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.

To clarify: Dignitas is not for profit. That is a lie and I called it out.

That's not how safeguarding works though. We can't just say "we can't safeguard this so let's just do it". If this legislation was being drafted in a society that listened to and valued disabled people and properly funded adequate care for people that have disabling conditions and people who are dying I'd feel more confident that the safeguarding measures suggested in this bill may work but we don't. It's guaranteed to be a slippery slope of amendments with society as it is right now.

Well we can argue about that all day. Just because the organisation calls themselves non profit it doesn't take a genius to figure out how the boss has become a millionaire 🙄 they're hardly open with their finances. Anyway I'll retract that comment so you can address the rest of my comments if you want, you also called me a liar and spreader of misinformation for saying there are complications and inaccuracies in assisted suicide.

Populism isn't the same thing as democracy.

There are times when politicians SHOULD act against the majority in order to protect a vulnerable group.

MPs have been elected by constituents to represent the interests of ALL their constituents. So if an MP can see a case where a small number of constituents might be particularly adversely affected they can vote to act in their interests because on balance they feel this is a better outcome than simply following a majority rule.

We have a representative democracy not a direct democracy though.

And you are using your preferred dictionary definition instead of your brain. Yes, I know what the dictionary says too, but that representative is still supposed to be, you know, vaguely representative rather than voting in direct opposition to the majority of their constituents wishes.

If I have a job where not doing something will get me fired, then I'd fairly much say that thing is part of the job description.

Not when the majority is even more adversely affected.

I did upthread. If you're too lazy to read through it that's your problem.

Honestly, why are you fixated on this? It is not controversial at all for a poster to point out that there can be complications from assisted dying drugs that do cause pain, suffering and distress to patients and loved ones. It’s a recorded fact. Yes, this happens even when the procedure is followed “properly” by clinicians.

Of course this by itself doesn’t mean assisted dying should be dismissed out of hand, the point they made rather is that those in favour of assisted dying because they think it is a guarenteed quick, painless, distress free way to die are unfortunately mistaken. There is no guarantee.

Just seen this but you're welcome to read about the same case on any other news website if you wish. It doesn't make the case any less true. The problem with this whole assisted dying debate is that unfortunately many of the objections and reporting of problems associated with it are being covered mostly by religious organisations when this shouldn't be a religious issue. If someone is killed in that way due to a failure of assisted death, I really don't care whether it's being publicised by a religious group or not, we need to be aware of it but I fortunately it seems for coverage in English it is mostly picked up obviously by those groups. I have no religion or religious reasons to be against assisted dying. I've already said that in theory I'm in favour of it especially the control over choosing when and where. I just don't think people should be supporting something on the basis they think it's got no complications or risk involved.

This is an opinion.

Surely there is only a tiny number of people adversely affected by it not passing OR the fears about a slippery slope and being open to abuse are indeed well founded

Which is it?

I'm correcting yours and others' assertions which try to make the process sound like some sort of Russian roulette which it isn't. None of you have provided any conclusive evidence that complications are a common occurrence.

Why am I fixated? Because I strongly believe in the case for assisted dying. For you this may be an academic argument. For me it is lived experience.

No you didn't. You responded only to say it's not true despite the data 🙄 I'm not sure why you're so opposed to the fact that a guaranteed painless death is not evidence based to the point that you have a bad attitude to anyone bringing that up. Clearly some posters here weren't aware of it at all given their claims that assisted suicide guarantees no suffering or pain but you seem to have a personal issue with people posting more realistic information.

No, it is you whose arguments are not evidence based. You've provided none but an anecdote from a woman in the US.

Do you need me to link you my first link again? With multiple studies linked and witness evidence which you dismissed without even having read.
Where is all your evidence that the medicines and dosage are robust and accurate 100% of the time? Where is your evidence that there is enough of the more efficient medicines which are scarce elsewhere that she brought in this legislation leading to clinicians having to prescribe alternatives which are less effective and more unpredictable?
Seriously even just from a basic logic perspective all medicines and procedures are subject to complications and dosage inaccuracies/ difference is dosages required per person. Your unresearched belief that assisted death is the one and only medical procedure that doesn't have a rate of error and complication is remarkable.

The fact there is little data is another reason for caution surely?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it isn’t the case there should be good quality evidence that proves it. If it’s sometimes but not always the case then we should consider why when looking at the legislation.

Their role is to do what they consider best for their constituents (all of them) even if that doesn’t match what the majority of them want. That’s how the system was set up. Obviously if what you consider is in the best interests of your constituents is always at odds with what then majority of them want then you run the risk of them deciding that somebody else will represent their needs better.

If you want it to be based solely on what most people want then have a referendum (although for the love of god and everyone’s sanity please let’s not.)

What I'm saying is that posters claiming their assertions are evidence based are not telling the truth when their links don't provide conclusive data.

Sure, posters can point out that nothing is accurate 100% of the time - but what we do know for sure is that a lot of people are currently dying in unimaginable pain and indignity. That should change.

Links to some relevant studies and research: http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=73&lang=en.

You keep accusing posters of lying when you are either given a dishonest reading of the data I sent you or you misunderstood it. I'm not sure which. But you can't keep saying there is no evidence when I sent you researched data on the rate of complications and then your link contains no research to back up you dismissing the reported complication rates not are you addressing the issue with there being very low rates of physician's reporting data. If this is such a guaranteed science and more and more countries are debating allowing this which is a massive always change - why are we not ensuring that physicians are reporting all the information so we can make informed decisions.

I accused you of lying when you stated as fact that Dignitas was a private, for profit organisation.

You seem to just want to have a row for the sake of it. I suspect you have no actual experience of being there at the end of life of a terminally ill person.

I'm done with you.

It's terrible that there isn't decent palliative care or enough hospice places.

However the problems still remain:

The NHS doesn't have the resources to implement or regulate this

It's impossible to predict how long someone has left, some people make a recovery and of course some are misdiagnosed

We can't properly detect coercion

The courts have backlogs and don't provide effective safeguards

The law could change quite radically after inception

It shifts how we value human life

We don't have decent palliative care

The patient can have a proxy

It could be used as a cost cutting exercise

Well that's a very cruel assumption to make. I have sadly witnessed both parents die of terminal cancer, it's heartbreaking to witness and I saw the difference between one of them having better palliative care than the other. My mother died on a general ward with no specialised care. This black and white thinking of you either support assisted dying or you have no direct experience of suffering is ridiculous as is the notion that no one should highlight any issues with the process out of fear people won't support the bill. This kind of unexamined over simplified blanket support for this bill is exactly why people are concerned about it being pushed through prematurely.

No amount of quality palliative care can prevent the suffering.

Just read the OP's story on either this or the other thread whose mother had the best palliative care and still died a hideous death.

Yeah let's just enthunise everyone with chronic issues because nothing will relieve them.