Assisted Dying Debate

Yes. I've had a few close relatives die pretty nasty deaths through cancer. (My mother was in horrendous pain, and effectively insensible because of it and medication for a few weeks before her death.)

Whilst, in most things I can see both sides of the debate, I’m really struggling to find empathy for those who believe (for whatever reason) that people should not have the choice to go out with dignity on their own terms and criminalizes those who would attempt to help them.

Especially, imo, when their motives are grounded in faith, not in empathy.

Now, the legislation being put forward would not help people in my father’s exact position as he would have not been able to administer a lethal dose of anything himself as he would simply not have had the manual dexterity to do so.

I don't actually think that the proposals would help a lot of people. My mother was diagnosed 4 months before her death - would that have been enough time to jump through the hoops, even if she had been capable of going through that process? She certainly wasn't capable of administering anything to herself for the last few weeks.

Wondered where the thread was about this. I'm watching the debate and getting a bit annoyed at all the moralising*. The only argument against in my opinion is that it could result in the erosion of palliative care. To be honest I'd go a lot further than terminal illness.

*Also getting a bit annoyed at all the MPs patting themselves on the back about how brilliant they are at debating the issue. Err, yeah, that's your jobs!

the erosion of palliative care.

Palliative care (around here) was almost non-existent twenty years ago, in my experience. It can't have eroded any further?

The No Camp group 1 - Religious or ethical objections. These will not change so cannot be argued with.
The No Camp group 2 - Don't want to open the door to the risk of people being 'forced' to die because they feel a burden or are bullied to do so. Understandable concerns and can sufficient safeguards be built in that won't be diluted over time?
The No Camp group 3 - I am interested in hearing from these.

The Yes Camp group 1 - I am an individual. I am free etc - Like the religious/.ethical lot but from the other side. Unconvertable.
The Yes camp group 2 - They have seen or can imagine the suffering and want to remove that. Understandable concerns and can sufficient safeguards be built in that won't be diluted over time?
The Yes Camp group 3 - I am interested in hearing from these.

I don’t actually think that the proposals would help a lot of people. My mother was diagnosed 4 months before her death – would that have been enough time to jump through the hoops, even if she had been capable of going through that process? She certainly wasn’t capable of administering anything to herself for the last few weeks.

yes 4 months is sufficient time.  It needs slightly more than two weeks start to finish (and i thjnk if the doctors agree that is not enough it can be shortened).    But I do agree that the self administration issue, whilst included for good reasons, does actually make the approach less useful and somewhat ironically for a “safeguard” actually puts slight pressure on people to act earlier.

There was an interesting podcast from the NewsAgents on this. It would not help people who would be unable to physically act themselves and who were not diagnosed with a terminal condition expected to end their life within 6 months. One of the points they flagged is that in passing this bill it may set the motion in stone and make it very difficult to extend it to provide this option to people with conditions not covered by the current framework

As a vet this is something I have a relatable experience of. I have had a huge number of clients who have commented over the years after we have put down an old and suffering dog or cat that they wished that this had been an option for their parent relative who died in pain/suffering.

There was a chap some years back (I think he had MND) who lobbied actively for an assisted dying law. His point was that he would not be able to self-administer and wanted his wife to be able to assist his dying process (administer the medication) without fear of facing a murder charge.

This current proposal seems nonsense to me at total ignores the 'assisted' aspect (bar the NHS actually preparing the meds.) Self-administering also presents the risk hat people will rush to take their own lives whilst they still can, potentially some time before they would otherwise chose to go.

The current legislation also seems to ignore the fact that suicide is already legal, anyone (terminally ill or not) can already legally self-administer a lethal dose (meds. are available online & paracetamol freely available at the supermarket) or alternately choose other avenues.

It seems really ill thought out and the less than six month prognosis rather arbitrary ignoring a whole variety of chronic, long-term conditions that might also make life intolerable.

I'm inclined to think that there's a real possibility of this passing, people thinking that we now have 'assisted dying' and that nothing is achieved & further progress stymied. Although I think that I read somewhere that the government won't adopt it if it passes.

I’ve had the debate on all morning. I think this is the first time I’ve actually listened to Parliament doing what it’s supposed to do… having calm reasoned and informed debate, instead of just hurling abuse at each other like a bunch of school kids

My dad is presently in end of life care with prostate and bone cancer. He has now broken his femur and can no longer walk. It’s horrible watching him deteriorate so rapidly. He has already told me that he just wants to die now. Which is heartbreaking to hear

I’m listening to MPs saying we must improve palliative care. Yes you do. Because right now it is beyond woeful. Last Saturday I spent 14 hours in A&E with him when he fell and broke his femur. A man with stage 4 cancer was left for 14 hours on a trolley in a corridor, in agony. So sort that out first, before telling me about your objections. It’s just high-minded bullshit with no grounding in reality

Since our last thread on this topic my MIL has had sue rider round in Wednesday to discuss end of life options, and my Mum has had (last week) a major seizure on top of her stroke and progressing dementia...

TBH despite it being a very real issue for us, I am increasingly turned off by the public 'debate' which has very much started to acquire the whiff of points scoring either way, rather than any real discussion of the needs of people dying painful and undignified deaths.

TBH No proposal could ever be 'perfect' in terms of safeguarding or threshold criteria, but can something better than the current status quo be achieved?

I think morally there's probably not a robust argument against the 'choice'. However as a society we've been slowly moving away from a community of people to individualism, and as a step on that path, this is of course the ultimate expression of that individualism. There's probably a philosophical debate in there about us as modern humans, that we're striving so hard against the very thing that marks out as a successful species.

I'm generally against the state ordering the death of, or helping  it's citizens to kill themselves when we take so very little care to preserve and enrich those same citizens lives while they live. I'm not against arranging our deaths to be as comfortable and as dignified as they can be, I just don't think the state to take an active role in that process, they should just provide the best scenarios for each, and GTF out of the way after that.

In every country that has enacted these laws, more and more of their citizens are choosing to end their lives, Canada for instance has seen an order of magnitude more from 2016 to 2022, and under pressure from legal challenges mounted from it citizens (like every other country) are being forced to widen and allow the choice to more and more groups each of whom have claimed - largely successfully that they should enjoy the same rights to end their lives as those who were included in original legislation. In Canada claims have been made that injured Vets (Soldiers) while claiming for assisted living provisions were asked if they'd like MAID (the Canadian assisted dying programme) options, others have said the the reason they've chosen to end their lives is loneliness. I wouldn't presume to argue that it's not entirely each individual's choice to decide when to die, but I think pressure should be placed on governments to provide an equally robust set of legislation to make sure that every provision to end life naturally with dignity and comfort should be enacted at the same time, and with the same attention as the provision to take life.

Especially, imo, when their motives are grounded in faith, not in empathy.

Yep. Anyone whose point of view is based on fairy stories should just be ignored. It's gobsmacking that we give them the time of day TBH.

I am firmly of the opinion that people with terminal illness should be able to choose good quality palliative care or to be able to choose the time of their passing.

I also think the safeguards proposed are enough to satisfy me it would be good system IF we had enough doctors, judges and other infrastructure in place to deliver the policy in practice.

Though I watch the creep of such legislation beyond those with terminal illness in other countries with some concern.

Yeah, all the religious cobblers is really winding me up. I don’t want to know why your particular Sky-fairy is ‘guiding’ your judgment. That’s not what you were elected for.We’re a secular country and the politicians should therefore follow the Alastair Campbell maxim “we don’t do god!”

Just listening to Robert Jenrick confirming my opinion of him as a total ****! I’ve never heard such self-righteous scaremongering bullshit!

One of the points they flagged is that in passing this bill it may set the motion in stone and make it very difficult to extend it to provide this option to people with conditions not covered by the current framework

One of the “anti” arguments is that this is the thin end of the wedge.  It can’t be both.  In reality it is neither - Parliament has the power to make, ammend and revoke laws - MPs can do it, or can refuse to do it.

As for the religious side debate.

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs. Otherwise we can be, rightly, accused of the same intolerance that some religions presume over the rights of women's reproduction. It shouldn't of course be the reason we don't enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic, despite the fact that of course they wouldn't extend the same to us non-believers.

Jenrick disgusts me on a visceral level. His government were absolutely responsible for the state of palliative care in this country.

Like Binners I had to watch my 80 year old mum literally begging to die as bowel cancer took her away.

I don't even wish that on Jenrick. But I do feel the lying dishonest piece of shit should stop his grandstanding and pretence that he cares about anything other than lining his own pockets.

I’m not against arranging our deaths to be as comfortable and as dignified as they can be, I just don’t think the state to take an active role in that process

Surely the state shouldn't need to take an active role in it, it should be impassive and allow it's citizens to end their own lives in a way that they see fit? It should only be there to prevent misuse of the law.

In every country that has enacted these laws, more and more of their citizens are choosing to end their lives

Isn't that simply because most of this legislation is very recent. In Canada it was brought in in 2016, so it's natural that numbers will increase until they plateau.

others have said the the reason they’ve chosen to end their lives is loneliness

And then there would be options provided to ameliorate the problem, not euthanasia?

Fwiw, I quite enjoyed the debate on Question Time about it last night, and while I loathe the man and disagree with him, Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke very eloquently regarding his non-faith based concerns which made me rethink my own position.

@nickc Tolerance is best described as a social contract and construct if anyone is intolerant they are outwith the contract and as such are no longer entitled to any tolerance from society.

@Binners My mother was the same but refused medication and faced the wall, her brain stem cancer did the rest. it was a tough 10 days.

Surely the state shouldn’t need to take an active role in it

The legislation proposed requires the agreement of two doctors and a judge. That's pretty active engagement.

Isn’t that simply because most of this legislation is very recent.

Yes partly of course, but its also a function of extending the provision to more and more groups. The end point presumably  (the slippery slope that Trudeau said was a myth) is allow anyone at anytime to arrange their deaths for any reason. Is that what folks think this will end up at some point in one ore more of the countries that have already enacted these laws? Once you've started on a path...

And then there would be options provided to ameliorate the problem, not euthanasia?

The women who's case this was had some pretty severe physical disabilities, she said in a letter to her relatives to be opened after her death, that she felt she could've borne those, if she'd have had some help and companionship.

@nickc Tolerance is best described as a social contract and construct if anyone is intolerant they are outwith the contract and as such are no longer entitled to any tolerance from society.

Well they do say that democracy contains the means of it's own downfall in that it is tolerant of intolerance. I freely admit that I'm a bleeding heart liberal, it'll probably be the death of me...

Also worth noting is that if it passes today, it goes to committee and then on to the Lords, and then I think back to the Commons.

Point is - It can be further tweaked before becoming law.

As for the religious side debate.

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs

Or, your religious beliefs shouldn't prevent me from ending my life if I'm suffering. If you don't want to utilise that legislation then nobody is going to force you to. (Not you personally, of course!)

@Idlejon yes of course. Religious objectors disguising thier beliefs as spurious non-religious arguments should be shown the door. If they can't be honest in this debate then no attention should be paid to their views.

If they can’t be honest in this debate then no attention should be paid to their views.

They won't be honest because most of their objections can be dismissed so easily, so they have to rely on obfuscation and exaggeration. My MiL, a very active church goer, sent my daughters (but not me!) a round robin message asking them to oppose the 'very dangerous assisted suicide laws'.

They won’t be honest because most of their objections can be dismissed so easily

I know a couple of Muslim GPs who are concerned about how this legislation is going to be drawn up and how it might effect them. In Canada as a GP you don't have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I'm not certain that's a good way to proceed.

It shouldn’t of course be the reason we don’t enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic

I am not sure how? Banning from speaking etc sure but "heap scorn" should be an option in the same way it would be if someones real reason for opposing the bill was their belief in chemtrails. It would be nice if they were open about it as well. Start with the "for religious reasons" and then add any other they fancy afterwards.

So long as religious doctors/judges are given the option to opt out of being involved then it comes down to the personal beliefs of the patient.

Tuned onto the debate while driving. I have to say, if all matters were discussed with the seriousness and thoughtfulness that I've just heard, our society would be in a better place.

Didn't hear any religious arguments, but I did hear some well articulated arguments about coercion, vulnerable patients "not wanting to be a burden" and the mission creep that has occurred in other countries, which concerns me as someone with poor mental health.

I do have concerns around the "self-administered" aspect as well - if the doctors/courts agree you should be able to end your life, I don't see it matters who does it to help you.

So long as religious doctors/judges are given the option to opt out of being involved

Yes I agree with that. See my point about how the legislation has drawn up in Canada where GPs have to refer pats onto to another GP that will guide them through MAID if they feel they cannot. I don't think forcing a scare resource like GPs to act in ways they don't feel they could/should (for any reason, not just religion) is a good way to proceed.

“not wanting to be a burden”

Seems to be code for 'I am a Christian'', presumably sent out as the on-point message. It's been used by everyone on Radio 4 who has then been asked about their faith.

In Canada as a GP you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

It's not fair on the dying person if the GP they speak to won't agree to be part of the process for 'other' reasons.

As for the religious side debate.

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs. Otherwise we can be, rightly, accused of the same intolerance that some religions presume over the rights of women’s reproduction. It shouldn’t of course be the reason we don’t enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic, despite the fact that of course they wouldn’t extend the same to us non-believers.

At the risk of going down an aside, I am increasingly finding it harder and harder to justify the need to be mindful of people's religious views.  Why does a belief in a deity get special status but belief that the earth is flat, that vaccines are harmful, that we've never put a man on the moon get ridiculed?  Why does someone's refusal to move forward from a millenia old social construct around the importance of the church to society and the bits of a holy book that suit their interpretation/lifestyle need to be respected and considered whenever making laws and policies but we treat "freemen of the land" and their highly selective interpretation of their doctrine to suit their situation as crackpots.  Why is a preacher operating under the auspices of a church any more worthy of attention or tolerance than Andrew Tate or his ilk?

Churches and other religious institutions have done some good work and many continue to play an important role in society but they have also done a lot of harm.  Its quite staggering the level they still try to have influence in political circles.  I 100% believe you should not be persecuted for your beliefs and not generally be disadvantages in society from holding them - but that is quite different from making those people protected from criticism and the opinions open to challenge.

you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

Refusing to administer medical care based on your own feelings or beliefs... fair enough... refusing to refer someone on to get their care... well, you shouldn't be in primary care. Your patients rely on you to be the gateway to treatments, including those you can't/won't be involved in yourself.

What wrong with not wanting to be a burden? The simple fact is that people who are suffering and who want to die are a burden on their families and it's a totally natural concern for anyone to not want to be in that position. It's weird that we celebrate people who give their lives for their country but think people giving their lives to help their family are wrong.

I know a couple of Muslim GPs who are concerned about how this legislation is going to be drawn up and how it might effect them.

What do you mean - going to be drawn up.  Its a Bill, it has already been drawn up, its available for everyone to review, their professional bodies will already have expressed views.  It is of course still subject to ammendment but hypothetical concerns about scenarios that are or are not already covered sounds like people trying to justify an opposition without putting in any effort to find the facts.

In Canada as a GP you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

s.23 of the Bill makes clear that nobody is under any duty to provide assistance.  I have some concerns that someone seeking advice from their GP, may if the GP has strong personal objections, not direct them to appropriate advice (or place some pressure on them not to do it), but I would rather that the vast majority of people were able to access advice on this than a vocal minority of GP's manage to block if from parliamentary ascent because it doesn't fit with their own personal moral code.

@kelvin, it fundamentally changes the patient doctor relationship in a way that some doctors perceive it. We're short of GPs in this country, making them choose between following new legislation and  their convictions isn't going to be a great decision if they start to leave the profession rather than force them to engage with a process they don't agree with. Unintended consequences and all that.

As long as the legislation deals with it in a way that is at the very least aware of this an an issue, perhaps a new specialty for instance where doctors or GPs can elect to be involved in this sort of care, rather than the presumption of having to opt out.

Dunt is interesting on this, as he always is - sounds like (Jennrick aside) for once Parliament did its job in a sober, thoughtful, compassionate manner.

If only it were always like that.

 but that is quite different from making those people protected from criticism and the opinions open to challenge.

No one has said that they should be protected. All I suggested is that in a democratic society we should let everyone have their say - even those we disagree with.

FWIW I don't think anyone who professes to believe that (for example) the earth is flat should be heaped with scorn either, telling someone they're an idiot (even if they are) is rarely a successful strategy to change their mind

If GPs are going to deny access to services, then there there needs to be other routes for patients, and those routes need to be accessible and understandable.  Navigating the NHS without a supportive GP isn't easy for anyone, never mind those suffering their hardest days.

I don't disagree. Of the GPs I've spoken to about this, it's about 50/50 of doctors who think that they'll have no issues whatsoever with this, it's another way of helping patients with their medical needs, there are others who see it as fundamentally, as a matter of principle, that they cannot engage with it. Personally I think if this passes, I don't think pats will find it difficult to access.

I have no personal experience around the matter nor any religious angle, but I do harbour some "thin end of the wedge" objections.  But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort "to do something", especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.  Addressing the question the other way round, had we already an assisted dying law in place that was seen as "troubling" in one way or another and a private member's bill to ban it was put forward under similar circumstances, ie very early in a brand new Parliamentary cycle, I think there is a high chance MPs would vote for it because it gave them an early opportunity "to do something".  I would rather this was trailed for a year or two before it came before a more seasoned Parliament.

I can only speak as regards our own newly elected MP... and the caution being shown by them is immense. It looks like an anguished and considered debate and vote from their account. From that, I can only guess that your guess about new MPs might be wide of the mark.

Bill passed; 330 to 275. Closer than I expected

No one has said that they should be protected. All I suggested is that in a democratic society we should let everyone have their say – even those we disagree with.

We may be arguing over semantics and I'm not necessarily arguing with you, rather that notion that religious bodies have such influence in parliament but I've highlighted bits of what you said in bold:

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs. Otherwise we can be, rightly, accused of the same intolerance that some religions presume over the rights of women’s reproduction. It shouldn’t of course be the reason we don’t enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic, despite the fact that of course they wouldn’t extend the same to us non-believers.

come across as suggesting that their views should carry some additional weight because they are deeply held, and I should pay attention to them even if I believe they are completely wrong for to do otherwise would be intolerant.  That certainly sounds like you think religious views merit some degree of additional protection.  But my aim wasn't to start a war over this.  My discomfort is not that doctors or nurses with religious views will have a consciencous objection clause (you might be interested to consider that Judges do not) but rather that parliamentarians were using religion to steer their decision making.

But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.

I don't think that's a reasonable objection, it seemed a thoughtful, compassionate, deeply sober debate. And there's a long way to go before it becomes law - if this has been unsafely passed purely for the "go us!" headlines, there are many opportunities to stop it in the future.

I have no personal experience around the matter nor any religious angle, but I do harbour some “thin end of the wedge” objections.  But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.  Addressing the question the other way round, had we already an assisted dying law in place that was seen as “troubling” in one way or another and a private member’s bill to ban it was put forward under similar circumstances, ie very early in a brand new Parliamentary cycle, I think there is a high chance MPs would vote for it because it gave them an early opportunity “to do something”.  I would rather this was trailed for a year or two before it came before a more seasoned Parliament.

Yeah, lets not have MPs making any important decisions on their own whilst still green.  Tough luck for the people who might be able to take advantage of the bill, but we need to see this lot prove their debating skills and following the party briefings first.  WTF!  This still needs to go through committee stages, the lords etc the debate is far from over.  Nobody who currently has <6 months to live will possibly benefit.   The worrying thing is that suddenly some MPs realised they were elected to make important decisions not just follow the party instructions.  Perhaps having been forced to make such a "huge" decision they will now look at every other policy they vote on with a little more clarity about its real implications now that they've felt the ability for the individual to have an influence.  Whilst I accept the need for the party whip to get stuff done and move policy and budgets etc forward, I would thoroughly welcome far more policy being subject to free votes and the level of genuine debate it fosters.

But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.

They may be new to parliament but that doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent professional people, some of whom will have experienced, first hand, the need for this debate to happen. It's not a political thing, it's a societal one. And, if they wanted to push something through for the sake of it, there must have been something easier?

I expect the severely disabled, 'who have no quality of life', will have the decision made for them.

come across as suggesting that their views should carry some additional weight because they are deeply held

Yeah, fair enough @poly, it does read like that, it wasn't my intent to put so much emphasis. I don't think the religious should get special treatment, nor do I think their views should be dismissed out of hand.

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

I think you're wrong.

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

How?

I know two new MPs personally - my own MP who I campaigned with since she was selected and the MP of our neighboring constituency as we both used to work in the same organisation. They are both very considered and intelligent people and have spoken to many of their constituents as well as receiving hundreds of items of correspondence on the issue.

One voted for and one against and have articulated real and considered reasons for their decision.  This is a hugely difficult thing for MPs to make - free votes on such major issues are rare and historic.  I can assure you that neither will have taken their decision or responsibilities in way lightly

But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role

My MP has held two public meetings specifically about this for his constituents to come and air their views. He then posted an extensive explanation of all the things he had considered in making his decision, with reference to those views

I can’t think of any other issue over which MPs seem to have been so thorough

After what I’ve listened to today, I only wish more important votes were free votes, with MPs of all parties able to vote without being whipped

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

There is some interesting and thoughtful debate about this issue and there is some nonsense.

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

Some disabled rights groups have highlighted that but I am not quite sure how this would result in them having the decision made for them? Two doctors and a judge would need to buy into it and in addition "quality of life" isnt included.

The objections from these groups seem to relate to the use of DNRs without proper consent. Which is obviously concerning and perhaps needs review to ensure it does have proper safeguards in place. However doesnt have any real relationship to this.

To be able to make use of Dignitas my sister-in-law had to actually end her life earlier than she really wanted to, otherwise she would have missed the boat and be left to endure her remaining life bedridden and incapable of doing anything unaided. The level of care she would have received was not an issue, she just didn't want that life as an MS sufferer, she'd already gone from very active cyclist to only having the use of one arm, over a period of just 10yrs, so she had plenty of time to make that decision which was very much against the will of my brother & nephews, however we still helped her to get to Dignitas and for that we got fully investigated by the police (who were very good about it) after months of waiting we finally received the decision by the CPS not to prosecute. The law as it is proposed wouldn't even cover this, as being in her mid 50s she had years ahead of her, however we as a family are for the current proposal and hope that it will lead to an extension at a future date. The whole 6 months to live thing seems quite flawed as I doubt many doctors would be very definite about it, my friend died 6 months to the day from diagnosis - I doubt any doctor would have been able to predict that.

Wrote to my MP and brother had a meeting with his, seems like quite a few conservatives are voting against the bill for reasons of worrying about people thinking they are a burden and should take the assisted dying option. 🙁

The most common sense vote in decades.

Why does a belief in a deity

Thinking of the religious people I know, I can't think of any who define their religion as a belief in a deity, they are far more likely to think of self-improvement or a way to support society.

I'm not religious, but it seems a lot of the "anti-religious" folk have a very outdated view of what being religious means to those who are.

Anyway, the bill was passed, be interesting to see if/how it gets amended in the committee stage.

Thinking of the religious people I know, I can’t think of any who define their religion as a belief in a deity, they are far more likely to think of self-improvement or a way to support society.

plenty of philosophies to follow if your belief is in improving self or society without needing to follow a religion - which by definition is the organisation of those beliefs around worship.   I fully accept that lots of people participate in religion without being particularly strong believers in the deity or particularly driven by that particular sect’s interpretation of the rule book but if you are trying to use your religion to influence politics I’m not sure you are in the “self improvement” or “support society” camp - you are then trying to impose your religion on others.

It’s a start but doesn’t go far enough, I need an out before my spms totally paralyses my body as at the current rate of disease progression it’ll be sooner rather than later, but if that medical availability doesn’t come in the next couple of years then I’ll use heroin, at least that’s available to me in pure form from certain areas online and I know how to prepare it myself

About time (though I agree it probably doesn't go far enough). My right to die with dignity at a time of my choosing trumps some religious fundie's ranting about "sanctity of life" and other such bullshit.

As folk will probably know because of what I have seen in my professional and private life I am a passionate advocate for assisted dying and personally I would go a lot further with the law.

There is a Scots bill going thru holyrood which has taken a while to get this far - its in committee.  It does not include a six month limit nor an automatic judicial review.  Its a good bill with strong safeguards.

The bill at Westminster is a pet project of Starmers really.  He knows from his time as a prosecutor that the current law is an ass  Rightly as PM he is refusing to get involved in the bill however.  It must be a conscience vote without a party line at all.

The anti side are a well organised and funded "christian" fundamentalists.  The same folk who brought you SPUC - the nasty anti abortion lot.  The three main organisations pretending to be grassroots are all funded from the same murky sources.

I don't think the Westminster bill is as good.  Automatic judical review is a nonsense as it creating some nebulous legal idea of "coercion"  coercion never happens - usually pressure is the other way.  doing this gives credence to the nonsense spouted buy the above bampots

I have no objection with a religious justification for not wanting it.   Mamood has made it clear her objection is because of her faith.  Streeting less so.  Apparently behind the scenes Starmer is furious with Streeting in particular and he has been told to shut up.

The Scottish parliament has made a good job of looking at our bill and it looks like good law.  I am hoping that gets thru and westminster could do well to just copy it

A significant majority of the whole of the UK are in favour of changing the law

but if that medical availability doesn’t come in the next couple of years then I’ll use heroin, at least that’s available to me in pure form from certain areas online and I know how to prepare it myself

Worse ways to go.  Get some midazolam in the mix *wink*

Julies story tells two main things

That the desire for assisted dying comes from a place of love and that even the best palliative care leaves gaps

If there is anyone I haven't bored with the gory details PM me.  Its a good story to make the case

Personally, as with abortion, it’s all about body autonomy, and I believe that each individual should have the choice available to them, to choose whatever is the best option for their particular circumstance.

This is a start at least.

Thankfully my father didn't suffer,  but other family members have.  We should be aiming for a 'good' death not just a painless one.

There have to be limits to prevent people being pushed into it,  but ultimately it should be sometimes choice to end their life should they wish it.

I hope I will never be in that situation,  but if I am I how this law will allow me to choose a good death

Someone I know ended up under police investigation for assisting a relative to use Dignitas. Hopefully this bill will end such nonsense.

Someone I know ended up under police investigation for assisting a relative to use Dignitas. Hopefully this bill will end such nonsense.

it won’t (unless they fall into the very narrow range of people who qualify in the new Bill but who would need assistance to travel to Switzerland).

I hope I will never be in that situation, but if I am I how this law will allow me to choose a good death

Yup. It reminds me of the knife I have in my buoyancy aid.

I dont want to ever use it for the reason I brought it but I still want it there.

Personally, as with abortion, it’s all about body autonomy, and I believe that each individual should have the choice available to them, to choose whatever is the best option for their particular circumstance.

Nicely sums up my feelings on the matter. I'm also with @dazh on the not wanting to be a burden stance. The last thing I would want is my kids having to look after me when they should be living their lives. Not wanting to be a burden is as valid a reason as any other.

A society that deems it okay to end the misery and suffering of a beloved pet, but stops an individual ending their own pain, or their loved ones from helping, is a bit shit.

What  bothers me is this concept of a slippery slope, where we let the terminally ill be helped to die, then it gets widened bit by bit until just anybody can be assisted to die willy-nilly just because they want to.

So what! its their choice if for whatever reason they have decided the game is no longer worth the candle. And if you would rather they didn't, then rather than force them to continue then make their situation better so they might see a point. Be that better medical or palliative care, better standard of living or whatever.

I am very much in favour of better care for those that need it, but I have little faith that it will be forthcoming when the time comes.

So what! its their choice if for whatever reason they have decided the game is no longer worth the candle

That and what is stopping someone now? Aside from those who are dependant on others whether thats due to being in a hospital bed or severely disabled we are all going to have the option now.

If anything I would guess that someone choosing to go down the official route with all the delays that entails would make it less likely they choose to go ahead. After all slowing things down is the reason behind why you can only buy limited numbers of certain pills and why barriers are put in certain places. It doesnt stop someone who is really determined but does give the time to think for everyone else.

I would like to see how many of the mps arguing passionately that this might be seen as an alternative to substandard palliative care have been passionately arguing for palliative care in the past. My guess is like the "pro birth" lobby in the states their interest rapidly wanes.

For me and only me, it's probably the first bit of legislation in my lifetime that's given me some control of my future. Once again it's demonstrated the controlling nature of religion and its strange mix of comfort and control.

What bothers me is this concept of a slippery slope, where we let the terminally ill be helped to die, then it gets widened bit by bit

Can only be done by partliament so if our elected representatives want to?

until just anybody can be assisted to die willy-nilly just because they want to.

Even in the most liberal applications of an assisted dying law this does not happen

The murky astroturf anti campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/16/revealed-grassroots-campaigns-opposed-to-assisted-dying-financed-by-conservative-christian-pressure-groups

As long as the legislation deals with it in a way that is at the very least aware of this an an issue, perhaps a new specialty for instance where doctors or GPs can elect to be involved in this sort of care, rather than the presumption of having to opt out.

This is the sort of detail to be thrashed out in committee.  All the detail work starts now.  there must be robust conscientious objection clauses in place

The slippery slope stuff is bollocks. It went through this time fairly narrowly by around 40 votes for yes. If the bill was along the lines of anyone can just choose to end their life with assistance from state then I imagine very few MPS would have voted it through, i.e in the single digits if any at all.

The disabled stuff is also bollocks unless the disabled person is terminally ill with 6 months to live where they would get the same choices as everyone else.

We know the slippery slope is bollocks, but its a widely believed falsehood. My point is even were it true- why do people have to meet certain arbitrary levels of suffering. We don't know what people are enduring, if they decide life is not for them any more then give them a supported and dignified exit rather than making it as difficult and unpleasant as possible to prevent them. Or improve their lot so they might wish to stay.

Once again the some religious are attempting to use the legal system to inflict their morality on others via the legal system. Like with abortion or gay marriage, it's not enough for them to not particpate they have to go stopping other people too.

It's dissapointing this is stil la thing in 2024.