Page 14 | To think voting for assisted dying legalisation could be a huge mistake???

MyLimeGuide · 2025-05-14T06:41:42+00:00

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.

LlynTegid · 14/05/2025 21:13

I don't think the proposal as it stands for England and Wales provides enough safeguards against people being coerced or feeling that they have a duty to die in this way. It incidentally does not cover many of the examples given.

If someone at a young age has made a statement that if I have certain diseases, terminal illnesses or conditions I wish to consider assisted suicide, and then renews that wish at set intervals, then I might be prepared to accept a proposal.

I don't think those who advocate assisted suicide have dishonourable motives.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 14/05/2025 21:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

tuvamoodyson · 14/05/2025 21:18

It’s about time! I’m in total agreement.

XenoBitch · 14/05/2025 21:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

But traumatic.
And how the law is at the moment, if someone chose to take their own life and someone is deemed to have assisted in some way, then they will be prosecuted.

And yes, it is legal but if you try, and survive, you could end up sectioned anyway. Not really your choice.

Thatsalineallright · 14/05/2025 21:29

I think many of us don't realise how pervasive abuse is. So many families are dysfunctional. A minority, sure, but in absolute numbers it's a lot.

If there was a way to get an inheritance quicker or to avoid carrying for an elderly parent, I fear too many would push for it.

We all know how messed up government policies can be. If future governments could encourage assisted dying instead of paying for pensions, expensive health care, and care homes, then I don't trust they wouldn't.

PleaseStopEatingMyStuff · 14/05/2025 21:33

If handled correctly it could bring dignity and mercy to those suffering with no chance of recovery.

I'm sure many of us have witnessed the utter agony people are forced to endure under the current system.
I pray myself and my loved ones will have a choice.

Brushedcottonpajamas · 14/05/2025 21:34

knitnerd90 · 14/05/2025 07:47

I'm worried it will wind up like Canada where they keep expanding eligibility for MAID and people have applied because the government will not provide sufficient care and supports. That's also been an issue in the Netherlands and Belgium, and it's very taboo there to talk about how it's ableist.

Think is exactly what will happen. People will become a burden and talked into killing themselves. 1 in 5 deaths in Canada are assisted suicide. When people are given a diagnosis they are offered assisted suicide as an option alongside treatment options, pain management, palliative care. Don't be under any allusions it's about compassion. It's about money!!

XenoBitch · 14/05/2025 21:36

Brushedcottonpajamas · 14/05/2025 21:34

Think is exactly what will happen. People will become a burden and talked into killing themselves. 1 in 5 deaths in Canada are assisted suicide. When people are given a diagnosis they are offered assisted suicide as an option alongside treatment options, pain management, palliative care. Don't be under any allusions it's about compassion. It's about money!!

Show quote history

Why are people assuming it will go the way of Canada. Other places have assisted dying and it works fine.

Lovelysummerdays · 14/05/2025 21:41

Brushedcottonpajamas · 14/05/2025 21:34

Think is exactly what will happen. People will become a burden and talked into killing themselves. 1 in 5 deaths in Canada are assisted suicide. When people are given a diagnosis they are offered assisted suicide as an option alongside treatment options, pain management, palliative care. Don't be under any allusions it's about compassion. It's about money!!

Show quote history

1 in 5 really? I’d love to see a source for that statistic. I’d of thought more like 1 in 20.

AnyoneWhoHasAHeart · 14/05/2025 21:41

She wouldn’t qualify for assisted dying. Because under the proposals the person has to have a terminal illness with less than six months to live.

And this is the point. Even on these threads we have people talking about hopefully being able to extend the bill to mental illness/dementia just to name a few. And this is where the slippery slope ends.

People aren’t going to be satisfied with it just being about terminal illness, people want the mentally ill and the disabled to choose death over their condition.

At the moment people say “you wouldn’t put an animal through that.” Make the bill legal for terminal illness and they’ll change their thinking to “you wouldn’t put a cancer patient through that” in order to argue for the bill to be extended.

Assisted dying is the slippery slope to eugenics.

It’s totally understandable that some people would want to end their life in certain circumstances, I would as well if diagnosed with certain illnesses.

But the fact is that it’s far to open to coercion. And it’s only a matter of time before people feel that they should opt for assisted dying.

godmum56 · 14/05/2025 21:41

XenoBitch · 14/05/2025 21:11

Terminal illness is far more than cancer.
Some illness are decades long with an awful end. People want to avoid that awful end.

Show quote history

This. Cancer gets the headlines but its about far more than that.

godmum56 · 14/05/2025 21:46

AnyoneWhoHasAHeart · 14/05/2025 21:41

She wouldn’t qualify for assisted dying. Because under the proposals the person has to have a terminal illness with less than six months to live.

And this is the point. Even on these threads we have people talking about hopefully being able to extend the bill to mental illness/dementia just to name a few. And this is where the slippery slope ends.

People aren’t going to be satisfied with it just being about terminal illness, people want the mentally ill and the disabled to choose death over their condition.

At the moment people say “you wouldn’t put an animal through that.” Make the bill legal for terminal illness and they’ll change their thinking to “you wouldn’t put a cancer patient through that” in order to argue for the bill to be extended.

Assisted dying is the slippery slope to eugenics.

It’s totally understandable that some people would want to end their life in certain circumstances, I would as well if diagnosed with certain illnesses.

But the fact is that it’s far to open to coercion. And it’s only a matter of time before people feel that they should opt for assisted dying.

I don't WANT anyone else to choose to die. I want that choice for myself. To be clear, I don't want them not to choose to die either....I just view it as not my business. More broadly and in principle I support people having agency and choice over their own lives and ending.

Tbrh · 14/05/2025 21:50

I take it you've never had to watch multiple loved ones suffer for years. It's done now anyway by starving people and it's cruel and can last for weeks. I'm all for it making the process more humane.

Tbrh · 14/05/2025 21:54

Brushedcottonpajamas · 14/05/2025 21:34

Think is exactly what will happen. People will become a burden and talked into killing themselves. 1 in 5 deaths in Canada are assisted suicide. When people are given a diagnosis they are offered assisted suicide as an option alongside treatment options, pain management, palliative care. Don't be under any allusions it's about compassion. It's about money!!

Show quote history

What's wrong with that? Surely you should get to decide to choose your quality of life and if you don't want to drag things on for you and your family, what's wrong with making that choice

Keepingthingsinteresting · 14/05/2025 21:57

Pregnancy3panic · 14/05/2025 09:35

My cousin was sectioned recently, suffering from severe mental illness. He tried to strangle himself with a shoelace on his 2nd night in hospifal. He's in his 40s and has a wife and kids.

Does anyone seriously think the correct, moral response to my cousin wanting to die would have been "oh OK, you want to die, off you go then, let's do this the tidy way - here's a lethal injection"?

Most people would obviously disagree with that. But proponents of assisted dying are saying that there are some cases where that is the appropriate response.

Where do you draw the line? Whose lives are worth saving from their own suicidal feelings, and whose lives aren't? I've found it difficult to formulate a response to that which isn't ableist, ageist, or doesn't judge the value of people's lives based on their ability to work or create economic value. "6 months to live with an illness that causes terrible pain" seems arbitrary to me.

I’m sorry about your cousin, but this is a total strawman argument. His situation would not be covered by the bill ( whether it should be or not is a different issue), but ultimately yes if someone is in pain and is going to die anyway and they want to end their suffering the only moral response is yes and help them make their end as dignified and easy as possible.

Lovelysummerdays · 14/05/2025 21:58

AnyoneWhoHasAHeart · 14/05/2025 21:41

She wouldn’t qualify for assisted dying. Because under the proposals the person has to have a terminal illness with less than six months to live.

And this is the point. Even on these threads we have people talking about hopefully being able to extend the bill to mental illness/dementia just to name a few. And this is where the slippery slope ends.

People aren’t going to be satisfied with it just being about terminal illness, people want the mentally ill and the disabled to choose death over their condition.

At the moment people say “you wouldn’t put an animal through that.” Make the bill legal for terminal illness and they’ll change their thinking to “you wouldn’t put a cancer patient through that” in order to argue for the bill to be extended.

Assisted dying is the slippery slope to eugenics.

It’s totally understandable that some people would want to end their life in certain circumstances, I would as well if diagnosed with certain illnesses.

But the fact is that it’s far to open to coercion. And it’s only a matter of time before people feel that they should opt for assisted dying.

I don’t think that’s true and if it were how much time would that take. Euthanasia has been available in the Netherlands for many years. It accounts for about 5% of deaths the vast majority of which are people with terminal cancer.

The state of Georgia in the U.S. was also an early adopter but hasn’t extended its original remit and rates are even lower.

I think if people did feel they should opt for assisted dying then the percentage rates would be much higher surely. If that feeling hasn’t kicked in over the last twenty years it’s possibly not going to.

Pregnancy3panic · 14/05/2025 22:35

Keepingthingsinteresting · 14/05/2025 21:57

I’m sorry about your cousin, but this is a total strawman argument. His situation would not be covered by the bill ( whether it should be or not is a different issue), but ultimately yes if someone is in pain and is going to die anyway and they want to end their suffering the only moral response is yes and help them make their end as dignified and easy as possible.

Show quote history

"ultimately yes if someone is in pain and is going to die anyway and they want to end their suffering the only moral response is yes and help them make their end as dignified and easy as possible" - do you actually mean that the moral response to someone with (exclusively) mental illness who wants to die is to help them to die?

I didn't say my cousin's situation was covered by the bill. I think most people would agree that it shouldn't be covered, though maybe you disagree.

I think there are also situations that most people agree the bill should cover, as evidenced in this thread - generally people seem to agree that an older person in horrible pain, suffering from cancer with a few months to go should be allowed to end things. I'm saying that I find it difficult to draw a line and to articulate why I think a line should be drawn.

Pregnancy3panic · 14/05/2025 22:47

@AnyoneWhoHasAHeart "People aren’t going to be satisfied with it just being about terminal illness, people want the mentally ill and the disabled to choose death over their condition."

That's how I read some of the posts on this thread too. I find it really shocking that this is more than a fringe view.

celticnations · 14/05/2025 22:54

Voted through, thank The Lord.

Now to build solid legislation around it.

The power of devoloution at work.

Hopefully Westminster, the Senedd & Stormont will follow too & bring hope of comfort & release to those in need across these 4 Nations.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 14/05/2025 22:54

Pregnancy3panic · 14/05/2025 22:47

@AnyoneWhoHasAHeart "People aren’t going to be satisfied with it just being about terminal illness, people want the mentally ill and the disabled to choose death over their condition."

That's how I read some of the posts on this thread too. I find it really shocking that this is more than a fringe view.

Edited

In the run up to the debate, someone told me that I was controlling because I didn't want the suicidal to have assisted suicide.

The scope will just keep widening.

Keepingthingsinteresting · 14/05/2025 22:54

Pregnancy3panic · 14/05/2025 22:35

"ultimately yes if someone is in pain and is going to die anyway and they want to end their suffering the only moral response is yes and help them make their end as dignified and easy as possible" - do you actually mean that the moral response to someone with (exclusively) mental illness who wants to die is to help them to die?

I didn't say my cousin's situation was covered by the bill. I think most people would agree that it shouldn't be covered, though maybe you disagree.

I think there are also situations that most people agree the bill should cover, as evidenced in this thread - generally people seem to agree that an older person in horrible pain, suffering from cancer with a few months to go should be allowed to end things. I'm saying that I find it difficult to draw a line and to articulate why I think a line should be drawn.

Show quote history

No, that isn’t what I said….a person with “an (exclusively) mental illness” isn’t going to die as a consequence so the bill isn’t relevant. Incidentally from experience I thing there are some people with mental illnesses where it might be the moral response, and as PPs have noted suicide isn’t illegal so if the choice is die messily and chaotically at your own hand damaging those around you or a more peaceful end I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as you are suggesting, though I do acknowledge suicidal ideation associated with mental illness can pass in a way systemic cancer, MND, advanced MS etc won’t.

Pregnancy3panic · 14/05/2025 23:12

Keepingthingsinteresting · 14/05/2025 22:54

No, that isn’t what I said….a person with “an (exclusively) mental illness” isn’t going to die as a consequence so the bill isn’t relevant. Incidentally from experience I thing there are some people with mental illnesses where it might be the moral response, and as PPs have noted suicide isn’t illegal so if the choice is die messily and chaotically at your own hand damaging those around you or a more peaceful end I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as you are suggesting, though I do acknowledge suicidal ideation associated with mental illness can pass in a way systemic cancer, MND, advanced MS etc won’t.

Show quote history

And I am saying that I'm uncomfortable with the way the bill draws a line between cases where assisted dying is appropriate and those where it isn't, because I can't see a way of drawing that line which isn't arbitrary, or which starts to include cases that I don't think should be included, like mental illness.

You seem to be suggestng that assisted dying is appropriate for people who are "in pain, going to die anyway and want to end their suffering", but those seem like broad criteria that could easily include mentally ill or disabled people. Obviously, every single one of us is "going to die anyway" so that can't be a reliable test.

Suicide is legal, but that doesn't mean it's actually desirable.

godmum56 · 14/05/2025 23:35

MistressoftheDarkSide · 14/05/2025 17:26

I truly think this could be a matter of individual case by case in many active EOL scenarios, like my mother, who died roughly 36 hours after being catheterised and given a syringe driver, having spent the last week phasing in and out and having expressed a desire to die several times whem her legs started leaking fluid and nothing more could be done. A week of that and hallucinations could have been prevented with proper conversation with medics about giving a couple of doses of pain meds that would likely have been fatal far quicker than the " we have to careful not to overdose on morphine via the syringe driver" scenario etc.

From my perspective and experience if someone is going to die ANYWAY the tinkering around with drugs etc on the last stages is the bureaucratic equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

People are currently being denied autonomy and dignified death with capacity, or without, even in their last days or hours, due to bureaucracy. The proposed Assisted Dying Bill, needing the safeguards it does due to being legislation, will possibly help very few terminally ill people because of the required safeguards. The people wanting assisted dying should have it in such circumstances, IMO. But, I don't trust government nor legislation in many cases. As others have pointed out, the bureaucracy may mean many applying for it will die beforehand anyway.

When my DP had his second brain bleed, and I was told he wasn't going to recover, I sat by his bed side listening to agonal breathing, and knowing he'd been gone for several days. Life support was withdrawn as a medical decision for comfort and dignity, I had no say in it other than the remote prospect of him coming back as a vegetable would have been against his wishes. Still I had close friends of his praying for a miracle, and urging me to "not give up". A swift upping of narcotics would have spared me three fucking days of watching him die.

I don't think we need an Assisted Dying Bill, I think we need something along the lines of death management. And maybe a comprehensive "access to suitable drugs" pathway for those with six months to live without so many of the hoops, like any treatment discussion with your primary HCP.

Why dies there always have to be a law, or legislation, leading to the inevitable to and fro of lawyers etc ? And the likelihood of misuse through pure tortology?

Like abortion, it should be between the sufferer and their HCPs IMHO.

I've thought about it alot.

You have my absolute sympathy and personally I have been where you have been, but abortion is also subject to the law and is not just between the hcp snd the pregnant woman. The law has been stricter than it is now IIRC. It has changed as attitudes change, both public opinion and the aftitude of doctors. In the days when, unless you were wealthy, a request for a termination for a non explicitly medical reason had to go through your GP, there were some GP's who would never agree to refer because they didn't believe it was right. I guess there still might be GPs and other doctors who think its wrong, but access to termination services is no longer gate kept in the same way and doctors do not agree with termination need not work in those services. But I am wittering....my point is that this is the beginning point if the journey. Access to contraception and termination haven't been the uncontrolled disaster that some people predicted and I don't think that this will be either

thepariscrimefiles · 15/05/2025 07:47

NeedToChangeName · 14/05/2025 10:10

I'm against it. Slippery slope. Look at Canada

We should be investing in better treatments and palliative care. But we can't afford / choose not to fund that. So, I expect voluntary euthanasia will be introduced for economic reasons, not truly due to welfare concerns (and now rebranded as "assisted dying" as that sounds more palatable and implies autonomy)

It terrifies me. In future, an elderly, vulnerable person makes one comment their life isn't worth living? Off you pop

Even with great palliative care, some natural deaths are hideous, painful and distressing for the patient, medical staff and the family.

The current bill is really restrictive and would apply only to people with a terminal illness with less than 6 months to live with a process to ensure as much as is possible that it is the decision of the dying person and that they haven't been coerced into the decision.

Better treatments may result in a longer life expectancy with the illness but would not ever guarantee a pain free, peaceful death.

The slippery slope arguement would mean that no matter how strict and restrictive the criteria for assisted dying being proporsed would be, its critics will never be satisfied and will always be willing to allow terminally ill people to suffer the indignities of a natural death that they do not want.

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/05/2025 08:02

Brushedcottonpajamas · 14/05/2025 21:34

Think is exactly what will happen. People will become a burden and talked into killing themselves. 1 in 5 deaths in Canada are assisted suicide. When people are given a diagnosis they are offered assisted suicide as an option alongside treatment options, pain management, palliative care. Don't be under any allusions it's about compassion. It's about money!!

Show quote history

4.7% or around 1 in 20 - not 1 in five. 96% with terminal conditions, most often cancer. The average age of people choosing MAID is 77 years.

I am under no illusions that the opponents of assisted dying are about compassion - they are about imposing their own moral imperatives on other people. The focus is always on "there won't be sufficient safeguards", but there are not sufficient safeguards for people now. People dying in agony or facing debilitating and drawn out deaths without quality of life are not being safeguarded. People being forced to watch their loved ones die terribly are not being safeguarded.

Instead of rubbishing everyone elses rights, if you think you have great ideas about safeguarding, then contribute them to the discussion. Recognise that whether it happens now or not - and surveys now suggest that 79% of British people support assisted dying - it is going to happen. It is no longer an if, but a when. So the debate is no longer about having assisted dying or not having it - it is about the conditions in which it is allowed.