Forum menu
Sad. But likely to get worse. The unintended consequence of courting support of the religiously motivated in politics will undoubtedly push this further away.
The second and third order effects of poorly thought out association can be dangerous and painful.
poly - see my answer on previous page
Well the church of Scotland has adopted a neutral stance ( I had a little part in that decision)
Although probably less relevance in E&W! That's exactly my point though - if you've managed to get CoS to be neutral, well done, but has anyone managed the same with the various denominations across england? especially those with Bishops in the HOL?
and the vast majority of religious and disabled folk are in favour as are many disability groups.
I see lots of claims like that - and they may be accurate or just anecdotal. But there are clearly some very vocal ones who aren't. My point is, if you want your bill to pass easily its not enough to simply get the democratic arrithmetic right, you need to deal with noisy objectors because every so often there noise will make someone else pause and say, "oh thats worrying, maybe this isn't well written".
Grey Thompson is not putting in improvement amendments, she is putting in wrecking ones. she is not acting for disabled folk or she would be supporting it.
Yeah thats exactly the problem - you (and presumably the Bill's supporters in HOC) have said "Tanni's wrong, we should just ignore her, if she really understood she would support it". I'm not saying Tanni is right, but somehow they don't seem to have engaged her to see if they could at least address some of the things she is concerned about. Now I don't know if she is fundamentally opposed to the concept in general, the things I've seen her say suggest not, or just concerned about the quality of the safeguards, especially for vulnerable people
It really is those nasty american religious fundamentalists along with Soutar funding and driving the opposition and this info has been put out there masny times.
Yes but they are failing to get the message to the right people. You know it. I am aware of american religious groups interfering in uk politics in general (I've never understood why). But for some reason this hasn't become a mainstream story - why are the media not anxious to address who's controlling our politics? They are happy to criticise Mandy and Andy for their links to dodgy Americans why are the scared to point our the craziness?
The right wing media ignores this
I don't think this is a simple left/right issue. That might be part of the problem - politicians like to think of everything through a lens which defines issues on that spectrum, but the population's views on assisted dying don't seem to follow those divides.
I'm not saying Tanni is right, but somehow they don't seem to have engaged her to see if they could at least address some of the things she is concerned about. Now I don't know if she is fundamentally opposed to the concept in general, the things I've seen her say suggest not, or just concerned about the quality of the safeguards, especially for vulnerable people
There has been numerous attempts to engage her. She is fundamentally opposed and has a closed mind. The problem is her objections are not based in reality. How do you combat lies with the truth?
My point is, if you want your bill to pass easily its not enough to simply get the democratic arrithmetic right, you need to deal with noisy objectors because every so often there noise will make someone else pause and say, "oh thats worrying, maybe this isn't well written"
We have been trying and trying hard. These folk are very well funded and very good at manipulation of the system. they have created 3 groups to get 3 responses in every part of the debate. they claim the three groups are separate but in actual fact they are controlled and funded by the same folk
Ebery time these noisy objectors make their lying claims there is a real effort to counter them made - but our resources are so limited in comparison and the way they have these 3 groups mean they get 3 voices in the press to our one. also the political supporters have played by the rules, the political opponents have not ( the labour ones did get slapped down by Starmer)
Its very hard to counter lies with the truth but the key is the overwhelming majority of the public including disabled folk are in favour
A problem which all of politics faces! Exactly when majority are in favour of has quite a bit of nuance, depending exactly what circumstances are considered.Its very hard to counter lies with the truth but the key is the overwhelming majority of the public including disabled folk are in favour
They do sometimes explore the questions about the rules https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_AssistedDying_260109_w.pdf things get a bit less clear cut then (although there is still public support).
I'm not sure where you got the stats on the disabled people. There is a vocal group of opponents. Some of who clearly haven't read the proposed Bill.
But some of the lords objections (if you give them a favourable view that they are doing their duty to scrutinise law rather than just abuse their power) are about nitty gritty way beyond anyone asks the public - questions like how you make sure someone isn't coerced, how you make sure a person with limited communication is properly understood, should coroners routinely report/track these deaths to spot problems. Supporters of the bill have put forward 100 improvements at the lords, including Lord Falconer, its sponsor in the lords who put forward 35 amendments of his own. There may well be strong support for the idea, but is that a sign that the drafting is poor? if so does that make it too easy for the opponents? Lets not forget Scotland has had 3 attempts to get a bill that parliament would accept - despite general public support for the idea. The EHRC have expressed concern, not at the concept, but the process used to work out the rules/processes.
To be clear, I support the concept. I think there are stupid things in the draft, e.g. 6 months in the opinion of two drs, when docs don't really like giving definitive prognosis like that; the need for self administration, which may force you to act earlier; no ability to lodge in advance criteria if I have zero quality of life and am unable to communicate/no longer competent. Lack of any universal monitoring/reporting to know if the process is both working as intended and access being achieved fairly (including a requirement to record any request rejected for being >6 months or not terminal). That said, I think it would be better to have the law than not have it - it can be improved in the future, but I'm not in the Lords tasked with making good law.
I honestly think any party not including a solution in their manifesto next time round is an idiot - but whilst a quick bill might be the answer, a "Royal Commission" would be far better if slower.
I really wish you would you would stop using the argument that the majority of the public support it so it must be right. Populism doesnt always run the way you might like, and populist answers to difficult questions are not always good ones, see Brexit.
Well founded and fair laws , well presented for the win
wbo - its 70% plus. Its not a populist idea done by politicians, its politicians responding to the needs and wants of the population as they should do
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opinion-on-assisted-dying/
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Every year its delayed thousands of people die miserable deaths, hundreds of folk will take their own lives alone and in dangerous circumstances, many folk will go to Switzerland
None of the objections the opponents are making have any basis in reality, particularly the idea that disabled folk will be forced to take it as disability is not a qualifying condition and no adverse effects on disabled folk have been seen anywhere where they have this humane measure - indeed the opposite is true that like all healthcare measures this will be harder for the disabled to access than the able bodied
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Every year its delayed thousands of people die miserable deaths, hundreds of folk will take their own lives alone and in dangerous circumstances, many folk will go to Switzerland
None of the objections the opponents are making have any basis in reality, particularly the idea that disabled folk will be forced to take it as disability is not a qualifying condition and no adverse effects on disabled folk have been seen anywhere where they have this humane measure - indeed the opposite is true that like all healthcare measures this will be harder for the disabled to access than the able bodied
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
Good luck.
I find it inhumane to humans that my dog has more compassionate treatment and a more dignified end, when in pain and with an untreatable cancer, than I would be allowed. All I want is equality with my dog.
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Every year its delayed thousands of people die miserable deaths, hundreds of folk will take their own lives alone and in dangerous circumstances, many folk will go to Switzerland
None of the objections the opponents are making have any basis in reality, particularly the idea that disabled folk will be forced to take it as disability is not a qualifying condition and no adverse effects on disabled folk have been seen anywhere where they have this humane measure - indeed the opposite is true that like all healthcare measures this will be harder for the disabled to access than the able bodied
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
Good luck.
I find it inhumane to humans that my dog has more compassionate treatment and a more dignified end, when in pain and with an untreatable cancer, than I would be allowed. All I want is equality with my dog.
I am s supporter of assisted dieing having watched my FiL die just before Christmas.
I am conflicted slightly by my current situation. (This is possibly just a vent to allow me to order my thinking so please feel free to stop reading). My father was a bright intelligent man (and to an extent so am I, it's the genetics that concern me). He would complete the Times cryptic in the morning, teach maths all day then fix stuff outside that. So, bright and capable. He hated the thought of not being independent and was stating this until about 5years ago.
Currently dementia has hit hard. He can't remember where the washing basket is, I've put stickers over most of the buttons on his tv remote, he calls everyday with a new issue and when I visit, every second day, he does struggle to remember my name (every visit is like the archers where no sentence doesn't contain the person's name).
He supported assisted dieing years ago and wanted to "go" before being incapable. But now he's incapable of that reasoned thought he had before. So much so that he won't go to the doctor now and when he did last year the doctor wouldn't agree to starting a dementia diagnosis without his say so. Which I argued he wasn't capable of giving. Which would obviously preclude him from assisted dieing, which condemns him to degeneration to the stage that,.what, he's ends up effectively in a walking vegetative state?
Man it's all a bit shit.
Dementia and other progressive diseases are a tricky issue. In the various UK bills a tight criteria of " terminal illness, limited time to live, of sound mind" or some similar variant is used. There is no mechanism for giving advanced directives and they are problematic anyway because if you give an advanced directive ultimately someone else must make a decision that the conditions for that advanced directive have been met.
some systems use a definition of " intolerable suffering" which is clearly much wider and also allow advanced directives.
Given the difficulty of getting this thru our parliaments on a tight definition with very strict limits then using a wider definition and / or allowing advanced directives would make it very unlikely we could actually get a law through
Ultimately given the huge limitations of our psuedo democracy and the way unelected peers and religious leaders are allowed to interfere then the tight definition has to be the best we can do.
Personally I have no issue with the looser definitions used elsewhere but the use of advance directives I do find problematic.
Onehundred - what you can do in that situation is act as his advocate. In Scotland the law is clearer but when deciding to refuse treatment the previous known wishes of that person must be used as a guide. Its easier if you have a POA but even 2ithout you can advocate for his wishes so if he becomes unwell you can argue for non treatment. Pneumonia - the old mans friend etc
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Fingers crossed and I hope it does. Good luck with the lobbying.
F-in-L had an unpleasant death a few years ago. Allowing more compassion and dignity to a family pet than a human being is wrong in my view.
Mentioned earlier, but the elephant in the room I've not spoken to my parents about is death: I know from chats over the years how my dad felt about end of life then (wanting control of his own destiny), but not had a proper chat since. Definitely something to do discuss sooner than later - the assisted dying bill simply being discussed in media provides an opportunity to do so.
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
But you then go on to say things like:
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
some systems use a definition of " intolerable suffering" which is clearly much wider and also allow advanced directives.
Ultimately given the huge limitations of our psuedo democracy and the way unelected peers and religious leaders are allowed to interfere then the tight definition has to be the best we can do.
In Scotland the law is clearer
so, whilst I support the idea, and accept that some law is possibly better than no law, I’d rather have a well written law and think perhaps a royal commission would have been a better way to achieve that than parliamentary committees. The inclusion of judicial involvement without input from the courts on capacity was a huge screw up that would likely not have happened had it been more openly drafted rather than trying to pre-empt objections. That’s now been remove but then leaves the objectors with the argument that the bill is so fundamentally different from that which was originally presented.
in my discussions with one of my MSPs about this (and the only one who explicitly said they supported assisted dying) an interesting point was made - so many promises have been made that this is not the thin end of the wedge that it might be really hard to get future amendments to broaden the scope through. She indicated she had voted against the previous bill because the scope was too narrow rather than because of the principle.
Now I don’t know if the outcome of a Royal Commission being turned into law is any more likely to pass cleanly through the lords but it feels like it might. If I was in the lords (the costume wouldn’t suit me!) I would be asking for some sort of review mechanism to understand if it was working or needed improvements or clarifications etc. That would mean we could still help some people now, but hopefully make better law in the future. It’s possible there could be undesired deaths now - but if the lords don’t realise that many of the laws they pass have potential unintended deaths then they really shouldn’t be there.
Now I don’t know if the outcome of a Royal Commission being turned into law is any more likely to pass cleanly through the lords but it feels like it might.
Isn't that the whole point?
Certain Lords aren't doing their job as they should and they won't allow it "to pass cleanly through the lords." It wouldn't matter what you put in Assisted Dying legislation, they'd filibuster it out of time.
Now I don’t know if the outcome of a Royal Commission being turned into law is any more likely to pass cleanly through the lords but it feels like it might.
Isn't that the whole point?
Certain Lords aren't doing their job as they should and they won't allow it "to pass cleanly through the lords." It wouldn't matter what you put in Assisted Dying legislation, they'd filibuster it out of time.
I'm sure they would say they are doing exactly what the lords is supposed to do and challenging poor legislation - if the legislation was cleanly drafted and had genuinely reached consensus on the tricky points, then the best the Lords could do is delay it because the Commons would use the Parliament Act to bounce it through anyway. It may be that if that inevitability was clear the Lords wouldn't even fight it (although I assume some would try). The majority of the ammendments are from small group of peers who TJ rightly pointed out are doing anything to block it, but there's a much larger group with fewer ammendments including Lord Falconer who is its sponsor trying to get it voted through! When the guy arguing for the bill is making dozens of ammendments you have to wonder whether the commons committee did a thorough enough job.
Lords could do is delay it because the Commons would use the Parliament Act to bounce it through anyway.
The problem is that it's not a government bill. Parliament Act is used to push through bills promised in the King's speech.
Anyway, there is no form of bill that a small group of Lords won't place hundreds of fresh objections to. No length of sitting time that results in them allowing the bill to pass. No amendments that could satisfy them. So they'll have to be sidelined and procedure changed to get this through.
There's no such restriction in the Parliament Act. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/private-members-bills-and-the-parliament-acts/ if the House of Commons want that Bill to become law it can happen.Lords could do is delay it because the Commons would use the Parliament Act to bounce it through anyway.
The problem is that it's not a government bill. Parliament Act is used to push through bills promised in the King's speech.
Anyway, there is no form of bill that a small group of Lords won't place hundreds of fresh objections to. No length of sitting time that results in them allowing the bill to pass. No amendments that could satisfy them. So they'll have to be sidelined and procedure changed to get this through.
It's irrelevant if they raise objections the second time round on an "identical" bill - if its been put through under the parliament act if the lords can't agree ammendments with the Commons it becomes law anyway.
there's a much larger group with fewer ammendments including Lord Falconer who is its sponsor trying to get it voted through! When the guy arguing for the bill is making dozens of ammendments you have to wonder whether the commons committee did a thorough enough job.
Interesting point.
i haven't followed the detail of then english bill but i think many of the amendments from the oro side are to try to head off the spurious objections
Falconer has said it will be back under the parliament act
im still very strongly against a royal commission. its just a way of delaying this for years. Just adopt the scottish bill.
we dont need any more information gathered. we need the lords to be abolished.
im still very strongly against a royal commission. its just a way of delaying this for years. Just adopt the scottish bill.
I'm not sure that if you just anglicised the Scottish bill and put it before the House of Commons it would make it through? (its yet to completely make it through in Scotland!). Some of the bits of the English bill which differ from Scotland (time limit, the quasi-judicial oversight) are there to win over the uncertain.
What you seem to be arguing though is that the currently drafted English bill is not actually the best bit of legislation they could have?
we dont need any more information gathered. we need the lords to be abolished.
Well, if you want anything to happen quickly, abolishing the Lords to achieve it is not going to be the fastest way. Realistically, whatever you replace the Lords with will still have the potential to delay controversial legislation - and should be a way to refine/filter out poorly drafted law. If England wants to make this Law and the bishops or others are being obstructive, make sure the Bill is really well written, and bump it through with the Parliament Act. The first challenge is actually getting the MPs support aligned to the level of public support, which I think comes down to the nuance of the rules, mechanisms and safeguards.
there's a much larger group with fewer ammendments including Lord Falconer who is its sponsor trying to get it voted through! When the guy arguing for the bill is making dozens of ammendments you have to wonder whether the commons committee did a thorough enough job.
Interesting point.
It's something that pops up with every Bill. This Bill is currently on more than 1200 amendments: the previous record during this Parliamentary session was 725 over a Bill that was almost 3x longer
At the time of writing, (November 2025) Peers have tabled 737 amendments to the Bill. For a 51-page Bill this is an unusually large number of amendments. Indeed, it is the largest number of amendments at Committee Stage in the Lords for any Bill this Session. Only three Bills have attracted similar numbers of amendments, and all three were much longer Bills – the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (725 amendments over 137 pages), the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (652 amendments over 180 pages), and the Employment Rights Bill (646 amendments over 299 pages). Moreover, all three of those Bills have now completed their Committee Stages. https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/assisted-dying-bill-committee-stage-house-of-lords
Part of the problem is that the Commons is constrained to discussions on amendments that the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, chooses. He also has the power to decide who speaks. If he deems an amendment unworthy of discussion then it falls to the Lords.
The HoL doesn't have a speaker and every amendment can be aired. The Clerks might tut loudly if it's considered "disorderly", but that's it.
Statistically (and practically) some amendments are mischievous, such as Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson insisting ‘that the person has provided a negative pregnancy test’. The principle is sound, but the wording is bound to generate more filibustering around men, people not of reproductive age, etc.
Baroness Coffey would prevent you from saying "goodbye" to relatives overseas by imposing a ban on leaving the country in the previous 12 months. What happens if that persistent tummy upset following a holiday abroad is actually a malignant tumour? Should you have to wait another 12 months?
It is possible that Members opposed to the Bill will resort to procedural tactics to delay progress – a charge that is frequently made by Peers during Committee Stages on Government Bills. The most common ways of doing so are:
tabling large numbers of amendments, including after Committee Stage has started;
objecting to groupings and insisting that amendments be debated individually or in smaller groups;
making long speeches. or speaking more than once on the same issue; and
encouraging a high number of speakers on each group of amendments.In practice, though, it can be hard to distinguish a clear line between deliberate delaying tactics and legitimate, detailed scrutiny. https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/assisted-dying-bill-committee-stage-house-of-lords
To summarise:
Yes, amendments in the Lords are inevitable, but a Royal Commission won't necessarily speed legislation through. They're intended to look at systems rather than details, the most recent in 1999 was (ironically) set up to examine A House for the Future, Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords.
They can be limited in their scope and they can take up to five years to reach a conclusion, they also haven't been used during this century.
In practice, though, it can be hard to distinguish a clear line between deliberate delaying tactics and legitimate, detailed scrutiny.
Additional sources:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774/publications (this is where you can see amendments tabled)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/12/assisted-dyings-disgraceful-delay
The HoL doesn't have a speaker and every amendment can be aired.
They definitely do have a speaker - (Lord Forsyth) - although they may not have the same powers as the Commons speaker to filter/stifle debate.
Yes, amendments in the Lords are inevitable, but a Royal Commission won't necessarily speed legislation through. They're intended to look at systems rather than details,
The mistake (IMHO) is assuming that without such a commission that anything will happen quickly. As I understand it there’s no reason a Royal Commission can’t be asked to work out details rather than merely concepts. But let’s be clear the difference between the Scottish and English bills is quite significant not tinkering. I don’t know if it actually needs to be a “Royal” commission - the point being an independent, non-partisan body with time and depth of expertise to get to a solution which has momentum behind it rather than a cut n paste of multiple other jurisdictions rules to try and appease objectors from so many angles. It will be about 20 yrs from Margo McDonald first starting the serious political debate to it becoming law (if it does) in Scotland. England is early on a long journey!
I'm not sure that if you just anglicised the Scottish bill and put it before the House of Commons it would make it through? (its yet to completely make it through in Scotland!). Some of the bits of the English bill which differ from Scotland (time limit, the quasi-judicial oversight) are there to win over the uncertain.
What you seem to be arguing though is that the currently drafted English bill is not actually the best bit of legislation they could have?
No its not. Its been amended so much its next to useless. the Scots bill is better - because we have a more nearly properly functioning democracy in Holyrood
What the mess in Westminster shows is how poorly the pseudo democracy there works
They definitely do have a speaker - (Lord Forsyth) - although they may not have the same powers as the Commons speaker to filter/stifle debate.
May not have the same powers? Definitely not,
For example, unlike the Speaker, the Lord Speaker does not call the House to order, determine who is to speak when two individuals rise at the same time, rule on points of order, discipline members who violate the rules of the House, or select amendments to bills—all these functions are performed by the House of Lords as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Speaker
No its not. Its been amended so much its next to useless. the Scots bill is better - because we have a more nearly properly functioning democracy in HolyroodArguably the Scots bill is better (if you believe it is) because its the third time of trying and England should have the same democratic right to iterate through different attempts/approaches at finding a solution that carries enough support to make it into law. We wouldn't be happy if England passed a law and told Holyrood, "for gods sake just copy our Bill you don't need to make your own mind up".
or you could say it works by blocking a bill you just described as next to useless!What the mess in Westminster shows is how poorly the pseudo democracy there works
Margo's original bill had a lot going for it, and I think if you had a well-informed conversation with the public about self-administration versus euthanasia, you would see democratic buy-in for not "forcing" people to act whilst they still have the strength to pick up the medication and swallow it! So I'm not sure we can really claim to have a better democracy for sorting out these sort of issues: we've been trying for over a decade and have had to make compromises!
or you could say it works by blocking a bill you just described as next to useless!
its next to useless because its been amended so much and so much ground given to the religious opponents as to make it useless because it will be unusable.
Holyrood has done a very good job on it, Westminster has not because its not a real democracy
democratic buy-in for not "forcing" people to act whilst they still have the strength to pick up the medication and swallow it!
I far prefer self administration even if its limiting.
I'm not sure you understand how ammendments work - which is really odd because you are usually well informed. The vast majority of the Lords ammendments haven't been decided on, and are likely to be rejected if they ever get that far. Even if there was enough time for all the ammendments to be considered and voted on they won't all be successful. What ground has been given to the religious opponents which make it unusable?or you could say it works by blocking a bill you just described as next to useless!
its next to useless because its been amended so much and so much ground given to the religious opponents as to make it useless because it will be unusable.
Holyrood has done a very good job on it, Westminster has not because its not a real democracy
If Holyrood has done such a good job, why didn't the previous two bills proceed there?
The Lords is shit for democracy, but it only just got through the Commons so there's no certainty that with a different 2nd chamber it would get through the Lords either - especially after the butchering of the High Court Judge part. Perhaps part of the reason it got through the commons at all is because some people knew they could show support for the concept but not worry about the technical details because the Lords would do that anyway?
I far prefer self-administration even if its limiting.democratic buy-in for not "forcing" people to act whilst they still have the strength to pick up the medication and swallow it!
It has advantages, particularly as far as legislation goes, but I honestly think if the Bill passes into Law there will be people who are suddenly faced with a very hard choice - take the drug today, or wait and hope they still have the option tomorrow/next week. Don't take it and you might have to endure a pointless, drawn-out death. Actually its just about that point in the "process" that people probably feel they'd be happiest to switch off.
I'm not even sure it actually makes the safeguards that much better. I do understand that many Doctors were not keen and that creates a fundamental issue, but when part of your argument is that there is nothing to debate - just copy what other countries do - some other countries do offer genuine euthenasia so I think there is scope to ask why we wouldn't. Perhaps there is scope for future improvement, but I'm not sure there is an easy path to that.
I am going to have to walk away from this. My head is burst. Poly you have a PM
I far prefer self administration even if its limiting.
Even if that means people wishing to pass away have to do so earlier than they want to? As my sister in law did before she lost use of the right arm.
dickyboy
its all about compromises and limitations. Yes self administered is limiting to the person themselves as in that situation. However self administration reduces pressure on medical staff. Mind you the Netherlands a very conservative country has physician assisted deaths with few issues - and they use "intolerable suffering ( I paraphrase) rather than "terminal illness" for the qualifying condition which is a much wider scope.
I am not against physician assisted in principle
Parliament has made a first step to reforming the HoL by removing hereditary peers, completing a move begun by Labour under Tony Blair.
It isn't straight forward, some will be made life peers instead, but it's a start on their manifesto pledge.
LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) - Britain's parliament has approved legislation to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ending a centuries-old system of aristocratic seats in the upper chamber that the government says should not be secured by birth. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-ends-centuries-old-hereditary-seats-parliament-upper-chamber-2026-03-11/
But the bishops would still be there I think?
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
they know they have last the argument but thrir god says to oppose it
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
Didnt need to filibuster, unlike in HoL, as it got voted down at the final stage.
I assume they are going to be pouring equal money into hospice care etc as they did into this campaign, right?
Well at least the numbers voting for it have increased each time. It’ll happen at some point I’m sure.
That ^ is disappointing. I agree with some of the concerns that opponents raised particularly regarding coercion but I also agree with Liam McArthur that these decisions about how someone ends their life are still being taken just not in the open but behind closed doors and off the record
IMHO they buggered it up by late but significant amendments. The issues around the competence of the Scottish Parliament were a gift to the anti crowd because by making that amendment the various medical bodies bailed on it and so any MSP with doubts had the perfect excuse.
The need to find a way to come up with an approach which is so clean, well thought through and robust to counter arguments that it doesn’t get rewritten at the 11th hour. That’s not a criticism of Liam McArthur - without people like him championing it to where it is, this would still be a taboo.
However our politicians need to work out how they are going to get this issue the public actually feel strongly about through parliament. Given there is an election looming there seems no better time to make my feelings known to party leaders and candidates.
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
Not every person against assisted dying is a religious nutter. But you know this already, I'd imagine it makes it easier to ignore anti arguments though.
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
Not every person against assisted dying is a religious nutter. But you know this already, I'd imagine it makes it easier to ignore anti arguments though.
No but they are the loudest and they dissemble and outright lie. there is no anti argument that has any logic or reality to it that I have seen. Not one. All are either faith based but disguised or are folk being fooled by the lies of the religious bams
Apart from the labour vote in Holyrood its a very clear split between those professing faith and those that do not. There are a few secular against it but the vast majority of those opposed are religious
I know the religious affiliation of most of the antis at holyrood bar the suprising labour votes against
I am more than a little puzzled by the labour vote in Holyrood. 3 for 17 against. This is in stark contrast to all other parties. It certainly looks like a party political decision.
SNP voted mainly for despite Swinney and Sturgeon voting against. Labou 3 to 17 against. Its the highest anti % of any party including the tories
Anyone got any explanation other than playing political games?
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-21005
Edit: I am too angry and upset to debate this further now - but I am interested in folks views on the labour vote
Edit: I am too angry and upset to debate this further now - but I am interested in folks views on the labour vote
I know how much this means to you tj and this isn't meant as a dig, but Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 6 for 22 against is a fair % too.
Is it as simple as opposing SNP at every opportunity?
Both Findlay and Sarwar voted against but I'm sure that whipping-in, despite the free votes, would have leaked.
Is it as simple as opposing SNP at every opportunity?
It wasn't even a SNP bill.
Of course the question of parliamentary competency (and the associated protection for objecting medical professionals) would be resolved in an independent Scotland.
I would expect that from the tories. I expect them to be reactionary. They also have more members of professed faith that I know of.
its not even an SNP bill - its a lib dem private members bill but it certainly looks like party political games to me.
Yeah, I don't think this is party politics, but it is a poor decision. I think MEPs should now be the ones to attend the bedside of people they have denied this right, and explain to them personally why they must endure what they must endure.
Most of the antis its pure religious affiliation - bar the labour anti vote which is not
However our politicians need to work out how they are going to get this issue the public actually feel strongly about through parliament.
Very aware I exist in my own little bubble but I don't personally know anyone opposed to assisted dying (or to my knowledge at least). To me, this Scottish Parliament vote simply isn't representative of the wider population's view.
Even with a defeat it's been useful in raising the profile of assisted dying - even eldest mini a11y's school class was debating it yesterday.
but it is a poor decision.
If the public's views on this are to be believed (81% in favour) and there's no reason to not believe it, then this is hardly democracy in action.
As an aside: Talking with my Aunt this last week (a palliative care Dr in Canada) 1 in 20 deaths is now MAID. She's on the fence about it herself, but many of her colleagues are coming down against it, and she feels that's only increasing. She reports (anecdotally) that it's easier to get MAID than it is to get a 'script of Oxycontin
80ish% of the population in favour. 75% of the disabled, a majority in every scots constituency. a majority of medical staff.
TJ - I think you are looking for conspiracies where there probably are none. At the last vote they were 7/15 so only 4 labour MPs actually switched view. They aren’t names I recognise - and without spending hours searching I don’t know why. You can be sure though that every MSP who voted for at the last stage has had constituents telling them why it was a mistake. My own MSPs all gave very non-commital answers on their plans at various stages including one who said I have voted for at the first stage but have serious reservations and am minded to vote against at the next stage unless they are addressed. That’s a real politicians approach - a foot in both camps!
I don’t have a detailed analysis of the religious views of the MSPs but I’m not sure you are right to assume that labour MSPs are less likely to be religious. But, as I’ve said before, I think it’s probably a mistake to think that everyone with reservations is religious or being influenced by religious groups - that’s an easy way to dismiss things we find irrational but taking time to listen to people, especially people who flipped (so clearly weren’t opposed to the entire concept but had concerns about the realities) is clearly what it will take to find a workable solution. Telling those people they’ve been duped isn’t listening to them, and certainly isn’t formulating solutions with them.
I expected that the competence of the parliament muddle and the professional medical bodies objection that resulted from that must have been a significant factor for some. How that became an 11th hour panic I don’t know, nor have I followed enough to understand why the amendment was to remove the protections rather than add a clause saying could only become law if Westminster add these protections, or even make it a criminal offence to treat someone less favourably for refusing to participate (I think that would have been competent - it’s only employment law we can’t legislate for).
the coercion concern is clearly the biggest problem to overcome and I don’t see an easy way to convince people who have legitimate concerns about people sub consciously feeling “obliged” to end things - although I think it works both ways, I’ve seen people who went on miserable life extending but not saving treatments to give family members the feeling that the end was not yet.
is it that private members bills are just a bit less thought through, well founded and negotiated with stakeholders or is all legislation this poorly supported but bounced through with the whip?
However our politicians need to work out how they are going to get this issue the public actually feel strongly about through parliament.
Very aware I exist in my own little bubble but I don't personally know anyone opposed to assisted dying (or to my knowledge at least). To me, this Scottish Parliament vote simply isn't representative of the wider population's view.
Even with a defeat it's been useful in raising the profile of assisted dying - even eldest mini a11y's school class was debating it yesterday.
I think support for the concept is easy to find, probably even within the Scottish parliament. The harder part is agreeing a set of rules which those who have to approve legislation can agree are robust and appropriate.
the coercion concern is clearly the biggest problem to overcome and I don’t see an easy way to convince people who have legitimate concerns about people sub consciously feeling “obliged” to end things
My own direct experience is people choosing to "end things" much earlier, while they didn't need help and couldn't be stopped. Did they feel, sub consciously, "obliged" to do so to spare their partners and the rest of us? I don't know, but I think most of us would have rather they felt they could have stayed around a bit longer.
The coercion arguement is completely bogus. Its one of the inventions of the religious antis. they tried numerous false objections and that one gained traction. there has never been a case of coercion ever worldwide
nor have I followed enough to understand why the amendment was to remove the protections rather than add a clause saying could only become law if Westminster add these protections,
My understanding is thats exactly what was done. that clause was added I think. Certainly an attempt was made to do so
TJ - I think you are looking for conspiracies where there probably are none.
Possibly but the pattern looks very odd
thanks for your thoughts
a majority of medical staff.
Accurate or not?
I don't know, but I think most of us would have rather they felt they could have stayed around a bit longer.
Thats the only coercion I have ever seen - to continue with futile treatment or delay an assisted death or to refuse a DNACPR. I have seen hundreds of folk die
there has never been a case of coercion ever worldwide
That you are aware of. You cannot know whether it's true.
It's these sorts of things, where you state as facts when all you have is "To everyone's knowledge so far" that mark you out as just as entrenched as the people you claim to see as 'vile'.
Scotroutes - its all about the questions asked and that has clear cherry picking of the data to get the results they want.
right - I must step away
Scotroutes - its all about the questions asked and that has clear cherry picking of the data to get the results they want.
Yeah, given the source I had my doubts. Do you have a link to support the "majority in favour" comment?
This is obviously a sensitive subject which TJ has a lot of very personal experience of, so I understand his use of language that might sound harsh or accusatory.
The trick is finding the balance to avoid coercion - which other countries appear to have done successfully - so that people don't feel obliged to kill themselves sooner than they need have done.
The arguments against seem to be very "whataboutery" given the evidence from countries already allowing assisted dying. Though I can understand medical professionals reluctance to go down that route at a personal level.
- which other countries appear to have done successfully -
Again My aunt - a palliative care specialist in Canada has her doubts, and other clinicians she's spoken with she tells me have similar unease around the subject of coercion, She feels that it's both only a matter of time [before it's uncovered], and 'easier' not look too closely.
do you honestly believe nobody in any of the jurisdictions in the world has never ended their life because they thought it’s what other people thought they should do rather than what the clearly and explicitly wanted to? Nobody being prosecuted for coercion, is not the same thing as if never happening. I am about as far from being religious as you can get, and yet I see this as THE major issue to overcome. Personally I think it’s an acceptable risk.The coercion arguement is completely bogus. Its one of the inventions of the religious antis. they tried numerous false objections and that one gained traction. there has never been a case of coercion ever worldwide
nor have I followed enough to understand why the amendment was to remove the protections rather than add a clause saying could only become law if Westminster add these protections,
My understanding is thats exactly what was done. that clause was added I think. Certainly an attempt was made to do so no I think there was a clause saying employers couldn’t treat anyone less favourably for objecting (similar to abortion) - but it’s outside the scope of Holyrood and so that clause was removed - at which point various health professional bodies removed their support last week because they were relying on a vague commitment not a legislative one to protect their members.
I am sure when the bodies representing Pharmacists and Psychologists withdraw support all MSPs must have had a moment of reflection.
TJ - I think you are looking for conspiracies where there probably are none.
Possibly but the pattern looks very odd
thanks for your thoughts
the really bizarre thing to me is that almost everyone who has been first minister (and still in the parliament) or who has shown serious intent to be first minister opposes this on principal despite the public views.
Scotroutes Note the source as well 🙂 Again the results you get depend on the questions asked
Doctors were asked what the BMA’s position should be regarding a change in the law on assisted dying to allow doctors to prescribe drugs for patients to self-administer in order to end their own life. 40% said the BMA should support a change in the law, 21% said the BMA should take a neutral position and just 33% thought the BMA should maintain its opposition.
When asked for their personal views on law change, 50% of doctors were in favour of law change on assisted dying with 39% opposed and 11% undecided.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/largest-ever-survey-doctors-assisted-dying/
Its the usual story of the leadership being less progressive than the membership. the BMJ / BMA debate is interesting
Nearly 29,000 members of the BMA responded, making it the largest ever survey of medical opinion on assisted dying in the UK.
compared to 650 in the antis poll
Coercion is a valid concern and the main cusp of the interview with the police after my sister in law took her life, in the main they wanted to know when and who decided for her to go to dignitas. The fact that my brother was much against it & well recorded in correspondence meant that it was not "in the public interest" to prosecute.
TJ - I know this is very personal to you & I agree whole heartedly that we should have the choice, even in my case without the terminal illness requirement. But people commit murder so to say there would never be coercion of any degree can't be true. How any law guards against it is obviously tricky.
the really bizarre thing to me is that almost everyone who has been first minister (and still in the parliament) or who has shown serious intent to be first minister opposes this on principal despite the public views.
Sturgeon is the only one who is not religious I think
- which other countries appear to have done successfully -
Again My aunt - a palliative care specialist in Canada has her doubts, and other clinicians she's spoken with she tells me have similar unease around the subject of coercion, She feels that it's both only a matter of time [before it's uncovered], and 'easier' not look too closely.
To be fair though, talk to any oncology specialist here and they’d be able to point to patients who have decided to continue treatment “for the sake of family” when their rational professional opinion was that withdrawing treatment would actually have been in the patients best interests.
opposes this on principal despite the public views.
re-introduction of the death penalty is similar though, no one in parliament thinks it's a good idea, it routinely gets reasonably firm public support
To be fair though, talk to any oncology specialist here and they’d be able to point to patients who have decided to continue treatment “for the sake of family” when their rational professional opinion was that withdrawing treatment would actually have been in the patients best interests.
Of sure, she's just one doctor out of thousands, her views are her own - and she has some weird opinions on opioids and Purdue because of her specialty that most doctors would probs. have difficulty with, and has similar views as @TJ about religious bodies egregious interference in the Canadian debate, despite being a practicing Catholic herself. A mass of contradictions. She feels MAID has opened doors in Canada that are difficult to shut, and feels many of her clinical colleagues are changing their minds on the availability of it.
a majority of medical staff.
TBF, even that BMI poll you linked didn't show a majority (50/39/11).
Yougov disagrees with you! They say <40% support for death penalty in the UK, but>70% support for assisted dying. I'm sure that its not "nobody in parliament" who thinks capital punishment is a good idea either! The challenge is the "eligibility" and "what if" scenarios for both.opposes this on principal despite the public views.
re-introduction of the death penalty is similar though, no one in parliament thinks it's a good idea, it routinely gets reasonably firm public support
I'm not sure what "people" really want is actually what the Bills are considering.
The Bills are saying that if you have a terminal illness (possibly with less than 6 months left to live), are clearly of sound mind and know what you want to do, you should be able to get a medication that you swallow yourself and end your life. Whilst YouGov says there is support for that, I suspect the public are actually keener that if they (or a loved one) find themselves too ill to pick up and swallow a tablet, but are facing a drawn-out death lasting weeks that there should be an easy (probably injection based) solution - potentially even when you are no longer able to communicate your immediate consent! I've never heard anyone say "Joe's only got six months to live but is still fairly mobile and communicative, I just wish it was over with" but I have heard countless people say "the doctors aren't sure how long she'll last, but its awful just watching them in the bed not even able to swallow and not knowing if tonight is the final chance to say goodbye or we need to go back through this all again tomorrow".
Doctors already play god to some extent in this sort of end-of-life scenario, withdrawing medications, nutrition and even hydration whilst doping patients up on massive amounts of morphine etc. Those are the heartbreaking times to watch a family member endure (either as patient or loved one). Giving people the option to take a tablet before it gets that bad is a fudge, it makes the consent/coercion stuff easier, won over some of the sceptical medics but actually if anything encourages (coerces?) patients to make decisions/take action sooner than they might like.