Assisted Dying

[Buzby]

it's very dangerous to think of assisted death as a potential means to lessen the distress of the living.

I certainly did not get that impression. Whilst it is soul destroying to watch a loved one lose their dignity it is doubly so when a life partner believes you are their only method of curtailing their agony. If I did assist and it was detected by the hospice or Coroner (1 in 11 are called in for ‘routine’ checks) the result would have been in all the papers.

The mental strain was just incredible and the last three weeks something I have had to erase from my memory. Nothing, when compared to the suffering my wife endured but my daily visits gave her hope I had found/would find a solution for her. I have written to my MP and MSP requesting support - I hope in passes with whatever safety checks they feel is appropriate.

 

[Harpo]

The more I listen to MPs intending to oppose the bill, the more I’m struck by the irony of our elected representatives exercising their freedom of choice, to deny us the freedom of choice.

 

[dangie]

The more I listen to MPs intending to oppose the bill, the more I’m struck by the irony of our elected representatives exercising their freedom of choice, to deny us the freedom of choice.

To be fair to our newly elected MP, he has asked (through Facebook) for people’s thoughts on this. He rightly says that for such an important contentious issue his thoughts alone are not enough.

I do agree though, that ultimately this should not be left to parliament to decide. However as to how the right to die is resolved I really don’t know.

 

[jfollows]

To be fair to our newly elected MP, he has asked (through Facebook) for people’s thoughts on this. He rightly says that for such an important contentious issue his thoughts alone are not enough.

I do agree though, that ultimately this should not be left to parliament to decide. However as to how the right to die is resolved I really don’t know.

So who, other than parliament, should make the decision?

As I understand it, at the moment assisting someone to die is an illegal act, maybe not always prosecuted. So parliament can change this so that - under appropriate circumstances and with appropriate safeguards - it would not longer be illegal.

What the conditions and restrictions could be are part of the debate, and although I support the change in principle it's clear there are many different and opposing views which are valid.

So a debate and decision in parliament makes sense to me.

We do not elect our MPs to be automatons, we elect them to carry out our wishes as they best see fit. Your MP's stance appears appropriate to me.

 

[dangie]

So who, other than parliament, should make the decision?

.....We do not elect our MPs to be automatons, we elect them to carry out our wishes as they best see fit. Your MP's stance appears appropriate to me.

That's basically what I mean. I know it's parliament who votes on the law, but this issue to me is above what MP's plus Lords should have the say on. As I said, I don't know the answer.

 

[jfollows]

That's basically what I mean. I know it's parliament who votes on the law, but this issue to me is above what MP's plus Lords should have the say on. As I said, I don't know the answer.

Fair enough.
Better this than the "trio of former Prime Ministers" said to be against it - May, Johnson & Truss. Two of them are utterly irrelevant and one only has a vote in the House of Lords.

 

[En]

Seeing my father beg for death whilst suffering terminal throat cancer, in constant pain and unable to eat or even drink a teaspoon of water, I support this bill wholeheartedly. It was a relief that he passed in his sleep.

It left permanent scars on my family and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the hospice staff who care for terminal patients day in and day out. But, I feel it shouldn't have ever got to that point.

As someone who has struggled with chronic mental health issues that have made life and daily functioning absolutely intolerable for over two decades, I would certainly go through the assisted dying process if it were an option here.

Of course, Britain's hostile environment and lack of any real support doesn't help matters, but they are conditions that see very little improvement from either medication or other therapeutic methods.

and given the extremely traumatic deaths that some people with Throat cancer can have ( where the tumour invades the vascular structures of the neck) it's clear that some people live in a state of denial aobut the reality of the process of dying

 

[ainsworth74]

That's basically what I mean. I know it's parliament who votes on the law, but this issue to me is above what MP's plus Lords should have the say on. As I said, I don't know the answer.

Personally I reckon that we need to start using Citizen Assemblies more for some of the more contentious issues. I think they have scope to come up with recommendations that are more considered that just looking at polling by the likes of YouGov or aren't well suited to a simple "Yes/No, In/Out" style referendum. Plus it leaves the final decision and implementation of any solution to Parliament directly as it should be within a Parliamentary system.

What is a citizens’ assembly?​

A citizens’ assembly is a broadly representative group of around 50 – 150 members of the public who are chosen, by lottery, to discuss and make recommendations on a specific policy question or set of questions as part of the policy-making process. This model is one of many under the umbrella of deliberative mini public, which also include citizens’ panels and citizens’ juries.

What is deliberative engagement?​

Public engagement can take many forms. Participatory processes such as elections and referendums enable a very large group of citizens to directly take part in decision making. Deliberative processes focus on high quality dialogue and discussion, providing opportunities for fewer people to share and test their ideas before reaching an informed opinion or consensus on the topic. Participants discuss the topic among themselves and are supported by professional facilitators to consider each others views and the trade-offs of different policy options.

These models – including citizens’ assemblies – are tasked by legislatures and governments around the world to engage with a wide range of issues, including constitutional reform, climate change, electoral reform, and social policy issues.

How do citizens’ assemblies work?​

Citizens’ assemblies have three core phases – learning, deliberation and decision making – which set them apart from other forms of public consultation such as focus groups and opinion polling.

1. Participants are provided with detailed information – presentations and Q&A sessions – about the issue at hand from a range of experts, stakeholders, and advocates.
2. They engage in discussions in small groups and plenaries, facilitated independently – not by the commissioning organisations – aiming to consider the range of evidence and understand the issue from multiple perspectives.
3. The assembly members come to some conclusions based on what they have learnt.

Assemblies are often overseen by an advisory group with membership drawn from a range of perspectives and expertise. They will play a role in shaping the topic selection and materials used by the assembly members, to ensure as far as possible that participants are presented with accurate, comprehensive and balanced information. Information on designs, sessions, materials and presentations – but not discussions – may also be placed online to ensure there is transparency in the process.

An assembly usually meets over several weekends, across a few months, although the length of time varies for different assemblies.

What is the outcome of a citizens’ assembly?​

The outcome of a citizens' assembly is typically a set of recommendations or decisions that are presented to policymakers and/or the wider public. The way that these are presented will vary, for example in Ireland there is a formal process whereby recommendations are sent to a dedicated parliamentary committee to consider and report to government. The government is not obliged to accept the recommendations but it sets a timetable for implementation and if it is not accepting any of the recommendations it has to say why.

Citizens' assemblies | Institute for Government

What are citizens' assemblies and how do they work?

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

and given the extremely traumatic deaths that some people with Throat cancer can have ( where the tumour invades the vascular structures of the neck) it's clear that some people live in a state of denial aobut the reality of the process of dying

Some of us live with the reality of having provided end of life care to people just like this, and still oppose this bill.

 

[DarloRich]

Personally I reckon that we need to start using Citizen Assemblies more for some of the more contentious issues.

aha - you are Rory Stewart and I claim my £500!

 

[Buzby]

Some of us live with the reality of having provided end of life care to people just like this, and still oppose this bill

It is this I find unfathomable - I have gone through the angst of deciding when my pets have suffered enough and been able to give them a (relatively) painless end. Yet you do not disclose your reasoning for wishing to prolong a (no doubt terminal) illness in humans. Please do enlighten

 

[AlterEgo]

It is this I find unfathomable - I have gone through the angst of deciding when my pets have suffered enough and been able to give them a (relatively) painless end. Yet you do not disclose your reasoning for wishing to prolong a (no doubt terminal) illness in humans. Please do enlighten

It isn’t that I want to prolong illness. It’s that I think it is bad law, and I have explained why I disagree with it upthread. Specifically I oppose state-assisted suicide, not the freedom of individuals to do it themselves - or my freedom to do so, myself.

This law is being railroaded by platitudes. One of the worst, in fact, is the equation of human life with those of pets. It isn’t my place to kill my own mother. Or the state’s.

 

[dcbwhaley]

We do not elect our MPs to be automatons, we elect them to carry out our wishes as they best see fit. Your MP's stance appears appropriate to me.

It must be very confusing for most MPs to have to make a decision rather than do as the Wp tell them

 

[ainsworth74]

aha - you are Rory Stewart and I claim my £500!

I wish I had his podcast millions in my bank account! If I did I'd happily hand over the £500

 

[En]

It is this I find unfathomable - I have gone through the angst of deciding when my pets have suffered enough and been able to give them a (relatively) painless end. Yet you do not disclose your reasoning for wishing to prolong a (no doubt terminal) illness in humans. Please do enlighten

exactly this

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==

It isn’t that I want to prolong illness. It’s that I think it is bad law, and I have explained why I disagree with it upthread. Specifically I oppose state-assisted suicide, not the freedom of individuals to do it themselves - or my freedom to do so, myself.

This law is being railroaded by platitudes. One of the worst, in fact, is the equation of human life with those of pets. It isn’t my place to kill my own mother. Or the state’s.

it's clear you do not understand the intent of this law , nor it seems the current legislative minefield around it all
if someone is mobund and their Respect for says DNAR and the 'dueakl eeffect' of EoL meds means they go into respitary arrest they die
if someone has sufficent mobility , motor contorl and motivation they can take an excess dose of whatever prescribed sediation and analgesia they have ot hand and can end their life
however if someone can express the desire to end their life , has clear mental capacity to make the decision ( as will be tested at length in the proposed poroces by mutilple independent HCPs and /or Lawyers who will then have to present ot a High court Judge ... ) but does not have the strnegth or fine motor contorl the law currently requires them to sit / lie there suffering until such time as the ' the dual effect' might hasten their death

 

[AlterEgo]

exactly this

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==


it's clear you do not understand the intent of this law , nor it seems the current legislative minefield around it all
if someone is mobund and their Respect for says DNAR and the 'dueakl eeffect' of EoL meds means they go into respitary arrest they die
if someone has sufficent mobility , motor contorl and motivation they can take an excess dose of whatever prescribed sediation and analgesia they have ot hand and can end their life
however if someone can express the desire to end their life , has clear mental capacity to make the decision ( as will be tested at length in the proposed poroces by mutilple independent HCPs and /or Lawyers who will then have to present ot a High court Judge ... ) but does not have the strnegth or fine motor contorl the law currently requires them to sit / lie there suffering until such time as the ' the dual effect' might hasten their death

I understand the law very well. As someone who not only administered a lot of end of life care, but also had to deal with families who pressured physicians and nurses to take certain actions - with various levels of motivation, I'm very concerned at the precedent it sets. It is the thin end of the wedge.

There should be no legislative minefield. The state should not legalise itself or its doctors - or any other medical professionals - to kill people.

The bit I've bolded is pretty gross to me, to be honest and I think I would like for you to have met a few families who could certainly talk a relative into killing themselves. Usually this would be for an early/easy inheritance, avoiding financial burden with care costs, or for social reasons like feeling they were dead weight on family or society. Lowering the bar for this is morally wrong and will lead to far worse outcomes.

Many healthcare workers have significant concerns around this bill, and it may surprise you to find that most of them are not founding their objections on a religious basis either. Politicians are making this decision around assisted dying in lieu of being bothered to afford better and more dignified palliative care.

Watch the next 20 years and see how the bill gets expanded too. No thank you.

 

[En]

Politicians are making this decision around assisted dying in lieu of being bothered to afford better and more dignified palliative care.

Watch the next 20 years and see how the bill gets expanded too. No thank you.

Arguably factually incorrect on all counts but then again I suppose you have to try and rationalise something which goes against every professional tenet of working in Healthcare and respecting bodily autonomy.

the Mental capacity act allows people with Capacity to take actions which A health professional might deem counter productive or 'wrong'


The process as proposed is full of appeasement for hand wringers something british politicians and the NHS does very well with it's ignorance of the evidence base and international good practice all the the time ...
legalising assisted dying has nothing at all to do with the fantaising about Palliative care that religious cranks and their front groups keep putting up as an alternative to respecting the bodily autonomy of people with mental capacity ...


But we've seen this time and time again since Gillick, and with the (un)Christian Legal Centre interfering cases related to medical futility and of course their recent attack on Gillick and resproductive rights with the utter fantasy that was Bell vs Tavistock ...

 

[AlterEgo]

thep rocess as proposed is full of appeasement for hand wringers

Sorry that you feel the legislation does not go far enough for you. I cannot empathise with this view nor your dismissive attitude, but I am right about it being a slippery slope.

Human beings retain the right and ability to kill themselves. What I oppose is any process where a person can be pressured into giving consent for the state to do it. Suicide is a nebulous subject and the fact is, the ease and "approved nature" of state-administered suicide will increase suicide rates.

 

[En]

Sorry that you feel the legislation does not go far enough for you. I cannot empathise with this view nor your dismissive attitude, but I am right about it being a slippery slope.

Human beings retain the right and ability to kill themselves. What I oppose is any process where a person can be pressured into giving consent for the state to do it. Suicide is a nebulous subject and the fact is, the ease and "approved nature" of state-administered suicide will increase suicide rates.

it llooks to me quite clear you do not *appear to* understand the Mental Capacity Act or what Bodily Autonomy means , nor does it seem understand what respecting the wishes of a patients with mental capacity can look like

 

[AlterEgo]

it llooks to me quite clear you do not *appear to* understand the Mental Capacity Act

What relevance does it have? It does not legalise healthcare professionals to kill people, nor does it say healthcare professionals should assist people to do so. That is why a new bill is being proposed.

or what Bodily Autonomy means

Bodily autonomy does not extend to killing oneself; in fact, it means the ability to choose a pathway free from coercion. Something the proposed bill will do nothing, in practice, to address. Pressured suicide - which is what will happen in many cases, directly or indirectly - is not bodily autonomy.

 

[En]

What relevance does it have? It does not legalise healthcare professionals to kill people, nor does it say healthcare professionals should assist people to do so. That is why a new bill is being proposed.


Bodily autonomy does not extend to killing oneself; in fact, it means the ability to choose a pathway free from coercion. Something the proposed bill will do nothing, in practice, to address. Pressured suicide - which is what will happen in many cases, directly or indirectly - is not bodily autonomy.

it's very clear to me that you do not appear to understand this topic and that your position is neither evidence based or in line with professional standards and the law.

your language and attitudes around suicide appear to be really rather outdated

 

[AlterEgo]

it's very clear to me that you do not appear to understand this topic

I think it is much clearer that you do not want to continue the discussion because you have made no substantive point at all, other than merely accusing the other side of not understanding the topic. I have had 20+ years in which to form this opinion, which was based on my experience working with people with severe, and often terminal illnesses - and dealing with their families.

I understand it perfectly well; we are debating new legislation which would be necessary because no other legislation permits it. That is mostly because suicide is not seen as a healthcare intervention.

and that your position is neither evidence based or in line with professional standards

Why would they need to be based around professional standards? What does that have to do with my opinion? I quite obviously don't work in healthcare any more - and to suggest that my position of opposing healthcare professionals having the capacity to assist patients in killing themselves is "not in line with professional standards" is bizarre. What do professional standards say about doctors assisting suicide at the moment?

It is you who wishes for a change to the status quo, not me. You want the law to change and you want professional standards to change to allow this to occur. It is up to you to put forward the case for change.

I think I am right about the slippery slope, given you believe the proposed bill is "hand wringing". It seems fairly clear where this will lead us in the coming decades. Your dismissal of what is one of life's great moral quandaries as "one side is quite simply wrong, factually incorrect, not understanding the issue" does you a disservice. I do not think you are failing to understand the issue, merely suggesting that what is proposed is a bad development with unintended consequences further down the line.

 

[simonw]

That raises another long-standing issue about whether an MP's role is to do what the majority of his/her constituents favour - if that can be established accurately - or to vote according to his/her conscience. But voting according to what an MP thinks is best or right is not just a matter of personal prejudice.

That was settled a long time ago. An MP is a representative not a delegate.

 

[BrummieBobby]

As a confirmed Atheist, living in a country where the population are increasingly Atheist, I am uncomfortable with my MP citing his own religious beliefs as his justification for voting not to allow people the right to chose to request assisted death.

 

[jfollows]

As a confirmed Atheist, living in a country where the population are increasingly Atheist, I am uncomfortable with my MP citing his own religious beliefs as his justification for voting not to allow people the right to chose to request assisted death.

My MP takes more notice of an old man in Rome than of the needs of her constituents, it’s one of the many reasons I’ll never vote for her, but I’m resigned to it.

 

[LYradial]

Lots of opinions here but none that I can see from those who have been in this situation, when I was told I had six months I believe that at that time I had the absolute right to decide my own future, a right that nobody should deny me.

it will arise again, maybe next month, maybe not, when it does I again believe I have the absolute right to choose.

 

[35B]

As a confirmed Atheist, living in a country where the population are increasingly Atheist, I am uncomfortable with my MP citing his own religious beliefs as his justification for voting not to allow people the right to chose to request assisted death.

Everyone has the right to form their views based on their own philosophical beliefs, whether those are religious or secular in root.

I have far graver problems with ethical debates where certain views are declared ineligible for consideration.

Written by a Christian who combines belief that “thou shalt not kill” with deep practical concerns about how people will feel under pressure not to be awkward if assisted dying becomes legal.

I am also gravely uncomfortable that something introduced with intent to deal with exceptional situations will reset norms. Without comment on the specific issue itself, I observe that a normalisation and shift in culture to see the two doctor requirement in law as unreasonably obstructive has taken place around abortion.

 

[Smidster]

This is a very important issue to me and I will be very disappointed if it fails today.

To me the way we treat many people at the end of life is not humane - Where someone has zero quality of life, has no prospect for recovery or improvement and is in distress but yet we insist on doing all we can to extend heart function for as long as possible.

It is personal - My father suffered for at least 2 years for no reason and to me it is wrong that he didn't have the option to make those decisions on his terms.

Let's give ourselves the dignity we give to our cats.

 

[brad465]

The vote has passed 330 to 275, so will go for further readings.

MPs vote in favour of historic bill after emotional debate

The bill passes the first stage in the Commons but will be followed by months of parliamentary activity before it becomes a law.

www.bbc.co.uk

MPs vote to support assisted dying bill

​

MPs have voted 330 to 275 in support of the assisted dying bill.

As a reminder, that does not mean the bill has become law, but it allows it to continue for further parliamentary scrutiny with the backing of the elected chamber.

 

[Trackman]

The vote has passed 330 to 275, so will go for further readings.

MPs vote in favour of historic bill after emotional debate

The bill passes the first stage in the Commons but will be followed by months of parliamentary activity before it becomes a law.

www.bbc.co.uk

MPs vote to support assisted dying bill​

​

MPs have voted 330 to 275 in support of the assisted dying bill.

As a reminder, that does not mean the bill has become law, but it allows it to continue for further parliamentary scrutiny with the backing of the elected chamber.

Yes, a long way to go yet.
Just watched the vote results. Very sombre occasion. No jeering or anything.