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.

Jesus, I'm so sorry, that's awful.

Yes it sounds bad but then look at the last paragraph she says it was a mercy killing so you know what? At the end of the day it’s wrong to euthanise without permission absolutely it’s disgusting but she even admitted it’s a mercy killing so what are we prolong in life for?

Seriously, is this the level of compassion that you are accusing people who have concerns around the bill are lacking? A poster describes how their parent was killed and your reflex is talking more about your opinion?

Yes, the parent was killed against their own wishes. Killed for 'the greater good'. That's not a practice that is what we need here.

I have compassion into the fact that she shouldn’t have been euthanised without her permission that is absolutely disgusting but when she says at the end of the paragraph that it was a mercy killing therefore her parent was suffering she admits that herself maybe it was better and in a way insightful that perhaps it’s a better way it would be much better if people had the choice to decide if this is what happens to them if they get to that point.

@pubsafety Would you have made the same decision if you'd been asked, or would you have prolonged the agony, given the emotional ties?

As controversial as it is, I seriously think that sometimes we prolong life we do we know we do there is a point where some people should not be living as long as they do because they are not living they are purely existing and maybe being a matter of fact taking the emotions right out of this argument because I don’t have emotion I am just very angry at the fact that people would rather have people turn into vegetables or even Suffer very very much with lots of pain than admit that maybe we should be able to have rights of our own body and be able to die with dignity

If you think you can wipe away lack of concern for being killed...murdered, for clarity, then it's not better for anyone, the individual or society and if you can't see that then you need to give your head a wobble.

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

So might the suggestion that the bill contains the "strongest safeguards", @LaineyCee, because I'm honesrly not seeing anything that couldn't be easily circumvented if the will was there

And while it's true that a bill can be amended during the legislative process, @Littlemissgobby, I personally feel that this one contains so many holes that a complete redraft might be better - preferably done by someone who's capable of appreciating the risks involved

@Littlemissgobby A doctor decided to kill a patient. In the circumstances, it was out of compassion and there was no quality of life.
It was still a killing - the country concerned operates a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach to mercy-killings.
Having seen the awful suffering of someone on the Liverpool Care Pathway (didn't fancy breakfast one day, so was starved to death) I recognise that those who are not coerced or temporarily depressed should have options but this Act is poorly resourced and written and will lead to some of the perverse outcomes seen with MAID in Canada.

Nobody in this bill is suggesting people will be euthanised without literally somebody going to speak to 2 doctors and having a high court in front of them that is not being discussed so we’re again why are we bringing that into this bill?

Okay, I could accept what you are saying, but my problem is that’s not going to happen. They’re not going to do it and I’m bloody sick and I’m sick of these people of religion now writing letter letters to the government. I’m bloody sick of it.

Your attitude is everything I fear in advocates of this policy who have neither the patience or nuance to understand the implications that follow.

Fair enough and you are right it was out of compassion but unfortunately doctors don’t want to do that now do they? Because they risk being sued which is I understand this bill might not be 100% but it was a starting point. The truth is if you want my opinion, if they get rid of this now, it’s not gonna come back any time soon.

Everybody I speak to actually agrees with myself because everybody that I know myself wants autonomy over our body and the fact remains is that I get some people don’t because of religion because of any other reasons I truthfully do not believe that doctors are going to go round injecting people just to get rid of people yes alright there is Harold Shipman but very very few doctors have ever been like that
Even in Canada the person put it was only 4.1% have assisted death that isn’t everybody that dies is it?

To me, this is the type of debate that should be put to a referendum. It’s much easier to understand than Brexit.

I am very sorry if I have upset people, but I have often said every time I go to the hospital or anything else why can’t we all have like a little thing on the wall where you can smash it like a fire alarm thing and you couldn’t take a pill and you know it’s going to kill you just the option that we all have that is there if we want to take it I don’t get why we cannot have that choice I’ve never understood it but there you go that’s me.

You know who I fear? I fear people who think only they have the intelligence or ability to properly understand the topic and that they can therefore ignore the wishes of anyone who disagrees with them. That they can control how other people end their lives because they (or their god) know best and it’s actually all for our own good, if only we’d realise it.

Not going to do what - redraft the bill or circumvent the so-called "safeguards" if the will was there?

If it's the second one I only wish I was as confident
As a very wise poster suggested on another thread, the whole concept might be workable if as a nation we were already treating the living properly, but since we're not it's all a step too far for some of us right now

Agree with you about the folk bringing their religion into it though; I've every respect for individuals' religious belief but certainly don't want it anywhere near public policy

I hope so, it would have been difficult and wasn't really my decision - I was next of kin so legally it was - but I was unaware that my parent wasn't married to the person they had been living with for nearly 30 years.
I had previously had a document written in both languages to say that the partner knew my wishes - essentially as an attempt to allow them a fair say.

Am I being unreasonable? Care - up to the point of death - was exemplary. The doctor called to say that the end was near, asked how long it would take to get to the care home and said they felt we'd be able to say goodbye.
Matters were staged to perfection, everyone hurried to the bedside to share the last 10-15 minutes. Death came, conveniently, the body was in the home's morgue 20 minutes before the ward's day began.

There was nothing corrupt or hurried in the process, it was respectful and although there were literally no safeguards before the fact to avoid a Shipman, the culture and acceptance of the country improved the process.
The glee with which some advocates in Canada have behaved and comments about the 'wheelchair-bound' made here fill me with dread.

You haven't answered any questions regarding the bill. I've asked you three times about safeguarding and you've ignored them.

Have you read it?

Exactly the case in Canada and Holland.

Sorry, I meant they’re not going to bring the bill back. If this bill does not pass it will be years before they even think about it again.

@pubsafety that's a very considered post, thanks. Do you feel it is the UK bill, as worded, that is wrong, or is it the entire concept? I admit I haven't done due diligence on the text, but I am in favour of assisted dying as a concept.

The glee with which some advocates in Canada have behaved and comments about the 'wheelchair-bound' made here fill me with dread

You and me both, @pubsafety - hence my comments about the way we treat the living hardly being a reassurance

Based on your argument, we should bring back capital punishment as the vast majority of the public agree with that too.

I disagree vehemently with this bill