Assisted Dying is Sexist

[lcakethereforeIam]

This is a facet that I hadn't thought of, now I'm thinking how could I have been so blind

https://archive.ph/uhGgX

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/25/assisted-dying-is-sexist-report-finds/

I'm not entirely against people being killed by their Doctors, if that is their wish, they're going to die soon anyway and the alternative is unrelievable pain. My misgivings were from watching how it had played out in countries where it is legal, particularly Canada. I was also worried about coercion but somehow I hadn't thought how gendered that is. How it's usually the male sex that does the coercion.

Lots of people even just on here are suggesting already before the bill has even been enacted, that it should be widened to cover ‘people with no quality of life’. So scary these ableist sweeping subjective judgements.

As Sumption says in his excellent article, we can’t ever legislate for the internal self coercion that a lot of elderly and disabled or just economically inactive people will feel. Because society is massively ableist and based around capitalist values, and everyday life, soaring cost of living, poverty level social security support and social media pressure all taken together make that really clear. We’d need a revolution in social attitudes before assisted dying is safe to offer. We can’t stop people feeling unvalued and burdensome when society is constantly telling them that they are unvalued and a burden.

So I feel it’s particularly cynical of the government to step back and keep their hands clean via this outrageously hasty private members bill process. Shame on Starmer caring so little for vulnerable people and not insisting it be a government bill.

I note Sumption (and Dignitas) refer to it as assisted Suicide.

Kim Leadbeater was asked about this and she said she was very offended that it was being called that as it was for adults and this was being compassionate.

This "right side of history" argument is also being deployed again. A lot of movements are cyclical ( think of Georgian mores being replaced by the Victorians, which then after the 1920s with the modernists that then swung back the other way with the 1950's) so stuff that seems progressive now oftentimes looks very different in 20 years time

Kim Leadbeater was asked about this and she said she was very offended that it was being called that

Tough luck. From now on I am only going to refer to it as that.

I note Sumption (and Dignitas) refer to it as assisted Suicide.
Kim Leadbeater was asked about this and she said she was very offended that it was being called that as it was for adults and this was being compassionate.

From the research paper linked to earlier by @Slothtoes:

‘Assisted dying’ is a legal practice in some countries. Physician-assisted suicide, which licenses clinicians to prescribe lethal drugs for patients to self-ingest, is currently legal in all such legislatures. In addition, euthanasia, in which clinicians inject lethal drugs intravenously to end a patient’s life, is practiced in Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, some Australian states and Colombia.

It's assisted suicide, or, when a doctor administers the drugs, it's euthanasia. "Assisted dying" includes both of these. Why would Kim Leadbeater object to the term "assisted suicide"?

I saw a clip from the debate, a bloke with grey hair was speaking and called it what it is 'suicide'. A woman interrupted him with a point of order to say that was offensive. I didn't recognise either of them so I'm going to assume the interruptor was Leadbetter. The bloke stuck to his guns, as he should. Ffs, if somebody dies by their own hand it's suicide. Is she claiming it's an accident, natural causes, murder!? Have the courage of your convictions and correctly name what you're calling for. Why is it offensive? Is suicide shameful by her lights? If it isn't suicide then what is it?

You cannot know the quality of life of another person. We only know what we feel. I am against assisted suicide. And I have skin in this game. One branch of my family carries a genetic syndrome that leaves a person unable to walk or talk. Who am I to say that the presence of their partner, the love of their children, music they can hear, a garden they can look at are not satisfying? I don't know. But suggesting suicide 'in case' they get to the point where an outsider sees no happiness or pleasure, is a very wicked thing to do.

Nobody in Parliament should be tone policing anyone else on this- we’re talking about death! And autonomy being important apparently. For fucks sake

Sex - if you mean coition etc, which presumably you do - is not a right. You do not have a right to have equal access to it, either. Bad example.

Yup. She is one of the best arguments for not legalising assisted suicide. She doesn't realise it, though.

How dare she hitch her wagon on assisted suicide to women's rights! She has no understanding of feminism.

I’m sorry to read that, I’m in a similar position with a degenerative condition running in my family which leave in basically locked in for years, on the way there could be aggression and violence against my family and carers along the way, plus I already live with chronic pain that I have learned to manage. In my parents case I absolutely wouldn’t make a choice for them, as they never properly stated what their wishes were. But I do believe you should be able to make the decision for yourself in advance legally. Personally I’ve lived long enough to know that from a position of being bedridden, incontinent, unable to speak and force fed, 30 minutes of seeing a loved ones face would not outweigh 23 and a half hours of painful isolation. You may not feel the same and be determined to live out to the end and that’s your choice also that should be 100% respected. But not everyone feels the same. In reality I suspect there’s a lot of grey areas between these two absolutes that should also be explored. Coming from someone with experience of living with the knowledge of a genetic disease in your family I hope you are ok.

I am deeply sorry to hear your story. I do not object to what are called 'living wills', where a person e.g. states they do not wish to be resuscitated, or receive more than palliative care (i.e. no feeding - I have seen this and it caused no distress so long as thirst was contained). I am more worried about the coercion Ms Leadbeater's bill may open the door to. Personally, I do not wish to live incontinent and bedridden, and my DD, DS and DSS know this. I would wish it on no-one.

We don't have a right to have someone help us kill ourselves either. That's the point.

Do we have a right to choice. If we have an abortion?Yes, we do so why do we not have a right to be able to decide how we want to die at the very end?Why is that wrong?
But the way he was wording it about suicide was wrong. Because these people I'm not going to live. We are talking about people who are dying either way, they are dying. Be it They take one option or the other option. they are dying. Personally, that's why its assisted dying because it's about helping people that are dying already die. In a different manner.
If this bill did what canada does and allows people that potentially have a progressive illness like multiple sclerosis, or motor neuron disease to be able to die, which I think it should, but it won't at the minute then.Yes, you could argue that is suicide

"..Which it won't at the minute.."

I don't have a problem if it went further but I have been reassured by Kim The fact the bill is written terminal illness.Bill it's not going to be changed anytime soon for anything else

Very surprised at some feminist here as how can you be oro choice abortion but not proper choice to dying your way

major WTF here

Maybe go back and read the comments already made on this point.

About supposedly women being coerced mo doubt that may happen but under this bill. I like to talk about what is actually happening, not future scenarios, not looking at the Canada model, let's look at our model. You have to be six months terminal illness, and I have disgust this that's so much on another thread.
What possible motive of coercion is somebody going to get when littler the very most you've only got is 5 months quicker to get rid of somebody. That's not a lot, so to be honest with you. I really don't agree with this coercion argument with the fact you have 6 months and you don't have to take it at the 6 months point of view anyway. So I don't think it is a coercion in our bill. Perhaps maybe if it was to go further, but let's not take that because it's not happening

Nudge to have a look at the Mumsnet Petition Board as this seems relevant to some issues raised above. Only 247 signatures so far. 9,753 more needed to even get a reply from Government:

Exempt hospices from increase in employers’ national insurance

"Hospices support the NHS in providing end of life care and support to those with life limiting illnesses.

The NHS and the public sector have been exempted from the increase in employers NIC increase. We think the same should apply to hospices.
Hospices only receive roughly a third of their funding from the government, the rest is raised from donations.

Around 70% of the cost of running hospices is staffing costs.

Hospices care supports the work of the NHS and we think it must be a priority."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/5222665-exempt-hospices-from-increase-in-employers-national-insurance-petition-parliament

Interesting article detailing Starmer’s record on assisted suicide during his tenure as DPP:

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-strange-history-of-keir-starmer-and-assisted-suicide/

Thanks for sharing that.

It was an interesting read but personally I found it a bit too one-sided. I am absolutely not a Kier Starmer fan, but the clarification he brought to the subject of assisted suicide back when he was Director of Public Prosecutions was simply part of his job at the time. When asked about the subject he would always insist it was a matter for Parliament not him, and that his job was simply to clarify the criteria under which the existing law was applied. So a family accompanying their loved one to a Dignitas clinic would probably escape prosecution, but a husband holding a pillow over his wife's face would probably not.

www.cps.gov.uk/publication/assisted-suicide

It is a shame that the majority of voices on this issue are either from the Dignity in Dying camp or from life-at-all-cost Christian groups.

IMO there is an important discussion to be had about the grey area in the middle.

You have to be six months terminal illness, and I have disgust this that's so much on another thread.

Anyone who thinks it will stay as being only for terminally ill patients is living in la la land. This is just the first step. It’s a bit like the GRA in that respect. Get it passed as law on the basis it’s safeguarded and will only be for a certain cohort and then continuously campaign for the safeguards to be removed and widened so someone with a painful bunion is eligible.

those Labour MPs who voted for assisted suicide tended to represent more affluent constituencies with less deprivation in terms of health outcomes and disability. Put another way, those MPs whose constituents could be more vulnerable to assisted suicide voted against it.

I've just read that with some horror but not surprise. It says a lot.