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.

Is disgraceful that hospices are charities I think that should stop and I think that should be funded better. I think palliative care needs to be better funded but at the same time I think people should be allowed a choice doesn’t have to be either or

From the bill:

The assessing doctor must—
(a) examine the person

This should have been a referendum and furthermore, included an option for people diagnosed with dementia. They should be able to decide that if diagnosed, at what point they no longer wish to be kept alive, eg at double incontinence stage.

Again, that is in the section where a proxy is not used. The bill is poorly written. For that to apply to when a proxy is used, the proxy section MUST refer to it as a requirement.

Let me get this straight.

So a private company would draw out the life of a person in pain for financial gain.

But the state wouldn't prematurely end a life to save the tax payer money.

Only the private sector is motivated by money, not the public sector.

Right ok.

Talk me through this logic. Is this because people working in the private sector are somehow inherently evil whilst everyone working in the public sector wears a halo? And never the twain shall mix?

Cos that seems to be what's being said here.

It's kinda bonkers to only see potential grifts from one side and not the other rather than understand that financial motivation can occur and does occur in every sector and that a lot of humans are very self centered and greedy - even when it relates to their nearest and dearest. Cos conflicts of interest.

Not to mention the whole point here is that, one of the reasons that there is a call for assisted dying is probably because of a lack of availability of palliative care resulting in particularly shocking treatment. And crucially there is no political will or desire to improve this - we aren't hearing accompanying levels of call to regulate hospices better and improve care. Because politicians don't want this - they are standing around shouting about it as a campaign strategy. Why? It's expensive and it doesn't balance their books.

If you improved palliative care, would the desire for assisted suicide stay the same, increase or decrease? That's a fundamental one that needs to be kept in mind in light of so many hospitals in this country being found to be failing in their standards of care.

So my understanding is that New Zealand, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland parts of America, Canada and I can’t think of there’s any other places have all got assisted dying in place.
Yet they still have big healthy populations I’m not seeing the maximum amount of people being put to sleep by the state
Does anybody else think that this country is quite backwards? In many respects? I do we are part of the west yet these other countries many of them now have legalised weed again we’re slow with that even though most of our prisoners are full of people addicts should be treated like they’ve got a health not like they are criminals
I digress but my point is why are we so slow in this country?

Why should I? I was responding to your OP.

Referendum.

We've already established that populism isn't necessarily democracy and isn't necessarily good for societies.

Plus the last Referendum Bill was poorly written... And this had a number of implications because it wasn't properly thought through...

A Dr or the patient can go before the judge. How a terminally ill person with a few months to live is going to go before a judge is another question.

If the Dr doesn't see coercion, how will the judge? It's unlikely these will be long sessions given the current state of the judiciary.

You know what if they could do Liverpool care pathway which was literally with holding food and drink from people which was far cruel than this would ever be . Then they should be able to do assisted dying because we had that for a long time.

Hmmm. Well I could say that some of these countries aren't as 'progressive' as you might think...

...I think the word progressive is a bit of a weasel word if I'm honest.

Some theories in the 1930s were regarded as progressive at the time. But got binned off due to incapability with human rights....

This.

Are you saying that because a poorly thought out scheme was introduced this should be too?

No what I am saying is that the system was kind of killing people anyway so what’s the big difference between doing it like this? In a legalised better format? Don’t twist my words.

Look a law that unjustly kills people doesn’t have to result in full on genocide and population decimation for it to be regressive to have it.

They have the death penalty in the US too, and yes still have big healthy populations, and the vast majority of convicts aren’t put on death row an executed.

Your measures of what makes a law progressive are bizarre .

If you read my comment properly

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.

I said members of Hospice UK may be understandably concerned about funding.

The second point said any businesses that profit from a drawn out death would be nervous about profits.

Two very distinct points which are both plausible.

To your final point about not knowing what death looks like you might want to read my own thread on this topic before making comments like that.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm trying to make sense of them. I think what you're suggesting is the perfect example of a slippery slope.

By legalising euthanasia for that you are also ending the life of the 40 old man with 3 children who has had a nervous breakdown, the 18 year old girl with anorexia , the 35 mum of two with depression those people get better every single day. Not forgetting the elderly , the sick and the vulnerable who are guilt tripped , coerced and threatened into ending their lives. We need to invest more into support for dementia and palliative care.

No I’m just trying to appease your side. I think your side doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I think this paternalism argument is basically based on some people’s religion peoples morals and maybe fear and that’s fine but you don’t get to dictate to what other people want why is it that people like? You can tell other people? You shouldn’t have this or shouldn’t be able to watch somebody suffer because they do suffer?
I don’t even think this law goes far enough personally. I personally feel for those people that are really disabled that don’t want to live why can’t they have the opportunity just to be able to go? Why do we believe that? Living means you have to live a long life? Some peoples lives just existing and they don’t want to be here. What is wrong with that?

For me it is a simple choice - I support wholeheartedly a person’s right to choose what they do when it comes to their own body. For anyone with a terminal diagnosis, they should have the right to decide when they have had enough, and they should be able to end their life with dignity and without pain.

Stop with this slippery slope fucking argument all the time it isn’t. The state was going to withdraw food and water which they did for very many years called the Liverpool care pathway for those people who had terminal illnesses so if it was able to do that which I believe actually made people suffer a bit longer than giving somebody a nice injection to send them to sleep. What’s the problem?

I can't be bothered to talk to you. Enjoy your evening.

Yes we as a society get to tell people you can’t have this because having it will literally cost the lives of other innocent people.

That’s not based on religion or paternalism, but a view of human rights that include not sacrificing the right to life of other people so that a few can have a shot at a privilege of avoiding some suffering.

Totally disagree with you because who says that somebody with depression can’t end their lives why do we obsess again? With the fact that people have to live a long life? There are many people out there that don’t want to live and it doesn’t matter how much fucking therapy you give to some people that is their choice. Why do we infantilise people? Why? Why shouldn’t we all have the choice to be able to die? how we want to die, it might be unpalatable to hear that, but that is the truth. You guys really annoy me. You think you know better for some people.

Exactly