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.

And it’s people like you why some of us are opposed to assisted dying.

You’ve already made your mind up that old people shouldn’t be here. It can only be the same about severely disabled people next.

And how do you suggest we protect the elderly from potential pressure to off themselves simply to free up resources?

I have made my mind up about assisted dying for those who are terminally ill and want to make that choice. Having seen people I love dearly suffer terribly and one having the most horrific death that was so cruel and left is all traumatised has led me to support assisted dying

the practicalities of having a huge ageing population is something that governments are facing and it’s hard to stomach that assisted dying will be helping manage the practical issues around this. How many old people want to carry on living when they are in constant pain and knowing they have lived their life when they also know that they could pass peacefully when it’s their choice

As I’ve said before

Why anyone would actively wish for another human to die a slow painful death, or live a long painful life with no quality of life, is beyond me.

That isn’t hyperbole, sadly.

I think open discussions need to be had before we become weak and vulnerable death is something we should be more willing to talk about

these discussions are to be had with people who are neutral to the people involved

Is it beyond you or just that you don’t want to see? Because there have been lots of attempts to explain to you on this thread.

Your definition of ‘quality of life’ appears to be ‘young and able bodied’. Everyone else is
a burden on society and should do the decent thing and die.

ETA We should be looking to protect the vulnerable. To make their final days easier. To look for cures.

Not encourage them to feel like they should kill themselves,
for their kids; for society etc etc

I actually think one of the conversations we should be having more of is about trying to prolong life for too long and the giving of false hope.

I think we are minded to accept the idea that intervention to prolong life is always the best option over palliative care because that's what we are taught.

Changing conversations about this isn't going as far as assisted dying. It's just a discontinuation of interventions. Indeed it's about perhaps stopping prolonged unnecessary suffering.

But once again we are going straight to assisted dying as the conversation rather than earlier desistance of intervention and good quality palliative care.

Why?

Who benefits?

Who benefits?

People who believe they no longer have any quality of life and wish to have a dignified death at the time of their choosing.

I’ve already chosen the no intervention route. That probably means I’ll die struggling for breath with pneumonia having become a travesty of myself thanks to dementia. Is that really something we see as civilised when it could be avoided?

You are deliberately missing my point.

For all the your manipulative crap about not wanting people to suffer you are repeatedly ignoring different groups which don't match your priority group. They aren't even worthy of your time to acknowledge never mind discuss.

We need to talk about ALL vested interest groups and how assisted dying might have the unintended effect of broadening and expanding suffering.

It's depressing that so many people try the whole emotional blackmail trick to suggest we haven't considered or don't care about people.

It's rank hypocrisy.

I’m not missing your point, deliberately or otherwise. Your point is that because assisted dying for people with a terminal disease might be abused we shouldn’t have it. To hell with personal choice as long as you get your own way. And you have the absolute temerity to accuse someone else of emotional blackmail.

There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters on this thread that when an elderly person's health begins to fail they will automatically want their life to end.

It's not always the case. In fact, it's very often not the case.

The main issue that alot if us have, I think, is that given the current climate, we are wary of trusting where legislation would lead, and it may lead to a dehumanisation of anyone perceived to be a burden. I've stated upthread I'm conflicted.

On an individual basis yes, those suffering with a terminal prognosis able to categorically state they wish for a speedy and painless end is one thing. However, as Canada exemplifies, the goalposts can be nudged further and further apart.

The emotions of those who wish to die are valid, but so are those of people who don't but may feel manipulated into thinking it's a noble choice due to the zeitgeist of the "lack of resources and over burdened planet" argument.

I do not trust the state to get this right is my main bone of contention.

The likelihood is very high though that it will be abused when we look at the lessons learned from other countries that have legalised it.

The risk of vulnerable elderly, disabled and poor being euthanised against their wishes is statistically a lot higher than the risk of executing an innocent person by having the death penalty.

So yeah, to hell with a privileged few getting a marginally nicer death than what fate has in store for them through assisted dying. Instead, improve end of life care so that a marginally nicer death doesn’t have to be scheduled like a dentist appointment, no one ends up coerced into it, and everyone has it.

Most of those who want assisted dying want it because of their fear of suffering the appalling end of life care we currently have due to a gutted, defunded, understaffed NHS.

How can it be possible for the NHS or anyone else to make sure that anyone has a good death? If a person has lost their independence, is reliant on strangers to do their basic physical care, and is in constant pain or discomfort then the NHS can't fix their problems even with all the funding in the world. They can't give that person their life back, their own self control, everything they enjoy.

It's not up to you to decide that all that matters in life is having a heartbeat. For many, it's so much more than that and they have the right to decide for themselves what kind of life is worth living.

All of this. I couldn’t agree more. Particularly this It's not up to you to decide that all that matters in life is having a heartbeat. Wise, wise words.

What I’m saying is clearly beyond you.

There’s no point ‘discussing’ it because you can’t (or won’t) see further than your warped views / ‘interpretations’ of what others have said.

And as assisted death will be a CHOICE- then they can CHOOSE to continue to live with pain and loss of dignity. Up to them. That does not mean that others should not be allowed to CHOOSE otherwise.

ETA We should be looking to protect the vulnerable. To make their final days easier. To look for cures.

You want to use dying people to look fur cures? A but heartless, that..

Cures or no, people will be dying. Why not let them go at their own terms?

So the only point in favour is the idea of choice, and sod the consequences for those who will be pressured and won't have a free choice, because the advocates for this choice (really just for them when their time to choose comes) deny that those adverse consequences exist.

"I want" not just an imperative but also as justification. I guess there really is no such thing as society, racism, classism, bullying etc.

I also see attempts to dress selfishness as compassion for others (getting them into angel of death territory making judgments about the non-value of certain categories of life that can be ended for the greater good).

Just awful.

But don’t you see that you are doing the same thing?

You want to deny free choice those who want this law because someone else might be denied free choice, despite reasurances of safeguards to be put in place.

Just awful.

I'm okay with governments denying people free choice on matters of grave societal consequence where the harm to others outweigh the purported benefits of the freedom sought. Governments have been doing it since time immemorial (it's called the rule of law).

You can be happy denying people their choice, bur luckily you are in the minority.

It will happen.

@ChardonnaysBeastlyCat not in your lifetime.

Don’t be rude.

Ok, you’re saying that not only is assisted dying impossible, but so is better end of life care? Who do you think is going to do it if it were legalised? It would be the NHS. I don’t think anyone is ready to trust a private, profit driven, make more £ the more you bump off type of model.