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.

You don't understand coercion.

Yes I do but I look at the bigger picture.

You are right that not everyone who feels a burden to the point that they want to die is being abused, but many are. So why not remove that as a valid reason and get rid of that danger zone?

You clearly don't:

It will be up to the individual person if they would like to use the option (if they fall under the very specific requirements). It doesnt get decided for them.

Coercion is where you're pressured into doing something. Therefore it's not a free decision.

An abuser could bully you into signing forms.

Your first sentence would be reason to be against it. This is such an issue with monumental effects and consequences far beyond the individual advocates for it, that in no case should a Prime Minister be committing to it to please a well known personality and leaving it to an MP whose faith in doctors, the judges and sundry others is naive to say the least and strikes terror into the heart of sensible people.

Has this woman ever thought it through? Has she even addressed the many fears and dangers inherent? Has she looked at the behaviour of the medical profession in recent or past times? Has she seen how women and children are treated? She is a woman. Is she aware how women have been fighting a war against assaults on their rights and those of their children up to the present moment? Has she thought of or heard from disabled people? I have heard a few eloquently explain their fears and objections. Has she seen the vulnerability in elderly people who think they are a burden and not wanted? Has she heard from the psychiatric or paliiative care doctors? I've heard them too on the radio. Has she looked at what is happening in some other countries and learnt from anything from that? Is she aware that some are already urging that it is unfair to restrict this to just the (supposed) terminally ill within whatever period of expected demise?

I have heard and read some very intelligent, informed and perceptive people but I very much doubt she she looks left or right in her zeal to steam ahead and push a Bill into law. This is not a trivial thing but needs people with the capacity to understand and consider all the implications of it. We need a panel of wise and thoughtful people to do that, not some reckless headlong rush into law.

I completely understand that. If I'm deciding whether I would vote for or against something I vote with which option would benefit the most people and the people that need it the most. And I would hazard a guess that there are far more people suffering immensely and cruelly with 6 months or less to live who would welcome this option compared to the possibility that a small percentage of those same people might also have an abuser waiting at their bedside. That's how I process in my mind whether I'm for or against something. You are entitled to look at it differently.

And the fact their relative might want their money for example might not even have any bearing on whether they sign the forms or not, they might want to sign the forms regardless. They might welcome the quicker option out more than people who have caring supportive people around them if you think about it.

You're completely correct OP

No you don't

It's not as overt as an abuser by a bedside. It's far more insidious.

I think it's probably inevitable that it'll come in here at some point in the future. There simply isn't the will to fund and establish decent palliative care. Plus the government are always banging on about no money and no staff for such things.

Of course 🙄

It's a divisive topic at the end of the day. And I dont think people who feel strongly one way or the other can have their minds changed. I

If I was suffering immensely, with death around the corner, facing an agonising death I would be wishing I had the option.

I would also wish that option to be available to anyone I cared about.

There have been several programmes on Radio Four about it, going back over the past year so. Moral Maze was one. Sonia Sodha did a series, I think. I can't remember the name but I heard another one early on with a powerful advocate for disabled people, in about January or February last year. I also read a couple of very interesting articles by Kathleen Stock.

I agree, very few people are ambivalent about this issue.
I think that anyone in pain would choose to end that pain if they could, even if it meant dying. Where I differ from you is that I would not want to have the choice for someone to help me die if it meant someone else being killed who was not making that choice freely.
Totally respect your point of view though!

try having one of the more horrible neuro diseases, KNOWING what awaits you and how horrific its going to be before you talk about "people feeling less desperate" How many times does it have to be said that palliative care does not, cannot fix everything unless you consider it fixed to be under strong narcotics, bedbound and intubated?

again and again. Decent, excellent, gold standard palliative care cannot fix everything unless you consider strong narcotics, being bed bound and intubated a fix.

Well that's up to you. And if you were the one making the decision it would mean we all suffer needlessly

Tell you what. If you don’t want to die with assistance, then don’t. I really don’t care and it should be up to you.

I’ll make my own choices about my own life and my own body, thanks very much.

And don’t tell me that I and everyone else who might want to avoid a painful death that we can’t and we have to suffer, just in the extremely unlikely case someone else is unable to say no and the many safeguards don’t spot it (oh, and they were almost certainly going to die in six months anyway).

You make a good point which is the term ' mental illness' is not acceptable on its own. Each issue needs to be assessed individually ( if ever considered here) and something like dementia, yes I can see all the risks there with coercion.

I still support it. Managing it in cases if dementia, very very tough. I'm sure I'd like that opportunity at the point I could be deemed fit to make it.

Have you ever watched a loved one vomit faeces as their body shuts down?

No amount of palliative care can deal with that.

Forcing people to go through such extremes is inhuman, at the very best. Evil, at worst.

You can't eliminate suffering, it's just inevitable. In my opinion, not allowing for assisted suicide would minimise suffering on a population level more than allowing it would.
You disagree, as is your right. I'm not sure it's possible to know for sure.

You can minimise suffering for sure. The fact the world is slowly changing and considering these options makes me think more people are for it overall. More people wish the choice.

Terminal illness does mean certain and eminent death. My family die of cancer. We carry the BRAC gene. I wholly welcome the choices this Bill will provide for people like us.

I know that not all of my dead loved ones would have made the choice. I also know that some of them would have chosen to have their end, days before it eventually came. And I know why.

Their lives. Their bodies. Their death. It should have been their choice.

It's actually very very human, and has been for all of history. Death comes to us all.

I can understand that people want to be able to take control over the way they die though. On an individual level, I'd be fine with it.

My worry is when looking at a broader scale, how many people will be killed who have been pressured into it? Maybe not many to begin with, but once it becomes normalised I can well imagine the government beginning to push assisted dying as a solution to lots of societal problems - the pension crisis, not enough hospital beds, lack of palliative care etc.

How would not allowing it minimise suffering on a population level?

Even the most ardent opposers of the bill would have to concede that far, far more people would suffer painful unwanted deaths than would somehow fall through the cracks and be persuaded to end their life (painlessly too, so no suffering there). Who is actually suffering if we allow assisted suicide?