Forum menu
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.
DIGNITYINDYING.ORG.UK
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.
but actually if anything encourages (coerces?) patients to make decisions/take action sooner than they might like
Currently, they have to make that decision far sooner though... while they are able to source and take the "tablet" without anyone else assisting or being able to stop them.
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.
The problem with this is it very much depends on the whim of the doctor. I have seen radically different views on this made worse by the withdrawal of the LCP. I have seen doctors wanting to do CPR on someone end of life. It has got more consistent in Scotland now with the regular use of advance care plans which allow you to state your wishes and official guidance on end of life care
My Julie died of dehydration in the end. She refused all fluids and knew exactly what she was doing ( because I had told her 3 days without fluid and you will die). Mind you death from multi organ failure was only a few days away.
I have seen many folk "turn their face to the wall" and refuse all food and fluids and effectively dehydrate to death because that was their only option to die at that point. A couple of hundred terminally ill folk suicide each year in the UK as that is their only option
At the end of the day this is about autonomy and agency and the antis want to deny folk their autonomy. We all have agency and autonomy until end of life when it is removed from you
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"
Let me introduce you to my friend Mark. About 10 years ago he started to get confused and forgetful, and he retired from academia, last year (Feb) he died through MAID. It was was he wanted, but he was still very mobile - and in his own way; communicative, and he resolutely "just wished it was all over" It was a weird experience, and still to this day I've don't really know the effects its had on his kids and grand kids who're still coming to terms with it.
It wan't some-one else making the decision for him, I have to be really clear here, we all knew what he wanted, and he went through with it. I'm also witness to the fallout.
Let me compare two family members both dying of aggressive cancers. My Julie who had do go through periods of pain fear and distress in the final week and who dehydrated to death despite the very best of palliative care. My brother in law who as he lived in the netherlands was able to take euthanasia. He did not have those periods of pain fear and distress
I would say the effect on the partners of both quite honestly was similar apart from I had a serious trauma reaction from seeing that pain fear and distress
Fiddlesticks - still in the debate but I am not going to debate specific points with folk hence some incomplete answers
Let me introduce you to my friend Mark. About 10 years ago he started to get confused and forgetful, and he retired from academia, last year (Feb) he died through MAID. It was was he wanted, but he was still very mobile - and in his own way; communicative, and he resolutely "just wished it was all over" It was a weird experience, and still to this day I've don't really know the effects its had on his kids and grand kids who're still coming to terms with it.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"
It wan't some-one else making the decision for him, I have to be really clear here, we all knew what he wanted, and he went through with it. I'm also witness to the fallout.
No you misunderstand me, I'm not opposed to Mark having the option to do that on his timescale and his terms. I can't say whether I would want to do the same or not, I'd certainly prefer to have the choice than not. BUT whilst that is what the various UK legislation is about I don't actually think that's what the public particularly think of when they hear assisted dying. The phrase I hear most often is "we wouldn't treat our pets this way".
Currently, they have to make that decision far sooner though... while they are able to source and take the "tablet" without anyone else assisting or being able to stop them.
One thing worth noting is a lot ( around half from memory) of those who gain access to some form of assisted death never use it. Just having the potential there relieves a lot of distress
The problem with this is it very much depends on the whim of the doctor.
I completely agree and this needs to stop. Perhaps rather than yet another "assisted dying" bill the Scottish Parliament should have and "End of Life" bill, which covers ALL the options.
but actually if anything encourages (coerces?) patients to make decisions/take action sooner than they might like
Currently, they have to make that decision far sooner though... while they are able to source and take the "tablet" without anyone else assisting or being able to stop them.
Indeed and probably we are inadvertently coercing people to act even sooner under the current lack of arrangements. The problem with any of the "voluntary" options that require physical steps by the patient is you essentially "force" the patient to consider acting sooner because they don't know what tomorrow will be like.
Indeed and probably we are inadvertently coercing people to act even sooner under the current lack of arrangements. The problem with any of the "voluntary" options that require physical steps by the patient is you essentially "force" the patient to consider acting sooner because they don't know what tomorrow will be like.
100% sister in law had to go "early" whilst she still had the use of one arm to self medicate & whilst there was a window of opportunity to travel in Sept 2020, she just didn't want to end up bedridden for potentially 30yrs but would have loved to be around quite a bit longer to see & be remembered by her grandchildren.
I just thought I would look at the % of msps voting for:
SNP 62%
tory - 21%
labour 15%
Green 100%
Lib dems 80%
Now maybe the numbers are not big enough to make statistically significant % from but that makes stark reading to me and says to me that something is very funny in the labour vote
SNP, Green, Labour and Lib Dems attract a similar type of vote and have a similar philosophy overall. Why such a stark difference?
I would expect the tories to be reactionary and against philosphically even with their libertarian bent. I know some on the left are against it because they believe economics could push poorer folk into it despite the actual data showing this is not true but these days labour are to the right of the SNP, Greens and lib dems
I know Sarwar has been resolutely against and has been briefing on it. Swinney and Sturgeon being against it has not swung the SNP so much. To me it just defies rationality that this is purely a conscience issue with labour.
One thing for sure - that really points to where my future votes are going
I'm quite upset about the result. My FiL died of oesophageal cancer end of November. His last two weeks were horrific and for the last days he could hold conversations he said he wanted it to end but it had to drag on for another 10days with the last 2or 3 him a rasping corpse, effectively deaf but the bio machine was going through the processea of life.
Two weeks earlier we'd given our much loved dog a last walk in the sunshine and he had a grand few days before the liver cancer reduced him to a shell he was allowed to leave as a happy dog.
Given how my families health is I have few doubts that I am in for a protracted end.
I just thought I would look at the % of msps voting for:
SNP 62%
tory - 21%
labour 15%
Green 100%
Lib dems 80%
Now maybe the numbers are not big enough to make statistically significant % from but that makes stark reading to me and says to me that something is very funny in the labour vote
SNP, Green, Labour and Lib Dems attract a similar type of vote and have a similar philosophy overall. Why such a stark difference?
I would expect the tories to be reactionary and against philosphically even with their libertarian bent. I know some on the left are against it because they believe economics could push poorer folk into it despite the actual data showing this is not true but these days labour are to the right of the SNP, Greens and lib dems
I know Sarwar has been resolutely against and has been briefing on it. Swinney and Sturgeon being against it has not swung the SNP so much. To me it just defies rationality that this is purely a conscience issue with labour.
One thing for sure - that really points to where my future votes are going
One if the (many) things the ****s me right off with the 'MP's concience' voting, is they are NOT elected for their own concience. They are supposed to be there to represent the views of their constituency members. And the significant majority of people in most constituencies have time and again been shown to favour assisted dieing / humane end of life / whatever it is to be called.
I just thought I would look at the % of msps voting for:
SNP 62%
tory - 21%
labour 15%
Green 100%
Lib dems 80%
Now maybe the numbers are not big enough to make statistically significant % from but that makes stark reading to me and says to me that something is very funny in the labour vote
SNP, Green, Labour and Lib Dems attract a similar type of vote and have a similar philosophy overall. Why such a stark difference?
I would expect the tories to be reactionary and against philosphically even with their libertarian bent. I know some on the left are against it because they believe economics could push poorer folk into it despite the actual data showing this is not true but these days labour are to the right of the SNP, Greens and lib dems
I know Sarwar has been resolutely against and has been briefing on it. Swinney and Sturgeon being against it has not swung the SNP so much. To me it just defies rationality that this is purely a conscience issue with labour.
One thing for sure - that really points to where my future votes are going
One if the (many) things the ****s me right off with the 'MP's concience' voting, is they are NOT elected for their own concience. They are supposed to be there to represent the views of their constituency members. And the significant majority of people in most constituencies have time and again been shown to favour assisted dieing / humane end of life / whatever it is to be called.
I just thought I would look at the % of msps voting for:
SNP 62%
tory - 21%
labour 15%
Green 100%
Lib dems 80%
Now maybe the numbers are not big enough to make statistically significant % from but that makes stark reading to me and says to me that something is very funny in the labour vote
SNP, Green, Labour and Lib Dems attract a similar type of vote and have a similar philosophy overall. Why such a stark difference?
I would expect the tories to be reactionary and against philosphically even with their libertarian bent. I know some on the left are against it because they believe economics could push poorer folk into it despite the actual data showing this is not true but these days labour are to the right of the SNP, Greens and lib dems
I know Sarwar has been resolutely against and has been briefing on it. Swinney and Sturgeon being against it has not swung the SNP so much. To me it just defies rationality that this is purely a conscience issue with labour.
One thing for sure - that really points to where my future votes are going
One if the (many) things the ****s me right off with the 'MP's concience' voting, is they are NOT elected for their own concience. They are supposed to be there to represent the views of their constituency members. And the significant majority of people in most constituencies have time and again been shown to favour assisted dieing / humane end of life / whatever it is to be called.
I'm disappointed with the result of the vote too. However I do feel it's appropriate for msps to have a free vote on this issue. They're also elected as representatives of their constituents which means that they're expected to advocate for their constituents and vote for the best interests of their constituents. They are not obligated to do so every time. If they were they would be delegates not repreesentatives.
Breifings from "minsters" saying they are going to kill the english bill as well. this has Streetings hands all over it IMO
THEGUARDIAN.COM Streeting and Mahmood are opposed on religious grounds and will do everything they can to block it.
Further to my post above about Scottish labour playing games with this in Scotland - its worth noting Westminster labour MPs supported the Westminster bill 224 to 116. 60% ish for?
To me its clear scottish labour were playing games with this but I cannot see why apart from automatic opposition to anything the SNP broadly support. Maybe its fear of backlash from religious groups in their constituencies and areas where they have their powerbase. Religious groups have been ruthlessly targetting MSPs
I always see Scotland as more progressive than England so this was disappointing but then the religious crap is probably stronger in Scotland so there is that. The bill is never going to get through though is it.
Can't really get my head around not being allowed to die when you want to...
Religious groups have been ruthlessly targetting MSPs
Absurd as what it is in this day and age for some people to still believe in god, gods, sky fairies. goblins unicorns, and elves .. its even more absurd these types of people have any sort of say on such important real life issues.
Even worse - most of the religious groups funding comes from the US evangelical churches ( some from Brian Soutar). Its a very nasty alliance of these american fundamentalists who pretend they are separate organisations when they really are not and who pretend they speak for secular groups and have secular objections when its not.
they also have leadership in common with SPUC and other anti abortion groups and anti reproductive medicine anti vax groups
Their funding is huge allowing them to flood media and politicians with their lies and the lying is a clear policy - I have seen the policy documents that show this
To me its clear scottish labour were playing games with this but I cannot see why apart from automatic opposition to anything the SNP broadly support.IF there is actually anything meaningful in the numbers (which I doubt) then I think you would be close but not quite there. They presumably listen to and respect opinion of other people with red rosettes, there's a few of their more vocal ones who have been clearly against. The corollary is that if you've become programmed to think that everything X says is nonsense then when they say something that contradicts your pal you probably reinforce the thinking. I don't think that needs to be a cynical conspiracy just incompetent politics - and lets face it in normal holyrood votes you don't actually need to apply much thought.
It would be interesting to do some analyisis of constituency v's list MSPs. I don't know which is more susceptible to influence but it feels like local constituency MPs might be slightly more connected to people and lists to organisations? Splits by gender, length of time in office, if they are planning to stand again in May, age, and previous occupations might reveal other interesting anomalies.Maybe its fear of backlash from religious groups in their constituencies and areas where they have their powerbase. Religious groups have been ruthlessly targetting MSPs
... but then the religious crap is probably stronger in Scotland so there is that.I'm not sure it is.
Absurd as what it is in this day and age for some people to still believe in god, gods, sky fairies. goblins unicorns, and elves .. its even more absurd these types of people have any sort of say on such important real life issues.Its interesting they seem to have a greater presence in parliament than population demographics would suggest. But I suppose religious types either like to tell others how to live their lives or are compassionate/caring interested in people and those seem like they have a strong political overlap - and it won't do your chances any harm of reaching the minimum level of local notoriety necessary to get elected if you have a face thats recognised from your particular institution.
Even worse - most of the religious groups funding comes from the US evangelical churches ( some from Brian Soutar).I think you said somewhere further up the threat that Church of Scotland (?) were neutral on the topic? but the Moderator said he was glad if had failed and the church opposed it.
Can't really get my head around not being allowed to die when you want to...
There's nothing stopping you currently.
its even more absurd these types of people have any sort of say on such important real life issues.
You know that pesky democracy thing where all voices in a society get a say? That. I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination but to try to suggest that people who believe in God can't take part in civic society is wild.
I think you said somewhere further up the threat that Church of Scotland (?) were neutral on the topic? but the Moderator said he was glad if had failed and the church opposed it.
My understanding certainly was that the COS had put together a committee to look into the issue after a show of hands at their synod. that committee recommended a neutral stance the the church accepted that. I think once again its the leadership ignoring the membership. I'll look into it a bit more
I cannot be arsed to wade thru all the thological noinsense but it seems like they have accepted a range of views is acceptable and that assisted dying can be compatible with the churches teachings via a mish mash of words
So not a formal position of neutrality but a position of accepting all views The position of the church has not been updated sinece the report was issued that I can see so clearly some arguement still ongoing
At the same time, we acknowledge that the range of views in the Church explored above may lead to three
broad positions:
• People who would continue to support the historic opposition to assisted dying.
• People who would not choose assisted dying for themselves for theological or other reasons, but would support a
change in the law as they recognise the ethical legitimacy of that choice for others.
• People who would support a change in the law and would be at peace in their Christian faith to consider and/or
choose assisted dying if they received a qualifying terminal diagnosis.
14�4 Having explored the theological and ethical reasoning behind this spectrum of belief, we conclude that they can
all be held with theological integrity within the Church of Scotland.
14�5 We appreciate that this conclusion may lead some to question, ‘what does this mean for the Church’s position
on assisted dying?’ We acknowledge that it moves the church away from a binary ‘for’ or ‘against’ approach. S
We acknowledge that it moves the church away from a binary ‘for’ or ‘against’ approach
Is the key statement - so the moderator is being disingenious at best
its even more absurd these types of people have any sort of say on such important real life issues.
You know that pesky democracy thing where all voices in a society get a say? That. I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination but to try to suggest that people who believe in God can't take part in civic society is wild.
Nickc - you clearly do not see the churches as the oppressive and regressive forces they are. The main issue with the religious in public life is they seek to impose their religion upon the secular and in the case of our elected representatives those professing a faith in many cases are not representing their constituents views but those of their churches. Its utterly vile
A final point on these religious opponents: they are hypocrites because they are not actually following the teachings of christ
"Do not bear false witness"
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
"Do as you would be done by"
Let alone all the weirder stuff thats in the bible like no picking up stones on the sabbath, not mixing two types of cloth etc etc many of which transgressions are punishable by death
They call their opposition " fibbing for god" in that its acceptable to lie if you are doing gods work
Do you think its acceptable for the state to discriminate against people on grounds of their sexuality? Many of these religious folk do ( opposition to gay marriage) thats exactly the reason why their religious views should be discounted in a modern secular society. Keep you religion private, do not attempt to impose it on others
apologies all - I am getting angry again so will walk away for a bit
Nickc - you clearly do not see the churches as the oppressive and regressive forces they are.
The fact that you lump "churches" in all together as if they all act in accordance with each other and all agree on anything let alone assisted dying only really reveals how skewed your own thinking and outlook about religion is in general, and on this matter in particular.