To think voting for assisted dying legalisation could be a huge mistake???

[MyLimeGuide]

In Scotland they are voting to legalise assisted dying. Looking likely to pass. I am worried this will come to England now. Kier is already proving he doesn't care about old and disabled people so this scares me.
Obviously there are 2 sides but how can people be so ignorant? If passed this could be one of the biggest opportunity for corrupt evil behaviour of saving money on the NHS, care, people literally getting away murder, playing god! No not good. It's so scary.

Could you explain how the government is going to fund the safeguards? Do you believe they will plough billions into the NHS and court system to provide this?

I agree op. The NHS and social care system are broken. As a society it is a very bad idea to let people kill others.

This is not about dying or not dying. It’s about the manner of death. Everyone will die of one thing or another eventually.
So by making people live when they don’t want to, torturing them with machines for months after nature would have released them from torment, allowing them to suffer until their hearts give out, exact zero lives have been saved but many millions will be made to suffer.
Yes, there absolutely has to be robust legal processes in place to protect people, but in the end it’s nothing short of barbaric what so many people are being made to live through right now and we have to do better.

I can guarantee this will not happen lightly. The court of protection paperwork required to keep even an elderly person in a care home against their will is VAST.
It would require probably multiple medical reports, a capacity assessment, a best interest decision… it would not be done lightly!
The amount of paperwork required to even cut a person’s hair if it poses a risk to their well-being without their consent is huge.
I suggest anyone who feels this will happen quickly and thoughtlessly reads some case law relating to ‘right to die’ cases such as in regards to self neglect, anorexia and chronic illness. Older adults are essentially trying to starve themselves or not take life preserving meds in an attempt to die currently, is that better?

But people already have DNAR written on their records. These are only approved if the person has capacity to make the decision. If assisted dying is brought in then presumably there will be similar controls and only people with capacity can consent. Although I wonder what would happen if they had someone who had power of attorney who was against it?

Agree.

Whenever this debate comes up on MN I find it hard not to laugh. "The disabled are against it" and "vulnerable people will be forced into death" and "if there were better palliative care this wouldn't be needed" are trotted out like some kind of gospel. Why do I laugh - well largely because of the many more threads about disabled and the vulnerable portraying them as scroungers, frauds and drains on the poor taxpayer. An overwhelming number of posters do not give a shit about the disabled and vulnerable, yet suddenly want to ensure they can't choose to die with dignity whilst denying them to right to live with dignity.

(a) "The disabled are against it" - no they aren't. Some may be. Others (like me) aren't. We are no more a homogenous group of clone thinking people than the able-bodied. And we certainly don't need the able-bodied speaking for us, thank you very much.

(b) "vulnerable people will be forced into death" - they won't be if there are sufficient safeguards to prevent people from being pressured, including provision for the respecting of living wills. We currently force vulnerable peopel to live against their wills - not for their benefit but for ours. But suddenly give them the choice and it becomes something they have no right to. Why is that?

(c) "if there were better palliative care this wouldn't be needed" - It isn't either/or. Why can we not have both. Isn't that providing the ultimate choice to people?

If you individually are against it for yourself then that is your choice. It is rank arrogance to assume that your choice should dictate the choices of others over their own lives and deaths. "Scare stories" from other countries are irrelevant. You may not agree with the choice that someone, somewhere else, has made to end their life. But it was their choice. I have seen many people die in agony because of terminal illness including family and friends. And I also witnessed the years long agony of a friend with severe mental ill health (who actually did have massive support and interventions from mental health services over most of her adult life until she refused further help) who repeatedly attempted suicide, and whose life choices reflected an overwhelming desire to harm herself and "end it", finally do so in the worst and most agonising way to die. I know what she would have done had there been a choice to end her life legally, and would have supported her choice.

By all means put protections in place. But do not dictate to others the choices that they wish to exercise. You are not protecting them.

Yes. Broken and evidently more and more of the human race are proving (in my opinion and experience) to be more selfish and greedy.

@PhilippaGeorgiou
Yes exactly this. I don’t want other people determining and dictating MY choices.

Unless the disabled people you are discussing are terminally ill, they would not qualify so are you saying rules should be relaxed? How do you safeguard those not wanting to die if you want rules to be relaxed? People that want to commit suicide can do so already.

How do you believe safeguards will be funded?

This. It's torture, for everyone.
There does need to be very powerful regulation but I'm all for it if well legislated.

During covid people had DNAR put on thier records without their knowledge. My GP (who is especially good) alterted me to the fact my son had a dnar on his notes due to his autism and asked if we were wanting it removed. it was a bit of a scandal at the time.

This is why I am suspicious of 'there will be safeguards'. We are crap at spotting coercive control and we are crap at supporting the learning disabled.

I know I want to chose assisted death, I know my granny who died of parkisons would have wanted assisted death, but this iteration of the bill wouldnt have helped her, which is why i am very sure it would gradually include more and more scenarios.

I know my wish might mean, at some point in the future, as legislation inevitablely expands, someone else will be assisted to die who it wasn't the right option for. I find people who aren't prepared to acknowledge that could happen a bit naive. It's better to say I know that's the risk, but everything has risks and I am happy with that. I'm squeamish about it.

Ah - interesting question. Let's not have it because it might cost us?

I could get into greater depth but I won't - however yes - given safeguards I would not restrict assisted dying to only the terminally ill. And as I said, one of those safeguards could be living wills set down long beforehand. Committing suicide is neither a humane way of dying, nor is it an option for all people. We already force others to collude with "assisted dying" yet criminalise them for it. What about their rights?

I do not expect that at this stage any legislation that comes to pass will answer all the questions, nor all the possibilities. For anyone. But I am in favour of assisted dying, in the end because I think it should be the right of every human being to choose, and I have seen too many denied that right in the worst possible circumstances. You don't have to choose it for yourself. But leave me to make my choices.

this.

There will lots of check that will be put into place . its for the terminally ill so they won't have to die agonising deaths.. not for those people suffering from depression. i think it's about time we gave people that choice and respect.

the same way the "perfect palliative care" would be funded

Exactly. In this country, a well regulated safe guarded process will not happen.

I can only speak for myself, but I want to have autonomy and control. If I have a terminal illness and I reach a certain stage where the symptoms are going to become unmanageable then what is the point of still being alive and dragging out my suffering? In a pragmatic world - the suffering is now outweighing any joy from being alive, so I would want to stop being alive. Why should I have to go and jump off a bridge or in front of a train or something and die a traumatic death that impacts on other people when I could instead have a pain-free medically assisted death.

It will cost us. Billions. At a detriment to ither services. Which is when you move into the realms of coercion.

You think a living will is enough of a safeguard?

I can only assume anyone who is against assisted dying has never watched someone suffer for weeks or months on end just waiting for death to come.

If you watch your loved one, with full capacity, lose all bodily autonomy - to the point they bleed from their eyes because they can no longer blink - and still think they should continue with their suffering for another few weeks, then you are pure evil.

I would love to see the costings on that. Can you provide the link showing what additional costs would be incurred and the rationale as to why it isn't a legitimate use of money v. the £billions spent on keeping people alive who don't wish to be alive. And who has done the cost benefit analysis as to whether the cost of safeguards for assisted dying would be more or less worthwhile than "other services"? A link to that would also be appreciated.

And since when did we start saying that the right thing to do was based on the cost of doing the right thing? It's not an argument I have seen widely supported on MN to date. There seems, for example, to be an overwhelming number of people here opposed to "doing the right thing" on giving people with disabilities quality of life by ensuring benefits reflect the real cost of disability (there's plenty of evidence showing that disability benefits do not do that). What about the right of pensioners to heat their homes in winter just a little bit more - I noticed a lot of "taxpayers" on this site implaccably opposed to "doing the right thing".

There is already coercion. You are coercing people to live who do not wish to. Why is your coercion better than any other?

I did not say a living will was the only safeguard - I said it could be one of the possible safeguards. All you are arguing is that any form of assisted dying would be an imperfect solution. We already have an imperfect solution. People are being denied the right to choose.

We have assisted dying in the country I live. I'm so grateful to have that option. Especially when I was diagnosed with a rare cancer. I wanted all my options. And long prolonged suffering didn't feature in that

So you will need an appointment with a consultant that is willing to put a time frame on your life expensancy.

As I've said upthread, the waiting lists for counselling are currently long. So we will need a new team of counsellors that people can be fast tracked to.

The wait to see a psychologist for many is years. So we will need new teams of phycologists that people can be fast tracked to (ahead of those in crisis).

Then this needs to be presumably fast tracked through the courts as wait times are long currently.

We the need to buy the drug.

We will then need more doctors to resource the time needed to provide a procedure, which may take up their time for hours or days.

Then in some cases we will need more court time and legal teams for families that feel the process wasn't followed.

MyLimeGuide

I'm also concerned it will end up that people with depression will be allowed to top themselves. For example

Please use appropriate language when talking about this subject, don't trivialise it just to.fit your point.

Absolutely not. 1 person being pushed into a death is 1 too many!

I am extremely concerned about our most vulnerable in society being encouraged to end their lives - and it will inevitably happen because hey the government could save money in that rising social care bill.