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?

So, what’s your point? I don’t want religious people, who claim to know what their god wants, influencing a law that would ultimately allow me to die when I wanted, if it became unbearable. This law, should be about the human, and not about someone’s god.

@OneDandyPoet, the point is other people, including those with religious beliefs, do influence law making whether you like it or not. Simply because people with religious beliefs are people with roles in our society which include law making. People influence other people in societies, get over it otherwise you will be very unhappy!

@AliceMcK people cannot separate religious beliefs from the way they act/behave. Beliefs are an intrinsic part of a person. All purposeful action originates in thought which is bound together with somebody's own world view/ beliefs.

But of course, every one has a right to be heard. We don’t live under a dictatorship. And yes, this law is about humanity, and it shouldn’t be about what someones religion or what someone’s god wants. And my stance is that my right to choose to die must trump what other people think „”god wants”, it must trump what they believe to be their „”gods will”, because what ever this god is, he/she/it is not my god.

And I am saying in this day and age religious beliefs should categorically not be influencing law and decision making. It’s 2024 not 1624 - we need to moving forwards with this, and focus on the complete separation of church/religion on state. Although, this will sadly not happen anytime soon.

@OneDandyPoet you cannot have complete separation of church and state since the state includes people of the church. A person of religious belief cannot separate their religious belief from their actions either (see my earlier post). Belief and non belief is an intrinsic part of a person which affects all conscious (&I believe subconscious) action.

Look at Justin Welby. He is still part of the legislature and decision making process (unless he most recently lost his seat, in which case I stand corrected), yet look what happened under his watch as Archbishop? I don’t want people like this influencing law that will directly effect me and countless millions of people who, won’t be pontificated to about morality from this man, about what knows god wants for us. It’s crazy!

Yes, I think very sadly this is not a real possibility. But we could start with getting rid of all of those bishops from the House of Lords.

"I don’t want religious people, who claim to know what their god wants, influencing a law" and what about people who are against it for non religious reasons?

Be honest, what you’re actually trying to say is that the law should be changed because you say so. Because there are plenty of non religious people who are against assisted dying for a variety of reasons. And your beliefs don’t trump theirs.

I am being very honest, and this is my view. And of course in a broader perspective, my views don’t trump any one else’s. My point is that any kind of legislation, in 2024 should not be influenced by the notion that is what “god” wants, because no one actually does know what god wants.. Look throughout the world , how legislation around women’s reproductive health - abortion, contraception etc has been influenced by the stance of the religious institutions on said matters, to the great detriment of girls women. The stance being that “we know what god wants”.

The law isn’t made though because of @what God wants,@ some people will believe that it’s what God wants, and they’re entitled to be against it for those reasons. If a higher proportion of the population don’t believe that, then the law doesn’t pass.

Personally I believe it’s the slippery slope towards eugenics. Look at the Canadian model, which is being born out by comments on this thread which say things like @baby steps,@ and @they need to change it now, so that by the time I want to die it will have been amended to allow for that.@.

people are already thinking it doesn’t go far enough and it’s not even a law yet.

And I’m not remotely religious.

Do I understand why some people want the law? Absolutely. Do I think that making it law will lead to it being watered down, lead to coercion and emotional blackmail, thoughts of not wanting to be a burden, suggesting that the disabled and the elderly should just be killed off as is happening in Canada? 100%.

I'm not particularly religious but I don't think only atheists should be allowed to make decisions, everyone should get a chance for their voice to be heard. Being an atheist is a belief, none of us know who is right and who is wrong, so everyone's opinions should be taken into account.

How are they supposed to do that if the law changes and they are expected to assist in someone’s death? Ignoring your own morality to the extent of killing someone, in the practice of the career which you trained in in order to help and heal them, is not something we should be expecting anyone to do, regardless of faith or lack of it. I find the suggestion that we should be handing that responsibility to anyone profoundly disturbing, quite apart from my additional concerns that people could be coerced into choosing to die when they don’t really want to; the difficulty of accurately predicting how long someone has left, and the risk of the slippery slope.

I find the repeated arguments that “we don’t let animals suffer that way” utterly facile. It’s precisely because we place more value on human life that we don’t go around pulling the plug when people are in pain, and to suggest that we should cheapens and debases a fundamental respect for humanity.

I think anyone has the right to disagree/oppose anything for what ever reason they want. HOWEVER, Drs should 100% separate their religious beliefs from their job. Their job is to do what’s right for their patients, if they can’t separate the 2 they should not be doctors. you do know that not wanting to kill people isn’t just about religion don’t you? Added to which, doctors train to help people, if euthanising them isn’t something they would be comfortable doing, then they absolutely should have the right not to.

Midwives and doctors and nurses are already allowed to not assist with abortions, even TMFR, this is no different.

And people need to stop quoting religion. There are plenty of non religious reasons to oppose the bill.

if The choice is between fast and painful or slow and painful, many people will choose fast. At least it will be over quickly.

im not romanticizing assisted suicide. I would just prefer something more reliable than a diy method and don’t want my family or friends implicated in trying to help me.

the couple of people that I know that chose to end their lives wanted more time. They left early precisely because they were facing long, painful deaths and were scared of losing the ability to diy.

I really hope it doesn’t come to that for me. Overhauls in regulations for hospital care and elder care would make it possible for me to be comfortable much longer, those changes might happen, but I’m not optimistic.

I agree the pushback from medics irrespective of religion is going to prevent this becoming reality. There are of course doctors for multiple faiths and cultures which may be an influence on their general philosophy.

He really isn’t “part of the legislature and decision making process”, nor are any of the members of the HoL.

The HoL are advisory only. They cannot reject or veto any bill. The most they can do is delay it for up to a year.

The commons can and frequently does ignore proposed amendments to bills or commentary on bills from the HoL.

He has as much influence as the unemployed Tory MPs recently ousted from their seats a la Rees-Mogg

Won’t make one iota of a difference.

Which is why things get more fraught around election time as a delay could kick stuff into the long grass of the next government who may well jettison it. Not in this case of course.

No, they have a duty not to force any views on others.