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.

We live in a democracy, and as such the democratic thing would be a national referendum where everyone has the chance to make their feelings known. After the MPs have debated it and qualified professionals have had their say, then the rest of us should get to make a decision. Otherwise we are just living in a dictatorship.

The fact that we are in a democracy means that a forum such as this can exist and you can put forward your opinions without danger of being arrested and detained indefinitely without trial. Otherwise we might just as well be living in Russia or China where everything is censored to the nth degree and people are "disappeared" never to be seen again.

@SummerFeverVenice I've only just come back to the thread and wanted to thank you for the BMC Medical Ethics report you posted last week

Reading what happened to Roger Foley among others is probably one of the most chilling things I've ever seen, and frankly it seems pointless to kid ourselves that there's no chance of the same thing occurring here

Of course that brings us back to the question of what could be done to prevent this, and nearly a week on I see there are still no suggestions from those who favour introducing the policy

Of course suggestions and exemples have been given.

Help to die should only be given to someone who has specifically asked for it, well documented by medical staff, and with 2 interviews with the person alone, with staff trained to perceive any hesitation or outside coersion, and the whole process filmed and given to police. Just as it happens in Switzerland with organisations like EXIT.

So, in practice, that would be euthanasia and would require legalisation of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia a.k.a legalisation of assisted dying.

Agreed. We truly need to keep euthanasia out of this current debate. This is making things so so much more difficult and confused. The debate must be about a process which has to be self activated, and self administered- with help to ensure the choice is CLEAR, without hesitation, without coercion, and with full knowledge and awareness.

As in the Swiss system. With a prior application with medical report, and interviews both at the time of arrival and on the day, to ensure the above, and then self administered, be it by self drinking a lethal potion or triggering the fast drip.

Dignitas is only for foreign people btw. Swiss people (one of my sons lives there and he has discussed this with friends, and joined, with his wife) who support that choice belong to EXIT or another organisation. For a small fee per year, about £30- they would benefit from advice, support and indeed assistance to die, in their own home, if and when the qualify for such. They would be interviewed when the initial request is made, on their own and by someone qualified in looking for hesitation, outside influence and/or coercion, and then again on the day. All is filmed, and the video given to police/Judge as soon as death as occurred. And in their own home, or care home or hospital, if necessary. Their own caring, medical team is NOT involved- the two are totally separate.

You are mistaken. There is no right to die. That's the point. The change you advocate would be profound and novel in legal terms in the UK. The law recognises your right to life and that is it.

You have a right to live your life as you choose providing it doesn't affect anyone else in a negative way. Similarly you have the right to choose how and when to die. People who have chosen to die say they feel calm and comforted by the fact that they will have a dignified and gentle death as opposed to a violent and painful one. I know which one I prefer. If you don't, and I appreciate that not everyone does, then that is your choice but don't foist it on to everyone else.

The very point some of us are making, there should be.

At least lets agree that the debate should take place. In a democracy, no-one should attempt to shut down debate, formulate solutions, and vote on them, directly or via our political representatives.

@fungipie I don't see anyone shutting down the debate. It's whether you place personal choice for some above the rights of others. You can only get to a pro choice position on this by dismissing the needs of vulnerable people. So to the extent it's a moral argument, it's whether you think your desired personal right to choose death should trump the right to life to others. I do realise though that you and the other advocates for a change in the law will never acknowledge this truth because it dissolves the sophist idea that assisted dying is for the benefit only of the well informed person free of negative influence and coercion. I am liberal, but I'm cynical enough to realise that this idealised conception of the free citizen exercising free choice at all times is just profoundly naive. I don't expect you to agree. But it's a debate. And it's the views of other non-fixed readers that we are all seeking to shape.

I am liberal, but I'm cynical enough to realise that this idealised conception of the free citizen exercising free choice at all times is just profoundly naive.

Yep, this. All day long.

Perhaps you have not read any of my posts. It can work, it does work, very well, in Switzerland. And has done for a very long time.

I am very lucky one of my sons lives there, and if required at some point, I could move in with them (as I also have an EU passport).

It can work, it does work, very well, in Switzerland. And has done for a very long time.

Yes. 💯

We can say that for ever but some people aren’t prepared to listen. The fact is, the Switzerland option is an expensive option that some just can’t afford. Some can.

So it’s another exclusive avenue, where only the wealthier can choose the right to die, if they’re from the uk. That appears to be what some people are happy with. Many people, are not.

Yes, totally agree. People should not have to travel to Switzerland, at huge cost, about £1000 + hôtels, travel, etc. And they should not have to go 'early than they have to'for fear of not being strong enough to do so if they wait. And neither should they have to fear about their loved ones being accused and possibly convicted, for supporting them.

So we need a Swiss style system asap. in the UK.

To all the anti ADs what about the terminally ill who take an overdose to kill themselves long before it is necessary because they are frightened that if they leave things for too long they will not be able to do it at all and they see a premature, painless death as preferable to a protracted painful one.

Perhaps you are ignoring all the peer reviewed studies by bioethicists that concluded that it is not working very well in Switzerland despite your opinion to the contrary.

I don’t understand. It’s is not illegal to kill yourself.
I am happy with that state of affairs.

Terminally ill people would DIY suicide at about the same time as they would ask a doctor to assist their suicide if assisted suicide were legalised. So in either case, it is a premature death driven by fear of pain. Why should a doctor have to bear the moral and legal weight of ending a life? Why shouldn’t it be the terminally ill person bearing the moral and legal weight of ending their own life? I don’t see any gain to the terminally ill but I do see proven abuse in countries where this has been legalised where not just terminally ill, but disabled and terminally old people get coerced into going earlier because they have been made to feel they are a burden on family and society, or because their support (personal care, benefits) have been withdrawn and they have no choice.

In the case of waiting until you can’t do it yourself, that would be euthanasia, which then means someone else decides when you die without your consent. And you had better understand that the law will require a pretty high threshold of pain, suffering and abysmal quality of life before they allow anyone to euthanise you. Specifically to try and avoid the abuses of euthanasia that have been observed and documented despite these safeguards.

I almost feel like this lyrical language about a peaceful, painless and dignified death is fantastical. It’s a lot like wishing for a bloodless, dignified and completely painless childbirth.

The lyrical language about a peaceful, painless and dignified death is not "fantastical" it is from people who have chosen AD in countries, such as New Zealand, where it is legal.

Your comparison with childbirth is just ridiculous as many women choose to do this multiple times and are given a choice of painkillers and options as to manner of birth. They are given a choice, not just allowed to suffer in pain for weeks if not months. I don't claim to be an expert on childbirth but I don't think anyone has ever been in labour for weeks - if they were, the doctors would intervene. So maybe your comparison is not so ridiculous, just not in the way you meant. Hoist by your own petard.

From all my studies and experience, it is working very well indeed.

But of course if you have links to the above studies, I would be interested in reading them. I am travelling to Switzerland soon to stay with one of our sons who lives there, and will attend the AGM of EXIT as we are members. We would have to move to Switzerland and register as citizens there, in order to get assistance from EXIT. We would be able to do so as we both old dual nationality with an EU country.

Difficult one. In an ideal world, nobody would have the right to make you live if you don't want to or make you die if you don't want to.

However, the scope for external abuse of this, even to a governmental level, is horrendous, with irrevocable consequences

So, do you allow the dying to die on their own terms, at risk of having the living die under durress? Or do you make the dying live under durress to prevent abuse of this path in favour of third party benefit?

And then you have the spaghetti junction of benefits to society vs benefit to individual that is a cognitive wrestling match.

You don't- you just make sure the right safeguards are put in place, which I have described many times in this thread and therefore will not repeat.

SummerFeverVenice says

'Why should a doctor have to bear the moral and legal weight of ending a life? Why shouldn’t it be the terminally ill person bearing the moral and legal weight of ending their own life'

I just do not understand this comment at all. This thread is about 'assisted dying' which means exactly that- the terminally ill person takes the clear decision and bears the moral and legal weight of ending their own life'. But safely, and in a sure, quick and painless way- after proper assessment, ensuring there is no coercion out outside interference. The person has to take and drink the potion themselves, or trigger the fast acting drip. THEIR CHOICE, their responsibilty. But without having the throw themselves under a train, jump from a tall building or cliff, or take drugs which may cause a slow and terribly painful death, etc. In a dignified and safe manner of their choice, with support.

You can put as many safeguards in as you want, I wouldn't trust Tories with it as far as I can throw them!

They will soon be out. But the whole assisted dying should not be in the hands or politicians at all. And a debate is for all, and so would a vote in both Houses, or a Referendum.

Exactly that. All the doctor is doing is providing the wherewithal to effect the death. And obviously there would be a morality exemption for clinicians in the same way as there is for abortion and contraception.