Wow! They've thrown it out!

I am quite upset by that!

I'm pleased!

I'm saddened.

I'm appalled

Disappointed

It is a tricky problem. I can see both sides of the argument which have been so well thrashed out. However there can come a time when things get so desperate than any one of us may wish to seek help. My Dad was 94 and dying of cancer. He asked every single medic to help him die with of course no joy. I could not of helped him but he lived with daily indignity he didn't deserve. Still bright and very pragmatic. Such a sadness. I would prefer to go ' with a bang not a whimper.'

It's very disappointing

Sorry about double post

It seems to me there hasn't been anything like enough background work done by MPs to have a full and considered debate on this. Although I understand the issues as someone who was heavily involved in trying to formulate Living Will policies for the NHs with no agreed outcome after long and protracted patient and clinician consultations I do realise the complexity requires a lot more work to be done on how this can be operationalised for the safety of all concerned.

Yes, I agree with whoever posted on another thread that they're playing safe because they really don't want to have to do all the work involved, and some are scared of a backlash and how it might affect their careers.

Disregarding religious views, and the views of the sick person, I've always thought it was wrong for the medical profession to have to be involved in this. Even marginally.
I believe doctors still take the Hypocratic oath , to preserve life.

The medical profession already do end people's lives under the Double Effect rules (I think that is what it is called). They can provide drugs to relieve suffering even though they know it will shorten someone's life.

One of the issues here is the funding of hospices and end of life care. The voluntary sector plays a very large part and it is time that these services were properly funded under the NHS. Proper end of life care, at which MacMillan and the hospice movement are experts, is relevant to the call for assisted dying.

Doubt they fear a backlash from the public when there is a majority in favour

I am thankful they voted against, we only have to look at the abortion law when it was introduced and today

Yes. I think it could have been the thin end of the wedge. Not good.

Not a backlash from the majority of the public, just those extreme antis who might have taken it upon themselves to make trouble for anyone who voted for the proposal. It has been known to happen...

I wanted it to through, but knew really that it wouldn't, great shame.

to go through.

I wanted it to go through too, but was pretty certain it wouldn't. I can see both sides of this debate, but for me it's quality of life not quantity, and when that quality has gone, then it's time to get on that train and quietly depart.

Luckygirl I am sure that happens more often than we know.
We are positive that DF was 'helped' by a lovely sister at the hospital and I hope someone would do the same for me if I was suffering like he was.

If assisted dying is illegal, then surely abortion, which let's face it is ' killing' look at it what way you will, should be illegal too?! At least the terminally ill would have a say in the matter which obviously the unborn child does not. It's just a thought.

Very disappointed by this.

That is quite a thought, nigglenellie

What a great disappointment, but not totally unexpected.

My DH said he didn't think there would be any changes in our lifetime, so I suppose that it means Switzerland is the only choice.

Someone on the news made the interesting point that the rules for the Swiss Dignitas suicides are less stringent than the ones proposed under this bill and that British citizens will be less well protected by throwing out this bill - apparently one person from Britain goes to Dignitas every fortnight, unprotected by the two doctors and one judge rules that were proposed.