow
Im shocked but not surprised by that case
No permission given and in fact denied by the patient for reasons given by her including religious beliefs
Husband pushing for her death
Hospice care denied and inadequate palliative care to support the husband
Killed the evening of a decision made by …..who knows ??

That’s the way things will go

Agree
There will be no money left to improve actual care for those who need it towards their end of life.

Yes...it's just murder then, isn't it? (In this case).

I'm thinking of at least 2 recent AIBU threads. Both from posters with elderly mothers who had been ill, with one who the poster feared was dying but had not been seen for her ailments in time in hospital (she did die, a fortnight later); the other who had said her mother was refusing to go to hospital but whose doctor didn't seem to have an end of life care plan in place so the only option seemed to be ambulance, and lying in a corridor for the end of days.

This was where palliative should have come into play but it took so long to actually get the first case seen to it was literally too late to have any sort of "how would you like to go" conversations.

The timing would only work if people were almost asked before they even got ill, like some version of a DNACPR