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 really not though, as even if the proxy can sign it, the two doctors don't just take their word for it that whoever they are signing for wants to die. They have to independently verify with the person concerned in-person.

I don't understand though why they need a signature at all - seems unecessary, but then I guess government and lawyers do like signature.

As I read it, the proxy really is just there to scribble a name and nothing else.

Sigh. It's not one single point of failure.

Well, it wouldn’t apply to people with advanced dementia. Dementia isn’t a sudden loss of mental capacity. It is an unpredictable decline. The process to determine mental capacity isn’t based on diagnosis alone and isn’t without its own risks of thinking capacity is there when it isn’t, or there is a capacity but not a clear settled will but rather a depressive episode. Sometimes expressions of a wish to die are a result of developing depression which is comorbid with many life limiting conditions.

Who is going to fund a legal challenge?

If the decision is made by a proxy / doctor then there is no one else to advocate. The person themselves in requiring a proxy doesn't have capacity to do this.

There has to be an outside person that initiates a challenge. Others it's all internal within the state apparatus and relies on the state to only ever make decisions in an individuals best interests.

Human Rights literally exist as a counter to abuses of power by the state. The right to life ingrained in UK and Europe law is literally a result of the state murdering millions.

This fundamentally undermines this concept.

And the UK having greater levels of inequality than anywhere else in Europe means we have more people who are more vulnerable than anywhere else in Europe. Coupled with a social pattern of growing acceptable ageism and the demonisation of people who live on benefits, the unique profile of the UK makes us a recipe for disaster in practical terms.

The way the law is intended to work and the way the law actually works in practice are two different things - you need to be really careful about conflating the two.

Op you really need to look at the data and conversations Hospice UK are having on this subject.

Not everyone wants it. One poll doesn't make a majority

The bill doesn’t specify that the doctors have to independently verify with the person in-person, in fact the bill states the opposite.

“It states that a declaration signed by the proxy and in the presence of the person has the same legal effect as if signed by the person themselves.”

There is also no requirement for either doctor or judge to be present when this is done.

That’s twice now you have read the proxy section incorrectly OP.

You misread it as only for physical impairment when it includes that, plus inability to read plus any other reason

You misread the process to add in checks and balances that do not exist- there is no requirement for the two doctors or judge to verify with the person in-person. The proxy doesn’t even have to sign the declaration in the presence of either doctor or the judge.

Clearly this is the first time you’ve seen this part of the bill.

And are you so happy for them to make decisions for you when you disagree with them?

Pick anything they've done recently which you don't agree with here if you like.

Hold on, weren't you the one who said that someone could be handed poison and be told it was medicine?

Not the proxy in-person, the applicant in-person. Sigh again.

It's interesting which groups and organisations don't want it.

A lot of disability charities are very concerned about it too.

It's telling.

And yet when asked 80% of people that have lost their parents recently have said that they want this so yes it’s also telling that people don’t want to see their parents suffering. I don’t believe they were ever be gold standard palliative care because even if you have palliative care and you’re in a hospice, it doesn’t take away from the pain Plus also maybe people don’t want to have to wait months or weeks to die maybe they just want to do it there and then

I see you have misread that too. I said substantially that the proxy section is ripe for abuse such that I could see an abuse whereby a vulnerable patient is handed bitter squash and told it is medicine.

I never said the bill said something it did not unlike you.

But how would that happen if they have to go up in front of a high court judge who has to ask them questions?

Again, the bill does not require it, pfft.
You are claiming it requires things that are not written in it.

Hospice Uk is neutral possibly because many of their members are concerned that the funding from palliative care may be impacted once people realise needless suffering at end of life is avoidable once this passes.

Any businesses that profit from a drawn out death will be understandably nervous.

Actually what they said was they are not in favour or against it but if there is a choice of assisted dying then palliative care needs to be funded better so that people don’t think there is only one choice. While I agree that’s a good idea in principle it probably would never happen anyway because there isn’t gold standard care and even if there was gold standard care you would never say that nobody would ever suffer because they can’t take all the pain away, not in some cases.

The person (applicant) does not have to go up in front of a high court judge nor does the judge have to ask them questions.

The only “must” requirement is that the court must hear from the coordinating doctor (and it doesn’t have to be in person)

Everything else is “may” which means it is optional to both parties,

(3) also says the court can only require the doctors to appear before the court, the absence of the applicant from this means the court cannot require the applicant to appear in person.

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying here so I'll be clearer.

I am saying that the bill requires the two doctors to see the person asking for assisted suicide in person.

That is it.

Which of those 80% got nice inheritance or had a terrible relationship with their parents? Can you quantify this for me please?

Your comment assumes that 100% of those polled had their parents best interests at heart and that they were all nice people who didn't have any other motivation or prejudice.

I mean the conflicts of interest here is so utterly glaring. Tell me reasons that motive murder?

And you cant ask the parents of the 80% what their preference would have been at that point cos they are all dead now. And even then it doesn't guarantee their feelings would be free from undue influence or guilt.

The whole premise of the poll is fundamentally flawed because you can't go 'healthy relationship', 'mummy issues', 'golddigger', 'ageist'.

The interests of the children may not be aligned with the desires of the parent.

Not if a proxy is used. HTH.

@Onand
Please tell me you are not suggesting that Hospices are profiting from 'drawn out death'!!!!!

Hospices are charities - nobody is making any money from drawing out death.
Hospices don't draw out death- their whole purpose is to give people the best death they can.

"You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can, not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die."
Dame Cicely Saunders
Founder of the modern hospice movement

All the threads on this assisted dying bill make it quite clear that the vast majority of our population have no idea what dying looks like. Education is non existent when it comes to what death is.

The proxy section is missing a paragraph that would state the other sections regarding in person assessment by the doctors (and not a proxy) apply. As it is written, it puts that assessment on to the proxy to conduct in para 4(a)

It obviously wouldn’t matter to you it doesn’t matter what reason you are obviously against it which is fine. May you have a death where you do not suffer but unfortunately there will be other people that will suffer for all. We know these people witnessed their parents having very painful deaths, you can read some on this debate And quite frankly I think it’s disgraceful that people want to stop other people having a nice end to the life palliative care does not always do that people will still be in pain and it isn’t even that it’s the indignity of going on longer. Maybe people get a diagnosis and you know what I think. I don’t want to have an extra so many months of suffering or even if I don’t suffer, maybe getting worse maybe I just want to go tomorrow or next month scheduled That’s the beauty

I think that’s exactly what that poster was suggesting. I hoped not but it didn’t come across as a particularly neutral statement of fact to me.