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

Says who?

This is the crux of it. You think you can tell someone else when they should die. That's crazy.

No, I was pointing out the person saying their friends mother in law would go along with being coerced into doing it, when they wouldn't have capacity so happy memories/their quality of life don't come into it

Aborting a foetus, which is a person growing inside a womb, and the murder of a person who lives outside a womb, are both the deliberate ending of a life.

Not comparable lives. A foetus can’t survive without the womb. The person alive outside one can even if terminally ill. They are fundamentally different.

Aborting a foetus, which is a person growing inside a womb, and the murder of a person who lives outside a womb, are both the deliberate ending of a life.

So removing that fetus from the womb should end its life. That doesn't add up.

Shouldn't end its life* sorry

It's not just about the individual - it's what is unleashed and the consequences for the vulnerable that follows. It's not just about you or me

That was especially clearly put, @ByMerryKoala, but TBH I don't think there can now be any doubt as to why people are worrying about the vulnerable

So in brushing this aside I can only think that some simply don't care - and failing to care is exactly what will lead to the things being worried about in the first place

No, you must be a bit dense if you can't see that the state does not want to murder someone in error in the same way that the state does not want someone to be killed in a road accident.

If either happens, it is a risk of the relevant legislation.

If you aren't going to stop people driving, why are you so keen to stop people using AD if they want to?

Is a someone who is killed in a traffic accident not as valuable as someone who is is assisted to die in error?

And who is to say that anyone will ever be assisted to die in error? They probably won't be, but we know that thousands of people will die in road accidents every single year, but you seem to be ok with that for some reason???

Is a someone who is killed in a traffic accident not as valuable as someone who is is assisted to die in error?

No life is more valuable than another hence terminally ill should not be the only consideration.

If all life is equal then why won't the bill expand?

And who is to say that anyone will ever be assisted to die in error?

History.

They probably won't be,

That's not enough. Do you support capital punishment?

but we know that thousands of people will die in road accidents every single year, but you seem to be ok with that for some reason???

Which other use does assisted dying have?

You’ve tied yourself up in knots there.

Driving cars and assisting someone to kill themselves is completely different. For the one death is a risk. For the other it’s the intended aim. It’s silly to try to compare them.

No, it isn't. You are talking about mistakes and somehow equating that with the state deliberating killing someone.

The state will not deliberately kill someone by mistake so it is not intended at all. Just like the state allowing someone to drive a car which could kill them by mistake.

There is no difference.

The state will not deliberately kill someone by mistake so it is not intended at all.

Someone coerced to end their life has been killed by mistake. No one can prevent coercion.

@IMustDoMoreExercise Could you respond to my questions?

1.Is a someone who is killed in a traffic accident not as valuable as someone who is is assisted to die in error?
No life is more valuable than another hence terminally ill should not be the only consideration.
If all life is equal then why won't the bill expand?
2.And who is to say that anyone will ever be assisted to die in error?
History.
3.They probably won't be,
That's not enough. Do you support capital punishment?
4.but we know that thousands of people will die in road accidents every single year, but you seem to be ok with that for some reason???
Which other use does assisted dying have?

1. Well, it will be expanded if people want it and the MPs vote for it. What is wrong with giving people what they want if MPs vote for it?
2. What history
3. I don't supprot capital punishment because I don't think juries would ever convict anyone murder if they knew they would be killed in case they made a mistake
4. It will give people like me the choice of when and how I die. For me that is very useful indeed.

Sorry, I didn't see your questions because you didn't tag me.

Well, it will be expanded if people want it and the MPs vote for it. What is wrong with giving people what they want if MPs vote for it?

No life is more valuable than another hence terminally ill should not be the only consideration.
If all life is equal then why won't the bill expand?

• What history

Canada, Netherlands etc.

• I don't supprot capital punishment because I don't think juries would ever convict anyone murder if they knew they would be killed in case they made a mistake

Why are mistakes issues in capital murder?

• It will give people like me the choice of when and how I die. For me that is very useful indeed.

So as long as it's useful for you screw the rest?

@IMustDoMoreExercise sorry forgot to tag again

I find it interesting that during the pandemic there was so much complaining about protecting nursing homes where people had dementia and life limiting illnesses and some of those people are now celebrating this bill. My view was that it was best to let those who could carry on as normally as possible and let the nursing homes and others who were vulnerable stay at home. This would in my view have protected the long term health of the young - both mental and physical. I do not support the assisted dying bill.

The intended aim of assisted dying is death.

The intended aim of driving a car is to get to the shops.

You are naively confident that there won’t be errors and coercion, guilt that leads to people making choices they don’t really want to.

I am now wondering what the medics view on this will be and whether the GMC or BMA will put forward statements as at least for some this will alter their practice and lead to a new decision making practice that needs to be focused on. How accurately can you determine date of death for exmaple?.if a patient is depressed how do you decouple suicidal thoughts from a philosophically different desire to end life on a rational basis? As medics are sworn to do no harm would they make judgment about the likelihood of pain towards the end and would this weigh on their decision to get involved? For instance with cancer treatment of you have metastases pressing against the spinal cord the pain is so intense you could imagine that promoting a request but it may be palliative treatment can reduce the rumour mass and allow a different thought process.

Coercion is going to be difficult to prove and indeed most of the coercion may be self coercion as the deceased may want a dignified death to pre went suffering of the family coercion. Are psychiatrists allowed to speak with those considering assisted dying as the discussion could be viewed as weighing in on a patient's decision (Samaritans would be in similar position I guess).

I think there is still a huge amount of debate to be had in parliament and I wonder what the final bill will look like?

In fairness, the British public are bloody idiots who jump on any bandwagon for a bit of a laugh regardless of whether they have a clue about what’s going on. That said, our politicians are largely idiots too.

Generally, I’m in favour in principle, but I haven’t read the detail.

We elect MPs to exercise their independent judgment when representing us. They are not mandated delegates. Many forward thinking decisions have been taken by MPs over the years which most of us now accept as right. Referendums are a poor alternative.

I think there is a lot to consider with this bill and I do wonder how it will progress.

The immediate reaction as far as I can see is that there have urgent and loud demands for improvement in palliative and hospice care. There is a feeling amongst the palliative care medical community that their voice has not been heard as well as greyhound have liked in this debate. Perhaps some palliative care professionals feel that profession is slighted when anecdotal descriptions of poor painful death dominate the debate as they don't have a high enough profile to promote how a good death looks like when palliative and end of life care works (and it can work).

I heard Esther Rantzen argue passionately for assisted dying but I think a lot of her argument was based on the tacit acceptance that her death was going to be undignified and painful both for her and the her family. There was no evidence presented that this was going to be the case and this may be the situation for a lot of people; you don't know quite how you are ultimately going to die or the physical and emotional plain that comes with it. There is an assumption with assisted dying you are escaping something worse and while in some circumstances this could be true I think palliative care as profession really does need an opportunity to make its case.

The below paper shows that the mean hospital spend is 10K in the late 3 months of life and t with around 700K people dying each year (albeit not in hospital) that could be up to a 7 billion pound per year spend. We really need to look at this spend and ensure it is used effectively; we simply cannot have assisted dying being used as a cost saving.

Ultimately clinicians are going to be very cautious about this for individual patients.

I would expect a conversation with a medic to be like this:

Depressed terminally ill patient 'I want an assisted death's

Medic: 'I am listening but has anyone talked thoroughly to you about palliative options and have you had suitable counselling '

I think this is important as the a patient needs to have informed consent for any procedure and I think part of the informing is a good description of palliative care and an honest appraisal of the options.

One thing that cannot be actually guaranteed is that it may be impossible to give an absolutely pain free death to a cognitively functioning patient. What combination of drugs does give an instant and unambiguously painless passing?

https://spcare.bmj.com/content/14/e1/e885

Not all in hospital

I think we also have the moral dilemma of people with condition like MND, full paralysis, dementia etc. being denied this option as they won't die within 6 months and I don't see how you square the moral circle.