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.

Or they want to do it in a civilised, respectable way and just want to be supplied with the requisite drugs and have their family with them when they go. If you sit with a loved one as they die by suicide currently you’re liable to prosecution.

Anewuser · Today 19:02

I really hope for your sake you don’t get ill with a chronic condition.

The NHS pay over £50,000 a year for my adult son. Shall I let him know at the age of 21 he has ten years life left because he’s then hit your cap?

My point was what if NICE have to stop funding people due to the cost? The NHS has to draw a line somewhere, what would you do if they did?

PawPrintsInMyPansies
’radical solutions’ being killing off those you think are a drain on society?

Its clear from the attitudes on here that those supporting assisted suicide range from those who genuinely want to help people suffering and those that see it as a method of population control.

I wasn't jumping to full on Logans Run, more along the lines of raising the thresholds for council support, making immediate family partly responsible for care home fees, seizing of homes and assets before care home admittance, removal of choice for those who have no assets, forcing people to have "care pensions" or health insurance. Financially things are only going to get worse in the coming years so the gap of standards between rich and poor is only going to widen. The average staffing ratio in a home at the minute is 1:7, do you think governments will have any problems with 1:15 or 1:30? Just look at what they've done to children's services. When it inevitably gets like that people will want the choice.

Almost 40 years ago my Mother was diagnosed as terminally ill, she was in so much pain and just used to cry, wanting it to be over. I clearly remember being with her in her room with my then 8 week old baby, utterly heartbroken that they wouldn’t know each other.
The NHS worked a couple of small miracles and my Mother was actually able to watch that baby grow up and go to university, she also saw her two baby siblings be born and almost reach adulthood before we finally lost her. During those extra 19 years, she enjoyed all the important days of all of her children & grandchildren, even the births of several great grandchildren. Holidays, Christmases, birthdays that she wouldn’t have shared with her family if assisted dying had been available to her at her most vulnerable.

I thought people said my point about the cost of care wasn't something that would come into this debate...

But that was an illustration of the value that one person may ascribe to another person's life.

In the case of the illustration, the person in SY would presumably be healthy and have capacity and be fully able to make the decision for themselves, should anybody be offensive enough to offer them that decision to die purely because they live in an underprivileged area on a limited income.

The danger arises when it comes to somebody who doesn't have agency or the ability to stand up for themselves, and their family/doctor/anybody else starts advocating that their life is not worth continuing with and suggests/pressurises them to choose death.

But we are talking currently in the UK, about a debate about voluntary assisted dying, with all the safeguards, for those who are of sound mind and able to self administer.

Please don't let this become an "if it costs one life" it shouldn't be allowed as per the "if it saves one life" it should be allowed, issue.

And we have also mentioned highly concerning real cases in other western countries that already have this law - al of which I'm sure would claim that they too have all the safeguards and that it is entirely voluntary, with no coercion or pressure whatsoever put on candidates.

In the case of the illustration, the person in SY would presumably be healthy and have capacity and be fully able to make the decision for themselves, should anybody be offensive enough to offer them that decision to die purely because they live in an underprivileged area on a limited income.

Is that what's discussed? Offering assisted dying because someone lives in South Yorkshire and the lift has broken down?

It isn't, is it? It's just a scaremongering and whataboutery.

I am always amazed that families do not talk about death, as if it is a taboo. Many have not made a will, and close family members have no idea on their wishes for the funeral, even basics like burial or cremation, or about organ donation, etc. Why on earth don't people talk about such things.

In our family, we all know how we feel about the above. No morbid discussion, just matter of fact and all part of a loving, fun and active family.

If we absolutely must put a financial value on a human life, I think it's only fair that we take the amount that the NHS would spend on keeping the King alive - assuming that he didn't have any private means to pay for it - and ascribe that to any person's life.

That's probably actually being conservative too, considering that the King has already had the majority of his life, whereas we could theoretically be talking about a baby or toddler with maybe 100 years of their life ahead of them.

We absolutely must NOT be putting a price on a human life. It shouldn’t even be discussed.

once we start that, as a society, we’ll soon be implementing eugenicist policies.

So when he goes in next week to get his feeding tube replaced, shall I just suggest to the doctors that they don’t bother waking him up again, since he’s obviously too much of a drain on NHS resources?

It’s already discussed and implemented. There are numerous drugs that NICE won’t approve because they’re too expensive.

It’s not fair IMO that the person in the mansion can at the moment go off to Dignitas but the person that doesn’t have a spare 10K or so is forced to endure the pain of a terminal illness.

You could say that about virtually anything. It’s not fair that people who can afford to pay for surgery don’t have to languish on long waiting lists.

So let’s make it fair for all.

We can’t make it fair for all. That’s the point. Any more than you can give everyone the same amount of money to live in.

Looking at assisted suicide in other countries, it’s clear that the boundaries are changed from what was originally meant. It’s naive at best to think that won’t happen here?

As a society we need to invest in the NHS and make sure that for the vast majority of people, their illnesses are treated promptly and for those that can’t be treated, we have better than adequate facilities to ensure that their last days are comfortable.

PawPrintsInMyPansies
As a society we need to invest in the NHS and make sure that for the vast majority of people, their illnesses are treated promptly and for those that can’t be treated, we have better than adequate facilities to ensure that their last days are comfortable.
Around 12% of government spending already goes on the NHS, what should be cut to pay for it?

@titbumwillypoo So rather than increase spending to make peoples lives better, you feel a better, cheaper option is to kill them?

What do you think will happen to medical research into illnesses and disease? Research is done to find cures, alleviate suffering. If instead, these people die, then what’s the incentive for researchers? Governments won’t really want cures. As you’ve said, it’s cheaper not to.

Yes. So if we had assisted dying as an option (with all the rules regulations and strict criteria applied), it would be available to those eligible, regardless of wealth.

Well let’s see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. Be careful what you wish for.

The debate is this afternoon.

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.

A summary of yesterday’s debate from Dignity in Dying:

‘At this afternoon’s historic Westminster Hall debate, one message was loud and clear: an assisted dying law for the UK is now a question of when, not if.

MPs’ views have shifted towards support, that is now undeniable. More than half of those who spoke in the debate - from political heavyweights like David Davis to newer MPs such as Sarah Dyke - called for a better, safer, kinder law. The Greens have formally committed assisted dying reform to their manifesto, Caroline Lucas announced.

From every major political party, there was clear support for proper parliamentary time for debate and a free vote - even among those firmly opposed to reform. Your efforts are working - Parliament is listening.

Assisted dying reform is coming to the UK. Today’s debate put that beyond doubt.

A number of MPs previously opposed to assisted dying have now changed their minds, thanks in large part to constituents who have shared heartbreaking stories of harm under the current blanket ban. Other MPs shared their own deeply personal experiences of losing a loved one, and how this increased their support for change.

This progress builds on commitments from both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to a full debate on assisted dying in the next Parliament, with proposals progressing in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man.’

Link to Independent article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/assisted-dying-mps-parliament-debate-b2536749.html