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 did you hear the debate yesterday? Where people have died after 10 days of agony or somebody spent 5 hours vomiting Their own s*, so let's be real here. This is without this bill. Even with them drugs, you could still have a problem. Yes, but i'm telling you, now you're more than likely gonna take long time sometimes even with palliative care and I know I want the choice

I welcome this bill — it is only in it's first stages, of course, and has a second reading to make sure all the safeguards are as strong as can be, before a third stage/reading.

I had read many arguments for and against assisted dying, but this recent one from a former GP struck a chord with me, especially regarding the reality of 'palliative care' today:

John Oldham: "I was a GP for nearly 30 years. Palliative care in the 1990s was much better than it is now. We had a set of dedicated district nurses attached to our practice, access to GP beds in the community hospital for 24/7 hospice-like care, greater availability of home care, and “syringe drivers” for continuous analgesia for patients. Yet there were still people whose terminal suffering we could not fully relieve, and who begged us to do more when we couldn’t. I have witnessed such suffering in many patients and my own family. These people should have the choice whether to live or to die, as exists now in many countries, and the roof of moral value hasn’t fallen in in those places."

Note they used the general cop out "I believe" as they don't have actual examples, it's all dishonest fearmongering. Like the Dutch teenager whose death was abused by those with the pro-life at-all-costs agenda. Significant distress was caused to her family by the false stories circulated.

I think we have all missed a trick anyone posting against the bill must honestly nlw say if they are religious or not. Mind yiu won't know if telling truth or not

Exactly and you can change your mind at the very last moment. This happened recently with the depressed Dutch girl who spent 4 years campaigning to be allowed to die but at the moment when the syringe was about to be inserted she changed her mind and the process was stopped.

Have you got a source?

Why? Are religious people not allowed an opinion?

An important ethical distinction is the doctrine of double effect.

I remember reading that! Was a few days ago and in Guardian or Mail (I read both online).

You could Google it........

Because as Henry Riley wrote an article about how disingenuous some mps are because it is about the religious opinions. That's why I'm talking about that. It doesn't matter what you argue if you are arguing and you would never agree to the bill because of your religion be honest and own up with it. Then we know where we stand.

The New York Post
https://nypost.com/2024/11/14/lifestyle/22-year-old-backs-out-of-euthanasia-at-the-last-second/

But it's also in The Times (behind a paywall)
https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/dutch-woman-euthanasia-changed-mind-g6bctrzmf

Completely agree with assisted dying. If people aren't in agreement they could just simply not chose an assisted death. That's the beauty of it - no one's making you.

Of course they are, but if a MP votes a certain way then have to be clear to their constituents about their reasons.

Have any of the ones who voted no admitted they did so because of their religion?

I agree with it in principle but I agree it could be open to abuse. I don’t know whets the line is, but having seen close family members die horrible, slow deaths from cancer, I know which way I would vote.

I thinks satanists should definitely declare themselves on here. All religious groups must be catered for.

But everyone's opinion comes from somewhere.
As Dr Krish Kandiah said on X:

' I have yet to hear a non-religious politician declare the ways their beliefs have been shaped and influenced by philosophical systems and ideological trends. The assumption is that non-religious people are objective, purely rational, and not influenced or dependent on any other systems of thought, but this is naïve at best and prejudiced at worst.

It's like a southerner claiming everyone else has an accent but they have none.

It speaks to a lack of religious and philosophical literacy and a huge gap in understanding equality and inclusion.'

One third of people approved for MAID in Canada do not actually take the final step, according to a report I saw on the BBC. You can change your mind up to the very second of administration.

Thanks.
Several posters have been hinting at another case earlier in the thread that was widely misreported in the international press, I hadn't seen this one.

It's not that, but another person's religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed on other people.

It would be honest to say "my religious beliefs do not allow AD", wouldn't it. That's fine, obviously AD is not something you would choose.

But as I said above, peoples religious beliefs must not be allowed to trump other peoples choices. When it comes to how we, as individuals, die, surely our choices as individuals must be paramount?

You can have your death. Allow me mine.

Surely you agree?

oh was it Canada? I thought it was Oregon.

i think for those with dementia it is just that one step too far

@WillowTit have you ever seen what dying from end-stage dementia looks like? If, God forbid, that I find myself in this position, I sincerely hope that I have the option to end my life with whatever dignity I have left.

Who is ‘we’?

The MN ethics committee? 😉

no but from a legal point of view, i realise dementia is an awful awful condition

No people in this debate other mps the country. If people are coming at an argument with the intent purposes of never ever agreeing to any Bill no matter what is written be honest with that rather than pretend its this or that

An MP with a faith, any faith, has exactly as much right to an opinion and a vote as an MP with no faith. Having a faith does not make anyone's opinion less valid.

Changing the law to allow you to access assisted dying opens the door to abuse and coercion of those less able to advocate for themselves. So no, I don't agree. We make laws for society, not individuals. No man is an island.