Shame on you, Scottish Parliament

OMG I hope you are off base dalrymple. 24 weeks is already too late as babies can survive despite being born so premature.

dalrymple23

I am totally conflicted on this. From what I have read, the proposed bill is not watertight enough, nor flexible enough.

Something I read a couple of days ago, which concerns me far more, is legalising terminations over the current 24 weeks, when the foetus (baby) is viable. Apparently, this is to be included in the proposed Bill. Please correct me if I am way off base here.

An Expert Group has reported to the Scottish Government on prospective changes to the Abortion Act. It's completely separate from the Right to Die bill. I think if it's to be discussed it should be a separate thread.

I am totally conflicted on this. From what I have read, the proposed bill is not watertight enough, nor flexible enough.

Something I read a couple of days ago, which concerns me far more, is legalising terminations over the current 24 weeks, when the foetus (baby) is viable. Apparently, this is to be included in the proposed Bill. Please correct me if I am way off base here.

I can't believe the audacity of some people who think they have right to decide whether someone has the right to die as they wish. These peers, Lords or whatever they are have such a sense of their own superiority they think they know everything. I have no intention of taking my own life at the moment, but should I decide in the future that I have had enough I don't want some hooray Henry thinking that he can decide what action I take.

To be fair whatever way this vote had gone there would be angry people saying it was wrong,
I am and always have been a supporter of assisted dying and while I was disappointed with the result I,m pleased it wasn,t pushed through until the conditions suited ,if not all the public at least most.
I don’t think this will be put on the back burner and forgotten ,it will come back after the May election
I am sad for those who believed this would have changed their lives or their loved ones but please don’t give up hope

Yeah public votes on a single issue have worked brilliantly in the past. No problems there that I can think of.

I know there are far few hospice inpatient beds throughout the UK, to ensure effective and timely palliative care can be provided when needed. Equally I know how on occasions within the hospice it is difficult to control symptoms even when there is guidance from a palliative consultant.
Personally I feel that everyone should have the right to self determine when there quality of life is no longer worth living.
If we failed to care for our animals in these situations by opting for euthanasia, we would be considered cruel. So what is the difference for a human being.
It makes me angry that the House of Lords feel they can determine our right to death with dignity. It is time these hangers on are retired completely this would save the country a little more public money and to hell with randoms being awarded these titles by governments.
We need a public vote on assisted dying which includes quality of life for the person; spiritual, psychological, emotional and social aspects as free thinking people.

I’m very disappointed in the vote, I really thought it would go through.

Digitas is all very well maybe, if you can afford it, and if you’re in a fit state to fly.

MayBee70

The only reason why I haven’t signed up for Pure Cremation is because if I become terminally ill I would go to Dignitas.

There are a lot of requirements to be met before you can be accepted by Dignitas ( not least paying around £15,000) and a large amount of medical evidence to be submitted, and you have to be a member of Dignitas.
I can see both sides of the argument for assisted dying, as I think it’s inhumane to let someone suffer great pain in their last days, but would also be concerned about lack of proper safeguards. The wording of the Abortion Act states something like two doctors, acting in good faith, must agree that continuing the pregnancy would result in greater serious risk to the mother’s mental or physical health than a termination. Now, I know of three people who have had terminations, and can honestly say that none of the three fulfilled that condition, or any of the ones regarding the health of the baby. I wouldn’t judge anyone who made that decision, but my worry is that the safeguards laid down for assisted dying may not be robust enough to protect vulnerable people.

If palliative care was excellent, if 'safeguards' could be made unbreakable, think I would go with 'yes'.

In this day and age no one should have to suffer a painful and harrowing death. There are also long-term repercussions for family members who have to witness the painful and difficult death of a loved one. The bereavement process can be longer and more complex after witnessing a painful and distressing death.

An animal in pain is put down, so why can't a human choose to do the same?

So the guardian has recently detailed the proposal with regard to mental illness and euthanasia in Canada. I am not fan of the guardian but it is perfectly reasonable for them to report this and for people to hold a view that once legislation is passed through parliament it may as in the case of Canada be extended to other conditions in a very short time.

Disappointed. Have had experience of appalling palliative care ( actually none existent) when husband was ill I wanted a yes vote. For years the government has been going on about improving care at home, palliative care, but like the NHS has become worse. I don't call dumping someone as per their wishes to die at home with the likelihood of death within 3 days. Yes, the stats show "died at home" giving the impression that all the wonderful care was available until the end , but the quality of care is just
basically drugged up to die.

The only reason why I haven’t signed up for Pure Cremation is because if I become terminally ill I would go to Dignitas.

I live in Canada and what is happening in Canada is NOT awful. I see so many complete and outright lies about MaID in Canada in UK newspapers thst it obvious that there is a campaign against it in some circles. The lies about people with mental illness receiving MaID to start with. The idea of allowing that is being debated in Parliament. It is not the case at this time. The stories about Veterans being offered MaID are just ridiculous. There were two instances where a case worker in Veterans Affairs offered that as a suggestion and he was fired. In order to be eligible, a panel of doctors needs to approve, not some low level bureaucrat. Please, don’t believe everything you read and always consider the source. Ultimately, if you don’t want to use MaID, don’t apply to have it.

It is an emotive issue. Which is why, IMO, the decision should not come down to the consciences of MPs, who are not going through end of life situations themselves. For that matter, it should not come down to the consciences of MPs who are going through it, or who have in the past.

MPs are not medical experts, and even medical experts differ in their beliefs when it comes down to things like this, as we do on here. I fully respect that some have religious views on assisted dying, but I don't think those views should be imposed on others who may not share them.

I appreciate that the system requires a parliamentary debate and vote, but when it comes to matters of conscience such as this, I think the system should be changed, although I'm not sure what could replace it that would be fairer.

The wealthy will still be able to access assisted death abroad, those not so wealthy - no such choice.

This is such an emotive issue. On the one hand, palliative care is seriously underfunded, and relies too much on charities.
Also, safeguards may seem robust at first, but other countries demonstrate how these safeguards are eroded over time.
On the other hand, palliative care is not always good enough to prevent suffering.

I agree Allira. I think I should have said that I was referring to myself and my personal wishes if I succumb to this dreadful illness.

Freya5

NanKate

Very disappointed with the result.

My friend has advanced dementia, double incontinent. Her husband still looks after her at home. If only she could pass away peacefully.

Of course I realise that people with dementia would not be included in those eligible, but I think they should be.

Oh my goodness. No they should not. They have no control over their thought, yes one minute ,no the next. Power of attorney over their health and money leaves the gates open to widespread abuse.

If they have specified that this is their wish if they reach this stage when they are diagnosed then I do not see why not.

25Avalon

But vice versa no matter how old you are even 98 it doesn’t mean you can have assisted dying.

No, I know that. I suppose what I was trying to say is that, if he could have chosen to have assisted dying, he would have opted for it in an instant. Instead, we had to watch him suffer - and believe me, he suffered - for weeks. Where was the 'palliative care' then?
Looking back at it now with more objective eyes, it was almost as if he was just an old man who had given up on life, so no-one really cared about easing his suffering (and I'm not talking about helping him to die).

NanKate

Very disappointed with the result.

My friend has advanced dementia, double incontinent. Her husband still looks after her at home. If only she could pass away peacefully.

Of course I realise that people with dementia would not be included in those eligible, but I think they should be.

Oh my goodness. No they should not. They have no control over their thought, yes one minute ,no the next. Power of attorney over their health and money leaves the gates open to widespread abuse.

But vice versa no matter how old you are even 98 it doesn’t mean you can have assisted dying.

But vice ve