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.

There currently isn't the option of AS. Once there is, it's far cheaper than palliative care or a hospice.

We're talking about people who are in such an insufferable position that they could be given the choice to end their suffering. It's not like they are going to be in hospital feeling relatively ok and the doctor says I'm sorry I think you've only got months to live and the patient says oh ok then I'll just pop off now then.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/01/assisted-dying-impact-assessment-save-money-parts-nhs

A long-awaited assessment of the impact of assisted dying legislation will put a price on administrating the procedure for the first time and is expected to conclude it will save parts of the NHS money by accelerating the deaths of terminally ill people.

It's literally one of the arguments for it. And why I don't believe it will be a net good for society.

No one is suggesting your silly scenario. The criteria is having a terminal illness and six months to live.

It can be expensive to provide palliative care, a hospital bed or a place in a hospice. This can be used to save money.

Care home residency isn’t end of life care obviously.

Agree
Or resorting to clap trap about conspiracy theories

This response perfectly illustrates lack of understanding of the use of propaganda. People are absorbing the message that being a burden or "too expensive" should be part of their concern in considering their prospects in such a scenario, yes, alongside a choice about having autonomy over their suffering.

Financial cost is being promoted and elevated all the time in every scenario about life these days, over-riding everything else, and that's a scary route to go down. It's basically being drummed into us to calculate our financial worth, and could easily lead to people feeling obliged to "do the decent thing" for the greater good, especially when in a vulnerable position.

I don't like it.

Did you miss the posts saying terminally ill people should jump off a bridge while they can? Or the ones accusing posters of being in favour of murder for organ donation? Not to mention accusing posters of denying domestic violence.

How very considered.

the bill requires the doctor signing off on the patient as terminal must NOT be a doctor that has ever treated them before

Yes, and as with the now scrapped judicial process I wouldn't expect that to last long either when you consider the shortage of doctors

Still, why worry ... after all the patients won't be coming back to complain, and with the attitudes to the vulnerable we see so often on here many will probably they're an inconvenience best dispatched

But your the one so caught up in the precise accuracy of how many months they have to live. If they are in that much suffering that they want the choice to end it they arent going to be worried about whether they have 4 or 6 or 10 months to live

There's nothing in the bill about suffering. I have told you the criteria.

And Drs cannot accurately predict a death. I gave you the example of Esther Rantzen who was given a short time to live then had medication that prolonged her life.

These are human beings who may want to spend as much time as possible with their loved ones.

People should have choice and dignity. It will be properly supervised with strict rules and so I can’t see the issue with it.

I agree lots of suicides can happen due to financial worries but not sure I've ever been aware of someone killing themselves as they were worried about doing right by the state. Cost of everything is going up yes but I dont think our main concern is doing what the government wants, we do what's best for ourselves and our families.

Yes and those human beings can spend as much time with their families as they want. Why dont you get it's a choice.

Because for some it won't be a choice and we should safeguard societies most vulnerable.

Why is it always a guardian newspaper article that gets quoted.

We are going around in circles. I guess no more to say than we dont agree and probably never will.

You can post others if you wish.
Happy to read everything

You either want to protect the most vulnerable or you don't.

As I said we are going around in circles on all these points.

I understand that, I'm summing up the argument.

Its 40 pages of comments, that does not sum up the debate. We have been debating that comment and all others for 40 pages. I could say- yes we will protect the vulnerable as we will introduce x y z measures, but you would just argue against that on some hypothetical technicality and around and around it goes.

Like you say, we're going around in circles. The crux of the matter is that some of us want to protect societies most vulnerable.

We want to protect them from abuse or cost cutting and fear the slippery slope which could endanger others. We're concerned that the state can't afford to do this properly and will cut corners.

Although it’s clear from the posts that the only one posting articles and research stats on this is in fact @MiloMinderbinder925

so not so hypothetical but backed up knowledge.

whereas……you haven’t backed up your thoughts that much I see.

And some of us want to progress as a humane society and give people choice and dignity during the most awful time most of us will ever experience.