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.

No, but as explained, it comes from a position of bad faith, because no matter how the bill is worded for some people with religion, they would not agree to it. That's what I mean about some of the mps. Be honest with why you decided to go against it.Not just because of how the bill is worded, some people would just not vote for anyway

You’re a genius. We’re all dying anyway so we should just start picking off the weakest now with a little cheeky coercion. You should probably volunteer your services to Kim Leadbetter as a cheerleader for the campaign. You’ll have the NHS waiting lists cut in no time.

Perhaps I'm not. I don't understand what you mean by this:

in Order to change the actual bill, they would have to go back to Parliament and right now.

I'm talking about after the bill becomes law. If the ECtHR ruled that the new law breached people's human rights then it would have to go back to parliament. We wouldn't get the option of saying 'no, we'll stick with what we have now.'

Stop being hyperbolic. We are talking about people with 6 months to live. We're not all dying unless we've got terminal illness, and we've got 6 months to live. So either way, you are going to die. Let's talk about coercion, but I don't think you're going to be coerced when you've got only got 6 months to live. And even if you are, you are going to die either way

If you have a terminal illness and are going to die within months what would be the incentive for anyone to coerce you into going for assisted dying? Unless you think the NHS would in order to free up beds 🤷‍♀️

The echr allows Netherlands and Belgium and Sweden so we won't have an issue

Exactly exactly

Well they’ve ruled more than once that not allowing assisted dying is not contrary to human rights so I very much doubt they will. Also it wouldn’t have to go back to parliament even if it did breach the ECHR. Parliament isn’t compelled to make law by the European court of human rights.

6 months of care home fees could make a significant dent in the inheritance.
6 months of having to take unpaid leave and balance childcare etc to care for a dying relative.
6 months of feeling obligated to care for a parent that you really don’t want to care for…..

It’s a bit of a stretch and I can’t see many people with a terminal condition blithely going along with that. There may be some who would be moved to a care home for the first time in conjunction with a terminal diagnosis but most people would remain at home and then go to hospital/hospice at the end so what you are describing is quite rare. You also seem to presume that the very elderly (with mention of inheritance) will be the ones making primary use of this law whereas I think it will be people of all ages with a terminal diagnosis.

Well, specifically, we are talking about people that doctors think have about six months to live.
Didn't an MP say in yesterday's debate that her daughter was told she would live for 6 months and lived for 27 years?

Can I address how this works? Yes it isn’t an exact science but you don’t have to go if you get this in place you only have to go if you start feeling a bit ill and you want to go I probably would do that. I probably wouldn’t do it straight away I would probably do it if my situation worsen. That’s all we’re saying.

If I had mental capacity and some grabby relative told me to kill myself so that I didn’t waste the inheritance I would straight away change my will to leave it to charity, spend as much as I wanted on carers and leave a special letter to them to be opened after my death saying “you are a cunt”.

But once we do allow it, it opens up other claims that can be made. Part of the case in Canada succeeded on the grounds of disability discrimination.

It would cause problems if we ignored a ECtHR decision wouldn't it? At least that's what I've been told regarding the difficulties of GRA repeal, so the same would apply here, surely?

My opinion is based on 18 years working in palliative and end of life care. Seeing people suffering needlessly day in day out. I watched 2 close family members die the same way.
This, to me, is an absolute God send and has been a long time coming.

You call it naive, I call it personal and professional experiences forming my opinion. If you want to suffer needlessly for months at the end of your life - crack on. I know what I'll be choosing.

satanism is just as valid as any other religion.

People who are desperate will find a way anyway, and the implications on the people that help them are far more serious (possible murder charges). I’m not clear on what the risk would be for doctors, assuming the patient is fully consenting and hasn’t been coerced.

@Dreammalildream ismu
I thinks satanists should definitely declare themselves on here. All religious groups must be catered for.

satanism is just as valid as any other religion.

Absolutely. They should declare themselves in parliament. It's the will of The People

But why would the ECHR change its approach because of a law in the UK? It has ruled several times that it is up to the individual state to decide what to do with assisted dying and that there is no right to die implied in the convention.
With disability discrimination I do actually see the argument because it’s unfair that someone with mental capacity but no physical capacity to take the drug can’t make use of the law and has to rely on family members or relatives to help them die and thereby risk criminal conviction.
But the ECHR won’t get involved in that.

You do realise if said evil family member wanted rid of their terminally ill relative there's loads of other ways to kill someone without having to go through 2 doctors and a judge.
These arguments seem a little ridiculous and childish tbh.

When i said satanism is just as valid as any other religion maybe i should have been clearer - i dont believe any religions are valid and religious beliefs should have no place in the formation of laws.

But at least satanists dont seek to block laws based on their own personal religious beliefs that humans ending their own lives is a bad thing and that humans must suffer or they won't get into a fictional heaven.

Satanists would undoubtedly be opposed to AD, it cuts suffering and pain short and that's meat and drink to them 🤔

When you say 'religious beliefs should have no place in the formation of laws', do you mean that no one with any faith should be an MP? Or work in the legal profession?

I've watched a close relative die in the kind of pain I dont want to deal with, begging us to help them go. Keeping people alive because we can and because the law says they have no choice in how they die is unkind and cruel. I accept it has to be closely supervised but I struggle to understand why there is a problem with people who are terminal, being forced to die in pain and distress.

Of course they can be involved. They just shouldn’t seek to impose their religious beliefs on others.

MPs in particular should remember they’re meant to be acting on behalf of their constituents, who in many cases won’t share their faith