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.

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.

Thankfully, it's part of both physicians' and politicians' jobs to consider harm. You might not care, but they should.

And you are wrong about representative democracy. The irony of democracy is that typically the most populist governments are dictatorships because they have to be to retain power. Democracy is typically less populist because they have a mandate to govern, not just to bend to the whims of the populace.

I'll support euthanasia for humans when we have the following as a starting point as a society:

A true respect for the sanctity of life
Decent palliative care for everyone
People coming before profit
Sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure its not abused and hefty jail sentences for anyone that does abuse it.

I can't see this happening anytime soon so it's an absolute no from me. We are not ready and it would be open to abuse. This bill doesn't offer enough safeguarding.

I'm repeating your point.

YOU said masses of people would be affected by the bill being blocked.

But the whole premise is that there would be loads of safeguards in places so only people who REALLY need it are killed off.

So what we are saying is that there's going to be a massive wave of people being bumped off when the bill goes through cos otherwise logically it's not masses of people who are negatively impacted.

None of this takes into consideration the large number of people who feel vulnerable to the bill and worried that every time they go to the doctor someone going to go 'oh your life is so awful, have you thought about killing yourself?'.

Or feel like they have an obligation to kill themselves rather than 'be a burden' on anyone.

Yep you crack on there, and ignore that it's your words not mine that reveal something.

We saw it during covid. The way care homes were abandoned, the discharge of covid positive elderly to care homes- causing Covid to rip through them like wildfire. The diverting of ambulances away from care homes to prioritise younger patients. The fact that hospitals got 80% of the PPE they needed while care homes got 20%- meaning lower status care workers and the elderly were exposed to more danger of dying from covid than were higher status nurses and younger patients. The fact that many elderly and disabled were refused admission to hospital and left to die alone at home. The fact that many elderly and disabled were refused ventilation in favour of reserving the ICU beds for younger /abled patients.

The crass remarks of our government- let the bodies pile high. It’s only old people and the already sick dying who aren’t really contributers so we should not have lockdown to keep the economy and businesses afloat.

Anyone who trusts our government to get this right is ignoring the very recent example where they got it very very wrong.

Everyone else who would want the choice or the possibility of the choice. That's still the vast majority in the country, according to every single poll (no matter how much some people may try to ignore them).

The loved ones of the people who would die due to the safeguards failing? You mean the ones who would fail to spot said loved one being coerced into committing suicide? Maybe they should be suffering, from guilt if nothing else.

Exactly how much suffering do you think it is to refuse 'repeated offers or suggestions' to END YOUR OWN LIFE? Worse than some of the deaths I've seen and maybe you've read about?

And I did not say it might cause suffering. I said that the safeguards might fail.

And the fact that the biggest benefit bill there is, is pensions.

And there's not a lot left to cut.

Oddly this government has a demographic voting profile which is predominantly under 65. So there's no benefit to the current government there either.

If you were really cynical you could even go so far as to say it helps their chances of re-election 'by killing off Tory voters'. (Given some of the language on social media which is incredibly ageist and 'anti boomer' this also isn't something I'm entirely joking about either).

It's actually quite disturbing at times, how little we value the elderly as a society.

You know you have to have six months to live right? Your GP is not going to offer to kill you because you have a bit of arthritis.

As I said before...

The six months to live that my uncle was told, hasn't been six months.

But clearly you are reading my posts.

Funny. The people with the privileged status can pop off to Switzerland - it's those without money that will be ones suffering back in the UK.

And it's not 'dignified deaths' it is 'awful, painful, miserable deaths' thanks.

You tell me - how many people should have to suffer those to give one vulnerable person, who is also terminally ill by the way, a few more months of life? 10? 100? 1,000?

You know you have to have six months to live right? Your GP is not going to offer to kill you because you have a bit of arthritis.

MIL was given 6 months to live and lived almost a year more than that, enabling her to meet her grandchild. It's not that you 'have' six months to live. It's that someone has estimated it. It's a very very flawed estimate.

Canada was only MAID for terminal people. Then they added other people with disabilities. Now they find themselves with homeless and distressed people who see no hope seeking MAID. And getting it. There is a social capital gap. Poor people want it more. That should be terrifying.

Right to put peoples thoughts and worries to rest Andrew Mitchell who is in favour of the bill has just explained on the radio. This is the first passing of it. It is literally the principal or whether you agree with assisted dying or not then if this passes to the next stagethey are going to hash out different amendments he even believes the government would give it massive more time to debate then even probably a committee to hash out the details to bring it back to government to vote again

Then, if it gets voted again, it might fail at that vote and might not even pass. This is just the first thing for a principle of a better debate of it.

My drelative was not expected to live a few weeks after birth. Then their 16th birthday.

They are very disabled, have never worked and would be considered by some to be a drain on resources.

Three years ago we were told told prepare to lose them (pre covid) in a matter of months and they are still with us.

If they were in the care system, without such strong advocates telling the doctors to do everything possible to keep them alive, questioning when things were done by different care givers that were explicitly the opposite to what the doctor had said, then it would have been easy for someone to give consent on their behalf when they were very ill.

Not everyone who is vulnerable has relatives able to look out for them, some were born to elderly parents as only dc who are now as older adults, being looked after in residential homes by strangers where the consenting adult would be a social worker or care home manager. Imagine if the patient had been a pain in this arse for the carers, poor behaviour making life hard for the home. We know that some care homes have/do sedate patients to make their jobs easier. How do we stop them signing consent for euthanasia?

In other words, "Don't worry, it'll all be fine, just support a clearly flawed bill (and he's admitting it IS flawed by suggesting it'll be sorted out thereafter), nothing to see here..."

Because we’re not talking about euthanasia, we’re talking about people having a choice and this would mean you’d have to have two doctors and a judge

No, he’s not saying that he’s saying that the second reading is when people can put more amendments on and can hash out a better debate

He sounds disingenuous and a bit desperate to me. I don't want MPs voting through a badly-drawn bill - I want them to propose a WELL-drawn bill which doesn't give cause for concern in the first place.

YABU because you misinterpret the meaning of representative democracy.

Canada do lots of things that we don't do and have lots of laws that we don't have. I prefer to argue about the facts as they stand. I can't really argue against what you imagine might happen in the future.

Sigh, no - read the full thread.

Unless a proxy does this on your behalf, then it’s not your choice. Read the law.

That seems to be what he is suggesting. Maybe you could tell us what safeguards would make you happy with it, bearing in mind that none can ever be perfect and that we and parliament have been debating this for decades.

You are talking about two doctors saying they may not live beyond 6 months, a person with authority to give consent (who may not have the persons wellbeing first and foremost) and a judge to rubberstamp this.

There are people who have no concept of death, and dying who could be persuaded to repeat parrot fashion that they want to die, while not understanding what that means. It comes down to the motive behind the decision, and when we place such little value on our disabled members of society (calling them a drain on resources), who is going to look to closely.

Interesting. I was not aware a proxy could make the choice for you and I thought that you had to actually take the drugs yourself - someone could not give them to you.

I am willing to concede when I am wrong though.

Can you please link?

All of which they still could do if it didn’t pass the first reading.
The bill stands or fails on its own merits or lack thereof.
Passing it now, means more than agreeing with assisted dying in principle.