Assisted Dying

[Nordione1]

I dont know what section to put this in. Im more upset about the vote for it than I thought I'd be. I feel like we have crossed a rubicon somehow.

And now they have the power to give you a lethal injection. Much less messy.

My grandma died the same way, Liverpool pathway.

We were told they get a small amount of fluids though the pain relief given intravenously. We could wet their lips. For them it took 5 days. But for weeks before they were lying in a hospital bed in their living room only getting up to use the commode. They were hardly eating because of the pain the tumors caused when they did. They were also restricted to what they could eat. Mostly bland food. Anything else they were sick. Oh and for the last week of their life they had to wear a nappy. Which was changed by nurses visiting a few times a day through home hospice care.

This is a debate in Britain. Who is bringing up 9/11,2'towers? Not relevant

If by supporters you are referring to the general public then of course the majority haven't read the Bill. Very few people will ever read a proposed law, that's the whole point of elected politicians. We elect them to do it for us.
If by supporters you mean MPs, then of course they haven't. This is just the start of months of work where they seek to turn the proposal into law.

It doesn't give me pause, it gives me hope. That this Bill is a stepping stone to greater dignity in dying and respect for bodily autonomy.

My grandad spent 3 years bed-bound, confined to a room in his house, after multiple strokes. Could barely talk, could barely hear, carers had to wash and change him every day. He had zero quality of life. How can you argue with a straight face that it is OK to force 3 years of suffering like that onto a person?

I'm pleased with today's vote, I agree with assisted dying myself. However, there are several stages to go through before this becomes law. I'm hoping I will see this go ahead in my lifetime, it is long overdue.

Have you actually read the bill? You are exaggerating like crazy

I have no moral or religious objection to euthanasia (assisted dying is such a euphemism). I have no objection to the basic principle. However, in practice the idea is troubling. Already the dying, the elderly, the ill and the disabled are treated as a nuisance by the NHS, the government, employers, society as a whole and even their own families. Any terminally I'll person who doesn't choose this will have their cards marked as a selfish drain on resources. Measures will be taken to direct dying people (or bed-blockers, as they will be regarded) into this 'choice.'

Other social factors will come into It, too. Elderly wives will be seen as more of a burden by their husbands than vice versa. Poverty will certainly be a factor.

Again. I'm not against the idea but when passing legislation this seismic politicians need to consider and head off every possible unintended consequence, and I'm not confident they are capable of that.

The point about the pandemic is really good. People were having angry meltdowns over not being able to go to cafés and the gym when they were being asked to make those minor sacrifices to protect the lives of the vulnerable. It showed how much of society really feels about the elderly and disabled. So much talk of people who were 'going to die sometime soon anyway' or people who 'would probably have been killed off in normal flu season.' So much talk on here and elsewhere about the young being sacrificed for 'people who have had their lives.' It really made the nastiness visible.

Australia has had it for a couple of years. I haven't heard of a single negative aspect of it.

I am so pleased there is a choice.

A friend's husband was terminally ill and really suffered for a long time.

When he died my friend said "you would never have put your dog through that"!!!!

That made me think that perhaps assisted dying isn't such a bad thing!

If course it should be people's own choice. I don't want palliative care, I want to die with dignity when I decide.

You don't think people in Britain can talk about, or reference, the catastrophic event that is known worldwide?

As the abortion argument keeps being raised on the thread, I suppose what could be argued is that not much has been done over the last few decades to make the prospect of motherhood easier and that social factors such as stigma, employment, housing and finances form a coercive factor in the decision to have an abortion. Poor medical treatment during a previous childbirth could form a factor. Discovering that one is carrying a disabled child and worries over how society will treat you and the child because of that is an extra factor. A husband or boyfriend who doesn't want a baby is definitely a coercive factor. It's become easier to terminate a pregnancy but we haven't worked enough at making it easier to have children.

Polling has shown that most women want more children than they are having and birthrates have dropped. Abortion hasn't led to a slippery slope where babies are being terminated at full term and it has given women more control over certain aspects of their fertility. However, choosing to have children has become in many ways harder and societal pressures, particularly financial ones, have meant women have lost control of other aspects of their fertility, forcing women to have fewer children than they had wanted or none at all if they are made to leave it until too late. (I am not against abortion, in case anyone wondered.)

So, I guess the argument there would be that euthanasia as an option is certainly morally defensible but for it to be a true choice it has to come with the alternative option being truly compassionate, effective palliative care and much better living standards and life options for the elderly, ill and disabled. At the moment I am worried that this measure will make palliative care worse or non-existent and that vulnerable people will be treated as even more of a nuisance.

I agree with it. People should have autonomy over their own bodies and their own death. If it stopped people from suffering with terminal conditions long past the point of dignity, then I am pleased.

But once that line is crossed where does it lead? Shouldn't then everyone have the right to die, at any any age for any " good" reason. Because it's their body and they have a right to it?

I agree.

And I feel ashamed that I deeply resent Kim Leadbeater being all sanctimonious.

As a single childless woman, I worry about this bill as I age. Hopefully I’ll be an affluent old lady so will be able to pay for my care.

But pity help poor disabled women.

I honestly believe the hand-wringing about whether this bill will somehow lead to erosion of palliative care is unfounded. I think it'll lead to more openness and discussion about death and dying which is a good thing. I don't see why support for the organisations which provide end of life care should be negatively impacted - rather the reverse.

Maybe it's another example of the old adage, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Re this But once that line is crossed where does it lead? Shouldn't then everyone have the right to die, at any any age for any " good" reason. Because it's their body and they have a right to it?

Everyone already does have that right though. It's people's ability to exercise that right when they're physically unable to do so alone which is lacking.

People were having angry meltdowns over not being able to go to cafés and the gym when they were being asked to make those minor sacrifices to protect the lives of the vulnerable.

The sacrifices that people were ordered to make i.e giving up their freedom and autonomy were not at all minor, not for business owners, suppliers or customers.

While I agree with the initial idea of assisted dying, I think too many people will abuse this by pressuring the person who is considering it.
Is this going to be a cost cutting exercise on the ill, disabled and elderly to save resources on our NHS?
What about those who willingly allow their relatives to deteriorate at home because they won't want their inheritance spent on proper care?
By 2027 if passed they've mentioned it could be available for someone with poor mental health to end their life if they wish. Do they really have the capacity to make that choice? When NHS services are absolutely shite for mental health support should this really be what the governments energy goes into?
The NHS should be a made a priority in funding BEFORE this is allowed. Safeguards will need more time to be looked into.

Straw man argument ( again) Dogs are animals without capacity and autonomy. To equate the value of a human life to that of s dog is troublesome.

How do you measure QOL? How does the person living that life measure their QOL and how do those measurements compare?

It’s really scary that you justify the fact that so few people have actually read and critiqued this bill themselves.

And yet people believe their should be a referendum…

Why are some so invested in a person in agony having to go on to the very bitter end? When pain relief doesn't even touch the sides of it, why do you refuse to accept that person might feel death is better? If the end will involve the person drowning in their own bodily fluids why is that a preferable death to a calm overdose of medication? Why can't the individual choose that?