Assisted dying bill

Dickens

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I thought we were having a real discussion, and that people were being honest about their feelings, one way or the other?

Does semantics help?

I think most of us are being honest in this - and saying what we personally feel.

It's certainly all the same to me - as I have no "skin in this game" personally at all. Whether it's passed or not passed - I personally will die if and when I decide to. If my own health got that bad personally - I'd deal with the matter myself and be gone by the end of that day (having already figured out exactly what I'd do and how long it would take to do it and I've got the stuff I need in just-in-case). It doesn't matter a jot to me personally whether my Society has legalised this or no - either way "If I decide to go I'll go - and I'll do it my own way anyway".

Basically I take the view/would hope most people would take the view of "Whether I anticipate needing it myself or no - I want other people to be able to have the chance if they decide to". Same as the abortion debate - I'd no skin in that game from the sterilisation operation I paid for myself at 27 years old - but will still argue that other people should have the chance for an abortion if they need one/have decided on it.

So I'm just concerned personally that those people who choose to leave it to medical professionals have the position that they can do so - because the medical professionals will help them (as they're no longer stopped from doing so by the law as it is at present).

So - as long as no-one forces their personal decision in any of these bodily autonomy debates on anyone else then that's fine/that's how Britain is supposed to operate.

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

What do you mean by 'giving someone a lethal dose'?

This is not at all what is intended in this Bill, or what happens with assisted dying. Yes, the person is handed a lethal dose, and then then make the choice to take it, or not. Or a drip is put up with a lethal dose, and they then have the choice whether to activate it, or not. No-one is 'given a lethal does'.

The difference is massively important. The choice is the person's right up to the last minute, to the last second, and the consequences made absolutely clear before hand.

How is it being honest to say that an act which kills people isn't killing them? It is a very false start to any discussion. If you believe in killing people why wouldn't you own it? Maybe it is uncomfortable to call it what it is.

I think the manipulation of language has been used in many debates and I am very wary of it. I think it is quite important to look at the language used.

theworriedwell

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

I thought we were having a real discussion, and that people were being honest about their feelings, one way or the other?

Does semantics help?

Kalm

Dickens
For Muslims ending life before the appointed time is a Sin. A major wrong. All sects of Islam and some of Judaism and Christianity have the same beliefs. Islamic beliefs on death are derived directly from the Quranic verses rather than interpretable scripture ( Hadith) is unchanging. Suffering is a test for which there is recompense in the hereafter.
If we believe no one should be forced to suffer then the NHS would have clinical needs as its topmost priority. Our social and palliative care systems would be second to none. Alcohol and tobacco would be banned as they are causal links to suffering.

NICE would not exist and hospital records would be up to date and ambulances would not be queuing up with screaming patients.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East (e.g. Gaza) would be somewhat different as we don't wish to see suffering, in fact suffering is being helped along by our arms to Israel.
The imposition of values is what I see as wrong. The guardian article has sort of summarised this www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/14/assisted-dying-nhs-staff-conscience-clause. Furthermore the British Islamic Medical Association has also given its members guidance britishima.org/work/assisted-dying/.
Similarly for same gender unions all children are taught this is acceptable clearly in Islam it is not.
Ultimately people feel conflicted when other value systems are imposed. By all means others can live and do whatever they feel is acceptable to their own value systems.
Aside from my conscience and beliefs there is politics and the issue of coercion. Politically Starmer may be influenced by his wife, Shabana Mahmood as a muslim with a small majority in a muslim constituency is unlikely as is Wes Streeting.
On coercion as has been shown by the recent tragic stalking and grooming cases isn't like in the films where a g proverbial gun is pointed and the arm is pulled. Coercion is a process that Doctors cannot always determine, five experienced DC's or DCI 's could be used independently (geographically distant) to vet the relatives. It should not be a binary "Have you been coerced ?" Vetting can get to the bottom of financial issues.
So no I will not be supporting the principle of AD

I respect any individual's freedom to follow their religion's dictates regarding how they conduct their lives, or their death.

In a western democracy - for all its failings and imperfections - you (collective you) cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else, that is how it works.

The reason we have an NHS and social-care system on its knees is because we now live in a society that is, and has been since Margaret Thatcher, profoundly transformed. Her premiership brought about immense social, political and economic change. We no longer invest in people, families, communities - education, apprenticeships, further education, health, these have all been monetised, and the State has been rolled-back. That's the politics of the matter. And the only politics I am prepared to discuss. Our foreign policy should have a thread of its own.

I appreciate what you say about coercion - that is partly why I am 'on-the-fence' on this matter of AD, but when it comes down to the wire, I will not have anyone ese's value-systems or religion's dictates imposed on me - as I, personally, would not expect to impose mine on anyone else.

One thing I've found interesting is some supporters of assisted dying on here claiming it is not killing someone. Is it so difficult to accept that giving someone a lethal dose of something and them dying adds up to killing them? They are dead and without the intervention they would be alive so what else can it be. I think we have to be honest if we want a real discussion.

That is also how it will be if the vote doesn't go the way you want it to.

Fair enough that you personally won't support this for yourself personally.

This is the thing - Britain is a democratic country and we have to do what the majority wants done. The minority have to accept it. We're never going to have absolute total agreement about everything - or indeed anything.

That's the thing about a Christian democratic country such as ours - majority rules. In our own personal lives we have to accept that others think/act differently to ourselves. I'm vegetarian - but one of my friends is a butcher. I'm anti-Lockdown and all that but a very good friend of mine abided by it all/had those jabs etc. I'm "do what you want re religion" - but my best friend of all (very longstanding) is an evangelical Christian (so I just smile and say "Thank you" for the thought when she tells me things like she's put angels on guard around my house and accept that she genuinely wants the best for me). I think I've probably voted for just about every political party there is over time - except one.

So I think most of us would accept a "conscience clause" if someone personally was a medic and chose not to take part in this - as long as they accept that other medics will do so. I would certainly not expect anyone to act against their conscience - as long as I could find someone else who would deal with my requirements instead. I'd just tell people "You can't go to Dr X about this - as he invokes the conscience clause. But you can go to Dr Y about it". That way no-one is forced to do/or not do whatever it is they have decided on for themselves personally.

That's how it's supposed to be in Britain.

Dickens
For Muslims ending life before the appointed time is a Sin. A major wrong. All sects of Islam and some of Judaism and Christianity have the same beliefs. Islamic beliefs on death are derived directly from the Quranic verses rather than interpretable scripture ( Hadith) is unchanging. Suffering is a test for which there is recompense in the hereafter.
If we believe no one should be forced to suffer then the NHS would have clinical needs as its topmost priority. Our social and palliative care systems would be second to none. Alcohol and tobacco would be banned as they are causal links to suffering.

NICE would not exist and hospital records would be up to date and ambulances would not be queuing up with screaming patients.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East (e.g. Gaza) would be somewhat different as we don't wish to see suffering, in fact suffering is being helped along by our arms to Israel.
The imposition of values is what I see as wrong. The guardian article has sort of summarised this www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/14/assisted-dying-nhs-staff-conscience-clause. Furthermore the British Islamic Medical Association has also given its members guidance britishima.org/work/assisted-dying/.
Similarly for same gender unions all children are taught this is acceptable clearly in Islam it is not.
Ultimately people feel conflicted when other value systems are imposed. By all means others can live and do whatever they feel is acceptable to their own value systems.
Aside from my conscience and beliefs there is politics and the issue of coercion. Politically Starmer may be influenced by his wife, Shabana Mahmood as a muslim with a small majority in a muslim constituency is unlikely as is Wes Streeting.
On coercion as has been shown by the recent tragic stalking and grooming cases isn't like in the films where a g proverbial gun is pointed and the arm is pulled. Coercion is a process that Doctors cannot always determine, five experienced DC's or DCI 's could be used independently (geographically distant) to vet the relatives. It should not be a binary "Have you been coerced ?" Vetting can get to the bottom of financial issues.
So no I will not be supporting the principle of AD

MissInterpreted

Well said, Dickens. And given that most of us on here are likely to be in an older age bracket, I think it's actually very sensible to think about death and what we would like to happen in various scenarios. It's hardly an obsession to think about it and prepare for various possibilities, is it?

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Well said, Dickens. And given that most of us on here are likely to be in an older age bracket, I think it's actually very sensible to think about death and what we would like to happen in various scenarios. It's hardly an obsession to think about it and prepare for various possibilities, is it?

keepingquiet

What happened to the value of life?

This is such a depressing thread- the truth is no one knows how they will die.

Some people seem obsessed with death here.

Let's live and celebrate life for a change!

Some people seem obsessed with death here.

Really?

There is a bill before Parliament which we are discussing because it's an important bill that will change our established set of principles if it's passed. It affects, and will eventually, effect every man, woman and child in the country.

I don't see any 'obsession' - just posters talking about their own experiences of death and their feelings about it, which -considering the topic - is to be expected.

So, who are these "some" that you are accusing of 'obsessing'?

Of course no-one knows exactly how they will die - that's the whole point isn't it?

And what makes you think we're not all living and enjoying life away from this thread and GN?

Honestly, your comment is provocative.

Galaxy

Alternatively they could think about a complex issue and look at all aspects of the debate.

Don’t you think that’s just a theoretical proposal though? I understand why that would be the ideal, but in truth I don’t believe there could ever be a perfect set of guidelines which met every possible concern in every possible circumstance. In 20 years time it would still be under discussion. In common with other guidance, on balance it’s probably best to get it as good as you can and then expect there to be exceptions which challenge the law, which result in changes to the guidance.

Alternatively they could think about a complex issue and look at all aspects of the debate.

My life, my choice. I hope this Bill succeeds. I would prefer the 6 months rule to be removed as there are very painful and debilitating conditions that last longer. If it fails now it may takes decades for it to be presented again. MPs need to develop some backbone rather than worrying about religious objections, palliative care (which can't be fixed in a few months) and the extra costs to the NHS

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

Of course we already have choice, suicide has been legal for years.

We all know it's not quite as simple as that though.

Far from as simple as that. Suicide used to be illegal way back I gather (but in my lifetime). Thankfully it has been legal for some time now. But there's still problems in saying about it - as I have long ago worked out exactly what I would do personally if ever my body (or my society) had let me down that badly that I saw it as my only option and my friends know exactly what I would do to my own body if it comes to it - but I'm concerned re whether I'd get into legal trouble if I said what I've decided for myself if need be online.

MissInterpreted

theworriedwell

Fleurpepper

Yes, it is a difficult issue- very complex indeed. Which is why Switzerland has not gone that route. And which is why THIS IS NOT AT ALL IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM the plan for the new Bill in the UK.

I know it isn't but I don't think that is well understood. I've seen so many posts, on here and elsewhere, with people referencing years of suffering with dementia who don't seem to realise this bill won't help in that situation.

I do realise that, actually. I understand why some people are concerned - this is always going to be a very divisive issue, but for me personally, it comes down to the same argument in the abortion debate. My body - my choice.

Quite! The phrase is "bodily autonomy".

I'm a great believer in bodily autonomy myself - as I put it "I'm the one living in this body - so I am the one that makes all decisions about it".

The truth is some people chose to know when they will die.
I have this minute bought the book from Amazon. If I dont use it someone else in need may be given my copy.

What happened to the value of life?

This is such a depressing thread- the truth is no one knows how they will die.

Some people seem obsessed with death here.

Let's live and celebrate life for a change!

www.exitinternational.net/

I have a book of instructions as to how to end my life. I had to belong to Exit for months before I was allowed to buy the book.
There are actual drugs and dosages as well as instructions for making a simple face mask.

I have not read my book for years. The instructions involve overdose of certain drugs and how to obtain them. There need be no violence involved in self delivery.

theworriedwell

IOMGran

theworriedwell

Of course we already have choice, suicide has been legal for years.

We don't access to the drugs that would allow us to go easily though. They are prescription drugs. And I don't fancy drinking drain cleaner or hanging myself or cutting my wrist or traumatising a train driver by jumping in front of a train.

Well I'm not going to make suggestions but there are easier ways.

Oh really? I don't believe you. Tell us if you really have an easy way otherwise I call BS.

IOMGran

theworriedwell

Of course we already have choice, suicide has been legal for years.

We don't access to the drugs that would allow us to go easily though. They are prescription drugs. And I don't fancy drinking drain cleaner or hanging myself or cutting my wrist or traumatising a train driver by jumping in front of a train.

Exactly.

IOMGran

theworriedwell

Of course we already have choice, suicide has been legal for years.

We don't access to the drugs that would allow us to go easily though. They are prescription drugs. And I don't fancy drinking drain cleaner or hanging myself or cutting my wrist or traumatising a train driver by jumping in front of a train.

Well I'm not going to make suggestions but there are easier ways.