You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Once again the some religious are attempting to use the legal system to inflict their morality on others via the legal system.
Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you. And i find it quite extreme here that people are questioning the right of people to follow their chosen religion in light of its teachings on this issue
Maybe you agree with assisted death, and maybe you dont, but attacking people who disagree with it and using their religion as an excuse is not on.
Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you. And i find it quite extreme here that people are questioning the right of people to follow their chosen religion in light of its teachings on this issue
People can follow a religion and no one here has said they cannot. What they cannot do is impose their religion on the secular which is what is being attempted here.
Religious belief has no place in complex decision making such as this. It is an individual right, in my opinion and religious beliefs, as with abortion, have no place in the discussion. Believe what you like but don't think you can push that on to others. Don't, for a second, think what you choose to believe should have any bearing on an individuals choice. There is a line and that is stepping over it. What someone decides to do with or to their own body, is their choice and nobody else's.
People can follow a religion and no one here has said they cannot.
You're right, nobody has said that. What some posters offer instead is childish taunts and belittling of faith. It's a depressingly regular occurrence and shows a depressing lack of understanding.
I make no apology for belittling and taunting anyone who tries to use their evidence-free beliefs as a basis for controlling my behaviour.
I didnt say any of those things. If you think assisted death is a sin - don't have one. You don't get to tell me what I can or can't do with my life because of your faith.
Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you.
It very much is when they are telling me who I can marry or how I choose to spend the end of my life.
Many people choose to live their lives by the teachings of their religion and that is fine if you don't want to eat a particular meat or do "work" on the Sabbath then that's fine don't but don't lock up the swings so others can't. That's forcing your belief onto others and is why religion shouldn't be part of the legal system.
Don't deny others because you don't want to, it smacks of "ma ba', your no playing".
Most of the organised opposition to this are being fundamentally dishonest. The religious right in the US have created and funded 3 supposedly grassroots organisations. these outfits use the same lies and distortions. They call it "fibbing for god" They know they cannot win with a religious argument so invent fake secular reasons to object and make gross distortions of what happens elsewhere. I have seen the briefing paper where they discuss doing this. I have debated personally with these people. Their minds are closed and its all about attempting to impose their religious viewpoint on the secular. these are the same folk that harass abortion clinics.
If you follow a religion and want to argue against this because of your faith that is fine. Do not pretend you have real secular objections when you know they are false
The last time i looked we were a secular democracy with separation of church and state. Religious types do not get special dispensation on this or any issue. And I am not sure archbishops and other christians in the debate have any right to talk to us about compassion and morality at this moment in time. Or any other religion.
I suspect we'll see really dirty tactics used in the next few months as parliament works to frame the actual act.
One of my issues is that the christian right pressure groups who are interfering are funded by the nutjobs who are behind Project 2025 in the US and think Trump is the second coming. They can F right off.
They're coming for abortion too - this is going to be a long fight
The religious thing confuses me. Most (all?) religions believe in an afterlife, one that is better than this one. Why therefore do they oppose the idea of dying so much?
The other thing that confuses me are people who say we shouldn’t have assisted dying, we should have better palliative care. Can we not aspire to have both? It really doesn’t need to be either or.
And another thing!
one of the arguments put forward against it is that the medical systems and courts are already stressed and won’t be able to cope with the administration of this. So, fix the systems, don’t deny the chance of a decent death because of public sector failings.
It very much is when they are telling me who I can marry or how I choose to spend the end of my life.
Nobody is telling you who you can marry, and i've no idea why you would interject that into the conversation.But as to how you wish to spend your final time, well forgive me but that was the point of the vote wasnt it, and indeed the entire point of having this vote, and prior to that it was illegal.
So prior , while illegal, are you telling me that you would have done whatever even though it was illegal.
Until today(or whenever the law goes onto the statute books) to assist death was illegal. This would not be based on purely religious grounds, so please dont judge or decide that if others dont vote for it, that their vote is meaningless, because you dont think their religious reasons are justification enough.
Where else and in which laws have you decided you dont wish to follow ?. Its all down to your own personal interpretation of what the law is ?.
Im using your point of the quote, but im not singling you out, but everyone who thinks that someones religious bearing shouldnt be a factor in their voting.
For the record, I would have voted against the motion. But my reasons are my own, and i dont think that is justification for verbal assault. And especially not if those grounds were religious in nature.
It’s a depressingly regular occurrence and shows a depressing lack of understanding.
It is not a lack of understanding. It is intolerance of others using their personal or group belief system to influence a very important decision. One that attempts to impinge on the lives of others who do not follow or share their beliefs. It is ridiculous and needs to be stopped and called out whenever it occurs. It has no place whatsoever in this discussion and should be entirely removed from it.
So prior , while illegal, are you telling me that you would have done whatever even though it was illegal.
Although not aimed at me, I will answer this with a resounding yes I would. If someone I cared deeply about was suffering, in pain and wanted to end their life and asked for my help in doing so. Yes, I would help them and consequences be damned. It is a decision that should be taken by the individual. Not the state, not the church, not a court. Religion has no place in the discussion and should not, in any way, have a bearing on the decision.
All religious beliefs are relics of a bygone era in my opinion. I will absolutely defend people's right to believe in anything they choose. You want to keep practicing said beliefs as an individual. Fine, knock yourself out, join other like-minded people. Go for it, but, and it's a big but, as soon as you start thinking your personal beliefs have any sway on others and how they choose to live, there's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.
I am pro assisted dying. My life, my death. Thank you. I am very pleased to see that FOR ONCE parliament has actually functioned properly with intelligent debate & progressive thought being demonstrated. Truly pleased. If only we’d had the same kind of conversation over Brexit….but I digress..
What I am often curious about woth the religious faithful in these discussions is the cry “it’s not gods will!” How do they know what gods will is? I wonder if it’s not actually a smokescreen to their own opinions?
You're putting words in my mouth again, I never said any of that.
I said that some religious people are attempting to use legislation to impose their religious beliefs on me and that I didnt like it.
I said nothing about
* my respect for religious beliefs
* if I would would participate in a (currently) illegal assisted death
* if I break laws I disagree with as a general priciple
We are a secular country and that means that whatever your faith is, if you're an MP then as you enter the parliament you leave that at the door.
You are there to represent your constituents and reflect their views. And they are not overly religious so I don't want to know about whichever deity is 'informing' how you vote. You can worship who the hell you like in your own time but when you're on the clock your 'faith' can stay out of it
make no apology for belittling and taunting anyone who tries to use their evidence-free beliefs as a basis for controlling my behaviour
This
What's notable in here is how more heated the debate is than it was in parliament yesterday. I didn't see any sign of right wing Christian (or any other denomination) fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on others, so it feels a little like protest against something that hasn't happened. I'd also say that these right wing Christian fundamentalists are not particularly representative of religious people in general or even Christians in particular, in my limited experience - they don't even seem particularly Christian.
Pondo - the problem is they get far more media attention and have made themselves the default anti side for media to go to. they have also repeated lies so often that some fol;k believe the lies.
Nobody is telling you who you can marry, and I've no idea why you would interject that into the conversation.
How many religions permit you to marry the person you love if they happen to be the same sex as you? In this country it's fine as the state allows it now, but this is relatively recent and for a long, long time it was blocked by the various religions, the vast, vast majority of which do not recognise it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality
Just as now, the religions are trying to block a non religious person from choosing when to end their lives.
As has been said, your religious beliefs do not allow you to impose your code for life on to those who do not share your beliefs.
Pondo – the problem is they get far more media attention and have made themselves the default anti side for media to go to. they have also repeated lies so often that some fol;k believe the lies.
The right-wing Christian fundamentalists? I agree - however, if anyone was advocating on their behalf yesterday, they were doing it very sotto voce. Seems to me parliament has this in hand, in which case it doesn't really matter what a bunch of pseudo-religious extremists do outside.
Many of the opponents in the house are merely parroting the lines fed to them from these fundamentalists outside. The anti organisations are creating myths that then get some degree of acceptance and are repeated by folk who should no better. I have seen these myths develop and attack lines practiced - they are fairly obvious once you know them.
Its a highly professional lobbying organisation. They are very effective at getting their lines out there
In case anyone is not clear I am a small piece of the lobbying operation from the yes side 🙂 consider yourselves lobbied
I’m an atheist and agree with Corbyn’s statement about why he voted against the bill. I have no confidence whatsoever that this country will improve provision for palliative care, or the elderly and disabled in general for that matter. We’re just rather shit in that regard.
edit: the statement:
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1862426165723451476?s=46&t=M6n6bXI18caXgoM4f5b8rQ
separation of church and state
Is this really a thing in the UK?
are you telling me that you would have done whatever even though it was illegal
I know a couple who went through this. He did everything he could to protect her from the law, but wanted to die at home… doing so made her life hell, with a long period of intrusion by the Police and other public bodies at the worst of times. People are already acting as they need, because the current law can be inhumane.
They were both religious by the way. And many religious people support a change in the law.
I’m an atheist and agree with Corbyn’s statement about why he voted against the bill.
I’m also an atheist. The point at which to change the law is now. Not wait for some mythical time in the future where we have improved our care and hospice systems. I’m not pointing at Corbyn here, but the health secretary has the key role in the government as regards end of life care… Streeting should support a change to the law, and work to improve the failings in the system he is concerned about. Some people are hiding behind “valid concerns” to deny people a right they are asking for. No, pleading for. I’m suspicious of the real motivations of some of them.
They were both religious by the way. And many religious people support a change in the law.
A point often forgotten. thank you
If you hadn’t already help me move to a different position on this, what she went through almost certainly would have. With a different legal situation, he would probably have seen another few months with his family as well. Like many, he chose to go while he was strong enough that no one could stop him, and while he didn’t need anything to be administered by anyone else.
* if I would would participate in a (currently) illegal assisted death
Yes. Without any doubt I would and i would have done for Julie. She refused to come home to die until I agreed to stay within the law. I did stay within the law tho I was tempted once or twice. She did that to protect me.
I would have happily made a media splash of it. Fess up and challenge a court to convict me. But it wasn't my death. I didn't get to decide.
I’m an atheist and agree with Corbyn’s statement about why he voted against the bill.
Atheist here too, Corbyn has a point about the palliative care but that’s not reason to vote against it. Our local MP also voted against with the same pathetic excuse that Corbyn used about it being open to abuse and people would sign up under coercion. Given the number of steps in place with the proposed law this is pretty much as impossible as it can be.
I am so happy this has gone through to the next stage, having worked in frontline healthcare and seeing people suffering in extreme pain for weeks and months at a time. I also cared for Grandad for a few weeks whilst he was begging to die because of the extreme pain from pancreatic cancer.
The syringe drivers they use in palliative care can be very easily unlocked so it’s not above the ability of someone to overdose themselves on the morphine/fentanyl.
My dads driver kept on slipping where the head met the syringe plunger so I’d need to open it up and sit the head on the plunger then shut it back up, the first time it happened it took a nurse 7hrs to arrive as here in Galloway there’s not many of them and being a retirement region I imagine what nurses there are are kept busy. After watching her the first time and seeing dad in pain for hours I thought sod it, I’ll do it myself - the locks are shite and easily opened.
My mate who died of oesophageal cancer (in the most hellish way) in the same year as my dad (2018) used to boost his driver as well, along with very liberal swigs from his Oromorph bottle as well to wash down his Vicodin - he used to get told off by the nurses/doctor but his reply was - “what you gonna do?, take it off me?” He was a skipper on the boats all his life, so yeah, his tolerance for drugs was abnormal.
I’d also say that these right wing Christian fundamentalists are not particularly representative of religious people in general or even Christians in particular, in my limited experience – they don’t even seem particularly Christian.
That's what everyone thought in the US a few years ago, and we know what happened there. They're not christians, they just using it as a wedge to drive division and gain advantage over the gullible
They may not be terribly prominent, and I think most in the UK are fairly sceptical, but give them any kind of light and air and they'll never lie down. the flawed policy of equivalence in journalism that helped promote brexit from a fringe interest to the mainstream is giving some sunlight to these views. I've heard a fair few interviews on the radio with people who claim some kind of special pleading because religion.
So, fix the systems, don’t deny the chance of a decent death because of public sector failings.
Including the palliative and hospice care systems so that there is a choice, I am pro-choice on this issue and worry that the legislation will remove the palliative care aspect from end-of-life care in the rush for efficiency/value for money.
And yet Streeting was claiming it would cost more. It can’t simultaneously be more expensive than palliative care and also be pushed on the unwilling as a cost saving.
There certainly need to be measures taken to stop this being abused but I suspect that the vast majority of these cases would be clear cut. If you distil it down how can anybody think that a person who faces weeks or months of constant pain followed by certain death should not have the right to choose to bypass the weeks or months of constant pain and go straight to death? Assuming that is what they want of course.
@thecaptain it can when the hospice system costs the tax-payer nothing/very little as it's mostly a charity funded enterprise. Bringing hospice care within the remit of NHS would be a societal benefit but costly.
Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you
The thing is that I am a nanometre away from being 100% wholeheartedly fully in agreement with you.
Someone's religion or what they choose to believe should have naff all to do with you
But unfortunately some people, due to their religious beliefs, feel the need to impose their view and morals onto the society I live in.
how can anybody think that a person who faces weeks or months of constant pain followed by certain death should not have the right to choose to bypass the weeks or months of constant pain and go straight to death?
Because God.
That's a good point that I will need to consider further
The religious thing confuses me. Most (all?) religions believe in an afterlife, one that is better than this one. Why therefore do they oppose the idea of dying so much?
One better than this one? No, it all depends in the way a person lives the present life. Do good in present life then good afterlife, do bad in present life then suffer the consequences. Not difficult to comprehend. At the end of the day we all die. If you belief there is an afterlife then try your best to do good, but if you think we will just turn into fertiliser then do as you wish after all you are responsible for whatever you are in this life.
Note, I am presenting a viewpoint from my understanding of religion. The basic fundamental of all religions is not to force others but to persuade others with their reasoning. But this true teaching is corrupted over the centuries by politics and those that proclaimed in the name of whoever. I mean most don't even understand what religion means but they certainly know all the symbols associated with religions and the way they can hijack religions for their own desire.
I have never come across a single true religious teaching that says go force others to convert. Is that logical? Nope. The logic is very simple, if you belief the teaching do you good then you follow for your own good. The rest can do as they wish until they come to their senses. Save the world? Why? A better approach would be to save yourself first. I am not saying being selfish. I am saying that a person should set a good example and live the life as he believes. If people wish to learn then learn from the good examples.
Remember the "pioneer" or the founder of the religions never forced others to believe them but to let others come to him for advice? If his advice was logical or made sense people followed. The moment the founder died, that's where all the imperfection started and the political corruption set in to rule.
Prophets can from various teachings from various religions. The delivery and the format might be different but the fundamental of the teachings is the same.
How a person wish to live or to die is entirely their own. No one is perfect when s/he still walks this earth (there are exception but I don't know who they are in this life).
The other thing that confuses me are people who say we shouldn’t have assisted dying, we should have better palliative care. Can we not aspire to have both? It really doesn’t need to be either or
The former is a decision that is not natural, while the latter in palliative care means a "natural" death. i.e. in most religious beliefs (my understanding) if a person cut short own life or because the person cannot bear the suffering, then the person has Not completely paid off the life debts (pain, suffering whatever happening to self is part of debt repayment). This will then be passed onto the next life wherever the person will be. The cycle continues until such time as the person understand and pays it off in whatever future life they have.
That's one reason I said it's not a good idea to cut short own life because the debts have not been repaid. But to those without religious belief, this is just illogical. i.e. in the mind of those without religion, a pain must be cured. If it cannot be cured (assuming it is beyond cure and in extreme pain) then it must be cut short to avoid further suffering, and that's logical.
As Buddha once said, the ceremony for the dead is actually Not for the dead but for the living. i.e. in those days free food was offered to the people who attended the funeral or in another word, something to be gained.
Fast forward to the notion of assisted dying. Is that for the living or for the sufferer? There is a very thin veil between compassion and deliberate. i.e. the intention. Remember, although the sufferer is suffering, they are not the only person suffering but everyone associated with them suffer because they are linked or know the person very well. Sometimes, we get tired and the suffering is difficult to bear and we just want a quick solution. When we offer such a quick solution we feel "compassionate" for the sufferer. We think we have done the right thing. From a religious perspective, the debts have not been repaid and the person will continue to suffer in the next life, and instead of helping this actually creates more problems for that person. From a none religious perspective it is over and the pain is gone.
As Buddhist, we say bear with it but this is easier said than done until one is faced with the dilemma.
Therefore, walk your own path.
Do as you wish but remember if there is such thing as after life then face the consequences. But if there is no afterlife then live well in this remaining life and make sure you fertilise the ground so we can plant vegetables for food after life expires.
it can when the hospice system costs the tax-payer nothing/very little as it’s mostly a charity funded enterprise. Bringing hospice care within the remit of NHS would be a societal benefit but costly.
A hospice is not the only source of palliative care. NHS and community care. People die all over the place.
The way this type of law would work ( drawing on experience from other jurisdictions) is that one you receive your terminal diagnosis you make your application then. Keep the big blue pill for if and when needed. Sometimes its enough to know its there. It could be weeks or months later you take it if at all but you get the paperwork done
Is also the case. I don’t think it’s fair to single out the religious.
Ironically, the saying "If God is for us, who can be against us?" springs to mind.
I can only draw on my limited life experiences personally, but Mrs FD is directly involved in dealing with terminally ill cancer patients and palliative care.
We had a dog that died about 7 yrs ago. She started goi g deaf, changes in behaviour then one morning she clearly was in pain and being sick. We got our vet out and with an 1hr she was at peace and her suffering was over. It was a very dignified death for all involved
On the other hand my Brother in Law had brain cancer. Now we don’t know the details because obviously we were not involved in consultations ie we are not even sure that my BIL talked to his wife about the details, but the long and short, it appeared they both ignored the situation. He rapidly became unwell, she had to stop working, he then quickly ended up in a hospice where he died. It wasn’t a good death unfortunately as both had not talked through the elephant in te room (death)
Mrs FD tells many people a week that they have a terminal condition. She says everyone deals with the news differently, but she does say that many ask and don’t want a bad/painful death , and don’t like the fact that for possibly for the first time in their life things are out of their control
I have directly asked her would she find it hard to be a doc enabling the assisted dying. She said no as at that point it takes away the pain and suffering, gives the patient back some control and gives them a dignified, good death
She does have concerns however that Palistive care needs to be better in some areas and safeguarding in place
As I would imagine you are all already aware . At end of life docs do already provide pain relief which a side effect can be that the body can no longer sustain. I know that conversations are already had that we can stop your pain, but the consequences are that your body may well not be able to keep going.
My personal view is that death needs to be less of a taboo. Talk to your family about what you want to happen / not happen. The only thing we can all be certain of is that we will die, yet not many people talk to their family and friends about how they can have a dignified and good death .
@dyna-ti I remember very well the deceptively named 'Scotland for Marriage' group campaigning against same sex marriage. Likely the same people.
Does that make them bad people? I'm sure they think they are saving us from ourselves and giving us a chance however that's their help to offer but not something anyone should be compelled to take.
For all those people claiming GPs shouldn't be compelled to refer folk how is this any different to abortion, organ transplants or blood transfusions for certain religions? These matters have already been dealt with, this is just one more thing to add to the list. If you don't want to deal with this then maybe find another area to specialise in.
Raising questions once again over the state of palliative care in England and Wales, Abbott told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme: “We’re moving to a situation where it will be cheaper for a GP to get a very ill person to sign on the dotted line for assisted suicide than to find them a place in a hospice.”
WTF is going on in her head? She has got seriously weird as she has got older. Where is the militant pro choice campaigner? There is zero real evidence of anything like this happening worldwide bar one Canadian case which the antis have distorted out of all recognition
Its literally impossible for this to happen as things are suggested in the Westminster bill. Idiot.
If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death and euthanasia. Coercion will be systemic.
And the safeguarding will be in the hands of our cash strapped NHS and judiciary.
I support it in principle, but I can’t support it now
I'm wondering, reading all the discussions about intervention and religious perspectives, how does the UK work this out. Abbot and others today, trying to gain traction for an opposing view. Raising fears of coercion, while the bill seems to have safeguards for that. Religious pressure groups trying to bring some kind of morality and ethics, sanctity of life to the discussion to justify their opposition.
But in almost every other medical intervention, we don't rely on religious viewpoints, we look at evidence that examines outcomes that improve life, or reduce pain and suffering. I have been involved with programs that involve discussion about how pain should to be regarded as the 4th vital sign and should be treated with as much urgency. (Sickle cell disease as an example).
So, for assisted dying, how can we look at some kind of objective outcome of improved experience resulting from the decision to end things earlier? Ability to reduce pain and suffering; ability to engage with family and friends to do this with dignity in a place and time of your choosing.
If it might be possible to take some of the overly hyperbolic discussion out of the argument, would it be possible to show that this is a better option for those who wish to take this path. Religious types can choose suffering as religion seems to reward earthly suffering, the rest of us can take a more dignified road and celebrate the end of our journey properly with the people we hold dear.
If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death
Not sure if I misunderstood your point, but good palliative care does not mean you won’t necessarily have pain or suffering, or wish you could end it.
Good palliative care is there to explain your options, provide support in your last weeks, and not just leave someone thinking the only option is to take a pill to prevent dying without appropriate care.
If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death and euthanasia. Coercion will be systemic.
If this law does not go thru then people will have no choice at all. Its not a zero sum game. You can do both and should do both
People are already choosing to forgo palliative care when they would otherwise have gone with it were it not for the current law. People are choosing to die earlier because they know they can not ask for help to die later. They are administering their own drugs or going abroad. The current law is shortening some people’s lives. People seem to be forgetting that.
Medication in the last weeks of life:
Our current law allows for treatment to be given to cover symptoms and at the end of life to do so "recklessly" ie without significant consideration for ill effects.
The norm is a syringe driver which slowly pumps a mix of drugs. Usually an opiate with sedation used often. You can only administer painkillers if the person is in pain, you can only administer sedatives if the person is distressed or agitated. Normally there are both "top up" drugs available - again usually a sedative and painkiller. At home this is either oral and can be administered by the family or injection from district nurses. Every day a decision about dosage is made looking at current dosage and top ups and assessing the patient. There are algorithms to help in dosage decisions. Because of tolerance after weeks you have huge dosages and a serious opiate addiction.
Good palliative medication under our current law can only alleviate pain fear and distress. It can never eliminate it because of the way the law works. You have to be in pain to get painkillers, you have to be in fear and distress to get sedatives. Done well with some anticipation these periods need only be short but they can never be eliminated
"If we don’t improve our palliative care, then people will have the choice between an otherwise preventably painful death and euthanasia. Coercion will be systemic."
"Palliative care isn't always adequate so let's make people suffer an avoidable torturous death by force of law."
I'm really baffled that people think this is a valid argument to make.
“Palliative care isn’t always adequate so let’s make people suffer an avoidable torturous death by force of law.”
I’m really baffled that people think this is a valid argument to make.
Exactly! Not to mention this bit:
Coercion will be systemic
So if palliative care is not good enough, what we have today is "coercion" to stay alive and suffer because assisted death/suicide are "wrong" and anyone who helps you faces the risk of criminal prosecution.
I'm fully on board with assisted dying and assume/hope that's how I'll go out. But this made me laugh...
People are already choosing to forgo palliative care when they would otherwise have gone with it were it not for the current law. People are choosing to die earlier because they know they can not ask for help to die later. They are administering their own drugs or going abroad. The current law is shortening some people’s lives. People seem to be forgetting that.
This x 100, palliative care was not the issue for my sister in law, she just didn't want to be bedridden for the next 20+ yrs, but because of current laws she had to still be able to travel & administer the drugs at Dignitas herself whilst she still had the use of one arm. She would have liked to have lived longer and seen/get to know more of her grandchildren but instead they will never know her for her wicked sense of humour and fortitude.
@montgomery as you can imagine I felt that very close to the bone (have been interviewed under caution for assisting the suicide of my sil) but yes still found it very funny.