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.

I used to be in favour, without giving it much thought.
After caring for my mum I changed my mind, seeing how badly the old are treated by our so called care system really opened my eyes to how the frail and vulnerable are treated.
And the thing that's made me absolutely dead against it in the last few weeks is seeing all the same tactics used as were used by the trans lobby and the complete trashing of their opponents as religious bigots. You can't make good legislation from 'be kind.'
The poster campaign on the tube this week is grotesque I actually think a lot of these organisations are deeply sinister now. So yes, I've had a complete change of heart.

I totally agree. The tube campaign is monstrous.

Transport for London. Who have banned junk food ads and have a policy barring campaigns on “public controversy or sensitivity” ran adverts for assisted dying?

On the tube.

Where people kill themselves all the time.

Is this right?

Wow.

That stinks.

I work In a care home, a lovely one, where everyone is very well cared for. Think 5 star luxury. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who tell they don't want to wake up the next day, they had their life, now they've had enough. They are well cared for and in relative good health, they've just had enough. I've also seen the other side, my DH, my dp, and countless others in care having a horrifying ending that is prolonged. It's unkind. In my DH'S case, he literally wasted away. He was tall and slim around 11stone when we met. He was just over 5 when he died. It's unbelievably cruel though the nurses did all they could. I'm 💯 for this bill to go through. Possibly nothing is 💯 full proof but I'd be willing to take in the hope the occurrences are 1 in a billion, to save the rest from true pain and suffering many of you hopefully have never experienced before.

"I'm not entirely against people being killed by their doctors", you say in your post. This emotive choice of words shows you do have a view on this. Nobody uses words like "killed by their doctors" unless they don't agree with assisted dying. It's your choice and right to disagree with assisted dying. That's fine. I'm not convinced this is an issue gender should be brought into

That's what it is though. I could have used a euphemism but it wouldn't change the reality of it. I stand by what I wrote in my OP.

Don't think gender should be brought into it? Did you read the article I Iinked?

Question.

Why are you trying to sanitise the language here.

Assisted dying is doctors administering something to cause a death. This is killing. Death may be inevitable but it is still doctors killing people.

I don't think sanitised language really helps.

This is very much at complete odds with the hypocritic oath too.

That would be the hippocratic oath. I am not sanitising language. I am saying, if people use words like "doctors killing people" that is quite emotive language. I'm not sure language like that is helpful. The BMA (ie, doctors' union) has changed its position on Assisted Dying to neutral. As doctors I have interacted with do agree with the hippocratic oath (first do no harm), this suggests to me some are concerned they may be doing harm by prolonging a terminally ill person's life in pain.

I think we intervene too much too often - so doctors often do lots of invasive procedures which reduce quality of life towards the end of life because there is pressure to do so. We should be willing to stop interventions sooner because they effectively don't achieve anything productive. That's different to relieving symptoms though. It's the invasiveness, rather than allowing nature to take it's course.

I think we should have conversations about this side of things too.

But assisted dying still is killing people however you cut it.

It’s not bringing gender into it. It is bringing women’s experiences into it. At a population level, women are more likely to suffer domestic violence, more likely to live in poverty as a result of caring responsibilities over their lifetimes and are more likely to be socialised not to be a burden and not to make a fuss about things. These are things which will affect their ‘choice’ regarding assisted death.

Of course assisted dying is medical killing. What else is it if it shortens life? If I recall correctly, the patient has to drink barbiturates which are intended to be lethal. That’s not gently into the night.

I don't agree with the emotive language you choose to use about doctors who, in my opinion, do try mostly to uphold their hippocratic oath but it's up to you what you think. I think we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

It's fair enough if you don't care for the language I used. It's hardly a hill to...erm. I honestly do think that being hurried along to your eternal rest should be an option in some circumstances.

I do worry about people (both men and women) being coerced or feeling that they are a burden and need to take this option to relieve their carers and ensure the family have an inheritance. I don't think it's necessarily men who are more likely to either coerce or unwittingly allow someone to feel that pressure, but I do think women may be more vulnerable to it due to the way we are socialised to sacrifice ourselves for the family, to be unselfish and do the right thing for the children and our community - as women, that is something that goes very deep in our culture and traditions and our upbringing.

I think comparing the debate around assisted dying to 'the trans lobby' 'trashing' their opponents is deeply offensive.

The debate has on the whole been carried out sensitively and sincerely - there will always be outliers - and you certainly can't say that about the TRAs.
I haven't seen any 'trashing' here, or any slurs based on religion.

The two issues are vastly different. The most obviously difference is that it is a scientific fact that you can't change sex, and it is a scientific fact that people suffer and die.

The assisted dying debate is about the level of control individuals should have over their suffering and death. It's not about what toilet you use or what your pronouns are, and who gets to call themselves 'women'.

It's incredible that a comparison is being drawn between the campaigns for assisted dying and trans rights, and I wonder what on earth is behind it, it's so misplaced and distasteful.

Unless the aim is to taint the proponents of assisted dying by associating them with a campaign which, as has been detailed many times here, has used lying, bullying and actual violence...

I tend to agree. The issue of trans rights/who gets to call themselves a woman is just not relevant to the Assisted Dying debate. If people want to have a debate about trans rights, I politely suggest they start an unrelated thread

Actually, I can see the resemblance. To me it's not particularly about what the laws themselves are about. I 100% agree one is literally life and death, the other is about dress-up. To compare them directly like that is distasteful. However, poor law, poorly thought through, poorly drafted, warnings ignored and leading to effects way outside the scope of what was initially claimed. Oh, and women disproportionately badly affected. I can definitely see a similarity.

Having worked in care homes where people are often kept alive in pain and discomfort and confusion by doctors. I personally would view assisted dying to be called "no longer forcing people to live in pain and misery" as equally as killing someone. I would personally like the option to be killed rather than kept in such a horrible state. Even though people try to make it not too bad. It can just be awful and people regularly beg for it to end.
I do understand the fears and think rigorous systems are needed but for me it's an absolute wish to have the choice.

I think the two debates have much in common and I don't think it's 'offensive' to say so. The campaign groups for assisted dying have used all the same tropes as trans campaigners did.

Be kind

Why do you care, it doesn't affect you? Well yes it does because it's sanctioning death by the state.

Attacking those against as religious bigots. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt even though I'm a left winged atheist.

An assumption that everyone is acting in good faith and there are no 'bad' people. 'The report out today cited two cases in which men who killed their partners were “championed” by Dignity in Dying, despite histories of domestic violence'.

Ignoring/dismissing all concerns about safeguarding/coercive control, especially from many feminists.

It's not a problem in other countries - do some research, even in Oregon which is being held up as somewhere it works well you can be put forward for it with anorexia.

Suicide ideation - I wonder how anyone struggling with their mental health felt walking past all those "Boden" style adverts by Dignity in Dying that are plastered all over the tube of all places. Now suddenly it's to be encouraged in the most vulnerable, an astonishing reversal. Louis Appleby the govt advisor on suicide prevention has criticised them for it this week. Just like he did the trans lobby.

Evidence of lobby groups having far too much power in Westminster. Just where has all this come from? Incredibly well co-ordinated campaign with loads of cash behind it, pushing this right to the front of the political agenda without time for it to be properly debated. Stonewall anyone?

Leadbeater's refusal to entertain any doubts makes her uniquely unqualified to propose such controversial legislation. She just repeats mantras. TWAW?

No pre legislative work done because it's a private members bill designed to get it into legislation without scrutiny and under the radar. Sounds familiar? They know exactly what they're doing, trying to push it through without scrutiny.

I have seen how very vulnerable people are treated by a broken system. This bill is wrong in every respect, from practicalities - the timing, the lack of proper care, the lack of understanding of coercion - to its approach to death.

So yes, the similarities are there and I don't want us unpicking the mistakes for the next decade.

I’m less afraid of dying than suffering, and suffering seems to be an inevitable part of end of life care, especially for women as we live longer and are more vulnerable to dementia. Currently if I develop dementia the state, health and care system will be coercing me to stretch out my existence as long as possible. I absolutely do not want this.

I am not sure where the idea comes from that we have a "right" to have help from society to end our life when we want. That's not a right that's been granted under the law, and I don't see how it's a natural right either.

This kind of talk has become a very common way of trying to beg the question - making circular arguments. Essentially, arguing for a legal change on the basis that there is some kind of right to whatever that change is - a right that would have to be defined in the law, which of course it hasn't been.

As far as the question of refusing treatments like antibiotics in a very elderly person, yes, this is entirely legal and a lot of medical people do this for themselves when they are at that stage. The feeling of obligation to do everything is cultural and often imposed by the patient, or more often, the family of the patient. It needs to be addressed but assisted death isn't the logical solution for that.

They are both cases where there is a lot of emotive language, talk of rights that haven't actually been established, where there is a lot of emphasis on being kind, and a lot of potential ripple effects both socially and legally.

And where there seems to be too little care on the details of the regulation.

As stated upthread, the bill will not address this. If you have dementia, you will not be able to consent to your life being ended. Unless the law is in future expanded to include such cases - which is exactly the slippery slope that many argue (including me) is the danger inherent in such a law. Death to burdensome people who cannot consent to it.

Regular poster but have name changed for this

I used to be 100% on side of assisted dying but the longer I have worked on issues around ageing, the more I am persuaded that this is not a good bill.

I question why it all needs to be rushed through so quickly - it’s a really crucial piece of legislation and yet MPs have had less than a month to scrutinise the draft bill

I have 2 concerns in particular. I know everyone talks about families pressurising elderly parents/grandparents into asking for assisted dying but I’m more concerned with the other end of the scale, those older ppl with no family. What safeguards are there in place to ensure frail older people with no relatives aren’t put on an assisted dying pathway without their full understanding? I mean after all who would know or complain?

and as someone who will (if this goes through) be sat on working groups to implement this, it makes it all very very real. It won’t be a theoretical thing that may or not happen to my mum, it’ll be a real pathway implemented by my colleagues. I find that massively uncomfortable

Yep.

I hugely empathise with the desire to ease suffering. But the speed, tone, and process of this Bill doesn't seem right at all.

If you visit the elderly parents board you will read the heartbreaking stories of middle aged women on the verge of breakdown trying to juggle careers and family responsibilities and children while supporting elderly relatives. The vast majority of family carers of the elderly being the daughters, daughters in law and the granddaughters. There’s another feminist issue for you.

Men should pull their weight. It's appalling what you are implying here: that old people must die to spare women the burden of caring for them. How much have you internalised the "not men's problem" message to consider it preferable that the old people die than that the men be made to step up?