Forum menu
Parliament not the government. A subtle but important distinction. Its a free vote on a private members bill
Lolz at dickyboy. Im on a phone with fingers 3 times the size of the keyboard
Suicide was amongst the lowest causes of death in Canada, now it's one of the highest.
Not that this isn't sad but it's the 13th most common cause according to Canadian statistics. Globally there are many countries with much higher rates.
Parliament not the government.
Yes that's a fair point.
But regardless, the question is what framework do we want to be in place, not *whether* there will be some framework in place. Even a free-for-all is a framework of sorts, but no-one is advocating for that anyway.
Having seen a few relatives go through dementia and cancer, I'd certainly advocate for their right to choose (and be supported in that) although in practice their deaths were not particularly bad. My dad was asking to die for quite a while, but while he refused a new battery in his pacemaker he couldn't get any to take it out.
Reeksy i suspect but do not know that you stat is not including MAID when the other is.
One county i cannot remember which something like 30 % of all deaths are assisted
What me must remember is if this becomes law in the uk it will not result in more folk dying but less folk suffering
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.
Ian Birrell is a prominent atheist, funnily enough you now seem to be the one creating lies..............
https://www.ianbirrell.com/euthanasia-is-a-slippery-slope/
You must have a terminal illness.
no, it must be 'serious' and 'untreatable' the legislation no longer includes terminal. For instance Epilepsy in some cases is eligible as it can be untreatable, as was the dementia a friend of mine suffered from made him eligible. he killed himself in Feb after making the part 1 arrangements a while back he was otherwise healthy and could've, with care from his wife, otherwise have carried on. He just didn't want to.
Allison Ducluzeau case is interesting https://www.ianbirrell.com/i-was-offered-assisted-dying-over-cancer-treatment/
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.
No, the disability group I'm referring to is part of UBC, you can read about them here and read all about where they got their funding from in their annual reports
Again, I recognise you have skin in this game, so I'll cut you some slack. Don't however please paint anyone who disagrees with your stance as influenced by or is in the pay of; religious groups, I'm not and I question of the role of states getting involved in killing its own citizens that do not deserve to be just dismissed by lumping me in with these groups and calling everyone "antis" as a slur
Worth a read:
"Supporters of assisted suicide are repelling rather than persuading doctors ..."
https://thecritic.co.uk/spinning-doctors/
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.
@somafunk - mate, not that I think you'll be gone by this time tomorrow or owt, but I'd just like to say that I've always enjoyed your contributions on here. Never met you that I know of (although I suspect we've shared a dancefloor once or twice), but pretty much everything you've written on here has been interesting, honest and/or bloody funny.
When the time comes, I hope you get the degree of authorship you intend to have.
or like somafunk above do it haphazardly with hoarded meds?
Which tbh is probably no different to getting life ending meds off a doctor
As to your friend jumping in front of a train. That is horribly selfish and probably ended the drivers career, when he could have taken a load of sleeping tablets or the like and a bottle of spirits.
Actually what somafunk intends is nothing like thd package of meds used by the medical profession.
Don't however please paint anyone who disagrees with your stance as influenced by or is in the pay of; religious group
Unfortunatly the stuff you are quoting ie the false narrative over what happened in canada is straight from this network of interlinked groups of religious fundamentalists eho oppose this on religious grounds.
All the main anti groups are interlinked and run and funded by the same group of people.
Thise folk in Canada were NOT offered MAID. Its a falsehood promoted by these groups.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885
https://www.cmfmag.ca/todays_brief/government-addresses-maid-revelations/
...And so it goes on. You're essentially claiming that all the veterans who've reported these incidents were lying? Or that by claiming that because technically the Veterans Affairs case workers couldn't actually provide them with access to MAID it somehow doesn't count as coercion?
Both are weak arguments, you'd do better to call them isolated and so beyond the pale that they sacked the worker responsible than trying to maintain a stance that the whole story is the work of people fundamentally opposed to assisted dying when it clearly isn't.
CG
That article is full of falsehoods from an avowed opponent of assisted dying.
Over 80% of the public support this. The vast majority of healthcare workers and a majority of doctors
They were NOT offered MAID. Its a simple fact. Ypu have described what actually happened. A veterns case worker with no ability to refer folk for MAID no authority to do so suggested it
Apologies if that post appeared intemperate
In the decades that multiple countries have had this measure in various forms the best example of coercion that those opposed to this measure can come up with to show coercion is this veterns case which when you look into it is no coercion at all because that person had no ability nor authority to offer MAID.
That case has been deliberately distorted out of all recognition by groups opposed to assisted dying in order to make their case.
@tj, it was just another opinion but from a medical professional. Tend to agree with him re Kim Leadbeater, who's pulling her strings beside the assisted dying folk? Someone is for sure, for a new MP to raise such a controversial issue and to go about in such a dishonest and deceitful way arouses my suspicions.
Where does the 80% figure come from?
Tend to agree with him re Kim Leadbeater, who's pulling her strings beside the assisted dying folk
Like who? Come on lets hear what batshit conspiracy theory is in play here.
This pdf details the links between the various opponants and their links to religious fundamentalists
Care not killing is the main anti group in the UK. Not dead yet is tbe supposed disability advocacy group set up by the same folk. Our duty of care is the supposed doctors group set up by the same folk
Nothing deceitful and dishonest in leadbetters bill. The deceit and dushonesty comes from the opponents who deliberately lie and distort to make their points.
The bill is flawed imo because of this absurd quasi judicial review. Something not done anywhere else in the world.
CG.
leadbetter was high on the ballot for private members bills and she was asked by starmer to use this to put an assisted dying bill forward.
Nothing shadowy or hidden
In the decades that multiple countries have had this measure in various forms the best example of coercion that those opposed to this measure can come up with to show coercion
Something I have never seen addressed by the religious fundamentalists, sorry concerned citizens, is what exactly stops coercion happening now?
A proper system giving people a choice gives us better chance of identifying any coercive arseholes vs pretending someone just overdosed.
I am baffled by NickC argument that giving people a choice is somehow the state getting involved in "killing people". Leaving aside the military and armed police question, should we abandon hospices and DNR and force treatment regardless?
@dissonance - no need for that, thank you. It's not making sense to me and wonder whether there was pressure from above to can it due to strategic reasons. From what I've read the way she specifically chose committee members who only agreed with her, there wasn't the usual mix that these committees consist of. She chopped and changed until the draft was very different to what was originally proposed. These were fundamental changes and not minor ones and that's why some committee members backed out. Even Lord Sumption was surprised that it got as far as it did and he called it a complete mess. Something's not right here, I don't believe we've heard the full story.
None of that is true CG
The committee has a mix if opponents and supporters. Bills are supposed to be modified in committee
Nickc. I think you will find that pdf link interesting. It clearly shows the links between these supoosedly independent organisations and how the religious are behind the vast majority of objection and their dishonesty
They were NOT offered MAID. Its a simple fact.
I agree, technically none of the 5 vulnerable people that were spoken to by this case worker who asked them all if they'd considered MAID were offered MAID, you're correct.
Do you think then they weren't being coerced?
OK, so I read your .pdf, the Canadian advocacy group who described MAID as an existential threat aren't mentioned, nor is the case of the 5 Canadian Army Vets who were spoken to by the case worker. Not everybody who doesn't support an assisted dying bill is supported by or paid for by religious groups.
I'll debate my thoughts with you, but if you're going to dismiss every opposing voice as just driven by shady religious propogandists, there's no point.
I am baffled by NickC argument that giving people a choice is somehow the state getting involved in "killing people"
As I said, I think philosophically the argument is undeniable, we should as far as it's possible let people decide the timing of their own deaths. I don't see how anyone can disagree. My problem is legislating for that. I just don't think the state should insert itself between life and death of its citizens in this area because any choice anyone makes is going to be tested by the state, they ultimately are making the decision. Is that where we really want?
Surely the only way that there can be anything but instant access is if the person involved has no capacity to decide? In that case we have plenty of experts who decide capacity, my wife is one, who are allowed to make lives miserable by inflicting care that they don't want on people. Of course the big things really is, why the hell are some people worried about other peoples lives? Mind your own business.
Ickc
The state already intervenes in this area ni questions of disputed competency or people in persistant vegitative states or minimally concious states
. There is zero need for the state to be involved in peoples decisions at the end of life. They dont anywhere in the world where they have this measure. Its the persona own decision if they meet the criteria
Would removing the quasi judicial review assuage your point? Its not used anywhere else in the wold
Of course the big things really is, why the hell are some people worried about other peoples lives? Mind your own business.
Perhaps to ensure that it really is a choice that they want to make? Compare a couple where one is ill & the other doesn't care for them properly, is demeaning to them & urges them to end it all vs loving couple where the healthy one cares lovingly & properly for their ill partner and cherishes every moment they have with them. Not forgetting mental illness, so yes there does need to be checks & balances, despite TJ's assertion that coercion doesn't exist.
Its the persona own decision if they meet the criteria
But the state still gets a say. if they think, for instance, you're not mentally well enough, they'll say no
Would removing the quasi judicial review assuage your point?
I don't know is the honest answer to that. I don't see how any govt or court can look at what's happening in the Netherlands and Canada and decide that they want to walk down the same path right now. In a perfect world we should let people decide, but we don't live in a perfect world and any test set by any govt is going to be challenged to the obvious end point.
and if you're tempted to offer up the "slippery slope" fallacy that's pretty much where both Canada and the Netherlands are headed despite both those countries best efforts to prevent and mitigate it. it's the reason the Canadian courts are pausing the addition of mental health qualifiers to MAiD because of the obvious dangers.
Last post from me, if we both agree that anyone killed because of a death penalty who's innocent is a tragedy, i don't see how you can't agree that same is true of assisted dying.
And we don't have a death penalty largely for that reason
Ian Birrell is a prominent atheist
Went to Ampleforth college, so a pretty catholic upbringing. May also be influenced by immediate family circumstances.
Would removing the quasi judicial review assuage your point?
and if you're tempted to offer up the "slippery slope" fallacy that's pretty much where both Canada and the Netherlands are headed despite both those countries best efforts to prevent and mitigate it. it's the reason the Canadian courts are pausing the addition of mental health qualifiers to MAiD because of the obvious dangers.
In canada its the courts that extended the scope to incude mental health and the parliament that has it on hold while it considers this. Something that could not happen in the UK because the courts cannit overrule parliamentary statute only interpret it or point out conflicts with other law.
What do you think is going wrong in the Netherlands? All accepted by both parliament and the vast majority of the public.
Dickyboy.
Thete has never been a case of coercion anywhere worldwide.
Checks and balances. Ever other country in tbe world including Scotland and the isle of man find two professionals sufficient.
I am quite happy with two independent professionals needing to sign off.
Find me one case of coercion anywhere not including the canadian veterans that has been soundly debunked
This concept of coercion is an invention of care not killing the American evangelical fundamentalist funded anti group. Its their latest attempt to invent secular reasons to oppose. A part of their fibbing for god
Previous attempts to find something have failed to gain traction including the slippery slope and disabity scare stories
Coercion is possible if you invent scenarios but not plausible given the number of professionals you would have to fool. The fact the patient is interviewed on their own and be cooling off period
I firmly believe that is sufficient checks and balances.
Is that where we really want?
Apparently so since currently the state is inserting itself and saying no you cant.
I am not quite sure why you are hung up on the state "making the decision" since clearly they arent. They just arent blocking someones decision.
If you arent wanting the state involved in the process, for reasons I dont quite understand, surely the right answer is to remove any restrictions and have no process?
Ian Birrell is a prominent atheist
Went to Ampleforth college, so a pretty catholic upbringing. May also be influenced by immediate family circumstances.
Not too sure what your point is, but I know several non-catholic parents who send their children to private catholic schools, so that doesn't make him a catholic. He's published several articles stating that he's an atheist. Do you and TJ really think that he's some undercover religious fanatic??
Thete has never been a case of coercion anywhere worldwide.
you can't know that, and the Veterans case that you dismiss on a technicality is clearly coercion to anyone neutral and was investigated by the Canadians as a case of coercion, Again stop dismissing everything as the work of regilous propaganda
And it's not the only case that's troubling. there are at least two others of a man who's brother was accepted for MIAD after being sectioned and a women who wrote to her family and confessed that she was going through MAID because she didn't have the support that otherwise would've changed her mind.
It's not failsafe. and the question still requires an answer, if we don't have the death penalty because it might go wrong, why is ok to allow assisted dying when that also might go wrong?