Assisted Dying Bill

[1457bloom]

According to the latest yougov poll, 73% of the general public are in favour of this bill. Why is it that I hear politicians are against it. They are elected to represent their constituents. yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law

I'm not sure that MPs consider the people who voted them in. They seem to be focused on their second home, subsidised restaurants in Palace of Westminster, un-receipted expenses...etc., etc.

That's what I was told to do when I got aboard in the Gravy Boat.

Politiciians will be responsible for considering the implications and the details of how to enact it - whether the laws protect against undue influence, manipulation, exploitation, how feasible it will be to arrange oversight and who will be responsible. They ultimately have to make the decision based on whether what is proposed meets what the general public want -and they would be blamed if the passed a law that failed these basic safeguards, regardless of what the public want.

Give that there are huge problems with how the Mental Capacity Act is followed and overseen, frequent issues with vulnerable adults being given inappropriate DNRs without following the proper procedure (particularly in the case of people with LD or cognitive impairments), just to name a few examples, politicians may have very reasonable concerns.

There are very real issues continuing with the status quo but I wasn't proposing to discuss that here. It has already been discussed ad nauseam on MN and everyone is firmly entrenched in their position. The general public will presumably be aware of the issues too. My point is why aren't the politicians being guided by their constituents. They must be aware that the public generally wants this so surely they should be pushing for it subject to conditions to allay their concerns.

The general public generally are not aware of these issues, unless dealing with it themselves for a while, with support from people who have been through it. That's why so many advocate groups have to work so hard to spread awareness to ensure families and individuals know what to do to protect their rights (I.e. question about and question DNRs for example). There will be issues I don't know about, but I know about the Mental Capacity Act issues and how difficult it is for there to be sufficient oversight and rigor to ensure the act is carried out safely, and how rarely that happens already. For Assisted Dying, capacity is central.

If MPs have the same concerns, to vote something they don't think will be safely enactable at the moment into law would be disastrous.

Even referendums are generally advisory and cannot make the Government act in a certain way, although they are usually followed. A YouGov poll is several orders less rigorous than a referendum.

A percentage of the 'general public' thought that Brexit was a good idea. A percentage think the world is flat and that a man can magically become a woman because 'gendered souls, innit?' Constituents own XL bullies in houses with small children.

We rely on politicians to be smarter and more nuanced than the general public. We are often disappointed but shoot for the moon and you'll reach the stars...

Feelz are not enough and I'm one of the people who could potentially benefit from this bill down the line AND simultaneously be at risk from it. It needs bulletproof protocols and these will be hard to secure, especially with an aging population, intergenerational wealth gap and a housing shortage.

The public is aware of this kind of difficulty but still, in the round want the law to be passed. That is the weight of public opinion. Politicians are the public's servants after all.

So the 27% of people who don't agree with the bill should be completely ignored then? They are also represented by their MP.

Because they think they know better than us.

I remember watching the archbishop Canterbury being interviewed by the BBC about his view on assisted dying.
He had no answers for what people should do if they don't want to suffer when they are dying.

All he said was that of course he didn't want people to suffer but he didn't say what they should do if doctors could not stop that suffering.

Unfortunately, a lot of our politicians are religious and they impose their religious views on us.

I'll be okay because I can afford to go to dignitas. I just feel sorry for poor people who can't afford it.

Agree with all of this.

But then why should the 73% be ignored?

If you have to ignore anyone it should be the 27%, not the 73%.

I'm the public and I don't want this law. The majority aren't always right, we don't have mob rule.

That's not far from the number who are in favour of the death penalty.

Politicians don't always vote according to what's popular. Some, I am led to believe, still have the vestiges of a conscience, and vote according to what they think is right.

I think the possibility of a criminal conviction for murder is a damned good bulletproof protocol.

Which is pretty much the situation now. If anyone thinks that doctors don't ease people on their way, they are naive. But it's not spoken about, and it only happens in cases where it is truly hopeless, the family united, and the doctor convinced enough that s/he's betting against a hefty prison term if they're not right.

If you're interested in MPs reasons for considering/deciding to vote against, both Ed Davey and Gordon Brown (and many other MPs) have written about them, ditto Diane Abbott, Edward Leigh etc.

Not really, I'm interested in why those against are ignoring public opinion.

Of course one of the reasons used against is that it is impossible to prevent abuse, but this post is not about the pros and cons.

Because most of them can afford to go to Dignitas if they need to, so it won't affect them.

I expect it's because it's a matter of conscience, not a popularity poll (ditto death penalty)

True, the bill really only impacts the poor.

@MiscellaneousSupportHuman and the public don't have a conscience?

In another poll, someone's dug into the numbers and it seems it's been misrepresented:

x.com/tlitb/status/1860653694389252417?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

The Bill itself is full of loopholes and does not contain the "safeguards" its supporters keep saying are there. I have read it and I was shocked at what it contains vs what we are being sold. I was - still probably am - broadly sympathetic to the idea. But this Bill (with no white paper, even) sets us down a particularly dangerous path. I'm glad my MP plans to oppose this Bill written like it is.

Again, please feel to express your pro or con opinion on another chat, here to discuss political representation.

Well I have! I wrote to my MP about it and I know the outcome. And why. It won't be well considered enough, the safeguards are not there and the impact on society is too big for it to be dealt with this way (PMB). That’s one MNer being “politically represented” isn’t it?

OP, ResisterOfTwaddleRex

has given you a good explanation in answer to your question - the politicians are probably privy to information that the public do not have, and may (should) know more about the laws etc - that is how the politicians are representing their constituents

@ResisterOfTwaddleRex is your politician going to represent your opinion or the wider opinion of his/her constituents? He may decide your opinion is irrelevant!