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 hope the bill passes, I'm all for it.

But. Someone who was on LBC last week, a consultant of palliative care I think? Anyway, she made a really good point. If it is passed, there is likely to be a vast number of patients who, upon receiving a terminal diagnosis, will feel a certain unspoken 'pressure' to end their lives; For the sake of either making life easier for their loved ones, being a "burden" to the NHS, feeling like there's no point in staying alive (if the option is there to end their lives) etc.

None of this had occurred to me before and whilst I'm still very pro-euthanasia being an option, I have to admit that this consultant had a bloody good point worth thinking about.

We'd also have the death penalty if everything was decided via referendum.

Difference is you have to ask for assisted dying they won't just do that to you like they did with the Liverpool pathway plus there are judges involved to

I've never been asked my opinion, I'm not religious and I'm firmly opposed. The majority aren't always right OP.

We elect people to represent us, that's how our democracy works. Luckily we don't have mob rule.

Pragmatically, if she's healthy and able, she could just buy a lethal dose of something available on the street (or even OTC for some things).
I mean, that would be a reason to section her in the UK. But practically speaking she could do that.

It’s not even the cost of a trip to Switzerland. It’s being too ill to make the journey. I lost my DMIL to MND and she would’ve happily been out of her misery a good 15 months earlier than she was. I think it’s absolutely fucking outrageous that people can’t make a decision like this for themselves

I wouldn't I actually woukd be praising the conservatives for allowing us choice. The choice to dive civilised be that unpalatable or not
I would hope there was therapy involved to so folks got to consumer jf not at end of life stage first maybe they had to do therapy first but then got the choice after

@CombatLingerie

Here's a BBC article about a woman with a dislocated shoulder who was put on the LCP https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23698071

Here's a link to the government review https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75153340f0b6397f35d87d/Liverpool_Care_Pathway.pdf

As with many good intentions protocols like the LCP get warped by people who have not understood how or when to operate it correctly. Patients were left begging for water and in discomfort because health care professionals thought they knew what they were doing.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hence why a judge should be involved and need two doctors to approve plus a person had to ask for this

Also very importantly her nan didn't want to die so they wouldn't give her assisted death

I disagree that it should be a referendum.
People may have an opinion, but something as big as that has some ramification and impact that are beyond just "having an opinion".
There are some ethical, policical, social, philosophical and practical considerations and that's exactly the role of politicians and their aids to discuss

This thread is full of constant strawmen. It’s very wearing

So this could apply to anyone in the UK that wants to end their life, surely?

If a doctor who has the authority to sign a number of 'assisted dying' warrants off, versus the people's end of life care coming out of their budget, which was do we think that 'judgement' will go?

This will be about streamlining the NHS for more efficient delivery of resources right where it is needed.

I an baffled why people are falling for this utter contempt that the Labour Party has for the older generation, the disabled and the very, very sick.

OrinocoGlow · Today 14:59
If the bill passes, will doctors be forced to carry out this procedures? I wonder how many would want to do this. There could be issues if an insufficient number of doctors are prepared to undertake this.
MrsSchrute · Today 15:03
No, the bill includes a 'conscience clause', so doctors are free to refuse.

In practice, unless the doctors involved in assisted dying are a completely separate team and other doctors are prohibited from bringing up the option of assisted dying with patients, a ‘conscience clause’ will not avoid some obvious problems. I can see a scenario where senior doctors are in favour, their juniors want nothing to do with it. Do they work against their own conscience or ‘out’ themselves, possibly risking team harmony and career progression?

Lets have a referendum then. Everyone can give their opinion.

Saying the 'majority aren't always right' is just, in my opinion, handwaving away the fact that our political system is unrepresentative with the excuse that we are all just too stupid to understand what we really want and we need our betters to tell us instead.

You may think they are your betters. I don't think they are mine.

It's a slippery slope, this bill. I really hope it does not pass.

Anyone who understands law making should not want this poorly executed Bill to pass.

Oh come off jt the gov most of them have said they are against it really you really think labour want to bump people off christ almighty.

Utter contempt for disabled and very very sick that was also the conservatives but you don't say that to

Yet it's not in Switzerland even a disabled man from England can't go there as not dying so it's not

Strange as its been said it has very strict regulations in the bill stricter than other countries

Totally agree. The clause in itself is inadequate.

Yes I'm saying they are worse.

Imagine, worse than the Tories. Shame on them.

Yabu

That's not how democracy works.

We don't govern by referendum and it would be quite disastrous if we did because the average person's opinion is not well researched and well balanced but is generally a kneejerk response. The people who participated in that survey have not read the details of the proposed bill or balanced whether the safeguards are sufficient and whether the proposed aim would be achieved without terrible unintended consequences.

We vote for a representative. That representative has the task of properly understanding the bill and deciding what option is in the best interests of their constituents. Obviously that will be coloured by their personal beliefs and we had the option to consider their beliefs on this issue before we voted for them. Once they have been elected our main job is done but we are free to write to our representative to express our views, as are our neighbours with the opposite view. But we don't get any more votes till 2029.

We have brexit as an example for what happens if major important decisions are made by referendum rather than by government. It's not a good idea.

We've already seen how doctors get shouted down with cries of 'Transphobia' and have to whistle blow and risk their livelihood and it takes 20 years to get a clinic that routinely is sterilising and mutilating children to actually be closed.

The medical establishment cannot be trusted and have not been able to be trusted for many years.

And that's not even taking into consideration judges, who seem unable to work out that paedophiles should be locked up whilst people who post things on X or women who didn't pay their TV licence fee really shouldn't be.