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.

This is something that I have always agreed with in principle. And then you look at the clusterfuck in Canada, and the inverted population age pyramid heading our way and the increasing resentment of the older generations and I think it would be a bloody disaster.

@Mavenss you’re posting a lot of links, yet not reading any of the articles posted which agree with you.

Your posts are clear that for you there is only one ‘correct’ view. And you ignore or shutdown any opposing opinions

I do support it , you'd be prosecuted letting an animal suffer so why a human?
I did watch the programme the other night which showed Canada and it didn't look good. Their 'Pathway' has evolved and looks dubious. I think we can learn from their ongoing mistakes and hopefully put in some really stringent safety structures that would stop a similar situation occurring.

@paw

Not at all. Others are welcome to their view, as I am to mine. We need different opinions always. I’m reading / have read all of the articles. My views haven’t changed. For my own reasons, that you don’t need to know.

So for me yes - the right to choose is the right decision. Almost always. In this area and most others in life.

Others think differently, that’s ok. I’m not controlling their thoughts or their decisions. Quite the opposite.

The "we put dogs down" is far too over simplified though.

Institutions wouldn't encourage a dog to be put down to save resources, time or money, not could a dog be guilted into making this decision with the narrative of not being a burden, be it on the state or family. Relative's wouldn't have their dog put down to get inheritance money. Vets are traumatised by putting animals down, as a Dr dealing with humans it would be worse.

I'm not even saying I'm against assisted dying - I totally understand many of the arguments in favour of it.

But I very much doubt our ability to put it in place properly.

Totally agree.

Liz Carr's documentary, which I referred to above, featured an interview with Lord Falconer - who said in his view, it should happen but should only be for those with terminal illnesses who are close to death.

Great. But then she interviewed a disabled campaigner whose response was that she wanted it widened so that people in her position - who might feel their lives were no longer worth living - could get it as well

And there it is - what happened in Canada and elsewhere - the lobbying widens the eligibility more and more.

Haven't seen the Liz Carr documentary yet, but I am hoping that people listen to her. It chills me how many people seem to think that killing others is compassionate.

I don’t think that anyone who is in favour of AD wants to kill others, they want the option for themselves, in certain circumstances. I personally don’t have any opinion about how others live their lives, if they’re happy to put up with pain and indignity good luck to them, but its not for me and I should have that option if I wish.

@user4762348796531 look down the thread and you will find people advocating euthanasia to save money and as a solution to the aging population / disability / mental health. Killing is cheaper than caring.

Palliative care isn't the answer. No drugs or care programme can give you back your freedom, dignity or comfort.

There's no drug that properly alleviates cold and flu symptoms, you just have to endure the misery. Imagine that magnified by a thousand, with added many indignities and losses. All the money in the world can't provide a pleasant natural dying process for people who might truly suffer for years.

Sometimes pain is just unlivable.

I'm not convinced there's much compassion showing tbh. I get the impression that it's something they want for themselves, and don't care about other people or the effect on wider society. It seems to be the conclusion of a very individualistic and self centred view of the world.

How dare someone want control over their own body.

Hardly fair to call it selfish when so many people are motivated to call for assisted dying having watched a loved one suffer unendurably. But yes, I do want it for myself should the need arise. I'm allowed control of my own life, and I am the judge of what I can endure.

There's no problem wanting control over your own body. It's putting your own wants over the possible serious harm to others that I'm questioning.

You can Carry on Questioning. Meanwhile allow others to make their own choices about their own bodies and their own life.

But people not being able to end their life early due to suffering is also ‘serious harm’.

The main thing that people are questioning is whether the government can be trusted with such high octane legislation, given the way they have carried on recently. They appear to have strong disdain for the populous, especially those without wealth.

I've stated upthread I'm conflicted, as I'm in the thick of elderly roulette with dementia, physical illness, and appalled at the bureaucracy and lack of social care and support as it is. I absolutely respect the wishes of the competent to end their suffering if they so choose and obviously medical oversight would be useful to prevent it being a horrible ending or ending up in survival with a much worse outcome.

I question, however, based on the lessons of history, the attitude that is creeping in alongside, that it may be framed as a moral duty to do so for some warped perception of a greater good, whether it's due to suffering in an already terminal situation or for reasons such as social issues and resources. The expansion of the idea is being planted via various means and normalised, and that is what people are talking against.

I am fearful of this government.

As we approach the GE, here on MN, we have several threads all with various flavours of how various groups of essentially vulnerable people are a drain on resources, and how this should be tackled. The implication of simple elimination to save money is strong from a much higher proportion of posters than one would expect. And that's rather worrying.

Opportunities to amass wealth as a protective shield have demonstrably diminished for those starting from "nothing" as it were in the last couple of decades. As the economy struggles and infrastructure reduces, we have more poor, sick, disabled and elderly and reduced quality of life across the board mainly because of ruthless wealth transfer to those in power.

The push for "personal responsibility" at all costs does not reflect that regardless of effort, the purposely failing systems are part of why people are struggling. Not everyone wants to climb the money tree regardless of impact on relationships and family and community. A good number, including myself, want a quiet, relatively stable life and make their own contribution to society as best they can. But that's increasingly out if reach, and contributing to increased levels of stress and state dependency.

It's the mother of all catch 22s.

That's the crux of this debate IMHO.

I don't want ANYONE to suffer unnecessarily, but I'm dubious- nay terrified- of how the government might use "benign" legislation for one group who feel they want or need it, as should be their right, as a crowbar for wider and unpalatable ends in the future.

That is all.

@MistressoftheDarkSide to your point, it is interesting how this debate has revived at the end of a 14 year period in which public services have been deliberately run down as a policy choice. Extreme times lead to extreme measures. And we populists will always run the simple case. The proponents of choice for the terminally ill should at least acknowledge that they are on free same side of the debate as the proponents of euthanasia as a remedy to society's ills. If they are not willing to recognise that, then they are not willing to seriously consider the true implications of their individualism.

‘then they are not willing to seriously consider the true implications of their individualism’

The person who can’t control their bladder, or their bowels, who can’t walk, whose eyesight is giving up. Thanks you for your input.

Absofuckinglutely.
Watched Liz Carr’s documentary. Canada is terrifying and I read yesterday about a young woman in Belgium with depression who is being enabled to die.

I apologise for coming very late to this debate and admit to not having read all the posts but as with any contentious issue like this there are pros and cons. Someone with deep religious views would probably be set against AD for themselves, until it affects them and then they may change their mind. Case in point, a family who lived over the road from us had a mother with a strong religious conviction against blood transfusions and when one of her daughters had a brain haemorrhage she refused permission for transfusion, the father signed the forms and the child recovered, however when the mother had a situation needing a transfusion she didn't hesitate. There will always be double standards.

I don't see the problem of putting a needle in someone's arm when it is the humane thing to do. Where a person is so ill that it is no longer a case of IF they die, but WHEN then surely it is better for that person to be able to end their life a few days or weeks earlier retaining whatever dignity they have left and saving them from untold pain and anguish.

I am currently in a care home and the woman across the corridor from me would greatly benefit from AD. She had a very severe stroke and is only deteriorating. She cries out day and night, sometimes for hours on end and it is truly heart-breaking. She has very little sight or hearing, is completely bed-bound, is fed via a tube and has zero quality of life. She basically lays in bed, day after day, waiting to die. The humane thing to do would be to put her out of her misery. She is given drugs to sedate her to keep her calm and she has what can only be described as a miserable gutted existence. If one of my animals was like that I would not hesitate to do the right thing and end its suffering.

If people were to sign a living will while they were still in possession of their faculties to the effect that in the event of them being in a similar situation they would want their lives ended then surely that is their prerogative.

Before the act is carried out 2 independent doctors should sign to say that there is no hope of recovery and it should be sanctioned by a judge or magistrate.

Patients are allowed to die all the time, usually by the withdrawal of food and liquid, one can only begin to imagine the pain and trauma felt by being left to die from dehydration and malnutrition. This can take days or weeks and is truly barbaric.

Unfortunately all systems are open to abuse and all that can be done is to put in safeguards to protect people's best interests whether that be AD or not.

I'm not at all religious. I'm an atheist. I'm against it because we have yet to see an implementation of assisted suicide that remained within the tightly controlled remit that was guaranteed at the outset. It's a pragmatic decision that recognizes that a pure outlook doesn't hold the reins of elastic policy.

@Mavenss your profound fear of pain and incapacity at the end of life is a basis for therapy, not a policy that would impact millions of lives for the worse.

@VeryHappyBunny how do you know what that stroke patient wants though? I say this respectfully, but you are projecting your own feeling of what you would want to happen to you in that situation (judged from a distance and not in that situation). And even if there was a living will permitting doctor assisted suicide, how can you be sure that the patient hasn't changed her mind? How do you establish that the consent is still active, or do you just blunder on under an assumption? The issue with living wills is the false idea that a person's view is fixed and unaltering. However, you yourself give examples of people undergoing profound shifts in belief, in both cases, I might add, in pursuit of further life and to avoid death (and not to embrace it). People forget to update actual wills all the time. Would a written consent given at 25 still stand for someone 60 years later at 85? It's a good idea until it strikes reality.