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 wish I saw the world through rose tinted spectacles.

But who is going to be encourage them to do this?

Medical professionals who want the bed and are strapped for cash.

It's part of the bill that a Dr can raise the issue.

Relatives who are abusive or want to save cash.

People do bad things - I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

This bill won't remain as it is, it will be amended to include other disabilities and medical issues. The NHS doesn't have the resources to provide proper palliative care never mind run this appropriately.

Drs have to decide if there is coercion,not a judge and our judicial system is so underfunded there are huge backlogs.

Exploring an issue is not a 'strawman'.

Good. Because women should be able to choose whether they want to carry a child to term or not. Just as an individual at the end of life should be able to choose whether they want to carry on living or not

I think your first point is excellent. The question shouldn't be 'is this person's life intolerable?' but 'if we had proper MH and physical health provisions, pain clinics and management, great support for carers and financial support for families dealing with this, would this person's life be intolerable?' Because I think the answers are important.

I was chatting with a Canadian youth worker I know and her concern was that Canada was slowly moving towards a system where it was going to be easier for a young person with depression to get MAID than get counselling. Canada has delayed getting to this brink. But do I trust the government (this one or the last) to make sure the UK avoids this? No, I don't.

The bill doesn’t set out “the strictest criteria in the world”
That was a bit of political propaganda by Leadbetter. Politicians are not subject to truth in advertising laws, which is how the Brexit bus got away with its insincere ‘promise’ to fund the NHS an extra £350m/week.

I've been aware for a long time - maybe you should re-read the opening post again (I know it's a bit long, but give it a try). I'm fed up of people telling me it is and if this bill fails, then hopefully they will stop (and at least one good thing will come from it).

Human beings are animals though surely? We might be at the top of the food chain and of developed all sorts of technology but at the end of the day aren’t we just mammals with an inflated sense of self importance.

I really dislike the you should suffer for the greater good arguement. Perhaps I should be entitled to die for the greater good. Save the NHS some pennies to be spent on the vulnerable.

That's a matter of opinion. I'm afraid I disagree.

But you are arguing that vulnerable people should be put at increased risk for the greater good.

It will be the state’s business though- signed off on by two state employed physicians, rubber stamped by a a state judge, the lethal dose paid for by the state health system and the dying happening in a state run hospital. NHS is cradle to grave, so it’s all done by the state.

You say "could be killed" but we don't know that. Why are we always assuming the worst will happen?

Maybe its time that we accept that not EVERYONE does value their own life above all else, that simply to exist is somehow always the preferred option. I find it terribly patronising to be told that I must want to live at all costs. Maybe one day I won't. The idea that human life is absolutely sacred and untouchable in all circumstances (including the autonomy of the individual) is, I think, an outdated one and makes no sense if you believe in evolution and are not religious. There is no fundamental, theoretical reason why a human life is more precious than an animal so if we accord animals this compassionate end, when they are not in fact, in a position to request it, why can we not do that for humans?

I'd like to ask those opposed this question: In an imaginary scenario where we COULD guarantee that no-one would be coerced or pressured, would you allow it to be an option for those who wanted it? And if so, in what circumstances? Only terminal illness, or "intolerable suffering" as in Belgium? If not, if your objections are not just based on fear of abuse, can I ask what they are please?

There are a couple of very interesting a recent documentaries on this - one was Prue Leith and her son, its on C4 and one is on iplayer and its representing the POV of the disabled community. Both are extremely thought provoking in different directions.

Would you be happier if it was all private then? I don't get the argument I'm afraid.

Why do you disagree?

I'd like to ask those opposed this question: In an imaginary scenario where we COULD guarantee that no-one would be coerced or pressured, would you allow it to be an option for those who wanted it? And if so, in what circumstances? Only terminal illness, or "intolerable suffering" as in Belgium? If not, if your objections are not just based on fear of abuse, can I ask what they are please?

Yes, with reservations. Additionally, I think you need services to be available. Because 'pressure' could be pressure from people, or it could be pressure from a lack of services and unmet needs.

If you can rely on people to be killed quietly, that will cost less in end of life/MH/pain/palliative services. It incentivises poor care. Very easy to see where the invisible hand of the market will be.

IVF is still against Church teaching in the Catholic Church amongst others.
Since IVF has a relatively low success rate it will often end in unintended abortion which, though unintended, is inevitable.Catholics believe that embryos are individual beings with souls and should be treated as such. The Church also disapproves of cryofreezing embryos for later use which is usually part of the process.
It can also be argued that without IVF the large numbers of children over the age of 4 who desperately need adoptive parents would be more likely to find them.

This makes no sense, improving NHS palliative care would be far cheaper than adding on a nationwide system of suicide clinics and suicide physicians. Why do you think Wes Streeting has asked for the costs? Legalising assisted dying creates an entitlement that the NHS will have to set up and staff. That’s not going to be free. So the argument that improved palliative care isn’t a viable alternative is bollocks.

The issue is have you had a very suicidal relative/friend who because of a medical condition really doesn't feel it's worth continuing to live? Then a few years later is leading a happy and fulfilling life.

Assisted dying is much cheaper for society than providing the proper supports.

Oh and I watched my mother die from cancer, which was probably "hassened " by the high levels of pain relief.

Do I am conflicted but this issue has not been debated enough, and the safeguards just aren't there.
We need to be far kinder to the living before we take this step.

If you look at UK abortion legislation, abortion is only permitted in limited circumstances. In practice, the high test is not applied

This may be a good thing, and I don't want to derail the thread, but it's a good example of supposedly tight limitations not being applied in practice aka safeguards being watered down

I think the issue with everyone comparing it to their dog is that you and your vet decided to put them to sleep. The dog didn't get a say on when or where they were ready or if they even wanted that. Yes we euthansie them to be kind but trying to apply that concept to humans with complex needs and lives is just not comparable at all. The fear people have with not having enough safeguarding in place is that it will become a situation like that where others are deciding it's time for someone to go or that they would be better off rather than needing X adjustments and care etc which isn't appropriate and we have groups of disabled people shouting from the rooftops that this bill will put them in harms way, something we have seen play out in Canada and other countries that have adopted assisted dying.

Because I think you're wrong? Strange question.

The principle that human life is sacrosanct may be religious but one does not have to religious to agree with it.

The problem is that it's being rushed through as a private member's bill. I know most people want a law change of this type but has it really been considered carefully with the consequences? This is a huge change in the law and shouldn't be rushed.

Once it's through it'll be incredibly hard to go back.

So far, your argument for this is: I want this to happen and that's my opinion.

It doesn't come across as particularly nuanced or well thought out.

I’m wholeheartedly in favour of assisted dying in specific well defined circumstances. That we allow people to suffer in the run up to death in a way we wouldn’t allow any other kind of animal to suffer is cruel and unnecessary. However I totally understand the fears of disabled anti-assisted dying campaigners which is the most persuasive argument against the proposal.

When we as a society cannot value and nurture sick or disabled lives then we are in danger of stretching any legislation to allow for the deaths of people who are medically inconvenient or expensive. In a society where social and medical care was both appropriate and easily available (in practice not just theory) it may be less of a worry but in a society hell bend on demonising sick and disabled people and making them pay for failures of neoliberalism or business in politics, assisted dying could easily be turned into a form of eugenics or cost cutting.

I’d love to believe this was just me and my tinfoil hat speaking but I’ve spent a long time bearing the brunt of people’s discriminations towards disabled people and I can see in the most recent rapid changes to society (particularly the huge swing to the far right) that it could easily become general practice to euthanise inconvenient sick or disabled.

I am someone who would benefit from the right to assisted dying. In the future. I do not want a long painful drawn out death… nor do I want a legislation unable to protect the most vulnerable from the negative cultural associations with or costs of chronic sickness or disability.

I hope it happens one day but it needs to be good and proper legislation with appropriate safeguards and a much stricter regime for being able to alter it than our current concepts of parliamentary sovereignty allow
for.

You have the right to end your life whenever you want. It's different expecting the state and other individuals to facilitate that.

The other thing is our healthcare is already not set up in a way where clinicians are able to adequately discuss with patients their best interests and what they would like. Part of the suffering at end of life comes from unnecessary treatments and medications because people are too busy / too scared to be sued/ haven't had time to build a relationship with the patient to discuss if they really want to go through all that and what other pathways they can go down. Throwing assisted dying into the mix before we fix the NHS and patient care experience would be disastrous..it's an ideal in principal but we aren't there yet as a society.