Assisted Dying Debate

Is anyone else following this fairly closely?

This is something I have thought about quite a bit, having lost my Father to MND a couple of years ago.  He was a intellectual juggernaut of a man and to watch his body degrade to the point of not being able to move/eat/speak and being constantly in pain was truly heart breaking. Near the end he stated several times he’d like to “just die”.

Whilst, in most things I can see both sides of the debate, I’m really struggling to find empathy for those who believe (for whatever reason) that people should not have the choice to go out with dignity on their own terms and criminalizes those who would attempt to help them.

Now, the legislation being put forward would not help people in my father’s exact position as he would have not been able to administer a lethal dose of anything himself as he would simply not have had the manual dexterity to do so.

Based on what I have read about the laws elsewhere in the world we seem to be massively behind the times.

Interested in peoples thoughts…

Interested to hear peoples thoughts.

Yes. I’ve had a few close relatives die pretty nasty deaths through cancer. (My mother was in horrendous pain, and effectively insensible because of it and medication for a few weeks before her death.)

Whilst, in most things I can see both sides of the debate, I’m really struggling to find empathy for those who believe (for whatever reason) that people should not have the choice to go out with dignity on their own terms and criminalizes those who would attempt to help them.

Especially, imo, when their motives are grounded in faith, not in empathy.

Now, the legislation being put forward would not help people in my father’s exact position as he would have not been able to administer a lethal dose of anything himself as he would simply not have had the manual dexterity to do so.

I don’t actually think that the proposals would help a lot of people. My mother was diagnosed 4 months before her death – would that have been enough time to jump through the hoops, even if she had been capable of going through that process? She certainly wasn’t capable of administering anything to herself for the last few weeks.

Wondered where the thread was about this. I’m watching the debate and getting a bit annoyed at all the moralising*. The only argument against in my opinion is that it could result in the erosion of palliative care. To be honest I’d go a lot further than terminal illness.

*Also getting a bit annoyed at all the MPs patting themselves on the back about how brilliant they are at debating the issue. Err, yeah, that’s your jobs!

the erosion of palliative care.

Palliative care (around here) was almost non-existent twenty years ago, in my experience. It can’t have eroded any further?

The No Camp group 1 – Religious or ethical objections. These will not change so cannot be argued with.
The No Camp group 2 – Don’t want to open the door to the risk of people being ‘forced’ to die because they feel a burden or are bullied to do so. Understandable concerns and can sufficient safeguards be built in that won’t be diluted over time?
The No Camp group 3 – I am interested in hearing from these.

The Yes Camp group 1 – I am an individual. I am free etc – Like the religious/.ethical lot but from the other side. Unconvertable.
The Yes camp group 2 – They have seen or can imagine the suffering and want to remove that. Understandable concerns and can sufficient safeguards be built in that won’t be diluted over time?
The Yes Camp group 3 – I am interested in hearing from these.

I don’t actually think that the proposals would help a lot of people. My mother was diagnosed 4 months before her death – would that have been enough time to jump through the hoops, even if she had been capable of going through that process? She certainly wasn’t capable of administering anything to herself for the last few weeks.

yes 4 months is sufficient time.  It needs slightly more than two weeks start to finish (and i thjnk if the doctors agree that is not enough it can be shortened).    But I do agree that the self administration issue, whilst included for good reasons, does actually make the approach less useful and somewhat ironically for a “safeguard” actually puts slight pressure on people to act earlier.

There was an interesting podcast from the NewsAgents on this. It would not help people who would be unable to physically act themselves and who were not diagnosed with a terminal condition expected to end their life within 6 months. One of the points they flagged is that in passing this bill it may set the motion in stone and make it very difficult to extend it to provide this option to people with conditions not covered by the current framework

As a vet this is something I have a relatable experience of. I have had a huge number of clients who have commented over the years after we have put down an old and suffering dog or cat that they wished that this had been an option for their parent relative who died in pain/suffering.

There was a chap some years back (I think he had MND) who lobbied actively for an assisted dying law. His point was that he would not be able to self-administer and wanted his wife to be able to assist his dying process (administer the medication) without fear of facing a murder charge.

This current proposal seems nonsense to me at total ignores the ‘assisted’ aspect (bar the NHS actually preparing the meds.) Self-administering also presents the risk hat people will rush to take their own lives whilst they still can, potentially some time before they would otherwise chose to go.

The current legislation also seems to ignore the fact that suicide is already legal, anyone (terminally ill or not) can already legally self-administer a lethal dose (meds. are available online & paracetamol freely available at the supermarket) or alternately choose other avenues.

It seems really ill thought out and the less than six month prognosis rather arbitrary ignoring a whole variety of chronic, long-term conditions that might also make life intolerable.

I’m inclined to think that there’s a real possibility of this passing, people thinking that we now have ‘assisted dying’ and that nothing is achieved & further progress stymied. Although I think that I read somewhere that the government won’t adopt it if it passes.

I’ve had the debate on all morning. I think this is the first time I’ve actually listened to Parliament doing what it’s supposed to do… having calm reasoned and informed debate, instead of just hurling abuse at each other like a bunch of school kids

My dad is presently in end of life care with prostate and bone cancer. He has now broken his femur and can no longer walk. It’s horrible watching him deteriorate so rapidly. He has already told me that he just wants to die now. Which is heartbreaking to hear

I’m listening to MPs saying we must improve palliative care. Yes you do. Because right now it is beyond woeful. Last Saturday I spent 14 hours in A&E with him when he fell and broke his femur. A man with stage 4 cancer was left for 14 hours on a trolley in a corridor, in agony. So sort that out first, before telling me about your objections. It’s just high-minded bullshit with no grounding in reality

Since our last thread on this topic my MIL has had sue rider round in Wednesday to discuss end of life options, and my Mum has had (last week) a major seizure on top of her stroke and progressing dementia…

TBH despite it being a very real issue for us, I am increasingly turned off by the public ‘debate’ which has very much started to acquire the whiff of points scoring either way, rather than any real discussion of the needs of people dying painful and undignified deaths.

TBH No proposal could ever be ‘perfect‘ in terms of safeguarding or threshold criteria, but can something better than the current status quo be achieved?

I think morally there’s probably not a robust argument against the ‘choice’. However as a society we’ve been slowly moving away from a community of people to individualism, and as a step on that path, this is of course the ultimate expression of that individualism. There’s probably a philosophical debate in there about us as modern humans, that we’re striving so hard against the very thing that marks out as a successful species.

I’m generally against the state ordering the death of, or helping  it’s citizens to kill themselves when we take so very little care to preserve and enrich those same citizens lives while they live. I’m not against arranging our deaths to be as comfortable and as dignified as they can be, I just don’t think the state to take an active role in that process, they should just provide the best scenarios for each, and GTF out of the way after that.

In every country that has enacted these laws, more and more of their citizens are choosing to end their lives, Canada for instance has seen an order of magnitude more from 2016 to 2022, and under pressure from legal challenges mounted from it citizens (like every other country) are being forced to widen and allow the choice to more and more groups each of whom have claimed – largely successfully that they should enjoy the same rights to end their lives as those who were included in original legislation. In Canada claims have been made that injured Vets (Soldiers) while claiming for assisted living provisions were asked if they’d like MAID (the Canadian assisted dying programme) options, others have said the the reason they’ve chosen to end their lives is loneliness. I wouldn’t presume to argue that it’s not entirely each individual’s choice to decide when to die, but I think pressure should be placed on governments to provide an equally robust set of legislation to make sure that every provision to end life naturally with dignity and comfort should be enacted at the same time, and with the same attention as the provision to take life.

Especially, imo, when their motives are grounded in faith, not in empathy.

Yep. Anyone whose point of view is based on fairy stories should just be ignored. It’s gobsmacking that we give them the time of day TBH.

I am firmly of the opinion that people with terminal illness should be able to choose good quality palliative care or to be able to choose the time of their passing.

I also think the safeguards proposed are enough to satisfy me it would be good system IF we had enough doctors, judges and other infrastructure in place to deliver the policy in practice.

Though I watch the creep of such legislation beyond those with terminal illness in other countries with some concern.

Yeah, all the religious cobblers is really winding me up. I don’t want to know why your particular Sky-fairy is ‘guiding’ your judgment. That’s not what you were elected for.We’re a secular country and the politicians should therefore follow the Alastair Campbell maxim “we don’t do god!”

Just listening to Robert Jenrick confirming my opinion of him as a total ****! I’ve never heard such self-righteous scaremongering bullshit!

One of the points they flagged is that in passing this bill it may set the motion in stone and make it very difficult to extend it to provide this option to people with conditions not covered by the current framework

One of the “anti” arguments is that this is the thin end of the wedge.  It can’t be both.  In reality it is neither – Parliament has the power to make, ammend and revoke laws – MPs can do it, or can refuse to do it.

As for the religious side debate.

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs. Otherwise we can be, rightly, accused of the same intolerance that some religions presume over the rights of women’s reproduction. It shouldn’t of course be the reason we don’t enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic, despite the fact that of course they wouldn’t extend the same to us non-believers.

Jenrick disgusts me on a visceral level. His government were absolutely responsible for the state of palliative care in this country.

Like Binners I had to watch my 80 year old mum literally begging to die as bowel cancer took her away.

I don’t even wish that on Jenrick. But I do feel the lying dishonest piece of shit should stop his grandstanding and pretence that he cares about anything other than lining his own pockets.

I’m not against arranging our deaths to be as comfortable and as dignified as they can be, I just don’t think the state to take an active role in that process

Surely the state shouldn’t need to take an active role in it, it should be impassive and allow it’s citizens to end their own lives in a way that they see fit? It should only be there to prevent misuse of the law.

In every country that has enacted these laws, more and more of their citizens are choosing to end their lives

Isn’t that simply because most of this legislation is very recent. In Canada it was brought in in 2016, so it’s natural that numbers will increase until they plateau.

others have said the the reason they’ve chosen to end their lives is loneliness

And then there would be options provided to ameliorate the problem, not euthanasia?

Fwiw, I quite enjoyed the debate on Question Time about it last night, and while I loathe the man and disagree with him, Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke very eloquently regarding his non-faith based concerns which made me rethink my own position.

@nickc Tolerance is best described as a social contract and construct if anyone is intolerant they are outwith the contract and as such are no longer entitled to any tolerance from society.

@Binners My mother was the same but refused medication and faced the wall, her brain stem cancer did the rest. it was a tough 10 days.

Surely the state shouldn’t need to take an active role in it

The legislation proposed requires the agreement of two doctors and a judge. That’s pretty active engagement.

Isn’t that simply because most of this legislation is very recent.

Yes partly of course, but its also a function of extending the provision to more and more groups. The end point presumably  (the slippery slope that Trudeau said was a myth) is allow anyone at anytime to arrange their deaths for any reason. Is that what folks think this will end up at some point in one ore more of the countries that have already enacted these laws? Once you’ve started on a path…

And then there would be options provided to ameliorate the problem, not euthanasia?

The women who’s case this was had some pretty severe physical disabilities, she said in a letter to her relatives to be opened after her death, that she felt she could’ve borne those, if she’d have had some help and companionship.

@nickc Tolerance is best described as a social contract and construct if anyone is intolerant they are outwith the contract and as such are no longer entitled to any tolerance from society.

Well they do say that democracy contains the means of it’s own downfall in that it is tolerant of intolerance. I freely admit that I’m a bleeding heart liberal, it’ll probably be the death of me…

Also worth noting is that if it passes today, it goes to committee and then on to the Lords, and then I think back to the Commons.

Point is – It can be further tweaked before becoming law.

As for the religious side debate.

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs

Or, your religious beliefs shouldn’t prevent me from ending my life if I’m suffering. If you don’t want to utilise that legislation then nobody is going to force you to. (Not you personally, of course!)

@Idlejon yes of course. Religious objectors disguising thier beliefs as spurious non-religious arguments should be shown the door. If they can’t be honest in this debate then no attention should be paid to their views.

If they can’t be honest in this debate then no attention should be paid to their views.

They won’t be honest because most of their objections can be dismissed so easily, so they have to rely on obfuscation and exaggeration. My MiL, a very active church goer, sent my daughters (but not me!) a round robin message asking them to oppose the ‘very dangerous assisted suicide laws’.

They won’t be honest because most of their objections can be dismissed so easily

I know a couple of Muslim GPs who are concerned about how this legislation is going to be drawn up and how it might effect them. In Canada as a GP you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

It shouldn’t of course be the reason we don’t enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic

I am not sure how? Banning from speaking etc sure but “heap scorn” should be an option in the same way it would be if someones real reason for opposing the bill was their belief in chemtrails. It would be nice if they were open about it as well. Start with the “for religious reasons” and then add any other they fancy afterwards.

So long as religious doctors/judges are given the option to opt out of being involved then it comes down to the personal beliefs of the patient.

Tuned onto the debate while driving. I have to say, if all matters were discussed with the seriousness and thoughtfulness that I’ve just heard, our society would be in a better place.

Didn’t hear any religious arguments, but I did hear some well articulated arguments about coercion, vulnerable patients “not wanting to be a burden” and the mission creep that has occurred in other countries, which concerns me as someone with poor mental health.

I do have concerns around the “self-administered” aspect as well – if the doctors/courts agree you should be able to end your life, I don’t see it matters who does it to help you.

So long as religious doctors/judges are given the option to opt out of being involved

Yes I agree with that. See my point about how the legislation has drawn up in Canada where GPs have to refer pats onto to another GP that will guide them through MAID if they feel they cannot. I don’t think forcing a scare resource like GPs to act in ways they don’t feel they could/should (for any reason, not just religion) is a good way to proceed.

“not wanting to be a burden”

Seems to be code for ‘I am a Christian”, presumably sent out as the on-point message. It’s been used by everyone on Radio 4 who has then been asked about their faith.

In Canada as a GP you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

It’s not fair on the dying person if the GP they speak to won’t agree to be part of the process for ‘other’ reasons.

As for the religious side debate.

We should, as a tolerant society, listen and pay attention to the wishes of everyone. Which naturally includes those who are anti this legislation becasue of their beliefs. Otherwise we can be, rightly, accused of the same intolerance that some religions presume over the rights of women’s reproduction. It shouldn’t of course be the reason we don’t enact laws, but to heap scorn on them for expressing their deeply held beliefs seems undemocratic, despite the fact that of course they wouldn’t extend the same to us non-believers.

At the risk of going down an aside, I am increasingly finding it harder and harder to justify the need to be mindful of people’s religious views.  Why does a belief in a deity get special status but belief that the earth is flat, that vaccines are harmful, that we’ve never put a man on the moon get ridiculed?  Why does someone’s refusal to move forward from a millenia old social construct around the importance of the church to society and the bits of a holy book that suit their interpretation/lifestyle need to be respected and considered whenever making laws and policies but we treat “freemen of the land” and their highly selective interpretation of their doctrine to suit their situation as crackpots.  Why is a preacher operating under the auspices of a church any more worthy of attention or tolerance than Andrew Tate or his ilk?

Churches and other religious institutions have done some good work and many continue to play an important role in society but they have also done a lot of harm.  Its quite staggering the level they still try to have influence in political circles.  I 100% believe you should not be persecuted for your beliefs and not generally be disadvantages in society from holding them – but that is quite different from making those people protected from criticism and the opinions open to challenge.

you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

Refusing to administer medical care based on your own feelings or beliefs… fair enough… refusing to refer someone on to get their care… well, you shouldn’t be in primary care. Your patients rely on you to be the gateway to treatments, including those you can’t/won’t be involved in yourself.

What wrong with not wanting to be a burden? The simple fact is that people who are suffering and who want to die are a burden on their families and it’s a totally natural concern for anyone to not want to be in that position. It’s weird that we celebrate people who give their lives for their country but think people giving their lives to help their family are wrong.

I know a couple of Muslim GPs who are concerned about how this legislation is going to be drawn up and how it might effect them.

What do you mean – going to be drawn up.  Its a Bill, it has already been drawn up, its available for everyone to review, their professional bodies will already have expressed views.  It is of course still subject to ammendment but hypothetical concerns about scenarios that are or are not already covered sounds like people trying to justify an opposition without putting in any effort to find the facts.

In Canada as a GP you don’t have to agree to be a part of MAID but are forced (by the legislation) to refer a patient to a GP who is. I’m not certain that’s a good way to proceed.

s.23 of the Bill makes clear that nobody is under any duty to provide assistance.  I have some concerns that someone seeking advice from their GP, may if the GP has strong personal objections, not direct them to appropriate advice (or place some pressure on them not to do it), but I would rather that the vast majority of people were able to access advice on this than a vocal minority of GP’s manage to block if from parliamentary ascent because it doesn’t fit with their own personal moral code.

@kelvin, it fundamentally changes the patient doctor relationship in a way that some doctors perceive it. We’re short of GPs in this country, making them choose between following new legislation and  their convictions isn’t going to be a great decision if they start to leave the profession rather than force them to engage with a process they don’t agree with. Unintended consequences and all that.

As long as the legislation deals with it in a way that is at the very least aware of this an an issue, perhaps a new specialty for instance where doctors or GPs can elect to be involved in this sort of care, rather than the presumption of having to opt out.

Dunt is interesting on this, as he always is – sounds like (Jennrick aside) for once Parliament did its job in a sober, thoughtful, compassionate manner.

If only it were always like that.

 but that is quite different from making those people protected from criticism and the opinions open to challenge.

No one has said that they should be protected. All I suggested is that in a democratic society we should let everyone have their say – even those we disagree with.

FWIW I don’t think anyone who professes to believe that (for example) the earth is flat should be heaped with scorn either, telling someone they’re an idiot (even if they are) is rarely a successful strategy to change their mind

If GPs are going to deny access to services, then there there needs to be other routes for patients, and those routes need to be accessible and understandable.  Navigating the NHS without a supportive GP isn’t easy for anyone, never mind those suffering their hardest days.