Assisted dying bill

So that’s it then. The Bill has passed the first stage.
That’s democracy.

Of course it's possible to think about two individual issues.
Clearly.

Dinahmo

Farzanah

Fleurpepper

And the views of the majority of UK people. If I am correctz, over 70% support it.

How many would support the death penalty if there was a vote, but the majority are not always right?
Brexit??

Probably a lot but they often aren't thinking too clearly about that.

But they are thinking clearly about assisted suicide? No bias there then.

Heathen414

Several states in US have this for terminally ill who want a peaceful passing instead of long and painful.

My thought is should be up to each person if have terminal illness.

Exactly.

Farzanah

Fleurpepper

And the views of the majority of UK people. If I am correctz, over 70% support it.

How many would support the death penalty if there was a vote, but the majority are not always right?
Brexit??

Probably a lot but they often aren't thinking too clearly about that.

Smileless2012

Well I'm not imposing my religious beliefs on anyone Dinahmo;who are you referring too?

I'm a Christian, support the bill and hope it gets through this initial stage and my support has nothing to do with my faith.

Anyone or everyone whose religious beliefs want to prevent those who don't believe in their freedom of choice.

Several states in US have this for terminally ill who want a peaceful passing instead of long and painful.

My thought is should be up to each person if have terminal illness.

Smileless there is no need to be rude. If this had been legal when Shipman was a GP he would have been one of the doctors approving this and even suggesting it. The lovely caring do tor visiting a patient asking if they've considered it. No they say and he replies with well everyone has a choice personally I wouldn't want a painful undignified death. So the seed is planted and left to grow. Will the other doctor spend much time with the sick person? Will the judge visit them and how much time will they spend with them? Those judges who are facing a massive backlog of cases or will it be rubber-stamping the decision of the doctors? We don't know and even if it is will that continue? I have read that the role if the second doctor approving abortion has become just such a rubber-stamping exercise. So yes you be rude about the idea that Shipman was not a one off but the fact remains that not all doctors are benevolent. I was sexually abused by a doctor when I was a child. He cared for my mother when she was pregnant but felt ok about abuse so forgive me if I am more sceptical than you but I won't be rude about you.

Fleurpepper

And the views of the majority of UK people. If I am correctz, over 70% support it.

How many would support the death penalty if there was a vote, but the majority are not always right?
Brexit??

This is just the first stage, if the vote is in favour tomorrow there's a way to go before it can be applied.

I am not happy about it. Five hours to discuss something so literally life-changing is insufficient, and it seems to have been rushed through.

Latest poll shows 84% currently.

And the views of the majority of UK people. If I am correctz, over 70% support it.

Has anyone on here been contacted by (or on behalf of) their local MP regarding this vote?

To be honest, as our representatives in a supposedly democratic system, I think they should have been seeking their constituents' views on such an important matter as this and basing their vote on that. I don't think they should be voting soley according to their personal view on this issue.

You make it sound very simple *Dinahmo, but I do not think you are allowing for human behaviour.

I’m a humanist and unlike many of my fellow humanists I do not support the Bill.

Well I'm not imposing my religious beliefs on anyone Dinahmo;who are you referring too?

I'm a Christian, support the bill and hope it gets through this initial stage and my support has nothing to do with my faith.

Farzanah

I don’t believe this Bill has been carefully thought through. The medical and legal implications are unworkable. The NHS and judiciary are struggling.

As to the “slippery slope”. If this Bill is passed, society will irrevocably change, and the guidelines, as in other countries, will broaden.
For example in the Netherlands children can opt for AD, as can those with a mental illness. Do those in favour believe this will never happen here?

Here's a little extract from the article referred to above:

"Neuberger said his experience sitting on cases involving assisted dying meant he was confident the tight terms of Kim Leadbeater’s bill – that it would apply to only those who are terminally ill – could not be expanded by judicial challenge."

But you believe that it can be?

I really don't understand why people with religious beliefs should impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

One reason given is that the sick person may believe that they are a burden to their families. Burden is a strong word to use - here's another definition"a physical load such as carrying something heavy, or it can mean an emotional “load” such as severe grief or illness."

Obviously the sick person, being of sound mind, will be aware of the "burden" or "load" that their family members are carrying whilst carrying for them. Surely it is down to those family members to ensure the sick person that they are happy to carry that load or burden because they do not want to lose them just yet.

I was in the nursing with my Mother for 8 days before she died from pneumonia. She had Alzheimer's and didn't know either me or my sister. I remember, after she died, walking away from the home with a feeling that a burden had been lifted from me. But it had been a burden that I had been willing to carry.

It’s seems there is a majority in The House for it. It’s not too late to email your MP tonight!

Thanks Dinahmo useful to know.
I tried to see which way my MP will vote on the ITV site but she has not made her decision public.

A former Supreme Court judge who was involved in assisted dying cases is in favour of the bill. Here's a link to the article from the Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/27/ex-supreme-court-president-backs-assisted-dying-law-change?utm_term=6747fc5b5f84c9904cf83ee62f7ce70e&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email

I don’t believe this Bill has been carefully thought through. The medical and legal implications are unworkable. The NHS and judiciary are struggling.

As to the “slippery slope”. If this Bill is passed, society will irrevocably change, and the guidelines, as in other countries, will broaden.
For example in the Netherlands children can opt for AD, as can those with a mental illness. Do those in favour believe this will never happen here?

So does this mean any GP can be approached?

Does it have to be a consultant that is caring for the patient?

Do the 2 doctors have to agree before the request is submitted to the judge?

Can it be any judge, or are particular judges going to offer their services?

Who submits it to the judge- the doctors or the patient?

Who pays the judge for their services- another cost to the NHS no doubt.

It seems like it will make a lot of work for the already over-stretched NHS.

As others have said, by the time the process has gone through an already creaky system the patients may have already died or be unable to administer the drug themselves.

These details have not been thought through and that only adds to my misgivings about it.

Each doctor will make their own assessment/report, and both will be presented to a Judge to check all is in order, I believe.

Your final question is very valid. But this Bill was chosen to be very limited and restrictive, to allay fears about slippery slope, etc.

Fleurpepper who make the clear, personal choice, to ask for assistance- and who will need the approval of two doctors and supervision by a Judge.

This is said time after time, but no indication of what it will actually mean. Will it be one doctor at a time accompanied by the judge, both doctors and the judge all together or what? These are not things to be decided at a later date, these details need addressing and to be spelled out long before the bill is passed into law.
This bill is not the compassionate caring thing that is being presented as or it would be taking a much wider remit. Somebody in agony but not terminal at all or within 6 months will get no help at all no matter how much they want to end it all. Why is their suffering thought to be of no account?