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.

@VeryHappyBunny

I'm not going to be drawn into speculation about suicide methods, thanks. You gave two bad options, neither of which I endorse as a solution for suffering. Desperate people sometimes do terrible things; this is not a good basis for legislation. The institutionalised 'needle in the arm' and inevitable abuses is no less chilling to me. What I would like to see is more investment in proper palliative care. I think you are extremely irresponsible.

It’s a perfect parallel. What families of people who opt for assisted dying think is neither here nor there. Why should someone be denied release from an unwanted life of pain, suffering and loss of dignity to keep their family happy? That sentiment epitomises the entire debate, it’s not enough that opponents of assisted dying refuse it for themselves, they don’t want anyone to have the option either.

It's a good illustration of the myopic view taken by some that we live in a vacuum and have no impact on others - personal choice above all other considerations.

Well said.

Other people get a say when they can share someone else’s experience first hand.

This is nonsense. We are discussing legislation that will have far-reaching impacts. We all get a say, sorry you don't like that.
Edited to add that what you are presenting as an absolute right is actually a serious crime as it currently stands. So yes, we have a say.

Obviously we all get a say about legislation. We don’t get a say about family members’ choice as to whether they live or die. Only one person has the right to that decision.

Again, there is no current right to that decision. Unless this is turning into a discussion about all forms of suicide, in which case I am not interested in having any part in that.

I know there’s no current right to that decision. There should be. That’s the entire point of the thread.

You have taken my post out of context.

@VeryHappyBunny was arguing that AD is better than suicide because it saves the people around the dead person from trauma-

However- if the trauma of their loved one choosing AD is irrelevant, so is the trauma felt by the loved ones of someone who commits suicide.

You can’t have it both ways- either part of the reason for allowing AD is to save onlookers from upset, or the upset that onlookers feel is “neither here nor there”.

Ok- so people need to stop using ‘it upsets other people’ as a reason why suicide is terrible but AD is desirable, since they both upset other people.

Liz Carr interviewed a young woman in Canada whose life had been blighted by the rapid and somewhat irresponsible way in which her father had been granted access to MAID when he was suffering from a major depressive episode. Her pain was unbearable and the death of her father appalling and needless in circumstances where he needed MH support. The idea you advocate that the trauma caused to people by the mechanical killing of their family members is neither here nor there to the AD debate demonstrates that you are not being rational about this. Nor can you claim the moral high ground. Your opinions on AD are extreme and demonstrate its dangers very well.

I’m not attempting to claim the moral high ground. I’m being entirely rational. I want the option to be legally and medically assisted to die if my life becomes a burden. That’s my bottom line. I strenuously resist emotional blackmailing attempts to deprive me of that option. Do whatever you want for yourself but don’t try to force it on me.

And if anyone could provide a scrap of evidence that AD has ever or could ever be implemented without:

-abuse,

-risk of mismanagement,

-spreading boundaries over time,

• sending a very clear message that some disabled people’s lives are not worth living and the obvious implication of that

-without the views of people like @VeryHappyBunny who believe people should be euthanised when someone else decides they should die (possibly based on financial considerations, not the persons wishes) having traction

After ensuring:

-decent end of life care

-decent social care

-access to timely medical treatment

-access to disability services

-access to sufficient illness and disability benefits

So that we can know that the person truly wants to die, and isn’t afraid of living and suffering due to social and financial factors,

maybe then we could have a real conversation and you might have a real point to make,

Pondering this, perhaps another way to look at it is to recognise that self identifying "progressive" AD advocates are making the age old mistake of striving for equality of outcome, ie equality of access to a "good death". But without really grappling with what a "good death" is beyond the absence of pain or prolonged suffering. And without a willingness to consider what is likely to happen, and the degradation of the right to life that inevitably follows for others when a society goes down the AD path.

First they come for the terminally ill. Then for those with "unbearable suffering". But the mentally ill and disabled suffer to don't they? So, then it becomes a "mercy" for those poor people. We are all equal in deaths cold embrace sooner or later, right?

And in the background, the organisational bureaucracy of State identifies the cost savings, and the institutional structures bed in devoid of human consideration; and then there is a push for ever greater numbers of those in need towards the euthanasia clinic.

Awful.

I have a real point to make. I personally do not wish to become a travesty of myself with no quality of life when, as appears to be almost inevitable, I develop dementia. No amount of “decent” anything can improve that. You have no right to deny me the right to be helped to end my life.

I strenuously resist emotional blackmailing attempts to deprive me of that option.

Stop trying to emotionally blackmail others into agreeing with your beliefs then.

If the risks of AD, the pain it causes people and the damage it does are of no consequence to you, then why do you expect people to consider your fear of dying an unpleasant death?

and why do you expect people to care if you do happen to die in pain?

and why are we supposed to care about the suffering of people affected by suicide? (since we aren’t supposed to care about the people affected by AD)

It is not rational to make repeated emotional arguments and then complain about ‘emotional blackmail’ when other people respond in kind.

Yes, but what you can't do is present it as a fait accompli that's no-one else's business.

I’m not denying you anything.

Every one of us dies, and very few of us have control over that.

Your fear of your future does not give you the right to demand someone else kills you when you decide you want it.

You can have therapy to deal with your anxiety and fear- you can’t expect to put 1000’s of other people’s lives at risk so that you sleep better at night.

@blossomtoes
Except changing legislation affects everyone. That’s the point.

And all the available evidence shows very clearly that legalising AD negatively impacts vulnerable populations like the disabled, ill, homeless, elderly and drug addicted.

It doesn’t affect me if individual people are killed by any means, no. But it does affect me if that killing becomes legal.

That’s it. No more. That report was the last straw. You win. 🤷‍♀️

Exactly right.

The idea that an individual could choose AD without any effect on other people is a fallacy.

It’s either naive or lazy thinking to claim otherwise.

It's actually even worse than that, because Shipman's deranged ideas about "serving the community" could so easily be adopted - even if only subconsciously - by those wishing to save the costs of keeping the very sick alive

The concept of policing and legislation to avoid abuse sounds great in theory, except that those charged with these are very vulnerable to demands to save money, and this is why many of us wouldn't trust this to work, knowing that the best we'd get is "lessons will be learned"

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.

Do you have evidence for the latter? Your former points are circular/rely on a belief in the absolute sanctity of life.

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.

And yet we still require and have post offices, MPs etc.

Re finances - you call it an 'enormous project', but why? Why would it be any bigger than, for eg, the project of allowing acupuncture on the NHS?

Show me an example of any nation wide system (benefits, policing, education etc) where there have been zero examples of abuse, mismanagement or misconduct.
I can't - but I don't need to as my argument doesn't rest on this point at all.

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.

I think this is the logical crux of your argument and it's pretty weak. Your posts often dismiss some point or other (eg comparison with abortion rights) as 'silly' or 'absurd' without showing why.

In this case there is nothing absurd about weighing the rights of these two groups against one another. You might not like it, but it is not absurd.

For example, one the one hand we have a risk, a possibility, the seriousness or likelihood of which is yet to be determined. Whereas on the other we have a certainty, because the right to die could necessarily only be deployed by an individual once the criteria 'wanting to die but being unable to do so' was in play.

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.

As above, many would say that the torturous deaths (which while not universal are certain for a percentage of the population) should have greater weight than the potential (not certainty) for the right to die to be abused.

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 was referring to the psychological torture of wishing to die, likely in unbearable pain, but being unable to do so - not the psychological torture of fearing death. As I think you know.