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.

"High quality palliative care" cannot address every issue at the end of life. If it's even available. A lot of people here simply don't know what they're talking about.

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.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement.

I suspect you haven't experienced it then.

Of course it can't. It is not possible to relieve all suffering, but it is my opinion that passing this bill will lead to more suffering, not less.

And what do we cut in order to make it possible? Schools, police, defence, transport, energy, mental health care, child support? Labour increased taxes a little bit and anyone would think the sky was falling. We live in a rapidly diminishing country - this is reality and I’m afraid we have to live in it the best that we can.

No I haven't. But plenty of people have, and have come away from the heartbreaking experience passionately opposed to assisted dying.

Forme MP Dennis Canavan lost all four of his children.

He said: "My sons undoubtedly experienced some pain but it was minimised by dedicated health professionals in the NHS and our local hospice.

"My sons died in dignity and I disagree with supporters of the Bill who claim that the suicide option is necessary to ensure dignity in death.

"We ought instead to be concentrating on ways to try to alleviate pain and suffering for people who are terminally ill.”

People keep talking about needing 2 doctors in the process; but the text of the bill says 'medical professional' which is much broader

I think the wording's "registered medical practitioner" @bluelavender, but that's hardly any better - though it does use the tantalising word "doctor" in the section listings at the start

Perhaps it was thought people wouldn't notice the shift, and anyway what kind of registered medical professional? They said that about DWP assessments and look what happened there, though obviously it's a very different field

Maybe they could co-opt a bunch of chiropodists? No disrespect to their undoubted skills, but they're registered too, and while they're excellent with foot health I'm not sure I'd want one of them deciding if I was dying

You haven't responded to my posts asking questions so I'm not sure what you're referring to here: And for the last time

You're claiming that these are the best safeguards in the world. Could you back up your claims? It's coming across as deflection.

People have already given you examples of how the law has been expanded in other countries and in Canada people have been euthanised because of loneliness and poverty. That's not why the law was introduced.

Because of the shift the law has brought in, many Canadians agree that poverty and homelessness are reasons to be euthanised. They also want to expand the law to include mental health issues such as anorexia and PTSD. It's actually disability groups fighting this because their lives have been so devalued.

It would be great if you could reassure people regarding the safeguards.

This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people dying screaming in agony, begging to have their lives ended or like my father, hanging on for weeks without food or fluids, choking on his own phlegm with none of us able to do anything about it. It's barbaric.

Of course absolutely no one would want that for anyone, least of all someone you love. I can only imagine how heartbreaking it must be to witness.
But to say that anyone who witnesses this and disagrees with you is devoid of all humanity I don't agree with.

I hear you, but I think if you had been there you would think differently.

Well you're basically saying it's ok for people to be tortured to death so I agree with the other poster that there's not much humanity going on.

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

What’s to stop them doing that now? And what’s that got to do with having a life expectancy of 6 months or less?

Really scraping the straw man barrel now

It's an example of coercion which I was responding to. People who are very ill are more vulnerable and more easily manipulated.

You think that not being in favour of this bill is the same thing as agreeing with torture?
Don't think I've ever been accused of that before!

Ah a made up non existent scenario. Why not just stick to the proposal as it’s put forward and relates to individuals with very short life expectancy?

I am sticking to the proposal. I was asking the poster how medical professionals would be able to discern coercion.

Perhaps you can answer.

How do we prevent coercion either by medical professionals or relatives? How can medical professionals discern coercion?

Yes that's the reality of dying from a horrific disease like cancer for the majority of people, palliative care or not. Everyone who is against this is saying suffering unbearable pain is ok for these people by default.

Or, I'm saying that good quality palliative care and pain relief should be available to everyone to minimise the number of people that are suffering in this way, but that it is my opinion that introducing this bill will ultimately lead to an increase of suffering for vulnerable people.
If it was up to me, everyone would be guaranteed a peaceful death, but that is beyond anyone's power.
We agree that the aim should be to minimise suffering, we just disagree on how to achieve that aim.

Is it not the lesser of all evils?

@MrsSchrute The only suffering you imagine is in some hypothetical scenario that might not even happen. Meanwhile there are thousands in agony right now.

The evidence of other countries shows that it is very likely that the criteria for assisted dying will be expanded. Countries with assisted dying laws have assisted children to die, those with mental health problems, the poor and homeless. I cannot in good conscience be in favour of a law that increases the risks to those people.
If you know of any protests or campaigns to improve palliative care and pain relief for the terminally ill then I would gladly join them.

@MrsSchrute different countries have vastly different laws, we can't just shut down any possibility for change because of fear mongering about what is happening in other countries. Most of it's fake news anyway.

The thing is good quality pain relief at levels high enough to be effective will often hasten a patients death. Therefore it’s withheld right to the end when it can’t do any further harm, or not given in effective doses as it’s too late.

So my question is do you choose to alleviate suffering even if that means death. Effectively Euthanasia. This used to happen a lot more in the U.K. but now doctors are much more conservative in their approach.

Or do you limit pain relief to a level that won’t hasten death and allow suffering?

I personally would choose to alleviate suffering even if that hastens death. I do think that we can’t really go back to doctors making decisions themselves ( thanks Dr Shipnsn) and it should be enshrined in legislation to protect Doctors and ensure a patients rights. In the absence of that supporting people to end their own lives when terminally ill seems the best way to prevent suffering.