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.

Strict safeguards. Will probably be available in practice from 2025.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/isle-of-man-assisted-dying-bill-passes-with-overwhelming-support-in-victory-for-compassion/

I do not trust the safeguards. Of course I do not want to see people suffer. But I think we are opening the door to a very different world.

How can you not trust the safeguards when you don’t even know what might be proposed?

SeanBeansMealDeal · Today 15:52

True, but most elderly people who own their own homes - and don't have to spend it all on care, which would be pertinent here - will have quite a decent sum of assets to leave. They may not be rich whilst alive - their home is just their home - but after they've gone, it could very easily be a few hundred thousand (or considerably more) to make its way down to eagerly waiting hands.

Even if the sum of their life's assets isn't all that great, if you have greedy unscrupulous people who would obviously have preferred a million, they're still not likely to see even £10K as not worth their devious efforts, if they can still get their grubby hands on it.

But the argument that some people raise children that are grabby bastards shouldn't really sway the discussion. If you raise your children well then they wouldn't want to hasten your demise in order to get some money and certainly wouldn't want to see you living in pain if you wanted to choose otherwise. We all die and my belief is that a decent society would give people the choice.

It is very difficult to be dogmatic about this issue, as it cannot be debated in a vacuum - where excellent end of life care is available, the arguments are very different from where it is not. I am happy to let death take its course if I am not getting good terminal care; but would definitely think very differently if I were well cared for using all the drugs and other treatments and personnel that are at our disposal but are hard to get.

Terminal care is another casualty of the deterioration of the NHS; and hospices rely on voluntary find raising.

I do not want voluntary suicide availability to become an excuse for not improving end of life care.

Ok, I don't trust safeguards once you have accepted the precedent that killing someone is something that our society can accept. Is it just terminally ill people? Or just very elderly? Or teens with severe mental distress? Can someone else make the decision for you if you can't? Of course the safeguards we would start out with would be good; but each new government could extend the boundaries. (I live in Scotland so have seen a lot of bonkers boundary shifting politically - new hate crime law eg). @blossomtoes

Not many people are sectioned for suicidal ideation or even behaviour. There simply isn't enough MH beds.

This is kind of the point though - assisted suicide should not be a more cost effective alternative to providing actual proper care and treatment.

It’s not “killing someone”. It’s allowing people who have no quality of life and want to die to do so at the time of their choosing.

Surely the UK does not have to follow the Canada model however

Naturally it doesn't, but with the current systems we have in place I'm pretty damned sure it would - and potentially even worse

As so many have said you only have to look at some of the attitudes which were revealed during Covid to see exactly where this would probably lead, and that's without the activists inevitably campaigning for "extensions" once it was enacted

And all this is rather ironic, because I support the idea in principle; I just wouldn't trust our institutions to keep a sensible lid on it

Totally agree with your very sensible post, Mischance, and my worry is exactly that ... that euthanasia would become an all-too-tempting way to save money and to claim that all those pesky care issues had been resolved

Iggi999 · Today 17:21
Ok, I don't trust safeguards once you have accepted the precedent that killing someone is something that our society can accept.
Our society has accepted that killing people for economic reasons is fine, we have an armed forces whose main job is "protecting our interests abroad", we supply weapons to our financial allies against our financial enemies. War is business and business is good. We turn a blind eye to all the death in the world that gives Britain a better standard of living than many so really the thin end of the wedge was passed a long time ago.

This might help, as a template. There are other safeguards too.

'The [Manx] bill states that people choosing assisted dying “must have capacity and have a clear and settled intention to end their life”. A person lacks capacity if they are unable to make a decision for themselves “because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain”.

'Two registered medical practitioners, working independently, must witness the person’s clear and settled intention and must both be satisfied the person has been informed of palliative and hospice care options.

'They must also be satisfied the person has reached their decision voluntarily. A psychiatrist can be called if there is any doubt about the person’s capacity to make the decision.'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/31/isle-of-man-parliament-backs-bill-to-legalise-assisted-dying

My uncle moved to Canada when he was 22 and he's now eighty and he's had to move back to the UK to escape the assisted dying. He's terrified of it! He worked as a doctor his whole life. He's worried that he might fall or something and be 'put down',

I worry became my family has seen the agism in the NHS - last 6-8 years it was a fight or at least a delay to get treatment because they saw a man in 70s with multiple health conditions - but Dad was always vocal about wanting everything done and we as a family were supportive and till last months he always surprised them with how well he recovered.

Those years meant he got extra time with grandkids and with rest of family - they meant a lot.

18 months before he died one admission had near constant pestering at family to put a DNR despite Dad sating it wasn't what he wanted and family respecting that - to be told in end it would be a medical decision - which was fine but why keep raising it with us and Dad.

Those safeguards had better be iron clad - because while I don't want people unnecessary suffering I don't want people feeling bullied or scared into early deaths and with a system where costs are a huge consideration and is at breaking point and understaffed I can easily see that happening.

Having relatives on death's door for ages and I struggle to remember a time when they were fit, up n about.

There's no purpose to prolong a person's suffering. How much is the NHS wasting on this for example?

Exactly this.

Safeguarding in this county has a long way to go. Jimmy Saville and the infected blood scandal were all with recent living memory. If you haven’t read about it please read about how “Virgin haemophilics” aged 3 were deliberately injected with blood that was know to have a high risk of infection to see what the results were. In the 1980’s and 1990’s. Results were AIDS and hep B.

I’m not convinced as a nation we are ready to do this in a way that prevents it being abused.

They've had it for 20 years have they?

Reading though there are several posts about costs of treating old people - or people with underlying conditions - too expensive why prolong their suffering.

These are the attitudes that frighten me - that make me think this is a bad idea.

These attitudes will almost certainly occur in medical professionals/settings as well- so they come in with assumption about people lives and wants and start to pressure them into choices they see best.

Reading this thread seems almost inevitable there will be mission creep - because people are already suggesting it's a good thing.

This will be the start of a slippery slope.

I have watched both my mum and dad die and can accept that both of them would have chosen a quicker end.

However, I’ve also been present when two doctors refused my son ICU care as his co-morbidities gave him a less favourable outcome.

We nursed him back to health ourselves on the respiratory ward.

Every week, we see how stretched the NHS is and know what a drain our son is on their service. Any chance to ‘get rid of him’, they’ll use it.

Quite @AderynBach

Victoria is the longest which had it from 2019. No time at all to change. It took from 2016 - 2021 for Canada to start their changes. By all means keep an eye on Australia, IoM, Canada etc. But the Swiss are the best people to look at with a form of this since 1941. Many things are 'safer' in Switzerland because they are a direct democracy, which is highly unusual. We are a pretty extreme representative democracy which in this case is less safe.

That is the case if they are able to source and take their own means of death. Otherwise it isn't. If it could be done straightforwardly without involving someone else in the act it would be suicide not euthanasia.

The juxtaposition of your final two sentences is frankly alarming.

It is suicide. The clue’s in the name - assisted suicide. The only reason the involvement of a clinician is needed is to supply the drugs.

The Netherlands has had ‘assisted dying’ since 2001.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/01/assisted-dying-mother-dutch-legalisation-euthanasia

Why anyone would actively wish for another human to die a slow painful death, or live a long painful life with no quality of life, is beyond me.

Emotive, inaccurate hyperbole is not the way to make your point.