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.

You see, you’ve already set parameters.

My son is only in his twenties, but doubly incontinent, can’t walk and tube fed. Not to mention unable to give consent. So you’d be killing him off since you’d consider he had no quality of life.

Do you honestly believe the TORIES have these people's best interests at heart? FFS they practically murdered old people during COVID. They didn't give a shit.

We can’t base decision making on something as important as this on one party being a bunch of bastards. They’ll be out of power long before the details are finalised.

That sounds stressful, I’m sorry.

Yes. There would have to be legislation regarding mental health condition exclusions, without doubt.

No you wouldn’t because consent wouldn’t be enough. He’d have to actively want to end his life because he thought he had no quality of life and articulate that.

Not at all. It’s still his decision - in this case I guess you’re his legal guardian so it’s yours?. I never said otherwise.

It’s always about what an individual wants.

I think it's you who doesn't see. Already in your example, you're making an assumption about the value of someone's life.

A) Nobody wants anyone to be in that situation, but even in this scenario it's not as simple as just "zero potential quality of life so therefore assisted suicide". It's actually a bit tasteless of you to make that statement.

and
B) The law needs to protect the rights of the vulnerable; as soon as you open the door to assisted suicide (and I notice you're already broadening it outside of terminal illness), you are attacking the foundations of that protection.

In a perfect world with zero chance of abuse, ok. But we don't live in that world. On an individual basis I can absolutely understand and sympathise with anyone who might make that decision, but I can't support a law that essentially subverts the role of medical care and sends a message that further devalues the lives of people already from vulnerable demographics. That is not humane or compassionate.

"zero potential quality of life so therefore assisted suicide". It's actually a bit tasteless of you to make that statement.

Stop making stuff up. I’ve always said it’s an individuals decision. Nobody else’s. But don’t let facts get in the way.

Actually, I take that back. It's not a bit tasteless, it's extremely tasteless.

As I said. Stop making stuff up.

You've already agreed with Matthew Parris who (correctly IMO) predicts that it will be seen as the normal, sensible and responsible thing to do. So you have no issues with the change this will create culturally and the pressures and expectations that will create. As if choices are made in a vacuum?! Mental illness is another obvious area which will create almost impossible ethical issues. Dementia is another. But "muh choices" is all that matters, sure.

It’s a good start, but needs to be opened up to any adult with capacity to make the decision. Including those with mental disorders.

I am in the latter camp and if I chose to end my life will most likely have to do so on my own, using a violent and probably painful method. I wouldn’t be able to say goodbye to my loved ones. I wouldn’t be able to answer their questions. I wouldn’t be able to have them present at the time of my death.

I believe in body autonomy and the right to die peacefully at the time of your choosing is an extension of that.

Agree with this 100%

It should be all about personal choice at the end of the day. There are far too many nasty twists and turns In life which can impossible to bear for some.

Mental illness is another obvious area which will create almost impossible ethical issues. Dementia is another.

I don’t think dementia is at all. As someone who fully expects to develop it I can see no reason why I shouldn’t make my wishes crystal clear while I have capacity, indicate them in a legally binding document and be given the drugs at a predetermined point. That would mean that I don’t have to suffer by leaving any illness I contract subsequent to a dementia diagnosis untreated which is my current plan.

Oh dear. It’s impossible to debate when people make erroneous assumptions and make stuff up. Incoherent almost.

Well it'll cut the pension bill, cost the NHS less and reduce the number of foreigners we need to come and do caring jobs.

What's not to like?

(Cynical face)

As an example, I’m sure people with Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, who want AD really don’t appreciate sarcasm on the issue.

(Serious Face).

(Equally Serious Face)

Why are these conflicts of interest which really will be part of some decision making just dismissed as sarcasm?

Is it because they are inconvenient truths that people don't want to face up to? As long as they get what they want, to hell with protecting others who may need that protection.

Maybe it’s because we see no reason why vulnerable people can’t be protected while allowing those of who want it to have control over our own deaths. We can learn from the countries that already have the legislation.

Everyone on this thread has ignored my posts about a RL example.

My feelings on this issue are:
-I think people who are of sound mind and have terminal illness should have the option of an assisted death if they choose to avoid prolonged suffering. This would be the provision under ideal conditions.
-However, I think under flawed real life conditions assisted dying would be pushed onto or recommended to people who have chronic illness, disability, mental health problems, live in poverty or are simply elderly and seen as a burden.

This is already happening in Canada and elsewhere. I've read some horrific stories about people choosing assisted death because they can't afford housing, or a particularly gruesome one about an immobilised man who was hospitalised for pneumonia, recovered but he received such terrible care in hospital that he developed unhealable bed sores and chose assisted dying to escape his suffering.

Given the dehumanising discourse about disabled/elderly/chronically ill people that is widespread in the UK already amongst politicians and the public, I have zero trust that assisted dying would be implemented here as anything else than veiled eugenics. And under such conditions I have no choice but to oppose it. I don't want the state to murder people who are seen as a burden or push them into suicide. So I will vote against any politician that supports assisted dying currently. Perhaps we can be better as humans and as a society in the future. I don't hold much hope, though.

I recommend a thought-provoking Japanese movie called Plan 75, it's available on streaming services.

So people shouldn't have the right to assisted death to preserve the pension bill, to keep the NHS costs high and to keep foreign care workers in jobs?

Quite.

I would add that I've met people with severe disabilities who don't want to die, but whose families and "friends" see them as useless and would definitely try to push/blackmail them into assisted dying if it was available. And they would constantly hear people around them saying to them "oh, if I had to live with said disability I would kill myself".

So, I oppose this for the same reason I oppose the death penalty. In some cases it's probably the right thing to do, but the moral cost and slippery slope of it being legal is too high, and gives too much power to the government in both cases, and in the case of assisted dying also to societal pressure.

There is no right to die. It isn't a human right, though some seem to think it is and treat it conceptually as the same as the right to life. There are many reasons for this, but in the case of assisted dying, it is because the alleged RIGHT to die always morphs in a DUTY to die. The pressure it would put on people to self-terminate. We are talking about suicide to lessen the costs and emotional strife for the government and other family members. And who ends up in this category that should kill themselves for the benefit of others? It's the disabled and the mentally ill; not just those at the end of life. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. Advocates always imagine it is a compassionate policy, but it is not, and we should go nowhere near it.

No.

My point is that a political conflict of interest is going to be totally swept under the carpet and safeguarding ignored because 'wont we think of the poor people in pain'.

This will mean those who are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse will be invisible in these debates because they are an inconvenience and a barrier to assisted dying.

Concerns will be overlooked because certain voices will be louder than others.

This thread will illustrate the point perfectly.