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.

And I’ve already said, you first. You tell me why you think I’m wrong about the criteria being the strictest in the world and then I might reply.

From my reading, if someone got their calculations wrong or I'd had a pint of grapefruit juice before the doctor arrived, I'm not sure there are any steps to deal with an unsuccessful attempt to end life - particularly one that gravely injures but fails to kill cleanly.

Sorry but were you out of the country on 4th July?

Ed sp

I already have. I asked you a series of questions regarding safeguarding and you ignored them. I have asked you three times how Drs will know if someone is being coerced.

Thanks for the clarification, Littlemissgobby, and you could well be right about the period before this would be considered again - in which case it might be considered a shame that this wasn't drafted better in the first place

Ironically I'd actually support the concept if I could have any confidence in the "safeguards" and ignore the horrible example of what's happening elsewhere, but I can't so as things stand I have to be against

Who bears responsibility for determining coercion?
Where an aged widow(er) lives alone in the large house they raised their family in, where does talk about grandchildren in cramped accommodation come, where does a care worker complaining about the number of falls or having to dress wounds from opening a can or bottle?
The Act is written from the perspective of an Esther Rantzen or Joan Bakewell wanting to maintain control up to the end, it's not written from the perspective of a selfless, elderly and vulnerable person with valuable assets.

I sincerely hope the bill passes into law. I don't think a civilised country should force people to remain alive because it's too messy to dicuss the realities. It's sheer selfishness.

There are safeguards in this bill. But the legislation is moving through too quickly with limited debate. The health secretary has concerns about how the NHS will implement. People keep talking about needing 2 doctors in the process; but the text of the bill says 'medical professional' which is much broader. I also think that the law would not stay at the point in which the bill sets out. I think it would be challenged in the courts and would shift over time.

From Wikipedia:

“In March 2015 a survey by the NatCen British Social Attitudes Report showed that public support for the death penalty had dropped to 48%”

I can’t understand though. With this bill, the person concerned has to have less than six months to live. Do you seriously believe that there are that many, if any people who, even if they wanted someone to die, couldn’t just wait six months (or less) but instead would try and bully or guilt someone into taking their own life a little bit earlier? It makes no sense.

With nursing homes at an average of £900/week? 🤔

More recent surveys have shown a majority in support of the death penalty for the most vile crimes

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/41640-britons-dont-tend-support-death-penalty-until-you-

I hope the bill passes. My DH has a condition which might mean a horrible profession and a horrible long drawn out death with a lot is suffering. If we knew that we had the option to choose to die when ready, we would have had a better quality of life now as we wouldn’t have so much angst for the future. Most people are not scared of dying, but scared of suffering on death.

Yes, even then. The number will have to be vanishingly small if it even exists. How many people have to actually suffer to balance the possibility that a very small number MIGHT give in to coercion (which then wouldn’t be picked up by the safeguard)?

To quote Mr Spock, ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’.

Spock? This is your moral compass. Well, I must say I'm relieved by the level of maturity in the debate.

I agree with you op passionately hope the bill is passed.

Anyway, I'm done. Live long and prosper.

Spock was incredibly moral, logical and rational. Better him than some imaginary deity.

He was also right in this case, no matter how much you sneer.

Hospice care is underfunded and highly in demand and we simply don't have the beds. Palliative care is basically non existent.

Drs can't really predict how long someone has to live. Some people have survived a terminal diagnosis and some have been misdiagnosed.

In the bill a Dr, sorry, medical professional, can raise the subject of assisted suicide ie they can suggest it.

Secondly and for the fourth time, how does the medical professional know if the patient has been coerced?

One in four women will experience domestic abuse, do you think it's possible that an abusive man could pressure someone into suicide?

Hospice care is underfunded and highly in demand and we simply don't have the beds. Palliative care is basically non existent.

Exactly, so we can live in the perfect world that should be, but never will, or we can live in the real world and make the best of it that we can.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Secondly and for the fourth time, how does the medical professional know if the patient has been coerced?

And for the last time, if it is better elsewhere, how do they do it?

Or, we can focus on effective pain relief and high quality palliative care, and not pass a law that will put vulnerable people at risk.

This, exactly this. Some very offensive and ignorant comments on this thread. And religious beliefs should not come into this.

Anyone who has witnessed someone dying in agony or like in my father's case, of starvation and thirst, is in favour of assisted dying if they have any humanity.

Did you even read what I wrote? We can’t even treat people properly who aren’t yet dying, how do we provide ‘high quality palliative care’ for everyone who is? Wishing for the impossible is not a practical way forward.

Fine if you’re rich though. They actually have a choice.

People have to face reality rather than burying their heads in the sand and hoping for a miracle.

Yes I read what you wrote.

Good quality, property funded palliative care is far from impossible. With political will it is absolutely possible. This is easier, but that doesn't make it a better option.