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.

Are you saying you disagree with your own words? I didn't say anyone who agrees with assisted suicide wants to kill everyone off at all. I'm pointing out the irony of you saying people are being overly worried about coercion while you don't even realise you're arguing for euthanasia and not assisted suicide. I don't at all feel like I have the moral high ground - I support assisted suicide in principal- I worry people are supportive of this bill at this time with a complete misunderstanding of the circumstances and you're a good example of that.

No you’re worrying about the ifs and butts of what it might lead to in the future. You’re focusing so much on wanting to ‘protect’ people from coercion that you’re missing the point that by arguing against it, it leaves other without a choice. That’s the irony in it all.

You’re using euthanasia interchangeably with assisted suicide but they are different so I don’t know why you keep repeating they are the same. They are not currently and I suspect you know that.

Why do you keep repeating this?

I watched alot of the debate again last night and the mp leila moran lib dem, said the ones that are against this bill no matter how much scrutiny will be done in the next 2 to 3 years. How much consultation and panels will now ho head and add amendments etc to bring the bill back. They need to be honest that be it because of religion they would never vote doe this bill. That's how I feel on mumsnet
Sure there are those that are against the bill as they don't feel it's watertight, which is fair enough, but as I have said, it's going to be another 2 to 3 years before it gets to come back to the house of parliament. But it's the other people that annoying me. They are not being honest that they would never ever vote for this. Anyway, or want it, and that's fine. You can look after your mortal soul all you want, but you don't get did it take to others.
Kit malthouse or david Davis, I can't remember which stated to the people that are saying we would get like Canada. That is such a bad thing to say because we have a Parliament. That is a thousand year old, and we are perfectly acceptable to make our own rules. As they stated, we have abortion in this country just because some other countries have it to near where you give birth.We would never do that in our country yet.That doesn't mean to say that we stop all abortion.In this country. I thought that was a really good argument.
Now, on channel four on youtube, it's said, but on the island of jersey, they're practically going to be doing it next year, they've done their discussions, the isle of man is near enough doing it soon. Plus scotland will be having this discussion soon.Too, so it's about right that this is done.
The other thing that's really annoying is that I saw the 2 sides of campaigns outside the house of Parliament yesterday, and it was disabled people saying, this is a bad day for disabled people. There is nothing absolutely nothing in this bill. That is saying, disabled people are going to be put down This is literally so hard you have to have six months to live, and yet you might even have a two year diagnosiss. I guess that means you're going to have to wait till you get to 6 months. I'm wondering if people are egging it on for these disabled people so they get worried because there is literally nothing.That is targeting the disabled people, so i'm trying to understand why they are so concerned when this legitimately has an act that says terminal illness only

Oh my god 🤦🏻‍♀️ I know they're different. You're the one using examples of euthinasia of animals as reasoning for this current bill for assisted suicide. I'm not using them interchangeably I'm repeating your words back to you commenting on you using examples of euthinasia when talking about assisted suicide.

I don’t know what you’re face planting for because I feel the exact same way about your constant argument!

You’re conflating several different issues within different contexts when each warrants it’s own separate discussion.

Hers is an example….

If someone was at the the stage of life where they couldn’t physically do anything to end their own life and they needed someone to do it for then yes, I would absolutely agree that’s their right. As that would be classed as euthanasia I would still agree with it as it’s following the wishes of the person.

So yes I agree with it under those circumstances- as long as consent is given and the person has the mental capacity but not the physical one.

In the situation where someone doesn’t have the mental capacity such as having dementia for eg then I disagree with another person making that decision for them.

Both are examples of euthanasia but one I agree with and one I don’t.

Stop making it an either or scenario as different circumstances require different actions.

So would you let an animal suffer or would you be ok with a vet putting it to sleep?

Oh so the fact they are depressed is just by the by? Why mention it at all if they're not suicidal? If they're arguing for euthanasia because they want it for themselves it rather points towards that no? Unless it's just more paranoia that everyone apparently wants to kill others off instead of shock actually wants the choice for themselves.

I agree with you and I wonder if some people are using their concern for vulnerable and disabled people for their own agenda.

Many people who follow religion would never agree with it regardless of stringent rules being put in place, because they believe it to be wrong point blank with no exception what so ever - as (their) god wouldn’t allow it.

It does feels a bit like the vulnerable argument is used as a guise by some as the reality is they would never agree ever.

So you must understand people's fears that this bill doesn't have robust safeguards for vulnerable people and it's an easy slippery slope from assisted suicide to euthinasia when most people's arguments for supporting this bill is actually them using rhetoric about euthinasia. What I would or not do to an animal isn't relevent to humans. Of course I'd put my pets to sleep when the time comes, but I also spayed and had castrated them without their consent - I wouldn't argue we can do that to animals let's roll it out to humans. Protecting people's lives requires a lot more safeguarding and thought than whether we would or wouldn't do it to our pets. I don't understand how anyone that's been living in the UK since austerity could think we live in a society currently that protects and safeguards vulnerable and disabled people enough at the moment to roll out assisted suicide.

Henry Riley a journalist for lbc radio has written a piece in the independent how there are more mps as a percentage with religious views then non mps. He also states that many are not being honest about the role of their faith in this decision

I can't be bothered with you. You're blindly arguing for people with depression to be given state sanctioned suicide. The bill isn't even for people with depression, yet here you are cheering on an expansion.

It was voted in because of the myopic and willfully ignorant. You're demonstrating my point beautifully.

Well you say it’s not relevant, you’ve brought it up and used it a reason for not allowing AD so you can’t have it both ways when it suits your narrative.

It’s relevant because as a society, we don’t want to see animals suffer and I don’t know anyone that would allow suffering so we make the decision to end it for them. Humans are able to make their own choice when it comes to their time but you don’t agree with them being allowed to.

The slippery slope is nothing more than speculation and not a justification to say no under any circumstances.

I bet that’s right as well. I will take a look at the article, thank you for sharing that.

I hope they’re not being led by their religious beliefs on this. I couldn’t care less what their god or book says- keep religion out of it.

Believers who would never consider this for them can make that decision for themselves. For those of us who if ever in such a horrible situation would seriously consider this as an alternative to risking a horrible death, need that choice.

People who are religious are led by that religion in every aspect of their lives. Having a faith isn't a part time hobby.

Look up the gas chamber pods....the future is potentially horrific.

I actually thought they seemed like a good idea. You lose consciousness pretty quick and then death due to lack of oxygen. I’m someone who’d consider assisted suicide for myself if I felt it was necessary.

You clearly have terrible reading comprehension because you brought up animals and that's what I responded to. I also explicitly said I agree with people being allowed it in principal but people have real world safeguarding issues they're raising and the fact that so many people are just not even listening to them is what is making people fear the reality of this bill in our current society. If you genuinely don't see people's legitimate fears in regards to the NHS and social care being in shambles and bringing in a choice to end your life rather than receive the support that isn't there because the services are stripped to the bone then you're not paying attention.

Oh wow are you still going on about this?! 😂

Well it’s always been the way you have been suited with, so time for a change. I’m pleased more people in charge are of a similar opinion to me and the majority agreed with it.

Who has been suited with austerity and lack of provision for care? You're not even making sense. Your complete lack of regard for disabled and vulnerable people is beyond me but it is a majority held view and has been played out over the last 15 years so no suprises there. As long as a hypothetical you in a hypothetical future gets what they want screw everyone else and reality 🙄

I make sense you just don’t agree with it so can’t get your head around it in order for it ti make sense to YOU. I have a disabled child so don’t play that card with me. I could say that you disregard and have no compassion for those suffering at the end of their life and you’re happy to let them suffer….

You really don't though. I asked you what has been suiting me that will be changing? What about austerity and lack of social care suits anyone? How does saying these things need to be improved before we bring in AS equate to being okay with people suffering? How does expecting the state to also provide hospice care and community care for people if they're going to provide AS to people equate to having no compassion for people? It's literally asking for it to be a choice between two options instead of AS or nothing.
The complete lack of thought in arguing for AS by accusing anyone with reservations of being uncompassionate to people's suffering and "happy" to let them suffer is ridiculous. Fighting that people should be offered dignity and care in LIFE as well as death is the exact opposite of that. If your disabled child was terminally ill and didn't qualify for support they'd require to not end their life but they do qualify for AS - how is that giving them a choice? This is the reality people are living with and that instead of providing a thoughtful argument of why that doesn't concern you, you're just accusing people of being uncaring or happy to watch people suffer and using disabled people despite you clearly not listening to any of the thoughtful concerns disabled people have raised otherwise you'd have a more reasoned response. If you don't see how accusing people not being 100% supportive of AS as basically evil and uncaring doesn't lead to coersion...

I really haven’t got time for a long paragraph as I’m on the school run and we’re just going around in circles.

I disagree with you and you disagree with me. That’s fine. It makes no odds what we think anyway as it’s out of our hands