Assisted Dying Debate

I don’t disagree. Of the GPs I’ve spoken to about this, it’s about 50/50 of doctors who think that they’ll have no issues whatsoever with this, it’s another way of helping patients with their medical needs, there are others who see it as fundamentally, as a matter of principle, that they cannot engage with it. Personally I think if this passes, I don’t think pats will find it difficult to access.

I have no personal experience around the matter nor any religious angle, but I do harbour some “thin end of the wedge” objections.  But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.  Addressing the question the other way round, had we already an assisted dying law in place that was seen as “troubling” in one way or another and a private member’s bill to ban it was put forward under similar circumstances, ie very early in a brand new Parliamentary cycle, I think there is a high chance MPs would vote for it because it gave them an early opportunity “to do something”.  I would rather this was trailed for a year or two before it came before a more seasoned Parliament.

I can only speak as regards our own newly elected MP… and the caution being shown by them is immense. It looks like an anguished and considered debate and vote from their account. From that, I can only guess that your guess about new MPs might be wide of the mark.

Bill passed; 330 to 275. Closer than I expected

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.

We may be arguing over semantics and I’m not necessarily arguing with you, rather that notion that religious bodies have such influence in parliament but I’ve highlighted bits of what you said in bold:

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.

come across as suggesting that their views should carry some additional weight because they are deeply held, and I should pay attention to them even if I believe they are completely wrong for to do otherwise would be intolerant.  That certainly sounds like you think religious views merit some degree of additional protection.  But my aim wasn’t to start a war over this.  My discomfort is not that doctors or nurses with religious views will have a consciencous objection clause (you might be interested to consider that Judges do not) but rather that parliamentarians were using religion to steer their decision making.

But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable objection, it seemed a thoughtful, compassionate, deeply sober debate. And there’s a long way to go before it becomes law – if this has been unsafely passed purely for the “go us!” headlines, there are many opportunities to stop it in the future.

I have no personal experience around the matter nor any religious angle, but I do harbour some “thin end of the wedge” objections.  But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.  Addressing the question the other way round, had we already an assisted dying law in place that was seen as “troubling” in one way or another and a private member’s bill to ban it was put forward under similar circumstances, ie very early in a brand new Parliamentary cycle, I think there is a high chance MPs would vote for it because it gave them an early opportunity “to do something”.  I would rather this was trailed for a year or two before it came before a more seasoned Parliament.

Yeah, lets not have MPs making any important decisions on their own whilst still green.  Tough luck for the people who might be able to take advantage of the bill, but we need to see this lot prove their debating skills and following the party briefings first.  WTF!  This still needs to go through committee stages, the lords etc the debate is far from over.  Nobody who currently has <6 months to live will possibly benefit.   The worrying thing is that suddenly some MPs realised they were elected to make important decisions not just follow the party instructions.  Perhaps having been forced to make such a “huge” decision they will now look at every other policy they vote on with a little more clarity about its real implications now that they’ve felt the ability for the individual to have an influence.  Whilst I accept the need for the party whip to get stuff done and move policy and budgets etc forward, I would thoroughly welcome far more policy being subject to free votes and the level of genuine debate it fosters.

But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role; there is almost certainly a very big urge among this cohort “to do something”, especially when they are not being pushed around by their respective party bosses.

They may be new to parliament but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t intelligent professional people, some of whom will have experienced, first hand, the need for this debate to happen. It’s not a political thing, it’s a societal one. And, if they wanted to push something through for the sake of it, there must have been something easier?

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

come across as suggesting that their views should carry some additional weight because they are deeply held

Yeah, fair enough @poly, it does read like that, it wasn’t my intent to put so much emphasis. I don’t think the religious should get special treatment, nor do I think their views should be dismissed out of hand.

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

I think you’re wrong.

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

How?

I know two new MPs personally – my own MP who I campaigned with since she was selected and the MP of our neighboring constituency as we both used to work in the same organisation. They are both very considered and intelligent people and have spoken to many of their constituents as well as receiving hundreds of items of correspondence on the issue.

One voted for and one against and have articulated real and considered reasons for their decision.  This is a hugely difficult thing for MPs to make – free votes on such major issues are rare and historic.  I can assure you that neither will have taken their decision or responsibilities in way lightly

But my main objection is that this is a newly elected Parliament packed full of eager fresh-faced MPs new to their role

My MP has held two public meetings specifically about this for his constituents to come and air their views. He then posted an extensive explanation of all the things he had considered in making his decision, with reference to those views

I can’t think of any other issue over which MPs seem to have been so thorough

After what I’ve listened to today, I only wish more important votes were free votes, with MPs of all parties able to vote without being whipped

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

There is some interesting and thoughtful debate about this issue and there is some nonsense.

I expect the severely disabled, ‘who have no quality of life’, will have the decision made for them.

Some disabled rights groups have highlighted that but I am not quite sure how this would result in them having the decision made for them? Two doctors and a judge would need to buy into it and in addition “quality of life” isnt included.

The objections from these groups seem to relate to the use of DNRs without proper consent. Which is obviously concerning and perhaps needs review to ensure it does have proper safeguards in place. However doesnt have any real relationship to this.

To be able to make use of Dignitas my sister-in-law had to actually end her life earlier than she really wanted to, otherwise she would have missed the boat and be left to endure her remaining life bedridden and incapable of doing anything unaided. The level of care she would have received was not an issue, she just didn’t want that life as an MS sufferer, she’d already gone from very active cyclist to only having the use of one arm, over a period of just 10yrs, so she had plenty of time to make that decision which was very much against the will of my brother & nephews, however we still helped her to get to Dignitas and for that we got fully investigated by the police (who were very good about it) after months of waiting we finally received the decision by the CPS not to prosecute. The law as it is proposed wouldn’t even cover this, as being in her mid 50s she had years ahead of her, however we as a family are for the current proposal and hope that it will lead to an extension at a future date. The whole 6 months to live thing seems quite flawed as I doubt many doctors would be very definite about it, my friend died 6 months to the day from diagnosis – I doubt any doctor would have been able to predict that.

Wrote to my MP and brother had a meeting with his, seems like quite a few conservatives are voting against the bill for reasons of worrying about people thinking they are a burden and should take the assisted dying option. 🙁

The most common sense vote in decades.

Why does a belief in a deity

Thinking of the religious people I know, I can’t think of any who define their religion as a belief in a deity, they are far more likely to think of self-improvement or a way to support society.

I’m not religious, but it seems a lot of the “anti-religious” folk have a very outdated view of what being religious means to those who are.

Anyway, the bill was passed, be interesting to see if/how it gets amended in the committee stage.

Thinking of the religious people I know, I can’t think of any who define their religion as a belief in a deity, they are far more likely to think of self-improvement or a way to support society.

plenty of philosophies to follow if your belief is in improving self or society without needing to follow a religion – which by definition is the organisation of those beliefs around worship.   I fully accept that lots of people participate in religion without being particularly strong believers in the deity or particularly driven by that particular sect’s interpretation of the rule book but if you are trying to use your religion to influence politics I’m not sure you are in the “self improvement” or “support society” camp – you are then trying to impose your religion on others.

It’s a start but doesn’t go far enough, I need an out before my spms totally paralyses my body as at the current rate of disease progression it’ll be sooner rather than later, but if that medical availability doesn’t come in the next couple of years then I’ll use heroin, at least that’s available to me in pure form from certain areas online and I know how to prepare it myself

About time (though I agree it probably doesn’t go far enough). My right to die with dignity at a time of my choosing trumps some religious fundie’s ranting about “sanctity of life” and other such bullshit.

As folk will probably know because of what I have seen in my professional and private life I am a passionate advocate for assisted dying and personally I would go a lot further with the law.

There is a Scots bill going thru holyrood which has taken a while to get this far – its in committee.  It does not include a six month limit nor an automatic judicial review.  Its a good bill with strong safeguards.

The bill at Westminster is a pet project of Starmers really.  He knows from his time as a prosecutor that the current law is an ass  Rightly as PM he is refusing to get involved in the bill however.  It must be a conscience vote without a party line at all.

The anti side are a well organised and funded “christian” fundamentalists.  The same folk who brought you SPUC – the nasty anti abortion lot.  The three main organisations pretending to be grassroots are all funded from the same murky sources.

I don’t think the Westminster bill is as good.  Automatic judical review is a nonsense as it creating some nebulous legal idea of “coercion”  coercion never happens – usually pressure is the other way.  doing this gives credence to the nonsense spouted buy the above bampots

I have no objection with a religious justification for not wanting it.   Mamood has made it clear her objection is because of her faith.  Streeting less so.  Apparently behind the scenes Starmer is furious with Streeting in particular and he has been told to shut up.

The Scottish parliament has made a good job of looking at our bill and it looks like good law.  I am hoping that gets thru and westminster could do well to just copy it

A significant majority of the whole of the UK are in favour of changing the law

but if that medical availability doesn’t come in the next couple of years then I’ll use heroin, at least that’s available to me in pure form from certain areas online and I know how to prepare it myself

Worse ways to go.  Get some midazolam in the mix *wink*

Julies story tells two main things

That the desire for assisted dying comes from a place of love and that even the best palliative care leaves gaps

If there is anyone I haven’t bored with the gory details PM me.  Its a good story to make the case

Personally, as with abortion, it’s all about body autonomy, and I believe that each individual should have the choice available to them, to choose whatever is the best option for their particular circumstance.

This is a start at least.

Thankfully my father didn’t suffer,  but other family members have.  We should be aiming for a ‘good’ death not just a painless one.

There have to be limits to prevent people being pushed into it,  but ultimately it should be sometimes choice to end their life should they wish it.

I hope I will never be in that situation,  but if I am I how this law will allow me to choose a good death

Someone I know ended up under police investigation for assisting a relative to use Dignitas. Hopefully this bill will end such nonsense.

Someone I know ended up under police investigation for assisting a relative to use Dignitas. Hopefully this bill will end such nonsense.

it won’t (unless they fall into the very narrow range of people who qualify in the new Bill but who would need assistance to travel to Switzerland).

I hope I will never be in that situation, but if I am I how this law will allow me to choose a good death

Yup. It reminds me of the knife I have in my buoyancy aid.

I dont want to ever use it for the reason I brought it but I still want it there.

Personally, as with abortion, it’s all about body autonomy, and I believe that each individual should have the choice available to them, to choose whatever is the best option for their particular circumstance.

Nicely sums up my feelings on the matter. I’m also with @dazh on the not wanting to be a burden stance. The last thing I would want is my kids having to look after me when they should be living their lives. Not wanting to be a burden is as valid a reason as any other.

A society that deems it okay to end the misery and suffering of a beloved pet, but stops an individual ending their own pain, or their loved ones from helping, is a bit shit.

What  bothers me is this concept of a slippery slope, where we let the terminally ill be helped to die, then it gets widened bit by bit until just anybody can be assisted to die willy-nilly just because they want to.

So what! its their choice if for whatever reason they have decided the game is no longer worth the candle. And if you would rather they didn’t, then rather than force them to continue then make their situation better so they might see a point. Be that better medical or palliative care, better standard of living or whatever.

I am very much in favour of better care for those that need it, but I have little faith that it will be forthcoming when the time comes.

So what! its their choice if for whatever reason they have decided the game is no longer worth the candle

That and what is stopping someone now? Aside from those who are dependant on others whether thats due to being in a hospital bed or severely disabled we are all going to have the option now.

If anything I would guess that someone choosing to go down the official route with all the delays that entails would make it less likely they choose to go ahead. After all slowing things down is the reason behind why you can only buy limited numbers of certain pills and why barriers are put in certain places. It doesnt stop someone who is really determined but does give the time to think for everyone else.

I would like to see how many of the mps arguing passionately that this might be seen as an alternative to substandard palliative care have been passionately arguing for palliative care in the past. My guess is like the “pro birth” lobby in the states their interest rapidly wanes.

For me and only me, it’s probably the first bit of legislation in my lifetime that’s given me some control of my future. Once again it’s demonstrated the controlling nature of religion and its strange mix of comfort and control.

What bothers me is this concept of a slippery slope, where we let the terminally ill be helped to die, then it gets widened bit by bit

Can only be done by partliament so if our elected representatives want to?

until just anybody can be assisted to die willy-nilly just because they want to.

Even in the most liberal applications of an assisted dying law this does not happen

The murky astroturf anti campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/16/revealed-grassroots-campaigns-opposed-to-assisted-dying-financed-by-conservative-christian-pressure-groups

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.

This is the sort of detail to be thrashed out in committee.  All the detail work starts now.  there must be robust conscientious objection clauses in place

The slippery slope stuff is bollocks. It went through this time fairly narrowly by around 40 votes for yes. If the bill was along the lines of anyone can just choose to end their life with assistance from state then I imagine very few MPS would have voted it through, i.e in the single digits if any at all.

The disabled stuff is also bollocks unless the disabled person is terminally ill with 6 months to live where they would get the same choices as everyone else.

We know the slippery slope is bollocks, but its a widely believed falsehood. My point is even were it true- why do people have to meet certain arbitrary levels of suffering. We don’t know what people are enduring, if they decide life is not for them any more then give them a supported and dignified exit rather than making it as difficult and unpleasant as possible to prevent them. Or improve their lot so they might wish to stay.

Once again the some religious are attempting to use the legal system to inflict their morality on others via the legal system. Like with abortion or gay marriage, it’s not enough for them to not particpate they have to go stopping other people too.

It’s dissapointing this is stil la thing in 2024.