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.

If only life expectancy could be accurately estimated, sadly we aren’t there yet.

What does the science of dying have to do with assisted suicide?

You said:

Yours are with hypothetical people who only exist in your imagination.

It seems to be news to you that abuse and murder happen as you refer to hypothetical people.

We're not talking about an average death though are we. We're talking about the really horrific, painful, traumatic deaths where the unimaginable is happening.

There is absolutely no way anyone with even an ounce of empathy, could contemplate your views if you had.

Why have you asked me again? I quoted you. Could you provide the evidence that backs up your assertion please?

From your first link:
Yet fast-forward eight years, and the first official report into assisted dying deaths in Ontario, revealed last week by The Telegraph, found vulnerable people faced “potential coercion” and “undue influence” to seek out the practice.

After 8 years it found potential coercion and undue influence*. No stats for victims coerced into a premature death.

Your 2nd link is titled Poor, lonely and homeless opting for assisted death in Canada. People choosing. Again no stats for people coerced by others into ending their lives unwillingly.

The really horrific, painful, traumatic deaths are not ones happening to patients with even substandard palliative care in hospitals here, but in war zones.

I suspect you have witnessed the former, I have witnessed the latter.

I am sorry you were deeply traumatised by it, but that in no way justifies legalising a system that will kill innocents.

We don’t have the death penalty because of the risk of hanging even one person for murder who is innocent. If Peter Sullivan who just spent 38yrs in prison for a rape and murder he did not commit in 1987 had been convicted in 1957 he would have been hung.

Yet you think it is perfectly ok to send innocents to their death just so someone who is already dying can suffer a bit less and you watching them die, suffer a lot less. I think this is more about your feelings from watching someone die. Death is never going to be so sanitised, neat and unemotional. It will always be traumatic for the living. Assisted dying isn’t going to change that. Have you read ALL the reports of relatives that attend an assisted death? Because they’re not all positive.

How the body dies. What happens as each organ fails. The pain. The ability to breathe. To swallow. You know, the science and biology of dying. The very reason that people want assisted dying.

Abuse and murder happen to real people. We have masses of evidence and statistics to prove it.

Yes, because statistics would require it to be a crime that is actually enforced. As it is, the legal systems have yet to convict anyone of coercion even though it is clear from studies and testimonials that it is happening.

It’s like asking me in 1990 for stats on women being raped by their husbands and pretending that because there are no stats, it isn’t happening when we knew it was. It just wasn’t legally recognised as rape and no man had ever been successfully prosecuted for raping his wife…until 1991.

We do not yet have assisted dying. No one in the UK can possibly coerce another into it. That's why there are no convictions.

You say 'send innocents to their deaths' like it is some foregone conclusion that there will be multiple. It isn't. It is a maybe that there will even be one - and an unlikely one at that given the safeguards in this bill.

Is there any evidence at all of even one person in any other country who has definitely been co-erced into ending their life, past all of the safeguards in those systems?

On the other hand, many people definitely will suffer unwanted slow and painful deaths if this bill is not past. This is a fact.

How many people have to suffer for a maybe?

You're undermining yourself. The bill hasn't gone through, therefore we're talking about hypothetical people.

However it's true that we have lots of evidence that abuse and murder happens and it's unlikely abusers won't use the bill. They have been known to 'euthanise' their partner's.

Ffs, I’m talking about Canada, Netherlands, Oregon, Belgium…they’ve had people prosecuted for coercion but all have been unsuccessful. Even cases where the patient had said they didn’t want to die, was given drugged tea by a relative, then kicked the lethal injection out of the doctors hand, the doctor then had family hold her down and she was finally injected with the lethal drug. And died. Went to court, and no one was convicted of any wrong doing,

Both are facts. There is plenty of evidence of people being killed that did not want to die. It is a foregone conclusion. We are not so different and special that we will avoid it.

Once again proving you haven't got a clue about the reality of what is being debated.

Ok. Do you have the stats for people prosecuted for coercion in countries where assisted dying is legal?

You have nothing substantive to say I take it. A debate consists of engaging with the matter at hand, not calling someone clueless.

Real people with terminal illnesses are having real conversations with their real loved ones about the end, right now. In real time in real life.

It has become legal in NZ .. there was a referendum where >50% voted for.. I voted against.
i have softened my stance a bit since because it’s being used appropriately and the doctors reviewing patients wishes are the most thoughtful, ethical people .. I know several.

No it really isn't, no matter what you may say or think. Until it happens we cannot know for sure.

And even if it was to happen, how much suffering do you think is OK to prevent one case of coercion, or even two or three slipping through? Is it 100 people, 1000? No limit? Genuinely interested to know.

No. I do not have them to hand. If you had read deeply about the issues in these countries, you would not be denying the existence of coerced deaths in significant enough numbers to be a barrier to implementation. In no country have the safeguards prevented these deaths.

Real people are being abused by partners; they're being beaten, raped and murdered as well as coerced. Like you said there's lots of evidence.

How can you argue the existence of coerced deaths in significant numbers if you don't know the numbers?

No limit. Otherwise we are prioritising criminals convicted of murder over the life of a person whose only crime is to be vulnerable to someone who wants them dead quickly, conveniently, and legally.

Easing suffering should never be justification to take even one human life.

I know. We don't make relationships or marriage or sex or pregnancy illegal in response though.

Which, unfortunately, will continue regardless of this bill.