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.

What are the safeguards to protect against co-oercion? We keep hearing that they are the most effective but I’m yet to hear what they are

This one's easy to answer @Happyher; it's Section 26 of the bill and the mention of safeguards is conspicuously missing from the three pitifully short paragraphs

The most we get is an assurance that anyone doing this "commits an offence" - as if there'd be any real chance of proving it with the victim dead, and that's if anyone even bothered
After all they were supposedly dying anyway weren't they, and look at all the money they've saved us

Thank you. I did look into it and it sounds horrific. I cannot understand how someone could say well we had that so let's have euthenasia but that's the problem with this bill. It devalues human life.

Yes from what I've read of Shabana's comments on the bill she has highlighted the risk to disabled and elderly people and safeguarding but she's being positioned as someone against it for religious reasons without anyone responding to the actual points she's raised.

The CPS has to decide for any prosecution that they have enough evidence, can prove intent and it's in the public interest to pursue.

My feeling is that in most cases, it's going to be VERY hard to prove coercion and there probably will be an argument that it's probably not in the public interest to go ahead with a case.

It'll be one of those crimes that although the legislation is there in fact it almost becomes decriminalised because of how few cases are brought before the courts and can be proven.

Wise words, @RedToothBrush
As so often, assurances that someone can be prosecuted sound good - purposeful even - but it can all look a little different when reality bites

What concerns me is the low number and poor understanding of existing coercive control laws relating to domestic abuse.

Surprisingly few cases have been brought before the courts, despite the new law being jailed as revolutionary.

More than that, theres an extraordinary low level of recognition of coercive control signs by the criminal courts, family courts and the police - the very people who perhaps should be most aware of the issues because they are at the front line of this.

One of the features of coercive control is, indeed, to use authorities against a victim.

The ultimate example of this would be to get someone to 'kill themselves'.

Keep in mind, when we talk about domestic abuse and coercive control we tend to think about this as being a couple in a relationship. But it's not just that dynamic. It's legislation actually says a suspect and victim can be anyone "personally connected" which effectively means any family relationship. So this also ALREADY applies to child and elderly parent.

Here's some figures on this:
In the year ending March 2023, 566 people were convicted of controlling or coercive behavior (CCB) in England and Wales, while 811 defendant proceedings were brought. In the same year, the police recorded 43,774 CCB offenses.

In the previous year just 3.7% of recorded CCB offenses resulted in a charge. This is lower than the 6.7% rate for all domestic abuse-related offenses. And crucially this ISN'T even a successful prosecution. It's just a charge.

Those numbers are concerning and give a lot of scope to say that the potential for elderly parents being coerced into killing themselves by their children WITHOUT it either being spotted before someone's death or retrospectively dealt with after someone has died is staggering high.

If I knew that the police and courts were much better at identifying issues and prosecuting coercive control cases I might feel a lot more comfortable with this law.

But on the basis of those numbers, there's liable to be barely any recourse followed through.

This gives me a massive concern about the sheer level of risk and lack of real recourse this presents.

This is an area which needs to improve before we start to think about expanding the scope to which these laws might apply.

More utterly valid points right there, @RedToothBrush, and there were a couple of them I wasn't fully aware of so many thanks for that

This whole issue goes so far beyond "I want" that it doesn't compute, and as said all we can hope for is that there's enough insight to recognise it

@RedToothBrush

There has already been an analysis of domestic abuse regarding this bill.

But The Other Half analysed data from 100 of these killings in the UK and found that “despite claims…‘mercy killings’ are not the wanted, ‘hastened’ deaths that need assisted dying” but instead “are overwhelmingly violent domestic homicides of women, by men: and show that our society is still poor at detecting and responding to domestic abuse”.

Of the 100 UK “mercy killings” over 25 years, the report found that 88 per cent of perpetrators were male, and 78 per cent of female victims were neither terminally ill nor willing to die but were often elderly, disabled, or infirm.

Killings were frequently triggered by care demands and involved excessive violence, with “overkill” –the use of unnecessary brutality – common.

https://archive.ph/uhGgX

We are literally talking here about potentially enabling the murder of some vulnerable people and particularly older women. Not just assisting the dying of those who want to die.

I really wish it was straightforward and we didn't have to consider this very real possibility.

Humans are not always kind.

I was in favour but after watching a documentary about it I’ve changed my mind. In the few countries where it’s legal the criteria were really strict but got slacker over time and that would now be my worry if it’s legalised here.

Do the majority of people really support this bill, or do they support the principle of assisted dying? I support assisted dying but I don't support this bill.

I think it's a really important difference and it depends on how polling has been worded and what understanding people have of this particular bill.

On principle I support assisting dying. But on a practical level I don't think it's a good idea because it's too open to abuse. And this particular bill is really weak when it comes to those concerns.

So it comes out as a hard no from me once you look at the details.

It's ill thought though and that's it's biggest issue.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law

The poll was done prior to the bill being published. So the responses were based on only this:
”MPs are set to vote on a new law allowing assisted dying under the following circumstances:

• The patient must have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure
• The patient must be expected to die within six months
• The patient must make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die
• Two independent doctors must be satisfied the patient is eligible - and there must be at least seven days between the doctors’ assessments
• A High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can also question the dying patient, or anyone else they consider appropriate. There must be a further 14 days after the judge has made the ruling
• The fatal substance must be self-administered by the patient themselves (rather than by a doctor)”

Because the last one of those worked out well for us !

The poll was done prior to the bill being published. So the responses were based on only this:

The poll was based on people who regularly fill out you guv polls.

Or who had access to the link to do the poll.

Question: would the government benefit from people killing themselves off? If yes, then you absolutely cannot trust any data being used to justify it.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/4121602.htm

In a small percentage of cases (0.7 per cent of all deaths) physicians end a patient's life without an explicit request. This happens mostly with patients suffering from cancer in the last days or hours of their life.11

CONCLUSIONS
The Dutch Euthanasia Act 2002 is the result of a lengthy development that started in the early 1970s. In The Netherlands physician-assisted death is broadly accepted, not only by physicians and policy-makers but by the general population as well. The Dutch are well aware of the risks attached to allowing physician-assisted death but feel that they have created a context in which the risks of abuse and arbitrariness are limited to an acceptable level. Of course, these risks cannot be completely eliminated. Every now and then a case occurs in which the physician has neglected one or more of the requirements mentioned in the law, but evidence for abuse on a larger scale is lacking. In almost every case so many persons are involved (the patient, close relatives, the acting physician, the independent consultant, other health care workers etc) that it is not easy to neglect the core requirements and get away with it. The fact, however, that this cannot be completely excluded has never been a reason in Dutch practice or politics to continue to forbid physician-assisted death under all circumstances. Such a policy would probably not result in the elimination of physician-assisted death.

I don't support this bill.

I used to support assisted dying.

I don't any more. I support really good palliative care.

I just think there's too much potential for abuse. So it's a no.

So I listened to the radio last night with actual experts on. There were debating this for 3 hours. They said one person that is for it, they did have a massive panel and research and spoke to the head of every palliative care and what you have found is that doesn't matter even if you have the best palliative care, they said that people can still suffer, there is no assurances, that you will not suffer even with the best palliative care.
so when you listen to that people can still be withering in pain as I say, with the best positive care, so I think people should have a choice

If palliative care were absolutely 100% effective I’d still support this bill. If terminally I’ll, I’d sooner die at a time if my choosing than die over weeks and weeks in comfort!

Good palliative care is a fallacy.

For many terminal illness deaths you could have the very best palliative care in the world and still have an incredibly distressing, painful, traumatic gruesome death that went on for weeks. The kind of death that would be rated an 18 and have a trigger warning if it were to be used in a movie or tv show.

Why should someone who has fought against some of the most hideously evil cancer combinations imaginable be rewarded with an agonising death as a leaving gift?

It’s insanity when you actually see the true horror of some of the suffering that occurs in hospices and hospitals DAILY at the end of life for some patients and that’s with the most compassionate and attentive staff comforting you and a syringe driver pumping you with the strongest pain relief possible.

Good palliative care is a fallacy.

Only a tiny % of people who are at end of life receive proper palliative care though. It's impossible to make such a bold statement like this when it isn't being provided to people for us to see the effects. Fearmongering people that dying with proper specialist palliative care would be a horror movie death to support the argument of choosing when you die is unnecessary. The stats say that about 20 people a day have unrelieved pain when they die currently, and that's with palliative and hospice care not being provided to most people..with all the safeguarding risks not being addressed properly in this bill surely it makes more sense for us to first invest in ensuring everyone has access to the best palliative care before we rush through state assisted death which isn't really a choice when you don't have the alternative of proper care.

Just come up on the news that MPs have passed the first reading of the bill by 330 to 275 ...

Be careful what you wish for. I think this thread may age badly.

Excellent decision. Very happy.

Discussed again on Question Time last night. I like Prof. Anand Menon and agree with a lot of his opinions. I was very disappointed in his reply last night when he said he was against it because when his mother passed, had that been an option, she would have taken it. He said “I would have hated that”.
its really not about the loved ones, its about the individual and what they want. As Mariella Throstrup replied, ”but I wonder what your mother would have felt”.

I don’t think I’d ever use the option and hate the idea of my husband doing so. But I love him very much and he has always said that if he is unable to function mentally, he wants to go. So as a final act of love I will try to facilitate that for him if and when the time comes.