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.

My Nan was one of those lucky people. She was 103 and had only been in a nursing home for a few months. She just went in her sleep. When the staff found her she was in exactly the same position as she had been a couple of hours earlier when they last checked, so no thrashing about or calling out in pain, she just didn't wake up. If only everyone could have that end and she hadn't been ill, it was simply old age.

Unfortunately the lucky ones are few and far between and most people suffer some sort of illness to a greater or lesser degree.

Shouldn't everyone be able to leave this life painlessly, like my Nan, albeit through artificial means if they so choose?

Follow-up letters from the recent Guardian 'special':

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/21/the-principle-of-assisted-dying-and-the-practice

Thanks for this. I suspect the editorial team know deep down that it's pretty outrageous to present a political campaign in which they have decided to become activists as if it was balanced journalism. Some great contributions from sharp minds in there, but of course the letters page with these contributions won't be getting the same level of promotion as celebrity opinion will it. It has annoyed me to be honest, because the campaigning around it is manipulative, and they've acted in a way to suggest with their features splash that there is no opposition and that it's indisputably progressive. I don't think it's progressive at all. Progressives should be protecting the most vulnerable in society, not exposing them to risk of MH harm and pressured suicides.

'I don't think it's progressive at all. Progressives should be protecting the most vulnerable in society, not exposing them to risk of MH harm and pressured suicides.'

I am sorry, but it is very clear that Assisted Dying in the UK would be only for those with terminal or multiple illnesses who make a CLEAR CHOICE, without coercion. Progressives? What do you mean by that? Many of the people I know who are totally in favour, and want the choice, if and when, are not in any way, shape or form, 'progressives'.

BTW why would it be wrong, for one of the reasons, apart from constant pain, debilitating disability and loss of dignity, etc- was that one does not want to be a burden to our families?

It would certainly be one of my reasons, if and when. My children and grandchildren have their own lives to live and enjoy, and I do not want them to be constantly worrying and upset about the above. I have watched my own mother and my mil, and many friends, suffering terribly and begging, screaming to be let go. And the last thing they wanted, was for me to have my life, my beloved children, spouse and job, seriously damaged in the process, and inflicting all that pain and dispair on me. I don't want this for mine either.

I think it's really naive to assume coercion would not occur.

Let's look at models which are working, like Australia, and find a sensible way of dealing with this. It should be the right of every person to end their life and have a decent, dignified death when the alternative is terrible suffering. Otherwise we have not progressed beyond the Middle Ages. It should also be the right of every person not to be coerced or convinced due to not being cared for properly, to save money etc. But it simply cannot be that we leave people to suffer worse than animals. Likely they will anyway buy something online, it should at least be done in a humane way and by a qualified person.

In Oregon, in 1998, just 13% of peoplee* who applied for assisted dying did so because they felt like a burden on their family. Since 2017, over 52% have appliedd* because they felt like a burden, suggesting that once assisted dying is legalised, those who qualify increasingly feel pressure to use it. The neighbouring state of Washington has seen similar trends, with 59% saying they felt like a burden in 20222compared with just 23% in 20099.

This perfectly encapsulates my fears over assisted dying. IMO 'feeling like a burden' shouldn't be an accepted reason for choosing this path. It's not the same thing as a person choosing to end their own life because they personally are ready for it to end.

It would be my reason. There’s absolutely no way I want my family to be put through watching me gradually become a stranger as dementia steals my individuality. It nearly broke my son watching it happen to his granny; I’ll do anything in my power to prevent him having to go through it again.

That's wholly understandable and in that scenario I'd probably feel the same. I do worry, though, that it could leave some non-dementia sufferers, who don't want their lives to end but are struggling, wide open to coercion if their family happen to be shits. I'll be honest, I have no idea how we would approach conferring the right on those seeking it for valid reasons while protecting vulnerable people from being pressured into ending it before they are ready.

Not naive at all. This is how it works in Switzerland. Application is followed by two interviews- with people trained to spot any form of coercion or hesitation. The second interview is on 'the day' - always trained person on one to one, no other relative or friend present.

There is no reason why the UK should follow the Canadian or Oregon model, at all. But ensure, as in Switzerland, that signs of coercion or hesitation are picked up by specialist, and the process stopped if any sign/s present. It works.

Interviews are recorded/filmed- and given to a Judge as soon as the person has taken the potion themselves, or triggered the fast drip- so they can judge proper process has taken place.

As the Swiss specialists can’t even be bothered to get a psychiatric report stating that a mentally ill person has the capacity to consent to assisted suicide before ending their lives, and then are getting let off on negligent homicide charges, I am afraid that I have zero trust in you saying ‘trained people’ can spot coercion or hesitation and not continue with ending a life anyway.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/top-court-eases-burden-of-proof-for-assisted-suicide-for-mentally-ill/48635322

’trained people’ gives me the shivers…it’s so very like the DWP ‘trained healthcare professionals’ that do WCA and DLA/PIP assessments…that often get it wrong with devastating impacts to include loss of life.

Quite rightly so. She was a fully trained and qualified doctor, who had had multiple conversation with the person requesting help- and was very clear that there was no coercion or hesitation. Which is why she was acquitted.

Well, in the case stated above, a fully qualified and experienced doctor. Isn't that 'trained' enough. But no need for the shivers- no-one will ever force you to ask for assistance in dying. That is the whole point, this has to be a very clear choice.

Accept not even the people you are in coalition with in this debate agree with you that it's just for the terminally ill. See @BIossomtoes posting. It's just profoundly naive to think that if it happens it is just for the terminally ill. It's just a way of dissociating yourself from the pernicious problems with the policy you favour. You say this far and no further (and it's not my fault if/when the law goes further). It's Pandora's box.

My comment about whether it's progressive was in relation to the Guardian's editorial support and campaigning. They see themselves as progressive. I totally accept that the nonsense people spout about choice and the right to die has its strongest footings in libertarian ethics from the right of political thought. More broadly, this is culture war issue, because it cuts across left and right, which is why an incoming labour government would be mental to take it forward. They've only just started to seal the breach caused by Brexit. I just don't think they'll do it. They'll have more important things to do and won't want to split the party on a divisive social issue that wins no votes.

! “No one will ever force you…”

Do you not understand the meaning of coercion? It is forcing someone by nonphysical means.

You can’t make that kind of guarantee. You can’t even point to any country with legalised assisted dying where this hasn’t happened.

But it wasn’t clear that this mentally ill woman had the capacity to consent. The doctor did not get a specialist report saying whether her death wish was her true self, or a symptom of her mental illness.

You can be coerced into suicidal behaviour by your mental illness. This trained doctor didn’t even tick that box. The courts acquittal is no more trustworthy than the courts that have sent innocent people to the gallows.

The doctor judged that she did understand, after multiple meetings.And a VERY rare and exceptional case too.

Most requests are for terminal illness and/or multiple debilitating medical issues due to age.

Another doctor was acquitted a few years back. She had a request the proper way, via EXIT, for an elderly lady with Motor Neurone disease (or similar). As she became much quicker than expected, the doctor agreed to set up a line with a trigger and they practised it. On the day, a few days later, the woman was totally desperate as she was no longer able to pull the trigger with her own hand and begged the doctor to help her and not abandon her to her painful fate and slow suffocation. The doctor did pull her hand to activate, and faced the full force of the law, and acquitted. Quite rightly.

Are some people suggesting that someone who has limited mental capacity or limited physical function should be left to their fate, which may well be lengthy and painful and that only a person who is mentally capable and physically strong should be given the right to end their own life?

Isn't it more likely that the people who are in intense mental and physical pain are more likely to want to die than those who are not? Should the inability to communicate your wishes or the ability to pull the trigger deny you that opportunity.

I feel that this should be something that people should opt out of and not in to.

Anyone who has definite feelings against would state this very early on in their lives during a doctor's appointment, but have the option to change their minds at any time. For the rest of us a medical decision would be made as to when the most appropriate time would be to end someone's life in a dignified and humane way.

I was talking to someone about their pet who was very ill and they asked me "how to you know when the time is right to have them put to sleep"? I said that if you know your pet then you just know. It is no different with people. When someone has had enough, even if they can't tell you, you just know. Anyone who thinks that making them suffer for days, weeks or even months is acceptable then that is unbelievable cruelty.

The state that some people are in when they die, emaciated and wracked with pain, would bring about a prosecution if they were an animal, and rightly so. When someone is in such a terrible condition what is the point of putting them through more agony just because a few find it distasteful?

Totally agree with @VeryHappyBunny

The doctor wasn’t a psychiatrist or a psychologist, she was an end of life doctor. She was not qualified to make that judgement like a psychiatrist isn’t qualified to diagnose heart failure.

Most requests are, but then again most of the criminals we hung were guilty, right? Who cares about the minority who were innocent? We should bring back the death penalty too.

After all, if a minority of people are mistakenly or deliberately killed by assisted dying without their true consent who cares so long as most of the people did really consent?

The ethics of assisted dying must do better than assure that most of the people euthanised will have freely chosen it and have given consent while capable to consent.

I said that if you know your pet then you just know. It is no different with people. When someone has had enough, even if they can't tell you, you just know.

No, you don’t. You only know when their suffering is enough for you. When it is too much for you. Not for the person living it. And I can’t believe I have to state the obvious, but people are not pets.