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

Link says it was a poll of 2000 people - so it’s hardly representative of the population of the UK!

Well if there are secret issues that are not being shared with the public that would be even worse!

Classic, if you can't accept the opinion, criticise the poll!

I've explained this. I wrote, I got a reply (outlined).

I really recommend reading the actual Bill. It does not contain safeguards. It hands far too much power from all our MPs to one Health Secretary with hardly any recall (most resultant regulations are negative procedure for example), and there is just nowhere near enough Parliamentary time for our MPs to do their jobs on this proposed legislation.

My MP is voting against and the majority of correspondence he has received from constituents support that position.

My MP is voting for, and I am glad he is.

I can see why politicians might not just reflect the view of the majority - I suspect if we had a referendum on the death penalty, it would probably go in favour, but I think that should not be subject to a popular vote. But I am really pissed off that the religious lobbies seem to be having so much sway on this issue.

It's telling that people who have lost an elderly parent in the last five years are much more likely to be in favour of it. Not because anyone wants to get rid of a loved one, but because they have experienced the reality of the slow degeneration that is so painful and challenging for frail elderly people. It has been a privilege to care for my elderly parents and in laws, but it has been so hard to watch them suffer and not know how long it will go on for. If they want to choose to end it, they should be allowed to do so.

i was particularly pissed off with Gordon Brown's intervention today. No-one is talking about assisted dying for babies! It's very sad that he and his wife went through what they did, but it's just not relevant to the debate. And his "survey" asking whether we should sort out palliative care before looking at assisted dying. Literally no-one you ask is going say, hey, let's not sort out palliative care and just bring in assisted dying. But it's not either or. Let's sort out palliative care, but let's also allow the small numbers of frail unwell people who want control over their own life and death to have it.

2/3 of the population support assisted dying. The religious minority are just very organised in their lobbying, so many MPs will find their correspondence is dominated by those opposing it.

My MP agrees with the bill in principle but said they felt uncomfortable voting for it unless palliative care services were better funded too, so people would have more of a choice.

Well, the 27% can just not ask for assisted suicide should it become possible, and suffer in pain as much as they’d like? They’re not proposing it being compulsory…

No-one is talking about assisted dying for babies

Of course they're not. It would disgust people. But the Bill as drafted permits this as it does not set out that the Equality Act does not apply. So a legal challenge can be brought that it discriminates on grounds of age and the remit could easily be expanded.

Religious people are entitled to their views. I am also concerned about the briefing against people of faith such as Shabana Mahmood, whose views appear to be being misrepresented. Her views are here:

x.com/gordonlyew1/status/1860010001462411536?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Very different to what's being briefed here:

Justice secretary ‘wrong to impose Muslim beliefs on assisted dying’.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1aae8452-57b2-4b6a-95e7-e5f74c647dab?shareToken=e39602ef003eb53d570f59754cf2e3144_

There has also been a very unpleasant briefing against Wes Streeting. He is required to assess the impact of this Bill. It is his job. He is also perfectly entitled to express his views. Yet he is also being attacked for ensuring a (required) impact assessment happens, and for giving his views.

If the Cabinet is meant to be neutral and not express a view, why did the PM kick it all off by telling us how he pleased he was he could deliver his "promise" to Esther Rantzen? And since when is this how we made law? 5 hours' debate on a celebrity's wish list.

Very very slippery slope, this.

Nobody asked me. I didn't join any poll.

Collectively people are thick. There is a flip side to everything and this is a shit idea.

I really hope the bill passes. Having listened to two lengthy interviews with Kim Leadbeater this week, I’m happy that the proposed legislation contains enough safeguards. It’s more robust than any of the legislation in countries which already have legal assisted dying. I find it quite intolerable that other people feel entitled to vote away my right to have the death of my choice.

I think a large part of the issue is that if the bill is passed, it will gradually be watered down as the years go by - it’s currently being proposed for those who are terminally ill and expected to live less than 6 months.

When abortions were first “allowed” in the UK, they were only to be used if the pregnancy risked mental or physical dangers to the woman; now abortions are given pretty much on demand.

How long until euthanasia is given on demand, for any reason?

The flip side of that is, in several decades time, a watered down Bill could mean it’s easy for someone to trick or coerce you, eg for their financial gain or whatever. I think that’s MORE intolerable (ie murder)

I think its unlikely to pass, I heard read so many negative articles from Labour MPs regarding the bill.

Its a shame, as I do believe people should have this right.

How long? - er - 20 years.

I think people should have a right to a decent health service and palliative care.

Kind of can't believe this is a real advert. Hope it isn't and this is some kind of awful mistake

https://x.com/adrianhilton/status/1861017161646616957?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

If we are wanting bills passed just because a higher percentage of the public want it then why bother going through scrutiny etc etc, just have a YouGov poll decide the lot....Oh wait...that would be ridiculous. It's the job of our elected politicians to take into account a whole range of issues. What most of the public want is only a small part of it.

Thank you for starting this thread, you have reminded me to contact my MP to find out how he is voting. I have raised concerns surrounding vulnerable people with nobody to advocate for them, and time better spent advocating for better end of life care for everyone.

I am not in favour of the bill as it stands, I believe there are many issues about it, and should it pass, then it will allow changes to be made without the same scrutiny.

I also think that people are very divided nowadays on every single issue, like Brexit, like Tory v Labour, this is not a yes no answer type question. There are so many issues that it is not an us vs them scenario. Everyone has lived experience of family members at end of life, and this raises many ethical questions about what should or shouldn't happen.

It is a conscience vote, they have to live with their conscience not yours.

There are several MPs clearly implying that no matter what their constituents wishes are, their religious beliefs will only allow them to vote against the proposal. I find that concerning. Politics should be secular, and politicians should be capable of voting for the benefit of their constituents as a whole - not just those that hold religious beliefs compatible with theirs.

Would it be ok if it were non-religious beliefs that caused them to vote against the proposal?

If they could articulate beliefs that were compatible with the needs of their constituents and the population as a whole, that would be fine.

They were not elected on the basis of religious belief, were they?