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 don’t agree people should be coerced to do something they don’t want to do. For me, it’s weighing it up. There will always be unscrupulous people that have motives but overall I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

The question isn't those arguing against it. The question being asked is how do you safeguard against coercion?
When people don't understand that their choice of language "If you want to suffer a painful long prolonged death crack on" Is a form of coercion you cannot legislate against it.

Those words, and the implication in them that you are choosing a worse option than assisted suicide by not doing the right thing, is exactly why this Bill should have failed today, and should not get through the next reading. It cannot safeguard against human nature.

I used to be quite pro euthanasia, in the sense that if terminally ill people wanted to end their lives without pain, they should be given the choice.
What changed my opinion was when my own mother was very ill.That might sound surprising- but at the time I felt that if it was an option, she would have been made to think it was the best option for her.
Elderly people don't always get the best or kindest treatment by the NHS and I would be very worried that they might be made to feel they are a burden. " Bed blockers" etc.

I’m happy to debate but I can’t be bothered when you come back is the same

People say that about the death penalty. That it would remove a lot of dangerous people from society and save us a lot of money. There would only be a rare case of an innocent person's life being taken by the state, so the positives would outweigh the negatives...

How many vulnerable people feeling familiarly or socially pressured into asking someone to kill them is an acceptable amount?

A doctor wouldn’t say that though. That’s my opinion as a random on the internet saying to other randoms on here who keep saying ‘no no no it should never be legalised’ I do think well you do you and crack on, but let’s not pretend it’s not traumatic.

How many people who feel so desperate and suffer and want to end their own life is acceptable?

You wouldn’t let an animal suffer the way humans are expected to.

There are many things we do with animals that we would never do to a human.

We kill dangerous animals, not people though. We kill animals for many reasons, sometimes for their benefit, mainly for ours.

Many people are suffering right now because the palliative care in many areas of the country is abysmal. I think we should sort that before jumping straight to offing them. That should be the focus, making the end of life better provided for, but if it doesn't happen before, then it will never happen after this bill passes.

Again, assisted suicide is no guarantee of a peaceful or painless death.

It doesn't have to be a doctor. If this is something that's said in society, perhaps in tv adverts for the new clinics that may spring up to offer this on a private basis, it becomes insidious and slips into the subconscious mind. When you are weak, and in pain, and afraid then it surfaces and tells you to do the right thing.
It's coercion from society, from a shift in thinking and a change in how we value life.

Any bill needs to protect the vulnerable- that's what we expect our government to do. This Bill doesn't do that (and I can't see how it could- hence the slippery slope seen in other countries). Nobody should die in pain, and we should do everything to alleviate that. This Bill fails here as well- how many dementia patients are given 6 months to live when they are first diagnosed? How many will still be mentally of sound mind once they fall into that time span? In my experience, dementia patients can live for years following diagnosis, and by the time they are within 6 months of a natural death, they are unable to consent to anything.

You are in favour of the bill but know there aren't adequate safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable.

I'm concerned about the criteria changing because it has in every country that has this law. I'm concerned about human life being devalued and this being used as a cost cutting exercise.

I'm concerned about hospices and palliative care losing funding because there's a cheaper alternative. I'm concerned about people feeling like a burden or reluctant care givers or those who are worried about their inheritance placing pressure on people.

Do you share any of those concerns?

I actually can understand your concerns yes. I know it’s very emotive and concerns certainly are food for thought but I still feel it’s the right decision. Perhaps I will change my mind if things change in the future but I’m hoping it’s fit the greater good and not a cost cutting exercise to save money. I hope it’s genuinely based on the wishes of those with terminal illness that want the bill passed and there are no ulterior motives

The problem is, by the time you change your mind it will be too late. First because it will change how society views life, in Canada for example, a substantial amount of people see euthenasia as an option for homelessness.

Second because people will have been killed and we can't reverse that.

It's one of the reasons why we don't have the death penalty, because of miscarriages of justice.

Of course, you are absolutely right to say we should avoid miscarriages of justice and protect the vulnerable.

But what about those equally vulnerable terminally ill patients, who have no control over their deteriorating body and mind, ravaged by something horrendous like MS, motor neurone disease, Huntington's disease, dementia, cancer... being prescribed pain relief is all very well, but when someone really isn't very well either with no faculties or bodily control, why should we say that it isn't their right to end their suffering?

Because everyone has a right to life and we must protect the vulnerable otherwise what kind of society are we.

People with disabilities are terrified of how this is going to effect them because they are not valued by society. They are the biggest opponents to the Canadian MAiD expansion.

We have an ageing society, a failing NHS and a big benefits bill. The Tories want to tear up our human rights and people seem to believe this bill won't be expanded.

I've argued with people with depression who want euthenasia.

If people no longer have their faculties as you argue, then they can't consent.

@username8348 Who are you to argue with depressed people about what they want to do with their own life? If anything you've probably just made them feel worse and more trapped. The last thing someone suicidal needs is people arguing with them. You'd have been better off showing a modicum of empathy for their situation. It really seems like you guys are obsessed with controlling other people.

Because depression is often transitory and with the right support, people can get better.

See how quickly people are arguing for the right to end other people's lives? It's meant to be those with a terminal illness and six months to live. Now anyone with depression should get a state sanctioned death.

@username8348 yes and sometimes nothing works and someone is depressed for years or decades. It doesn't matter what I think because it won't ever come in here but I'm just pointing out you're probably making them feel worse by arguing with them. I'm sure you'll pat yourself on the back for giving out a few samaritans numbers and being morally superior tho.

Please use the correct terminology. What we are talking about here is assisted suicide. The bill we are talking about is an amendment to the Suicide Act of 1961.

If you watch the parliamentary debate at 11.44.30 an MP says "We already have assisted dying in this country. The legislation is this country already allows for choice. That proves that people would be able to die at home with carefully administered, practitioner lead, pain management. And does the honourable lady agree that the inconsistency of the application of good pain management at end of life is a failure of our existing National Health [Service]?"

If you watch the debate, over time, among other things, people bring up the fact that earlier legal provisions for vast amounts of pain relief are not properly followed. To me it almost seems like medical practitioners themselves are not clear about the law. Monsters like Harold Shipman have spooked the medical profession and their legal advisors.

Surely we need to be clear about the way that palliative care/assisted dying shades into end-of-life pain relief/suicide.

It is not a black and white question. There is a massive grey area that this bill is not addressing. In a way, all of us here are talking at cross purposes. Obviously none of us wants our loved ones, or ourselves, to die in agony.

Palliative care is expensive. Assisted suicide is not. Think about it for a bit.

Whereas you think talking someone down from a building is controlling. You'll agree with someone suicidal that their lives aren't worth living because you think it's 'kind'.

I'd argue that our mental health services aren't fit for purpose and that people need more support, you'd try to convince them to sign their lives over to the state.

Then you'll try to convince me that you are morally superior.

Er no but as someone who is depressed you telling me it'll all get better and everything is temporary only makes me want to double down and I find it patronising as hell.

As for the terminally ill-you'd rather they were forced into choosing the top of a building than a more peaceful way surrounded by their family.

As I said, you'd agree with someone who wants to be euthanised to be 'kind'. You wouldn't want to upset them by disagreeing with them so would encourage them to die. Otherwise it's patronising.

The argument isn't just about the terminally ill, even though that doesn't make sense because a Dr can't predict when someone will die.

We already have palliative care in the UK and if that's not working then it needs to be better. However that won't happen if there's a cheaper alternative.

The problem is safeguarding the lives of the vulnerable.

No there are ways to listen to suicidal people without encouraging them to die. It's not for anyone to say what another person should do either way. The samaritans won't even try and talk someone out of suicide, they're mainly there to listen.

You've had decades to campaign for better palliative care but even so it can't prevent all suffering.

I didn't say I was talking to suicidal people, I said people with depression. They wanted state sanctioned suicide for mental health problems which they're bringing in in Canada.

I was arguing against that because many mental health problems can be alleviated with proper support.

It's not controlling to help someone.

No, people are arguing for people to have the choice to end their own lives! Your wording is misleading and suggestive.

If you read the thread, the poster is talking about people with depression getting assisted suicide. That's not what this bill is about but is indicative of the dangers of a slippery slope which has happened in other countries.