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.

I'm looking at them now. The first one contains two major flaws, one conceptual and one regarding its data sets, and I'm surprised it survived peer review.

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

That's the question I've never seen answered, and never mind that it's a vital one

But then that's not surprising since it's probably unanswerable

I'm sure dementia wasn't half as common as it is now.

I’m sure it was. The difference was that most people didn’t live long enough to show symptoms.

That's a fair point. When I was a kid, people on TV quiz shows like 'Mr and Mrs' would get a round of applause for being 70.

I recall the rounds of applause and thought it was more for OMG they are still married and haven’t divorced, what a cute romantic 🥰 elderly couple rather than their age.

Probably both. Divorce wasn’t nearly as common then.

True but it was the big thing in the 80s that the stigma of divorce had been mostly lifted. There was a big wave of gray divorces then.

Agreed it is probably a bit of both! :)

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KILLING OTHERS. Assisted dying is NOT ever Euthanasia.

THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION. OTHERS WILL SHOUT THAT ASSISTED DYING IS PURELY A MATTER OF LINGUISTIC SANITATION OF EUTHANASIA TO MAKE IT SOUND MORE PALATABLE BUT ITS STILL ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING

Not at all the same thing, and this is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

I suppose you can prevaricate over the differences between assisted death and euthanasia but they both seem to fall neatly under the umbrella of a state sanctioned killing. It doesn't matter who administered the poison when the intention and the outcome are the same and facilitated.

The whole point of ASSISTED dying is just that, it is ASSISTED. If the person concerned was able to do it themselves they wouldn't need to be assisted, but due to whatever their condition is they need assistance. It is their wish. It is not for other people to decide for them.

I think it is pretty bloody arrogant of anyone to think they know better than the person who is in constant physical pain and mental distress. Why should anyone have to go through an agonizing death when a simple needle in the arm will put them out of their suffering in a matter of seconds?

If you don't want it, then don't have it but don't push your beliefs on to others.

Bingo.

Creep means the difference will ultimately, at best, be very blurred at the edges.

That is the point

(I managed to say this without feeling the need to shout like a dickhead too)

@VeryHappyBunny

‘I think it is pretty bloody arrogant of anyone to think they know better than the person who is in constant physical pain and mental distress.’

Exactly. No shouting required.

They said that about abortion but my cousin came under tremendous pressure from NHS staff to have an abortion after a scan showed a serious disability in her baby. It was not just one member of staff it was repeated over and over. It was awful. These people felt able to do that openly and in front of other staff. She had people tutting at her just for wanting to take time over the decision. she is a professional women, healthy, welleducated and felt shaken by their certainties. What hope someone vulnerable?

That might not be what is supposed to happen but it does.

The thing is @VeryHappyBunny if the law was changed other people would thrust their voices on the elderly, the disabled and their families. You can guarentee 100% that if the law is changed some people, who do not want assisted dying, will ending up dying this way. and as @Puzzledandpissedoff said above there has never been any real attempt to show how protections against this would work in a fail safe way. If you're ill, old, alone and facing family who clearly think it is time you went and got out of their hair....

The bottom line is - what right have you @VeryHappyBunny and other supporters of this change to pester, bully and emotionally manipulate people by supporting a law like this without those guarentees? Because no-one lives in a vacuum, these deaths will never be a solo decision. It is a bully's charter.

I don't mind if you think I am arrogant, cold, mean, I think someone threw in psychopath at some point, I can't see any evidence from people who champion this policy that it would not act as a catalyst for a cascade of tragic, unintended consequences.

And that remains true, no matter what you call me or how kindly you paint yourself and no matter what passive, soft focus name you would choose to call these killings.

SWitzerland has allowed assisted dying for over 70 years, and this slippery slope has just not happened. But their health system is excellent.

What 'killings'? Assisted Dying means a very clear and conscious choice to end suffering, by the person affected, and for them to take the potion or trigger the drip, themselves. All filmed, and video given to Judge for observation. How can this amount to 'killings'? Please.

For the person, it's a suicide. But when the state provides the means, that act of causing a death (especially when done deliberately) meets every a common definition of a killing.

Would you rather watch your loved one die a slow and agonizing death when there is a quick and painless alternative.

I have watched several people I have loved die slow and painful deaths. This is not the gotcha you think this is because these are the same people whose lives would have been devalued in the wake of assisted suicide in the years that preceded those death, people who made for expensive patients and an expensive cost on the state. People being frogmarched in Canada to less costly solutions.

I wonder what the nay-sayers would want if they ever found themselves in a situation where a swift and painless end was preferable to a painful, drawn-out death?

I'll do you one better, I have a chronic illness that means that will likely be the manner of my own death. You can charge me with any number of personal failings for not agreeing with you but you'll have to go whistle when it comes to hypocrisy.

For all the people against this bill, Why do you believe life has value? We have a good standard of living in this country built on keeping the standard down elsewhere. Much of the world suffers through the actions of western civilisation in order to keep itself wealthy. The moral thing to do would be to stop screwing other countries but the consequence of that would be we would have to adopt a similar survival of the fittest mentality in our own. So tell me, why are you happy with others suffering so we can exist beyond our natural life spans?

That's some real disabilist shit there.

And that's to your shame. But this is the natural end point of woolly thinking.