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.

I can because it’s been written about at length in many reputable academic journals, it’s been reported on by journalists and so on. If it were insignificant, there would not be the level of concern we see.

I don't see or share your concern. And despite your seeing all this evidence, you haven't provided any nor have you provided any academic links or official statistics.

It doesn't have anything to do with marriage or pregnancy, it's about power and control. There's evidence that abusive men have 'euthanised' their partners.

All that suffering to prevent even one person being coerced into ending their life six months early (yes I know doctors can never be exact as to how long we have left). Wow.

It's part of safeguarding vulnerable people. You don't say shit happens, don't bother.

I'm all for safeguarding vulnerable people and it is something that needs to be in the Bill. It is not a reason to not bother going ahead with the Bill.

I have actually provided academic links, some are embedded in the news links as references.
I have provided numerous publications illustrating that it has been happening.

You have provided nothing to show coercion isn’t happening.

This has crossed my mind.

ive also considered whether the lives of disabled people could be considered to be worth less by doctors than those who are more able bodied. that makes me so uneasy. Happy to stand corrected on that because I’ll admit to not knowing much about this bill.

This whole argument revolves around death being the worst thing that can happen to a person. It's not. Suffering is.

Except it’s never just one. Just this one whistleblower report found over 400 suspicious MAID deaths between 2018 and 2023 in Canada
”Titled “A Pattern of Noncompliance,” the report from New Atlantis found some 428 cases of possible criminal violations in regards to MAiD services since 2018.”

”An internal report from Chief Coroner Dirk Huyer identified over 400 cases of “issues with compliance” with criminal law and regulatory policies. Furthermore, in 2023, these cases accounted for a quarter of all MAiD deaths.

It should be noted that New Atlantis only came across these documents after three physicians with access to them sent an alert.The physicians chose to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal in their professional communities.

The report found that the issues of noncompliance range in severity from breach of safeguards to patients who were euthanized while they may not have been capable of consent. It is unclear if any or all of these “issues” have been violations of criminal law, but this is because not one single case was reported to law enforcement for investigation.
The Chief Coroner’s Office has categorized virtually all of these cases as requiring a simple “informal conversation,” rather than any sort of investigation. In one case described as “egregious” – one that Huyer himself called "just horrible" – the office referred it to a regulatory body, without informing authorities.”

Read the full report at New Atlantis.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Safeguarding vulnerable people is always paramount, hence how the bill is written and the finer details being debated.

So you must be in favour of the organ black market where one person is murdered so that their organs can alleviate the suffering of a dozen people who need organ transplants?

I've read your news links and summarised them upthread. Had there been any statistics or substantive proof, it would have been in the articles. There wasn't any.

You say it exists, the onus is on you to prove it. No one can prove the negative.

I have proven that coercion is happening in the countries that have legalised it.

I think really, it is you that is arguing that even though it is happening, you think it is insignificant or unimportant.

What a clever rebuttal. You definitely know exactly what you are talking about and understand all the points discussed regarding the assisted dying bill. You have 100% proved everyone wrong with your genius insights and comparisons. Well done. You've really shown your superior intelligence here.

The NHS doesn't currently have the capacity or funds to properly invest in this. There is a danger that people could be coerced into ending their lives. There is also the danger of a slippery slope where the criteria is widened.

Which is why the very strict criteria, with lessons learnt from other countries who have already been through this, are being debated and written into the bill.

No you haven't. There were no stats for coercion. From the article you linked in the Atlantic:
Compliance with these standards, Huyer says in the presentation, has overall been excellent: “We don’t see problems in the vast majority of cases.”But, he notes, there is a “very small handful” of practitioners who “are not responding to our educational input and are maintaining the same practice repetitively. And so we see a pattern of noncompliance

Yet the concerns were not insignificant. They fell into two categories, the first of which was problems with “documentation and compliance with legislation.” This included “poor/no completion of accompanying assessment notes” on how eligibility for euthanasia was decided by the clinician. It also included “missing documents,” and “partial completion / no completion of federal reporting requirements by clinicians.”

The second category of concerns was about whether patients had the necessary capacity to consent to be euthanized. These problems included “incompatible or contradictory conclusions of capacity by MAID assessors in comparison to other documented clinical assessments in medical records,” a “paucity of formal capacity assessments or further specialist consultation” in cases where patients had a “known history of dementia or cognitive impairment,” and “variability in quality of assessments in cases of wavering capacity or evidence of impaired cognition.”

They can add as strict criteria as they like, if there's no money to run it properly or train people, it's not much use. Coercion is very difficult to prove and it doesn't mitigate the slippery slope.

Yet your argument the whole way through this thread has been 'it's all fine and dandy because "palliative care" '

Fight for proper funding so the written, legal safeguards are adhered to them. And funding for palliative care if you so wish. But don't force unimaginable pain and suffering on thousands of people "just in case".

The bill is not written well for safeguarding. In fact, it allows for someone else to sign for a patient and consent on their behalf. The entire high judge has been jettisoned. The new “panel” that approves doesn’t even talk to the patient in private. It’s a rubber stamping round robin so that no one person approves the death warrant, which means no one can be held liable if the patient was being coerced and no one bothered to check.

Bloody hell, you can calculate your own stats from the info given if you can be bothered to look at the source data.

eg, the # of coercion cases found were 25% of all MAID deaths in 2023

1 in 4 - is that high enough for you?

Do you know what isn't difficult to prove? The real suffering experienced by real people who are dying.

Do you know how laws become laws? This is no where near the final draft. It will go back and forth, probably for a good 2 years before it's actually approved.

The article is about compliance, not coercion. They are different things as outlined in my previous quotes.