Assisted dying debate next week… To think this is a relief. So glad they’re finally debating this important issue.

[Mavenss]

We will be able to see which MPs are for or against assisted dying.

This Monday 29th April, assisted dying will be debated in Westminster for the first time in two years. An absolutely incredible 203,000 people added their name to the government petitionspearheaded by Dame Esther Rantzen to make this happen, creating the largest ever parliamentary petition on assisted dying.

There will not be a vote on Monday, but this debate will be the last time before the General Election that MPs have an opportunity to show you that they are listening to our calls for safe and compassionate choice at the end of life. A majority of voters in every constituency support an assisted dying law.

The debate starts at 4:30pmand you can watch it live online through the UK parliament website.

YABU- it’s a silly idea, why are government even debating it? Assisted dying is a terrible idea.

YANBU - I support the debate and assisted dying (under the agreed circumstances)

I’m interested in the MN feedback here.

I wasn't making a comment on your use of quotes. I was pointing out that we obviously have very different definitions of what 'it's working' means. I'm not sure what facts I've stated incorrectly there but do let me know.

You want doctors to be able to euthanise those with severe dementia symptoms who may no longer understand or want that.

Only if they requested that when they were still of sound mind.

@Mavenss but it is a moral and legal issue (as well as one about the extent of the individual's personal rights). You cannot alleviate the suffering of some by the creation of suffering for others. You still won't grapple with the problem of it becoming a duty to die. Why not?

And what if they changed their mind but didn't update the paperwork before dementia overcame them? And which doctor oversees the lethal injection and/or withdrawal of food and drink (so as to pretend they are not killing another human being through direct actions).

Only if they have documented their wish for that to happen in an advance directive when they had capacity. My advance directive states that if I receive a diagnosis of dementia no subsequent health condition is to be treated, palliative care only. It’s legally incumbent on healthcare professionals to respect that. Why would my wish to die quickly rather than slowly not be respected?

No, voluntary euthanasia is literally the ending of someone's life at their request.
There's voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary - I learned all this at school! (By which I mean, it's not exactly new!)

idreamoftoddlersleepytime · Today 13:19
@Mavenss but it is a moral and legal issue (as well as one about the extent of the individual's personal rights). You cannot alleviate the suffering of some by the creation of suffering for others. You still won't grapple with the problem of it becoming a duty to die. Why not?
Why is it the duty of the state to prolong natural death instead of improving the quality of life of the living?

Palliative care only is entirely different from being actively killed. Why should your wishes trump the best interests of the rest of society? Because you want to be able to make an irrevocable decision while in one state of mind that can't be undone no matter what your future feelings or level of understanding is, you think everyone else should deal with the ethical fallout of its wider application?

There are countries where assisted suicide is handled well. I wish we could do that, for the sake of patients who are suffering needlessly.

The only difference between palliative care only and an overdose is the amount of time involved. Nothing should trump my wishes when they affect me and only me.

I have a concern in the argument for the elderly like my Dad.

He's often saying he's sorry he has to bother me. I am quite certain that he perceives that he is a burden, despite my language saying he is not. Yes, the help he needs as he is at the early stages of dementia is more demanding of me, as we lost my Mum a few years ago, but all of our lives markedly change from time to time.

If Dad was living in an environment where he had the choice, there is a chance he would make it based on the wrong reason (the burden) as opposed to a choice based on his future (the dementia which we know will progress).

I don't know how you can ever be sure that it's made for the right reason so the path is best not trodden.

As discussed, a change in the law affects everyone, so that point is invalid. And there is so obviously a difference between palliative care and killing someone, there's really no point in discussing it if you won't look at basic facts.

The point is completely valid. The difference between palliative care only and witholding treatment and death from an overdose is the length of time taken to die. In what world is it better for someone to die slowly from an untreated condition than quickly from an overdose?

Feelingstrange2 · Today 13:39
I have a concern in the argument for the elderly like my Dad.

He's often saying he's sorry he has to bother me. I am quite certain that he perceives that he is a burden, despite my language saying he is not. Yes, the help he needs as he is at the early stages of dementia is more demanding of me, as we lost my Mum a few years ago, but all of our lives markedly change from time to time.

If Dad was living in an environment where he had the choice, there is a chance he would make it based on the wrong reason (the burden) as opposed to a choice based on his future (the dementia which we know will progress).

But who are you to decide that being a burden is the wrong reason for him? You just listed two reasons, there's no right or wrong on either of them as the outcome doesn't change. I wouldn't want my kids to see me become a shell of who I was or get to a point where I couldn't do anything for myself.

The difference is both the intention and the act.

This is absolute nonsense. My intention in refusing treatment is to ensure I die, exactly the same as if drugs were administered. The difference between cause of death is one might take a long time, the other would be fast. There is no action in non treatment.

It's absolutely not nonsense. What you're proposing is a change in the law in which you (being presumably incapacitated by dementia and in fact unable to give consent or properly form the intention) are actively terminated by a member of the medical profession. This is not the same as either you refusing treatment, or having palliative care which may hasten your death as a side effect.

Please tell me you understand that I am not talking about your intentions, but the act and intention of the person taking your life? Or are you that myopic that you can only relate everything to yourself?

For me, being a burden is a valid reason. I do not want to be a burden on my children and granchildren, and DH, unless my quality of life is worth it. What is wrong with not wanting to be a burden, in very old age. And especially when you know your medical condition will soon be very painful or debilitating and rob you of all joys and dignity.

For most who ask for assisted dying the reasons are multiple, and often, one of the many, is the desire not to be a burden because you want your adult children to enjoy their life to the full and that of their partner and children.

Why on earth use the words 'killing someone'. NO-ONE is talking abut that. But about giving the choice, in certain circumstances where the pain and the loss of enjoyment of life and loss of dignity, has become unbearable. So the choice can be mad safely and wihout pain, and affecting third parties in the least possible way.

Ask train drivers which way is the best. Or anyone who has found a loved one hanging by the rafters, or blue in the closed garage, or messy overdoses which have gone too far, cannot be reversed, and will take days of screaming agony to come to a conclusion.

What you're proposing is a change in the law in which you (being presumably incapacitated by dementia and in fact unable to give consent or properly form the intention) are actively terminated by a member of the medical profession.

What part of a documented statement of wishes in an advance directive made when I have full capacity are you failing to understand?

Not at all- I am not talking about advanced dementia at all. If you have very clear advanced directives about the 'in case of dementia/Alzheimer's' schenario, you should be able to make the decision at the onset of the disease, if you wish. This should always be self administered, as in Switzerland, and only after showing that you are still able to make the decision. Mostly it is about debilitating diseases like motor-neurone, etc, and advanced cancers no longer treatable or at a stage where treatment would become unbearable.

@fungipie the OP is absolutely talking about euthanasia. In this post. About how great the Netherlands is.

Now I'm not sure this is what the debate is about, but the OP quoted that and you're saying that no one is saying it. For clarity, some are.

I support assisted dying, I have seen too much suffering of people who frankly deserve better. Currently watching my DF dying from dementia, he has infections treated that if left would let him pass ay least with some dignity intact but instead the misery is dragged on for him. I wouldn't want this for myself either, I want the choice to die when I'm ready

Talk about morals and psychology all you like (I’m a Psychologist)

It's not currently illegal to call yourself a psychologist in the UK without being an actual, qualified psychologist. I know because I have several friends who are qualified psychologists who are in favour of a change in that legislation. For clarity, are you an HCPC and/or BPS registered psychologist?

If you are, you should understand the nuance of issues like this. The psychologists I know are all highly intelligent, ethically rigorous, curious people who understand looking at all aspects of questions like this, rather than emoting to garner agreement without proper thought.

You'll get much further suggesting checks and balances, ways to prevent the worst aspects of this, not just say it's right without dealing with those.