Forum menu
surely the right answer is to remove any restrictions and have no process?
TJ is coming from the POV that everyone should have the right to end their lives. the establishment is coming at it from the POV " let's organise it so we don't get sued when we make a mistake and allow someone we shouldn't have done, to end their life"
the two are basically incompatible
His online biography states he is a catholic athiest whatever that is
I did retract the criticism as i am unable to read the article i did ask what he was basing his opposition on but no one said. I suspect his disabled daughter but i do not know.
The whole idea that disabled are at risk from this is another lie from the antis. In no jurisdiction is disabilty a criteria for assisted dying. Most disabilty advocacy groups support this measure.
Care not killing created a supposed disability advocacy group which is in actual fact just another front for these American fundamentalist evangelicals and does not represent the broader disability advocacy. Its called Not dead yet
The three groups to watch out fir are
Care not killing. Not dead yet and duty of care. All 3 are fronts for American evangelical fundamentalists whose MO is fibbing for god
Incorrect nickc.
I believe that those at the end of their life should have the choice.
I believe the Scottish bill and colarado are the correct models pretty much tho i would also alliw those with dementia or with othet progressive neurological duseases to make advanced directives
Nor is that what the bills for. Its s gross misrepresentation.
The bills are aimed at empowering people and preventing needless suffering
Jeepers nickc. You are usually far more perceptive
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,
I did not dismiss it on a technicality. . I explained the truth. They were NOT offered MAID. Its a simpke fact ans you are regurgitating the lies and distortion from tbese religious fundamentalists
If i said to you do you want to be king am i offering you the crown? No becaues i do not have that power nor are you eligable
Thete has never been a case if coercion anywhere world wide found.
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.
I dont know those. Care to give me more details so i can investigate . Ill bet my house tha actual truth is very different as it is in the veterans case
In canada the rates of MAID are highest amongst those with good access to healthcare and lowest amongst those with less access refuting the arguement that folk do this for lack of support.
In Canada you have to be of souns mind so being accepted after sectioning sounds extremly unlikely
TJ, I fully understand and support your intent but you are wide of the mark IMO on this line of argumentation and it's degrading the rest of you real, useful and lived experience.
There's no way you can say there has never been a case of coercion. A PROVEN case, maybe, but that's a very high benchmark and probably a fraction of the number overall.
Neither can you say that if the person doing the coercing hasn't the means to actually offer it then it isn't coercion. I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where people have been highly suggested, you've become a burden, etc., that results in a decision being made. You might prefer to call it persuasion to win the argument but where's the line - has no-one ever been 'persuaded' down that path, to then make the choice of their own volition?
Its a simpke fact ans you are regurgitating the lies and distortion from tbese religious fundamentalists
it's very convenient to be able to dismiss anything and everything as the work or religiously driven "antis" even though neither the investigations by the Canadian MOD into the coercive activities of the care worker nor the Disability advocacy group (that I've detailed who they are and where their funding comes from) have anything to do with religious groups.
You haven't engaged with any argument that opposes the right to die with anything other than a blanket "That's a fake argument raised by religious fundamentalists and propogandists, I'm not engaging with it or addressing it"
so there's really not much point in continuing.
His online biography states he is a catholic athiest whatever that is
His wikipedia page makes no mention of this and neitherdoes his website https://www.ianbirrell.com/about-me/ My google-fu may be failing me as I can't find any mention of him being a catholic
i am unable to read the article i did ask what he was basing his opposition on but no one said. I suspect his disabled daughter but i do not know.
I did provide a link, here it is again. Just because he has a disabled daughter doesn't mean that his opinion, or that of any other parent of a disabled child is any less valid.
https://www.ianbirrell.com/euthanasia-is-a-slippery-slope/
You haven't engaged with any argument that opposes the right to die with anything other than a blanket "That's a fake argument raised by religious fundamentalists and propogandists, I'm not engaging with it or addressing it"
i have addressed ir. pointed out the truth of the situation. described how the anti side have distorted the facts of what actually happened.
how can you address a lie otherwise?
in the canada veterans case they were NOT offered MAID. That is the actual truth
thanks for that natrix. I must have missed it. oll have a read and get back to you.
i cannot fi d that reference now either
I actually don't care if its a slippery slope, If people decide that for whatever reason they have had enough of life and want to end it then let them. Or do something about improving their lot physically, mentally or materially so it might seem worthwhile carrying on.
You don't have to take any part in their death, just don't go out of your way to make it as frightening, difficult and unpleasant as possible to coerce them into living.
natrix. rhat link is not working for me.
of course he is entitled to his opinion.
on disability
disability is not a qualifying criteria for an assisted death antwhere workd wide. in the UK many disability groups support it.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/79-disabled-people-support-change-law-assisted-dying/
jonv
its not just julie dying that shapes my views. its what i have seen in my professional life and other things in my personal life.
the issue is that the main opponants to this are willing to lie and distort the truth to oppose it. They as descibed in the pdf i posted are all run and funded by american and uk religious fundamentalists who believe that its acceptable to lie in doing gods work I have read their policy document where this is explicitly stated. they left this document on the publicly accesdible part of their website for a short time. they are being fundamentally dishonest
I have spoken to these folk directly. I have debated with them publicly. I have seen them doing this first hand.
the three anti groups most often quoted Care nor killing, not dead yet and duty of care are all a part of the same group of people.
they are the same folk that run SPUC
its very difficult to counter lies with the truth. when we have one voice saying the truth and 3 spreading the same lies in a coordinated manner
every single case i have seen rhat they use to support their arguement like the canadian veterans what you find is its either an outright lie or a tiny kernal of truth as in the canadian veterans but then distorted out of all recognition to make their case.
so how else can i counter their lies other than by stating the actual truth and pointing out where they lied?
on coercion
the only case the anti side have been able to come uo with is the canadian veterans one which as i have explained when you actually look at the facts is very far from what they claim. These veterans were not offered MAID.
i am happy to have safeguards built in but to say coercion is real is not backed by the facts
natrix
i got that link to open
he claims that in jurisdictions that have assisted dying it always increases the scope. this is not true. many jurisdictions have had the same laws for decades. look at colorado or some od the aystralian states. rhe idea that scope always increases is not boune out by the facts
some jurisdictions have increased scope. in the netherlands by parliamenent following public opinion
in canada the courts stated that mental illness shouls be a criteria following a case brought by a mental illness advocacy group. the law has not been changed yet
the canada case could not happwn here due to the supremacy of parliament over the courts
he states "finding 24 confirmed cases of people euthanised “simply because of the symptoms of having a learning disability or autism” with 15 other possibly related incidents. "
this case i have never heard of by my understanding that would not be legal under dutch law. i will look into this and get back with what i find
so yes he is entitled to his opinion as i am entitled to point out the flaws in his arguement
he also mentions this case
Then three years ago, Dutch courts said physicians could euthanise elderly people with severe dementia even if the patient no longer expressed desire for death, following a controversial case involving a distressed woman held down by her family as her life was ended.
this one looks very troubling on the surdace. My siater is an investigative journalist in the netherlands
she looked into this one and the woman involved had laid out a very strong advance directive when of sound mind and found the actual facts of the case were completly in line with dutch law.. she was not held down IIRC they held her hands still so the doc could insert the canula in accordance with her expressed wishes
I know you have plenty of other experience from your job, that's what I referred to.
How do you counter lies - very hard, I know in so many areas, but IMHO not by also sticking doggedly to a unlikely claim that no-one has ever been coerced into committing suicide.
It's either not true, or you'll then get trapped into saying that it's only coercion if the person doing the coercing actually then 'does the deed' and provides the means. Which might in your eyes be technically true but misses entirely my point that persuasion, convincing, all those other things that you might try and suggest aren't technically coercion by your definition are in many people's eyes the same thing.
apolgies for all the typos. i find typing on a phone very difficult and have managed to turn autocorrect off and cannot turn it back on
How do you counter lies - very hard, I know in so many areas, but IMHO not by also sticking doggedly to a unlikely claim that no-one has ever been coerced into committing suicide.
that is not what i said. people being coerced into suicide is real
in the case of assisted dying however i believe the checks and balances are sufficient to prevent this and there has never been a case of coercion come to light.
in the canadian case from memory at least one of the people involved is furious at the way their case has been distorted
Birrell again
I have spoken with a young woman seeking consent to die due to mental distress in next-door Belgium – the second country to sanction euthanasia and first to legalise it for children. “It is like physical pain,” she told me. ‘‘It feels like I am breaking apart.” Yet I have also read powerful evidence to the select committee from Ilora Finlay, a professor of palliative medicine in Cardiff who has worked in Holland. She detailed her experiences of looking after thousands of dying patients and having many conversations with people in despair, describing one patient who said he would kill himself in two weeks but was alive 11 years later. The cross bench peer insisted “that suicidal ideation disappears” if people get the right care and support.
Here he is conflating two very different scenarios.
The young woman involved had suffered from severe mental health difficulties for many years. She had been thru every type of treatment and support available. She just found her life intolerable
Its not the same as those with a terminal illness. No parralels can be drawn between two different types of situation.
A rational wish to die when you have a terminal illness and you find tbe future prospects unbearable is not. suicidal ideation
In my dutch extended family one member took advantage of the euthanasia law there. He had an agressive form of leukaemia. He didnt want to face the very unpleasant death that that would inevitably bring him so he took euthanasisa.
He did not have suicidal ideation. He had a rational desire to avoid an unpleasant death.
So yes sucididal ideation can be treated as it is an irrational symptom of mental illness. However a rational wish to not suffer at the end of your life is not suicidal ideation, cannot be treated and is why assisted dying and eithanasia laws are needed
So on this aspect Birrell is conflating two completely different things as the same.
Final thought for the now
The antis often state that good palliative care means there is no need for assisted dying. This is simpky nit so. Under current UK law we can only treat symptoms so you have to be in pain before you can have painkillers. You have to be in distress before you can have sedatives.
Some cases the pain is untreatable
In my dutch relatives case he would have had a failure of blood clotting and would die of bleeding in his body tissues and from every orifice. No palliative care can prevent that distressing death
Julie had the very best palliative care. She still had periods of pain fear and distress.
The antis try to make this a false choice. Assisted dying or palliative care. Infact you can be supportive of both as I am. Assisted dying should be an integral part of palliative care for thise who want it.
The Canadian experience is that a significant number if those who have completed the process for MAID never use it. Just knowing that they have the option teduces distress.
the Disability advocacy group (that I've detailed who they are and where their funding comes from) have anything to do with religious groups.
apologies. i missed that.
i have said all the opposition comes from religuosgrouos. just the vast majority often disguised as in the case of Not Dead Yet
disability groups are split with some in favour some against.
You haven't engaged with any argument that opposes the right to die with anything other than a blanket "That's a fake argument raised by religious fundamentalists and propogandists, I'm not engaging with it or addressing it"
i have, detailing falsehoods. explaining reality etc etc
on tbe canadian veterans its the use of the word offer i object strongly to. it makes it sound like they were handed the paperwork there and then.. on the actual facts of the case we are in agrement apart from on this point
if i say to you " do you want to be king?" have i offered you the job or is it just nonsense as i do not have tbe aurhority to do so and you are not eligable?
thats why the word is so critical. its deliberatly used to make it sound much more serious a case than it actually was tho it was serious enough
Natrix.
On the learning disability asd aspect. This is what my sister the dutch journalist said
"Er no... never come across that at all. It would not be possible under Dutch law because you have to give consent or have given consent. There have been a few cases of people with a variety of very serious mental issues - and attempted suicides. But just autism or a learning disbility, no."
Also this was found on pubmed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37218567/
To which my sister said the author has an obsession with this topic
Make of that what you will
I suspect a kernal of truth distorted out of all recognition
Sheila Hollins who Birrell quotes is a practicing devout Roman Catholic
In 2014 Pope Francis appointed her a member of the newly created Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and she became President of the Catholic Union of Great Britain in November 2023.
From wiki so she has a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't mean her point is wrong but its something to be weighed up when judging the quality of her evidence.
The roman catholic church are vehemently opposed to all assisted dying and have in the past been found doing this take a kernal of truth and twist it to suit your argument
Just info for you
In other news the isle of man has passed an assisted dying law. Cleared their parliament completly. Just awaiting royal assent
I wonder if there will be an attempt to block it. I doubt as Starmer is in favour
In the interests of correctness I found out that the multi disciplinary review panal is based on what they do in Spain. I thought it was just in the proposed English bill.
Apparantly it works well in Spain. I still think it unneeded but I was wrong about it never being used elsewhere
I doubt anyone is still interested but here is the words from the report.
VAC employee had inappropriately raised Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) with the Veteran during a phone conversation earlier that day. The Veteran indicated the employee also referred to having provided information on MAiD to another Veteran.
Not the same as offering MAID quite clearly
At 54 I will grow old with a lot less fear if I know I have a choice if the worst happens. That would have to include dementia though. I am more than happy to sign something to that affect now.
unfortunatly none of the uk bills will cover that sort of situation. Its a lot less clear cut and much more difficult to define criteria. it also probably requires someone to give the medication rather than self administration.
The netherlands you can make an advance directive and doctors administer the meds
whilst i am very sympathetic to the plight of people with dementia, to cover them in that way is expanding things a long way
its the same with progressive neurological diseases like MND
look at the resistance and push back over the very tightly drawn uk bills. now imagine trying to get a wider bill with less clear cut criteria thru
its an aspect I am simply not sure about. On the one hand it seems absurd thst people with dementia are unable to access assisted dying. On the other had to have doctor adminstered euthanasia on a 3rd parties judgement that the patients criteria laid down in an advance directive has been met makes me uneasy
not something I have an answer for
the author has an obsession with this topic
Pot calling the kettle black???? 😎
😜
Who me?
This is the mentality we are facing. This is why care not killing oppose this. Comment from facebook
The person was asked a out why she wants to see people suffer
"Yes because if one believes that suffering is preperation for eternal life and will make up for our wrongdoings . .everyone has done them .I have seen friends and family who have been granted that time to prepare and go back to God .....We dont know whats on the other side but personally I dontwant to take the risk because a few months is nothing compared to eternity ."
This is the mentality we are facing. This is why care not killing oppose this. Comment from facebook
The person was asked a out why she wants to see people suffer
"Yes because if one believes that suffering is preperation for eternal life and will make up for our wrongdoings . .everyone has done them .I have seen friends and family who have been granted that time to prepare and go back to God .....We dont know whats on the other side but personally I dontwant to take the risk because a few months is nothing compared to eternity ."
Jeez, that's an insane position to force on another human being.
Yup.
Mainstream catholic thinking
To make it clear that is not from care not killing but one of their supporters. However Care not killing and its sister organisations are all run and funded by religious fundamentalists .
I have met a woman dying in torment because she was a catholic and couldn't understand where she had sinned so badly to die of a nasty cancer and in a lot of pain
It haunts me to this day. I can see her face now
Hi TJ, thanks for message. No, not resolved yet, I started msg you but have 'reached my limit' so have emailed instead.
This article is worth a read. It might help settle a few uneasy feelings
Is that you in the photo tj?
No its not me🤣
The latest scare tactic from care not killing is to falsely claim thst people with anorexia will be able to get assisted dying.
They are really reaching with that one. The idea is that anorexics woll starve themselve to a point death is inevitable then ask fir assisted dying. There is a specific safeguard in leadbetters bill iirc and they would fail a competency test more than likely.
Care not killing are really pumping money and effort into their campaign and using their sister organisations not dead yet and duty of care in an astroturfing campaign
They know they have lost the battle for public opinions and are getting desperate .
I wonder what the next invention will be?
Many jurisdictions have had stable laws since starting. Canadas extention to mental heath conditions was court mandated. That cannot happen here.
The slippery slope thesis is another one of care not killings inventions. It is not bourne out by examination of internatioal practice and uk law
Edinbugh southern msp is having a public debate on this. Wed 7th May at 1830 Kings buildings. I think we have a few members in that constituency. maybe go along to show support. you need to book a place. it's on his Facebook page but no link available
contact Danial Johnson msp if you dont have Facebook
oh flip. just broke the formatting