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.

I have seen a loved one die in pain and despair...they needed good appropriate palliative care, nursing and medical support, not to die quicker necessarily.

I understand why, but I think you’re being massively unfair. Many of us have seen beloved family members go through the most horrific deaths and would have done anything to ease their suffering. I have a condition that means I stand a reasonable chance of not slipping away peacefully in my sleep.

I’m still against it. I think it’s a slippery slope, especially for those living in poverty, and I don’t believe that costs of supporting the living would never come into it.

I agree

There was a woman in Canada, a Paralympian , who applied for funding for a stair lift, the response to which was accompanied with assisted suicide forms.

But the thing what gets me is, even if you had gold standard palliative care, you are going to have pain, some people are gonna be still in a lot of pain, not every illness means you can just drift away. God damn it. I put my own dog to sleep the other. Week because he was suffering, why can't we do that with a human being

Since I have a disability I think I have quite a lot of experience of being disabled. I am not afraid of the right to die. It's rather offensive to think that all people with disabilities think like you do.

We are not proposing that in the uk so why all the bloody scare stories

I am also disabled no body is forcing anyone this is very thought out. It's not euthanasia it's choice that's different

So you are happy to trust MPs to make the right decisions for all of us on every matter, despite the massive flaws in our political system and its domination by wealth and vested interests?

They should have had a choice of one of the other.

It must be our world renowned health service and reputation for not throwing the disabled under a bus that makes you confident we'd do better, right?

Having seen a relative die in pain and begging to be allowed more morphine (knowing full well this would kill him) I was very pro assisted suicide.

However, I watched Liz Carr's 'Better off dead' recently and am no longer sure which way I would vote given the option. The examples that shocked me from other countries where this is legal (think it was Cananda) were a disabled man being allowed onto the pathway even though he told the doctor is was for economic reasons - pending homelessness and not being able to afford somewhere to live on his disability benefits. The other was a women who was allowed assisted suicide for mental health reasons against the wishes of family.

There is a lot of neurodevelopmental conditions in my family and lots of relatives have had suicidal ideation at points. If assisted suicide had been available the end result might be very different.

Do you understand how the law works? This is a statute, that's how it's going to be made. They would have to go and debate it again in parliament, and the government would need to change it, which would need the parliament to go through that again.So right now.Nothing could be changed

Parliament does not always vote for the most popular opinions. If they did capital punishment would have existed for decades longer than it did, racism would have been, legal for decades longer, and the killers of Jamie Bulger would have been executed. We do not allow mob rule. That is not democracy. Democracy also protects those who are in the minority.
I am against assisted dying. In every single country it has been enacted the controls have been loosened and there have been scandals. It is really assisted suicide. And to enact it with real safeguards would cost a fortune. In reality the safeguards in the bill will just become a paper tick box, because we do not have the money to do any6thing else.

Would be fine with me. Probably a bit of a waste of money given that we can almost sure which way it would go, but better than not having assisted dying at all.

Nothing like that would be in this law it's very tight to tight if u ask me

On balance, I'm in favour of assisted dying.

However, I have not spent lots of time looking at the detail of the proposed legislation to consider whether the right checks and balances are in place, whether now is the right time to implement this, whether there might be unintended consequences etc. I don't suppose the majority of people who responded to the poll have given it that much scrutiny either.

Leaving things open to a popular and typically ill-informed/poorly considered vote, with no real accountability ever sitting with anyone, doesn't generally produce the best results. As Brexit demonstrated.

So while I accept that our current system is flawed, I would prefer to stick with what we've got than to go with a worse alternative.

Presumably because Canada brought in the process promosing it wouldn't be expanded further. But it was.

No scandals in Switzerland

I read their laws are different we have a different parliament meaning it has to go through mps to change

Lots of things have popular appeal that would be dangerous once the principle hits the real world implementation. Do you think people sat around in the Canada government saying, "hey - do you think we should send applications for mobility aids out with assisted dying forms?"

You do understand that it is much easier to amend an existing law than make a new one? So that, were this to become law, you are opening the door to future amendments to open this up to more categories? Thus putting vulnerable people at risk?

The 6,000 sample is weighted to make it as representative as possible. It isn’t just 6,000 randomly picked people.

To me, it's the same argument proposed by those people that are pro-life if you don't want to f abortion. If you hate people that have abortions, f don't have one, but don't dictate to other women exactly the same here, if you don't want this because of religious reasons or because of whatever reasons, then don't dictate to other people. Nobody's getting forced this isn't logan's run

So protest about it then (if it ever happens)