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.

How do you know that?

Answer - you don't, you are just guessing.

It was discredited because people were left without food and drink, and they were dying without food and drink. As ways to get them to die faster, that to me is more inhumane than letting somebody have an injection and fall asleep and die. I am quite pleased as you say that your relative didn't suffer. That is not the case for many people, and at the end of the day. Even taken the suffering out, I don't care. I want the choice to be able to die when I want to die and if we're not allowed to do that unless you've got as somebody just said ten thousand pounds which I don't have to go abroad, then I say, f* everybody that thinks it's ridiculous, because you know what you want your choice, don't dictate to others

No, because this isn't a referendum, where the majority rules. There's a saying that democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. It's vital that any change to the law protects the most vulnerable members in society, even though they're in the minority.

I do think this bill should pass, but only because it would lead to further debates and scrutiny of the bill. I'm not convinced the current draft completely squares the circle of allowing assisted dying but preventing any abuse.

Even if they managed to change the law after they did this, that a lot of people are upset about what would the problem be? If somebody has say multiple sclerosis, and they don't want to live anymore, why can't we give people the choice? Why does it matter? You might not agree that it's wrong to put somebody out of their misery. But maybe they want the choice. Why can't we have a choice is better that wear than jumping in front of a f train that really destroys people's lives?Surely at the end of the day, we should all have autonomy on our own lives

You think that was included in the proposals when Canada approved it?

Well, that's the biggest fear isn't it. That it shifts the overton window so far that all suffering is deemed intolerable and the value of life with suffering is diminished.

The implication is that administration of drugs is done by the patient. Doctors would prescribe. The inference you have to compos mentis to say what you want and pay for it.

I listened to the radio and the way they change law is not the same way we changed law.We have a lot more scrutiny, because we have a lot of mps that have to scrutinise any changes

But in Canada, I'm sorry to say I'm not seeing thousands of people being killed at the end of the day. People have an individual choice, and they still take that choice up, that's up to them. Maybe no, it sounds really difficult for people on here. But maybe people do just want to have the choice to die. Even if they have got longer than six months to live. I don't get why we are so concerned about that unless we decide to force people to live sometimes really unhappy for the rest of their lives.

So you want a referendum because you think MPs aren't representing the general population but you want MPs, ones who seek your approval every four years, to hold the line on policy creep?

None of that mean that once we have established the basic principle that assisted suicide is acceptable, it won't be much easier to change who we think it is acceptable for.

'Fear' is right. Maybe we should stick to the reality of what is proposed, rather than the fear of what isn't.

The value of my 'life with suffering' is mine to decide.

Assisted dying rates in Canada have already exceeded expectations.

I think that's incredibly naive.

I was replying to people who said it would get like Canada. I said, covertly under our system. It wouldn't, but since we're not going to get a referendum, I would like a referendum to begin with to then decide what the public want, then the mp, then they put a proper bill and law in place that would cover all different. Principalities, you could have both, it's not unknown

4.1 percent of deaths in Canada 2022 in their last report were "Medically assisted"

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2022.html

I don't believe this should be a matter of conscience for MPs - their job is literally to represent us, not dictate to us! So on moral issues, there ought to be a vote in each constituency and the MP should then vote accordingly. Or just have a national referendum and go with the majority view.

I strongly believe that our lives belong to us and we should be allowed to end them with dignity, in the time of our choosing, once we are certain there is no hope of recovery and quality of life will descend into something we don't want for ourselves.

Wow so hardly any

I think that's incredibly condescending.

here were 334,623 deaths in Canada in 2022, an increase of 7.3% from 2021.

I'm guessing you are being facetious that this is not many

I’d like the bill passed as well. We should have the right to opt for a humane and dignified death at a time of our choosing.

Having read today's article written after the reporter visited a hospice and spoke to staff, patients and relatives it's made me rethink my position.

I'm glad it's not my decision

And I don't quite see how it will work. Two doctors deciding with a break in between then a judge.

How quickly will cases be reviewed anyway? I can imagine a backlog building up.

Also, how many people went into the law expecting to have to make that kind of judgment?

The article made the point that maybe if palliative care was better and more easily available it wouldn't be such an issue.

And money for assisted dying may be taken from palliative care too.

I can’t explain how much I’m for assisted dying.
I wrote so much but ultimately it doesn’t count.

If I’m going to die, or worse, lose my mind (so die but exist) then no one should tell me when I can or can’t do that, or how. To have the support to do it 1) at the right time (and not too early) and not do it alone (so legally) then that is my choice.

The fact that you can’t get support and your loved ones get arrested is insane.

You can’t get elderly relatives into much needed care facilities if they are deemed compos-mentis, despite it being dangerous to their wellbeing. There’s no way you’ll be able to have them shipped off to dignitas. That concern is moot.

Thank you @MrsShcrute, that makes sense. If it passes, I would prefer it not be a privately funded procedure to avoid there being a financial incentive for doing it.

Tough. It still stands.