To say that if the assisted dying bill isn't passed....

[OnceUponATimeInTheWest]

that, regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, it will finally be undeniable that we do not live in a truly representative democracy at all?

Given the latest poll in the Times, it is clear that the vast majority of the population support the bill (65% for and 13% against) and yet most of the media seems to be full of story after story about this person or that coming out against it (unsurprisingly, often people with a religious background). I don't remember seeing nearly as many stories about someone telling us they support the bill. The narrative feels as though it is being steered in only one direction.

I mean, it's already fairly much clear that our elected politicians prefer to tell us what to do and what we should think, rather than actually representing our wishes. Otherwise immigration and transgender issues would not still be dominating the headlines. The fact that an amendment to remove bishops from the house of lords failed recently should also tell us that religion still plays far too much of a role in what is an overwhelmingly secular society.

If this bill fails, then anyone in future trying to tell us that we live in one of the greatest democracies in the world is, at this point, just gaslighting us.

If I spend 15 months of my life in utter misery not being able to move because I have MND, how am I supposed to do it without some assistance from someone else? If I’d be quite happy to swallow something that was provided to me, thus making the decision for myself. Unfortunately the person who would provide it to me to swallow would be prosecuted

@RhaenysRocks

I like to look at reality. It would be nice if everyone had a choice about how they die. In fact, most do. Suicide is not illegal.

We have a strong indication of how this could go because of COVID. Our Prime Minister said "Let the bodies pile high." Unauthorised DNR notices were put in people's notes and COVID was allowed to run rampant through care homes. Alongside this was a chorus of "They're going to die anyway." About the elderly and vulnerable.

Elderly care is very expensive, the NHS is barely functioning and Drs have to make judgement calls about budgets and beds. We have a large number of people with dementia who lack capacity and are eating into their children's inheritance.

We can see evidence of how this could go in other countries where laws have been expanded to include disabilities and mental health issues. There was a recent case of a young autistic woman who was euthanised because she was depressed. In some countries children are euthanised.

State sanctioned suicide shifts the way we view human life. I understand that some people value human life in the same way they do a dog's, however I don't.

I think this law is ill thought out, the safeguards are flabby and we don't have the resources to properly monitor it.

IMO we would be better off investing in better palliative care and the NHS. This has the potential to very quickly turn into a cost cutting exercise.

Sadly, all the countries we copied from, you did not learn from. It’s not gone to plan in a single country that has legalised it.

By disagreeing, it’s obvious you haven’t read the other laws and are relying on marketing drivel.

In most cases, spouses that help their terminally ill partner to die aren't prosecuted.

Practically speaking this is probably the least well thought out bill on this subject that i have read, it is light on detail and makes a lot of assumption

I couldn't agree more, @everybodystalking; in particular Section 15 "Signing by proxy" signals some very obvious issues and Section 26 on "Dishonesty coercion or pressure" receives just three tiny paragraphs, mostly consisting of "commits an offence" with almost no further detail at all

I also strongly suspect that many won't have read it and are discussing this on a purely emotional basis - understandable of course, but maybe not the best foundation for something quite so serious

The link's here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0012/240012.pdf

This feels to me like my mum saying eat your vegetables there’s children starving in Africa.Wether or not I ate my vegetables is of no consequence really. I don’t think my personal decision to want not to suffer a painful drawn out death is going to shorten the life of a vulnerable person.

It seems from some posters that they are certain that an assisted death is somehow painless and dignified which is not true or guaranteed. You are choosing only when to die, it does not mean you are going to have a painless death and given the establishments set up to provide this in other countries you are not guaranteed dignity either.

Obtain it before it's too late.

Yes same. I think there shouldn't be a referendum. As with brexit, people vote on emotion, not on understanding the consequences. I am not an expert on end of life so it wouldn't be right for me to have a say. They should have advice from experts on end of life care, disability advocacy groups and similar organisations. They should be advised based on case studies from the other countries which have already brought it in and the benefits and risks and so on.

Are you really encouraging someone to purchase an illegal drug for the purpose of killing themself off, on an open forum?

No, I said that the bill had the strongest safeguards in the world and you said that you didn't think so. I said it was a matter of opinion and I disagreed but then for some reason you asked me why I disagreed.

I really don't get where you are going with this.

Or maybe I have and I just happen to disagree with your point of view? Maybe that?

Could you explain why you believe it has the strongest safeguards? For example, how can a Dr be sure if there is coercion?

Many thanks

We live in a representative, not a direct democracy. I doubt a single person polled had actually read the proposed legislation. The keenness of those supporting the measures that they be known as “assisted dying” rather than “assisted suicide” should give some indication of the superficiality of public engagement on the issue.

That isn’t a criticism of “the public.” It’s a recognition that in our lives as doctors, solicitors, retail worker… (whatever), we are not legislators. We have chosen someone else to fulfil that role for us.

So I itially a bill has a premise then you can ammend and make the rules more detailed after by the gov . So if in principle you are fine with assisted death then that's fine and the other stuff gets put in either with ammendments or added bh the gov

You first. You said I'm wrong and the safeguards are stronger in other countries. How are doctors in those countries more sure that there is no coercion compared to the proposals in the bill here?

I'm fairly sure that no-one can amend a bill after it has been passed without a vote in parliament.

Exactly

Thats a ridiculous premise. Why would a doctor need to be more than reasonably sure there is no coercion? Doctor, same as everyone else are never sure and that's a ridiculous thing to aim for. There could have been coercion involved in a termination, or a tissue donation or an amputation, or the switching off of life support. That is no reason to stop everyone else from having the procedure. I don't think you understand risk assessment.

Right if you were to read the parliament bill page right now about this particular bill you will see that it says words like assisted suicide or assisted dying are interchangeable in this bill because nobody says that one word is what it is or another word.
So because you’re saying that I use assisted dying doesn’t mean to say I don’t know what it’s about
Secondly when I have just read this bill, I think it perfectly has got a lot of safeguarding for instance you can’t just rock up and get injected on that day. You have to talk to one doctor then you have to talk to another doctor but in between that there is so many days of cooling off.
Then I believe they have to go to High Court and then again there’s another 14 days of cooling off after that decision and then even after all these days of cooling off between seeing the doctors and seeing the High Court you are going to be asked a question again I think that’s pretty safe proof because there’s a lot of different doctors a lot of different questions a lot of time I think if anything it’s very strict, but this is why I don’t get all these people giving strawmen arguments

Outside of the UK, my parent was euthanised without their agreement or mine as next of kin.
At the time, around 1,200 people in that country were killed in the same way, the proportion has seemingly halved since - a level that a UK doctor on another forum suggested was about the rate in the UK already.
The bill is full of holes and should have been the subject of unemotional, public debate for months.
When the bill passes - as I'm sure it will, since MPs are keen on control - doctors and healthcare workers become a potential threat to life.
Proxy signing: not an inheritor or someone who is directly involved in your care - like Mavis who spoke to you 30 months ago about diabetes screening, a practice GP who notices that you're low after an incurable diagnosis - who may suggest assisted dying.
We are not ready for this bill - and for anyone who makes it this far, the mercy-killing of my parent was a kindness to someone who was comletely immobile, had parkinson's and advanced dementia and couldn't speak.

Well maybe read what I’ve just put because it’s gonna be two doctors a lot of cooling off time and then you have to go to High Court then you criticise the fact you say your parent was euthanised but then says it was a mercy killing so make your mind up because quite frankly I get it really disingenuous now

There was an article in the Guardian last week about extreme prematurity - so the other end of the spectrum - and what struck me was that people who had had experience of disability in their family were less keen to 'do everything possible' to ensure survival.

The assisted dying debate is no different. People are very keen to give their opinion against it having never seen what death looks like up close, particularly with a bastard of a disease like MND.

I know there is concern about vulnerable old people, which is fair enough. That said, my own grandmother survived 5 years of dementia in a care home before finally succumbing at age 94. It was a complete waste of time, effort, and money to keep her alive. I don't care who that offends.

I agree so let me tell you about my story. I’ve been in hospital. I saw a little old lady with bloody dementia who didn’t know where she was trying to get out of her bed. They had to put an alarm on the bed because she was trying to get out and they fitted her a pacemaker. Tell me what is the actual point what is the actual point? Why are we prolonging life for what? I’m sorry but life to me shouldn’t just be about a mere pitiful existence