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.

@Littlemissgobby it would go through. Because this bill would do zero to address the issues most of the public think it will address - especially those arguing in support of the bill.

I have my own thread on this bill which I am fully in favour of. Unless you have witnessed a loved one ‘dying’ for weeks- enduring the most hideous of endings then you really shouldn’t be casting judgment. I hope no one has to ever go through such horrors because their loved ones were never given the opportunity to pass on their terms during such terrible suffering.

@Onand My mum took three weeks to die. It was not hideous. It sounds like your loved one did not receive proper care and I am sorry for that.

I've thought about this since my elderly DM was in a care home with Parkinson's (she has since died) and on end-of-life care for a very long time. I'm not convinced that palliative care is well-delivered everywhere. I've heard quite a lot of people express the hope that 'They won't let [my loved one] suffer'. The main part of this hope is that loved ones are being given painkillers / palliative meds and that the dose will eventually carry people off.

It concerns me that this wished-for practice is probably not the case. It wasn't particularly relevant in my DM's case but I've spoken to people who were worried their end-of-life relatives were left in too much pain. If it's true that pain meds are over-cautiously given because medics are fearful of legal consequences, then this must be addressed. I believe doctors should be able to prescribe like this for dying people, with consent and without fear, and we should all be able to understand and be reassured by that. I believe if dying people knew they wouldn't be left in pain or other intolerable body states, even where the painkillers or other palliative meds would hasten death, that would be welcomed by many. I'd hope for this for myself. It seems, though, that would be a change in policy and a discussion doctors need to be able to have with the rest if us.

I don't think this bill helps that discussion, although I'm all for having the conversation, which will doubtless be a long one.

Her final weeks were in a leading cancer hospital, the care there was exceptional. The NHS general hospital stays prior to that were horrific. But her final weeks were as good as could be given the fact she was suffering a painful hideous death with full body convulsions, agitation, agonising pain, no fluids, a body riddled with cancer and a damaged spinal cord from osteoporosis, the list goes on.

Thank god for the syringe driver and attentive staff who warned us of how brutal the end can be and how it can often drag on for days and weeks. No one prepares you for that and I feel if people were aware of the utter horror you endure as the patient if your care is poor or the sedation not strong enough then they would opt to take control of their dire situation and leave before the party is over.

Assisted dying is a lifeline to those suffering needlessly…for what? Why should you be made to keep going until you physically can’t? Of course plenty would chose not to take this course of action and good luck to them if that’s the case, but I for one know if I was ever faced with my mother’s circumstances I would not be willing to see it through to the finish line. I’d want a quick death not a fortnight of hell with loved ones sitting by getting ptsd and visions of my slow demise as party favours.

If this wasn’t a private members bill and we were going about this differently we could look at how other countries do thinks like that. Have groups of interested parties and citizens panels and all sorts of other stuff, including looking at any issues that might have happened in other jurisdictions and how we could avoid those. Then we could draw up the legislation and pass it. Proper government not just setting people up as either pro or anti.

Why on earth aren't the UK having a referendum on this? That's how it was decided where I live.

The U.K. political system isn’t well set up for referendums and neither the public , the politicians nor the media are used to them. It’s not like having a referendum in somewhere with a more democratic electoral system and where the public are used to it.

We’ve had two in recent decades and both were a shambles for different reasons. The main thing we learnt about the Brexit one is that pretty much nobody ever wants one again.

We're going round in circles and you're now making guesses about what I have and haven't done, what I do and don't know about the subject and what I have or have not considered in what I think is a fairly personal and unpleasant way.

Regardless, I still hope that you do not have the painful, miserable death that many people will be condemned to, some of whom will no doubt be in that same group of vulnerable people, if this bill fails to pass.

I'm afraid I'll leave it here. Have a good week.

It's a total misdirect to focus so much on pain. Pain is utterly hideous but so are so many other disease states: nausea, fever, delirium, loss of bowel or bladder control, terrifying heartrate, ringing in the ears and on and on and on.

I've never been seriously ill but I've experienced all of the above in short term infections and illnesses. There is no medicine that takes away the abject misery of eg flu symptoms. Human suffering can't be eliminated by oramorph, and indeed having had heavy pain relief following operations, it brings a whole host of further upsetting symptoms.

@Onand My mum died of cancer in a side room in a general ward. No specialist cancer care or palliative care specialists so I was not warned of anything. But her pain relief was excellent.

As has been brought in Parliament repeatedly, this bill has the 'Henry VIII clause' which means ministers can amend or repeal parts of the bill without going through the parlimentary process. Any strict criteria in there now can be altered without any further debate, which is very undemocratic.

In my reading of the bill, it does have some strong safeguards, but I'm not seeing safeguards at the start. There has been repeated issues in other countries on who brings up the option. It is not an uncommon form of abuse to tell people they should die and there is a lot of damage that can happen there. I strongly feel that medical and other professionals should be barred from bringing it up first, we don't want people asking for help and getting told 'no, but we can offer medically assisted dying', and we should be able to have it in our medical notes whether we're open to that type of option discussed with us. If this passes, there are other ways to inform people of their rights.

I've contacted my MP on it - I don't care how he votes, no idea what he thinks on it, I'm glad it's an free vote even if I didn't vote for him. I do care about it not being amended without full parliamentary processes and safeguarding on the start (and at the end, the bill has protections there that a person must take it themselves, but as it can be altered, the stories of dementia patients who refused being held down to administer with no consequences to the medical staff because the death 'was in the patient's best interest' are harrowing). The first has already been brought up in Parliament, but no signs yet of that being changed.

I had no idea it could be amended so easily.

Neither have many, FoRealTurtle, but then it's a fairly abstruse area that not all will want to acquaint themselves with, even when expressing views on something so important

As others have mentioned this has already been rumbling on for years and if the will was there the proper consultations and discussions could have been held - but they haven't and the "best" we've got for now is a Private Members Bill full of holes and far too many unanswered questions

This might even be seen in a light of lawmakers wanting it to fail, which would at least save us from the unintended (?) consequences of the way it's been drawn for now

I'm sorry for your loss and I'm so sorry for the suffering. It is utterly soul-destroying.

I would say that unless you've seen first hand the way people with SEN, disabilities, MH issues, addiction and homelessness are routinely dealt with by authorities, unless you've seen the depths abusive people and greedy people will go to get what they want, you can't argue the other side of this.

That's the problem with lay people. We use the limited experience we have to emote the answer. And we believe the ends justify the means. If the system was perfect, I would be in favour. I'm not religious and would like this to be available in a perfect world. But I know it will expand and be abused.

I can and I will quite happily argue the other side of this. Those things you describe are awful, but there is only so far I am willing to go, or that you can have any right to ask me to go, to prevent harm coming to other people from other people.

When it means that I or people I love may suffer horribly, then I'm afraid I choose myself and them over strangers.

I would say the opposite - that when you have seen first hand a friend or loved one die an appalling death, you can't but argue the other side of this.

I'd like a perfect world too. Until then we all have to live in the real one.

I've done a quick Google ("Henry VIII clause assisted dying bill") to look into this but I'm afraid I cannot find any news article that confirms that this bill will have the 'Henry VIII clause' that you mention here (I know the clause exists though and has been used in the past).

My Google skills may be lacking though, so can you please provide a link to where you saw it? Thanks.

@OnceUponATimeInTheWest your posts keep referencing this idealistic death without any suffering based on no evidence. There's plenty of evidence that assisted suicide and assisted deaths can still painful and distressing for patients and their loved ones. I completely understand arguing for the control over when and where you die but if you're arguing that this bill guarantees a peaceful painless death isn't evidence based.

Point me to where I said anything about death with no suffering at all and I'll give you a response.

Let me ask you a question based on something you actually have written though. When you say 'I completely understand arguing for control over when and where you die' does that mean you support assisted dying (either this bill or just the concept in general)? Just to be clear here.

It's certainly about me potentially suffering a horrible death but it's also all of the other people who will definitely be suffering a horrible death because of this.

When it means that I or people I love may suffer horribly, then I'm afraid I choose myself and them over strangers.

I would say the opposite - that when you have seen first hand a friend or loved one die an appalling death, you can't but argue the other side of this.

Yes as a concept and in theory I support the idea of an assisted death. I don't believe we currently live in a society with the necessary tried and tested means that actually meets people's expectations, robust safeguarding and alternative options available for people for this current bill to not be a disaster.

MrsTerryPratchett · Today 14:58

Onand · Today 00:21
I have my own thread on this bill which I am fully in favour of. Unless you have witnessed a loved one ‘dying’ for weeks- enduring the most hideous of endings then you really shouldn’t be casting judgment. I hope no one has to ever go through such horrors because their loved ones were never given the opportunity to pass on their terms during such terrible suffering.
I'm sorry for your loss and I'm so sorry for the suffering. It is utterly soul-destroying.
I would say that unless you've seen first hand the way people with SEN, disabilities, MH issues, addiction and homelessness are routinely dealt with by authorities, unless you've seen the depths abusive people and greedy people will go to get what they want, you can't argue the other side of this.
That's the problem with lay people. We use the limited experience we have to emote the answer. And we believe the ends justify the means. If the system was perfect, I would be in favour. I'm not religious and would like this to be available in a perfect world. But I know it will expand and be abused

This isn’t about those with SEN, MH issues or the homeless.

Do you really think the authorities would start rounding up those demographics and start to suicide them all? There would be total uproar and chaos on the streets if any government did that or any hint that was happening.

Let’s not jump the gun here, a terminally ill person opting to leave the party before an agonising death is vastly different to the ‘legalised’ genocide of whole swathes of people.

I don't think you understand what a representative democracy is.

MPs make decisions on our behalf because we chose them as our representatives. They are not supposed to make decisions based on what people say in polls.

This private members bill should fail. Assisted dying needs the full scrutiny of public investigations and enquiries to come up with a truly safe piece of legislation. A private members bill lacks that, and such safeguarding is essential if we don't want a situation like Canada.

I know what it is thanks. Representative democracy is still supposed to be representative of the broad wishes of the people who have elected that MP - not to totally disregard them and vote for the complete opposite.

The perfect safeguards will never exist unless we somehow develop mind reading technology. Given that there will never be a perfect system, would you still support an imperfect one? If so, what safeguarding measures over and above the ones in the current bill would be enough for you?

No, it very much isn't.

The 'representative' part is that we choose a person to do all the decision making on our behalf (be our representative) in line with his or her beliefs, conscience and available information.

It is not that the MP is supposed to 'represent' the views or wishes of the consituents. If that were the case, we'd have capital punishment, for a start.

We choose an individual to do the legislating on our behalf. There's absolutely nothing in that contract that says or implies that representative must do what we think is good or right or appropriate. If we don't like how of MP does the job, we're free to choose a different person at the next election.