Assisted Dying Bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter AGinAg (37)
  • Start date Start date

Kill me now?

  • Total voters
    46
A

AGinAg (37)

Guest
Are you for or against?

The vote is in Parliament this Friday, it's looking like a close run thing as far as MPs go.



I am of course for. I presume most of Moopy will agree.
 
What happens if it’s a TIE? (In parliament, not on Moopy)
 
I can't see if Lindsay Hoyle has ever expressed a position.

It really should go through, there's a big Labour majority, who are more likely to vote for it, unlike the Tories who claim it's woke or something.
 
The momentum has felt very against the last few weeks, but has started to feel more FOR this week
 
I am for in principle and believe in dignity in death, but I need to read a lot more into it and understand the concerns people have.
 
We're on course to have a weird north south divide with this, as Scotland has to legislate for this separately, and big names like Sturgeon are against, so I think it will have a harder time passing up here.

Carlisle to become a centre for DEATH TOURISM :disco:
 
ZenGiraffe said:
We're on course to have a weird north south divide with this, as Scotland has to legislate for this separately, and big names like Sturgeon are against, so I think it will have a harder time passing up here.

Carlisle to become a centre for DEATH TOURISM :disco:
Click to expand...

This is at least a considerably more exciting policy to have a divide on. My thoughts to all the unionist/indie journalists who had to use BOTTLE BANKS as a proxy last year.
 
I appreciate this is a conscience vote however if parliament votes against, they're going to be out of touch with public attitudes.
 
win_the_game said:
I appreciate this is a conscience vote however if parliament votes against, they're going to be out of touch with public attitudes.
Click to expand...
It's virtually unheard of that the public are more progressive than Parliament on social issues.
 
Penelope said:
Not entirely comfortable having it go through while the NHS is still on its knees.
Click to expand...
The NHS is going to be on its knees every few electoral cycles, not really a good enough reason to prevent a genuinely worthwhile legislative change, which presumably you agree with in principle
 
Surely the NHS being on its knees it's due to keeping alive certain people that would be better off with assisted dying. There's a difference between living and existing, the NHS goes on so much about quality of life but what life do these people have that are fully reliant on others for everything?

I have seen concerns raised that suicidal people would use it to their advantage. Just because someone is feeling down would not allow them to use assisted dying as a way of killing themselves
 
The only argument I've seen against that comes from some medical professionals, is better palliative care is needed rather than assisted dying. As it goes it's entirely inadequate as the NHS stands, and is otherwise highly expensive, therefore exclusionary.

Besides both can exist, no-one is forcing anyone. I don't know what issues there are with the bill, but surely plenty of safeguards can be added during the legislation process.

I'm not sure if there is any way that assisted dying can cost more or indeed be more expensive than living for individuals, families or the NHS.
 
Also why should people suffer horribly now waiting for palliative care to get better later anyway? It's no good to someone having a horrendous protracted death now to be told that in a few years time they would have had a less horrendous death.
 
what about research from other countries that have legalised assisted dying? if a lack of safeguards is a genuine concern then there must be data from Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands etc that can provide a framework for how to make it safe and put those concerns to rest?
 
Quite.

All other arguments are religious (it's over guys) or just anti woke, which as we know are pointless.
 
Jark said:
what about research from other countries that have legalised assisted dying? if a lack of safeguards is a genuine concern then there must be data from Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands etc that can provide a framework for how to make it safe and put those concerns to rest?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's quite hard for dead people to put in an objection.
 
Definitely for this, though.

Having watched my gran going through dementia and it's increasingly looking like my mum will have to go into care for the same, I just wish they would allow them some dignity.
 
Sadly you have to be of sound mind to chose. Not sad obviously, it's just sensible, but even if it goes through it won't help dementia cases.
 
I do think people should be able to stipulate when doing advance care planning that should they develop dementia their wishes are assisted dying. If the decision is made when they are of sound mind then their wishes should be honoured.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
This has been annoying me. They are legislators. LEGISLATE BETTER.

Any MP that thinks this should really vote to pass the bill at this stage, since it is the principle that matters to begin with.
Click to expand...
That said, if it gets modified in committee after this vote, I suspect it's almost inevitable at that point it'll lose (if things are even right now) - the anti side will quite literally be able to say that the slippery slope happened in full sight.
 
When a pet has no quality of life and no chance of improving we put them to sleep. I waited for three weeks, sitting next to her while my gran slowly starved to death in a NHS ward. They call it "end of life care" but it's really just withdrawal of food and treatment until they starve to death so I'll call it what it is. For the first week she was begging and pleading to be put out of her misery but the last fortnight was like sitting next to a breathing corpse. People shouldn't have to suffer like that in their last days, nor should their families.
 
floppet said:
When a pet has no quality of life and no chance of improving we put them to sleep. I waited for three weeks, sitting next to her while my gran slowly starved to death in a NHS ward. They call it "end of life care" but it's really just withdrawal of food and treatment until they starve to death so I'll call it what it is. For the first week she was begging and pleading to be put out of her misery but the last fortnight was like sitting next to a breathing corpse. People shouldn't have to suffer like that in their last days, nor should their families.
Click to expand...

Quite.
 
floppet said:
When a pet has no quality of life and no chance of improving we put them to sleep. I waited for three weeks, sitting next to her while my gran slowly starved to death in a NHS ward. They call it "end of life care" but it's really just withdrawal of food and treatment until they starve to death so I'll call it what it is. For the first week she was begging and pleading to be put out of her misery but the last fortnight was like sitting next to a breathing corpse. People shouldn't have to suffer like that in their last days, nor should their families.
Click to expand...
Completely agree and I think the reality is that many people end up being helped on their way anyway, via morphine, but only after pro-longed suffering.
 
Agree with this entirely and think it's by far the better way of going about it. Have it so that whatever bill comes up has been actively designed by what the strength and specifics of the public opinion in favour are on the matter - it makes it a much fairer yes/no question and defuses the slippery slope argument a fair bit by producing something more settled.

 
Penelope said:
Agree with this entirely and think it's by far the better way of going about it. Have it so that whatever bill comes up has been actively designed by what the strength and specifics of the public opinion in favour are on the matter - it makes it a much fairer yes/no question and defuses the slippery slope argument a fair bit by producing something more settled.

Click to expand...

It doesn't, however, actually commit the government to doing said consultation so it is literally just kicking the issue into the long grass, and seems to me quite a cowardly way to get out of it.
 
I love being on the wrong side of every poll! I absolutely agree that people should be able to die more humanely (if possible) but I worry about how this can realistically be managed. As horrendous as watching my own father's death was I struggle to think how it could have been made any better. At no point did he accept that he was dying so would likely never have made the choice that would have made it 'easier' for us.

Certainly, there are cases that would benefit from this bill, something like motor neurone for instance, but the safeguards would really need to be cast iron. Euthanasia should never be the default in instances where the person is no longer fit to make the decision themselves.
 
Broomhelga said:
I love being on the wrong side of every poll! I absolutely agree that people should be able to die more humanely (if possible) but I worry about how this can realistically be managed. As horrendous as watching my own father's death was I struggle to think how it could have been made any better. At no point did he accept that he was dying so would likely never have made the choice that would have made it 'easier' for us.

Certainly, there are cases that would benefit from this bill, something like motor neurone for instance, but the safeguards would really need to be cast iron. Euthanasia should never be the default in instances where the person is no longer fit to make the decision themselves.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that anyone supports assisted dying because it’s easier for the bereaved, it isn’t going to be the default where the person is no longer fit to make the decision themselves and no one anywhere is arguing that it should be.
 
dmlaw said:
I don’t think that anyone supports assisted dying because it’s easier for the bereaved, it isn’t going to be the default where the person is no longer fit to make the decision themselves and no one anywhere is arguing that it should be.
Click to expand...
Of course nobody is arguing that but there will likely be instances where any safeguards put in place are not going to be strong enough. Do we really have the resources for the number of checks that would need to be in place to stop mistakes happening/people dying against their wishes?
 
Broomhelga said:
Of course nobody is arguing that but there will likely be instances where any safeguards put in place are not going to be strong enough. Do we really have the resources for the number of checks that would need to be in place to stop mistakes happening/people dying against their wishes?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom