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.

Do you see how quickly/ easily your reasoning has slipped into doing it to someone else? Not assisted suicide but euthanising someone else because you think it's in their best interests? The comparison to animals is exactly that, they don't make a choice - we choose it for them. The framing of assisted death as the only way to assist someone in dying as a good deed, the best option is what makes it not seem like a choice to me. What about other ways of being assisted to die that doesn't involve someone deciding to end it on my behalf prematurely? This bill says nothing about how people would also be supported to die naturally with the best care, so where is the choice? You've already said in your mind it's assisted suicide or dying a lot .protracted death and that's exactly what will happen as no doubt the services that are all stripped to the bone already will be decimated. This bill is just the sad inevitable end result of austerity imo.

Exactly- this bill isn’t about that. You’re worried about something that may not come to fruition. All the ifs and buts are simply that.

Canada is a different country. They legalised cannabis a few years back but as far as I can see, we’ve not followed suit. Just because one country has changed their boundaries shouldn’t be a reason we point blank refuse assisted suicide here. Too many people want the option

And when they have had enough mentally?

You can't just introduce a seismic law like this and not have any analysis.

Just because people demand things doesn't mean they're entitled to them.

Canada isn't the only example of the criteria being changed which you'd know if you'd bothered to check.

Hundreds of disability groups and thousands of HCP have come out against this bill. They're concerned about the devaluation of human life and coercion.

Everyone should be concerned about the vulnerable in society.

I disagree. My point is we adore our animals as a nation and we chose to end their pain and suffering because it would be considered inhumane if we continued to allow them to suffer. Can you imagine the outcry of someone walking a dog that is clearly suffering and in pain? The public would be horrified to see such a sight.

A human? Not so much. The argument we make the choice to end an animals suffering is moot (as if I have to explain this but I will…. They can’t speak!) Arguing that ending the prolonged suffering of our pets lives, means we shouldn’t allow this bill through because we like ending lives is just mind boggling.

As you say that’s your opinion and you’re quite entitled to it, but I don’t see it like that.

The bill isn’t about that

As I’ve said, I agree with you partly but the bill is about those that are terminally ill, that’s it.

Again, it's still open to mistakes. First it's impossible to judge how long someone has left. Precious time with loved ones may be lost because someone is given the wrong timeframe.

Second there could be coercion involved.

AD will not be requested by people wanting to spend more precious time with their loved ones, it will be requested by people who may desperately wish to have more time but who are suffering from an illness that makes continued survival unbearable.

People have recovered from a terminal diagnosis.

Appropriate palliative care can make an enormous difference and it's a post code lottery as to whether you get it. Something Streeting brought up.

AD may be the only option given considering how expensive medication or palliative care is. Someone that vulnerable may be unable to advocate for themselves.

Many people have said if they develop dementia they don't want to live to the point where they're in a care home and don't know who they are, can't look after themselves, etc. This Bill isn't going to help with that at all, so how long before people demand some kind of amendment to address this? I've no idea how that would work in practice though, a document signed and witnessed whilst you are still able to do so, but only put into effect once you get some pre-defined symptoms?

Don’t do it then if that’s how you feel.

This is the problem. I'm not thinking about myself, I'm in favour of people having the choice as I explained earlier. I'm concerned about vulnerable people ending their lives prematurely.

People have recovered from a terminal diagnosis

You’ve lost the argument with that comment. If that’s your rationale then it’s extremely naive at best.

I’m concerned about the suffering of people who aren’t allowed to be helped along. Look at Esther Rantzen’s plight and see if you can understand it from her perspective

I've given you many reasons why this bill is a bad idea.

Your response has been 'don't do it then' and 'people want it'. Neither are convincing.

Well thankfully the majority in charge are of the same opinion as me. I hazzard a guess that if it was put the public vote then that majority would vote in favour

I always wonder where and who these people are when they come out with statistics like 63% of the population support this or that. I have never been asked my views on any of the issues they may or may not be debating. If you stand outside Oxford uni and ask 200 people for their views on a subject you are very likely going to get a different perspective to standing outside of Poundland in Barnsley. When the figures are supported with the relevant information I would be inclined to be more trusting of statistics

Again, that's not a convincing argument. The majority of Americans voted for Trump.

As is their choice.

So now your argument is: people choose things therefore they're right.

If anything I can see funding for palliative care getting increased simply because we have a huge number of catholics, Muslims, Jews and other denominations many of whom will still not use this option as it would be ‘against gods will’. Staunch believers and their families will not opt for this and many people would choose to take their chances and see their battle through to the very end.

The care/ inheritance aspect is a red herring, the bill is only applicable to those with a 6 month or less prognosis from terminal illness so old age is exempt as I’m sure you know.

I dare say many of us will know of someone who was forced to endure terrible pain before they died, because giving sufficient morphine would probably finish them off.

Palliative care is basically non existent, I doubt funding will increase and as far as I know there are no plans for it.

The argument about inheritance is if or when the criteria expands.

What concerns me with the six months terminal diagnosis is will doctors who actually think a patient may have more time than that be under pressure to just say six months so a patient can access this?

And my biggest concern which I hope will be dealt with is will doctors be banned from suggesting this to their patients? I'm concerned a doctor in an area that has an over stretched NHS and not enough beds will be under pressure to suggest this to their patients? I do hope part of this bill will say that a patient must be the first to mention assisted dying.

Some people may feel reassured by this bill but I feel the opposite...utter terror that if I was given a diagnosis and was at my most vulnerable and terrified that a doctor may "suggest" this option to me.