Forum menu
Guardian has done a bit of an expose of the various sometimes unpleasant and untruthful anti organisation:
A former supreme court judge has told MPs that applications for assisted dying should not need high court approval.
Hopefully some sense will prevail. IMO thiscwas a tactical error giving too much credence to the antis. No one else worlwide has it. Its a decent article
Echoing what's said in that article, clinicians I've spoken to have told me that demand has far outstripped expectations (Voluntary Assisted Dying was introduced in Queensland 2 years ago). The idea of adding another hoop to jump through is farcical.
Sadly, it means is there are far more people suffering unnecessarily than was anticipated.
Well leadbetters bill has been changed in committee so that it does not need a judges sign off but instead a quasi judicial panal of experts. I fear she has given far too much ground to the antis and thus given tbeir bogus arguments credence. Coercion just does not happen. Not one case ever worldwide.
I fear the English bill is going to be an unworkable bureaucratic mess.
The scottish bill is plodding along in committee and will not have this oversight panel.
Just watched the TV version of this report on the 10 o'clock news. Very poignant and thought provoking. The key message is people just want the chance to choose.
BBC News - Assisted dying: California man invites BBC to witness his death - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rgd4yrz3eo
Yup. Its all about choice and removing the fear of a protracted painfull death.
Significant numbers of people who have the paperwork for an assisted death never use it. Its there as a safety net.
I am so angry with the labour parties antis. Any tactic will do to try to stop this. Its almost all the religious trying to stop it with bogus objections. The latest being that the bill has been so slow thru committee that the final vote on it will be near to elections so the bill should be dropped.
Cruel liars.
Coercion just does not happen.
Coercion does happen, but those using it as an argument don't understand that it works both ways
You can equally be coerced into palliative care because it suits a third-party's values and their agenda
...to stop it with bogus objections
Functionally, it's not an argument but a can-kicking delay. If it is a valid argument then it must be applied both ways
People are never coerced into taking assisted dying. Not one case ever worldwide. Not one
As you say it does happen the other way tho. I have seen folk coerced into futile treatment
People are never coerced into taking assisted dying. Not one case ever worldwide. Not one
As you say it does happen the other way tho. I have seen folk coerced into futile treatment
That seems a bold statement. I can accept it's a very low fraction that are coerced, but saying never seems very unlikely. How could you know that no one is ever coerced into assisted dying? The people doing the coercion aren't likely to say are they... and the witness is dead.
Its almost all the religious trying to stop it with bogus objections.
I disagree, there are many legitimate objections being raised by atheists, such as Ian Birrell who wrote a very good article in the i newspaper (unfortunatly behind a paywall). There is definitely a slippery slope as seen abroad and in the UK 1 in 4 fail to get palliative care and this should be addressed first (how ethical is it to offer assisted dying to those who can't get palliative care?).
People are never coerced into taking assisted dying. Not one case ever worldwide. Not one
I would also say it is a very bold, and somewhat naive statement to make. Worldwide ? never ?
I think whats being missed here is how someone who is terminal, or very old, or even disabled thinks in their own mind.
Me own mother, who is 83 and has a number of health concerns, which makes life difficult for her has on occasion said "I'm just a burden, aren't I ?
Obviously we try to change her thinking with support, but for her, her health issues can lead to depression, so it isn't just being cohered, its whats in that persons mind.
Now for cohersion, I don't think we need to describe it as a case of one or more hounding an ill/disabled person, but just putting the idea in their head through attitude towards them.
I understand your point and thoughts on this TJ, but please dont decide because of the benefits in avoiding suffering that that should be a blanket reason, and all other concerns should be ignored.
You should take note of the way it went from a decision or overseeing council of Lawyer, judge and doctor to just a doctor being able to make the cal, because we've never had the medical profession put forward ideas and concepts that caused more harm than good for society.
While I agree that there is a need for palliative care I have little faith in society having the will to improve palliative care to the level required. And even then, many people don't want to have their end of life dragged out, palliative care minimises suffering it does not eliminate it.
I do have concerns that its a Dr making the call- it should be the poor sod suffering that decides when to end it, and we should have a responsibility to support them to make it as peaceful and free of suffering as possible. Instead because we as a society don't like the idea, we make it as hard and unpleasant as possible, actively going out of our way to deny people the quick and pain free death we have the ability to give them.
My Mother is in her mid eighties, she has no major health concerns but has remarked often that she has no wish to live into her Nineties like her father.
Why can't we trust people to make their own decisions. Lets do our utmost to make peoples lives worth living, either with high quality palliative care or in any number of other ways, so that then they may well decide to carry on, rather than force them to endure despite their suffering.
Got rid of all books/stuff/detritus gathered over my 50 years existence and only have the basics I need for my day to day life, such as my speakers/iMac in living room and one reclining chair/one desk chair (I’m sure you’ve seen the pics in various threads on here).
I didn’t want my brother/mum/best mate to have to deal with loads of shit when I decide I’ve had enough, dad died of blood cancer 7 years ago (when I was still able to function totally on my own and before my symptoms deteriorated) and clearing his garage of tools etc (he was a welder/fabricator) next to mum/dads house and organising stuff took me/bro/mum ages so want as little for mum/bro to do as possible- my body’s being left to medical science for the medical students to have a dig around and practice with, my brain/spinal cord etc is going for MS research and mum will eventually get my ashes to mix with dad and my dog.
Mum (71 this year) and my Brother (45 this year) both live close to each other and within 1/2 mile of me which is handy as our wee town/village is rather rural here in Galloway/Scotland. Mum basically does pretty much everything around my 1bed bungalow due to my inability to do washing/cleaning/fire/garden/cooking my tea, I can still do my breakfast, make my espressos though….and wipe my own arse 😆 , if I attempt too much with arms/fingers dexterity wise then I suffer for it, with SPMS your daily existence is a constant balancing act between attempting to do something and realising your energy levels/muscle control will be depleted for further shuffling round house, much as my ability to stand up and attempt to shuffle through the house whilst supporting myself on the fitted handrails throughout my house.
The bungalow will go back to the local social housing association so that’s easy enough.
It’s a bugger of a situation but hey ho…..fretting about it won’t change a thing.
Got my exit strategy planned (diamorphine...... my beautiful bride) and mum/bro/best mate all know about it and realise it’s up to me to decide, perhaps my condition will stabilise and I’ll stay like this, in which case I’ll manage to endure it for years n’ years or perhaps I’ll continue to deteriorate at the rate I have been over the past 5 years so we’ll see what happens then.
So yeah, to answer the thread title above ………this 52yr old (just had a birthday 😀 ) has thought about death and is all for it being a choice and a right.
I think legitimate concerns have been raised by the "non-religious". And while I disagree with them, I have no problem with religious people raising concerns, just so those concerns are addressed and discussed.
While I'm totally in favour of increasing palliative support as well as offering a right to die for those facing a terminal illness, so that people have a genuine choice in how they wish they end their time, the way that mission creep in Canada where it has moved to non-terminal conditions, and the Netherlands, where I think it has stretched to mental illness, really worries me, as someone who is prone to suicidal ideation.
There's a fine line between enabling a right to a dignified death and simply enabling suicide. It's such a complex moral and medical issue I can't begin to formulate or articulate my view of where and how that line should be drawn. Maybe we should just give everyone a pill at age 18 that they can take as and when they want for a quick and painless end. Had that happened, I would have missed an awful lot of amazing things I've enjoyed and achieved in this life.
It's, er, complicated.
With regard to non-terminal illnesses, my sister in law had MS & was down to the use of just her left arm, but being in her 50's and otherwise healthy she was looking down the barrel of being bedridden for 20 or 30yrs which she knew she couldn't endure, so took the dignitas route while she could. So I'm all for a bit of mission creep myself.
With regard to non-terminal illnesses, my sister in law had MS & was down to the use of just her left arm, but being in her 50's and otherwise healthy she was looking down the barrel of being bedridden for 20 or 30yrs which she knew she couldn't endure, so took the dignitas route while she could. So I'm all for a bit of mission creep myself.
And I can totally understand that, and probably would support it and want it for myself.
There are so many variables and everyone is an individual. How do you legislate for all the variables? I've no idea.
how ethical is it to offer assisted dying to those who can't get palliative care?
It's surely more ethical to offer people assisted dying than to force them to suffer a horrible drawn-out painful death.
I know there has never been a case of coeecion ever worldwide in two ways
1. My own research and that of my sister who is an investigative journalist
2 the antis would have publicised it widely.
The whole concept is one that has been created by the antis. Its a lie.
The religious know they cannot win on a religious arguement so the invent fake secular points ti argue. The vast majority of the anti arguement is created like this. I have seen the breifing paper where they discuss doing this .
These are not reasonable actors. They are religious fundamentalists attempting to make the seculsr conform to their creed.
Nowhere in the world that has this measure has a quasi judicial review. Its an absurd idea. It was included as a sop to the antis and all it did was give their nonsense credence.
Its not a doctor who decides. Its the person themselves.
Mission creep can only occur with the approval of parliament.
Jurisdictions where mental health can be a criteria all use a formula like " intolerable suffering over protracted periods of time when all treatment options are exhausted"
Not just sucicidal ideation or a bit depressed.
Whats really concerning is seeing folk on here repeating the bogus objections invented by the religious antis as real
Make no mistake. The vast majority of the objections are created by a well funded network of American religious fundamentalists.
Ian Birrell is a catholic by upbringing at least and is i believe one of those creating fake secular reasons but his objection is religious based.
I have no issue with tbe religious objecting on religious grounds
I have a huge issue with them creating a network of fake secular organisations that pump out fake secular objections based on lies.
They call this fibbing for god. Its the same folk that run SPUC and they simpky want to make the secular conform to their creed
Apologies. I probably shouldnot have dismissed
Birrells objections as i have not read his piece.
What is his objection based on? Is it because of his disabled child? Again the idea that the disabled will be forced into this is a bogus one.
Disability is not a criteria for assisted dying. There is no rote by which disabled folk could be forced into this.
Mission creep can only occur with the approval of parliament.
It's classic slippery slope fallacy territory.
Yup.
The antis are well organised and co ordinated. They keep trying different attack lines to see what gets noticed. Coercion is the latest one and it has gained some traction partly because ledbetter gave it credence.
They have dropped other attack lines as they were soundly rebutted and gained no traction.
I know there has never been a case of coeecion ever worldwide in two ways...
The whole concept is one that has been created by the antis. Its a lie.Coercion is the latest one and it has gained some traction partly because ledbetter gave it credence.
I realise that suicide and assisted dying are two very different concepts, but people in the UK have tested suicide laws as a means to their preferred end, e.g. Diane Pretty, which has created a confusion of these concepts for some
If you take the example of UK prosecutions under existing legislation, it's clear that coercion to suicide exists so why shouldn't coercion to assisted dying exist?
The case of Cameron Finnegan is one example,
Det Ch Supt Claire Finlay, head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East, says the members competed to see who was the most extreme: "If you can get someone to self-harm, you're doing quite well in that group. If you can get them to kill themselves, you're reaching the pinnacle." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9w5rkzxjl4o
The Online Safety Bill is another well-publicised piece of legislation that includes protection for vulnerable people from trolling to encourage self-harm and suicide, e.g. the tragic case here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63768496
To deny coercion the potential to exist is a nonsense and I think that it should be given credence, but the balance is that coercion should be tested for people entering a programme of palliative care as well. That balance is probably a step too far for most people, so it becomes a sticky area subject to checks and mitigation
I support assisted dying, but it isn't going to get an easy passage. Denying something that exists as a relatable concept for most people isn't the way IMHO
I know there has never been a case of coeecion ever worldwide in two ways
1. My own research and that of my sister who is an investigative journalist
2 the antis would have publicised it widely.
There's been a widely published case of Military Veterans in Canada being offered MAID. One particular hit the headlines as she was a Paralympian who was trying to get the Canadian Govt to install a wheelchair ramp who was offered MAID as an alternative, It was discovered that this was a pattern by the worker from Veterans Affairs, another case MAID was offered as "better than blowing your brains out against a wall"
Jacobin goes into some detail, but others have reported also.
My own view on assisted dying has moved over the years. I think the philosophical argument is won, I don't think anyone could argue the opposite of choosing the time and place of one's death is pretty much fundamental in a society that privileges individualism. I don't think however it should attract legislation to make it a govt assisted program.
1. I'm fundamentally opposed to any govt getting involved with killing it's own citizens regardless of the 'rights' or 'wrongs' I don't think the death penalty is right, I don't think actively helping anyone else to die is a space that any govt should be entering into .
2. The slippery slope. Trudeau tried to counter this argument at the launch of MAID, and he's been proved wrong. In every case the Canadian govt has moved to make it simpler and easier and less restrictive to kill yourself, it's lost every court challenge, and each time another special interest group decides that it too should have the right to kill themselves, that right is granted. Suicide was amongst the lowest causes of death in Canada, now it's one of the highest.
3. Capitalism. In the sort of society we live in now, the danger of the 'right' to die will become the 'expectation', it offers Govts a way out of palliative care, as one disabled rights organisation has said of MAID "The biggest existential threat to disabled people since Nazi Germany" care for the elderly and sick is expensive, and Govts has a poor track record when it comes to funding the services that people rely on.
So, should you be able to kill yourself? Yes, you should. Should the Govt help you do it? No, I don't think they should, sums up where I am.
As one who was interviewed under caution for the heinous crime of driving my brother, nephew & sister in law to the airport, where would the government not being involved get us when assisting a suicide is against the law?
I know there has never been a case of coeecion ever worldwide in two ways
1. My own research and that of my sister who is an investigative journalist
2 the antis would have publicised it widely.
There's been a widely published case of Military Veterans in Canada being offered MAID. One particular hit the headlines as she was a Paralympian who was trying to get the Canadian Govt to install a wheelchair ramp who was offered MAID as an alternative, It was discovered that this was a pattern by the worker from Veterans Affairs, another case MAID was offered as "better than blowing your brains out against a wall"
Jacobin goes into some detail, but others have reported also.
That is one of the cases totally distorted by the anti side to make their case. They ware NOT offered MAID. That is simply incorrect. They would not have been eligable anyway as they did not have a terminal illness.
A low level covil servant who had no connection to MAID or the medical service did say that yes but that is not the same as being offered MAID as that person had no connectuon with MAID. The folk were inelgable anyway.
Its a prime exampke of how the anti side twist distort and lie about this to tryto create a moral panic and to try to impose their morality on the rest of us. A prime example offibbing for god
Disabilty is not a qualifying critetia for MAID. Its no threat to disabled peopke. To suggest so is an outright lie
To qualify for MAID you have to have a terminal illness where death is reasonably fireseable and be of sound mind. Mental health and disability are NOT qualifying conditions.
This case is thw best the antis xan come up with with regards to coercion ans as expkained the story they put out is a complete distotion of what actually happened
Fibbing for god
That is one of the cases totally distorted by the anti side to make their case. They ware NOT offered MAID. That is simply incorrect. They would not have been eligable anyway as they did not have a terminal illness.
Sorry TJ, but the mission creep we refer to with Canada is because you no longer need to have a terminal illness to be eligible for MAID following an amendment in 2021. Other serious conditions can make you eligible.
There's rights and wrongs to that depending on individual circumstances obviously.
Canada and tbe slippery slope. Not applicable here. In Canada the courts have supremacy. In the UK paliament has and its been made 100% clear that only parliament can increase the scope not the courts
Again this is another Canard put out by the antis
Not true more cash. You must have a terminal illness.
The courts have ruled that mental health must be a criteria but it is not in law yet as the government are considering how to impkement the court ruling safely.
So as things stand in Canada its terminally ill only. This may change in the future and prbably will.
I went to a lecture from the man in charge of the MAID programme last year when he explained this
Excellent post from nickc, all good points well made.
Canada and tbe slippery slope. Not applicable here. In Canada the courts have supremacy. In the UK paliament has and its been made 100% clear that only parliament can increase the scope not the courts
Again this is another Canard put out by the antis
I agree with that in theory. You're faith in Parliament(s) on this one particular issue seems optimistic to me, given the shitshow they make of most things.
Cg.
Unfirtunatly the basis from which he is arguing is factually wrong on two ciunts.
They were NOT offered MAID.
the courts in the UK cannot override the statute in the way they can in canada
No more cash. Its my faith in the expertise of the lord advocate who gas made it utterly clear that the courts cannot and will not attempt to overide parliament
Dickyboy
1 starmer when DPP changed the oresumption from assisting a suicide being always prosecuted to never being prosecuted
2 if this becomes law folk will not have to be in that position that you wete
3 there will be an exemption in law for medical professionals following tbe laid down process
Nickc
Its not the government killing people. Its allowing the medical professionals to give the person a lethal medication to end tbeir own lives.
You really think its better that folk have to fly to Switzerland ( only available to the well off) or like somafunk above do it haphazardly with hoarded meds? Or like a friend of mine jump in frint of a train?
They ware NOT offered MAID. That is simply incorrect. They would not have been eligable anyway as they did not have a terminal illness.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885.
As I said, the implication is that is was one individual, and perhaps as many as 5 cases, but they were offered MAID, otherwise are you calling all the veterans involved liars?
Again this is another Canard put out by the antis
One of the "Antis" is a disabled advocacy group. I get that you have skin in this game, so I'm not going to argue the toss with you about this, but labelling every position that doesn't align with yours as somehow in league with or driven by fanatical religious convictions and is therefore dismissible with a word or wave of your hand does your position no favours.
Its not the government kiing people. Its allowing the medical professionals to give the person a lethal medication to end tbeir own lives.
Of course its the govt deciding who can live and who can die, that's exactly what this legislation is going to decide. Like I said, philosophically I don't have an argument, my position is clear, I don't think legislation to make it legal "for some people only" is the right way forward
If you make a group of people a special case and grant them the ability to do this, then the next group who want the same rights will challenge the decision in court and they'll win, because you can't have people with 'special rights' that aren't offered the same as everyone else - as the Netherlands and Canada are finding out.
They were not iffered MAID because that person had no ability to do so. Its simpky wrong to say they were. It was suggested to them by a person with no ability to offer it to them
The disabilty advocacy group you refer to us actually another creation of the care not killing outfit. Its funded by the same american evangelical chuches and Brian Soutar. . Most disability groups actually support this humane measure
Pkease debate by all means. . Im just saddened that the lies of tbe religious fundamentalists are being acceoted by folk and i want to correct the lies.
Unfortunately i do not have access to the documents proving the lues and proving the membership of the so called disabilty activists group. That group wad created by these religious fundamentalists to oppse this by any means
Of course its the govt deciding who can live and who can die
No its not. Thats a fundamental misstating of the prposal. Its allowing individuals a choice in particular circumstances that are very tightly defined
Do you know that a large % of those who gave the MAID peperwork never use it. Fir some just knowing they have the right is enough. Others find they do not need it
Thos is all about choice.
Ok. Heavy debate dunno what time it us thete as i dont understand time zones. Me its teatime and time to throw some snags on tbe barbie
😜🤣
"The govt" is necessarily involved in everything we do, in the sense that we are governed by laws that they make.
Saying the govt should/should not is/is not involved in anything, death or health or breakfast cereal, is just sophistry and distraction.
Currently the govt involves itself in that you'll possibly/likely get in trouble if you help someone who wants to end their life, depending on what "help" means in any particular case.
The important question is, *how* should the govt (laws) be involved, not *whether* it should be involved.
Me its teatime and time to throw some snags on tbe barbie
And either get a new keyboard or shave a few mm off those digits of yours?