Assisted dying bill - if the bill passes do those of strong religious conviction have a duty to oppose it?

[mids2019]

Assisted d dying may become a reality in the UK but if you have a strong two-hour conviction would you lobby for repeal of in some other way oppose it?

For instance in the NHS already many doctors are wanting to distance themselves from such a procedure as it isn't compatible with religious beliefs.

Is the UK ready for such a change of will it become a divisive element in British society?

Yeah good point. It's either gods way or it isn't - on it all.

As long as there are very very strict rules I will support the bill.
When DM was at the end of her life.
She had dementia, couldn't walk, talk, eat, drink they put her on a drip
which she pulled out in the end it was put in her back.
The only thing she could do was scream. I don't know if it was because
She was in pain or a symptom of the dementia.
It actually took over 3 months for her to die.

While this was happening my older brothers dog was poorly and the vet advised
him it was time to put him to sleep as he had no quality of life.

I'm not comparing mum to an animal but if brother had left his dog in pain he
would have been criticized.

It's either they pay for it or we pay more tax so the government can pay for it. Who do you think should pay?

If people are suffering immensely in the last 6 months life couldn't this be to a lack of adequate palliative care for various reasons

Surely good palliative care minimises suffering and to some extent the status quo of liberal administration of strong pain relief suffices?

Also with dementia /Alzheimer's the patient won't have the mental capacity to act?

How horrific for you MIL, and you her family. This was my grandmother, at the end of her life. She was just screaming in pain, and begging the nurses and doctors, to make it stop, over and over. At that point the strongest pain killers were hardly touching the pain. Like people have mentioned, if my dog was in even a fraction of that kind of pain and agony, and there was no hope for improvement, it would be put down immediately. It makes no sense. There is nothing noble in such suffering.

From the other side - many people of faith believe that the way we artificially extend life and force people to exist with awful conditions is often cruel, sometimes barbaric and could be viewed as going against God's will

I am a Christian and do support this bill if very closely regulated. I do not believe God wants people to suffer

Saying that, I don't think religion should be a factor in deciding this law. It's about humanity and dignity - something I hope most people of all faiths and none appreciate

I am a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am opposed to human euthanasia. The term 'assisted dying is merely euthanasia prettied up by the use of semantic language in order to disguise. I was pleased to hear from my MP that they are against it too.

My thoughts are that this current government will be happy for the elderly, sick and infirm to die this winter through being unable to afford adequate heating, so they'll be on their way to reducing healthcare costs by killing off some of the most vulnerable in society.

Eugenics is being practised under our very noses.

Eugenics?! ... hardly!!!
I think the term assisted dying is factual and clear. Euthanasia may not be a word some people have come across for various reasons, so assisted dying is pretty clear IMO

Our opinions differ. But yes, eugenics! 'Legalised killing' would be more factual and clear but 'euthanasia' sums it up and, given what you've said, it's a chance for folk to increase their knowledge of language. Every day's a school day.

It is precisely because of some of the attitudes on this thread that assisted dying should never, ever become legal.

“Baby steps/hopefully by the time I get there it will allow that,” this is one of the huge fears about bringing in a law to allow assisted dying - that it will gradually be watered down until we end up with a system like Canada, and Belgium where patients with dementia are physically restrained so they can be murdered. And yes, if a patient doesn’t have capacity it is murder, even if they’ve given consent for it earlier. If a woman agrees to have sex with someone while sober, then gets drunk and a man insists on still having sex with her even if she says no, it is rape, because she no longer has the capacity to consent. Same with someone with dementia.

And who becomes the arbiter of what is and isn’t a valid reason to allow assisted dying? Because everyone has their own individual boundary. For one it might be a terminal illness, for someone else it might be dementia, but what about other reasons? Chronic pain? Disability? Poverty? Who decides what is and isn’t an acceptable reason?

If the law was set that only someone with a terminal illness could have assisted dying, with 0 scope for that to ever change, then there would be a valid argument for it, but we know that won’t happen.

And fwiw, if there is a God, you only have to look at the world around us to see that he in fact quite enjoys people’s suffering.

Totally agree. A made up being being used as a moral compass holds no weight with me and I find religious arguments on this ridiculous. Totally willing to listen to other arguments but the religious element should not be a part of it. I would hope that something that helps people in awful pain can be passed while protecting those who are vulnerable from abuse of this can be found. I have a friend with a terminal illness, he is in horrible pain, frustrated, has lost of the use of his limbs, has stopped treatment but he just has to sit and wait to die in awful pain while his children watch him waste away. No god or person of faith could surely wish this.

Sorry to be dim but has anyone explained yet what a 'two-hour conviction' and a 'two-hour leader' is (used by the OP)?

When I google all I can find is a 6 year old book about corporate training.

@MoonKiss i agree. I have seen three relatives die slow, agonising deaths from long term illness. One was actually forcefed in hospital to keep her alive longer. She had been spitting out pills - she was in too much pain to talk and communicate her wishes, but I believe she was desperate to be allowed to die in peace - she had an extremely strong faith, but she was ready to meet her God in heaven and had had enough after 15 years of terrible pain. True, she survived because the doctors kept medicating and nourishing her body, but it was no way to live, and it took an interminably long time for her to die.

And then another relative - very religious - felt that he could it agree to a DNR because his faith didn’t permit it. I mean, his faith was mapped out in a time before chemo, before resuscitation techniques, before surgeries. I remember the second time he crashed and was brought back from the brink of death, at that point the doctors already knew he had less than 6 months to live and they dragged him back, they pumped his heart back to life and they kept him clinging on. He was in a terrible state. He was discharged to the care of my long-suffering mother. His last four months were hell - sepsis, wasting, plus all the effects from his cancer and the palliative chemo. My mother’s life was also hell, trying to keep him alive. And his death was indescribably awful, I cannot think about that week at his bedside without the horror coming back to me, over a decade ago.

So I agree - there is pressure to stay alive, long beyond what nature intended. And I won’t believe in any God who wants people to endure what is tantamount to torture.

I am absolutely terrified of becoming old and going through something like that. Of subjecting my kids to the pain of watching me deteriorate and suffer agony for year upon year upon year.

I want choice. I want us to allow people to say that there can be mercy and dignity in death, and we do not need to live beyond a point of pain that we can no longer bear.

If people believe that only God (or other deity) should be able to take away life, then perhaps they need to also consider why God has granted people the skill and the means to end the suffering of the terminally ill.

@MrsPerfect12

While there isn't an alternative, it is still infuriating. I was talking in the sense of an ideal world people wouldn't have to sell their house to pay for care. And I am well aware that we don't live in an ideal world.

Although having said that, some others countries have rolled out free social care programmes with success.

I’m a bit fussed over the fact that the bill as currently written allows a proxy to sign consent for the person if the person cannot sign their name for any physical reason or due to capacity. The proxy cannot be a relative or doctor familiar with the patient & their terminal condition, but anyone who has known them for two years or is of “good standing in the community’.

Reading that part of the bill gave me goosebumps. It will make it legal for people to consent to the euthanasia of another person as a proxy. After the Covid scandals of certain disabled people being refused treatment due to hospital staff making (ableist and wrong) about their quality of life and desire to live, I don’t think I can trust this bill as drafted to be a good law.

And the Netherlands.

I feel really torn on this. I believe that life is scared. But as a nurse have seen people suffering. It's all very well saying that good palliative care makes everything ok. But it really doesn't. And I'd rather be free than alive with severe dementia.

As I understand it the patient has to have been proven by 2 doctors as being in sound mind.

No, the bill doesn’t require this. It doesn’t even require the two doctors signing off to check with a specialist that the patient is terminally ill or of sound mind. The doctors also cannot be any doctor that is familiar with or has provided treatment to the patient.

The bill states if they have doubts that the patient is terminally ill, only then must they refer to a specialist for assessment. The bill states if they have doubts the patient has the capacity to consent, they may refer to a psychiatrist for assessment.

But what doctor is going to admit to doubts if questions are raised? And even if they admit to doubts, are they seriously going to convict a doctor of wrong doing? There has been a severe lack of any of the protections being enforced in other countries,

In addition, the bill only outlaws coercion by any person. It doesn’t outlaw coercion by HMG. All kinds of dystopian things can flow from this. Treatment ceilings in the NHS for degenerative conditions that makes the condition terminal within six months instead of say 8-10yrs because patients are being refused life extending treatment.

You haven't been paying attention. A veteran in Canada was asked to consider assisted dying when she went to ask about a wheelchair ramp. But that's where you want it to go I suspect.

I am concerned that this bill will fail to offer true choice as dying is cheap. The most vulnerable people in our society may feel coerced into taking this decision to protect friends, family and carers from a perceived and actual burden. They are currently protected from taking this action or being assisted by the law. Coercion can be felt through societal pressure even if loved ones are not coercive. You may feel that this is unlikely and that I underestimate the ability of people to take this choice independently and freely , however in the 2020 Oregon Health Report it was noted that 53% of persons seeking assisted dying stated that fear of being a burden to carers and family was a factor in their decision, in 2021 it was 53.3. In my own practice I see daily the difficulty older people with care needs have with becoming a burden and their love and concern for their families. (https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/providerpartnerresources/evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/pages/ar-index.aspx)
I work in geriatrics, I meet people at the very end of their life every day, I prescribe medication for the relief of suffering, I walk the road with them as they approach death, and it has been my privilege to do this for many years with many people. However, even with this experience, sometimes I am wrong....the person is not dying, their suffering is not unbearable, they live. It is very hard for clinicians to diagnose unbearable suffering or to predict time to death accurately for many conditions, the bill does not take this into consideration.
The bill is at pains to say how very carefully the assistance to die would be regulated but we have good evidence from multiple countries that this is unlikely to prevent misuse. In Flanders, Belgium in 2013 1 in 60 deaths due to assisted suicide showed that there was no explicit patient request., and we have all heard the terrible testimony of the Canadian paralympian who was offered assisted suicide instead of assisted living. And the exponential growth of this as the only means to a pain free supported end of life has been well documented. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html. Canada is undoubtedly extreme, but the law didn't make it so The 4th annual report on Medical assistance in dying in Canada 2022 revealed over 13,200 canadians died by assisted suicide in 2022. A 31.2 percent increase in one year. They are in the middle of a health care crisis where they cannot offer good psychiatric services, suicide prevention,or palliatve care beds. State funded suicide has become not one of many choices but the only real choice. Our NHS is not in such good shape that it would guard against this horror. “Fourth annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2022”.
Legalising assisted suicide is a seismic legal, ethical and moral change and it carries serious risks to society and particularly its most vulnerable members. It places physicians in conflict with their duty of care and the preservation of dignity and life, it would compromise my own practice and I would never want to be asked to carry this out. We should promote choice and provide resource to help alleviate suffering but in my opinion there should be no place for actively killing people in modern society. Rather direct our money, energy and time into making the NHS fit for purpose, provide palliative care in the community and in hospitals that would help our patients find that they can live until their death rather than die before their time.

@Imperfect10
Brava!

I'm all for it.
Should have been in place a long time ago. I work in NHS and see many people end of life ... Have seen far too many people suffering and having a horrible death even with palliative care in place...it's not great and it doesn't always support people well enough. Assisted dying should be a basic human right.

@Imperfect10
👏👏
Could not agree more, you have very intelligently put into words the jumble of thoughts in my head! Thank you.
I work in healthcare also, and share these fears, and the belief that there are so many steps that could be made towards enabling people to live well until they die, without actively killing people. We can allow natural death, we can use sensible rather than ridiculously cautious doses of opiates and sedation to enable people to be comfortable.
The public need to be very frightened indeed if such a bill should be passed, about how this will eventually play out, and I certainly would not wish to have any active part in this as a clinician, not based on any religious views but knowledge of our current healthcare system.

I think some of the terminology is getting softer as time goes on to help people head towards a low cost death.

Used to be called assisted suicide. Someone helped you to kill yourself when you wanted to die. Against the law, but lenience often shown by the courts because although it is illegal, it can be a merciful thing to do.

Now it is being touted as assisted dying. An extra special service to be provided for all.... if it goes like everything else in the modern age, people will have to book a year in advance, probably be able to buy a fast-pass though to get to the head of the queue. (only half joking)