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.

Unless I am very much mistaken we live in a democracy and part of being in a democracy is the individual right to choose. To choose life or to choose death, that is an individual right. It is not up to people to foist their own opinions on to others one way or the other. If what you are doing impacts no-one but yourself then it is no concern of anyone else.

I find it amazing that so many people have watched so many loved ones die painful deaths and are okay with it.

It is each to their own, it is an option - not compulsory and no-one has the right to deny any one else that option.

Is there evidence for all these families that supposedly want their loved ones out of their hair? I feel like the more likely scenario if anything is family not being able to let go. It was very hard not to try and persuade my 96 year old grandmother into additional treatment that she didn't want whilst she still had an ok quality of life. Only in the last two days did I want her death to come quickly since she couldn't move, speak, swallow or do anything. That's what most of us are talking about-let someone pass a few days or weeks early only when they have little quality of life if they've asked for that.

It took me a long time to get over those last couple of days and seeing her like that, and if she hadn't been so old she could've lasted a few more days in that state. Just what would be the point? To leave family with memories of that?! I now have health anxiety because of it which I never had before and my depression got even worse. I accepted her death, was ready to say goodbye and know she had a very good innings but god do I wish the ending was different.

Edited to add-I don't even know if she'd have wanted assisted death in those circumstances since we never had the discussion as there was no point as it's illegal. I understand family bringing it up is a bit of a worry if it became legal, it has to be something the person arrives at themselves. But knowing it's an option would give an awful lot of people comfort.

Not this again. Assisted dying is defined as including both physician assisted suicide and physician assisted euthanasia.

Assisted suicide is a type of assisted dying. This is a matter of fact.

Yes it has. Evidence posted upthread.

That is assisted suicide. Assisted dying is defined as both physician assisted suicide and physician assisted euthanasia.

“If what you are doing impacts no-one but yourself then it is no concern of anyone else.”

There have been posted reams of evidence showing that assisted dying does fatally impact others than the few who choose assisted suicide with full mental capacity and without being under any social or familial coercion or financial duress.

To consider it from an evidence based, lessons learned perspective there is a lot to be concerned about.

“Is there evidence for all these families that supposedly want their loved ones out of their hair?”
Yes, posted upthread a few landmark cases and peer reviewed studies.

@MrsTerryPratchett My concern is not that your exemplar person would get what they want. My concern is that another would. A heartbroken, depressed teenager who received sub-par MH care. A cognitively disabled person who is a 'burden'. A homeless person. An older person who is being financially abused. A woman living in DV.

Do you honestly believe the TORIES have these people's best interests at heart? FFS they practically murdered old people during COVID. They didn't give a shit.

Don't know why you're bringing your political bias into this with your emotional rhetoric - doctors will doctor according to their Hippocratic oath no matter who is in power.

My sister for many, many years had mental health issues which weren't resolved by repeated sectioning (under both Labour and Tory governments). She wanted to die because her life was so unhappy - despite the attempts of family and so many professionals to help her.
When she finally got through to her doctors and family - and it was not an easy or quick process - that it was what she really wanted and she found a way to be 'allowed' to do so, I have never seen her so at peace.

People shouldn't just assume things according to their own biases and make decisions about situations they don't actually have to endure.

Instead, shouldn't we all think about how we would feel under similar circumstances - diagnosed with a terminal illness / no quality or enjoyment of life / absolutely no control over our suffering and having to continue our lives because other people say we should continue to live - usually because of guilt or an inability to understand : because they feel they've failed to help enough / or they can try something else that may help / because they think that people should just carry on because 'hang on in there and it'll all get better eventually'

What gives strangers the right to dictate when other people should live in pain, whether it be physical or emotional.

Doctors don't just take it on a whim when a person says they want to die and say 'ok, off you go then and we'll help you on the way'.

It's very hard to convince a doctor that you really want to die - it's a long process which involves (avoidable) pain and suffering - to both patient and doctor.

Medical science can't keep everyone alive - and, actually, should it try to, just for the sake of it, regardless of the wishes of the patient??

IME, people want to go peacefully when they've had enough.

Why do people want to keep others alive at whatever cost and whether they want to live or not just to make themselves feel better?

Some people may feel that any life is better than dying - but they need to accept that not everyone feels that way

Allow that people feel differently. Allow that people have different lives.

A friend who works in a hospital with elderly patients uses black humour to refer to Christmas as 'granny dumping Season'.

There is a reason for this.

I would very much like it to be possible for people to choose to go early in the final stages of terminal illness. As pp has said that last stage is harrowing for everyone involved.

In practice that would often mean choosing the principal in advance and nominating another person to decide when the time was right.

The thing is @VeryHappyBunny if the law was changed other people would thrust their voices on the elderly, the disabled and their families.

You mean like all the people who don’t want a change in the law are doing on this thread?

The first 'Mumsnet Manifesto', now available on this site for all to read, has apparently been reported in the Telegraph. It's based on the main concerns of its users as expressed over the past 4.5 years. A main concern reported is defining 'woman' and keeping single-sex spaces. And also ...

The Mumsnet manifesto’s other demands include a statutory inquiry into maternity care, a guarantee of hands-on breastfeeding support for every new mother, reforming family law to protect survivors of domestic abuse, the mandatory publication of parental leave for large employers and a Parliamentary vote on assisted dying. (that's my underlining of the bit at the end)

Here's the archive link for those without a subscription.

https://archive.ph/7DShv

And a poster here has started a thread on it on the main Feminism (FWR as was) board. I saw it show up in 'Active'.

Both require a clear decision by the person concerned, and the person concerned taking direct action, be it by drinking a lethal potion or triggering the injection THEMSELVES, after strong and clear assessment that they are fully aware of the consequences and that this is what they clearly want, in a compos mentis manner. We must have the discussion indeed, and ensure that all the safety guidelines are used and properly.

Exactly.

I imagine (do correct me if I am wrong, please) that the vast majority if not all of us, who are 100% in favour of the discussion and debate to take place asap, and for a decision to be made, agree that the Canadian system is not the one to follow. And that all safety guidelines have to be in place to ensure that there is NO slippery slope to enthanasia, and that it will be a choice only for those who have made that very clear and informed CHOICE.

Exactly.

But Canada isn't at the end point of this scheme. It only just opted to not extend its "assisted dying" project to those suffering with mental illness until later (2027?) so in some ways it stops well short of other countries.

So which country do you think is leading the way in this regard and has the demand for lowering the bar for entry come to an end so it can be said to have reached the natural conclusion of the appetite for assisted dying?

At the moment, we seem to have 2 groups. One who want to shut down debate, and stop any move in the direction of assisted dying, thus forcing people to live on with painful, debilitating conditions, in fear of dying in incredible pain and even suffocate to death.

And another group asking for CHOICE, for those who want it, with clear guidelines and safety- and only for those who want to clearly and consciously wanting that choice.

Which position if fairer and more honest?

🙄

Why the face?

One group is trying to dictate to all. The oher just wants choice for themselves without impacting others.

The face is because there’s no answer to your perfectly accurate summary.

After 32 pages of posters explaining their reasons, you are wedded to this idea that you are entirely right and righteous and those who disagree with you are entirely wrong and illiberal.

It's so incredibly lazy and a wasteful summery of a long conversation that aims only to flatter yourself.

That works both ways, doesn’t it?

No, not really. I understand how being able to choose your own death schedule would be entirely preferable for the suffering individual. I understand how it appears, from the outset, that choosing death for yourself, fits our narrative of individual freedom. I understand how people could take this position.

However, this act takes place within a social and cultural context that can make the dying person vulnerable to manipulation, by individuals, financial pressures, social resources and how the act works within culture to devalue the lives of those who live with suffering and who are regarded not just as theoretically, but now practically, better off dead. Examples from both planes of this objection have been laid out over and over again.

But I'm done with it all now. What's the point of writing when you hear what you like anyway?