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.

We wouldn't know because the palliative care we have is inadequate.

Assisted dying would weaken arguments and need for better palliative care.

It's just easier and cheaper to put a human down instead. And we will have miles of threads about selfish old people costing the tax payer money rather than just getting on with the inevitable like we have complaints about people on benefits bleeding the system dry.

We do know because some things just aren't possible. And no-one is suggesting euthanising people against their will. But the option should be available to those at the end of life, in unbearable suffering, who request it.

We can't prevent all suffering. So the question is, which decision can be reasonably expected to lead to the least suffering?
In my opinion, keeping the law as it is will do that.

Apologies if someone has addressed this, but while it takes an act of Parliament to amend the legislation, it doesn’t take one for the interpretation and the way the law is practiced and enforced (or not enforced). English law includes precedents set by case law. So say we never ever convicted anyone accused of coercion, that would then essentially mean that the safeguard against coercion isn’t worth the paper it is written on. In addition, say case loads were so high and referring a patient for a mental capacity assessment causes delays and not meeting government NHS targets so physicians suddenly start deciding they have no doubts about the patient’s capacity and just sign off on the assisted dying form, well then the safeguard of only those able to consent to it are going through with stops working.

Even the term “terminally ill with six months to live” can be interpreted differently. There is even now debate as to whether the six months to live should be calculated based on survival with medical care or survival if all treatment is withdrawn. This is especially pertinent for cancer patients (also the #1 users of assisted dying where it is legal). If a cancer patient is eligible for cancer treatment that gives them a 93% chance to live 5yrs, but without any cancer treatment the cancer will spread and they then have a 40% chance of dying in less than a year- do they qualify or not? How is the six months to live arrived at? And what if there is a 5% chance of remission, does that mean they are no terminally ill? Different countries have arrived through their policies and case law to slightly different standards on how to define terminally ill and how to assess whether a patient is within the window of time left to death (some countries have it as 1yr left ).

Exactly and not just palliative care, overall medical care for terminally ill patients in general. Geriatrician Dr Elena Mucci has some insightful solutions about the type of patient focused care the NHS should be giving terminally ill patients before we introduce the option choice of assisted suicide:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DBLXRPCIjDw/?igsh=emU2c2cwbHI5bGp6

https://www.instagram.com/p/C1KM7BJosvX/?igsh=MWR0YjI0dDRtbWY0bQ==

This is the problem. I've already seen how some people are during COVID when people were saying that the elderly and vulnerable would die anyway so why protect them.

I've already witnessed people unhappy that their inheritance is spent on elder care, saying it's a waste of money.

The NHS is barely functioning and the most vulnerable will be the first to go: the elderly, those with expensive health issues and the disabled. In Canada it's disability groups who are pushing against further changes to the law because they're being so devalued.

Some countries include children, people with mental health issues and those over 75. Euthenasia would save considerable sums.

This bill allows Drs to bring up the issue, perhaps introducing it for the first time or pressurising people to do it against more expensive alternatives such as drugs, treatment or hospital care.

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?

Seems a bit of an odd post when nobody's suggested any such thing, maybe because folk realise it could all be much more subtle than that

Given the amount of faith shown on MN in polls (wasn't anyone around for the US elections?) it really wouldn't be hard to produce a few "proving" that most feel those with SEN would be better euthanised, that the homeless would honestly prefer to die and so on

As for any potential "outcry", I wouldn't be so sure after some of the attitudes we saw during Covid. "The needs of the majority" can be a very powerful thing when suitably weaponised and sadly I'd expect no different here

“terminally ill with six months to live”

That'd be the diagnosis my uncle got three years ago. He's travelled considerably in that time although it's now got past the point of having the energy for it.

Still going.

That's also two and a half years with the grandchildren.

My grandmother died of a heart attack when I was two. My Dad's has had heart issues too and his wish was for my son to remember him as a result. My Dad is alive and well and we are part that point but for my uncle, those two and a half years have been those crucial couple of years that my Dad wanted so much.

Sorry but how is a lack of control for sims over when/where/how they die being more adversely affected than others being subjected to state sanctioned murder ?

While it takes an act of Parliament to amend the legislation, it doesn’t take one for the interpretation and the way the law is practiced and enforced (or not enforced). English law includes precedents set by case law. So say we never ever convicted anyone accused of coercion, that would then essentially mean that the safeguard against coercion isn’t worth the paper it is written on

A very important reminder right there, @LoremIpsumCici, and besides, what chance of prosecutions for coercion when the evidence would be notoriously difficult to get, the suicide can't speak up and isn't coming back anyway, and an impression starts to build that they'd done the public a service?

Another thing that's become clear as these threads continue is that most of the in depth and more thoughtful posts are made by those with reservations, whereas many from those in favour tend towards the simplistic: The bill (clearly often unread) will make sure it's all fine, you'd do it for a dog, and I don't want the suffering to continue (which is perfectly fair but often lacking nuance)

Interesting ...

Sorry, that was an unfortunate typo. I meant “some” not “sims”

It doesn't even make sense as an argument.

The argument is that there won't be masses of people being killed by assisted dying as it won't be abused.
But at the same time masses of people will be deprived of assisted dying if it's blocked by parliament.

The logic doesn't work. It can not be a small number for the former but a large number for the latter. They are the same group.

Or does it reveal the real hidden point, that masses of people will be affected if it's blocked because we will have to pay for them for longer and they'll be a persistent nuisance for the living because we havent killed them off yet...

There are worse things than dying. Especially when it would definitely affect hundreds or thousands and the other is only a possibility.

It takes someone who can see the total amount of suffering and can make a logical and rational decision. Hopefully that’s what the MPs will do on Friday.

I agree. I discarded the argument that lack of assisted dying affects “the majority” as we are talking about two tiny minorities- those who’d wish to shorten their already ending lives and have state funded assisted to do it vs those who’d be unethically coerced into dying as a result of the above.

I think not having the chance to hasten impending death is not more adverse than killing someone who doesn’t want to die, from the viewpoint of justice and equality.

Thinking otherwise would require the view that certain people’s desire for control is more important than the lives of others. Which is objectively worse than a view which holds certain lives are more worthy and important than others.

This isn’t an issue that can be judged from a “me and family first” perspective, we should be thinking of what is best for everyone in society. We have a civic duty to ensure that human rights are protected for all humans.

There it is. You/your loved ones’ suffering potentially being shortened is worth sacrificing the lives of others who don’t want to die.

I also hope we arrive at the logical conclusion.

The argument is that there won't be masses of people being killed by assisted dying as it won't be abused
But at the same time masses of people will be deprived of assisted dying if it's blocked by parliament
The logic doesn't work

Though this is spot on the logic was never going to work, @RedToothBrush - because emotion and logic don't make terribly good bedfellows

That's not to say there's anything wrong with emotion in itself, only that basing legislation on how people "feel" and brushing aside the awkward details isn't necessarily wise

The reservations have all been pretty well aired now, and TBH I'd hoped for something to indicate they were genuinely unnecessary ... but it just isn't there

No - everyone elses suffering. And it's taking the chance that the safeguards MIGHT occasionally fail, not 'sacrifcing the lives of others'. Christ.

Some people see other's right to life as an obstacle in getting what they want.

Everyone else who? It can’t be everyone as hardly anyone will want assisted dying.

You’re not including the suffering of the people that would die due to lack of safeguards/safeguards failing or their loved ones?

What about the suffering of people who are pressured through repeated offers or suggestions of assisted dying?

What about the suffering of people who get less palliative care or mental health care because resources are being diverted to assisted dying?

There is no “might” about this causing suffering in the name of shortening suffering for a minority,

I've seen this a couple of times now, not sure if is from you both times, and I'm still not sure I get it, so can you confirm that I haven't misunderstood as I'd hate to put words in someone's mouth.

Are you saying that there you think there is some statistical link here? That the number of people taking advantage of assisted dying would definitely increase, in some kind of ratio, the number of people who would, if the safeguards fail, be somehow coerced to die by someone who couldn't be bothered to wait a few months?

Maybe better to slough off these pampered boomers and free up some much needed housing. Why should my kids be bled dry in tax to pay enormous pensions and a bloated NHS.

I jest of course. I do wish people would recognise the obvious downstream consequences of this.

It funny how it pops up eventually.

The dispensibility of others.

How many coerced or forced deaths is an acceptable number to allow the dignified deaths of those of a more privileged social status?