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 wouldn’t be compounding it. There would be no reason to do it if it was legal and medicalised.

That’s an extremely naive statement.

@Whatsortofrockareyou thanks for clarifying on the suicide point. I think we are broadly aligned. I am not disabled physically and do not live with pain. I am however against AD principally because I think it is such a burden on people in your position. I very much agree with the thoughtful position of Liz Carr in her recent documentary where she asked people to consider who they might feel if suicide was a legal option every day, with more State provision for that service than there is for housing and care packages (like in Canada and with its MAID programme). It's awful. The idea of law subtly pushing people in need of support towards suicide as an alternative as grim as grim can be and should be beneath the dignity of a modern nation.

This is not at all what I believe, at all. And I thought that was absolutely clear.
I am saying that some people are pushed to want to end it all, as their life is miserable, painful and without dignity, due to long waiting lists. I have clearly said this is NOT acceptable, but an inevitable reality for some.

@fungipie your post suggested quite clearly that you thought that AD in the UK should be a choice for your 80 year old friend who is suffering because of NHS waiting lists for a surgery (but who is not terminally ill). If you're saying that is not your belief, fair enough, but it's not the first time in your posting where this kind of ambiguity has cropped up of where your thinking on who a hypothetical AD law is for has become muddled. I'm sorry if you think I am being hard, but we are debating literal life and death, so precision matters.

Having watched both my mother and father die long and very painful (both physically and psychologically) deaths, I am very scared of dying. Knowing that I could execute (sorry) the inevitable to my own timeframe would be hugely reassuring to me.

I really do believe that it would be heavily policed and that it would be quite easy to spot the 'encouraging' of older relatives. And that, combined with very heavy penalties for doing so, would prevent abuse of the law.

I really do believe that it would be heavily policed and that it would be quite easy to spot the 'encouraging' of older relatives. And that, combined with very heavy penalties for doing so, would prevent abuse of the law.

Go and look at Canada and other places where it has been implemented, and what has happened there.

Knowing that I could execute (sorry) the inevitable to my own timeframe would be hugely reassuring to me.

Life is full of anxiety inducing things. Your being frightened of dying naturally isn’t justification for the risk others would be put at if AD was legalised.

Yes. If that's their choice. Because assisted dying is fundamentally destructive to the fabric of society.

whatsortoffrockareyou, your comment shows you have not understood at all what some of us are saying

'This is also the case for AD- not everyone is ok with their family member deciding to be killed. '

Assisted Death does not, in any way, shape or form, amount to 'being killed'. It means getting support in ensuring you can die safely, painlessly, quickly and with dignity, when YOU, and YOU only, makes that choice, and entirely self administered, be it by potion or triggering a fast drip.

We wouldn’t be compounding it. There would be no reason to do it if it was legal and medicalised.

In theory I agree. In practice I'm cynical enough to feel there's no way to 100% ensure it's watertight from possible exploitation.

I think that Canada's example will help lawmakers here to develop effective protections.

I don't advocate for AD only the basis of my own anxiety. I do believe that my anxiety is justified and that if others had seen what I have seen they would feel similarly.

I don't believe that the possibility of abuse should disallow any given liberty - simply that this possibility should be at the heart of any lawmaking related to that liberty.

1. Killing is defined as ‘causing death, especially deliberately’

People are still dead when they otherwise wouldn’t be- they might swallow the poison themselves (like a passenger killed in a speeding car gets into the car themselves), but they wouldn’t be dead if it weren’t for the actions of others.

That’s why it’s illegal at the moment- if there wasn’t the element of others facilitating and aiding their death it would be being treated as suicide and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

2. There have been posts on this thread asserting that AD should be administered to people who are beyond the point of being able to take the action themselves. “A quick needle in the arm” was the phrase used I think- to be administered to those that someone has decided is suffering too much (and taking too many resources…)

What makes you so sure your ideal of AD would be implemented rather than theirs?

Someone who is determined and can't stand the suffering, would find another way. Probably very shocking, painful and involving other people. Ask any train driver or ambulance staff.

As for your second comment- this thread is about an official debate in both Houses and for a new Law to be put forwards. Despite my concerns about Political life in the UK, I do not believe any Law which would allow euthanasia could possibly ever get through.

I do believe that my anxiety is justified and that if others had seen what I have seen they would feel similarly.

Of course it’s valid, it’s how you feel. But it isn’t a basis for legislation.

I think that Canada's example will help lawmakers here to develop effective protections.

I don’t know what evidence could give you confidence that our government will succeed where many others have failed?

Is it their excellent support and funding for the NHS? Their superlative handling of Covid? The excellent support services they provide for disabled people?

this thread is about an official debate in both Houses and for a new Law to be put forwards

This thread is what it is. People make their points, and others respond. It’s perfectly reasonable to respond to people who may have veered slightly away from the op. It’s unrealistic to expect 1000s of posts to never have some segue.

Someone who is determined and can't stand the suffering, would find another way. Probably very shocking, painful and involving other people. Ask any train driver or ambulance staff.

No one is claiming that suicide doesn’t happen.

AD by definition involves other people.

Most suicides do involve other people, I can assure you.

I see what you are suggesting, but my position is not a hyper-individualist one, where each individual's 'reality' is all that counts. I deplore that position - it's encouraged by neo-liberalist capitalism to distract from structural inequality and is one of the most disappointing aspects of modern 'progressive' culture.

What I am saying is more rational - that if the average person had seen what I and many others have seen, they too would fear a disempowered death. And that the way our society deals with serious illness and death has the effect of hiding that reality from most.

And I did not specify that I trusted the Tories to deliver this legislation, as i'm sure you're aware.

I don't feel you're arguing in good faith.

And I did not specify that I trusted the Tories to deliver this legislation, as i'm sure you're aware.

I said our government, not the tories. We might have a change soon, we might not- either way if AD is brought in then different parties will get a go at running it because the government changes now and then. The trust would have to be in successive governments from across the board- it would have to be as ok under a Reform- Torie coalition as under the Green Party.

What I am saying is more rational - that if the average person had seen what I and many others have seen, they too would fear a disempowered death. And that the way our society deals with serious illness and death has the effect of hiding that reality from most.

On the contrary, most adults have seen people in the process of dying, and had feelings about that. A lot of those feelings will be fear based- that’s normal. I was in a&e the other day and moving through the hospital there were people dying on trollies in the corridor- it freaked the hell out of my 8 year old niece.

Many people do fear a disempowered death, people fear death full stop, but that doesn’t mean AD is the answer.

Well, it’s certainly an answer, and from a utilitarian philosophical perspective it’s probably the best one. more people are concerned that they won’t have control over their own death than fear being pressured into AD.

Im not a utilitarian. But I do think that you have not thus far articulated why it would jot be possible to legislate against the abuse of AD. Or why the possibility that in a very small minority of cases the right to AD could be abused - a possibility which could very effectively mitigated - should trump the certainty of physical and psychological torture for many.

It’s clear why it is open to abuse, and that legislation will not protect everyone. You can easily access evidence, but some points-

1. wherever AD has been implemented it has spread. Its starts as just these circumstances and then it is opened up further and further. The further and further is opening it to people who aren’t terminally ill, or whose illness isn’t physical, or who would not choose it if they had the support they need to manage their disability.

2. all systems are open to abuse and mismanagement- they are too big and unwieldy not to be. Think post office scandal, MP’s expenses, stop and search, covid ppe, election betting, mothers of babies who died of SIDS going to prison etc etc. There are too many people involved and too many moving parts in large country wide systems for them never to fuck up.

3. One blindingly obvious point of weakness in this case is the financial aspect of AD. Will it be run for profit? In which case how do you ensure no corruption takes place? (Think private prisons and the kick backs Judges have received for funnelling people into them)

Or will it be funded from the public purse? In which case where will the money come from?

We are being told there isn’t enough money to improve care, reduce waiting lists, provide proper palliative care or disability services…

if there is money floating around the aether to set up and run an enormous new project like that, it would be better spent on improving all those aspects of the NHS and social care- then we would be able to get a clear picture of how many people actually would choose AD if they had the option of decent end of life care or were receiving adequate mental health support.

Or would money be re routed by making cuts to already struggling services?

… possibility that in a very small minority of cases the right to AD could be abused

Show me an example of any nation wide system (benefits, policing, education etc) where there have been zero examples of abuse, mismanagement or misconduct.

The idea that it’s a reasonable move to put vulnerable groups of people at risk of harm due to AD because some people are scared of not dying the way they might choose is just absurd.

certainty of physical and psychological torture for many.

1)There is no certainty that any one person will die a torturous death- and it would be vastly less likely if we invested in end of life care.

2)Being scared of dying isn’t ’psychological torture’ unless you have some kind of mental illness, in which case you apparently won’t be able to access AD anyway.

I don’t know what evidence could give you confidence that our government will succeed where many others have failed? Is it their excellent support and funding for the NHS? Their superlative handling of Covid? The excellent support services they provide for disabled people?

That government has only another eight days in power. I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them but they’re history.

@thestudio said:

"Im not a utilitarian. But I do think that you have not thus far articulated why it would jot be possible to legislate against the abuse of AD. Or why the possibility that in a very small minority of cases the right to AD could be abused - a possibility which could very effectively mitigated - should trump the certainty of physical and psychological torture for many."

Except this alleged "many" doesn't exist. There is no public clamour for AD. It is pushed by the few, as a solution for them, at the expense of the many. I do not see how that qualifies as utilitarian.

This current government might go soon, but there will be another and another. The tories will be the leading party again at some point. There has never been a government that doesn’t make mistakes and have scandal attached to it, whatever the majority party is.

How do you propose people kill themselves? There are many ways to do it if you are strong enough, physically.

Taking an overdose is the obvious way. This runs the risk, depending on where you do it, of not being found until days or possibly weeks later in an advanced state of decomposition. This would clearly not cause any distress for the person(s) who find you, be that family, friend or police etc.

You could throw yourself off a tall building, risking serious injury or even death to anyone you may hit on landing, not to mention the enormous psychological damage to those who witness it. In addition you may survive the fall but be permanently brain damaged and/or physically disabled as a result.

Another popular option for suicide is standing, or driving, in front of a speeding train thus risking a derailment and injury or death to tens, if not hundreds, of passengers and crew and the psychological effect on the driver who now believes it is their fault that person is dead even though there was nothing they could have done to prevent it. In these cases if the train is still capable of running the driver has to be relieved at the next station and in many cases is so traumatised by what has happened they never drive again thus causing them and their family financial hardship.

How about throwing yourself off a bridge onto the road underneath, this has the huge potential to cause a multiple pile-up with more deaths and serious injuries to countless innocent road users.

Hanging is a good one and is generally successful but not so much fun for the child who comes home from school to find Mummy or Daddy dangling from the bannisters or for the dog walker who comes across a corpse hanging from a tree in the woods.

There are all sorts of ways to try to commit suicide, none of which are guaranteed to work, but are guaranteed to have a serious and terrible effect on third parties who unwittingly get caught up in it.

Does anyone really think that any of the above are preferable to AD or similar where you are in a safe place with professionals to assist and you are assured of a good end.

Before termination was legalised women were forced to go to back-street abortionists or try a bit of DIY. Many women bled to death or died from serious infections, also horrendous for the person who found them. I expect that similar arguments against abortion were raised as are being made against AD and that some women look on abortion as an extreme form of contraception or morning after pill, but is that a good enough reason to deny it to anyone who's own mental or physical health is at risk by continuing with the pregnancy?

Similarly with AD it should be available to anyone who needs it. Not all terminally ill people do need it, but it should be an option for anyone who's continued existence (not life, because they don't have a "life" anymore) has become unbearable.

Before termination was legalised women were forced to go to back-street abortionists or try a bit of DIY. Many women bled to death or died from serious infections, also horrendous for the person who found them. I expect that similar arguments against abortion were raised as are being made against AD and that some women look on abortion as an extreme form of contraception or morning after pill, but is that a good enough reason to deny it to anyone who's own mental or physical health is at risk by continuing with the pregnancy?

There is absolutely zero parallel between abortion and AD, it’s just silly to pretend there is.

have a serious and terrible effect on third parties who unwittingly get caught up in it.

AD doesn’t happen in a vacuum you know. By definition it involves other people. Families of people who choose AD are no more likely to be happy with it than they are with suicide.