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.

See this is where I am.

We cant have nice things because of the people who ruin it for everyone.

It's just too open to abuse. In theory the choice would be nice. But I don't think any amount of safeguarding will ultimately prevent harms to certain vulnerable groups.

No. You're talking about hypothetical, unlikely scenarios that can be prevented by putting proper safeguards in place versus the unimaginable suffering that people endure every day.

A lot of people here don't know what they're talking about. That's how they're able to say these things like "so the privileged can avoid a bit of suffering".

Yes I have. My Dad (kidney failure), my great aunt(pneumonia), and my grandmother(breast cancer)

Our rights end where another’s rights begin.

If the right to a chance at a better death did not cause the deaths of others, as we have learned will happen by examining other similar modern rich countries with this right, then it might be a reasonable right.

Absolutely- but not at the expense of vulnerable people, and this bill doesn't guarantee this.

I'd rather live in a society that values all lives equally.

They aren’t unlikely scenarios though. I really think you have not researched how this has played out in other countries which are just as liberal, Democratic and advanced as we are.

Me too, and unfortunately many of them are in our government and managing our health system.

Has anyone actually watched someone die from MND. I've seen several drown slowly in their own secretions. It is terrifying for them.
Beyond cruel to make people endure that if they don't want to.
The proposed law has a caveat that the patient must have an incurable illness and be within 6 months of death so it's not every older person.

I've also watched my beloved mum die from kidney failure post COVID. Her death was horrific even though she was in a hospice she was sobbing in uncontrollable pain. There was no way back for her, she was a nurse and knew she was dying and actually begged my DH to put a pillow over her head.
Three fucking weeks it took for her pain to end. She did not deserve that.

I've seen several drown slowly in their own secretions. It is terrifying for them

This is also a known possible complication of the drugs given for assisted dying.

Oral ingestion has caused people to aspirate on their vomit.

Lethal injection has caused the lungs to fill with fluid - autopsies show pulmonary edema occurring before the paralytic drug takes effect meaning the recipient feels themselves drowning/gasps for air.

You're talking about two completely different things, lethal injection and assisted dying.

I have to say you're coming across quite switched off and strange here with the tone of your posts and some of the language you use.

Assisted dying is done by lethal injection in some countries- ie Maid in Canada. Oral ingestion and lethal injection are the two main methods for assisted dying (this term includes assisted suicide and euthanasia),

When law making you should sound switched off and detached though.

Emotion shouldn't be part of law writing. Because that's how you make mistakes with it, because it causes you to be blind to unintended consequences.

You have to look at it from every angle. Not just the angle of having witnessed a loved one die in terrible circumstances.

I genuinely worry about any lawmakers who doesn't approach this in 'a detached ' or 'cold' fashion for this reason.

Emotion has it's place in this debate at the earliest stages of public consultation, but reasoning should ultimately take over and replace that. It's precisely the role of an MP in a representative democracy to bridge the gap between emotions and implementation though reasoning.

You can't reason properly if you are too emotionally compromised. You can only give one view point. This needs consideration of many viewpoints.

@anchorage81
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e036054

One of many studies on complications.

• Not read it all but first question why are we just using canadas detail that is what the study says when it says Our study is limited by its emphasis on Canadian practice, which is likely due both to most authors being Canadian and the more standardised approaches to MAID provision in European countries compared with North America.

So by that it states European countries are mire standardised so therfore why do people keep sighting? Canada, as scare stories when we have other countries closer to home, which are doing it much better, which we probably would be closer to what is

It is normal for any study to state their limitations. It doesn’t mean that the same drugs on other humans won’t also have similar complications, unless you think Canadians are a distinct species.

The study also referenced other countries, the citations link to studies on the Netherlands and Oregon.
“This is worrisome, as data from other countries suggest that clinical problems with MAID care are common, including poor communication between healthcare providers and patients, inconsistent application of eligibility criteria, unequal access and technical problems with medication administration.6–10”

As I said it is one of many studies, you are free to browse and see the different cocktails used and different rates and types of complications. The bill doesn’t say what protocol would be used here, but it is isn’t likely be an expensive one. It’s good to be aware of what drugs are currently in use and approved for assisted dying.

I'm not worried about a slippery slope with assisted dying but I do worry about this need for everyone to be labelled as vulnerable so others can "protect" (control) them and take away their rights. That's very scary to me. Someone already mentioned earlier in the thread that a woman chose assisted dying against her families wishes-I thought family weren't supposed to have any say? But apparently they should be consulted if the person is "vulnerable" and chooses something their family disagrees with, as long as it's not AD of course. Terrifying! I have depression so no doubt I'd be deemed vulnerable too, and others are seeking to take away my rights and choices for the end of my life in order to "protect" me. How bloody patronising.

Suppose it goes with the nanny state though.

In Rotterdam my parent was killed by injection by a doctor who made the decision without my parent or me agreeing.
It's a secretive process, paperwork is often not fully completed and culturally, as an accepted process, operates on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis.
The year my parent died, another thousand received the same treatment.

It was a mercy-killing, there was no quality of life - dementia and a series of devastating strokes had done the damage - but there were no adequate safeguards that would have prevented a Shipman.

But I also heard on the radio yesterday. The any doctor that does this has to go straight to the police station and register in a book

All they have to do is up the morphine on many cases if they gave more morphine then they should then people would pass away to. There are risks to everything you do and take

Totally agree with you. We put far too much emphasis on a long life. Everybody I speak to including myself. Thinks that if you want to go, you should be able to go. And that is very unpalatable.But the truth is for some people, including myself.Sometimes you get sick of existing people sometimes just don't want to be here

Thankfully common sense will prevail and it will become legal in the not so distant future. Our kids generation will ask why we let humans die a miserable, painful and prolonged death, despite wanting to slip away when they chose.

It’s inhumane to prolong the inevitable against someone’s wishes and there would be uproar if we made animals suffer in the same way.

If you don’t like it then don’t do it but don’t think you can dictate other people’s choices.

Decisions should be made in parliament. The bill is complex and nuanced so it is not just a yes/no vote on the issue. I am supportive but it needs proper scrutiny and debate. What worries me is the dark money coming in from America to the likes of Danny Kruger to influence opinions.

Yep..look where commen sense is taking Canada

I've read this thread and there are some good points made in favour and against the proposed bill. I really hope that if the MPs who are voting have any doubt or concern, no matter how small, over the legislation that they vote against the bill in its current form. It is too important although, of course, some people will not be happy with that outcome.

Some posters have mentioned the attitudes towards older infirm people during covid and the sacrifice made by the whole population to protect the vulnerable. I can imagine there being societal pressure on the sick person to take the option of assisted dying. This is a scary thought and I am not sure the proposed safeguards are robust enough. As someone said above, laws should be drafted in a cold clinical way, not through an emotional lens, otherwise there is too much scope for abuse of the original intentions.

Superb post, RedToothBrush, as was the one you added about money being a driver no matter what the sector involved

It occurs to me though that this is another aspect which some are choosing to brush aside because it spoils the "It'll all be fine" narrative - though ironically they're often the very ones who insist the NHS could function properly if only it was adequately funded

In essence this shouldn't really be about competing interests but what works best for us ALL as a society, and however inconvenient they may be to some that has to include the vulnerable

Even if the bill passes it MUST address these concerns.

If they are not acknowledged, thought about and safeguards put in then there WILL be abuse because the legislation is not robust enough.

The fact that people do not which to acknowledge and engage with some of these points because they are emotionally compromised, is a real concern.

My worry here is that we ARE getting swept away on a tide of emotional blackmail.

The public don't hold the responsibility to their fellow citizens. The public doe not have a responsibility to think of abuses of power. Politicians do. They should be thinking of these things.

And they should block the bill, even if they fundamentally agree on principle that it's right to give the option, if they do not think the process has been adequately debated and safeguards put in. Precisely because it will result in abuse and harm.

This bill is counter to our human rights to life. It should be given the very highest level of consideration and scrutiny. It should not be rushed. It should not be pushed through with the party whip.