To be very anxious about the assisted dying bill?

[bipbopdo]

I’m surprised by how anxious I am about it. I don’t agree with it at all and I’m not sure there will ever be enough safeguards to justify making it legal. As it currently stands, it’s theoretically possible for someone with anorexia to qualify.

It took less than ten years for Canada to expand eligibility well beyond the original criteria. Assisted dying now accounts for one in twenty deaths there. I’m scared that could happen here.

Their body, their choice.

Same applies to abortion. If you don't agree with it, don't get one.

If you don't agree with assisted dying, don't opt for it.

I think if you developed a terminal illness however and had to live with the suffering, knowing it would only get worse and your loved ones would watch your horrible decline until death, you'd change your mind.

It's right that it's expanded beyond terminal illness also. Every single person has the right to decide when to end their life.

We can keep on talking about choice...but the whole crux of the argument is based on the fear that some people will choose assisted dying after being abused or coerced. Choice is fine if it the person making it is making a totally free choice...do we think there won't be mistakes made if it's brought in? It seems inevitable to me that there will be.

Right. We oppose the death penalty based on the chance that a mistake might be made, and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that coercian, mental health at time of decision, or just plain cost cutting in the health system may come into play. It might be a slippery slope. But should the really suffering be let to suffer based on this...I don't know the answer.

I'm really sorry that you're feeling so anxious about it but, for me, the Bill is a positive move and I fully support it.

Both my parents died in 2023, months apart. My DM had COPD, heart failure and pneumonia. I watched her basically suffocate to death, thank god she was in hospital and on palliative care - but it was horrendous.

My DF ended up exactly how he didn't want to end up, and I know he would have wanted to have died months prior. He had an infection and got delirium, unfortunately it never lifted. So 4 months in hospital and then 5 months in the most amazing care home. But he had no clue who he was, where he was, he didn't know that DM had died, doubly incontinent and bed bound.

I really don't want that for me, my dc's or anone else for that matter. My dog was treated better than my parents.

The Bill hasn't been updated on the Parliament website yet but I just gave the Hansard a quick skim and an amendment went through on the nod on Friday that explicitly prevents a person qualifying as terminally ill if it's the result of refusing food and drink. This was specifically to prevent anorexia sufferers falling in scope.

I also can't see the point you are suggesting in the RPS statement anywhere.

I'd feel less concerned if the staff involved were to be trained in coercions to help prevent abuse, and they had been more upfront about the type of drugs that would be approved.

It's hopefully not something you will ever have to consider using.

But having watched my Grandfather die of bone cancer. I welcome it.

We give dogs more dignity than we do people.

@EasternEcho

we don’t ban cars on the chance that there might be a car accident.

we shouldn’t deny those in suffering the opportunity to end that suffering if they wish just on the hypothetical basis that it could go wrong.

@Comedycook

we don’t ban cars on the chance that there might be a car accident.
we shouldn’t deny those in suffering the opportunity to end that suffering if they wish just on the hypothetical basis that it could go wrong.

Yeah I have no idea why we won’t allow animals to endure pain and suffering but are happy for humans to. When humans are more important than animals at the end of the day. Seems pretty sick when you really think about it.

No but we put measures in place to reduce the risk... driving tests, speed limits, seat belts.

So far, from what I've heard, the assisted dying bill does not have enough measures in place that would make me feel comfortable with it.

The reasons animals can be put to death is not because we as humans have more empathy for them...it's because as a society we value them less than humans.

Again… we don’t ban abortions in case some women are coerced in to them…

@Comedycook

Wrong. keeping something in pain and suffering against their will is not having more empathy for them nor is it valuing them.

I don't think comparing cars to human lives is a useful exercise. Apart from the amount of rules regulating the operation of one, there are penalties for causing accidents including losing one's license to drive. A human life can't be brought back after a mistake. That's why in principle we oppose the death sentence. At any rate, I did mention that I have no clear answer on this, I am merely looking at all sides. Does the right of one person to end their suffering trump the mistaken taking of the life of another? I'm sure we'll find out in time.

Risk of coercion is inevitable in the treatment of medical conditions unless you remove any and all patient choice and place all decisions into the hands of clinicians or some other third party. I can't imagine anyone arguing for such a thing. You can't have medicine, and all manner of life and death decisions, and zero risk of coercion at the same time otherwise.

Ultimately we live in a liberal country and the fact of some people having difficulty making a choice is not sufficient grounds for removing that choice from everyone. Life is precious but no society can function on the basis that preserving a hypothetical life (and in this circumstance, kindly, only slightly longer) is worth imposing an unconstrained amount of suffering on other unwilling parties.

That's a ridiculous extrapolation. Maybe you should try writing comedy sci-fi?

Absolutely this. PP is behaving as though it will be mandatory!

No. What I'm saying is it has potential to become the socially acceptable choice. I don't think it's impossible that we will come to a point where the narrative will be that if you're a responsible citizen, of course you wouldn't want to be a burden on your family and the state.

And trying to belittle and mock concerns is exactly what I'm talking about so thanks for proving my point.

It's 'not impossible' that we might have a law that everybody has to be done away with at the age of 50, or have compulsory sterilization after one child, or any other outrageous idea you can think of. Whether something is possible bears no relation to what's probable or likely.

Do you think we shouldn't look at what potential problems or unintended consequences might come about from this bill...or in fact absolutely any bill/law?

There are plenty of legitimate concerns which need to be taken into account. Bringing a far-fetched idea into the debate doesn't help anyone.

The idea that people will choose it because they're worried they'll be a burden and society would also take on this viewpoint isn't particularly far fetched.

No, I don't think we shouldn't - I think we really need to listen carefully to legitimate concerns, which is why we should focus on them and not get sidetracked by ridiculous exaggerations.