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.

It's in the bill that Drs can bring it up. 3000 HCP wrote a letter saying they were concerned it would become a cost cutting exercise.

I would have thought the absolute most basic safe guard would be it must be the patient who brings it up and a doctor or hcp must not suggest it. This is already looking incredibly worrying

The safeguards are a joke. The whole thing is horrifying. Disabled people are terrified for their futures. Some argue that people will push them towards AD because their lives don't have as much value.

I mean we only have to look at how many people talk about disabled people claiming benefits....scroungers. Imagine how they'll talk about the ones who have the audacity to want to live...at the expense of a hardworking tax payers.

It's chilling stuff

It won't. They'll get an eye roll, a shrug and some paracetamol. No medic wants to prescribe adequate doses of pain relief in case they're accused of causing someone's death. This is happening right now and has been the case for many years, hence all the horror stories of peoples relatives dying in pain, agitation etc. Palliative care barely exists now apart from some specialist hospice places perhaps. This bill will kill it for good.

I disagree that it’s non existent. Both my Mum and FIL had good palliative care during their final weeks one was in hospital the other at home. The nature of their cancers meant a ‘good’ death propped up in bed sipping on morphine as we all sat around and chatted was never going to be an option.

My FIL was in sheer agony for probably the last month if not longer from the enormous tumour in his oesophagus that made swallowing anything a horrific ordeal, he was flesh and bones when he eventually passed after writhing in agony, pain that was relentless regardless of what medication they tried to give him. The hallucinations, anxiety and turmoil his mind experienced from all the drugs made it even worse. He was asking to die a good few weeks before he finally did.

I’m not sure how else he could have been helped or whether an even better version of palliative care could have convinced him to not want to die but to wait it out until the very last moment as his organs failed and the fear of what was happening to him gave him a heart attack? What would you have suggested to have been improved?

He wouldn’t have asked to die months in advance because he wanted to beat the cancer but that last month he would have taken it for certain and I wish he could have done because no one deserves that kind of death.

And I can also see the potential for a lot of unpleasant rhetoric around religion. Look at how much anti semetism, islamophobia and prejudice against Christians there already is...can you imagine how people will speak of religious people who don't want assisted dying. I can well imagine people saying Why should my tax money pay for their religious beliefs?

If you think Catholics, Christians and Muslims will continue to settle for that level of care you’re sadly mistaken.

He wasn't receiving adequate doses then. When I was following people's end of life care prescriptions in the past they were pretty much sedated flat so that they weren't experiencing distressing symptoms. They then gently and steadily deteriorated until they died. Medications in good doses work wonders. The prescribing doctors don't have to deal with the fallout of nursing people who aren't properly medicated. The patient, relative and nursing staff do though.

They won't get a choice. You can't force the HCPs to prescribe.

It’s right for them. That’s what a democracy is. I may not agree with what they chose myself, but I will stand up for the right for them to have a choice - whether I agree or disagree. For reference, I wouldn’t have voted trump!

I've seen it here and it is chilling. This government are talking about the disability bill and you can imagine that conversation in a few years.

MAiD in Canada is largely being opposed by the disabled. They are seen as a drain on the state because of the cost of medical treatment and not being able to work, in some cases.

Some spoke about the fact that people say they can't imagine wanting to live in their condition. So you can imagine how Drs would view them when thinking about budgets and beds.

That includes those with mental health problems and so it goes.

Yes it's so coercive for people to tell others that they couldn't possibly live if they were like them and that their lives aren't worth living.

You’re poor FIL. This is what terrifies me. It sounds like utter torture. I’m so sorry your family had to endure that.

Given the levels of ageism on MN and how anyone over the age of 50-60 with a different view point to a younger person is almost instantly suspected of having dementia it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see eventually anyone over the age of 65 is no longer useful so let's have a system where they are euthanized

TBH I'm often surprised at the amount of ageism which HQ allow - even the more extreme versions which I've reported get, at best, "we're taking a look" and I've yet to see that "look" followed by a deletion

It seems to be the last "ism" which they tolerate, and while I obviously don't know the age profile of the staff it's hard not to wonder if this affects the response

This has already been proposed in Japan and the Netherlands for over 75s. According to Dutch politician Pia Dijkstra, some people are ready to die.

Can you imagine how tempting that is for someone lonely or how someone perfectly healthy could be coerced? And of course it saves on medical expenses and care.

"The nature of their cancers meant a ‘good’ death propped up in bed sipping on morphine as we all sat around and chatted was never going to be an option. "

Weirdly I was shocked that my mum's last weeks were nothing like you see on film or tv. I know they are unrealistic on most things but it was all I had to go on.

I think you missed my point - do you realise that in your defence of assisted suicide you've have slipped almost instantly into arguing for expansion of this bill to euthanasia? You can't say people are overly concerned about the slippery slope when you slide into it right away...
With your dog animal analogy - who is your owner? Who should be allowed to decide to put you down? As much as we say we euthansie our animals out of kindness it's also literally allowed because they are property for you to decide to do as you wish. People euthanise healthy dogs fgs

This is me! I completely support assisted dying for those who are coming to the end of their life. However the fact that this bill allows Drs to suggest it for people means we will have the same situation as Canada where ppl who were homeless were recommended for it and those with trauma (who were diagnosed with things that we have no evidence or tests to prove it even exists) were recommended. We have the case where a disabled person who couldn't access adapted housing was recommended for this....She said she didn't want to die but ended up dead as a result of being made to feel she had to.

I do not support the bill as I feel that this will impact hugely on women. It will impact on those who are seen as a burden on society due to high cost needs etc. As it stands I feel NO Dr should recommend it for anyone. No psychiatrists should be allowed anywhere near any patients with regards to this and specific safeguards for people such as homeless, disabled etc should be in place. As it stands I do not support it and feel too many will die who do not want to.

I didn’t miss your point, I just don’t agree with it.

You don't even know what you agree with. You're arguing for euthansia trying to defend assisted suicide.

You’re wrong.

Assisted suicide is only available to those with terminal illness and will die within 6 months. It’s not about life vs death but death vs death.

I understand what the bill is for. You are making points in favour of euthanasia at the same time as suggesting posters are being overly concerned about coercian and slippery slopes, and you don't even realise.

I disagree funnily enough. Again, thats your opinion and you’re very much entitled to it, though it doesn’t make you ‘right’.

There isn’t a right or wrong answer, just opinions. You clearly feel your option takes the moral high ground and that anyone who disagrees wants to kill everyone off, which is obviously nonsense.