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.

idreamoftoddlersleepytime · Today 19:55
@titbumwillypoo if you want to be taken seriously, change your user name to something that isn't so childish.
Why would I want to be serious? I look at the world and see fools who think money and power and shiny things are important when frankly we're just smart monkeys. I'm here for a good time not a long time and while this form of capitalism and democracy continues nothing will change. I suspect by the time I'm ready to shuffle off this mortal coil legitimate assisted dying will have been in place for many years because we're not going to run out of people anytime soon.

Or you could be shuffled off without being ready….because that is where Canada got in twenty years.

SummerFeverVenice · Today 21:20

Or you could be shuffled off without being ready….because that is where Canada got in twenty years.
Our governments actions abroad could help us all shuffle off a lot earlier, but that's out of our hands, I'd just like the choice when the time comes.

Some data from Scotland..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/17/majority-of-scottish-voters-support-assisted-dying-bill-poll-reports

These stats show that most Scottish voters, like most across the UK, support assisted dying.

As always, the evidence flies in the face of the lie – largely pushed by religious lobbyists and fundraisers – that there is a consensus among disabled people that assisted dying should be outright prohibited. Completely untrue! In fact, the campaign has always been led by and for disabled people – like Debbie Purdy, Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb, and Noel Conway

https://humanists.uk/2019/03/04/public-support-for-assisted-dying-now-over-90-reveals-study/

In 2019- Public support for assisted dying now over 90%, reveals study

OP- I have never seen anything published claiming a “consensus amongst disabled people”. It seems an odd thing to claim because disabled people are human beings and so will have differing opinions. Perhaps it is a lie that this lie ever existed?

There was an excellent piece in the Guardian, I can truly see the case for assisted dying. But the horrific state of the NHS makes me question if it is the best idea, written by palliative care doctor, Dr Rachel Clarke.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/may/01/case-for-assisted-dying-nhs-patients-die?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5

She recounts as examples, two patients she treated.

I am highlighting her summary based on her 8 years as a doctor specialising in palliative care that resonated with me:

”Irrespective of one’s views on assisted dying, we can surely all agree that something is scandalously awry in British society when vulnerable people sometimes receive such inadequate care that they are driven to take their own lives? Proponents of assisted dying sometimes try to dismiss concerns that if the law were changed, disabled and vulnerable individuals might be coerced into prematurely ending their lives. But far from being a future, theoretical concern, it is real – and happening now. What coerces these patients is not some rightwing politician or avaricious family member, but the woeful inadequacy of their care.”

“Depressingly regularly these days, I encounter patients dying horrible deaths – lying soiled or screaming in pain in a hospital bed – because NHS services are falling apart. Last year in England, almost 14,000 people died in A&Ewhile waiting more than 12 hours for a bed – a national scandal we appear content to ignore.”

“More widespread and insidious is the framing of the “ageing population” as an increasingly unaffordable burden for society. Matthew Parris, writing recently in the Times, took the bold step of explicitly linking that “burden” to assisted dying, arguing that it would be a good thing for society’s elderly and frail people to be faced with the question of whether their existence places unfair pressure on their family and society as a whole. The potential for assisted dying to be “urged on people”, he argues, would be a “healthy development”.

“Is this really the society we want to inhabit? One in which the population has been carved up into two groups of people, those who deserve to live and those who are expendable? There are many compelling reasons to legalise assisted dying, but please, let’s not walk eyes wide shut into a world in which vulnerable patients “choose” to die because we’re not willing to fund the care that might make their lives worth living.”

Some personal stories here.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/why-we-need-change/personal-stories/

Some research here from Canada:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378739611_Words_matter_'enduring_intolerable_suffering'_and_the_provider-side_peril_of_Medical_Assistance_in_Dying_in_Canada

An extract below:

Euthanasia is described by some prolific public-facing MAID providers in Canada and other countries as leaving them feeling “hyped up on adrenaline” and “very good”; “heartwarming”, “liberating” or like part of a “crusade”; causing an “urgent and pressing need for sex”; and provokes laughter in providers discussing how to force provision on resisting patients or upset families. The providers experiencing these emotions are among those with the highest known provision rates (hundreds of deaths each) and vocal advocates for MAiD. In Canada, they fall into the less than 18.3 % of MAiD clinicians (336/1837 in 2022) who most likely conduct the majority of provisions. These concentrations of deaths concern other MAiD providers. Such sentiments are disquieting because death is usually a deeply painful or difficult moment for the patients and their loved ones, which may be compounded by questionable provider behaviours. Pleasure, on the other hand, is a categorically inappropriate affective response to causing or observing harm, suffering, or death in others. Expressions of pleasure from providers are also a reminder that the psychological impact on providers from involvement in MAiD is an outstanding question.

I am reading your links OP. I gave browsed the dignity in dying website, their report with the personal stories delves into people with terminal illnesses being forced into suicide.

Amongst the personal stories was a banner saying their research has shown that “350-600 dying people commit suicide every year in the U.K.” as the only real population level justification for assisted dying apart from the “14 personal stories” where they interviewed 14 people who are or have campaigned for assisted dying either for themself or a relative and the polls they have commissioned from which they claimed 90% favour it by combining the % of respondents who replied with “always acceptable, sometimes acceptable and rarely acceptable” a bit lacking in nuance.

I followed the links to the full report and methodology and unfortunately, this 350-600 figure is bogus. They looked at a sample of suicides and then estimated the % of people who had committed suicide that had “a serious, life-shortening or terminal diagnosis” at the time of their death, so their % figure is not only a rough estimate, but is padded out with an unknown number of people who did not have a terminal illness. Their title on their table directly contradicts the data at the head of the right hand column, which is CFery and deceptive.

a “life shortening” or “serious” diagnosis would include illnesses that if managed properly do not cause the person to be actively “dying” or “terminally ill” such as diabetes, COPD, autism, CVD, CF, Schizophrenia, etc.

Why are you trying so hard to stop people having a choice?

A campaign group using dodgy statistics and emotional manipulation sounds oddly familiar somehow.

Why are you trying so hard to shut down the conversation? You never engage with anything substantively.

Why do you never discuss the counter-arguments people post?

you want to kill people Who don’t have, what you consider to be a good quality of life or are ‘burdens’ on society.

It’s clear that you don’t want a debate. You have made up your mind. You want an echo chamber.

The justifications on this thread are sickening. I worry for the world children are growing up in.

You have just demonstrated perfectly why I’m not engaging with posters who are aggressive and who are making erroneous made up hyperbolic statements. So thank you.

‘you want to kill people Who don’t have, what you consider to be a good quality of life or are ‘burdens’ on society’

No. That’s not true. I’ve never said that. You may wish to make stuff up to suit your narrative, but I don’t wish to engage when you are doing so.

But there's nothing erroneous, made-up or hyperbolic about the research I posted or the issues with the campaign group you linked to, described by a PP. You've provided no response.

You said yourself, it's an emotive issue. You've also claimed that posters want people to suffer and are selfish. So it seems you want to be free to push assisted suicide and make accusations against others, but if you're questioned that's "aggressive".

By the way, you never did answer or clarify whether you agreed with these sentiments from Matthew Parris:

What today is criminal could tomorrow become (as its proponents tend to insist) a sad but permitted option in a relatively small number of special and agonising circumstances; but within a decade or more be seen as a normal road for many to take, and considered socially responsible — and even, finally, urged upon people. Such (say objectors) is the wedge of which the Scottish proposal is just the thin end.
Yes, but what’s wrong with the thick end? It will be a healthy development.

Your response at the time was "That's a good article. I agree with him." So, is this an accurate reflection of your views?

Because in the current climate how much of a "choice" might it be and for whom?

This!

What’s the current climate?

If you are referencing the Conservative government, then chances are there will be no longer in power soon.
Don’t you trust Labour with it?

you want to kill people Who don’t have, what you consider to be a good quality of life or are ‘burdens’ on society.

No, what people want is the choice of ending their own suffering and loss of dignity for themselves.

Calling it “killing” is a serious misrepresentation.

Exactly this.

I don't trust any political party with this to be Frank.

The current climate is focused on cost cutting at all costs, capitalism without compassion. The only reason that benefits are allowed to stand at all is because people with nothing left to lose are the most dangerous. Which is part of the reason the welfare state came into being in the first place, to stave off revolution.

In the context of assisted dying, possibly extended to those desperate to escape shitty circumstances not just terminal or similar conditions, as I said before, we're on a slippery slope.

@mavenss all up and down this thread people have challenged you on moral, intellectual, philosophical, and practical policy grounds. They've engaged with you. They've considered your polling evidence, they've pointed out its limitations. They've presented counter evidence. Your response on each occasion has been to refuse to engage and to dismiss summarily and accuse people of being mean. It's been useful though in as much as it really has highlighted how shallow the case for assisted dying is, being based in a misconceived idea of personal liberty, a failure to understand the right to life, and a casual disregard for the societal harm and human rights abuses it has caused in Canada in particular.

Because giving the few this choice has resulted everywhere it has been legalised with abuses in which vulnerable people are euthanised that do not want to die, but are either restrained and killed or are coerced into it through emotional manipulation and withholding of the healthcare or financial support that would make their lives worth living.

There are people in Canada right now who are telling their LAs they cannot afford a rent rise and will be homeless. They say they cannot find any homes with rent they can afford. Canada’s response was would you like to apply for assisted dying? Because you’re not getting any more benefit money.

One man interviewed said he had signed up for assisted dying because he is in his late 50s and it was a choice between dying homeless on the streets or dying without suffering that long, slow death, probably from hypothermia and hunger in winter. He said he knows he cannot survive being homeless.

He tried to crowdfund to get donations to cover his rent increase and Canada deducted $ for $ every bit of money he raised from his benefits.

He doesn’t want to die.

This was two years ago…he is dead now.
https://care.org.uk/news/2022/10/canadian-man-applies-for-doctor-assisted-death-due-to-homelessness

“Canadian food bank clients and disabled retirees facing financial insecurity are now considering doctor-assisted suicide to avoid living in poverty, several sources have reported.
“Based on the definitions in the Canadian law, nearly anyone with a chronic medical condition, such as people with disabilities, can be approved for euthanasia,” Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told CNA Dec. 12.
“Therefore people with disabilities are requesting euthanasia based on poverty, homelessness, or an inability to receive needed medical treatment, but they are approved for euthanasia based on their disability,” he added.”

”Schadenberg said assisted suicide has become very easy to access in Canada.
“We need to understand that many people with disabilities live in poverty and find themselves having difficulty receiving necessary medical treatment and yet according to the law they have no difficulty being approved for death by euthanasia,” he told CNA. “Clearly this has led to an epidemic of death, of despair, in Canada. Deaths based on cultural abandonment but sold to the population under the false guise of freedom.”

Meghan Nicholls, CEO of the Mississauga Food Bank:
“For the first time, according to Nicholls, beneficiaries are reporting that the cost of food has put them into financial insolvency.
“We’re at the point where clients on these programs are telling us they’re considering medically assisted death or suicide because they can’t live in grinding poverty anymore,” she said in the Maclean’s report. “A client in our Food Bank 2 Home delivery program told one of our staff that they’re considering suicide because they’re so tired of suffering through poverty. Another client asked if we knew how to apply for MAID (medical assistance in dying) for the same reasons.”
“We can’t underestimate the effect that poverty has on someone’s mental health. Our clients live with constant worry and cut corners on needed items like medication, fresh food, or warm clothes — constantly living under that stress takes its toll mentally, emotionally, and physically,” Nicholls said.
“When people start telling us they’re going to end their life because they can’t live in poverty anymore, it’s clear that we’ve failed them,” she added.”

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/hungry-poor-and-disabled-canadians-now-seeking-assisted-suicide