Assisted Dying Debate

Once again the some religious are attempting to use the legal system to inflict their morality on others via the legal system.

Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you. And i find it quite extreme here that people are questioning the right of people to follow their chosen religion in light of its teachings on this issue

Maybe you agree with assisted death, and maybe you dont, but attacking people who disagree with it and using their religion as an excuse is not on.

Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you. And i find it quite extreme here that people are questioning the right of people to follow their chosen religion in light of its teachings on this issue

People can follow a religion and no one here has said they cannot.  What they cannot do is impose their religion on the secular which is what is being attempted here.

Religious belief has no place in complex decision making such as this. It is an individual right, in my opinion and religious beliefs, as with abortion, have no place in the discussion. Believe what you like but don’t think you can push that on to others. Don’t, for a second, think what you choose to believe should have any bearing on an individuals choice. There is a line and that is stepping over it. What someone decides to do with or to their own body, is their choice and nobody else’s.

People can follow a religion and no one here has said they cannot.

You’re right, nobody has said that. What some posters offer instead is childish taunts and belittling of faith. It’s a depressingly regular occurrence and shows a depressing lack of understanding.

I make no apology for belittling and taunting anyone who tries to use their evidence-free beliefs as a basis for controlling my behaviour.

I didnt say any of those things. If you think assisted death is a sin – don’t have one. You don’t get to tell me what I can or can’t do with my life because of your faith.

Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you.

It very much is when they are telling me who I can marry or how I choose to spend the end of my life.

Many people choose to live their lives by the teachings of their religion and that is fine if you don’t want to eat a particular meat or do “work” on the Sabbath then that’s fine don’t but don’t lock up the swings so others can’t. That’s forcing your belief onto others and is why religion shouldn’t be part of the legal system.
Don’t deny others because you don’t want to, it smacks of “ma ba’, your no playing”.

Most of the organised opposition to this are being fundamentally dishonest.  The religious right in the US have created and funded 3 supposedly grassroots organisations.  these outfits use the same lies and distortions.  They call it “fibbing for god”  They know they cannot win with a religious argument so invent fake secular reasons to object and make gross distortions of what happens elsewhere.  I have seen the briefing paper where they discuss doing this.  I have debated personally with these people.  Their minds are closed and its all about attempting to impose their religious viewpoint on the secular.  these are the same folk that harass abortion clinics.

If you follow a religion and want to argue against this because of your faith that is fine.  Do not pretend you have real secular objections when you know they are false

The last time i looked we were a secular democracy with separation of church and state. Religious types do not get special dispensation on this or any issue. And I am not sure archbishops and other christians in the debate have any right to talk to us about compassion and morality at this moment in time. Or any other religion.

I suspect we’ll see really dirty tactics  used in the next few months as parliament works to frame the actual act.

One of my issues is that the christian right pressure groups who are interfering are funded by the nutjobs who are behind Project 2025 in the US and think Trump is the second coming. They can F right off.

They’re coming for abortion too – this is going to be a long fight

The religious thing confuses me. Most (all?) religions believe in an afterlife, one that is better than this one. Why therefore do they oppose the idea of dying so much?

The other thing that confuses me are people who say we shouldn’t have assisted dying, we should have better palliative care. Can we not aspire to have both? It really doesn’t need to be either or.

And another thing!

one of the arguments put forward against it is that the medical systems and courts are already stressed and won’t be able to cope with the administration of this. So, fix the systems, don’t deny the chance of a decent death because of public sector failings.

It very much is when they are telling me who I can marry or how I choose to spend the end of my life.

Nobody is telling you who you can marry, and i’ve no idea why you would interject that into the conversation.But as to how you wish to spend your final time, well forgive me but that was the point of the vote wasnt it, and indeed the entire point of having this vote, and prior to that it was illegal.

So prior , while illegal, are you telling me that you would have done whatever even though it was illegal.

Until today(or whenever the law goes onto the statute books) to assist death was illegal. This would not be based on purely religious grounds, so please dont judge or decide that if others dont vote for it, that their vote is meaningless, because you dont think their religious reasons are justification enough.

Where else and in which laws have you decided you dont wish to follow ?. Its all down to your own personal interpretation of what the law is ?.

Im using your point of the quote, but im not singling you out, but everyone who thinks that someones religious bearing shouldnt be a factor in their voting.

For the record, I would have voted against the motion. But my reasons are my own, and i dont think that is justification for verbal assault. And especially not if those grounds were religious in nature.

It’s a depressingly regular occurrence and shows a depressing lack of understanding.

It is not a lack of understanding. It is intolerance of others using their personal or group belief system to influence a very important decision. One that attempts to impinge on the lives of others who do not follow or share their beliefs. It is ridiculous and needs to be stopped and called out whenever it occurs. It has no place whatsoever in this discussion and should be entirely removed from it.

So prior , while illegal, are you telling me that you would have done whatever even though it was illegal.

Although not aimed at me, I will answer this with a resounding yes I would. If someone I cared deeply about was suffering, in pain and wanted to end their life and asked for my help in doing so. Yes, I would help them and consequences be damned. It is a decision that should be taken by the individual. Not the state, not the church, not a court. Religion has no place in the discussion and should not, in any way, have a bearing on the decision.

All religious beliefs are relics of a bygone era in my opinion. I will absolutely defend people’s right to believe in anything they choose. You want to keep practicing said beliefs as an individual. Fine, knock yourself out, join other like-minded people. Go for it, but, and it’s a big but, as soon as you start thinking your personal beliefs have any sway on others and how they choose to live, there’s the door. Don’t let it hit you on the way out.

I am pro assisted dying. My life, my death. Thank you. I am very pleased to see that FOR ONCE parliament has actually functioned properly with intelligent debate & progressive thought being demonstrated. Truly pleased. If only we’d had the same kind of conversation over Brexit….but I digress..

What I am often curious about woth the religious faithful in these discussions is the cry “it’s not gods will!” How do they know what gods will is? I wonder if it’s not actually a smokescreen to their own opinions?

You’re putting words in my mouth again, I never said any of that.

I said that some religious people are attempting to use legislation to impose their religious beliefs on me and that I didnt like it.

I said nothing about

* my respect for religious beliefs

* if I would would participate in a (currently) illegal assisted death

* if I break laws I disagree with as a general priciple

We are a secular country and that means that whatever your faith is, if you’re an MP then as you enter the parliament you leave that at the door.

You are there to represent your constituents and reflect their views. And they are not overly religious so I don’t want to know about whichever deity is ‘informing’ how you vote. You can worship who the hell you like in your own time but when you’re on the clock your ‘faith’ can stay out of it

make no apology for belittling and taunting anyone who tries to use their evidence-free beliefs as a basis for controlling my behaviour

This

What’s notable in here is how more heated the debate is than it was in parliament yesterday. I didn’t see any sign of right wing Christian (or any other denomination) fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on others, so it feels a little like protest against something that hasn’t happened. I’d also say that these right wing Christian fundamentalists are not particularly representative of religious people in general or even Christians in particular, in my limited experience – they don’t even seem particularly Christian.

Pondo – the problem is they get far more media attention and have made themselves the default anti side for media to go to.  they have also repeated lies so often that some fol;k believe the lies.

Nobody is telling you who you can marry, and I’ve no idea why you would interject that into the conversation.

How many religions permit you to marry the person you love if they happen to be the same sex as you?  In this country it’s fine as the state allows it now, but this is relatively recent and for a long, long time it was blocked by the various religions, the vast, vast majority of which do not recognise it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Just as now, the religions are trying to block a non religious person from choosing when to end their lives.

As has been said, your religious beliefs do not allow you to impose your code for life on to those who do not share your beliefs.

Pondo – the problem is they get far more media attention and have made themselves the default anti side for media to go to.  they have also repeated lies so often that some fol;k believe the lies.

The right-wing Christian fundamentalists? I agree – however, if anyone was advocating on their behalf yesterday, they were doing it very sotto voce. Seems to me parliament has this in hand, in which case it doesn’t really matter what a bunch of pseudo-religious extremists do outside.

Many of the opponents in the house are merely parroting the lines fed to them from these fundamentalists outside.  The anti organisations are creating myths that then get some degree of acceptance and are repeated by folk who should no better.  I have seen these myths develop and attack lines practiced – they are fairly obvious once you know them.

Its a highly professional lobbying organisation.  They are very effective at getting their lines out there

In case anyone is not clear I am a small piece of the lobbying operation from the yes side 🙂  consider yourselves lobbied

I’m an atheist and agree with Corbyn’s statement about why he voted against the bill. I have no confidence whatsoever that this country will improve provision for palliative care, or the elderly and disabled in general for that matter. We’re just rather shit in that regard.

edit: the statement:

https://x.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1862426165723451476?s=46&t=M6n6bXI18caXgoM4f5b8rQ

separation of church and state

Is this really a thing in the UK?

are you telling me that you would have done whatever even though it was illegal

I know a couple who went through this. He did everything he could to protect her from the law, but wanted to die at home… doing so made her life hell, with a long period of intrusion by the Police and other public bodies at the worst of times. People are already acting as they need, because the current law can be inhumane.

They were both religious by the way. And many religious people support a change in the law.

I’m an atheist and agree with Corbyn’s statement about why he voted against the bill.

I’m also an atheist. The point at which to change the law is now. Not wait for some mythical time in the future where we have improved our care and hospice systems. I’m not pointing at Corbyn here, but the health secretary has the key role in the government as regards end of life care… Streeting should support a change to the law, and work to improve the failings in the system he is concerned about. Some people are hiding behind “valid concerns” to deny people a right they are asking for. No, pleading for. I’m suspicious of the real motivations of some of them.

They were both religious by the way. And many religious people support a change in the law.

A point often forgotten. thank you

If you hadn’t already help me move to a different position on this, what she went through almost certainly would have. With a different legal situation, he would probably have seen another few months with his family as well. Like many, he chose to go while he was strong enough that no one could stop him, and while he didn’t need anything to be administered by anyone else.

* if I would would participate in a (currently) illegal assisted death

Yes.  Without any doubt I would and i would have done for Julie.  She refused to come home to die until I agreed to stay within the law.  I did stay within the law tho I was tempted once or twice.  She did that to protect me.

I would have happily made a media splash of it.  Fess up and challenge a court to convict me.  But it wasn’t my death.  I didn’t get to decide.

I’m an atheist and agree with Corbyn’s statement about why he voted against the bill.

Atheist here too, Corbyn has a point about the palliative care but that’s not reason to vote against it. Our local MP also voted against with the same pathetic excuse that Corbyn used about it being open to abuse and people would sign up under coercion. Given the number of steps in place with the proposed law this is pretty much as impossible as it can be.

I am so happy this has gone through to the next stage, having worked in frontline healthcare and seeing people suffering in extreme pain for weeks and months at a time. I also cared for Grandad for a few weeks whilst he was begging to die because of the extreme pain from pancreatic cancer.

The syringe drivers they use in palliative care can be very easily unlocked so it’s not above the ability of someone to overdose themselves on the morphine/fentanyl.

My dads driver kept on slipping where the head met the syringe plunger so I’d need to open it up and sit the head on the plunger then shut it back up, the first time it happened it took a nurse 7hrs to arrive as here in Galloway there’s not many of them and being a retirement region I imagine what nurses there are are kept busy. After watching her the first time and seeing dad in pain for hours I thought sod it, I’ll do it myself – the locks are shite and easily opened.

My mate who died of oesophageal cancer (in the most hellish way) in the same year as my dad (2018) used to boost his driver as well, along with very liberal swigs from his Oromorph bottle as well to wash down his Vicodin – he used to get told off by the nurses/doctor but his reply was – “what you gonna do?, take it off me?” He was a skipper on the boats all his life,  so yeah,  his tolerance for drugs was abnormal.

I’d also say that these right wing Christian fundamentalists are not particularly representative of religious people in general or even Christians in particular, in my limited experience – they don’t even seem particularly Christian.

That’s what everyone thought in the US a few years ago, and we know what happened there. They’re not christians, they just using it as a wedge to drive division and gain advantage over the gullible

They may not be terribly prominent, and I think most in the UK are fairly sceptical, but give them any kind of light and air and they’ll never lie down. the flawed policy of equivalence in journalism that helped promote brexit from a fringe interest to the mainstream is giving some sunlight to these views. I’ve heard a fair few interviews on the radio with people who claim some kind of special pleading because religion.

We had a big emergency box with all sorts of goodies in it 🙂  Could have got a fortune for it down in pilton 🙂

So, fix the systems, don’t deny the chance of a decent death because of public sector failings.

Including the palliative and hospice care systems so that there is a choice, I am pro-choice on this issue and worry that the legislation will remove the palliative care aspect from end-of-life care in the rush for efficiency/value for money.

And yet Streeting was claiming it would cost more. It can’t simultaneously be more expensive than palliative care and also be pushed on the unwilling as a cost saving.

There certainly need to be measures taken to stop this being abused but I suspect that the vast majority of these cases would be clear cut. If you distil it down how can anybody think that a person who faces weeks or months of constant pain followed by certain death should not have the right to choose to bypass the weeks or months of constant pain and go straight to death? Assuming that is what they want of course.

@thecaptain it can when the hospice system costs the tax-payer nothing/very little as it’s mostly a charity funded enterprise. Bringing hospice care within the remit of NHS would be a societal benefit but costly.

Someones religion or what they choose to believe has naff all to do with you

The thing is that I am a nanometre away from being 100% wholeheartedly fully in agreement with you.

Someone’s religion or what they choose to believe should have naff all to do with you

But unfortunately some people, due to their religious beliefs, feel the need to impose their view and morals onto the society I live in.

how can anybody think that a person who faces weeks or months of constant pain followed by certain death should not have the right to choose to bypass the weeks or months of constant pain and go straight to death?

Because God.

 some people, due to their non-religious beliefs, feel the need to impose their view and morals onto the society I live in

Is also the case. I don’t think it’s fair to single out the religious.

That’s a good point that I will need to consider further