Assisted suicide bill

[genandtonic]

ive popped this on Scotsnet as well, so apologies. I just wanted to raise awareness to anyone here that is in Scotland.
im not the most clever political person in the world, so apologies if I’ve got this wrong, but whether you believe in this bill or not, this seems a tad concerning given the Scottish governments current level s of nuttiness.

I got sent this from the righttolife oraganisation whether or not you agree with all of their views ( I don’t) I am glad they, and other groups are concerned about this.
given that the Scottish government don’t seem the most inspiring I’m a little concerned. They appear to be taking the English view and making it more extreme? I haven’t read it in depth so would appreciate anyone who knows more about these things adding to the thread.
It seems to have been debated 10 years ago and was voted out at that time.
now it is being proposed by …’MSP Liam McArthur (Scottish Liberal Democrat, Orkney) has lodged proposals for an Assisted Dying Scotland Members Bill. The Stage One debate and vote will take place on 13th May’

right to life news says..’Scotland’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee directly identified a large number of major flaws with the Bill in its Stage 1 report, and made it clear that dozens of major structural changes need to be made to the Bill, should it pass Stage 1. ’
heres a link to the main article from right to life
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/scottish-health-committee-raises-over-30-concerns-with-proposed-assisted-suicide-law
and one from the bbc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98gzyr678eo
It seems there are many additions to the bill here in Scotland that aren’t in England and wakes. It would be very useful, I suspect, to write to your MP . There is a template at the end of the right to life link.
anyway, FYI in case it’s of interest. (And you are probably all already super informed and ahead of me)

Dear x
We are now just 6 days away from the Stage One vote on the Scottish McArthur assisted suicide Bill – it’s happening this coming Tuesday, 13 May.
Between now and then, I’ll be in touch a little more often regarding the Scottish Bill. Please do keep opening my emails and, most importantly, take the actions I highlight (usually at the end of each message). Every single one makes a difference.
U-TURN
You might have seen that Liam McArthur has just made a last-minute change to his Bill, raising the eligibility age from 16 to 18. It’s likely he did this because he knows support for the Bill is on a knife-edge.
While this truly disturbing aspect of the proposed law has been changed, despite this U-turn, this still remains a dangerous Bill. If passed, it would put thousands of vulnerable people at risk.
TAKE THIS NEW 30-SECOND ACTION TODAY
The disability rights group, Not Dead Yet UK, is asking people to contact their MSPs using a new tool on their website. It explains exactly why this Bill would be a disaster for people with disabilities.
Even if you have contacted your MSPs already, it’s really important to contact your MSPs again using this new tool – so your MSPs hear specifically about the serious risks this Bill poses to people with disabilities.
Please take action now and click the button below to use their tool to contact your MSPs. It only takes 30 seconds.
Act now - Click here to contact your MSPs
Thank you so much for all your help on this.
I’ll be in touch again soon.
With best wishes,
Catherine Robinson
Right To Life UK

I always supported assisted dying, until I saw what was happening in Canada. Like the English bill, the Scottish bill seems to be poorly written and without adequate safeguards in place to protect vulnerable people.

Emotional four-hour debate ends with Scotland’s assisted dying bill failing
Members of the Scottish Parliament vote 69 to 57 against legalising assisted dying. One member abstained
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2grl77j47t

How did MSPs vote on assisted dying bill – see the full list
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25945622.msps-voted-assisted-dying-bill---see-full-list/

Also in full at https://archive.is/ocbQN

I'm so pleased it didn't pass (no pun intended). I'm not against assisted suicide in principle but everywhere it's been introduced it's been expanded way beyond what was originally proposed. Esther Rantzen (I understand being terrified of a long, undignified and painful death, it could lie in anyone's future) but isn't she supposed to be dead now? She's actually a poster child for why Doctors cannot always accurately tell how much good life (again, no pun intended) someone has left. I believe in her case because she wasn't helped to kill herself she was still alive when a new drug came along.

I've seen articles that palliative care in this country is often dire. It's a shame the time and energy wasted on assisted suicide wasn't spent on improving care for the dying.

I am so glad that this bill has not passed and hope that the one going through Westminster similarly falls. Without palliative options be easily accessible to everyone everywhere, assisted suicide can never be a "choice" for most of us.

Totally agree.

What aren't we discussing palliative care and if (which I suspect is the case) it is just too expensive, then lets be honest that that is the problem.

Not all these so called personalities wringing our emotions with their personal stories.

Just as there are posters who are passionately opposed to assisted suicide, there are others like me who are just as passionately in favour of it.

We each have our reasons, and our experiences, to back up our opinions.

Some of us find personal experiences, even of 'so-called personalities' persuasive, because so-called personalities suffer as much as so-called nobodies do.

Others don't find personal experiences persuasive.

I accept that not everybody agrees with me on this topic. I respect them and their opinion. I expect my opinion to be respected, too, as equally sincere and deeply held.

The problem is that this is taking priority over the much bigger need which is palliative care.

Its like everyone moans about housing, too expensive blah, blah, but never talk about the real issue which is the lack of affordable housing.

Couldn’t agree more.

I'm not I Scotland, so I guess I really shouldn't be posting here. But ive seldom done what I ought, so I'll post my opinion anyway.

I don't want to die at the behest of someone else's opinion/belief. I want to die when I decide it's the right time. No one else's opinion matters to me, in this respect.

As for Esther Rantzans position, no one but her and her family know what continuing to live is costing her.

I'm old and tired. I've had a great life and I've loved most of it. But I'm ready to go. That might be difficult to understand if you're young or a medical professional whose job is to keep people alive.

In England the safe guard was that someone had to only have six months to live. That feels like a pretty good safe guard to me. Yes, as in Esthers case, further drugs have kept her alive. But she knows,as I do, that the end is just around the corner. And she, may feel as I do that we would like to be the ones who decide when that corner is turned.

I'm also pleased it didn't pass for many of the reasons raised on the board surrounding coercion or a desire to "not be a burden". This doesn't even start to cover the minefield around clinicians having no protection to refuse to undertake assisted suicide and the long term consequences on current and future staff joining the medical profession.

I heard it mentioned that it was estimated at 25 people per year. From a pragmatic viewpoint, If the bill had passed (and in Scotland first/only) would people from England, Wales and N Ireland move to gain eligibility and what would the financial impact of this be on an already stretched Health and Social care budgets bearing in mind that the costs associated with treatment and care at that point in time would be at the upper end of the spectrum? I know that this is an unpleasant area to stray into and we are the UK etc. but with devolution it is a consideration (even if it wasn't with the Ferries...)

I'm with you💜

I'm struggling to frame this question in a respectful way and I am genuinely not trying to be goady, but isn't 'turning the corner' at a time of our choosing already possible? Why does choosing to end one's life need to be sanctioned by the state? Is it because the methods are often violent and/or unpredictable? I apologise if my questions are insensitive.

I used to be in favour of legalising euthanasia. But if you look at what's happening in countries where euthanasia is legal, and if you know anything about how Scotland is being governed (with no end in sight), it's hard not to picture large numbers of inconvenient elderly and/or disabled people being disposed of for the convenience and enrichment of others, and to save the state money. From a personal point of view, I like the idea of being able to go at a time of my choosing, etc. But not at such a high cost to others, and to the health and humanity of our society. And after all, Switzerland is available. Esther Rantzen could avail herself of that if she wanted to.

I think one of the reasons is for some people with a debilitating illness may not have the physical capacity to, for instance, take pills without someone assisting them.

One part of the arguement for assisted dying it to protect relatives etc..

There was a really unpleasant and aggressive pro euthanasia campaign in Scotland. They sent an online question you were supposed to answer. It went something like this: "Are you, like ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE IN SCOTLAND, in favour of the right to die, or do you ENJOY WATCHING OTHERS IN TERRIBLE TORMENT?" So I took their claim that almost everyone was in favour with a big pinch of salt.

Yes, that's what people will point to. And that this is not "fair" because it means people who are disabled through no fault of their own don't get the choice able bodied people do.

The flip side is that by making it an apparatus of the state, it is no longer a private matter, other people and the state itself are involved and implicated. And that it also can provide for relatives who are in fact nefarious.

Because it is very difficult to access any humane or reliable methods - they have all been removed and shut down as part of zero suicide strategies taken by the state to deny people the choice to end their lives - which means the available methods are painful, violent and unpredictable and cause additional suffering and risk leaving the person alive but in an even worse state of suffering.

Because they have to be undertaken alone and without warning anyone otherwise your loved ones could be prosecuted or you could be sectioned and lose your freedom.

Because it is traumatic for the dying person and the person who finds them in whatever violent state.

Because it denies people the opportunity to die calmly, peacefully, with their pain managed and the people they love by their side.

Because it is painful, distressing and frightening for people to attempt such violent brutal methods.

Because it's barbaric and inhumane.

Euthanasia and assisted dying are different things.

You are 💯 % right.

And the solution to that in the countries with legal assisted dying is to legalise euthanasia where the lethal dose is administered via a feeding tube or injection or intravenously. It’s the same drugs as used for executions in countries with the death penalty.

We know from the data that chemically induced death by execution, assisted dying or euthanasia has a complication and failure rate. It’s not the romanticised drift off to sleep with dignity for everyone. It can be quite a traumatic death in some cases.

Some countries with legalised assisted dying and/or euthanasia have had to put in place PTSD counselling for both the medics assisting and relatives witnessing the deaths of their relatives.

Is the difference between the 2 that with assisted suicide the person who is choosing to die presses the button which releases the liquid which kills them, for instance? The debate certainly used to be around "euthanasia".

Even with the best palliative care, dying from something like cancer can be unspeakably horrific. It is not a quiet fading away like on TV and films, it is brutal and undignified pain, fear and suffering as you lose bowel control in front of your loved ones and scream in distress that this is what you have been reduced to and how you will be remembered by your children.

That is why people want to have the choice so that when they have had enough they can peacefully die.

Rather than being forced to wait in agonising pain and distress for cancer to kill them as they cry and beg and plead for it to be over.

If you had bothered to listen to any of the stories people shared at such personal expense, you would have understood that.

I looked for a thread last night, wanting to discuss the outcome, started writing a new one myself but decided against posting it after writing it out. I’m very glad and relieved it didn’t pass, but I’d hate a discussion to any tone of anyone agreeing with me crowing about it as a victory. It’s deeply uncomfortable when you feel for those who sincerely feel it’s the right way to go, I can see their point of view but disagree that it is a helpful move for our society as a whole.

Exactly this

no one wants to make individuals suffer at the end of life. But there are big problems with the bill, both the risk of people feeling pressure/coercion/not being a burden, mission creep and the implications for clinical staff.

if you ask a room full of people to put up their hand if they would want assisted dying, many would put up their hand. Not so many would keep them up if they were asked to assist in the death of someone else. And not just once, for workers in this sector it could be multiple times a week.

I am a vet, the situation is of course different for us, but repeated euthanasia can take its toll on our staff and the whole process of consent, deciding when, having the whole family on board and present is very difficult at times, even with pets.

I know that, but at the moment (or was when it came up in the HoC) about people being a burden, not being able to provide or find support.

Which isn't that I want anyone to die a horrible and painful death, but that is only one arguement within a whole lot of others.

So in an ideal world if palliative care was available and easy to access, then it is much clearer what the arguement for assisted suicide is.

Just as it would be great if we all knew that families or carers would be the most altruistic and empathatic people.

Some of the strongest arguements against assisted dying during the HoC debate was that the most vulnerable would come under undue pressure including not just the elderly but members of the BME community, and idividuals without family or friends.

Not forgetting that during Covid GPs were prepared and did send out DNR letters to all the people registered with them over a certian age (75? 80?).

For anyone with no advocate there is no evidence it would not be abused.