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.

It’s in the bill. You said you had read it, surely you can find your way back to the Parliament.gov site?

yes a proxy can decide on your behalf and consent for you. You might then be handed some very bitter squash and told it is medicine without understanding it is literally poison.

Section 15 of the Bill discusses the role of the proxy

All bills do this they all add admendments it takes three times in the House of Commons and lords to pass. It has to pass each stage it’s pretty tight though this bill already

The law is you will still need two doctors and a high court judge no one can do that for you which is why dementia people can’t have this

Although the Lords are advisory only. Any amendments they suggest can be discarded by the Commons.

The majority of people support the bill because the majority of people are in favour of killing off the elderly, the disabled, the poorer members of society.

Currently on these threads we have people saying “you wouldn’t put an animal through…”, if this bill becomes legal people will move that argument to “you wouldn’t put a cancer patient through…”.

People don’t want a bill which only takes account of terminally ill people with months to live.

People want anyone to be able to choose assisted dying. And it’s only a small step from that to people being expected to want assisted dying.

We say to people that “it’s not fair on the dog, you know you need to do the right thing.” If this bill passes it will be people saying to others “surely you don’t want to carry on like this.” And it’s hard to get a statement from someone who is dead as to whether they have been coerced.

In Holland we have cases where dementia patients are physically restrained so they can be killed (murder IMO)
They also have the ability for couples to be able to die together (coercion is rife).
In Canada the homeless, the mentally ill, the poor, the disabled are routinely asked to consider assisted dying over receiving help.

We don’t believe in capital punishment because of the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. People make the argument that “one is one too many,” but presumably you don’t think that about coercing someone to be euthanised? Because there 100% will be coercion. And even if it’s only one, one is one too many.

Actually I've found it now thanks. The proxy is there only if the person is physically unable to sign the document, not to make the decision on their behalf. The person concerned still has to be fully aware of what their proxy is signing for them.

According to the bill, they cannot, as you put it, hand someone 'some very bitter squash and [be] told it is medicine without understanding it is literally poison.'

Or at least that's my reading of it, and it seems very clear.

Here is the link (because I'm a helpful person) so that others can make their own minds up.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0012/240012.pdf

Yes, the proxy can do the entire process for you- get two doctors to sign off and the judge.

I would imagine the High Court judge would have a understanding of a cognitive value of somebody’s brain so if somebody like has dementia under this current law they wouldn’t even be allowed anyway so I can’t see the difference with somebody as you say with a learning disability again, it’s quite thorough

My prediction is that it won't get through. If there was a referendum, I also think it wouldn't get through.

I think a lot of people are in favour of it in theory but when push comes to shove, actually find the reality to be quite a scary prospect.

Under this law you still need to be able to say that is what you want which is why as I keep saying this does not apply to people with dementia

I agree with the MPs are chickenshit and won’t do it but I actually disagree with you. I think if there was a referendum tomorrow the vast majority of people would want this. It’s been said in so many different polls And I am not scared of it give me a chance of dying. I would take it any day.

I've posted the link above.

So again this is the argument that people are saying and they have got it wrong. You must be right with what you’re saying because you’ve put a copy to the link of the petition so when people say proxy it’s mostly if somebody can’t sign for themselves thank you for saying that Because it wouldn’t be having that on if you’re saying you can’t have somebody with dementia that didn’t make sense to me

Trust but verify. It's a good standard to live by.

I mean that my point...in a poll, you can kind of give your theoretical opinion. I think a referendum where your opinion would truly have the power to change the law, maybe too much for some.

But a) it’s a private members bill if the first reading passes, the amount of time for debate is still limited. B) as a private members bill it doesn’t automatically go through the scrutiny that a public bill would where the committee can call for written evidence from all sides. The government can insist it does but doesn’t seem to have done so so far.

This doesn’t strike me as a very good way to go about making legislation. If you are drafting a piece of legislation that is so problematic you are using a first vote as a general principle vote even if you agree with assisted dying but not in this way and just hoping people will amend the fuck out of it to make it a different bill following a rushed debate you should probably scrap it and start again.

It’s worrisome. There is no reason to have a proxy for physical inability to sign a document. Consent can be videoed, recorded.

”physically unable” could be interpreted to mean not present at the doctors’ offices..

It is ripe for abuse.

In answer to your question actually Andrew Mitchell mp and Peter Tatchell was on this panel they do not believe it is inadequate at all. It’s got very very tight in anything. I personally think it’s too tight because it’s only open to those with terminal illnesses. This was an answer to those people wavering saying to the MPs listen let’s get this through and we can debate it even more because then you can even turn it down then it doesn’t have to pass the second time.

So I asked this question quite a few pages back on this particular debate, but nobody ever answered me.
Basically, I can now at the age of 44 or any age really request a do not resuscitate yet I have no terminal illness diagnose does anybody actually know whether they would grant that for me?
We keep talking about this is a slippery slope, butsay I was suicidal and I decided to drown myself in some water. Somebody found me and the paramedics did CPR on me knowing that I had do not resuscitate would they do it or not?
Would they actively save somebody who is suicidal or not because I can’t tell the difference between that and actively being allowed to die if I said I want to die rather than trying to kill myself
Because even if I tried drowning, I could still survive that and live for more years so is there criteria with do not resuscitate because we already have that in place

No, it’s not just physical impairment.

declares to a proxy that they are unable to sign their own name (by reason of physical impairment, unable to read or for any other reason)

OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON

And the doctors and judge depend on the proxy’s word that this person has made the declaration and they did sign it in their presence with them being fully aware.

This is ripe for abuse.

Well, this is the first reading as I said above it can be hashed out even further and clarified even better for the second reading again each time it is read It has to go through another vote. It might not get past the second time.

Or it can fail and be rewritten to not have a big old section that allows proxies to sign for the illiterate and infirm while two doctors and a judge are told to place their full trust in this one single point of failure.

IIRC there are also polls showing that a significant proportion of the population are confused about the terms in use. A fairly large proportion think assisted dying involves doctors withdrawing treatment from terminal patients. You would need to be really careful about phrasing the question to say exactly what you were talking about and avoiding the use of terms such as assisted dying.

On a different point, I’ve been having a look around at papers on complications. They seem to be higher in assisted suicide which is what this bill is proposing. In one paper nearly 1/5 of assisted suicide patients were switched to euthanasia part way through the process. That presumably won’t be an option here. Where does that leave the patients and doctors.

But we don't let the public decide things like this because the majority aren't educated enough to understand how to draft laws, what the legal implications actually mean, etc etc. I think it's correct that each MP votes on their personal beliefs. We elected them to run the country, not blindly follow the orders of Gary and Brenda down the pub. Because the British public agree with something in principle it doesn't necessarily make it right. I don't think the bill will get through. Personally I'm very uncomfortable with it. Not for any religious reasons.