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.

On this I find it bizarre that if we introduced assisted suicide for those with capacity to make a decision- but allow people with dementia, severe impairment etc to suffer on to the end? Not exactly equal treatment and would seem unjust

im sure once it was legalised some such argument will be made in the future- to spare such people from suffering - then you end up with state mandated death.

I sent your report to my MP WomanDaresTo

This isn't a personal discussion it's about social norms, expectations around end of life, and even legislation.

These things are communal. As, to a large extent, are beliefs about the value of life, what it means to live a good life, dignity, independence, and suffering.

I think you will have to make an argument that we have some kind of social obligation to provide equal access to anything we have the right to pursue privately.

What about sex for example?

Do people understand that what this is saying is that people who regularly need these kinds of help, or who live with intellectual impairments of some kind?

It’s ok for us to not what these things for ourself.

Well said.

Totally missed the point.

Yes it's OK to not want those things for yourself. No it is not OK to frame needing care as "undignified" because, as PP says, that by definition means that disabled people who need care do not have dignity.

It isn't a judgement on anybody else, it's a description of how we would feel ourselves. Of course loads of people need personal care, we all might one day. It's a normal part of the human experience. But I can decide for myself what level of care I can cope with until maybe, I feel the intrusion crosses a boundary. Perhaps I could think of a better expression, it doesn't have to be anything about dignity. But it will be about personal care being intolerable for me, and either way, I would be rejecting for myself a life that many people have no choice but to live. As is my right.

People are allowed to have their own boundaries as to what they find undignified or not.
Anyway this isn’t primarily about receiving care. We’re talking about terminally ill people in the last 6 months of life who want to avoid a horrendous and painful demise.

What is your evidence for this please?

If it were only about terminally ill people there would be very little to discuss imo. The MP who put forward the bill has stated that not wanting to be a burden is a legitimate reason for seeking death, which seems well outside the scope of the bill that she is proposing

https://archive.ph/U8Q1R

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/27/kim-leadbeater-being-burden-legitimate-reason-for-dying/

There's a poll in the above article that, I think, shows public support if far more nuanced than just saying two thirds of people a for assisted death.

The following article lists some of the grave problems with the bill in its current form

https://archive.ph/3vduN

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/27/families-cant-challenge-assisted-dying-rulings-leadbetter/

This paragraph lists some of the more egregious

However, ahead of its second reading in the Commons on Friday, legal academics have warned about: the lack of a right for families to appeal; there being no provision for doctors to intervene if something goes wrong with a death; the Bill’s definition of terminal illness; the lack of legal aid provision; and the fact that under the Bill the law will be automatically implemented after two years even if there are outstanding issues.

My bold.

People are not expected to endure pain!

It can take many days, even weeks, to find a combination of medications/interventions that are effective, and sometimes it’s not possible to eradicate pain entirely. Add what is known as total pain into the mix and pain can go off the chart. Palliative care is a highly specialised area and much of healthcare does not have the experience to manage symptoms. Lack of palliative care nationwide is a major problem.

It’s not as simple as that. Palliative care is not just about pain. There are so many other issues that lead to people wanting to “end it all”. Palliative care is very complex and takes multiple interventions to manage including psychological support

Why the last 2-4 days? Two people I have been close to who died of cancer had a morphine syringe driver used two weeks and three weeks before death. Their pain was well controlled.

Anyway if the bill is agreed, assisted dying will have to be formally sought long before the last week of life. Getting two medics/nurses to sign and then a High Court judges agreement will not be quick. So it would have to be people who know they are going to die within the next 6 months, rather than people close to death.
There is also nothing in the Bill to say it will be provided by the NHS. It is far more likely to be a private service.

I don't believe I have to make that argument at all. You can't insist that for my argument to be valid, I must be able to generalise it to anything anybody wants to do, because access discussions can't be generalised in that way.

There are already many areas where we have to balance the principle (that, in the interests of equality and autonomy, adjustments and assistance should be provided to those who require it to access things that others take for granted) with the practicalities (of providing those adjustments and assistance), for many, many different scenarios, and that balance between the principle and the practicalities will be different in every situation.

Each type of adjustment or assistance for every different kind of issue will have different factors to take into account: on the one hand, things like the impact on the person who lacks access/necessary assistance, and the societal effect of this inequality; on the other, things like cost, impact on others, legal and ethical concerns, historical preservation, and so on. So, workplaces must make adjustments for disabled staff, but the adjustments only need to be "reasonable". Adjustments that are considered too onerous are not required of employers. There are rules about accessibility in public buildings, but historic buildings may be exempt from some of them if it would require damaging historically important parts of the building. Balancing the principle and the practicalities, and balancing the impact on everybody involved.

Where the impact on a person's autonomy, standard of living, or other important factors is severe, there should have to be very strong justification for denying adjustments or assistance. And I was careful to say that there are strong arguments against facilitating access in the case of suicide. It's not always possible to facilitate access or autonomy in every situation. In the case of suicide, there may end up being overriding ethical and practical concerns that mean we cannot safely and ethically provide the necessary assistance to promote autonomy and equality for people who have made a rational decision to die, but cannot achieve that alone.

BUT I feel we should be having this discussion with the explicit acknowledgement that one of the things we are weighing in the balance here is an access and equality issue. That is, whether the arguments against assisted suicide are weighty enough to justify withholding assistance from people wishing to make a choice that's entirely legal for those who don't require assistance, when denying that assistance and denying that autonomy will have a profound and extreme negative impact on them. I'm not saying "It's a disability access issue therefore that trumps anybody's qualms". I'm saying that when I see this discussed, the access/autonomy/equality impact of the illegality of assisted suicide is rarely explicitly addressed, and I feel that it's too important to skim over or briefly allude to.

BTW I deliberately avoided referring to these freedoms as "rights", to avoid accusations that I was creating "rights" that don't currently exist. And I think bringing in sex is a bit crass TBH. Getting your rocks off is not an access or equality issue, and you're not being denied autonomy if you can't find anyone to consensually fuck you.

yes that part of it is so often over looked. An already over stretched NHS and an already over stretched justice system adding more to their workload - I can see people dying before a decision gets made, stuck in the system.

if it’s not an NHS service does that mean that only people who can afford it will get to choose and those that can’t pay will just have to get on with it?

It may not be possible to eradicate all pain and suffering from disease, but terminal sedation as I understand it is effective and, as a by product, will often hasten death? I think it is limited to the final active dying stage in the UK, but in France they introduced continuous sedation in 2016 as an alternative to assisted suicide.

French law allowing continuous sedation:
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/28/france-adopts-sedated-dying-law-as-compromise-on-euthanasia

Summary of assisted dying laws from around the world:
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/19/assisted-dying-around-world-where-when-allowed-esther-rantzen

Bringing it back to feminism, I would argue that the idea of assisted dying legislation is not inherently problematic for women, but all legislation produced in a patriarchal society is likely to disadvantage women.

It's clear that most of you posting haven't been following this until recently. Thats ok - and a failing of the way government communicates, and possibly the media in not highlighting it for longer - it's not interesting to the public until the crunch vote i guess. You all needed much longer to see what was being done.

The work of creating the bill has been extensive. The consultation with real people affected and doctors has been extensive. Research into other countries who have this and getting their guidance on what is going well and not. The recommended safeguards. There was even a citizen jury who considered it in great detail and decided in favour of it. She's done the work. Yes, a government should have taken this on so it didn't have the controversy of this appearance of being a fringe lobbyist bill. I think Leadbeater should withdraw it with an agreement from Starmer to take it forward as a government bill instead so we don't end up foolishly burying this highly necessary debate for a generation because of an unusual procedural process.

I do agree with some of your arguments and would likely vote no on this bill, when I really do want to vote yes in principle. It is a shame.

Going back to the concept of 'dignity', I would have preferred to see lobby groups use more neutral terms such as comfort or just plain assistance/assisted.

'Dignity' is something feminist campaigners will often ask for, but it is also a standard disproportionately levelled at women ("show some dignity!") An obligation as much as a right.

Assisted dying. Comfort in dying. These suggest a service or at least a level of service. Dignity in dying is dangerously close to suggesting an obligation.

I am also concerned by the forced teaming of abortion rights to assisted dying. Abortion rights are under enough strain anyway, thank you. Please don't use women's hard-won rights (women's free labour, if you like) to back your cause. Besides, abortion rights in the UK are still very ill defined. Although not really enforced, a woman still cannot legally have an abortion in the UK for no reason other than simply just because she wants one.

This is horrific. Even worse than I thought.

Why did they is an image of a fairly young woman and not an image of someone disabled or elderly?

Firstly it's not a great look to be suggesting the death of some one disabled. You might think about that harder.

Secondly it's to appeal to young 'people like me' for whom the very concept of aging is horrible. Older people don't want to be reminded that it's potentially 'people like me'.

It's telling.

"Asked if dying people requesting an assisted death would have to pay legal fees, she said: “I wouldn’t anticipate someone would pay a fee. But listen, these are the details that would have to be sorted out if the Bill passes… It’s the job of Parliament to decide they want to change the law and then look at those issues. You don’t put in a piece of legislation, ‘It’s going to cost a certain amount of money.’”"
From the Telegraph article linked above.

So even the access issue isn't addressed. The article exposes just how poorly thought through this legislation is. Terminal illness not properly defined and can include mental illness. As you say @Slothtoes even more horrifying than I thought.

Incidentally this is the issue that is finally destroyed DH's commitment to the Guardian. They have been uncritically pushing this Bill in a way that is horrifying.

Agree that the Observer, as is often the case, makes the Guardian look absolutely juvenile with the quality of the Obs much more nuanced discussion of ethical issues without party politicised blinkers on. As this excellent article by Sonia Sodha, posted upthread by jcakey shows.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/07/conflicted-legalising-assisted-dying-sonia-sodha

I agree and I think it's sinister how it's being rushed through so quickly.