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.

It’s not always about end of life.

I don’t have any such ‘profound fear’.

I’m sorry you have no empathy for others in desperate situations.

@Mavenss I'm perturbed by your ideas on morality. If it's not just about end of life, do you want it to be an option available for the young but mentally ill? How about disabled people with inadequate care packages. I'm not sure your interest in mercy killing is healthy or to be encouraged.

Empathy is not synonymous with blanket approval of every choice.

What does this mean..? "It's not always about end of life." Genuinely not sure what you're getting at there.

I really hope that by the time I am elderly, that AD is a legal choice. The thought of having dementia and not knowing who people are / not being able to self care etc is just awful! Also the terrible experiences people have had watching their loved ones endure pain and suffering from incurable diseases.

Thanks for your feedback.

@MistressoftheDarkSide 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.

Yep, this is exactly what is now concerning me. I have gone from being very pro assisted dying to almost 100% against it. Once the legislation is in place, we're already on the slippery slope.

It really is a dreadful dilemma though because the suffering some go through is just awful.

Watched better off dead last night by Liz Carr. I thought Lord Falconer came off as profoundly naive with his view of a line in the sand for terminally ill. I just felt sad for Melanie Reid, who wants it more widely available, as she was clearly in the grip of a mental health crisis and having natural difficulty coming to terms with her riding accident, and how it had affected her sense of identity. Canada's MAID programme is terrifyingly open to abuse, and it's where it would go in the UK.

I know because she has a visitor, a good friend (she has no family), who I talk to sometimes and who told me that she would hate being in this situation, they had spoken about AD in the past and she said then that if anything similar to this were to happen to her she would want to end it and not suffer a painful and drawn out death.

Really, what is the point of someone laying in bed, waiting to die just because no-one has the balls to end it for her. It is the humane and compassionate thing to do.

It's a sad fact that most people who want to end their life cannot get to somewhere like Dignitas because they are either too ill and can't make the decision and/or simply cannot afford to go.

There was a case a few years ago of a young man in his 20s who was fit and sporty and played rugby. Sadly the scrum collapsed on him and his neck was broken. He was totally paralysed but his brain was fully active. He made the decision to go to Switzerland because he found his life untenable. He was not terminally ill and was not likely to die for decades but could not cope with being fed through a tube and having to have everything done for him. Can you imagine not even being able to blow your own nose, never mind having to wear continence pads. It is humiliating and dehumanising and likely to lead to serious mental health problems. I know this because I've been there. I was lucky and with a lot of effort I can now walk and do my own personal care. The emphasis is on personal, this is not something you want someone else to do for you.

When I was reliant on the carers I felt very vulnerable and unsafe.

Some of the people here have a living death. They are washed, toileted, dressed and pushed around in wheeled chairs. They can't communicate and either shout or bang something on a table for attention.

I don't know what sort of lives most of these people had before their health failed but I feel sure they would have been horrified if they knew then how they would end up. When they get to "end of life" it is surely better to bring it about more quickly and avoid the extra suffering.

@VeryHappyBunny I would really recommend watching Liz Carr's Better Off Dead documentary this weekend in the IPlayer. There are sections in it dealing with the loss of autonomy argument, and issues around care packages. Turning to the stroke patient, you are in legal terms saying you would be content for a doctor to euthanise a person whose capacity has been impaired on the basis of hearsay evidence. You've been told by a third party that it's what she would have wanted. Can you see the problem with that? And how it is prone to abuse?

Indeed. I've mentioned previously on this thread my mother, who in her 30s attempted suicide several times as she was stricken with severe depression (and was hospitalised several times - she even received ECT). She eventually recovered and was mentally extremely well for the next 40+ years - to the extent that even when she was bedridden and dying slowly (and quite painfully) from cancer, she fought to live to the end.

Yet those countries which have adopted AD - like Canada and Holland - have gone further than was initially promised and now allow it for mental health issues.

I'd be interested to hear your answer to the question posed, however. If it's not just about end of life.

It has been discussed on this thread several times. But since you insist on further explanation, here’s an example. Some people might have years of ‘being alive’ left, but have an incurable disease making their life unliveable (for them). If they are mentally cognisant and once had a vital active life - and are now confined to doing nothing, being reliant - dependent - on everyone else for everything. Some people don’t want to live like that. And that’s ok. To say They have to endure that ‘life’, their ‘life’, because You don’t think they should end it, is truly abhorrent.

It's not truly abhorrent at all. It might not be your opinion but the the position has merit.

There is a balance of suffering here. There is the suffering individual who you describe who you feel it is morally correct that we allow for an state sanctioned exit for life. I understand that view.

However, I think policies like these become mechanisms which shape culture, from which we derive our notion of common sense and further guide us on the path to further consequences.

I don't have enough faith in the political and moral landscape, such as it currently is, that I don't think that this policy wouldn't open a Pandora's box. Here common sense quietly shuffles us from a common view that people shouldn't have to suffer to people who are suffering should end their suffering, from the view that people who don't want to be dependent on others quietly shifts to the common view that people shouldn't be dependent on others, from a common view that people who don't want to be a burden to the living to a common understanding that people shouldn't be a burden to the living.

Once you put down your righteous indignation for a heartbeat you might find that you still don't agree with other people but this black and white thinking that you are painting this as and an expectation that other people are just being abhorrent might become more complicated.

I don't see why anyone should be kept alive against their will, whether that is mental health, terminal illness or any other reason. As long as they are competent to make the decision

@Sendinsanity so suicide for all on demand?

@MagnetCarHair

‘morally correct that we allow for an state sanctioned exit for life’

‘further guide us on the path to further consequences.’

‘righteous indignation’

Christ - Is this what evangelical sermons sound like?

People have a right to choose. No one should take away that right. It works both ways.

It should always be a personal choice. Flip the argument on its head and ask "why should people be kept alive against their will"?

There will be some who for religious reasons consider euthanasia or suicide to be a mortal sin, and that anyone who assists in either of these is guilty of murder and others who feel that when their life has become unliveable, for whatever reason, they want it ended as quickly and painlessly as possible.

As long as the individual has the right to chose I can't see the problem. If I ever ended up like some of the people in this care home I would want someone to take me out and shoot me.

There were times in the early days of my recovery that I would have been happy to end it all, but that is what it was, a recovery. If my future was to be bed-bound and at the mercy of strangers I would have wanted to be finished off sooner rather than later. When people have been in that situation and have personal experience of what it is like then they can make comments.

Looking after a terminally ill patient at home is rarely a viable option and so a care or nursing home or a hospice are the choices. I have what is referred to as "full mental capacity" but I have been bullied, ignored and shouted at by some members of staff. I have felt very alone and unsafe and I am in a position to make my own judgement calls. My only hope is that those who aren't, are too far gone to understand what is happening to them

Are you being deliberately dense? Try reading it again.

Clearly this is a debate about ethics and morality about letting people suffer and recognizing that these policies could lead to far more suffering is in balance. As I say, I'm an atheist, it's not a sermon, it's a bit of common sense set against your naivety.

I have already said that 2 independent doctors should make the decision where someone is not capable of making it for themselves and yes, the wishes of the patient as told to a close friend should be taken into account in the absence of physical evidence (eg a living will).

All systems are prone to abuse. I don't see a problem if someone has discussed the idea of AD with a close friend and doctors who have studied for up to 10 years or more agree that the only prognosis for the patient is death, then yes end their life humanely and with compassion.

When I was ill in hospital a doctor came round and asked if, in the event of a stroke or heart attack etc, would I want to be resuscitated explaining that it is very intrusive and can cause broken bones etc. I explained that as I was not terminally ill (just had several curable problems that could've should've killed me) that yes I did want resuscitating. The odd broken bone on top of everything else was the least of my worries at the time. But, tell me, what is the difference between slapping a DNR notice on someone whose life (mine) is viable and putting a needle in someone's arm whose life is not? If I had been suffering from an incurable illness which was only going to get progressively worse I would have said NO, just let me go. At the end of the day it was my choice and that is what this should be about freedom of choice, not someone else's views or ideas of what is right or wrong. It is what is right or wrong for the individual.

It can never be a one size fits all policy, at the heart of it must always be what is best for that person, what their wishes are. Maybe there should be a team of independent advocates who can help to make decisions for people who can't make them for themselves, or is it better just to let someone suffer physical pain, mental anguish and indignity just because they can't make that decision for themselves?

😂 ok.. thanks for your feedback. Noted.

Gosh, you are as rude as you are myopic.

Wow! You are the person who just called another ‘deliberately dense’. I won’t enable you to embarrass yourself any further.

have you watched the Liz Carr documentary? If so, do you acknowledge her concerns?

Well, yes, I was crediting you with the assumption that you were being tactically duplicitous when you reframed my initial post as a position built on religious zeal. The only other alternative was less flattering.

@MagnetCarHair

Many believe in the sanctity of life and the fact that God made us in his own image…

Totally up to them to believe that claptrap.

I believe in choice.