Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Alan Burns on October 04, 2024, 08:18:52 AM
-
If anyone has any doubts about the dreadful consequences of legalising assisted suicide, please watch Liz Carr's BBC documentary "Better Off Dead"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEysXRLTG5M
-
It seems to work well in places where it's been legalised; why shouldn't t work here?
Religious people rarely argue honestly about issues such as euthanasia; they oppose it for religious reasons, but they know that that won't convince most people, so they invent spurious utilitarian reasons to oppose it.
-
I've now watched the first ten minutes or so, but unfortunately, subtitles are unavailable, and I'm too deaf to make out what's being said. However, if Liz Carr doesn't want to avail herself of legalised euthanasia, no-one's going to make her, but why should her decision be imposed on everyone else?
-
I've now watched the first ten minutes or so, but unfortunately, subtitles are unavailable, and I'm too deaf to make out what's being said. However, if Liz Carr doesn't want to avail herself of legalised euthanasia, no-one's going to make her, but why should her decision be imposed on everyone else?
There's a genuine fear from certain people that some people might be forced into it. I think the legislation is likely to try and address that but it's not just religious people who are worried or opposed.
-
It seems to work well in places where it's been legalised; why shouldn't t work here?
Religious people rarely argue honestly about issues such as euthanasia; they oppose it for religious reasons, but they know that that won't convince most people, so they invent spurious utilitarian reasons to oppose it.
With all due respect(none) This is crap.
-
The strongest argument to me against assisted dying is, and I think Aruntraveller has mentioned this on one of the other threads on this, that the failings in palliative care on the NHS puts us in a position that those failings may end up making someone feel that assisted dying is a better option. Given that the NHS is 'broken' according to the Health Minister, that seems to me to create problems for voting for any such bill.
I find the idea that people opposing it who are religious are somehow desperately making up utilitarian arguments against it as frankly bizarre, and an attempt to poison the well, by attacking the motives to dismiss the arguments. As already covered the opposition to this is far from just being from religious people but that people are religious shouldn't be used to just dismiss their views on a hugely complex topic.
-
The strongest argument to me against assisted dying is, and I think Aruntraveller has mentioned this on one of the other threads on this, that the failings in palliative care on the NHS puts us in a position that those failings may end up making someone feel that assisted dying is a better option. Given that the NHS is 'broken' according to the Health Minister, that seems to me to create problems for voting for any such bill.
I did indeed, and I also think it goes further than that.
Our society, its infrastructure, and the systems used to regulate it, are creaking or broken. In such circumstances, I find it hard to agree with assisted dying presently. I want to, and I understand the very many good arguments for it, but they do not negate my real fears that it would be misused or inefficiently practised. As a contrast we haven't even got our Maternity services into anything like good order yet, concentrating on (arguably) making death easier/more bearable whilst having childbirth being more difficult than it should be is a strange prioritisation to me.
-
So Starmer makes a promise to Esther Rantzen but it's not included in the manifesto?
Governing for your friends - just more corruption. And yes I know how the Abortion Act came to be passed but this seems too related to a personal promise to be kosher
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e9031n142o
-
The bill which is to go before the HoC is about assisted dying. The aim of this bill on assisted dying is to give terminally ill, mentally competent adults the choice and control over the time of their death.
Assisted suicide allows chronically ill and disabled people who are not dying to receive help to end their life.
Therefore to call this bill an "assisted Suicide bill", as the title suggests, looks to me like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
I make no comment on the arguments for and against the idea of assisted dying at all. however I would be against a bill intending assisted suicide.
-
The bill which is to go before the HoC is about assisted dying. The aim of this bill on assisted dying is to give terminally ill, mentally competent adults the choice and control over the time of their death.
Assisted suicide allows chronically ill and disabled people who are not dying to receive help to end their life.
Therefore to call this bill an "assisted Suicide bill", as the title suggests, looks to me like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
I make no comment on the arguments for and against the idea of assisted dying at all. however I would be against a bill intending assisted suicide.
Hmm... we're all terminal, just some people have more information on it than others.
-
I do have terminal cancer.
Although I've responded quite well to treatment for the last 4 years there are times (like right now) when less than ideal blood test results can be both scary and unsettling. Even though I am reasonably sane (I think) I have found myself at times becoming unduly pessimistic and more anxious than the circumstances merit. I can't yet see the terminus, but I know it's there, and sometimes I think I can hear the trains going in and out - but I could be wrong.
So, since I don't always assess my situation accurately currently, I'm not certain that when I get close enough to the terminus to actually see it, that I'd be a good judge in deciding that it was time to arrange for my death at the earliest convenience. Even though I'm in a situation that is often cited in discussions of this topic - of having been diagnosed with terminal cancer - I'm still wary of this development.
-
I do have terminal cancer.
Although I've responded quite well to treatment for the last 4 years there are times (like right now) when less than ideal blood test results can be both scary and unsettling. Even though I am reasonably sane (I think) I have found myself at times becoming unduly pessimistic and more anxious than the circumstances merit. I can't yet see the terminus, but I know it's there, and sometimes I think I can hear the trains going in and out - but I could be wrong.
So, since I don't always assess my situation accurately currently, I'm not certain that when I get close enough to the terminus to actually see it, that I'd be a good judge in deciding that it was time to arrange for my death at the earliest convenience. Even though I'm in a situation that is often cited in discussions of this topic - of having been diagnosed with terminal cancer - I'm still wary of this development.
You are very brave Gordon, I must admit when I read your post I shed a tear.
-
As a devout Christian I could never contemplate a deliberate act to end my own life.
In God's eyes there would be two sins - the sin of despair on my part and the sin of murder on the person who does the act.
I have faith in God's promise to give us the strength and grace to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives if we put all our trust in Him.
And I would be able to offer up any pain and suffering during my last days as a prayer for whatever intention I choose, knowing that such prayers will be answered in wonderful ways. So my last days will not be wasted and I will be well prepared to enter into God's kingdom when my earthly life comes to its natural end.
I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.
-
As a devout Christian I could never contemplate a deliberate act to end my own life.
In God's eyes there would be two sins - the sin of despair on my part and the sin of murder on the person who does the act.
I have faith in God's promise to give us the strength and grace to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives if we put all our trust in Him.
And I would be able to offer up any pain and suffering during my last days as a prayer for whatever intention I choose, knowing that such prayers will be answered in wonderful ways. So my last days will not be wasted and I will be well prepared to enter into God's kingdom when my earthly life comes to its natural end.
I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.
How you think you would deal with it.
-
As a devout Christian I could never contemplate a deliberate act to end my own life.
In God's eyes there would be two sins - the sin of despair on my part and the sin of murder on the person who does the act.
I have faith in God's promise to give us the strength and grace to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives if we put all our trust in Him.
And I would be able to offer up any pain and suffering during my last days as a prayer for whatever intention I choose, knowing that such prayers will be answered in wonderful ways. So my last days will not be wasted and I will be well prepared to enter into God's kingdom when my earthly life comes to its natural end.
But the availability of assisted dying as an option doesn't compel anyone to use it if that isn't what they want. It is your choice, but at the moment those that, unlike you, do want to have it as a option have no choice.
I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.
So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.
-
But the availability of assisted dying as an option doesn't compel anyone to use it if that isn't what they want. It is your choice, but at the moment those that, unlike you, do want to have it as a option have no choice.
So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.
Surely all of us support laws which reduce choices for people? I'm not quite sure what Alan means when he says 'cannot impose my own views' but I think it unlikely to mean that he should never vote to reduce choices?
-
So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.
God has given us the freedom to choose, and I cannot take away that freedom. But I can witness to what I truly believe is right in God's eyes. God has the ultimate objective view over what is right or wrong, and I believe that our God given conscious reflects that view - but as I implied, we have freedom to act upon or ignore what we perceive within our conscience. God has not made us puppets.
-
God has given us the freedom to choose,
Well that is an opinion and not one that many people agree with. But the reality is that we, as people and societies, determine which choices are freely available to people and which aren't on the basis of what we decree to be lawful and unlawful.
... and I cannot take away that freedom.
But that is exactly what you are doing if you act to deny people the freedom to choose, for example by opposing changes in the law which would extend freedom to choose.
-
God has given us the freedom to choose, and I cannot take away that freedom. But I can witness to what I truly believe is right in God's eyes. God has the ultimate objective view over what is right or wrong, and I believe that our God given conscious reflects that view - but as I implied, we have freedom to act upon or ignore what we perceive within our conscience. God has not made us puppets.
Modern science has provided the means to prolong life in many cases - often a painfilled, utterly miserable existence, only perpetuated by complicated interventions and cocktails of expensive drugs. No doubt in former "less enlightened and advanced" times, such people would have, mercifully, died much sooner.
Is your god entirely in league with the advances of modern medicine which often contribute to this often pointless suffering, merely to prolong THIS life? Aren't traditional Christians like you always telling us that the heavenly afterlife will be so much better?
-
Well that is an opinion and not one that many people agree with. But the reality is that we, as people and societies, determine which choices are freely available to people and which aren't on the basis of what we decree to be lawful and unlawful.
But that is exactly what you are doing if you act to deny people the freedom to choose, for example by opposing changes in the law which would extend freedom to choose.
I think you are talking at cross purposes to Alan's meaning. He doesn't seem to mean he cannot vote for a restriction of choice, but that if someone chooses to die, and someone chooses to help them, he cannot stop their choice to do so.
As already covered, we all seem to think it's right to make illegal some choices and Alan doesn't seen to be saying it's wrong to pass such laws.
-
Modern science has provided the means to prolong life in many cases - often a painfilled, utterly miserable existence, only perpetuated by complicated interventions and cocktails of expensive drugs. No doubt in former "less enlightened and advanced" times, such people would have, mercifully, died much sooner.
Is your god entirely in league with the advances of modern medicine which often contribute to this often pointless suffering, merely to prolong THIS life? Aren't traditional Christians like you always telling us that the heavenly afterlife will be so much better?
But not at the choice of what Alan sees as murder/suicide. I disagree with Alan's views entirely but I think he's explained it in a 'logical' way for a religious take.
-
I think you are talking at cross purposes to Alan's meaning. He doesn't seem to mean he cannot vote for a restriction of choice, but that if someone chooses to die, and someone chooses to help them, he cannot stop their choice to do so.
But the law is clear about making it clear that some choices are not accepted and making it more difficult for people to choose those choices on the basis of sanction or even actively preventing such choices being exercised.
So, sure AB cannot prevent individuals making a choice to assist someone dying, but if he supports the current law he is in favour of placing significant further obstacles that act to frustrate the exercise of that choice.
-
But the law is clear about making it clear that some choices are not accepted and making it more difficult for people to choose those choices on the basis of sanction or even actively preventing such choices being exercised.
So, sure AB cannot prevent individuals making a choice to assist someone dying, but if he supports the current law he is in favour of placing significant further obstacles that act to frustrate the exercise of that choice.
And again, I think he's not talking about the law in terms of 'cannot' - which would in the context of law be a 'should not'.
As covered, in the sentence you edited out, it doesn't seem to make sense that Alan would not vote for any law that would restrict choice, so I think your interpretation of what he is saying makes no sense either.
-
And again, I think he's not talking about the law in terms of 'cannot' - which would in the context of law be a 'should not'.
As covered, in the sentence you edited out, it doesn't seem to make sense that Alan would not vote for any law that would restrict choice, so I think your interpretation of what he is saying makes no sense either.
I think AB should speak for himself rather than you acting as the 'spokesperson' for what he means.
-
As covered, in the sentence you edited out, it doesn't seem to make sense that Alan would not vote for any law that would restrict choice, so I think your interpretation of what he is saying makes no sense either.
I don't think that AB has clear indicated whether (were he to have the option) he would vote for a change to the law or oppose it. However his OP suggests that he clearly opposes allowing assisted dying. So either he'd follow that through in terms of voting to oppose in which case he'd be acting to restrict choice. Or alternatively he'd support on the basis of allowing others to exercise choice.
What seems disingenuous is to oppose but to claim not to be in the business of restricting choice - which is how I read his posts. But it is, of course, for him not you NS to actually tell us what he means.
-
I don't think that AB has clear indicated whether (were he to have the option) he would vote for a change to the law or oppose it. However his OP suggests that he clearly opposes allowing assisted dying. So either he'd follow that through in terms of voting to oppose in which case he'd be acting to restrict choice. Or alternatively he'd support on the basis of allowing others to exercise choice.
What seems disingenuous is to oppose but to claim not to be in the business of restricting choice - which is how I read his posts. But it is, of course, for him not you NS to actually tell us what he means.
Bit rich given you assumed what he meant, and yet despite me pointing out that it was uncertain based on the reasons I've given, you're continuing to assume you are right not dealing with any of the issues raised.
-
Bit rich given you assumed what he meant, and yet despite me pointing out that it was uncertain based on the reasons I've given, you're continuing to assume you are right not dealing with any of the issues raised.
AB can speak for himself - if he thinks I've misinterpreted what he thinks then that is for him to correct, not for you.
But a question for you NS - do you really think that AB does not want to restrict the choices of those who may wish to choose to use assisted dying - specifically by wanting it to remain unlawful.
-
AB can speak for himself - if he thinks I've misinterpreted what he thinks then that is for him to correct, not for you.
But a question for you NS - do you really think that AB does not want to restrict the choices of those who may wish to choose to use assisted dying - specifically by wanting it to remain unlawful.
I think he probably does. And as pointed out I think your interpretation of cannot here makes no sense, is not a pain reading and even you think he doesn't mean that because of what you suspect his OP implies.
So a question back at you - why are you attempting to use a interpretation you don't think he means as some sort of gotcha?
-
AB can speak for himself - if he thinks I've misinterpreted what he thinks then that is for him to correct, not for you.
But a question for you NS - do you really think that AB does not want to restrict the choices of those who may wish to choose to use assisted dying - specifically by wanting it to remain unlawful.
He's explicitly stated that he thinks assisting somebody to die is murder and contrary to God's will. I'm sure he wants it to remain unlawful.
-
He's explicitly stated that he thinks assisting somebody to die is murder and contrary to God's will. I'm sure he wants it to remain unlawful.
Exactly - so he actively wants to restrict the freedom of individuals to choose assisted dying by continuing to make it unlawful.
-
I think he probably does.
So he wants to restrict freedom to choose. Yup I agree that that is what he wants to do.
And as pointed out I think your interpretation of cannot here makes no sense, is not a pain reading and even you think he doesn't mean that because of what you suspect his OP implies.
So a question back at you - why are you attempting to use a interpretation you don't think he means as some sort of gotcha?
I disagree - your interpretation seems to be naive and simplistic. Namely that there are only two options - either you cannot do something or you can't. But there is a whole load of grey between those extremes in the real world. Specifically things that societies put in place to prevent someone doing something even if that society cannot completely prevent them from doing so. Good examples are, of course, laws which make something illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment if you do it. Or even further active mechanisms to prevent someone being able to exercise a particular choice.
So if you claim that you cannot prevent someone doing something but support extreme societal pressures not to exercise that choice (the most extreme being threat of criminal sanction) then you are, in my mind, being disingenuous in the real world.
-
So he wants to restrict freedom to choose. Yup I agree that that is what he wants to do.
I disagree - your interpretation seems to be naive and simplistic. Namely that there are only two options - either you cannot do something or you can. But there is a whole load of grey between those extremes in the real world. Specifically things that societies put in place to prevent someone doing something even if that society cannot completely prevent them from doing so. Good examples are, of course, laws which make something illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment if you do it. Or even further active mechanisms to prevent someone being able to exercise a particular choice.
So if you claim that you cannot prevent someone doing something but support extreme societal pressures not to exercise that choice (the most extreme being threat of criminal sanction) then you are, in my mind, being disingenuous in the real world.
And as already covered, I think we all choose laws that restrict freedoms, and I doubt Alan is any different.
Alan is intelligent enough to know the difference between cannot and should not. You, it appears, are not.
-
And as already covered, I think we all choose laws that restrict freedoms, and I doubt Alan is any different.
Not the point - we all support laws that restrict freedoms. But when we are doing so we need to be honest about what we are doing. I cannot stop people driving at 70mph in 30mph areas, but I support laws that make that activity illegal - I therefore support restricting the freedoms of people who want to drive at 70mph wherever and whenever they like.
What wouldn't be honest would be to support these laws but then imply that I do want to, or even cannot, restrict freedoms, because I am doing my darnedest to do exactly that.
-
Alan is intelligent enough to know the difference between cannot and should not. You, it appears, are not.
Back in the real world there is a whole set of shades of grey between the two. And for someone who thinks someone should not do something and supports active restricts through the law to prevent them from doing so is clearly trying to do their level best to ensure that someone cannot exercise that freedom.
And let's be clear - a claim of freedom to do something that will land you in jail isn't really freedom is it. It is freedom in theory only, not freedom in practice.
-
Back in the real world there is a whole set of shades of grey between the two. And for someone who thinks someone should not do something and supports active restricts through the law to prevent them from doing so is clearly trying to do their level best to ensure that someone cannot exercise that freedom.
And let's be clear - a claim of freedom to do something that will land you in jail isn't really freedom is it. It is freedom in theory only, not freedom in practice.
Yes, Alan would be doing that but that isn't affected by your lack of intelligence and inability to understand cannot and should not have different contexts.
The thing I'm utterly baffled is that you seen to think this is some gotcha on Alan when it's purely dependent on your interpretation which even you don't believe in, hence your comment that you think Alan would vote against the bill.
-
It seems to me that Alan's position is that he wouldn't choose assisted suicide for himself under any circumstances, due to his religious beliefs, but he accepts that others may have a different view. That seems reasonable to me.
-
It seems to me that Alan's position is that he wouldn't choose assisted suicide for himself under any circumstances, due to his religious beliefs, but he accepts that others may have a different view. That seems reasonable to me.
That isn't unreasonable if you also afford those people the right to freely choose that option if that aligns with their views.
But that doesn't seem to be the position here - my understanding is that AB wants to be able not to choose assisted dying as this does not align with his views, but he does not want to allow others to be able to legally choose to use assisted dying if that is what they wish for.
So he wants his freedom to freely choose to be respected while wanting to restrict the freedoms of others (who hold a different view to him) preventing them from freely choosing assisted dying. So it is imposing his view on others.
By the way I cannot imagine anyone would support there reverse - in other words that AB should not be able to choose not to use assisted suicide.
-
That isn't unreasonable if you also afford those people the right to freely choose that option if that aligns with their views.
But that doesn't seem to be the position here - my understanding is that AB wants to be able not to choose assisted dying as this does not align with his views, but he does not want to allow others to be able to legally choose to use assisted dying if that is what they wish for.
So he wants his freedom to freely choose to be respected while wanting to restrict the freedoms of others (who hold a different view to him) preventing them from freely choosing assisted dying. So it is imposing his view on others.
By the way I cannot imagine anyone would support there reverse - in other words that AB should not be able to choose not to use assisted suicide.
My reading of what Alan said was that while he might prefer that assisted suicide was not an option he accepted that others had a different view: It didn't seem to me that he felt legislation that affects society at large should align with his religious views.
For me this isn't an academic issue: it's very real - and while at present I'm not certain it's for me there could come a point as my health declines (as it certainly will) due to cancer that it may become an option I'd like to at least consider.
-
My reading of what Alan said was that while he might prefer that assisted suicide was not an option he accepted that others had a different view: I didn't seemed to me that he felt legislation that affects society at large should align with his religious views.
Unfortunately AB isn't entirely clear on his views but as JP suggests his stated opinion leads to infer that he is against changing the law. And if the law isn't changed people will not be able to have the freedom to choose that option, which would presumably align with their personal views (albeit not align with AB's views).
For me this isn't an academic issue: it's very real - and while at present I'm not certain it's for me there could come a point as my health declines (as it certainly will) due to cancer that it may become an option I'd like to at least consider.
I understand that Gordon and I want you (and others in a similar situation) to be able to consider this as an option for yourself. Which is why I support a change in the law.
What I don't understand is a position where a person claims to respect the views of others, but wants to restrict their freedoms to be able to follow their own conscience and make their own personal choice to use assisted dying. That isn't respecting the views of others.
-
In #12 Alan said this;
I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.
It seems to me that he is talking about his personal outlook and approach and not about legislation.
-
That isn't unreasonable if you also afford those people the right to freely choose that option if that aligns with their views.
But that doesn't seem to be the position here - my understanding is that AB wants to be able not to choose assisted dying as this does not align with his views, but he does not want to allow others to be able to legally choose to use assisted dying if that is what they wish for.
So he wants his freedom to freely choose to be respected while wanting to restrict the freedoms of others (who hold a different view to him) preventing them from freely choosing assisted dying. So it is imposing his view on others.
By the way I cannot imagine anyone would support there reverse - in other words that AB should not be able to choose not to use assisted suicide.
Are you arguing that restricting freedoms for others is wrong? So there should be more restrictions on drug use?
-
In #12 Alan said this;
It seems to me that he is talking about his personal outlook and approach and not about legislation.
But if you are opposing a change in the law to allow people to freely and lawfully choose assisted dying then you are imposing your views on others. If you do not want to impose your views on others you should support a change in the law to allow people to freely choose assisted dying or freely choose not to use assisted dying.
Problem is that AB seems to have run away from the discussion so we are unable to confirm whether he supports or opposes a change to the law.
-
Are you arguing that restricting freedoms for others is wrong? So there should be more restrictions on drug use?
I'm not - I'm arguing that if you restrict the freedoms of others you should be honest about it, as I was in my example on speeding. Not oppose changes to the law which would extend freedoms but then claim that you have no intention of restricting freedoms. That is disingenuous.
There are plenty of examples where I fully support a legislative position which restricts freedoms, but I'm clear that is what I support - restricting freedoms, usually because in my opinion restricting those freedoms for some conveys greater benefits (or even greater freedoms) on others.
-
I'm not - I'm arguing that if you respect the freedoms of others you should be honest about it, as I was in my example on speeding. Not oppose changes to the law which would extend freedoms but then claim that you have no intention of restricting freedoms. That is disingenuous.
There are plenty of examples where I fully support a legislative position which restricts freedoms, but I'm clear that is what I support - restricting freedoms, usually because in my opinion restricting those freedoms for some conveys greater benefits (or even greater freedoms) on others.
And I think Alan is honest about it for the reasons explained, and why my interpretation is more reasonable as opposed to your interpretation which is a lazy gotcha. Just ask Alan what he would vote.
-
And I think Alan is honest about it for the reasons explained, and why my interpretation is more reasonable as opposed to your interpretation which is a lazy gotcha.
I disagree - I think AB speaks warm words about not wanting to impose his views on others, but if he opposes a change to the law then that is clear what he is doing - wanting his views to be imposed on others.
Just ask Alan what he would vote.
That is what I have been doing, but AB seems to have vanished from the discussion - perhaps he isn't willing to be clear that he opposes a change to the law because to do so rather negates his claim not to want to impose his views on others.
So to be clear on a similar example.
Do I oppose changing the law to remove any speed restrictions on our roads - yup I do.
Do I recognise that the current legal position restricts the freedoms of drivers to drive at whatever speed they wish - sure do.
Do I want my view (that there should be speed restrictions) to be imposed on others - yup, absolutely, because in my view restricting those freedoms to drive at whatever speed is more beneficial to society and individuals that allowing complete freedom to drive at whatever speed.
-
As a devout Christian I could never contemplate a deliberate act to end my own life.
In God's eyes there would be two sins - the sin of despair on my part and the sin of murder on the person who does the act.
I have faith in God's promise to give us the strength and grace to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives if we put all our trust in Him.
And I would be able to offer up any pain and suffering during my last days as a prayer for whatever intention I choose, knowing that such prayers will be answered in wonderful ways. So my last days will not be wasted and I will be well prepared to enter into God's kingdom when my earthly life comes to its natural end.
I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.
Alan, when you get a chance and are logged in again could you for the benefit of Prof D and I, be an absolute darling, and explain what you mean by 'cannot impose my own views on others', and how you would vote on any bill were to be an MP? (See the rest of thread for the readons)
Thanks in advance, best wishes, NS.
-
He's explicitly stated that he thinks assisting somebody to die is murder and contrary to God's will. I'm sure he wants it to remain unlawful.
I wonder if he would be happy with "not striving officiously to keep alive"? That at least would allow the situation for many individuals to be left in God's hands. I realise that this diverts attention from the specifics of the topic in question, which involves people - although often totally deprived of individual autonomy - managing to live on months or even years, when they would dearly wish for their suffering to cease through death as quickly as possible.
-
I wonder if he would be happy with "not striving officiously to keep alive"? That at least would allow the situation for many individuals to be left in God's hands. I realise that this diverts attention from the specifics of the topic in question, which involves people - although often totally deprived of individual autonomy - managing to live on months or even years, when they would dearly wish for their suffering to cease through death as quickly as possible.
There's a lot of use in the current debate about this being a slippery slope with reference to the changes in Canadian legislation on it. If it is applied consistently, it would mean that DNRs have already started us down that slope, and indeed what is argued to be the excessive attempts at persuading people to sign up to DNrs is already an example of that slope. The argument then would surely imply that we should get rid of DNRs.
-
Alan, when you get a chance and are logged in again could you for the benefit of Prof D and I, be an absolute darling, and explain what you mean by 'cannot impose my own views on others', and how you would vote on any bill were to be an MP? (See the rest of thread for the readons)
Thanks in advance, best wishes, NS.
So just to clarify,
We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.
What I was hoping to do was that by explaining my reasoning from a Christian perspective I might influence the reasoning of other people to reach what I consider to be the objective truth as seen in God's eyes - namely the sins of despair and murder.
If I were an MP I would certainly vote to keep assisted suicide unlawful as a means to help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls.
-
So just to clarify,
We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.
What I was hoping to do was that by explaining my reasoning from a Christian perspective I might influence the reasoning of other people to reach what I consider to be the objective truth as seen in God's eyes - namely the sins of despair and murder.
If I were an MP I would certainly vote to keep assisted suicide unlawful as a means to help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls.
Thanks, Alan. As should be clear from the thread, I thought your meaning was pretty clear, even though I disagree with it.
-
So just to clarify,
We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.
Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.
So let's break this down. Image there are two options X and Y (in this case X is choosing assisted dying towards the end of life and Y is choosing not to use assisted dying but different end of life options). Some people would prefer to choose X, others would prefer to choose Y. But that will only be a fully free choice if there is no coercion from societies of individuals nor sanction on the basis of choosing one option or the other. If society or individuals coerce or apply sanction then they are imposing their views on the individual choosing between X and Y. And those pressures might be subtle societal pressures that X is preferable to Y (or vice versa) but, of course the most draconian of pressures (and the greatest imposition of views on the person making the choice) is to declare that one of X or Y is unlawful and that if an individual chooses that option they may be prosecuted and jailed.
So any situation where one of X or Y is unlawful is a situation where societies are influencing the choices of individuals as those choices are no longer free choices, but subject to sanction and therefore the societal views are imposed on individuals. And, of course, if an individual supports X being unlawful as in their view X is wrong is also imposing their view (through retaining a draconian section on people choosing X).
What I was hoping to do was that by explaining my reasoning from a Christian perspective I might influence the reasoning of other people to reach what I consider to be the objective truth as seen in God's eyes - namely the sins of despair and murder.
But that is clearly attempting to impose ones view on another. If you weren't attempting to impose your view AB, you would simple step back and allow the individual to choose freely without applying pressure to adhere to your view.
So if this is a situation where X and Y are considered equally valid under the law you might still attempt to impose your view on an individual to influence (or pressurise them) to follow the option that aligns with your view. But that isn't the case here as X is currently illegal and you want it to remain illegal. So not only do you want the greatest level of societal imposition of views - X being illegal, but also wish to attempt to impose your views directly in a manner attempting to influence an individual to choose Y.
If I were an MP I would certainly vote to keep assisted suicide unlawful as a means to help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls.
Of course you would AB, and I image were assisted dying to become legal and there was a opportunity to make it illegal again you'd vote to ban it. Which is, of course, the very clearest evidence that you want to, and would act to, impose your view (that X is wrong) on others by preventing them from freely choosing X without risk of severe sanction.
-
As I understand it, any legislation on this issue that comes before MP's to be voted on will be on the basis of a 'free vote' since it is regarded as a matter of conscience - Alan regards the issue, for reasons he has outlined, as being unconscionable so of course he, if he were an MP, would vote against it (as no doubt some MP's will).
However, as a democrat, I'd imagine he accepts that his view may be a minority one and that legislation, with sufficient protections that deal with those who have conscientious objections, may well come to pass even if he preferred that it did not.
-
Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.
I cannot possibly ignore the notion of God - you will never understand this from outside the Christian faith.
There was once a time when I supported abortion, and from a personal point of view I fully understand the advantages of assisted dying. But in fully embracing the Christian faith my mind has been opened to the will of God and the nature of God's love - and how God's ways are not the ways of mankind and this material world. Of course I know that God exists - I have a personal relationship with Him.
So I am not trying to impose my view, but simply witnessing to what I truly believe to be the will of God.
Not My will, but Yours be done Matthew 26
-
There's a lot of use in the current debate about this being a slippery slope with reference to the changes in Canadian legislation on it. If it is applied consistently, it would mean that DNRs have already started us down that slope, and indeed what is argued to be the excessive attempts at persuading people to sign up to DNrs is already an example of that slope. The argument then would surely imply that we should get rid of DNRs.
Of course, slippery slope arguments are fallacies.
-
Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.
But you can't. Alan firmly believes God to exist and that informs his opinions. Any argument you make that ignores this fact is a pointless waste of time.
-
Of course, slippery slope arguments are fallacies.
If they are made in the simplistic sense of any initial decision inevitably leads to further decisions, yes. But the argument here is not just that rather it is that there are examples where an expansion of the idea on assisted dying has come about, Canada being the most cited example, and that there are a number of MPs who have openly stated that they aim to expand it.
-
Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.
So let's break this down. Image there are two options X and Y (in this case X is choosing assisted dying towards the end of life and Y is choosing not to use assisted dying but different end of life options). Some people would prefer to choose X, others would prefer to choose Y. But that will only be a fully free choice if there is no coercion from societies of individuals nor sanction on the basis of choosing one option or the other. If society or individuals coerce or apply sanction then they are imposing their views on the individual choosing between X and Y. And those pressures might be subtle societal pressures that X is preferable to Y (or vice versa) but, of course the most draconian of pressures (and the greatest imposition of views on the person making the choice) is to declare that one of X or Y is unlawful and that if an individual chooses that option they may be prosecuted and jailed.
So any situation where one of X or Y is unlawful is a situation where societies are influencing the choices of individuals as those choices are no longer free choices, but subject to sanction and therefore the societal views are imposed on individuals. And, of course, if an individual supports X being unlawful as in their view X is wrong is also imposing their view (through retaining a draconian section on people choosing X).
But that is clearly attempting to impose ones view on another. If you weren't attempting to impose your view AB, you would simple step back and allow the individual to choose freely without applying pressure to adhere to your view.
So if this is a situation where X and Y are considered equally valid under the law you might still attempt to impose your view on an individual to influence (or pressurise them) to follow the option that aligns with your view. But that isn't the case here as X is currently illegal and you want it to remain illegal. So not only do you want the greatest level of societal imposition of views - X being illegal, but also wish to attempt to impose your views directly in a manner attempting to influence an individual to choose Y.
Of course you would AB, and I image were assisted dying to become legal and there was a opportunity to make it illegal again you'd vote to ban it. Which is, of course, the very clearest evidence that you want to, and would act to, impose your view (that X is wrong) on others by preventing them from freely choosing X without risk of severe sanction.
That's a lot of words to (a) avoid accepting your interpretation of what Alan said was wrong, (b) that you were wrong to accuse him of trying to sugar coat his opposition and hiding that he would vote against the bill, and (c) that you were wrong to imply that he hadn't replied to clarify out of cowardice. A triple Lindy of wrongness.
Add to that the pointless statement in terms of having the discussion with Alan that we should ignore the question of whether god exists, and your post is just rather pathetic.
-
If they are made in the simplistic sense of any initial decision inevitably leads to further decisions, yes.
That's pretty much the definition.
But the argument here is not just that rather it is that there are examples where an expansion of the idea on assisted dying has come about, Canada being the most cited example, and that there are a number of MPs who have openly stated that they aim to expand it.
and that's pretty much the reason why it's a fallacy. Yes there may be expansion, but each new expansion must be argued and agreed on its own merits, unless you're going to argue that Canada made the first step and then blindly progressed further down the slope just because they made the first step.
-
That's pretty much the definition.
and that's pretty much the reason why it's a fallacy. Yes there may be expansion, but each new expansion must be argued and agreed on its own merits, unless you're going to argue that Canada made the first step and then blindly progressed further down the slope just because they made the first step.
If you can show there are cases where the progress happens, and that there was similar pressure there for the progress, then it's evidence that it is a possibility, not that it is inevitable but it's not a fallacy to point out that such cases exist.
The problem with simply saying it's a fallacy is that it precludes the evidence of such cases.
-
That's a lot of words to (a) avoid accepting your interpretation of what Alan said was wrong, (b) that you were wrong to accuse him of trying to sugar coat his opposition and hiding that he would vote against the bill, and (c) that you were wrong to imply that he hadn't replied to clarify out of cowardice. A triple Lindy of wrongness.pathetic.
Do you bother to actually read my posts ... or AB's for that matter.
I wasn't wrong at all - firstly I suspected, albeit it hadn't been confirmed at that point, that AB would (if he had the chance) vote to maintain the position where assisted dying was illegal. AB has now clearly confirmed that I was right in my suspicions.
Secondly my interpretation of AB's position was that he does want to impose his views on others (despite his protestations that he didn't). Again I think I have been proved right as AB has confirmed firstly that he would vote in a manner which restricts the freedom of individuals to choose an option he disagrees with by ensuring it is illegal (imposing his view on others). Secondly his reason for doing so is because he wants to 'help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls', again clearly imposing his own views on others. And thirdly he would attempt to influence people to agree with him rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience (also imposing his own view on others).
So AB is clearly wanting to impose his views on others, not just in one manner, but actually in three.
So, nope NS, I wasn't wrong in my interpretations of AB's earlier posts - I was spot on correct.
-
Do you bother to actually read my posts ... or AB's for that matter.
I wasn't wrong at all - firstly I suspected, albeit it hadn't been confirmed at that point, that AB would (if he had the chance) vote to maintain the position where assisted dying was illegal. AB has now clearly confirmed that I was right in my suspicions.
Secondly my interpretation of AB's position was that he does want to impose his views on others (despite his protestations that he didn't). Again I think I have been proved right as AB has confirmed firstly that he would vote in a manner which restricts the freedom of individuals to choose an option he disagrees with by ensuring it is illegal (imposing his view on others). Secondly his reason for doing so is because he wants to 'help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls', again clearly imposing his own views on others. And thirdly he would attempt to influence people to agree with him rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience (also imposing his own view on others).
So AB is clearly wanting to impose his views on others, not just in one manner, but actually in three.
So, nope NS, I wasn't wrong in my interpretations of AB's earlier posts - I was spot on correct.
No, you weren't. He explained what he meant and it was what I said. Nothing about a general position that he would never vote to restrict choices which was your interpretation of what he said.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
-
No, you weren't. He explained what he meant and it was what I said. Nothing about a general position that he would never vote to restrict choices which was your interpretation of what he said.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Dear oh dear - think you need to give your head a wobble NS!
-
As I understand it, any legislation on this issue that comes before MP's to be voted on will be on the basis of a 'free vote' since it is regarded as a matter of conscience - Alan regards the issue, for reasons he has outlined, as being unconscionable so of course he, if he were an MP, would vote against it (as no doubt some MP's will).
Yes it will be a free vote - in which every MP are able to vote according to their conscience, uninhibited by any official party whipping.
But there is, actually, a bit of a challenge with conscience votes and a representative democracy. In most votes MPs are expected to vote on the basis of the agreed position of the party that they represented when they were elected. Accordingly voters should have a pretty clear view on what way they will vote on particular matters, either on a manifesto position or a broader understanding of the political positions of specific parties. And if an PM doesn't vote in that way they can expect to receive some level of sanction from their party.
But conscience matters aren't like that - I doubt many people when they vote have the slightest idea whether their prospective MP supports or opposes assisted dying (or other conscience vote positions) and this won't be set out in a manifesto (as it is a conscience vote). Nor is there a kind of default whereby you'd expect Labour MPs to vote one way and Tories another etc - these matters often don't break on party lines at all. So unless you have specifically asked the question and had it answered on an individual basis how can a voter vote on that basis and therefore to what extent is the vote of an MP in a conscience vote is consistent with representative democratic principles (on the basis that they were voted in by the electorate due to their position on the matter). And this is all the more challenging when there are many new MPs - at least when you have a long-standing MP you can look at their record of voting on similar matters in the past.
The trouble that we have in this context is that the 650 MPs appear very unrepresentative of the views out in the general public. Specifically that for quite some while there has been strong public support in favour (that now seems to have reached nearly 80%) but majority opposition in the commons.
The way around this in a truly democratic manner would be for MPs rather than voting on the matter specifically in a conscience vote, they would vote to support a referendum on the matter which would be decided on the basis of broader public opinion.
-
Its seems to me that our system is such that the MPs we elect represent us, and in some cases they address issues that are matters of conscience as opposed to matters of conformance with manifesto commitments or with party politics - and if we don't like how where their conscience leads them then at the next election we can opt to not vote for them.
I can't see that it is practical to have a referendum each time a matter of conscience is being considered for legislation.
-
they would vote to support a referendum on the matter which would be decided on the basis of broader public opinion.
Yes, because that always works out for the best.
-
Its seems to me that our system is such that the MPs we elect represent us, and in some cases they address issues that are matters of conscience as opposed to matters of conformance with manifesto commitments or with party politics - and if we don't like how where their conscience leads them then at the next election we can opt to not vote for them.
I can't see that it is practical to have a referendum each time a matter of conscience is being considered for legislation.
A couple of interesting pieces on the topic, one short and one rather long! (from an Australian context but their parliamentary system is pretty similar to ours):
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/saves/pages/48/attachments/original/1593487628/Conscience_Vote.pdf?1593487628
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1638&context=artspapers
I agree that referendums, although without doubt the most democratic way of dealing with such matters, wouldn't be practical (or certainly not under our tradition, the Swiss, well that's a different matter). And while I agree that you can vote out an MP if you don't like the conscience decisions they may have made, that may mean throwing out baby with bathwater if your MP is from a party whose policies you support, but whose conscience votes don't align with your view.
But I think the element that is particularly unsatisfactory is the uncertainty. In the last general election as far as I'm aware all major parties were broadly supportive of, at the very least providing parliamentary time, but often more directly positive from either party or leader position. So in other non-conscience situations you'd suspect with this level of broad support at party level that a change would happen. Yet in this case despite the supportive 'mood music' we really have no idea whether legislation would pass or not as we really have no idea of the 'conscience' make up of the 650 MPs.
-
Yes, because that always works out for the best.
I don't think this situation could be compared to Brexit - in that case the government did not want to make a change, but gambled on a referendum thinking it would nullify their right wing (which of course it didn't).
-
Yes it will be a free vote - in which every MP are able to vote according to their conscience, uninhibited by any official party whipping.
The trouble that we have in this context is that the 650 MPs appear very unrepresentative of the views out in the general public. Specifically that for quite some while there has been strong public support in favour (that now seems to have reached nearly 80%) but majority opposition in the commons.
The way around this in a truly democratic manner would be for MPs rather than voting on the matter specifically in a conscience vote, they would vote to support a referendum on the matter which would be decided on the basis of broader public opinion.
So, where does this leave the opinion of Edmund Burke, in his famous address to the electors of Bristol?
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
-
A couple of interesting pieces on the topic, one short and one rather long! (from an Australian context but their parliamentary system is pretty similar to ours):
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/saves/pages/48/attachments/original/1593487628/Conscience_Vote.pdf?1593487628
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1638&context=artspapers
I agree that referendums, although without doubt the most democratic way of dealing with such matters, wouldn't be practical (or certainly not under our tradition, the Swiss, well that's a different matter). And while I agree that you can vote out an MP if you don't like the conscience decisions they may have made, that may mean throwing out baby with bathwater if your MP is from a party whose policies you support, but whose conscience votes don't align with your view.
But I think the element that is particularly unsatisfactory is the uncertainty. In the last general election as far as I'm aware all major parties were broadly supportive of, at the very least providing parliamentary time, but often more directly positive from either party or leader position. So in other non-conscience situations you'd suspect with this level of broad support at party level that a change would happen. Yet in this case despite the supportive 'mood music' we really have no idea whether legislation would pass or not as we really have no idea of the 'conscience' make up of the 650 MPs.
The supportive mood music being amongst other things, a PM who made a promise to a friend that it would be debated were he to become PM. Favours for the few, sometimes even without bribes.
-
I don't think this situation could be compared to Brexit - in that case the government did not want to make a change, but gambled on a referendum thinking it would nullify their right wing (which of course it didn't).
And yet it was a referendum, and you want a referendum. That something is not exactly the same does not mean that it can't be compared.
-
I don't think this situation could be compared to Brexit - in that case the government did not want to make a change, but gambled on a referendum thinking it would nullify their right wing (which of course it didn't).
Not comparing it to Brexit.
I just don't like referanda (ums) never sure.
Say we had a referendum on the Death Penalty as that is also a conscience issue. Where would we be? Is that the result you would desire? I suspect not.
The electorate is too mercurial and lacks, as a body, comprehensive knowledge on these issues. We are governed more often than not by emotions, rather than carefully thought-out viewpoints.
Hard though it is to accept, our MP's at least have the availability of expert advice and can weigh things more dispassionately than your average Joe. Not always I know, but more often than we give them credit for.
-
..... he would attempt to influence people to agree with him rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience (also imposing his own view on others).
What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.
As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.
Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak. And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.
-
What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.
As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.
Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak. And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.
Which demonstrates again that you would look to impose your view on others rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience.
And you also indicated that were you to have the chance, were you an MP, you'd vote to keep assisted dying illegal. And I presume if assisted dying were made legal you'd vote to make it illegal given the chance. Demonstrating very clearly that you would impose your views on others.
Now I'm not saying that imposing your own views on others, including via legislation, is a bad thing. I gave my own example involving speed limits where I too would look to impose my view that speed limits should be in place on others who might consider that they should be able to drive at any speed.
Nope my issue is one of honesty - if you want to impose your views on others (as you do on assisted dying and I do on speed limits) don't pretend that you aren't in the business of imposing your views on others.
-
What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.
As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.
Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak. And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.
Again, Alan I disagree with most of this but for some reason Prof D has decided you are not being consistent because he has decided when you wrote that you cannot restrict people's choices this somehow meant that you wouldn't seek to do so influence people, or vote with your conscience. Despite you making clear that thar wasn't your meaning, he's ignoring that because that would mean he was wrong.
As regards what you write here you seem to imply that your conscience is your god telling you what is right. And yet I know Christians who believe that their conscience tells them the opposite to you. Why are you right and why are they wrong?
-
Which demonstrates again that you would look to impose your view on others rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience.
And you also indicated that were you to have the chance, were you an MP, you'd vote to keep assisted dying illegal. And I presume if assisted dying were made legal you'd vote to make it illegal given the chance. Demonstrating very clearly that you would impose your views on others.
Now I'm not saying that imposing your own views on others, including via legislation, is a bad thing. I gave my own example involving speed limits where I too would look to impose my view that speed limits should be in place on others who might consider that they should be able to drive at any speed.
Nope my issue is one of honesty - if you want to impose your views on others (as you do on assisted dying and I do on speed limits) don't pretend that you aren't in the business of imposing your views on others.
He's not. That's just your wrong interpretation of what he said which he has denied. Just how big is that hole you are digging for yourself? Can you see Arne Saknussemm yet?
-
As regards what you write here you seem to imply that your conscience is your god telling you what is right. And yet I know Christians who believe that their conscience tells them the opposite to you. Why are you right and why are they wrong?
One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong. I do not believe that this could emanate from physically determined material reactions, but that it is a God given attribute of our human soul.
-
One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong. I do not believe that this could emanate from physically determined material reactions, but that it is a God given attribute of our human soul.
That's not answering the question at all.
-
One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong.
It occurs to me that all our trouble stems from this.
We all have a built-in sense of right and wrong. Just not the same built-in sense of right and wrong.
-
It occurs to me that all our trouble stems from this.
We all have a built-in sense of right and wrong. Just not the same built-in sense of right and wrong.
Yep, and Christoans believe different things on this as I asked Alan about and he just ignored it.
Also, there are cases like this one where I think the simplistic idea of right and wrong seem woefully inadequate.
-
He's not. That's just your wrong interpretation of what he said which he has denied.
Of course he is - you seemed to be sucked into imbalanced perspectives biased towards the current orthodoxy.
So to test this let's do a thought experiment where we reverse things - a kind of reverse AB who adopts all the same approaches, the only difference being that this reverse-AB supports assisted dying and thinks current palliative care options are wrong.
So if the reverse-AB encountered someone whose personal end of life decision was to use palliative care rather than assisted dying he would use all his powers of persuasion to try to coerce them into using assisted dying. And he would justify this on the basis of his own personal views on assisted dying and palliative care rather than having due regard for the other person's view.
But the reverse-AB would go further - if he had the chance he would vote to make palliative care illegal so that no-one could legally choose it. Their only options would be assisted dying or dying in pain.
Now surely you'd conclude that this reverse-AB was imposing his views on others and that he was acting to restrict choice. I certainly would. And if you'd conclude that for the reverse-AB then surely you must conclude the same for AB, otherwise you'd be biasing your views on imposing views and restricting choice on the nature of that choice rather than the approach of AB/reverse-AB (which are identical).
Maybe some unconscious bias training is needed for you NS ... once you've given your head a wobble.
-
Of course he is - you seemed to be sucked into imbalanced perspectives biased towards the current orthodoxy.
So to test this let's do a thought experiment where we reverse things - a kind of reverse AB who adopts all the same approaches, the only difference being that this reverse-AB supports assisted dying and thinks current palliative care options are wrong.
So if the reverse-AB encountered someone whose personal end of life decision was to use palliative care rather than assisted dying he would use all his powers of persuasion to try to coerce them into using assisted dying. And he would justify this on the basis of his own personal views on assisted dying and palliative care rather than having due regard for the other person's view.
But the reverse-AB would go further - if he had the chance he would vote to make palliative care illegal so that no-one could legally choose it. Their only options would be assisted dying or dying in pain.
Now surely you'd conclude that this reverse-AB was imposing his views on others and that he was acting to restrict choice. I certainly would. And if you'd conclude that for the reverse-AB then surely you must conclude the same for AB, otherwise you'd be biasing your views on imposing views and restricting choice on the nature of that choice rather than the approach of AB/reverse-AB (which are identical).
Maybe some unconscious bias training is needed for you NS ... once you've given your head a wobble.
And you must have passed Saknussemm now. The point is that you continue to misinterpret Alan's point that he cannot make people think as he does to meaning that he should not try to persuade them or vote against the bill.
-
The point is that you continue to misinterpret Alan's point that he cannot make people think as he does to meaning that he should not try to persuade them or vote against the bill.
Yawn.
And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.
-
Yawn.
And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.
Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.
What is being pointed out that when he wrote that he was unable to impose his views on others, he means, as I suggested, and as he has stated since that he could not change their minds.
He did not mean that he should not, note the difference between should not and cannot here, attempt to persuade, influence people, or vote against the bill.
-
Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.
Then you agree that AB is both attempting to impose his views on others and also were he to be given the opportunity would very effectively impose his views on others and restrict their choices by voting to ensure that one choice that people might wish to use is unavailable to them unless they break the law.
So thanks for confirming that I was right in my inferences all along.
-
What is being pointed out that when he wrote that he was unable to impose his views on others, he means, as I suggested, and as he has stated since that he could not change their minds.
He did not mean that he should not, note the difference between should not and cannot here, attempt to persuade, influence people, or vote against the bill.
But imposing your views on another person isn't just about changing their minds. Indeed I don't think it is largely about that. To my mind someone imposes their views on another when they use methods that make that person act in a manner that doesn't align with their own views/conscience, without necessarily changing their view at all.
That involves putting in barriers (that might include sanctions or even rewards) which act to frustrate that person's ability to follow their own views and conscience such that the act in a manner that they wouldn't have done had they been allowed to follow their own conscience. Those barriers may involve pressure or coercion to act against their conscience or even putting in place legal barriers that prevent a person from following their own conscience unless they are prepared to break the law (which of course most people wouldn't be).
None of that requires the person to have actually changed their mind - nope it is about preventing someone from acting in accordance with their own views, but acting in accordance with the views of the person who is imposing.
-
What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.
As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.
Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak. And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.
So if everyone else is able to override their conscience, why not you AB.
Strikes me that double standards are at play here. Effectively that your conscience must take precedence over other drivers for decision-making. But others whose conscience leads them to a different conclusion should override their conscience. In other words conscience is only important where people agree with you, but should be overridden where people don't agree with you.
Hmmm.
-
But imposing your views on another person isn't just about changing their minds. Indeed I don't think it is largely about that. To my mind someone imposes their views on another when they use methods that make that person act in a manner that doesn't align with their own views/conscience, without necessarily changing their view at all.
That involves putting in barriers (that might include sanctions or even rewards) which act to frustrate that person's ability to follow their own views and conscience such that the act in a manner that they wouldn't have done had they been allowed to follow their own conscience. Those barriers may involve pressure or coercion to act against their conscience or even putting in place legal barriers that prevent a person from following their own conscience unless they are prepared to break the law (which of course most people wouldn't be).
None of that requires the person to have actually changed their mind - nope it is about preventing someone from acting in accordance with their own views, but acting in accordance with the views of the person who is imposing.
That's still irrelevant since ir's based in you reading Alan as saying he should not seek to change minds which he didn't - are you about coming up around the Chatham Islands?
-
Then you agree that AB is both attempting to impose his views on others and also were he to be given the opportunity would very effectively impose his views on others and restrict their choices by voting to ensure that one choice that people might wish to use is unavailable to them unless they break the law.
So thanks for confirming that I was right in my inferences all along.
But not your interpretation of what he was saying, nor your interpretation of what I was saying.
Your wrongness, and desperation to avoid it have worked as a derail of any case for assisted dying as you've wasted time and effort trying to get Alan on an irrelevant and incorrect gotcha. Very sad, really.
-
That's still irrelevant since ir's based in you reading Alan as saying he should not seek to change minds which he didn't - are you about coming up around the Chatham Islands?
I think you need to actually go back and read what AB said in the post which kicked off my discussion on imposing views. What he said was:
'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'
But he can (in theory) and he would give the opportunity. Making something illegal because it conflicts with your views is without doubt imposing one's views on others. You seem to agree with this given reply 82. There is no doubt that there are many people whose conscience would allow them to use assisted dying and who would want to be given the opportunity to do so. What prevents them is that it is illegal and they are not willing to break the law, and critically to require others to break the law to assist them. So making something illegal is a pretty effective way of imposing your views on others - that is what AB would do given the chance.
How's the head wobbling coming on NS.
-
I think you need to actually go back and read what AB said in the post which kicked off my discussion on imposing views. What he said was:
'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'
But he can (in theory) and he would give the opportunity. Making something illegal because it conflicts with your views is without doubt imposing one's views on others. You seem to agree with this given reply 82. There is no doubt that there are many people whose conscience would allow them to use assisted dying and who would want to be given the opportunity to do so. What prevents them is that it is illegal and they are not willing to break the law, and critically to require others to break the law to assist them. So making something illegal is a pretty effective way of imposing your views on others - that is what AB would do given the chance.
How's the head wobbling coming on NS.
I'm very well aware of what he said, and I pointed out then that your interpretation was wrong, and he confirmed it but in your pathetic need to try and show up Alan, you've derailed the thread, wasted your chance to make the case for assisted dying, and exposed that your ego outweighs your ability to think and read.
-
I'm very well aware of what he said,
Seems unlikely as you keep posting as if he'd said something entirely different.
and I pointed out then that your interpretation was wrong
But my interpretation is exactly the same as your interpretation - see your post 82. Namely that if someone would vote to ban assisted dying on the basis of their own views (as AB later clearly confirmed) that they would be imposing their views on others.
Blimey your head will be spinning with all the wobbling you are going to need to give it.
-
Seems unlikely as you keep posting as if he'd said something entirely different.
But my interpretation is exactly the same as your interpretation - see your post 82. Namely that if someone would vote to ban assisted dying on the basis of their own views (as AB later clearly confirmed) that they would be imposing their views on others.
Blimey your head will be spinning with all the wobbling you are going to need to give it.
And again your reading and thinking is screwed up. Where your interpretation was wrong is in thinking that Alan'' ' cannot impose' was saying he should not vote for the bill or attempt to persuade people when he meant that he could not change their minds by force. He confirmed that you were wrong.
All of that is covered multiple times in the thread, and you've just ignored it.
I'm giving up now, if only to save you from using the head wobble line again, as it wasn't that good a line to start with and through overuse is now making you look tedious as well as sad.
-
And again your reading and thinking is screwed up. Where your interpretation was wrong is in thinking that Alan'' ' cannot impose' was saying he should not vote for the bill or attempt to persuade people when he meant that he could not change their minds by force. He confirmed that.
All of that is covered multiple times in the thread, and you've just ignored it.
I'm giving up now, if only to save you from using the head wobble line again, as it wasn't that good a line to start with and through overuse is now making you look tedious as well as sad.
You are a nightmare NS - you are completely misinterpreting what I have been saying - and I worry that there isn't enough space down those rabbit holes where you have disappeared to be able to give your head a wobble.
So in reply 12 AB said:
'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'
I replied (reply 14 - my first post on this thread):
'So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.'
AB then confirmed, as we'd suspected, that he would indeed vote to ban assisted dying.
So in reply 81 I then posed to you the following:
'And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.'
This is basically exactly the same point I made back in reply 14 that you claimed was a misinterpretation. Yet your reply was (reply 82):
'Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.'
So in reply 82 you are basically agreeing with my interpretation of AB's comment that I'd made way back in reply14. Yet somehow you appear to think I'm wrong ... but you agree with me.
-
An interesting read - a lot of what is he says chimes with my feelings on living with incurable cancer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/12/terminal-illness-assisted-dying-debate-mps
-
I also read this earlier. It is refreshing to read a viewpoint that is not black and white and recognises the many nuances involved.
Also very moving.
-
Very powerful article.
-
You are a nightmare NS - you are completely misinterpreting what I have been saying - and I worry that there isn't enough space down those rabbit holes where you have disappeared to be able to give your head a wobble.
So in reply 12 AB said:
'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'
I replied (reply 14 - my first post on this thread):
'So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.'
AB then confirmed, as we'd suspected, that he would indeed vote to ban assisted dying.
So in reply 81 I then posed to you the following:
'And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.'
This is basically exactly the same point I made back in reply 14 that you claimed was a misinterpretation. Yet your reply was (reply 82):
'Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.'
So in reply 82 you are basically agreeing with my interpretation of AB's comment that I'd made way back in reply14. Yet somehow you appear to think I'm wrong ... but you agree with me.
Just to clarify my position once again,
It goes against my Christian faith to impose my views on anyone. God gave us the amazing gift of free will in order to enable us to freely choose to follow Him.
I would vote against assisted suicide in order to help protect vulnerable people from being coerced into ending their own lives by relatives who value their inheritance more than the lives of those they should love.
-
Just to clarify my position once again,
It goes against my Christian faith to impose my views on anyone. God gave us the amazing gift of free will in order to enable us to freely choose to follow Him.
I would vote against assisted suicide in order to help protect vulnerable people from being coerced into ending their own lives by relatives who value their inheritance more than the lives of those they should love.
Prof D would argue you 'impose your choice' by restricting choice, so while I think I understand what you mean, I'm not sure it's a helpful term here.
-
Just to clarify my position once again,
It goes against my Christian faith to impose my views on anyone.
Then don't - allow people to freely choose, not just the option that you'd prefer, but also the one that you don't agree with. If there are two options X and Y and one of those choices is lawful, but the other is unlawful, then there isn't a free choice as one choice comes with a significant threat of legal sanction while the other doesn't.
God gave us the amazing gift of free will in order to enable us to freely choose to follow Him.
But there is no free choice if the option you think is right is lawful, while the option you don't like is unlawful. For there to be free choice an individual must be able to choose between the options freely, without coercion, pressure or sanction - and something being unlawful is pretty well the most severe sanction society can impose.
If you make one option legal and the other illegal then there is no free choice.
I would vote against assisted suicide in order to help protect vulnerable people from being coerced into ending their own lives by relatives who value their inheritance more than the lives of those they should love.
But what about someone who isn't being coerced, but genuinely and freely wishes to use assisted dying - by making it illegal you would not just be protecting vulnerable people, but also imposing your views and restricting the choice of those who aren't being coerced.
And while there is a lot of talk about protecting the vulnerable who might feel pressurised (and I agree there must be very significant safeguards) but what about protecting those who desperately want to die and would choose assisted dying were it legal, but are condemned to live their final days in pain and horrible distress against their most fervent wishes. Surely they are equally deserving of protection.
-
One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong. I do not believe that this could emanate from physically determined material reactions, but that it is a God given attribute of our human soul.
Can you explain why different people have different ideas about what is right and wrong?
If our "inbuilt sense of right and wrong" comes from God, why do I disagree with you on the subject of assisted dying? I probably disagree with you on a number of other issues of right and wrong too. I doubt that we agree on the right of everybody to get married to the person they love or possibly abortion or a number of other moral issues.
I know my views on several of these issues have changed over the years as I've got more experience of the World and heard more viewpoints from other people. My sense of right and wrong is not inbuilt, it's learned.
-
Can you explain why different people have different ideas about what is right and wrong?
If our "inbuilt sense of right and wrong" comes from God, why do I disagree with you on the subject of assisted dying? I probably disagree with you on a number of other issues of right and wrong too. I doubt that we agree on the right of everybody to get married to the person they love or possibly abortion or a number of other moral issues.
I know my views on several of these issues have changed over the years as I've got more experience of the World and heard more viewpoints from other people. My sense of right and wrong is not inbuilt, it's learned.
And, of course, it's not just that you are an evil atheist but Christians disagree on this, and some disagree with Alan.
ETA even Archbishops of Canterbury disagree with each other
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9dn42xqg4o
-
As regards what you write here you seem to imply that your conscience is your god telling you what is right. And yet I know Christians who believe that their conscience tells them the opposite to you. Why are you right and why are they wrong?
I realise I did not give a proper response to this before, so I need to redress this.
I do accept that being a Christian does not give one infallibility over determining what is right or wrong. We are all prone to the temptation of allowing misguided human logic to override the voice of our God given conscience. However as Christians we do have the power to pray and to refer to the divine revelations of scripture in order to determine what is the right thing to do (or not do as in the case of assisting someone's death). Sometimes the answer to our prayers may not be what we would like - and it is then that we need to call upon the power of God's grace to help us to choose the right thing. Sadly there seems to be a very worrying trend to try to reinterpret the teachings of the Gospels to fit in with the trends dictated by modern secular society.
-
I realise I did not give a proper response to this before, so I need to redress this.
I do accept that being a Christian does not give one infallibility over determining what is right or wrong. We are all prone to the temptation of allowing misguided human logic to override the voice of our God given conscience. However as Christians we do have the power to pray and to refer to the divine revelations of scripture in order to determine what is the right thing to do (or not do as in the case of assisting someone's death). Sometimes the answer to our prayers may not be what we would like - and it is then that we need to call upon the power of God's grace to help us to choose the right thing. Sadly there seems to be a very worrying trend to try to reinterpret the teachings of the Gospels to fit in with the trends dictated by modern secular society.
But presumably the Christians who reinterpret (or from their post of view, restore the correct interpretation of) the teachings of the Gospels are as convinced as you are that the power of God's grace has led them to the right answer.
Are you not at all concerned that you might have been led astray?
-
But presumably the Christians who reinterpret (or from their post of view, restore the correct interpretation of) the teachings of the Gospels are as convinced as you are that the power of God's grace has led them to the right answer.
Are you not at all concerned that you might have been led astray?
Yes we should all be concerned about being led astray. The big question is - can you recognise that you are being led astray and what is leading you astray?
It is often mentioned that the Devil's greatest weapon is to convince people that he does not exist. CS Lewis explored the concept of the Devil's temptation strategy in his books "The Screwtape Letters" and "Screwtape Proposes a Toast". Lewis admitted that writing these books brought him disturbingly close to experiencing the amazing power of evil. The world we live in is a battleground between the powers of good and evil. I believe that the powers of evil have infiltrated to the highest levels of governments and the church hierarchy. We all need to be vigilant and recognise that we cannot fight these powers alone - we need to call upon the help of the only one who can deliver us from evil - Jesus Christ.
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one - Matthew 6:13
-
Sadly there seems to be a very worrying trend to try to reinterpret the teachings of the Gospels to fit in with the trends dictated by modern secular society.
But that is surely a problem for Christians to wrestle with rather than the rest of us: is it not more the case, and an even greater concern for you guys, that for what you refer to as 'modern secular society' these Gospels are largely irrelevant in terms of social policy, especially where Christianity is in decline.
-
Yes we should all be concerned about being led astray. The big question is - can you recognise that you are being led astray and what is leading you astray?
Yes. That is the question I am asking you.
It is often mentioned that the Devil's greatest weapon is to convince people that he does not exist. CS Lewis explored the concept of the Devil's temptation strategy in his books "The Screwtape Letters" and "Screwtape Proposes a Toast". Lewis admitted that writing these books brought him disturbingly close to experiencing the amazing power of evil. The world we live in is a battleground between the powers of good and evil. I believe that the powers of evil have infiltrated to the highest levels of governments and the church hierarchy. We all need to be vigilant and recognise that we cannot fight these powers alone - we need to call upon the help of the only one who can deliver us from evil - Jesus Christ.
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one - Matthew 6:13
But how do you know that the devil didn't give you the beliefs you have? What makes you think you are less susceptible than the church hierarchy and governments?
-
But that is surely a problem for Christians to wrestle with rather than the rest of us: is it not more the case, and an even greater concern for you guys, that for what you refer to as 'modern secular society' these Gospels are largely irrelevant in terms of social policy, especially where Christianity is in decline.
The teachings of the Gospels formed the foundation of western civilisation, but I fear that straying away from these teachings will bring catastrophe and chaos and evil will reign supreme. How many wars could have been avoided by following the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies?
-
But how do you know that the devil didn't give you the beliefs you have? What makes you think you are less susceptible than the church hierarchy and governments?
I believe that sincere prayer and following scripture are the best way to discern good from evil.
-
The teachings of the Gospels formed the foundation of western civilisation, but I fear that straying away from these teachings will bring catastrophe and chaos and evil will reign supreme. How many wars could have been avoided by following the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies?
So what would Jesus have done during WW2?
Are you suggesting all Christians should be pacifists?
-
I believe that sincere prayer and following scripture are the best way to discern good from evil.
And when other Christians say they sincerely pray and follow scripture, and yet come to a different conclusion to you?
-
The teachings of the Gospels formed the foundation of western civilisation, but I fear that straying away from these teachings will bring catastrophe and chaos and evil will reign supreme. How many wars could have been avoided by following the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies?
You're overreaching there, Alan: for example, there are a few pre-Christian Greek guys whose influence has been highly significant.
-
The teachings of the Gospels formed the foundation of western civilisation, but I fear that straying away from these teachings will bring catastrophe and chaos and evil will reign supreme. How many wars could have been avoided by following the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies?
But christianity is based on the premise of collective, inherited, guilt. Effectively that you, today, are guilty because of what some long, long gone ancestor did.
How many wars would have been prevented had that notion not been embedded in western society - effectively that it is legitimate to hate or even to kill you because of what your great, great, great grandfather may have done to my great, great, great grandfather.
-
The teachings of the Gospels formed the foundation of western civilisation, but I fear that straying away from these teachings will bring catastrophe and chaos and evil will reign supreme.
Where in the Bible s helping someone to die out of compassion for their unendurable and incurable suffering condemned?
In any case, if someone has a religious objection to euthanasia, they are free not to avail themselves of it, but why should their choice be imposed on others?
-
So what would Jesus have done during WW2?
Are you suggesting all Christians should be pacifists?
What I was implying was that Hitler would never have started the war if he had followed Christ's teachings.
Hamas would never have killed innocent Jews.
ISIS would not have persecuted other religions.
Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
Of course we need to defend ourselves from evil actions - but if more people followed the teachings of Jesus there would be less need to defend ourselves.
-
What I was implying was that Hitler would never have started the war if he had followed Christ's teachings.
Hamas would never have killed innocent Jews.
ISIS would not have persecuted other religions.
Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
No mention of Netanyahu or the I"D"F, I notice.
-
What I was implying was that Hitler would never have started the war if he had followed Christ's teachings.
Hamas would never have killed innocent Jews.
ISIS would not have persecuted other religions.
Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
Of course we need to defend ourselves from evil actions - but if more people followed the teachings of Jesus there would be less need to defend ourselves.
I take it you also think then that the British Empire is decidedly unchristian?
-
Where in the Bible s helping someone to die out of compassion for their unendurable and incurable suffering condemned?
In any case, if someone has a religious objection to euthanasia, they are free not to avail themselves of it, but why should their choice be imposed on others?
Why does it matter if it's a ' religious objection'? Surely this is a matter of conscience and people are allowed to vote on that as they like? If there is assisted dying then you are forcing people to live in a society with it. That's also a restriction of choice.
-
Of course we need to defend ourselves from evil actions - but if more people followed the teachings of Jesus there would be less need to defend ourselves.
But the point is - who decides what actions are acceptable and which are unacceptable.
Given that you have clearly indicated that you'd vote to retain a ban on assisted dying. And presumably you'd still do so if by some weird quirk of fate you were the only person who turned up so the decision would be yours alone. And were assisted dying to be made lawful can you confirm whether (if you had the chance) you'd vote to make it unlawful again.
On those assumptions the answer to 'who decides?' seems, in your opinion, to be ... err ... you. Yet you still claim not to be restricted others choices nor to be imposing your views on others.
Now, don't get me wrong - I think there are times when a society should place restrictions on others. I gave an example of speed restrictions. I support them and I'd vote in favour of them were I given the chance. But I am honest in also recognising that were I to do this I'd be restricting choices (in this case to drive at any speed on likes without risk of sanction) and I'd be imposing my view on others. But I'd consider this to be legitimate rather than disingenuously claiming not to be restricting choice nor imposing my view on others.
-
If there is assisted dying then you are forcing people to live in a society with it. That's also a restriction of choice.
Isn't that the same for a lot of moral issues, though?
Put simply it's a restriction of choice to have seat belt laws, isn't it?
Surely what we have to do is to try to arrive at some consensus about balancing individual needs against societal needs (I very nearly said the needs of the many against the needs of the few, or one).
-
If there is assisted dying then you are forcing people to live in a society with it. That's also a restriction of choice.
But no-one is forced to avail themselves of it. If we allow choice there will be some who don't like a thing we allow - that isn't really forcing people in any meaningful sense provided they aren't forced to avail themselves of the ting they don't like.
I can't stand musicals - they are lawful. Does that mean I'm forced to live in a society with musicals. Not really unless society forces me to attend musicals. I can simple choose not to attend musicals.
-
But no-one is forced to avail themselves of it. If we allow choice there will be some who don't like a thing we allow - that isn't really forcing people in any meaningful sense provided they aren't forced to avail themselves of the ting they don't like.
I can't stand musicals - they are lawful. Does that mean I'm forced to live in a society with musicals. Not really unless society forces me to attend musicals. I can simple choose not to attend musicals.
I share your distaste for musicals, which have been described as "opera for stupid people".
Your general point is spot-on. NS's comment was a rather desperate and confused attempt to come up with a counter-argument.
-
Whereas operas are musicals for condescending people.
-
I take it you also think then that the British Empire is decidedly unchristian?
I dare say he does: not many people nowadays think the British Empire was a good thing.
-
Whereas operas are musicals for condescending people.
Not a fan of opera either.
-
I share your distaste for musicals, which have been described as "opera for stupid people".
Your general point is spot-on. NS's comment was a rather desperate and confused attempt to come up with a counter-argument.
It wasn't a counter argument at all. It's just the idea that restriction is wrong doesn't seem an absolute, and it can depend on how you view something as to whether it's a restriction. I presume anyway you support a lot of laws which retrruct choice such as drinking age?
-
I dare say he does: not many people nowadays think the British Empire was a good thing.
That's a different question to it being unchristian.
-
I dare say he does: not many people nowadays think the British Empire was a good thing.
Probably more than you realise:
https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/why-43-of-british-still-think-colonial-empire-was-a-good-thing-and-a-source-of-pride/572651/
-
But no-one is forced to avail themselves of it. If we allow choice there will be some who don't like a thing we allow - that isn't really forcing people in any meaningful sense provided they aren't forced to avail themselves of the ting they don't like.
I can't stand musicals - they are lawful. Does that mean I'm forced to live in a society with musicals. Not really unless society forces me to attend musicals. I can simple choose not to attend musicals.
I'm just offering it as perspective, and I would suggest that your comparison trivialises the arguments against and for assisted dying.
Are you in favour of laws restricting drugs? Then this retraction idea is not an absolute for you so saying you are in favour of choice here isn't much of an argument.
-
It wasn't a counter argument at all. It's just the idea that restriction is wrong doesn't seem an absolute, and it can depend on how you view something as to whether it's a restriction. I presume anyway you support a lot of laws which retrruct choice such as drinking age?
Yes - but I also think assisted dying should be restricted to adults, so the analogy doesn't work.
-
It wasn't a counter argument at all. It's just the idea that restriction is wrong doesn't seem an absolute, and it can depend on how you view something as to whether it's a restriction. I presume anyway you support a lot of laws which retrruct choice such as drinking age?
I've been very clear that I think that restricting people's choice in some circumstances is fine, indeed essential particularly where allowing one person to exercise completely free choice significant restricts the freedom of others. And I think virtually all of us are in that category, unless with are a strict libertarian, which is only really theoretically viable if people are able to live completely independently of others.
So I have two points - one is about honesty. Us being honest to accept when we do want to impose our views on others by restricting their freedoms. Rather than disingenuously claiming not to want to restrict choice etc, while actually indicating that we'd vote to do exactly that.
My second point is when and where we, as individuals, and as a society think it is justified to restrict freedom and choices and when we do not. That is what this debate is about surely.
-
Are you in favour of laws restricting drugs?
Yes, but I've been very clear that I think there are circumstances (actually lots of circumstances) where limiting people's choices is justified. However I don't think this is the case for assisted dying - I do not think this is an area where a restriction of choice is justified.
-
I've been very clear that I think that restricting people's choice in some circumstances is fine, indeed essential particularly where allowing one person to exercise completely free choice significant restricts the freedom of others. And I think virtually all of us are in that category, unless with are a strict libertarian, which is only really theoretically viable if people are able to live completely independently of others.
So I have two points - one is about honesty. Us being honest to accept when we do want to impose our views on others by restricting their freedoms. Rather than disingenuously claiming not to want to restrict choice etc, while actually indicating that we'd vote to do exactly that.
My second point is when and where we, as individuals, and as a society think it is justified to restrict freedom and choices and when we do not. That is what this debate is about surely.
We disagree on what Alan means by 'restricting freedom' contextually so I don't see the point in going over that again.
And yes, I agree with both your 1st and 3rd paragraphs, indeed, they are the point I made to which you replied.
-
Yes - but I also think assisted dying should be restricted to adults, so the analogy doesn't work.
But you believe in restriction then for whatever reason. It's not an absolute with you. So all we need to talk about then is whether a restriction is valid.
ETA the concept of assisted dying for those not judged adults raises an interesting point. One of the arguments that is occasionally used for assisted dying is that we stop suffering for pets, so why shouldn't we stop suffering for humans. It would seem that the suffering is OK if it's children..
-
ETA the concept of assisted dying for those not judged adults raises an interesting point. One of the arguments that is occasionally used for assisted dying is that we stop suffering for pets, so why shouldn't we stop suffering for humans. It would seem that the suffering is OK if it's children.
Surely the issue is one of informed consent? We presume, by default, that children don't have the wherewithal to make informed choices about anything. That principle still holds, but I'd suggest that the age at which stops might need to be looked at - we have various ages at which we consider children to be competent to make decision (or, at least, to live by the consequences), with a slight tendency in recent years to move that up to 18. Could a terminally ill 16 year old not be reasonably sure that they don't want to go in pain? A 14 year old? Where's the line?
O.
-
Surely the issue is one of informed consent? We presume, by default, that children don't have the wherewithal to make informed choices about anything. That principle still holds, but I'd suggest that the age at which stops might need to be looked at - we have various ages at which we consider children to be competent to make decision (or, at least, to live by the consequences), with a slight tendency in recent years to move that up to 18. Could a terminally ill 16 year old not be reasonably sure that they don't want to go in pain? A 14 year old? Where's the line?
O.
No, I agree but I was pointing out that when the argument is made that we wouldn't put an animal through this suffering to make the case for assisted dying, then it isn't about consent. And then adding on the idea of consent to that means that we end up that we will allow the suffering of animals and adults to be stopped but will allow that suffering to continue for children.
It's not an argument for or against, it's just about looking at the complexity of the subject.
Note I'm using animals contextually here to separate us from other animals for shorthand but we are animals.
-
We disagree on what Alan means by 'restricting freedom' contextually so I don't see the point in going over that again.
I bet you don't as you have no argument.
It is simple - in a scenario where someone could theoretically choose between option X and option Y, AB has been clear that he would vote to restrict someone's ability to lawfully choose one of those options by ensuring it is unlawful. And in doing so he would undoubtedly be acting to restrict freedoms.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Whether that restriction of freedom is ethical or justified is another matter, and that is what we are really discussing and I certainly have a different view to AB, and I think I have a different view to you NS too as you seem to be on the side of retaining the current position that assisted dying is illegal.
-
I bet you don't as you have no argument.
It is simple - in a scenario where someone might be able to choose between option X and option Y AB has been clear that he would vote to restrict someone's ability to lawfully choose one of those options by ensuring it is unlawful. And in doing so he would undoubtedly be acting to restrict freedoms.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Whether that restriction of freedom is ethical or justified is another matter, and that is what we are really discussing and I certainly have a different view to AB, and I think I have a different view to you NS too as you seem to be on the side of retaining the current position that assisted dying is illegal.
Why are you repeating your agreement with my point that what we are discussing is whether a restriction of choice is appropriate here is the point?
An am I in favour? Well I've raised issues earlier but you appear just to have ignored then because you got caught up in your wee hard on about what Alan meant by restricting opinion. Again I made arguments on why I thought you were wrong on that but you ignored them as well.
I'd like to have assisted dying but I fear we don't provide for dying in as little pain as possible, and as already raised earlier, which you have ignored, in a broken health service as described by the health minister, I'm not sure it is the priority.
I'll note that Aruntraveller has raised similar points, but again you have ignored them .
If you want to have a grown up discussion on this then great , but I struggle to see how given your last post.
-
An am I in favour? Well I've raised issues earlier but you appear just to have ignored then because you got caught up in your wee hard on about what Alan meant by restricting opinion. Again I made arguments on why I thought you were wrong on that but you ignored them as well.
I'd like to have assisted dying but I fear we don't provide for dying in as little pain as possible, and as already raised earlier, which you have ignored, in a broken health service as described by the health minister, I'm not sure it is the priority.
I'll note that Aruntraveller has raised similar points, but again you have ignored them .
If you want to have a grown up discussion on this then great , but I struggle to see how given your last post.
So I think there are various positions.
We have AB who is implacably opposed on principle.
But for most of the others here I think our support or opposition comes down to confidence in protection of vulnerable people, although I must say that I sometimes have a level of skepticism for some who seem to use the protection of the vulnerable as a bit of a smokescreen to oppose and potentially to actually oppose on principle.
Nonetheless I think we can all agree (except perhaps AB) that protection of the vulnerable is key here. But, and this is a big but, there are some people who seem to fail to see that the current situation doesn't protect all who are vulnerable. So there seems to be a view that protection of the vulnerable only means protecting those who might feel coerced into assisted dying. And those people tend to see the status quo as solving that problem. But to my mind there is another group of vulnerable people who need protecting too. Specifically those people who do not want to live their final days under the only routes available to them currently. People who desperately do not want to live the end of their lives in pain and/or complete loss of dignity that remains common even with the most advanced palliative care available. And I've seen this will my own eyes.
So I feel we need to recognise the need to protect those people (who currently have no protection) just as much as those who might feel coerced into assisted suicide. So it becomes a balance rather than a one way journey - those who we currently fail to protect (who desperately want the option of assisted dying) receiving the protection of having that choice available to them, balanced with ensure that those who do not want assisted dying aren't coerced.
Will we get this balance perfectly - no, it would be naive to think so. But currently we don't even try as we do not even attempt to protect those who do not wish to die in the only ways currently available to them.
-
So I think there are various positions.
We have AB who is implacably opposed on principle.
But for most of the others here I think our support or opposition comes down to confidence in protection of vulnerable people, although I must say that I sometimes have a level of skepticism for some who seem to use the protection of the vulnerable as a bit of a smokescreen to oppose and potentially to actually oppose on principle.
Nonetheless I think we can all agree (except perhaps AB) that protection of the vulnerable is key here. But, and this is a big but, there are some people who seem to fail to see that the current situation doesn't protect all who are vulnerable. So there seems to be a view that protection of the vulnerable only means protecting those who might feel coerced into assisted dying. And those people tend to see the status quo as solving that problem. But to my mind there is another group of vulnerable people who need protecting too. Specifically those people who do not want to live their final days under the only routes available to them currently. People who desperately do not want to live the end of their lives in pain and/or complete loss of dignity that remains common even with the most advanced palliative care available. And I've seen this will my own eyes.
So I feel we need to recognise the need to protect those people (who currently have no protection) just as much as those who might feel coerced into assisted suicide. So it becomes a balance rather than a one way journey - those who we currently fail to protect (who desperately want the option of assisted dying) receiving the protection of having that choice available to them, balanced with ensure that those who do not want assisted dying aren't coerced.
Will we get this balance perfectly - no, it would be naive to think so. But currently we don't even try as we do not even attempt to protect those who do not wish to die in the only ways currently available to them.
I have a level of scepticism about those who want to poison the well about those who might have concern about the vulnerable and seek to portray them as liars.
Anyway, per put up by Gordon, who has a terminal diagnosis,earlier, there is this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/12/terminal-illness-assisted-dying-debate-mps
Again, I would reiterate if we have a broken NHS, as the health secretary says, until that is at least not broken, I doubt its capacity to deal with this well. Until that is fixed, it seems to me we are not in a position to have assisted dying.
-
I have a level of scepticism about those who want to poison the well about those who might have concern about the vulnerable and seek to portray them as liars.
Anyway, per put up by Gordon, who has a terminal diagnosis,earlier, there is this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/12/terminal-illness-assisted-dying-debate-mps
Again, I would reiterate if we have a broken NHS, as the health secretary says, until that is at least not broken, I doubt its capacity to deal with this well. Until that is fixed, it seems to me we are not in a position to have assisted dying.
NS, do you accept, as I do, that vulnerable people who desperately want to die but are not able to do so under our current situation deserve our protection just as peoplewho do not want assisted dying deserve protection not to feel coerced?
Once you take the position that both of these groups are vulnerable and should be protected you end up recognising that the current situation prioritises as theoretical risk of coercion (which would be clearly addressed within legislation) over a very real failure to protect a vulnerable group who do not want to end their lives in the manner they are required to.
And this is happening up and down the country as we speak - these people are already being failed by the current situation. Let's start protecting them as well as providing the very strongest safeguards against coercion.
The current situation does not protect all the vulnerable at the end of life - it clearly fails very many by law.
-
NS, do you accept, as I do, that vulnerable people who desperately want to die but are not able to do so under our current situation deserve our protection just as peoplewho do not want assisted dying deserve protection not to feel coerced?
Once you take the position that both of these groups are vulnerable and should be protected you end up recognising that the current situation prioritises as theoretical risk of coercion (which would be clearly addressed within legislation) over a very real failure to protect a vulnerable group who do not want to end their lives in the manner they are required to.
And this is happening up and down the country as we speak - these people are already being failed by the current situation. Let's start protecting them as well as providing the very strongest safeguards against coercion.
The current situation does not protect all the vulnerable at the end of life - it clearly fails very many by law.
Pretty much but then do you accept that the current situation with a broken National Health Service, as declared by the health secretary, means that having safeguards may not work currently? Do you accept that the doubts expressed in the article are valid?
-
But imposing your views on another person isn't just about changing their minds. Indeed I don't think it is largely about that. To my mind someone imposes their views on another when they use methods that make that person act in a manner that doesn't align with their own views/conscience, without necessarily changing their view at all.
Your interpretation here when you said "To my mind someone imposes their views etc etc" is not what was in AB's mind when he said he "cannot impose".
In #48 AB clarified his meaning of the words "cannot impose our views" when he stated "We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions."
So what AB meant by "cannot impose" is his view that when faced with a moral choice we each have the freedom to act or choose according to our individual moral beliefs - this is possibly just a regurgitation of his argument that our conscience/ thoughts/moral beliefs and values are not determined - though I don't think anyone managed to understand what he means by that.
IMO our moral values are determined by our nature/nurture - and I include in that nature/nurture category any thoughts and interpretations I have while pondering on morality. AB thinks that in that split-second moment of thought about any choice we face - our choice is not determined by anything because he believes this "free-will of his soul" can over-ride any choice determined by prior events including nature/ nurture.
I think AB sees this as the supernatural/ spiritual part of him (his soul) arguing against his instinct-based thoughts and desires.
Similarly he thinks he "cannot impose his views" on someone else because they also have this "free-thinking soul" that can choose its moral beliefs and consequent actions.
So AB can only seek to persuade rather than "impose his views" on others thoughts. We know AB can't impose his views because many people ignore AB's views because they don't believe in God or don't think that AB has knows what God really, really wants in any given situation because they think it's possible/ likely that during all AB's sincere prayers he may have got it completely wrong.
AB's OP made it clear he is against society changing the law to give people a choice to end their life through "assisted suicide" as he calls it.
-
Pretty much but then do you accept that the current situation with a broken National Health Service, as declared by the health secretary, means that having safeguards may not work currently? Do you accept that the doubts expressed in the article are valid?
But again if you accept that the current situation fails to protect large numbers of very vulnerable people, right now. Not a hypothetical failure to protect - a very real failure to protect as individuals are forced to endure an and of life that they desperately do not want. If you accept that, then surely you will need to determine how the very real gain of protecting those people (if assisted dying were permitted) might balance against a hypothetical risk of coercion.
In that case rather than simply ignore those vulnerable people who are not being protected currently surely we need to look at how we ensure protection for those who do not want assisted dying while also protecting those that do.
Interestingly somewhere (I'll need to see if I can find it again) I was reading an article that recognised that there are several offences associated with suicide - while suicide isn't an offence, assisting someone to die it, but also critically encouraging someone to commit suicide is a further offence. So potentially we should permit assisting someone to die, under strict criteria, but strengthen the law that prevents encouragement (which in this case would amount to coercion).
So perhaps we can agree that, in principle, people should be allowed to use assisted dying if that is their choice, but no one should be forced or coerced into assisted dying. If we accept those principles, then we are discussing how this can be achieved in practice. To simply throw one of those principles out (that someone should be able to choose assisted dying) because of perceived risk on the other side seems terrible lop-sided.
-
Your interpretation here when you said "To my mind someone imposes their views etc etc" is not what was in AB's mind when he said he "cannot impose".
In #48 AB clarified his meaning of the words "cannot impose our views" when he stated "We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions."
So what AB meant by "cannot impose" is his view that when faced with a moral choice we each have the freedom to act or choose according to our individual moral beliefs - this is possibly just a regurgitation of his argument that our conscience/ thoughts/moral beliefs and values are not determined - though I don't think anyone managed to understand what he means by that.
IMO our moral values are determined by our nature/nurture - and I include in that nature/nurture category any thoughts and interpretations I have while pondering on morality. AB thinks that in that split-second moment of thought about any choice we face - our choice is not determined by anything because he believes this "free-will of his soul" can over-ride any choice determined by prior events including nature/ nurture.
I think AB sees this as the supernatural/ spiritual part of him (his soul) arguing against his instinct-based thoughts and desires.
Similarly he thinks he "cannot impose his views" on someone else because they also have this "free-thinking soul" that can choose its moral beliefs and consequent actions.
So AB can only seek to persuade rather than "impose his views" on others thoughts. We know AB can't impose his views because many people ignore AB's views because they don't believe in God or don't think that AB has knows what God really, really wants in any given situation because they think it's possible/ likely that during all AB's sincere prayers he may have got it completely wrong.
AB's OP made it clear he is against society changing the law to give people a choice to end their life through "assisted suicide" as he calls it.
I've discussed this before. There can only be a free choice if both options can be chosen freely - in other words without either coercion nor sanction to choose one over the other. As soon as you apply coercion or a sanction there is no free choice. And something being unlawful is clearly one of the most overt sanctions a society can impose.
So if you make something illegal you are preventing people from being able to follow their freedom to act or choose according to our individual moral beliefs, because of the sanction they may face if they follow their moral beliefs. Or in this case potentially because they are not prepared to allow others to face legal action because of the individuals moral beliefs.
So as I mentioned way back - if AB is really serious about people being able to have free will and follow their belief then he should support both courses of action being lawful, not one being lawful and the other illegal.
If you think about consent (and we should do as this is a medical scenario) then no-one would ever consider that there has been a consensual decision between two options if only one is lawful.
-
But again if you accept that the current situation fails to protect large numbers of very vulnerable people, right now. Not a hypothetical failure to protect - a very real failure to protect as individuals are forced to endure an and of life that they desperately do not want. If you accept that, then surely you will need to determine how the very real gain of protecting those people (if assisted dying were permitted) might balance against a hypothetical risk of coercion.
In that case rather than simply ignore those vulnerable people who are not being protected currently surely we need to look at how we ensure protection for those who do not want assisted dying while also protecting those that do.
Interestingly somewhere (I'll need to see if I can find it again) I was reading an article that recognised that there are several offences associated with suicide - while suicide isn't an offence, assisting someone to die it, but also critically encouraging someone to commit suicide is a further offence. So potentially we should permit assisting someone to die, under strict criteria, but strengthen the law that prevents encouragement (which in this case would amount to coercion).
So perhaps we can agree that, in principle, people should be allowed to use assisted dying if that is their choice, but no one should be forced or coerced into assisted dying. If we accept those principles, then we are discussing how this can be achieved in practice. To simply throw one of those principles out (that someone should be able to choose assisted dying) because of perceived risk on the other side seems terrible lop-sided.
Yes, I absolutely have to accept the present situation fails people. You seem to want to legislate deliberately to have a situation that it will fail people as well. So do you?
-
Yes, I absolutely have to accept the present situation fails people. You seem to want to legislate deliberately to have a situation that it will fail people as well. So do you?
No I don't - ideally I want the system to fail no-one, but I'm not naive to think that is possible. So I want it to fail as few people as possible.
The current system fails many, many people by design (as it forces them, by law, to choose end of life choice they desperately don't want). I want a system that works by design on the principle that people are not failed, in other words that they should be able to choose from a range of end of life options, including assisted dying. Then the law should focus on preventing (or minimising, again I'm not naive) people not being able to follow through on those choices. But our current law is miles from that as it doesn't even attempt to protect vulnerable people who desperately don't want the limited end of life choices that they are offered.
-
So as I mentioned way back - if AB is really serious about people being able to have free will and follow their belief then he should support both courses of action being lawful, not one being lawful and the other illegal.
AB clarified that he was not saying people should be able to have legal free will i.e. able to choose "assisted suicide". That's why he said in his OP "If anyone has any doubts about the dreadful consequences of legalising assisted suicide, please watch Liz Carr's BBC documentary "Better Off Dead"".
AB clarified that his comment about not imposing his views referred to his belief that people do have free will from God (via their soul) to choose between God's views (according to AB) that "assisted suicide" is a sin / morally wrong and possibly their own personal views that "assisted suicide" should be legal. He clarified that he wants them to choose God's view and that he would be against them having the option to choose "assisted suicide" by this option being legalised.
-
Speaking as someone who has a terminal diagnosis, and who isn't feeling all that great right now, this issue isn't just a matter of academic interest - if this legislation passes then it will, for me, become a very real option.
What I would say, alongside all the talk of safeguards, restrictions and freedom of choice (which possibly implies a degree of cut & dried fictitious precision) is that the reality of living with a terminal condition and considering what the personal and family implications might be at the point my health significantly declines to the extent that I'd consider arranging for my death - is that things are likely to be messy and imprecise and I'm not certain that legislation, by its very nature, can effectively deal with the subtleties of the messy and imprecise.
What legislative caveats can there possibly be that could deal effectively with the likes of: pain, fear, uncertainty, individual personalities, the prospect of forthcoming grief, regret, feelings of hopelessness etc etc etc - and all mixed up on a case-by-case basis? I can't see how variation of issues like these can ever be legislated for in a way where the solution (the legislation) doesn't become a bigger issue than the problem (that some people may wish to end their suffering and shorten the process of their death)
For myself, provided I have capacity at the point I elect to schedule my death, I'd settle for a simple removal of the threat of legal action against friends and family or professionals should I ever wish to end my life and that I could access professionals who felt able to arrange for my death to happen at a time of my choosing - just as I could, in the event of a my having a future medical emergency, elect for 'Do Not Resuscitate'.
-
No I don't - ideally I want the system to fail no-one, but I'm not naive to think that is possible. So I want it to fail as few people as possible.
The current system fails many, many people by design (as it forces them, by law, to choose end of life choice they desperately don't want). I want a system that works by design on the principle that people are not failed, in other words that they should be able to choose from a range of end of life options, including assisted dying. Then the law should focus on preventing (or minimising, again I'm not naive) people not being able to follow through on those choices. But our current law is miles from that as it doesn't even attempt to protect vulnerable people who desperately don't want the limited end of life choices that they are offered.
A family member who is a psychiatrist went to a recent debate on assisted dying organised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He said that the result of a vote following the debate was against legalising assisted dying.
If I understood him correctly, it appears that many psychiatrists felt that patients who felt like they were so much of a burden on relatives that they wanted to die were depressed and therefore lacked the capacity to consent.
And another argument was that patients who said they wanted to die because they lacked quality of life, would have chosen to live if their quality of life was better, and by legalising assisted dying, the law was setting a certain tone for our society that options to improve quality of life would not be as high a priority or there would not be as great a sense of urgency to improve palliative care because patients would have the option to end it if their quality of life was poor.
-
I believe that sincere prayer and following scripture are the best way to discern good from evil.
I know you do but doesn’t it concern you that other people who pray sincerely and follow scripture come up with different answers?
-
Wes Streeting erring on the side of caution, wisely in my opinion:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyl8jrvlo
-
This journalist seems to have attended the Royal College of Psychiatrists debate I mentioned and is against changing the law.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/assisted-dying-bill-commons-parliament-kim-leadbeater-uk-b1188276.html
-
Wes Streeting erring on the side of caution, wisely in my opinion:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyl8jrvlo
I'm dubious about the "concern for the vulnerable " or "sanctity to human life" arguments. The reality appears to be that life and death decisions are made based on pragmatism rather than concern or sanctity. Judges and doctors are in short supply so it would probably just be a rubber stamp exercise to get this signed off rather than anyone looking into the detail of it.
Our governments already kill people in various proxy wars and conflicts because they think it is in the country's economic interest to do so and taking other options (e.g. ones that don't involve turning a blind eye or actively helping kill large numbers of people) could be more costly or time-consuming for the government. They have to make a decision so they pick a side.
If the government's morality is that without thinking too deeply it's ok to kill thousands for economic benefit or self-interest (strategic alliances, arms sales, access to resources), it's not surprising that those moral values are also those of ordinary citizens and they too would take a similar pragmatic rather than sentimental view in their own decisions about life and death.
I am not ill but if right now I don't believe in the sanctity of human life and I feel that in the future I would like to choose my time of death rather than suffer pain because of rubbish palliative care or suffer feeling like an economic or emotional burden to my relatives, why does this sanctity of human life have to come into play in this policy when it doesn't in so many other more destructive policies? It seems very arbitrary so MPs just need to pick a side - one that is probably determined by self-interest.
-
Meanwhile, 'unassisted' suicides seem to be on the increase.
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/suicide-facts-and-figures/latest-suicide-data/
-
PM's friend to whom he promised that a bill on this would be brought forward berates the Health Minister for expressing his opinion.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/esther-rantzen-s-furious-letter-to-wes-streeting-what-kind-of-health-minister-are-you/ar-AA1sNGHA
Weird times.
-
Speaking as someone who has a terminal diagnosis, and who isn't feeling all that great right now, this issue isn't just a matter of academic interest - if this legislation passes then it will, for me, become a very real option.
What I would say, alongside all the talk of safeguards, restrictions and freedom of choice (which possibly implies a degree of cut & dried fictitious precision) is that the reality of living with a terminal condition and considering what the personal and family implications might be at the point my health significantly declines to the extent that I'd consider arranging for my death - is that things are likely to be messy and imprecise and I'm not certain that legislation, by its very nature, can effectively deal with the subtleties of the messy and imprecise.
What legislative caveats can there possibly be that could deal effectively with the likes of: pain, fear, uncertainty, individual personalities, the prospect of forthcoming grief, regret, feelings of hopelessness etc etc etc - and all mixed up on a case-by-case basis? I can't see how variation of issues like these can ever be legislated for in a way where the solution (the legislation) doesn't become a bigger issue than the problem (that some people may wish to end their suffering and shorten the process of their death)
For myself, provided I have capacity at the point I elect to schedule my death, I'd settle for a simple removal of the threat of legal action against friends and family or professionals should I ever wish to end my life and that I could access professionals who felt able to arrange for my death to happen at a time of my choosing - just as I could, in the event of a my having a future medical emergency, elect for 'Do Not Resuscitate'.
Gordon,
Your message reminds me that our life on this earth is the most precious thing we have. Every day may bring opportunities you could never have imagined. Opportunities to love, to be loved - in particular to discover the love of God which you have yet to experience. My wife and I pray for you every day, Gordon - we are not giving up hope, we hope you do not give up either.
Larry Taunton, a friend of Christopher Hitchens claims this famous atheist may have turned to Christ before he died and wrote a book: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist There is always hope for us all.
-
Larry Taunton, a friend of Christopher Hitchens claims this famous atheist may have turned to Christ before he died and wrote a book: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist There is always hope for us all.
The same was said about Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell. It was rubbish in both cases, as I'm sure is this claim about CH, who is conveniently dead, and unable to contradict the claim.
-
Gordon,
Your message reminds me that our life on this earth is the most precious thing we have. Every day may bring opportunities you could never have imagined. Opportunities to love, to be loved - in particular to discover the love of God which you have yet to experience. My wife and I pray for you every day, Gordon - we are not giving up hope, we hope you do not give up either.
Larry Taunton, a friend of Christopher Hitchens claims this famous atheist may have turned to Christ before he died and wrote a book: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist There is always hope for us all.
Read this, Alan, and digest it. It might just show you that your inclination to believe uncalled for and distorted statements from a such a prejudiced source is a sad weakness on your part:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/05/no-christopher-hitchens-did-not-convert-christianity-his-deathbed
-
Read this, Alan, and digest it. It might just show you that your inclination to believe uncalled for and distorted statements from a such a prejudiced source is a sad weakness on your part:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/05/no-christopher-hitchens-did-not-convert-christianity-his-deathbed
Even leaving aside that to quote Taunton himself
"I make no Lady Hope-like claims regarding Christopher Hitchens. As we have seen, there were no reports of a deathbed conversion."
-
Gordon,
Your message reminds me that our life on this earth is the most precious thing we have. Every day may bring opportunities you could never have imagined. Opportunities to love, to be loved - in particular to discover the love of God which you have yet to experience. My wife and I pray for you every day, Gordon - we are not giving up hope, we hope you do not give up either.
I know you mean well, Alan, and I am fortunate in the support I have from family and close friends (as in NS, who has been with me every step of the way).
My only hopes are that I remain reasonably well for as long as possible, so that I can carry on with the important responsibilities that I (and Ann) have regarding our grandchildren, and that when my demise does eventually come that it will not be too distressing for all those that matter to me. I have no hope of a 'cure': that ain't going to happen!
Larry Taunton, a friend of Christopher Hitchens claims this famous atheist may have turned to Christ before he died and wrote a book: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist There is always hope for us all.
Hitchens didn't, and there are no credible reports to the contrary - and neither will I.
-
The same was said about Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell. It was rubbish in both cases, as I'm sure is this claim about CH, who is conveniently dead, and unable to contradict the claim.
How can you possibly be so sure?
No one knows what goes on in the mind of a person before they die.
All I am claiming is the possibility of a deathbed conversion - and that such a possibility would be denied to someone who gives up hope and deliberately ends their own life.
-
How can you possibly be so sure?
No one knows what goes on in the mind of a person before they die.
All I am claiming is the possibility of a deathbed conversion - and that such a possibility would be denied to someone who gives up hope and deliberately ends their own life.
Why do you think that someone like me, who may well elect for assisted suicide (legalities permitting), would in their final hours revisit an issue that in their/my mind had been settled decades earlier. Your use of 'hope' seems like code for magical thinking: which I'd say would not be a good use of my final days and hours.
By the same token - do you think that a lifelong Christian, such as yourself, could possibly abandon their faith at their end?
-
How can you possibly be so sure?
No one knows what goes on in the mind of a person before they die.
All I am claiming is the possibility of a deathbed conversion - and that such a possibility would be denied to someone who gives up hope and deliberately ends their own life.
Bit insulting to those who might choose to die with a bit of dignity, some of whom will be Christian.
-
Larry Taunton, a friend of Christopher Hitchens claims this famous atheist may have turned to Christ before he died and wrote a book: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist There is always hope for us all.
This is total fabrication, so it looks like, on this occasion you were unable to discern Satan's lies from God's truth. Given this is the case, in what other ways might he have fooled you?
-
Why do you think that someone like me, who may well elect for assisted suicide (legalities permitting), would in their final hours revisit an issue that in their/my mind had been settled decades earlier. Your use of 'hope' seems like code for magical thinking: which I'd say would not be a good use of my final days and hours.
As long as you still have your gift of free will in this earthly life, there is always hope that you can turn to Christ as your Savior, no matter what has past in your earlier lifetime.
By the same token - do you think that a lifelong Christian, such as yourself, could possibly abandon their faith at their end?
Yes, of course the Devil will always be ready to tempt Christians into the sin of despair at their most vulnerable moments.
-
As long as you still have your gift of free will in this earthly life, there is always hope that you can turn to Christ as your Savior, no matter what has past in your earlier lifetime.
Not going to happen, Alan: that I might be closer to the finish than I'd like in no way changes my considered assessment of Christianity: which is that it is fallacious nonsense.
Yes, of course the Devil will always be ready to tempt Christians into the sin of despair at their most vulnerable moments.
Q.E.D.
-
Your message reminds me that our life on this earth is the most precious thing we have.
I get this take on things, and I'm not suggesting that it isn't genuinely how you feel, and might be how you'd feel in all circumstances. All I can say is that I can envision situations where I wouldn't feel like that.
People talk about palliative care - and I accept that there are failings in that area for a range of reasons, not limited to underfunding of health and social care budgets, but including those - but pain management and function are not the only limits of quality of life
As I sit here, in my very early 50's, facing up to the prospect of ageing and what might or might not come with it, it's not the prospect of pain or lack of the full extent of my youthful capacities that worries me. I do find myself saddened by the very real prospect of a diminishment of my mental faculties, at some point, hopefully far, far away. But what really disturbs me, what makes me fear ageing now in a way I didn't fear ageing when I turned 30 or 40 is the prospect of being incapable.
The loss of dignity in being dependent, on needing the basics of life done for me, like a toddler, but cognizant of the fact. Diminishment of my physical capacity - having to be cooked for or tidied up after would be bad enough, needing home help to come and run the hoover round or do the painting and decorating would be saddening, but I think I could live with it.
But if I were to need someone to bath me, or help with toileting... I don't know that I'd want to go on living with that. It's not pain, it's not the definitive impending death of a terminal diagnosis (arguably, the open-endedness of it might be worse), it's about the lack of dignity and self-respect. I might get to that situation (hopefully not) and find that I can live with it better than I predict now... but somehow I don't think that would be the case.
Every day may bring opportunities you could never have imagined. Opportunities to love, to be loved - in particular to discover the love of God which you have yet to experience. My wife and I pray for you every day, Gordon - we are not giving up hope, we hope you do not give up either.
It might. But if that possibility is set against the certainty of daily indignity and humiliation, would those admittedly pleasant possibilities be enough to make going on worthwhile? Would it make up for being not just less of a human for my wife than the one she married, but such a burden on her, and on my children, and on my community? They might not feel that, but I think I would. I wouldn't just be setting me free, I'd be setting them free as well - I can't avoid death, but death doesn't scare me like dying does, and as dying scares me it's not something I want to do slowly.
Larry Taunton, a friend of Christopher Hitchens claims this famous atheist may have turned to Christ before he died and wrote a book: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist There is always hope for us all.
That commentary has been contradicted by just about every genuine friend and associate Hitchens had, and has to be seen not just in point of view of the hopeful Christianity of the author, but also in Taunton's inability to really see anyone else in their own right, but rather only in terms of their relationship to his interpretation of Christianity and scripture. See here (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/04/deathbed-conversion-christopher-hitchens-defiant-to-last) for more in depth denunciation of that particular piece of writing.
O.
-
The use of Taunton, and Taunton's abuse of Hitchems seems to me a spectacular own goal by Alan. It's the maunderings of a seedy self publicist who is more interested in the grift than anything else, and sees the truth as as nothing of note. It's the sort of shilling for their god that leads to lying, and ignores the person dying.
As jeremyp noted earlier, if there was a devil trying take Christianity look bad then getting Alan to tout this tawdry book would be a good trick.
-
The use of Taunton, and Taunton's abuse of Hitchems seems to me a spectacular own goal by Alan. It's the maunderings of a seedy self publicist who is more interested in the grift than anything else, and sees the truth as as nothing of note. It's the sort of shilling for their god that leads to lying, and ignores the person dying.
As jeremyp noted earlier, if there was a devil trying take Christianity look bad then getting Alan to tout this tawdry book would be a good trick.
You seem to be over reacting to my reference to Taunton.
from Wiki:
In 2016, Taunton published a book entitled The Faith of Christopher Hitchens about his friendship with the late atheist, in which he claimed that Hitchens seemed to be re-evaluating his religious options, "if only theoretically," after his cancer diagnosis.[18] But the author is nonetheless clear that he does not believe Christopher Hitchens made a deathbed conversion: "I make no Lady Hope-like claims regarding Christopher Hitchens. As we have seen, there were no reports of a deathbed conversion."
All I claimed was the possibility that Hitchens may have turned to Christ before he died. No one can say whether he did or did not. I hope for his sake that he did.
-
You seem to be over reacting to my reference to Taunton.
from Wiki:
In 2016, Taunton published a book entitled The Faith of Christopher Hitchens about his friendship with the late atheist, in which he claimed that Hitchens seemed to be re-evaluating his religious options, "if only theoretically," after his cancer diagnosis.[18] But the author is nonetheless clear that he does not believe Christopher Hitchens made a deathbed conversion: "I make no Lady Hope-like claims regarding Christopher Hitchens. As we have seen, there were no reports of a deathbed conversion."
All I claimed was the possibility that Hitchens may have turned to Christ before he died. No one can say whether he did or did not. I hope for his sake that he did.
I already quoted that. And I'm not sure why you think you are capable of judging whether I'm over reacting.
You are posting here praising someone making money out of lying.
You seem to have just ignored the various other posts covering the problems. It makes me quite sad Akan that you don't see the damage this does to your position.
-
I get this take on things, and I'm not suggesting that it isn't genuinely how you feel, and might be how you'd feel in all circumstances. All I can say is that I can envision situations where I wouldn't feel like that.
People talk about palliative care - and I accept that there are failings in that area for a range of reasons, not limited to underfunding of health and social care budgets, but including those - but pain management and function are not the only limits of quality of life
As I sit here, in my very early 50's, facing up to the prospect of ageing and what might or might not come with it, it's not the prospect of pain or lack of the full extent of my youthful capacities that worries me. I do find myself saddened by the very real prospect of a diminishment of my mental faculties, at some point, hopefully far, far away. But what really disturbs me, what makes me fear ageing now in a way I didn't fear ageing when I turned 30 or 40 is the prospect of being incapable.
The loss of dignity in being dependent, on needing the basics of life done for me, like a toddler, but cognizant of the fact. Diminishment of my physical capacity - having to be cooked for or tidied up after would be bad enough, needing home help to come and run the hoover round or do the painting and decorating would be saddening, but I think I could live with it.
But if I were to need someone to bath me, or help with toileting... I don't know that I'd want to go on living with that. It's not pain, it's not the definitive impending death of a terminal diagnosis (arguably, the open-endedness of it might be worse), it's about the lack of dignity and self-respect. I might get to that situation (hopefully not) and find that I can live with it better than I predict now... but somehow I don't think that would be the case.
It might. But if that possibility is set against the certainty of daily indignity and humiliation, would those admittedly pleasant possibilities be enough to make going on worthwhile? Would it make up for being not just less of a human for my wife than the one she married, but such a burden on her, and on my children, and on my community? They might not feel that, but I think I would. I wouldn't just be setting me free, I'd be setting them free as well - I can't avoid death, but death doesn't scare me like dying does, and as dying scares me it's not something I want to do slowly.
Looking at your post fills me with dread - no mention of our capacity to love and to be loved, and begs the question: When does the right to die become a duty to die?
-
Looking at your post fills me with dread - no mention of our capacity to love and to be loved, and begs the question: When does the right to die become a duty to die?
Your post fills me with sadness. Someone talks about their fears, and you just dismiss them because they haven't chimed with how you think people should express themselves.
And I also feel you didn't read it because when I read Outrider's post where he writes: "Would it make up for being not just less of a human for my wife than the one she married, but such a burden on her, and on my children, and on my community? They might not feel that, but I think I would. I wouldn't just be setting me free, I'd be setting them free as well" that cries out about the capacity to love and be loved.
-
Looking at your post fills me with dread - no mention of our capacity to love and to be loved, and begs the question: When does the right to die become a duty to die?
You really do need to dispense with the theogoggles, Alan; elements of Outrider's recent post are a clear expression of love and concern for those dear to him - he encapsulates my thoughts, but expresses them more eloquently than I can.
I have a 'duty' to my family, and especially the younger members, in all sorts of ways so that they might survive and thrive in all the challenges they will face, which includes the reality of dealing with illness and loss - and I know for sure that they will have to deal with my death while they are still relatively young. Therefore, and bearing in mind that dealing with terminal cancer is often messy and involves uncertainty, there may come a time when there is far more certainty and it may be that then, when it is clear that there is no hope left for my survival, that my commitment to their welfare does justify looking at ways to at least minimise, for them, the trauma of the process of my demise.
-
Looking at your post fills me with dread - no mention of our capacity to love and to be loved,
Maybe I didn't express it as clearly as I felt it, but not wanting to be a burden on my family is an expression of my love for them. Love is not something that happens inactively, it's not something you say, it's something you show in all the little parts of yourself and your day that you share with them. If my days are pain and dependency, what am I bringing to the relationship? What am I contributing to my marriage if my wife has had to become my carer? Would she do it - yes, in heartbeat, but it would fundamentally change the dynamic of our relationships. We'd no longer be partners in the same way, and that's not what either of us went into this for.
and begs the question: When does the right to die become a duty to die?
Where in all that did you see me suggest that it was a duty? It's all a decision based on how I feel about it - perhaps you see that as a duty to myself?
O.
-
Where in all that did you see me suggest that it was a duty? It's all a decision based on how I feel about it - perhaps you see that as a duty to myself?
It is a decision which no one should feel under pressure to make.
But if it were legalised, there is no doubt that vulnerable people would feel put under such pressure.
-
It is a decision which no one should feel under pressure to make.
But if it were legalised, there is no doubt that vulnerable people would feel put under such pressure.
And if it isn't legalised vulnerable people are forced to suffer pain that they don't want.
Pretending that your position doesn't involve suffering is disingenuous.
-
It is a decision which no one should feel under pressure to make.
Depends what you mean by 'pressure', Alan. There are a number of 'pressures' in actually dealing with the reality of terminal cancer: that I know for sure, and I hope that you never are in a position to find out for yourself.
But if it were legalised, there is no doubt that vulnerable people would feel put under such pressure.
Presumably there will be safeguards and of course 'vulnerable' is gloriously imprecise. I get that you don't approve, but explain to me why someone in my position (and I hope you never find yourself in the same position) should be constrained because your personal theology says so. Does my agency run out the closer I get to death?
-
And if it isn't legalised vulnerable people are forced to suffer pain that they don't want.
Pretending that your position doesn't involve suffering is disingenuous.
As far as I can see, Alan isn't pretending that.
-
As far as I can see, Alan isn't pretending that.
He doesn't seem to address it when it's raised. And given that seems like ignoring it deliberately, that's exactly what it seems to me.
-
Presumably there will be safeguards and of course 'vulnerable' is gloriously imprecise. I get that you don't approve, but explain to me why someone in my position (and I hope you never find yourself in the same position) should be constrained because your personal theology says so. Does my agency run out the closer I get to death?
I thank you for that hope, Gordon.
If you watched the original video (better off dead) I gave in the opening post, you will see that the narrator admits that at an early age she would have opted for suicide if it had been made available. Now she is eternally grateful that she was not allowed to take that option. So one problem I see is that there is no chance to change your mind, and you will never know what the future had in store for you if you had not opted to end your life. I know you believe there will be no miracle cure for you, but there will certainly be no chance of a cure if you opt for assisted dying, and there will be no chance of you turning to Christ before you die. You may well see things differently when your soul enters the next realm, but by then it will be too late to change your mind. You may deem this to be my personal theology, but I see it as the reality which we all have to face.
-
I thank you for that hope, Gordon.
If you watched the original video (better off dead) I gave in the opening post, you will see that the narrator admits that at an early age she would have opted for suicide if it had been made available. Now she is eternally grateful that she was not allowed to take that option. So one problem I see is that there is no chance to change your mind, and you will never know what the future had in store for you if you had not opted to end your life. I know you believe there will be no miracle cure for you, but there will certainly be no chance of a cure if you opt for assisted dying, and there will be no chance of you turning to Christ before you die. You may well see things differently when your soul enters the next realm, but by then it will be too late to change your mind. You may deem this to be my personal theology, but I see it as the reality which we all have to face.
You seem incapable of empathy
-
I thank you for that hope, Gordon.
If you watched the original video (better off dead) I gave in the opening post, you will see that the narrator admits that at an early age she would have opted for suicide if it had been made available. Now she is eternally grateful that she was not allowed to take that option. So one problem I see is that there is no chance to change your mind, and you will never know what the future had in store for you if you had not opted to end your life. I know you believe there will be no miracle cure for you, but there will certainly be no chance of a cure if you opt for assisted dying, and there will be no chance of you turning to Christ before you die. You may well see things differently when your soul enters the next realm, but by then it will be too late to change your mind. You may deem this to be my personal theology, but I see it as the reality which we all have to face.
Quite sad that in spite of what I have explained previously about living with terminal cancer, and my concerns about the process my eventual death might have on my family, and especially the younger members, that your response is to hope I decide to play the 'Jesus card' - that will not happen, Alan.
Since I have bone metastases that will likely need me to be 'doped up' at my end then the option of assisted suicide could well be a relevant consideration in my case: whether I would elect to take that route will depend on my medical and family circumstances at the time. In the final days and hours before this cancer eventually claims me my main concern, I hope, will be the effect on my wife and family. If I did have intractable bone pain and need to be heavily medicated then I don't want, for my grandkids especially, that 'picture' to be their last memories of me alive, when even final 'goodbyes' are not possible. So if I have an option that can avoid all that by checking out a little early, then perhaps I'd take that route: right now it's too soon to say.
I'm not afraid to die but I don't want, for the sake of a few days or hours, for it to be a horrible experience for both me and my family. For some of us, you know, even as we approach the end of our lives, 'Jesus' matters not a jot.
-
It is a decision which no one should feel under pressure to make.
People are under that pressure now, without the law. People were under that pressure even before the advent of assisted suicide laws in other countries. I agree, decent people shouldn't be putting pressure on people, but without the law people are doing that anyway.
But if it were legalised, there is no doubt that vulnerable people would feel put under such pressure.
Perhaps more than now, perhaps not. But, just as problematic, without the law people are forced to suffer who otherwise would have options. You believe, it seems, in life at all costs - I don't. I believe in individual freedom, that people should have choices over their own lives. Allowing people the option or not does not stop the pressure, although it might I acknowledge change the frequency of it, but our lives are full of pressures, living is balancing those pressures and finding our own path through the various demands and influences of family, society, personal preference and the inevitable, unavoidable realities. Allowing people a choice gives a different avenue for those pressures, but denying them the choice is more intense influence - you are doing what you decry, only worse, but because the outcome is one you personally prefer you're OK with that.
O.
-
You seem incapable of empathy
In this instance my empathy lies with concern for the health of our human souls.
-
In this instance my empathy lies with concern for the health of our human souls.
I put that concern on the same shelf as the impact assessment it will have on the dragon economy. I'm concerned with people's actual health, and their actual psyche, and their actual feelings.
O.
-
In this instance my empathy lies with concern for the health of our human souls.
Not only do you appear to have no empathy, you appear to have no understanding of what it means.
-
In this instance my empathy lies with concern for the health of our human souls.
Really!
I'm seeing Professor Jones at the Beatson this coming Tuesday (he and his staff look after me so well) so I must ask him if he has as yet assessed the health of my 'soul': I'll be sure to ask him whether my 'soul' has cancer too.
You really don't have a clue, Alan.
-
I was discussing this subject this morning with some friends. As it turns out, my partner's mother was diagnosed with an aggressive terminal cancer and she opted for assisted dying (actually euthanasia, according to this web site (https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-and-non-resuscitation-on-request)). She died with dignity and with her family around her instead of experiencing a degrading and painful fight to the bitter end.
If you click the link in the above paragraph you'll notice that my friend's mother was Dutch. The Netherlands has had assisted dying and euthanasia for decades. They don't seem to have any of the negative issues that people on this thread seem to be concerned about (excepting Alan, whose issue is associated with his religious beliefs). It seems to me that, if other countries can have legal assisted dying without the slippery slope nonsense and the pressurising relatives issues, so can we.
-
I was discussing this subject this morning with some friends. As it turns out, my partner's mother was diagnosed with an aggressive terminal cancer and she opted for assisted dying (actually euthanasia, according to this web site (https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-and-non-resuscitation-on-request)). She died with dignity and with her family around her instead of experiencing a degrading and painful fight to the bitter end.
If you click the link in the above paragraph you'll notice that my friend's mother was Dutch. The Netherlands has had assisted dying and euthanasia for decades. They don't seem to have any of the negative issues that people on this thread seem to be concerned about (excepting Alan, whose issue is associated with his religious beliefs). It seems to me that, if other countries can have legal assisted dying without the slippery slope nonsense and the pressurising relatives issues, so can we.
Except that the Dutch law has been extended to include children, and there have been various other attempts to extend it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
Also it has been effectively extended by practice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163
And none of your post addresses the concerns of the inadequacy of palliative care which is what is driving the Health Secretary to vote against it, and has been raised on this thread.
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd've thought the inadequacy of palliative care a reason to vote for it.
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd've thought the inadequacy of palliative care a reason to vote for it.
No.
If palliative care was of a good quality, people may choose to use that pathway instead of AD.
Plus, the very fact that Palliative care is underfunded and not as good as it should be, may force people to make a decision they would not otherwise have made.
-
Except that the Dutch law has been extended to include children, and there have been various other attempts to extend it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
Your link says children between 12 and 16 and only with the parents' consent. You'll notice there are various safeguards applied and the physician involved has to have the decision reviewed. It seems to me that the Dutch model is perfectly reasonable and doesn't lead to systematic abuses. I see no reason why it wouldn't work here.
Also it has been effectively extended by practice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163
How so? how does it extend the criteria laid out in the Wikipedia article?
And none of your post addresses the concerns of the inadequacy of palliative care which is what is driving the Health Secretary to vote against it, and has been raised on this thread.
Why should it? That's an orthogonal problem.
-
Your link says children between 12 and 16 and only with the parents' consent. You'll notice there are various safeguards applied and the physician involved has to have the decision reviewed. It seems to me that the Dutch model is perfectly reasonable and doesn't lead to systematic abuses. I see no reason why it wouldn't work here.
How so? how does it extend the criteria laid out in the Wikipedia article?
Why should it? That's an orthogonal problem.
I wasn't using the extension of the law as necessarily being wrong, but that it was an extension.
The case of depression was not specifically covered in the act so it's an extension by practice.
As to palliative care, see Aruntraveller's reply to Steve.
-
No.
If palliative care was of a good quality, people may choose to use that pathway instead of AD.
Plus, the very fact that Palliative care is underfunded and not as good as it should be, may force people to make a decision they would not otherwise have made.
Yeah, but that's bullshit isn't it.
Imagine that you are terminally ill and in excruciating pain. If I say to you "ideally there would be two options to provide relief from your agony, but because one is inadequately funded, you can't have either and have to continue to suffer", would you be impressed?
-
Yeah, but that's bullshit isn't it.
Imagine that you are terminally ill and in excruciating pain. If I say to you "ideally there would be two options to provide relief from your agony, but because one is inadequately funded, you can't have either and have to continue to suffer", would you be impressed?
As opposed to you saying 'You may not want have assisted dying but we'll make sure that you have no other choice'
-
As opposed to you saying 'You may not want have assisted dying but we'll make sure that you have no other choice'
Evasion noted.
-
Evasion noted.
You appear to have your own personal meaning of evasion.
-
You appear to have your own personal meaning of evasion.
You avoided talking about the scenario I described and, instead, invoked a fallacious and irrelevant objection.
The correct response to fixing something that is broken is not to take away all the other alternatives but to fix the damn thing that is broken.
-
You avoided talking about the scenario I described and, instead, invoked a fallacious and irrelevant objection.
The correct response to fixing something that is broken is not to take away all the other alternatives but to fix the damn thing that is broken.
No, I've disagreed with your framing of a question and put an alternative view based in the argument. Your approach was when did you stop beating your wife.
-
Bill to be published next week
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/06/assisted-dying-bill-to-be-published-amid-mps-concern-over-scrutiny-legislation
-
Bill to be published next week
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/06/assisted-dying-bill-to-be-published-amid-mps-concern-over-scrutiny-legislation
And here it is
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774/publications
-
Embarrassingly bad interview from Christine Jardine
https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1856472692448194795
-
There is a lot of discussion over the issue of coercion as if this is an issue that isn't currently faced within the medical profession, and indeed in life and death situations. That is entirely wrong as the profession already deal with this on a regular basis.
People already have the right to refuse life-saving treatment, including but not limited to blood transfusions and continued use of a life-support equipment. In these cases a decision to refuse life saving treatment will result in the person dying when otherwise they might have lived. Those decisions could, of course, but subject to coercion, but the medical and legal professions seem to be able to cope with assessing whether the individual has autonomy and whether their consent to refuse treatment is valid, which requires it to be free from coercion. I don't really see why assisted dying cases would be any different in terms of being confident that there aren't coercive issues that render consent invalid.
There are also the reverse types of situation (which arguable may be more common in end of life situations) where a frail person nearing the end of life wants to stop burdensome and ultimately futile treatment but there is pressure from family members to continue with treatment due to an (understandable, but naive) desire to prevent a loved one from dying. Again, our medical teams are very experienced at being able to determine where there is coercion and where there isn't.
-
There is a lot of discussion over the issue of coercion as if this is an issue that isn't currently faced within the medical profession, and indeed in life and death situations. That is entirely wrong as the profession already deal with this on a regular basis.
People already have the right to refuse life-saving treatment, including but not limited to blood transfusions and continued use of a life-support equipment. In these cases a decision to refuse life saving treatment will result in the person dying when otherwise they might have lived. Those decisions could, of course, but subject to coercion, but the medical and legal professions seem to be able to cope with assessing whether the individual has autonomy and whether their consent to refuse treatment is valid, which requires it to be free from coercion. I don't really see why assisted dying cases would be any different in terms of being confident that there aren't coercive issues that render consent invalid.
There are also the reverse types of situation (which arguable may be more common in end of life situations) where a frail person nearing the end of life wants to stop burdensome and ultimately futile treatment but there is pressure from family members to continue with treatment due to an (understandable, but naive) desire to prevent a loved one from dying. Again, our medical teams are very experienced at being able to determine where there is coercion and where there isn't.
I work, currently, in the education sector, where child safeguarding is THE priority - we are not just entrusted with monitoring children for signs and evidence of coercion in various areas, but are legally mandated to do it. To suggest that healthcare professionals would be somehow incapable of operating similar standards, as though they aren't doing exactly that in innumerable areas already, is insulting.
O.
-
There is a lot of discussion over the issue of coercion as if this is an issue that isn't currently faced within the medical profession, and indeed in life and death situations. That is entirely wrong as the profession already deal with this on a regular basis.
People already have the right to refuse life-saving treatment, including but not limited to blood transfusions and continued use of a life-support equipment. In these cases a decision to refuse life saving treatment will result in the person dying when otherwise they might have lived. Those decisions could, of course, but subject to coercion, but the medical and legal professions seem to be able to cope with assessing whether the individual has autonomy and whether their consent to refuse treatment is valid, which requires it to be free from coercion. I don't really see why assisted dying cases would be any different in terms of being confident that there aren't coercive issues that render consent invalid.
This is also, perhaps, a good counter to the slippery slope argument: it has for a very long time -in fact, I think always - been the case that mentally competent adults can refuse life-preserving treatment, but it hasn't led inexorably to assisted suicide or euthanasia until now - and possibly not this time.
-
This is also, perhaps, a good counter to the slippery slope argument: it has for a very long time -in fact, I think always - been the case that mentally competent adults can refuse life-preserving treatment, but it hasn't led inexorably to assisted suicide or euthanasia until now - and possibly not this time.
I'd raised a similar point about DNRs earlier in reply 47 but thinking about it this and DNRs are covered by a principle of bodily autonomy that you can refuse treatment but that doesn't mean you can demand it so I don't think it works.
-
I'd raised a similar point about DNRs earlier in reply 47 but thinking about it this and DNRs are covered by a principle of bodily autonomy that you can refuse treatment but that doesn't mean you can demand it so I don't think it works.
But I don't think this is a case of 'demand' either. In the case of standard medical treatment a competent patient may refuse any treatment, including life saving treatment. They cannot demand treatment unless there is a clinical justification for it to be offered. Nor can they demand treatment free on the NHS which has not been approved to be provided by the NHS (and also where there is a clinical justification for it to be offered). And that will apply both to 'curative' treatment but also palliative treatment based on relieving symptoms only.
In the case of prescription of drugs for assisted dying, these would only be permitted to be provided to people whose condition meets the legal threshold (adult, terminally ill, competent and considered to have less than 6 months to live). No-one who does not meet these conditions will be able to 'demand' medication to allow them to die unless the law was changed further.
And there is another element - perhaps somewhat subtle. This is that the person themselves must administer the drugs - no-one else can do so as far as I understand the proposed law. So the medical involvement is not to administer lethal drugs, but to make those drugs legally available to a person to allow them to administer them themselves.
But back to coercion - the DNR situation is a good analogy - individuals with competence make the decision to DNR regularly and having done so if they have a cardiac arrest they will die but could live with CPR. That decision could, of course, be subject to coercion by family members etc. However the medical profession seem to have the experience and professionalism to be able to assure themselves that consent to DNR is valid and not subject to coercion. If they can do so in that case (and refusal of blood transfusion etc) I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do so in the case of a request for assisted dying. In fact in the latter case there is an additional 'safeguard' in that the person themselves has to administer the lethal medication so have the option to effectively say 'do you know what, I know I said I wanted to die, but actually I don't'. In the case of DNR there is no 'safeguard' at the point where they need the CPR they will often be unconscious and in no position to reverse their decision not to be resuscitated.
-
But I don't think this is a case of 'demand' either. In the case of standard medical treatment a competent patient may refuse any treatment, including life saving treatment. They cannot demand treatment unless there is a clinical justification for it to be offered. Nor can they demand treatment free on the NHS which has not been approved to be provided by the NHS (and also where there is a clinical justification for it to be offered). And that will apply both to 'curative' treatment but also palliative treatment based on relieving symptoms only.
In the case of prescription of drugs for assisted dying, these would only be permitted to be provided to people whose condition meets the legal threshold (adult, terminally ill, competent and considered to have less than 6 months to live). No-one who does not meet these conditions will be able to 'demand' medication to allow them to die unless the law was changed further.
And there is another element - perhaps somewhat subtle. This is that the person themselves must administer the drugs - no-one else can do so as far as I understand the proposed law. So the medical involvement is not to administer lethal drugs, but to make those drugs available to a person to allow them to administer them themselves.
But back to coercion - the DNR situation is a good analogy - individuals with competence make the decision to DNR regularly and having done so if they have a cardiac arrest they will die but could live with CPR. That decision could, of course, be subject to coercion by family members etc. However the medical profession seem to have the experience and professionalism to be able to assure themselves that consent to DNR is valid and not subject to coercion. If they can do so in that case (and refusal of blood transfusion etc) I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do so in the case of a request for assisted dying. In fact in the latter case there is an additional 'safeguard' in that the person themselves has to administer the lethal medication so have the option to effectively say 'do you know what, I know I said I wanted to die, but actually I don't'. In the case of DNR there is no 'safeguard' at the point where they need the CPR they will often be unconscious and in no position to reverse their decision not to be resuscitated.
Demand may well be the wrong word but the point is thar it's perfectly easy to see a principle of bodily autonomy and being able to refuse treatment, as different from something is about asking for treatment.
-
I work, currently, in the education sector, where child safeguarding is THE priority - we are not just entrusted with monitoring children for signs and evidence of coercion in various areas, but are legally mandated to do it. To suggest that healthcare professionals would be somehow incapable of operating similar standards, as though they aren't doing exactly that in innumerable areas already, is insulting.
O.
Absolutely correct. And this is the case too in the medical profession where consent is the absolute cornerstone of ethical practice. And for consent to be valid three elements are needed - the person must have the capacity to consent, they must receive sufficient information on which to base their decision, and crucially the decision must be their own free choice, without pressure or coercion. Medical professionals are 'consenting' (hate that term, but it is often used) patients all the time and therefore are constantly needing to consider whether there is any coercion being applied. Indeed one thing medical professionals need to consider is the 'power relationship' which means that the pressure could actually come from the doctor or other medical professional themselves. But they will also be alert to external pressures from family etc.
Now, of course, the care with which professionals will address coercion will be dependent on the significance of the decision. But for a major decision with far reaching ramifications (e.g. refusal of life sustaining treatment, major surgery, DNR etc) they will be very careful to ensure that the decisions are not subject to pressure or coercion as this would mean consent was not valid.
So medical professionals are highly trained in this area so to suggest that the issue of coercion is somehow new and unique to assisted dying and not something they deal with day in, day out is both flat out wrong and also rather insulting to the level of professionalism of our medical staff.
-
Demand may well be the wrong word but the point is thar it's perfectly easy to see a principle of bodily autonomy and being able to refuse treatment, as different from something is about asking for treatment.
OK I get what you are saying, but if the law were changed prescriptions of drugs for assisted dying would be something that people, provided they meet certain criteria, would be able to request. There would, of course, be no obligation on them to request the drugs nor any obligation on an individual to take those drugs if prescribed. That doesn't seem different to other circumstances where consent requires that medical staff inform the patient of the various options available to them, but it is for the patient themselves to determine which of those options they wish to choose. A change in the law would add an additional option to the end of life choices that are available.
-
OK I get what you are saying, but if the law were changed prescriptions of drugs for assisted dying would be something that people, provided they meet certain criteria, would be able to request. There would, of course, be no obligation on them to request the drugs nor any obligation on an individual to take those drugs if prescribed. That doesn't seem different to other circumstances where consent requires that medical staff inform the patient of the various options available to them, but it is for the patient themselves to determine which of those options they wish to choose. A change in the law would add an additional option to the end of life choices that are available.
I think there is a difference between accessing treatment and refusing it. It's only a very small point in the argument, and I don't think it affects the rights and wrongs about assisted dying, rather it's a point about the arguments.
Even if I were to think that Steve and my original point were right, it's really of intellectual interest only.
-
Absolutely correct. And this is the case too in the medical profession where consent is the absolute cornerstone of ethical practice. And for consent to be valid three elements are needed - the person must have the capacity to consent, they must receive sufficient information on which to base their decision, and crucially the decision must be their own free choice, without pressure or coercion. Medical professionals are 'consenting' (hate that term, but it is often used) patients all the time and therefore are constantly needing to consider whether there is any coercion being applied. Indeed one thing medical professionals need to consider is the 'power relationship' which means that the pressure could actually come from the doctor or other medical professional themselves. But they will also be alert to external pressures from family etc.
Now, of course, the care with which professionals will address coercion will be dependent on the significance of the decision. But for a major decision with far reaching ramifications (e.g. refusal of life sustaining treatment, major surgery, DNR etc) they will be very careful to ensure that the decisions are not subject to pressure or coercion as this would mean consent was not valid.
So medical professionals are highly trained in this area so to suggest that the issue of coercion is somehow new and unique to assisted dying and not something they deal with day in, day out is both flat out wrong and also rather insulting to the level of professionalism of our medical staff.
Surely though if the Health Service is 'broken' as declared by the Health Secretary, a question about safe guards is not an insult to anyone but legitimised the possibility of inadequacies in training, time available, consistency of care?
-
I think there is a difference between accessing treatment and refusing it. It's only a very small point in the argument, and I don't think it affects the rights and wrongs about assisted dying, rather it's a point about the arguments.
Sure, there is definitely a difference between accessing treatment and refusing it - for a competent person the latter is an absolute right, the former is a limited right, limited by the law and the treatment being one of an accepted set of options for the individual's clinical condition. If assisted dying were made legal it would be added to the range of other options (which currently may include further active disease treatment and palliative care) for a competent adult with a terminal illness and less than 6 months life prognosis.
But for a person with those features I don't see why it should be, or would be, any less limited as an option and a right compared to the other options. I don't think you would be expected to, or should be expected to, demonstrate that you have exhausted other options, just as someone currently doesn't need to demonstrate that they have exhausted active disease treatment options before being able to access palliative care. If a competent individual determines that they do not wish to continue to pursue active disease treatment for whatever reason then their decision is respected. That should be the case too for assisted dying. Within the limits of the law (competent adult with a terminal illness and less than 6 months life prognosis) then they should be able to choose not to continue active disease treatment and/or palliative care and should be able to consent to assisted dying and have their decision respected.
Another point - my understanding from other jurisdictions, e.g. Oregon, is that we aren't in the world of palliative vs assisted dying as an either/or choice. Rather most people will move through each stage - so those that ultimately opt for assisted dying will have spent months on palliative case before finally opting for assisted dying when the palliative care no longer works for them. There is often a focus on pain, but actually autonomy, being able to make decisions for yourself and being able to have some kind of quality of life I think are just as important. The challenge for palliative care (even the very best, and I've seen it) is that it trades off pain relief for loss of decision making and autonomy as the person becomes increasingly more sedated.
Certainly, from my perspective, and from watching both my parents and in-laws die I can understand how individuals may not wish to go through that very last stage, which often seems to be hugely distressing for the individual, but without any way in which their distress can be meaningfully managed. But that stage is often perhaps just a few days, maybe a week. So it may well be the case that assisted dying is commonly used in the last few days as a choice to remove that horrible end stage (it certainly seemed horrible for both my parents, who were being cared for in an award-winning palliative care setting), rather than in the last few months.
-
Surely though if the Health Service is 'broken' as declared by the Health Secretary, a question about safe guards is not an insult to anyone but legitimised the possibility of inadequacies in training, time available, consistency of care?
But given that these issues would be just as significant for any major decision - e.g. to stop active disease care and to go onto palliative care, I'm not sure why this should only be an issue where the choice is about assisted dying.
But as mentioned in the post that crossed yours I do not accept that palliative care would be perfect but for lack of resources. I watched both my parents die in just about the most ideal palliative care setting - award-winning specialist facility but within a broader hospital care setting. I have no doubt they received the very best care possible and I don't think state-of-the-art palliative care has moved on since then. Yet the last few days of their lives were really pretty horrible and clearly distressing for them, but given the necessary levels of sedation needed to deal with their pain there was no way in which I, other family members, nor staff could really comfort or reassure. At times it seemed to me that my father was in an endless loop of horrible dreams, but there has no way I could gently wake him up or even reach him in any way. That, sadly, seems to be the reality for some people at the end of life even with the finest palliative care. But that period was for about 5 days before he died - up to then even though he was in severe pain, he was aware and able to interact and engage.
-
But given that these issues would be just as significant for any major decision - e.g. to stop active disease care and to go onto palliative care, I'm not sure why this should only be an issue where the choice is about assisted dying.
But as mentioned in the post that crossed yours I do not accept that palliative care would be perfect but for lack of resources. I watched both my parents die in just about the most ideal palliative care setting - award-winning specialist facility but within a broader hospital care setting. I have no doubt they received the very best care possible and I don't think state-of-the-art palliative care has moved on since then. Yet the last few days of their lives were really pretty horrible and clearly distressing for them, but given the necessary levels of sedation needed to deal with their pain there was no way in which I, other family members, nor staff could really comfort or reassure. At times it seemed to me that my father was in an endless loop of horrible dreams, but there has no way I could gently wake him up or even reach him in any way. That, sadly, seems to be the reality for some people at the end of life even with the finest palliative care. But that period was for about 5 days before he died - up to then even though he was in severe pain, he was aware and able to interact and engage.
The issue is that you claimed that questioning about the care being offered, and in this case I was thinking of the care in the case of any cases of assisted dying, was somehow insulting to the staff when there may be wider problems. We are not short of major failings in the health service - see the blood scandal, or Alder Hey, nor are we in other institutions, see Horizon, the CoE as two current ones. Asking about safeguards and training in this case is a safeguard not an insult.
-
The issue is that you claimed that questioning about the care being offered, and in this case I was thinking of the care in the case of any cases of assisted dying, was somehow insulting to the staff when there may be wider problems. We are not short of major failings in the health service - see the blood scandal, or Alder Hey, nor are we in other institutions, see Horizon, the CoE as two current ones. Asking about safeguards and training in this case is a safeguard not an insult.
I think you are misinterpreting my point - I never implied that it was insulting to suggest that there are challenges facing the NHS.
Nope - when I mentioned insulting, I was specifically referring to those that seem to be implying that the issue of coercion as it applies to consent to medical decisions was somehow something that the medical profession did not currently deal with, but would have to address for the first time were assisted dying to be legalised. That is both wrong as considering coercion in consensual decision making is dealt with on a day to day basis by medical professionals who are required to be very clearly trained in that regard. Having to deal with this in a slightly different decision making context doesn't change the fact that these are issues medical staff already deal with day to day.
On the broader issue - surely that would apply just as much to any other major decision - e.g. refusal of life sustaining treatment, DNR etc etc, so again not new. But actually the bill has much greater safeguards than for other major decisions in that it requires two independent doctors to be involved and a legal decision. None of that applies to, for example, the situation where a patient decides no longer to pursue active disease treatment and go into palliative care, or to sign a DNR. That could be due to coercion, and the pressures of the NHS and/or in the major failings in the health service could play a part in that decision. Yet there are clearly less safeguards than proposed for a decision to choose assisted dying.
So perhaps you might want to argue that the same level of safeguards in the bill should apply to other very major decisions where the consequences are that life is shortened.
-
I think you are misinterpreting my point - I never implied that it was insulting to suggest that there are challenges facing the NHS.
Nope - when I mentioned insulting, I was specifically referring to those that seem to be implying that the issue of coercion as it applies to consent to medical decisions was somehow something that the medical profession did not currently deal with, but would have to address for the first time were assisted dying to be legalised. That is both wrong as considering coercion in consensual decision making is dealt with on a day to day basis by medical professionals who are required to be very clearly trained in that regard. Having to deal with this in a slightly different decision making context doesn't change the fact that these are issues medical staff already deal with day to day.
On the broader issue - surely that would apply just as much to any other major decision - e.g. refusal of life sustaining treatment, DNR etc etc, so again not new. But actually the bill has much greater safeguards than for other major decisions in that it requires two independent doctors to be involved and a legal decision. None of that applies to, for example, the situation where a patient decides no longer to pursue active disease treatment and go into palliative care, or to sign a DNR. That could be due to coercion, and the pressures of the NHS and/or in the major failings in the health service could play a part in that decision. Yet there are clearly less safeguards than proposed for a decision to choose assisted dying.
So perhaps you might want to argue that the same level of safeguards in the bill should apply to other very major decisions where the consequences are that life is shortened.
Sorry, but I think this makes no sense. The question surely is whether the safeguarding is adequate ti allow this, and that there may be times when similar safeguarding is currently required doesn't mean that it is adequate for that. If the Health Service is broken as Streetibh claims, then maybe the question is whether the decisions currently being taken are adequate.
Any attempt at shutting down questioning on the adequacy by saying it's insulting just seems to be an attempt to shut down debate in a way that has been done to many times in too many places in our recent history.
-
Any attempt at shutting down questioning on the adequacy by saying it's insulting just seems to be an attempt to shut down debate in a way that has been done to many times in too many places in our recent history.
But that isn't what I'm doing as my comment on 'insulting' was specifically about the implication from some that having to consider the possibility of coercion in consent in medical decision-making was something alien to the medical profession and something that they'd have to deal with for the first time if assisted dying were legalised.
-
Sorry, but I think this makes no sense. The question surely is whether the safeguarding is adequate ti allow this, and that there may be times when similar safeguarding is currently required doesn't mean that it is adequate for that. If the Health Service is broken as Streetibh claims, then maybe the question is whether the decisions currently being taken are adequate.
But surely the whole notion of safeguards is to prevent people in a vulnerable state (in this case those at the end of life) from being forced into a choose that they do not want. So where are the safeguards (not just inadequate ones) for those who at the end of life do no want to endure weeks, or perhaps even just days, of highly medicalised palliative care beyond the point where they can make any decisions, but would prefer to die. Which, of course they could do if their condition required treatment to remain alive (as they could refuse treatment). From what I can see there aren't any - they have no option but to follow an option that they desperately don't want.
So absolutely - we must have the safeguards to protect those that do not want to choose assisted dying but want the current palliative care option at the end of life. But why are those who desperately do not want that for them at the end of life but would prefer to die at a time of their choice when they can make that decision for themselves not deserving of similar safeguards which would the choice to decide to choose assisted dying. To my mind both groups of people are not just equally vulnerable but also equally deserving of safeguards to protect their interests, which ultimately must be about the right for them to make their own choice about end of life.
So actually one of the best safeguards we can have is the option to choose the right course for each individual person who is terminally ill.
-
But that isn't what I'm doing as my comment on 'insulting' was specifically about the implication from some that having to consider the possibility of coercion in consent in medical decision-making was something alien to the medical profession and something that they'd have to deal with for the first time if assisted dying were legalised.
Given the stakes who cares? The question was to one of the MPs helping to sponsor the bill and was about whether the safeguards are adequate for the bill. They were unable to answer, and that there might be consideration doesn't mean it's adequate, especially given that the health service is 'broken'. That you have taken umbrage on behalf of some people on that seems to me entirely your problem and irrelevant to the bill.
-
But surely the whole notion of safeguards is to prevent people in a vulnerable state (in this case those at the end of life) from being forced into a choose that they do not want. So where are the safeguards (not just inadequate ones) for those who at the end of life do no want to endure weeks, or perhaps even just days, of highly medicalised palliative care beyond the point where they can make any decisions, but would prefer to die. Which, of course they could do if their condition required treatment to remain alive (as they could refuse treatment). From what I can see there aren't any - they have no option but to follow an option that they desperately don't want.
So absolutely - we must have the safeguards to protect those that do not want to choose assisted dying but want the current palliative care option at the end of life. But why are those who desperately do not want that for them at the end of life but would prefer to die at a time of their choice when they can make that decision for themselves not deserving of similar safeguards which would the choice to decide to choose assisted dying. To my mind both groups of people are not just equally vulnerable but also equally deserving of safeguards to protect their interests, which ultimately must be about the right for them to make their own choice about end of life.
So actually one of the best safeguards we can have is the option to choose the right course for each individual person who is terminally ill.
And if in doing that you don't ensure adequate safeguards for those decisions, and it is surely questionable if that can be achieved in a 'broken' health service, then you aren't doing enough by your own standards to achieve that.
-
And if in doing that you don't ensure adequate safeguards for those decisions, and it is surely questionable if that can be achieved in a 'broken' health service, then you aren't doing enough by your own standards to achieve that.
Do you think there should be safeguards for those people who desperately do not want to end their lives with highly medicalised palliative care beyond the point where they can make any decisions, but would prefer to die at a time of their choice when they can make that decision?
And that will include people who would still want the same even is they had access to the very best palliative care that is possible. Currently those people appear to have zero safeguards as they are simply refused the option they desperately want (or perhaps better put desperately want to have available to them).
-
Do you think there should be safeguards for those people who desperately do not want to end their lives with highly medicalised palliative care beyond the point where they can make any decisions, but would prefer to die at a time of their choice when they can make that decision?
And that will include people who would still want the same even is they had access to the very best palliative care that is possible. Currently those people appear to have zero safeguards as they are simply refused the option they desperately want.
I think for it to be a choice it needs safeguards around it. I think calling it a 'safeguard' in this context is a category error.
-
I think for it to be a choice it needs safeguards around it. I think calling it a 'safeguard' in this context is a category error.
Surely a safeguard is something that ensures that a person isn't forced to make a choice they really don't want to. The unavailable of an alternative option is surely the most obvious lack of safeguards as it effectively gives a person only one option, even if that is something they really, really don't want.
I, of course, agree that no-one should be forced to end their life through assisted dying if that isn't what they want. But surely we should equally want to ensure that no-one should be forced to end their life with highly medicalised palliative care beyond the point where they can make any decisions if that isn't what they want.
-
Surely a safeguard is something that ensures that a person isn't forced to make a choice they really don't want to. The unavailable of an alternative option is surely the most obvious lack of safeguards as it effectively gives a person only one option, even if that is something they really, really don't want.
I, of course, agree that no-one should be forced to end their life through assisted dying if that isn't what they want. But surely we should equally want to ensure that no-one should be forced to end their life with highly medicalised palliative care beyond the point where they can make any decisions if that isn't what they want.
No, I think that a safeguard is a thing surrounding choices, and certainly contextually that is what is covered here. You used it in that sense for the majority of the discussion, and then have pivoted to thos. I don't think it makes sense in the context.
-
Wes Streeting saying that Assisted dying would affect other services. Note those isn't an argument against it per se but is about what we want the health service to do.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew2jj94zwyo
-
Wes Streeting saying that Assisted dying would affect other services. Note those isn't an argument against it per se but is about what we want the health service to do.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew2jj94zwyo
I'd've thought it'd save money, if anything, since the patient would require a few weeks or months less care - which is an observation, but emphatically not a pro-AD argument.
-
I'd've thought it'd save money, if anything, since the patient would require a few weeks or months less care - which is an observation, but emphatically not a pro-AD argument.
I think it's more capacity, than cost. If the assessment were done properly, including the judicial support, then it's time rich for a lot of specific people. L who might them not be supporting other services.
-
I think it's more capacity, than cost. If the assessment were done properly, including the judicial support, then it's time rich for a lot of specific people. L who might them not be supporting other services.
Yes but we are constantly being told that palliative care in the NHS is "broken". The main reason for that is that there aren't enough people or facilities supporting it. There's already a capacity shortage. Assisted dying will just slightly spread the load a bit more.
-
Yes but we are constantly being told that palliative care in the NHS is "broken". The main reason for that is that there aren't enough people or facilities supporting it. There's already a capacity shortage. Assisted dying will just slightly spread the load a bit more.
I don't think the point is about palliative care but about the doctors time being taken up with what if those sponsoring the bill are correct will be a time demanding process.
Your post reads like assisted gmdying should be seen as addressing the issues with palliative care which I would suggest sounds very like getting rid of people to save money.
And it's not just palliative care that Streeting described as broken it's the entire service.
-
Interesting views from my neighbour which rather counters the comments about NHS challenges being the key issue.
Her brother was diagnosed with particularly aggressive cancer and recently died, with her at his bedside throughout the final days and weeks. Her experience of his last few weeks prior to death has made her a passionate supporter of changing the law to allow assisted suicide.
Her brother was in Chicago and due to his work had access to the very finest private palliative care possible.
Even with the very best palliative care there will be people who would still want the option to choose assisted dying, even if that is in the last few days or weeks (rather than months), because palliative care necessarily trades off pain relief with the ability for autonomy and self-determination as patients need greater and greater levels of pain relief. I know everyone's experiences may be different, but my experience is that palliative care works well in the earlier stages towards death, but not at the latest stages where the person (in this case my father, but similarly my neighbour's brother) can no longer interact yet was clearly regularly in a state of significant distress which simply could not be alleviated, nor was there opportunity for comforting.
-
Interesting views from my neighbour which rather counters the comments about NHS challenges being the key issue.
Her brother was diagnosed with particularly aggressive cancer and recently died, with her at his bedside throughout the final days and weeks. Her experience of his last few weeks prior to death has made her a passionate supporter of changing the law to allow assisted suicide.
Her brother was in Chicago and due to his work had access to the very finest private palliative care possible.
Even with the very best palliative care there will be people who would still want the option to choose assisted dying, even if that is in the last few days or weeks (rather than months), because palliative care necessarily trades off pain relief with the ability for autonomy and self-determination as patients need greater and greater levels of pain relief. I know everyone's experiences may be different, but my experience is that palliative care works well in the earlier stages towards death, but not at the latest stages where the person (in this case my father, but similarly my neighbour's brother) can no longer interact yet was clearly regularly in a state of significant distress which simply could not be alleviated, nor was there opportunity for comforting.
I'm not sure anyone has described 'NHS chalkenges' as the key issue. And I'm not sure anyone has taken the position that were the best palliative care to be available that no one would want assisted dying.
-
I don't think the point is about palliative care but about the doctors time being taken up with what if those sponsoring the bill are correct will be a time demanding process.
They are both NHS resources.
Your post reads like assisted gmdying should be seen as addressing the issues with palliative care which I would suggest sounds very like getting rid of people to save money.
Well you are the one suggesting we should torture people to save money - at least that is one way to read your complaint about resourcing.
-
They are both NHS resources.Well you are the one suggesting we should torture people to save money - at least that is one way to read your complaint about resourcing.
Yes, they are both resources but the impact of demand on time is different from the demand on money.
And it's not my complaint about resources, but rather Streeting warning it might have an impact, and I specifically said when I posted it that it is not an argument against assisted dying.
-
I'm not sure anyone has described 'NHS chalkenges' as the key issue. And I'm not sure anyone has taken the position that were the best palliative care to be available that no one would want assisted dying.
Actually I think that has been a key line of argument from some who are opposed to assisted dying - effectively that people are only requesting assisted dying due to the inadequacies of palliative care provision. And that were the highest quality palliative care provision to be available universally that assisted dying would be unnecessary. I don't think that argument holds water at all as there are plenty of people who have seen the best that palliative care can offer in practice with their loved ones (including me) and still consider that the option of assisted dying should be available. And I think those people making those arguments misunderstand the reasons why people want the option of assisted dying - in many cases this is first and foremost about self-determination.
-
Actually I think that has been a key line of argument from some who are opposed to assisted dying - effectively that people are only requesting assisted dying due to the inadequacies of palliative care provision. And that were the highest quality palliative care provision to be available universally that assisted dying would be unnecessary. I don't think that argument holds water at all as there are plenty of people who have seen the best that palliative care can offer in practice with their loved ones (including me) and still consider that the option of assisted dying should be available. And I think those people making those arguments misunderstand the reasons why people want the option of assisted dying - in many cases this is first and foremost about self-determination.
I think the argument that's been put is that some who might choose palliative care might feel coerced into assisted dying if they feel the palliative care is of such low quality that they had no choice. I haven't seen anyone on here make the argument you've suggested.
-
My take on this, as someone for whom this issue isn't just of academic interest, is that dealing the distress of my family at the point my health irreversibly declines would be the main factor: I wouldn't want my death to become a dragged-out drama for my loved ones where we all already know how it ends (be that sooner or later).
I've recently had a bit of a 'dip', which turned out to be less scary than I thought it was, so I'd also say that it would only be as I approached the very end, assuming I was still able to, that I could even countenance this option. At that point, for me, it would be about people and not about policies or services.
-
I think the argument that's been put is that some who might choose palliative care might feel coerced into assisted dying if they feel the palliative care is of such low quality that they had no choice.
But the current situation is the reverse of that, but in spades. Effectively people have no choice other than to accept palliative care (alone) as there simply is no other lawful option - not just a low quality alternative option but no option.
So how many people feel 'coerced' into accepting palliative care right through to the end of life (something they don't want) because there is no other option available to them.
-
I think the argument that's been put is that some who might choose palliative care might feel coerced into assisted dying if they feel the palliative care is of such low quality that they had no choice.
But that comment suggests it to be an either/or choice. Experience from Oregon suggests it isn't like that at all - rather than people who finally opt for assisted dying will also use palliative care through an earlier stage of their end of life journey. The data I've seen suggests that nigh on 90% of people who ultimately used assisted dying were enrolled into palliative hospice care prior to taking the prescription medication that ended their lives.
And I think this is really important - we need to get away from the either/or and understand that active disease treatment/management, palliative care and assisted dying will all work in conjunction with each other. Some people, of course, won't use all of the options, but I would imagine the most common scenario will be someone who works through all three (if Oregon is a guide). And that it will be the individual who will decide at which point it is right for them to move from one stage to another, based on their own understanding of their quality of life and ability to take their own decisions about how their life will end.
-
My take on this, as someone for whom this issue isn't just of academic interest, is that dealing the distress of my family at the point my health irreversibly declines would be the main factor: I wouldn't want my death to become a dragged-out drama for my loved ones where we all already know how it ends (be that sooner or later).
I've recently had a bit of a 'dip', which turned out to be less scary than I thought it was, so I'd also say that it would only be as I approached the very end, assuming I was still able to, that I could even countenance this option. At that point, for me, it would be about people and not about policies or services.
Gordon - I know how difficult it is for you to discuss your own situation but I am very glad that you do. How you describe your own position seems very likely to be common were assisted dying to be legalised. An individual may move from active disease treatment to palliative care when the active treatment was no longer effective or was intolerably burdensome to the individual both in terms of side effects but also quality of life in those final months.
But there may be a point where the same would be said of palliative care - that it no longer works (and retaining the ability for self determination, ability to still interact with loved ones and a level of dignity are likely as important as pain management in this respect), so that continued palliative care becomes intolerably burdensome. Currently that person has no other option than to continue with palliative care, which may desperately not what they want, and will typically lose any possibility for self determination days or perhaps weeks before they die.
The Oregon experience also suggests that patients are often prescribed the medication long before they use it, which is often in the very final end of life stages, perhaps just a few days before likely death. And also, of course, many people are prescribed the medication but don't actually take it, presumably because their palliative care never attained the point where it was intolerably burdensome.
-
But the current situation is the reverse of that, but in spades. Effectively people have no choice other than to accept palliative care (alone) as there simply is no other lawful option - not just a low quality alternative option but no option.
So how many people feel 'coerced' into accepting palliative care right through to the end of life (something they don't want) because there is no other option available to them.
Yes, but that's where the argument lies, and it's a personal estimate of where you are that reflects that. Again no one on the thread that I've seen is arguing any differently to that.
-
But that comment suggests it to be an either/or choice. Experience from Oregon suggests it isn't like that at all - rather than people who finally opt for assisted dying will also use palliative care through an earlier stage of their end of life journey. The data I've seen suggests that nigh on 90% of people who ultimately used assisted dying were enrolled into palliative hospice care prior to taking the prescription medication that ended their lives.
And I think this is really important - we need to get away from the either/or and understand that active disease treatment/management, palliative care and assisted dying will all work in conjunction with each other. Some people, of course, won't use all of the options, but I would imagine the most common scenario will be someone who works through all three (if Oregon is a guide). And that it will be the individual who will decide at which point it is right for them to move from one stage to another, based on their own understanding of their quality of life and ability to take their own decisions about how their life will end.
It wasn't meant to suggest that it's an either or.
-
Yes, but that's where the argument lies, and it's a personal estimate of where you are that reflects that. Again no one on the thread that I've seen is arguing any differently to that.
Then it is a very odd argument - effectively that people may feel coerced into choosing one of two options because one of those options may not be of as high quality as we'd wish, and that must be avoided at all costs by preventing assisted dying being legalised.
Yet currently people are currently are definitely being coerced into choosing one of two options because the other options is unlawful and therefore unavailable, and that's OK.
I think people should have the choice and I think we need to avoid a situation where someone feels that they have to choose an option they do not want.
-
I think, in all this talk of safeguards and services, that the emotion get missed: maybe you have to be in a position where AS is a relevant option to really understand what this option 'feels' like.
I've been through the horror of being told, in October 2020, that I had terminal cancer when I had no idea I was ill, to quickly becoming seriously unwell and dealing with months of catheterisation and then surgery. Then it was all fine until earlier this year, when blood tests went awry and pain started, and even if things are still manageable the proverbial writing is starting to become clearer on the proverbial wall.
So, if this option becomes available in Scotland, I want to be able to decide, along with my loved ones and the wonderful people at The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre who really do look after me so well, what is best for ME and US!!!!
-
Streeting getting some pushback on being so open.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqdy9ndrndo
Problematic given Starmer's promise to get this discussed for his friend.
-
I think, in all this talk of safeguards and services, that the emotion get missed: maybe you have to be in a position where AS is a relevant option to really understand what this option 'feels' like.
I've been through the horror of being told, in October 2020, that I had terminal cancer when I had no idea I was ill, to quickly becoming seriously unwell and dealing with months of catheterisation and then surgery. Then it was all fine until earlier this year, when blood tests went awry and pain started, and even if things are still manageable the proverbial writing is starting to become clearer on the proverbial wall.
So, if this option becomes available in Scotland, I want to be able to decide, along with my loved ones and the wonderful people at The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre who really do look after me so well, what is best for ME and US!!!!
Gordon - what an amazing post. This should be sent to every MP who has to vote on the matter as it get absolutely to heart of the matter - this is about people and their ability to determine what happens to them at the most difficult times imaginable.
-
Then it is a very odd argument - effectively that people may feel coerced into choosing one of two options because one of those options may not be of as high quality as we'd wish, and that must be avoided at all costs by preventing assisted dying being legalised.
Yet currently people are currently are definitely being coerced into choosing one of two options because the other options is unlawful and therefore unavailable, and that's OK.
I think people should have the choice and I think we need to avoid a situation where someone feels that they have to choose an option they do not want.
You're trying to boil down what is a debate on values into something simple here. It could be phrased that people aren't being 'coerced' into not dying, they are not being provided with treatment to kill them, and the framing that people choose on such questions are indicative of their positions rather than being objective fact.
Earlier Gordon posted this article which covers the 'odd argument'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/12/terminal-illness-assisted-dying-debate-mps
-
Gordon - what an amazing post. This should be sent to every MP who has to vote on the matter as it get absolutely to heart of the matter - this is about people and their ability to determine what happens to them at the most difficult times imaginable.
It is, indeed, an amazing post, and Gordon is an amazing person on this, and generally. I'm sure though that all MPs will also have amazing communications from people in similar situations arguing for, against, and everything in between. There is not a simple answer, as Gordon agrees.
-
Yes, they are both resources but the impact of demand on time is different from the demand on money.
No it isn't. Salaries are an enormous expense for the NHS (about 45% of the budget (https://www.nhsemployers.org/articles/journey-nhs-pay-over-last-decade)). Time is money in any service organisation. You need more doctors? You pay more salaries.
-
No it isn't. Salaries are an enormous expense for the NHS (about 45% of the budget (https://www.nhsemployers.org/articles/journey-nhs-pay-over-last-decade)). Time is money in any service organisation. You need more doctors? You pay more salaries.
And in the short term the demand on doctors may be such that the supply to other areas is not what it was. At least that is my reading of Streeting's comments, and is what is being looked into.
-
And in the short term the demand on doctors may be such that the supply to other areas is not what it was. At least that is my reading of Streeting's comments, and is what is being looked into.
It seems like an excuse to me. If somebody is seriously ill and almost certainly going to die in less than six months, a lot of doctors' time is going to be spent on them either way.
-
It seems like an excuse to me. If somebody is seriously ill and almost certainly going to die in less than six months, a lot of doctors' time is going to be spent on them either way.
As covered when I put up the report, it is not an argument against assisted dying.
-
As covered when I put up the report, it is not an argument against assisted dying.
Well why are you bringing it up on this thread then? What do you hope to achieve?
-
Well why are you bringing it up on this thread then? What do you hope to achieve?
On a thread on assisted dying, you think what the Health Secretary is saying about its impact shouldn't be brought up?
-
It is, indeed, an amazing post, and Gordon is an amazing person on this, and generally. I'm sure though that all MPs will also have amazing communications from people in similar situations arguing for, against, and everything in between. There is not a simple answer, as Gordon agrees.
But to an extent there is a really simply question at the heart of this debate - do you think that people approaching the end of their lives should be able to determine for themselves how and when they die.
-
Streeting getting some pushback on being so open.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqdy9ndrndo
Problematic given Starmer's promise to get this discussed for his friend.
I'm a big fan of Streeting, but I do think he is at risk of overstepping the line with regard to the requirement for the government to be neutral on this matter.
So it is fine for him to say 'my personal view is ...' however if he says 'as Health Secretary I have come to the view that ...' then to my mind (and clearly others) he has overstepped the mark as he is aligning his view to his role in government, which is not compatible with the government being explicitly neutral.
So any minister should, of course, be able to give their view in their capacity as an MP, but they are not able to give their view in their capacity as a minister of government.
-
But to an extent there is a really simply question at the heart of this debate - do you think that people approaching the end of their lives should be able to determine for themselves how and when they die.
I think that's simplistic rather than smoke. Rake the 'approaching the end of their lifes' - thr bill covers people with less than 6 months, in the opinion, of the doctors, which is an arbitrary line and if someone is a boy outside that you don't want them to have the right? And it's not about the right to commit suicide but that the stare provides them a means to do that under certain circumstances, any of which are arbitrary and not covered by your phrasing of the question.
-
I think that's simplistic rather than smoke. Rake the 'approaching the end of their lifes' - thr bill covers people with less than 6 months, in the opinion, of the doctors, which is an arbitrary line and if someone is a boy outside that you don't want them to have the right? And it's not about the right to commit suicide but that the stare provides them a means to do that under certain circumstances, any of which are arbitrary and not covered by your phrasing of the question.
But at the heart of the matter, there remains that rather simple question of principle. Of course the issues you mention need to be considered robustly, but those are matters of process, not matters of principle.
So I guess the question for those that are 'against' is whether they are against on principle or on process. My fear is that some hide behind the latter as cover to avoid being clear that they are actually against on principle. So that no matter how robust the process they will always find another reason to be against - because in reality they simply don't believe that people should have the right of self determination at the end of their lives.
So I guess my question for you NS is whether you are in favour or against the matter on principle.
-
But at the heart of the matter, there remains that rather simple question of principle. Of course the issues you mention need to be considered robustly, but those are matters of process, not matters of principle.
So I guess the question for those that are 'against' is whether they are against on principle or on process. My fear is that some hide behind the latter as cover to avoid being clear that they are actually against on principle. So that no matter how robust the process they will always find another reason to be against - because in reality they simply don't believe that people should have the right of self determination at the end of their lives.
So I guess my question for you NS is whether you are in favour or against the matter on principle.
No, there's principle there in the idea of whether the state should provide the means to commit suicide. Your phrasing of the question both has process in ot, in terms of nearing the end of life, and would read more about preventing suicide of any type.
In theory, I'm not opposed to it but the complexities of practice, and my doubts about whether it's easy to make principles consistent with practice means that I think the are you for or against something like this again simplistic.
I think of the fact that part of the reason I'm opposed to the death penalty is that I think it courses society's attitude to death, and that that may have a detrimental effect overall. How do I balance that here that that could be a similar impact here that may not be changed by the consent of the person?
I can understand that this may seem evasive in that it's not an answer to your question but I just don't think it's as easy to approach what is complex such a simplistic fashion.
-
I think the problem with this being a principle is the implication that it at least 'should' apply to everyone - a kind of 'one size fits all' approach. I suspect that would miss the personal and the emotional aspects of those involved, where each case has its own bespoke circumstances.
If I were ever to go down that road it wouldn't be because I was taking advantage of a new established principle - it would be because was the best option for me and mine - and that applies equally if I decided against.
-
I think the problem with this being a principle is the implication that it at least 'should' apply to everyone - a kind of 'one size fits all' approach. I suspect that would miss the personal and the emotional aspects of those involved, where each case has its own bespoke circumstances.
But that is why I framed the principle on the basis of self determination, in other words that each person should be allowed to choose the best option for themselves as an individual. So this is entirely the opposite of one size fits all. Freedom of the individual to choose is the only thing that would be applied to everyone - what that choice would be would be totally based on the individual, their circumstances and what feels right for them.
If I were ever to go down that road it wouldn't be because I was taking advantage of a new established principle - it would be because was the best option for me and mine - and that applies equally if I decided against.
But the principle would be that it is up to you to decide, so you would be taking advantage of that fundamental principle of self determination, regardless of whether that choice were to use assisted dying or not to.
-
But that is why I framed the principle on the basis of self determination, in other words that each person should be allowed to choose the best option for themselves as an individual. So this is entirely the opposite of one size fits all. Freedom of the individual to choose is the only thing that would be applied to everyone - what that choice would be would be totally based on the individual, their circumstances and what feels right for them.
But the principle would be that it is up to you to decide, so you would be taking advantage of that fundamental principle of self determination, regardless of whether that choice were to use assisted dying or not to.
If the bill restricts it to those who are given less than six months to live, then it doesn't apply to everyone.
-
"Grassroots" anti-AD groups turn out to be astroturf.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/16/revealed-grassroots-campaigns-opposed-to-assisted-dying-financed-by-conservative-christian-pressure-groups
-
"Grassroots" anti-AD groups turn out to be astroturf.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/16/revealed-grassroots-campaigns-opposed-to-assisted-dying-financed-by-conservative-christian-pressure-groups
I'd be interested on Alan Burns take on the morality of those tactics, especially given he highlighted thar he's been misled by a video about homosexuality yesterday.
-
I'd be interested on Alan Burns take on the morality of those tactics, especially given he highlighted thar he's been misled by a video about homosexuality yesterday.
Of course I agree that using deceit to promote a cause is wrong - even when the cause itself is morally justifiable.
The exposure of such tactics should not be used to condemn the cause - it can only be used to condemn the perpetrators of the deceit.
-
Of course I agree that using deceit to promote a cause is wrong - even when the cause itself morally justifiable.
The exposure of such tactics should not be used to condemn the cause - it can only be used to condemn the perpetrators of the deceit.
Agree.
-
Interesting take from Harriet Harman about Streeting asking for costs information. She points out that could be a finding that assisted suicide might well turn out to be cheaper that keeping a terminally ill person alive.
By commissioning work to assess the cost of facilitating assisted dying – which he will have to publish – he will then of necessity have to balance that against the cost of the person staying alive. That leads you to the awful prospect that the research could find that it is cheaper for people to be doing assisted dying rather than staying alive, and that would really contaminate the argument,” said Harman, who is co-host of the podcast Electoral Dysfunction.
“It has to be an argument about individual choice and moral principle. It cannot be an argument about money.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/17/cancel-study-into-the-cost-to-nhs-of-assisted-dying-harman-tells-streeting
-
Interesting take from Harriet Harman about Streeting asking for costs information. She points out that could be a finding that assisted suicide might well turn out to be cheaper that keeping a terminally ill person alive.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/17/cancel-study-into-the-cost-to-nhs-of-assisted-dying-harman-tells-streeting
As covered, I don't think this is just about cost, and Steve did raise it. The problem is that to reverse Harman's position here would be saying we shouldn't understand the impact in case it affects the decision I.e. we should refuse to have the information.
-
Polly Toynbee, in the Guardian, opines that the safeguards are too strict, and I agree: each request must be signed off by two doctors and a judge, and then there's a 14-day cooling-off period, so it could be three weeks before AD can be administered, by which time the patient may well have died naturally.. I assume this excessive stringency is a sop to the anti-choice miseries.
-
But to an extent there is a really simply question at the heart of this debate - do you think that people approaching the end of their lives should be able to determine for themselves how and when they die.
I don't think it is.
Suicide is not illegal. This bill is about whether people can assist you to end your life without breaking the law.
-
Polly Toynbee, in the Guardian, opines that the safeguards are too strict, and I agree: each request must be signed off by two doctors and a judge, and then there's a 14-day cooling-off period, so it could be three weeks before AD can be administered
I think that may be optimistic at present. You have to find two doctors first and have them review the case. Then you have to find a judge and have them review the case. I'd be surprised if you could get all of that done in a week.
by which time the patient may well have died naturally.
I woulds argue that that is a good outcome. It would be far worse if the patient had to live through several weeks of unnecessary suffering because of the bureaucracy required.
I assume this excessive stringency is a sop to the anti-choice miseries.
Yes, probably, but, it's a start. If we run it this way and find that there are no - or very few - cases of attempted abuse, we might then be able to think about how the criteria can be relaxed a bit, safely.
In my opinion, the proposal is better than the status quo, if not perfect, and should thus be accepted.
-
Polly Toynbee, in the Guardian, opines that the safeguards are too strict, and I agree: each request must be signed off by two doctors and a judge, and then there's a 14-day cooling-off period, so it could be three weeks before AD can be administered, by which time the patient may well have died naturally.. I assume this excessive stringency is a sop to the anti-choice miseries.
Interesting point. I thought the proposal had a built in cooling off period as the person themselves has to administer the medication - the doctors only prescribe/dispense.
I imagine how this would work in practice is that individuals would begin the process well in advance of need, have the medication available which they may or may not take at a later stage.
-
I don't think it is.
Suicide is not illegal. This bill is about whether people can assist you to end your life without breaking the law.
True - but surely the people we are talking about are unable (or likely to be unable effectively) to take their own lives, hence the need to be assisted. So this comes back to the question of self-determination. If you are in the late stages of a terminal illness and want to die then you will need some level of assistance to support that choice.
-
No, there's principle there in the idea of whether the state should provide the means to commit suicide.
Yes I agree there is also principle around who should or should not cover the costs for assisted dying, but I would argue that this principle is clearly secondary to the main principle as to whether terminally ill people should lawfully have the ability to have assistance to end their lives.
But there is another point. Unless I've got this badly wrong I don't think the Bill, if enacted, would require assisted dying to be provided on the NHS. Rather I think it make assisted dying lawful (subject to the limitations in the Bill), but is silent on how that provision would be funded. In fact I think the only part of the Bill that actually refers to the NHS is a clause which is specifically about how a separate decision may be taken as to whether assisted dying might be provided under the NHS. So there would need to be a completely separate decision on NHS funding which is not part of the Bill at all which would require separate affirmative action.
So again, my understanding is that were the Bill to become law it would only be permitted under private provision until or unless a completely separate decision to allow it under the NHS was taken. Interestingly the separate decision on NHS provision is under the authority of the Secretary of State, who is currently, of course, Wes Streeting. So we could easily envisage a situation where assisted dying is legalised but regulations aren't brought forward to allow it under the NHS.
-
Yes I agree there is also principle around who should or should not cover the costs for assisted dying, but I would argue that this principle is clearly secondary to the main principle as to whether terminally ill people should lawfully have the ability to have assistance to end their lives.
But there is another point. Unless I've got this badly wrong I don't think the Bill, if enacted, would require assisted dying to be provided on the NHS. Rather I think it make assisted dying lawful (subject to the limitations in the Bill), but is silent on how that provision would be funded. In fact I think the only part of the Bill that actually refers to the NHS is a clause which is specifically about how a separate decision may be taken as to whether assisted dying might be provided under the NHS. So there would need to be a completely separate decision on NHS funding which is not part of the Bill at all which would require separate affirmative action.
So again, my understanding is that were the Bill to become law it would only be permitted under private provision until or unless a completely separate decision to allow it under the NHS was taken. Interestingly the separate decision on NHS provision is under the authority of the Secretary of State, who is currently, of course, Wes Streeting. So we could easily envisage a situation where assisted dying is legalised but regulations aren't brought forward to allow it under the NHS.
No matter if the medication is provided by the state, the process as described by the bill will involve the approval of the state.
-
True - but surely the people we are talking about are unable (or likely to be unable effectively) to take their own lives, hence the need to be assisted. So this comes back to the question of self-determination. If you are in the late stages of a terminal illness and want to die then you will need some level of assistance to support that choice.
That seems to be just assertion. And is irrelevant to your phrasing ofbthe question being exactly as jeremyp described.
-
No matter if the medication is provided by the state, the process as described by the bill will involve the approval of the state.
Of course - as are any laws and/or changes to the law.
But that's a different matter to the issue of whether there is provision by the NHS - as far as I understand it that would require completely separate affirmative decision. So a decision to approve the Bill is not a decision to fund this via the NHS.
I think that is a rather important point as there has been a lot of discussion around the impact on the NHS.
-
Of course - as are any laws and/or changes to the law.
But that's a different matter to the issue of whether there is provision by the NHS - as far as I understand it that would require completely separate affirmative decision. So a decision to approve the Bill is not a decision to fund this via the NHS.
I think that is a rather important point as there has been a lot of discussion around the impact on the NHS.
The point is still that your phrasing of the question as just about the individuals right to take their life is incorrect.
-
think of the fact that part of the reason I'm opposed to the death penalty is that I think it courses society's attitude to death, and that that may have a detrimental effect overall. How do I balance that here that that could be a similar impact here that may not be changed by the consent of the person?
I had some rather similar thoughts, comparing this debate with the death penalty.
Certainly there are a lot of points raised in relation to the death penalty about process, about whether we can be sure the person actually was guilty, about costs etc.
But for me being against the death penalty is a matter of fundamental principle - so if you said that hypothetically you were 100% sure a person committed a particularly heinous crime would you be in favour. My answer would still be 'no' because it is a matter of principle for me.
That's my point to those that oppose assisted dying. If you were 100% certain that the person was going to die in a few months and 100% certain that their consent was completely valid (were competent, understood the ramifications of their decision, were not pressurised in any way) would you still oppose. Some would still disagree with it, because they oppose on principle. My concern is where people appear to hide behind comments on process, but in reality would still oppose if those issues were completely removed (as I would do for the death penalty).
I do think that it is important that people are clear and honest as to whether they oppose on principle or support in principle but need to be assured that the process etc is robust.
-
No matter if the medication is provided by the state, the process as described by the bill will involve the approval of the state.
Do you mean approval of the bill in parliament, or approval in the sense that a member of the judiciary must sign off each request? Either way, I do not think of this as a major issue.
-
Do you mean approval of the bill in parliament, or approval in the sense that a member of the judiciary must sign off each request? Either way, I do not think of this as a major issue.
I agree - this seems similar to all sorts of other provision that requires some legal involvement and needs to be approved at the outset by parliament.
This doesn't seem to be of the same significant as 'state-funded', ie involving NHS resource, which has been a major point of debate not just here but more generally. Yet I don't think the Bill permits state funding for the provision at all. Were this to be approved it would require an entirely separate process. And this seems consistent with other similar examples (e.g. abortion, IVF etc) where the decision to make it lawful did not also require it to be provided by the NHS. Understanding how approval for provision to be provided on the NHS would make it clear that the Bill was never going to require NHS to fund - nor for that matter to ban its funding via the NHS. As far as I understand it, decisions about NHS provision will be separate from the decisions on the Bill.
-
I had some rather similar thoughts, comparing this debate with the death penalty.
Certainly there are a lot of points raised in relation to the death penalty about process, about whether we can be sure the person actually was guilty, about costs etc.
But for me being against the death penalty is a matter of fundamental principle - so if you said that hypothetically you were 100% sure a person committed a particularly heinous crime would you be in favour. My answer would still be 'no' because it is a matter of principle for me.
That's my point to those that oppose assisted dying. If you were 100% certain that the person was going to die in a few months and 100% certain that their consent was completely valid (were competent, understood the ramifications of their decision, were not pressurised in any way) would you still oppose. Some would still disagree with it, because they oppose on principle. My concern is where people appear to hide behind comments on process, but in reality would still oppose if those issues were completely removed (as I would do for the death penalty).
I do think that it is important that people are clear and honest as to whether they oppose on principle or support in principle but need to be assured that the process etc is robust.
Is there anyone on here that you think isn't being honest? If so who, and why?
If someone thinks that it is impossible to avoid the possibility of someone being coerced, then I don't think that it is somehow a less 'principled' decision to oppose assisted dying than how you are portraying your stance on capital punishment. Practicalities matter.
-
Do you mean approval of the bill in parliament, or approval in the sense that a member of the judiciary must sign off each request? Either way, I do not think of this as a major issue.
I was thinking of the judiciary but the point specifically there was about the phrasing of Prof D as regards it just being about
'Do you think that people approaching the end of their lives should be able to determine for themselves how and when they die'
And pointing out that it isn't.
-
I was thinking of the judiciary but the point specifically there was about the phrasing of Prof D as regards it just being about
'Do you think that people approaching the end of their lives should be able to determine for themselves how and when they die'
And pointing out that it isn't.
Well we can nit-pick on precise wording till the cows come home, but I do think it applies. For there to be self-determination it requires obstacles to individuals to be able to exercise their choices to be removed. If someone who is terminally ill wishes to die but is unable to do so without assistance then their principle of self determination is thwarted.
-
Well we can nit-pick on precise wording till the cows come home, but I do think it applies. For there to be self-determination it requires obstacles to individuals to be able to exercise their choices to be removed. If someone who is terminally ill wishes to die but is unable to do so without assistance then their principle of self determination is thwarted.
So what, if a terminally ill patient is capable of ending their own life? I've known a number of them. I doubt it's going to make a difference to your position but in the 8nrests of clarity?
-
Is there anyone on here that you think isn't being honest? If so who, and why?
If someone thinks that it is impossible to avoid the possibility of someone being coerced, then I don't think that it is somehow a less 'principled' decision to oppose assisted dying than how you are portraying your stance on capital punishment. Practicalities matter.
But the point is that for the 'on principle' person, no level of safeguards will ever be sufficient for them to support because their objections are ... err ... on principle. And those people, in my experience (and I had an awful lot of experience from one of the last major conscience votes - on embryonic stem cells) often focus their objections on the practicalities (it isn't needed, we can never be sure etc etc) yet will never be in support regardless of the safeguards. And I'm not arguing that principled objection is more or less valid than support in principle but objection due to the practicalities. What I am arguing is that they are different and arguing about the robustness safeguards etc with a principled objector is a waste of time as they will never agree, although they may throw in safeguarding objections to muddy the waters.
So just to check that you aren't one of those people - in a hypothetical situation if you were 100% sure that a person was terminally ill, in the last few weeks of their life and there was no question that their consent was 100% valid (see previous post), would you support that person being assisted to allow them to die when they wanted?
-
So what, if a terminally ill patient is capable of ending their own life? I've known a number of them. I doubt it's going to make a difference to your position but in the 8nrests of clarity?
What on earth is your point - if someone is able to exercise self determination then there is no fundamental issue - we are discussing those that cannot without assistance.
Although I suspect those that can would feel more comfortable using proven medication rather than trying to overdose, throw themselves in front of a train etc etc.
-
What on earth is your point - if someone is able to exercise self determination then there is no fundamental issue - we are discussing those that cannot without assistance.
Although I suspect those that can would feel more comfortable using proven medication rather than trying to overdose, throw themselves in front of a train etc etc.
I don't think we are. I can't see anything in the bill that makes this caveat.
-
But the point is that for the 'on principle' person, no level of safeguards will ever be sufficient for them to support because their objections are ... err ... on principle. And those people, in my experience (and I had an awful lot of experience from one of the last major conscience votes - on embryonic stem cells) often focus their objections on the practicalities (it isn't needed, we can never be sure etc etc) yet will never be in support regardless of the safeguards. And I'm not arguing that principled objection is more or less valid than support in principle but objection due to the practicalities. What I am arguing is that they are different and arguing about the robustness safeguards etc with a principled objector is a waste of time as they will never agree, although they may throw in safeguarding objections to muddy the waters.
So just to check that you aren't one of those people - in a hypothetical situation if you were 100% sure that a person was terminally ill, in the last few weeks of their life and there was no question that their consent was 100% valid (see previous post), would you support that person being assisted to allow them to die when they wanted?
Again you seem to work in abstracts. This is about law, and if your principle is that you fear the death of the one person who is coerced or might be coerced outweighs the right of people who wing to, that is a matter of practicality.
As to your question, in principle yes, but again this is about practice and practicalities, and if I think the involvement of the state in that is problematic then I'm left with realising ghat principles are fine, in principle.
-
I don't think we are. I can't see anything in the bill that makes this caveat.
The Bill will permit terminally ill people who that cannot exercise self determination without assistance to do so. Of course it isn't going to be restricted only to those that would not be able die without assistance. That would be bizarre.
-
The Bill will permit terminally ill people who that cannot exercise self determination without assistance to do so. Of course it isn't going to be restricted only to those that would not be able die without assistance. That would be bizarre.
So we are talking about people who could commit suicide and when you wrote 'but surely the people we are talking about are unable (or likely to be unable effectively) to take their own lives, hence the need to be assisted' you were wrong.
By the way I asked this about you thinking people were not being honest about their reasons, you appear not to have answered it.
Is there anyone on here that you think isn't being honest? If so who, and why?
-
As to your question, in principle yes ...
Good - glad we've cleared that up. But there are others who will never accept assisted dying on principle who will still attempt to muddy the waters in terms of safeguards, slippery slopes etc etc, which are necessarily irrelevant to them as their objection is on principle.
, but again this is about practice and practicalities, and if I think the involvement of the state in that is problematic then I'm left with realising ghat principles are fine, in principle.
Sure - but when we get into the world of process, practicalities and safeguards etc we aren't in a position now where people are adequately safeguarded. Far from it - those who do not wish to die in the only way legally available to them are clearly not safeguarded whatsoever. So, to my mind, we are in a situation where we are looking to balance safeguarding those who through their own choice wish to die using the routes that are currently available and do not want assisted dying with safeguarding those that do not want to die in the only way currently legally available to them but through their own choice wish to use assisted dying.
And while we may want to get it 100% right, if we are honest we won't, but surely we should be aiming at a situation where as many terminally people as possible die in the way that they would choose and as few in a way that they desperately don't want. And we won't get that 100% right but it seems to me that we currently don't even try as we prioritise totally those that do not want to use assisted dying over those that do as it is currently unlawful. To my mind safeguarding the person does not want to end their days in the only manner currently available to them is just as important as safeguarding those who do not want to use assisted dying.
-
So we are talking about people who could commit suicide and when you wrote 'but surely the people we are talking about are unable (or likely to be unable effectively) to take their own lives, hence the need to be assisted' you were wrong.
By the way I asked this about you thinking people were not being honest about their reasons, you appear not to have answered it.
Is there anyone on here that you think isn't being honest? If so who, and why?
We are trying to have a serious and important discussion NS - don't go down a rather tedious 'gotcha' route. But I'm sure you understand what I am saying - those who cannot end their lives without assistance are, of course, those that would benefit most from the Bill if it passes as they currently cannot exercise self determination without assistance (which is illegal).
Those who could, potentially, end their lives but in a manner which is likely to be less certain and potentially much more traumatic and distressing will also benefit, but to a lesser extent. Taking an overdose (which may or may not work) or jumping in front of a train (which may or may not work) isn't really consistent with dying with dignity.
-
Good - glad we've cleared that up. But there are others who will never accept assisted dying on principle who will still attempt to muddy the waters in terms of safeguards, slippery slopes etc etc, which are necessarily irrelevant to them as their objection is on principle.
Sure - but when we get into the world of process, practicalities and safeguards etc we aren't in a position now where people are adequately safeguarded. Far from it - those who do not wish to die in the only way legally available to them are clearly not safeguarded whatsoever. So, to my mind, we are in a situation where we are looking to balance safeguarding those who through their own choice wish to die using the routes that are currently available and do not want assisted dying with safeguarding those that do not want to die in the only way currently legally available to them but through their own choice wish to use assisted dying.
And while we may want to get it 100% right, if we are honest we won't, but surely we should be aiming at a situation where as many terminally people as possible die in the way that they would choose and as few in a way that they desperately don't want. And we won't get that 100% right but it seems to me that we currently don't even try as we prioritise totally those that do not want to use assisted dying over those that do as it is currently unlawful. To my mind safeguarding the person does not want to end their days in the only manner currently available to them is just as important as safeguarding those who do not want to use assisted dying.
And you are entitled to that opinion, as are others who disagree. I'm not sure what your point about principle helps at all here.
-
We are trying to have a serious and important discussion NS - don't go down a rather tedious 'gotcha' route. But I'm sure you understand what I am saying - those who cannot end their lives without assistance are, of course, those that would benefit most from the Bill if it passes as they currently cannot exercise self determination without assistance (which is illegal).
Those who could, potentially, end their lives but in a manner which is likely to be less certain and potentially much more traumatic and distressing will also benefit, but to a lesser extent. Taking an overdose (which may or may not work) or jumping in front of a train (which may or may not work) isn't really consistent with dying with dignity.
I agree but it was you who were saying that it was only those who couldn't take their own life that we were talking about. It isn't and looking for clarity isn't a gotcha.
By the way, I see you haven't answered the question, again
-
And you are entitled to that opinion, as are others who disagree.
True - but I might also argue that if you prioritise one group to the complete exclusion of the other in terms of safeguards then perhaps you are really someone who opposes on principle - specifically that no matter how many people die in a manner they desperately do not wish this will never be sufficient to elicit support for assistance to allow them to die as they wish.
I'm not sure what your point about principle helps at all here.
See above - but I do think the distinction between those who object on a fundamental matter or principle and those that are supportive on principle but are opposed on practicalities is important in framing the discussion and I been here before.
A little over 20 years ago I was very actively involved in the debate over embryonic stem cells (also a conscience vote). I was formally involved in one of the earlier 'on-line discussion forums' which was set up by the House of Lords as part of the consultation. A couple of points from that experience. The issue raised previously about people claiming to be there as just Joe Public, but actually there as part of an organised group was there in spades (and on both sides of the debate). But also there were people who would claim everything could be done with adult stem cells (not true) but also completely dismissed any progress with embryonic stem cells - realistically even were there to be a dead cert cure for all cancers from embryonic stem cells they'd still oppose, because their opposition was on principle. Of and in the interests of balance I was equally irritate with people who were in support who also cherry picked just the studies they wanted to focus on - which were always embryonic stem cell studies.
I got so irritated that I asked everyone to reveal who they actually were - and most crept out of the shadows and admitted they weren't just ordinary members of the public but activists involved in pro-life groups or representing patient advocacy groups. I also posted a whole bunch of recent studies - including those from both adult and embryonic stem cells.
-
True - but I might also argue that if you prioritise one group to the complete exclusion of the other in terms of safeguards then perhaps you are really someone who opposes on principle - specifically that no matter how many people die in a manner they desperately do not wish this will never be sufficient to elicit support for assistance to allow them to die as they wish.
See above - but I do think the distinction between those who object on a fundamental matter or principle and those that are supportive on principle but are opposed on practicalities is important in framing the discussion and I been here before.
...
I'd suggest that both your opinion, and the opposite opinion are perhaps further principles that people may have but it wouldn't mean that the person who holds the opposite view isn't being influenced by the practicality of ensuring something they want to avoid. Again I think that looking at this in abstracts is fairly useless. People may say they have principles,, but those principles may be in conflict, or that may think of practicalities and not see things in absolute rules, or a mixture of the two. You still seem to me to be looking on your approach as the correct one, and not accepting that people are messy in their thinking.
-
I'd suggest that both your opinion, and the opposite opinion are perhaps further principles that people may have but it wouldn't mean that the person who holds the opposite view isn't being influenced by the practicality of ensuring something they want to avoid. Again I think that looking at this in abstracts is fairly useless. People may say they have principles,, but those principles may be in conflict, or that may think of practicalities and not see things in absolute rules, or a mixture of the two. You still seem to me to be looking on your approach as the correct one, and not accepting that people are messy in their thinking.
Of course I understand that people can be messy in their thinking, but that doesn't really affect the reality that some people will have objections on principle that will not be shifted regardless of the carefulness of the process or the robustness of safeguards in place. I'm not saying that is wrong (and indeed I'm of that persuasion on the death penalty) but it is important to recognise that.
But there is another issue - as with the embryonic stem cell debate, most of this isn't being played out amongst ordinary Joe Public, but largely amongst pro and anti-activists. And those people will use arguments to their advantage even if they might be irrelevant to their actual thinking. So what I am thinking is anti-activist groups that may be driven by people who strongly oppose on principle who realise that shifting ground to arguments (that they aren't really concerned with as their opposition is on fundamental principles) about the practicalities, or the safeguards, or the length of time for debate, or the claimed slippery-slope etc etc, which act to chip away at the other side. Yet no amount of reassurance on these matters will ever be enough for the 'against-on-principle' person.
And there is a further point, specifically the general credibility of the argument - I suspect many who object on principle, particularly if that is based on religious dogma, may feel that were they to be overt about the reason for their opposition that there would be a general dismissal of that argument as the basis for a universal policy which affects those who do no hold to those religious dogmas. As an example AB is against on principle and while we might respect his individual right to hold those principles and to personally act in accordance, I suspect many of us feel that he has no right to try to impose his religious view on others when is curtails their freedoms and beliefs, which may be just as fervently held as his.
And therefore to campaign on 'practicalities' is likely to gain more traction and therefore be adopted by the principle-objecting person but one who is a smart campaigner.
-
Ann and I were talking through this last night: since it can be assumed the option of AD will become relevant for me at some point.
We came to the view that the only circumstance for this to be an option for me would be; 1) I was in severe and intractable pain, 2) it was distressing the younger members of our family to see me like that, and 3) that the time I had left was judged to be short. Of course were I in such severe pain then I would be medicated accordingly, and therefore my awareness might be compromised. As NS says - it can get messy.
So, I would like an option whereby Ann could take the view that I'd suffered enough and agree to AD when I was ready and able to comply - I'd be comfortable if that could happen since, after over 50 years, I know that she has my best interests at heart and, and more importantly, the interests of those I will leave behind.
-
Ann and I were talking through this last night: since it can be assumed the option of AD will become relevant for me at some point.
We came to the view that the only circumstance for this to be an option for me would be; 1) I was in severe and intractable pain, 2) it was distressing the younger members of our family to see me like that, and 3) that the time I had left was judged to be short. Of course were I in such severe pain then I would be medicated accordingly, and therefore my awareness might be compromised. As NS says - it can get messy.
So, I would like an option whereby Ann could take the view that I'd suffered enough and agree to AD when I was ready and able to comply - I'd be comfortable if that could happen since, after over 50 years, I know that she has my best interests at heart and, and more importantly, the interests of those I will leave behind.
Thank you again for your very personal insight and I think you are absolutely right to discuss this. I also think the scenarios you talk about are likely to be very common for those considering assisted dying.
But how the Bill is framed you may face a couple of challenges. First, as was mentioned earlier it may take several weeks for the process to move to the point where the drugs are available. So I suspect were you to want this as an option it may be wise to start the process relatively early as a few weeks during the period towards the end of life can result in massive change in circumstance, both in terms of pain and in terms of competence to consent. And I think the Oregon experience suggests that many patients get the prescription but will not use it for a considerable time, until they feel the time is right. And of course plenty (I think about 20%) get the prescription and never use it.
The other point is that, as far as I'm aware, the patient themselves must take the drugs and therefore must be competent not just at the point when they request, but also at the point when they take them. So while I have no doubt at all that you have complete confidence that Ann has your best interests at heart if you have gone beyond the point where you are competent to take your own decisions, she nor anyone else will be able to administer them.
-
Of course I understand that people can be messy in their thinking, but that doesn't really affect the reality that some people will have objections on principle that will not be shifted regardless of the carefulness of the process or the robustness of safeguards in place. I'm not saying that is wrong (and indeed I'm of that persuasion on the death penalty) but it is important to recognise that.
But there is another issue - as with the embryonic stem cell debate, most of this isn't being played out amongst ordinary Joe Public, but largely amongst pro and anti-activists. And those people will use arguments to their advantage even if they might be irrelevant to their actual thinking. So what I am thinking is anti-activist groups that may be driven by people who strongly oppose on principle who realise that shifting ground to arguments (that they aren't really concerned with as their opposition is on fundamental principles) about the practicalities, or the safeguards, or the length of time for debate, or the claimed slippery-slope etc etc, which act to chip away at the other side. Yet no amount of reassurance on these matters will ever be enough for the 'against-on-principle' person.
And there is a further point, specifically the general credibility of the argument - I suspect many who object on principle, particularly if that is based on religious dogma, may feel that were they to be overt about the reason for their opposition that there would be a general dismissal of that argument as the basis for a universal policy which affects those who do no hold to those religious dogmas. As an example AB is against on principle and while we might respect his individual right to hold those principles and to personally act in accordance, I suspect many of us feel that he has no right to try to impose his religious view on others when is curtails their freedoms and beliefs, which may be just as fervently held as his.
And therefore to campaign on 'practicalities' is likely to gain more traction and therefore be adopted by the principle-objecting person but one who is a smart campaigner.
Which Alan's already said he would disagree with. That people might use the most effective arguments even if they don't believe in them doesn't affect the arguments.
I don't see why the motivations of some may not be completely honest is useful in deciding what to do.
-
So while I have no doubt at all that you have complete confidence that Ann has your best interests at heart if you have gone beyond the point where you are competent to take your own decisions, she nor anyone else will be able to administer them.
Then perhaps it should be an option - I can't imagine a greater example of love than for her to let me go when the time is right for my family. I doubt anyone can legislate precisely for that, given individual circumstances, but to think this is about process and procedure is to entirely miss the personal perspective.
-
Then perhaps it should be an option - I can't imagine a greater example of love than for her to let me go when the time is right for my family. I doubt anyone can legislate precisely for that, given individual circumstances, but to think this is about process and procedure is to entirely miss the personal perspective.
I think that's right and I'm certain that Ann will be allowed to make all sorts of other decisions on your behalf and in your best interests if you no longer have the capacity to make them yourself. But not this one, I'm afraid.
And I think this gets to the heart of the matter - loved ones typically want to do nothing other than to act in the best interests of their loved ones. And where they don't during end of life I think it is far more likely to be on the basis of hanging onto hope and trying to do everything possible to extend the life of their loved one just a little bit longer. Completely understandable but sometimes not in the best interest of the dying person themselves.
Yet all the talk is about greedy relatives coercing their relatives into dying, rather than well meaning but perhaps misguided relatives trying to persuade their loved one to try just one last round of therapy rather than move from active, but intolerably burdensome, treatment to palliative care. Or not to stop continuing life sustaining medical treatment or to agree to be rescusitated rather than sign a DNR.
-
Yet all the talk is about greedy relatives coercing their relatives into dying, rather than well meaning but perhaps misguided relatives trying to persuade their loved one to try just one last round of therapy rather than move from active, but intolerably burdensome, treatment to palliative care. Or not to stop continuing life sustaining medical treatment or to agree to be rescusitated rather than sign a DNR.
It muddies the water and is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If we disallowed everything where an unscrupulous person could game the system to take advantage, we wouldn't be allowed to do anything. For example, Enduring Power of Attorney would be out for sure.
-
I can't see why, at a point when I had competence and wasn't yet medicated to the extent that I wasn't fully alert, when I was advised that I was unlikely to survive for more than 'x' weeks or months, that I couldn't designate someone to, with their agreement, administer the fatal dose if they judged it appropriate and in accordance with my wishes.
I know that Ann would do that for me, and if I couldn't do it myself then I'd rather it was her.
-
It muddies the water and is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If we disallowed everything where an unscrupulous person could game the system to take advantage, we wouldn't be allowed to do anything. For example, Enduring Power of Attorney would be out for sure.
I agree.
And in a much closer sense to assisted dying, right now there will be patients deciding to come off active treatment and move to palliative care, even though that may reduce their lifespan by months or even longer. Others will be deciding that they do not want to be resuscitated if they have a cardiac arrest. Others still that they will refuse active treatment that is offered to them.
In every case the result is likely that the person in question will die much earlier than they otherwise might have done. So where are the campaigners up in arms at all these decisions (that are happening right now) as they may be being coerced by relatives who want their inheritance money early. Of course in all these cases highly trained medical staff will be on alert for signs that consent is not valid due to pressure or coercion. But the safeguard in all these cases are way less than what is proposed for assisted dying, where there needs to be the involvement of two independent doctors in the consent process (in the current cases that would be just one) and separate legal approval (a judicial decision would never come close to the decisions currently happening in hospitals, hospices, clinics etc as we speak).
And a final point - given the length of time the process is likely to take, at best a greedy relative might get their inheritance perhaps five months earlier than they otherwise might. I imagine in most cases assisted dying would be within a few days or weeks of death otherwise. Pressuring someone to agree to assisted dying will still be a criminal offence - who on earth would risk that to get their money perhaps a month or two early?
-
I can't see why, at a point when I had competence and wasn't yet medicated to the extent that I wasn't fully alert, when I was advised that I was unlikely to survive for more than 'x' weeks or months, that I couldn't designate someone to, with their agreement, administer the fatal dose if they judged it appropriate and in accordance with my wishes.
I know that Ann would do that for me, and if I couldn't do it myself then I'd rather it was her.
That would be an advanced directive - and these are permitted in all sorts of cases, for example DNR (where almost by definition the individual is unlikely to be in a position to make the decision when they need CPR), refusal for blood transfusions etc. Yet I don't think they are permitted in the proposed assisted dying legislation, which I think requires a competent person not only to request the drugs, but also to take the drugs themselves while they remain competent.
It is another example where the so-called 'safeguards' are much more stringent in this case than in other cases which similarly will result in someone dying earlier than they otherwise might have done.
-
Which Alan's already said he would disagree with. That people might use the most effective arguments even if they don't believe in them doesn't affect the arguments.
But it is deeply disingenuous if you campaign on aspects of the argument that are frankly irrelevant to your actual position. And it tell us loads about the strength of their actual position if people who disagree on principle based on religious dogma fail to mention their actual reason for disagreeing but focus on 'too rushed', 'too few safeguards', 'NHS over-stretched'. Why don't they just be honest and argue on - because the bible says it is wrong ... erm rhetorical question, I think we all no the answer to this.
And of course the repost to:
'Too rushed' is 'so how long is reasonable for this debate?'
'Too few safeguards' is 'what level of safeguards are sufficient?' etc
But you'll never get an answer to those questions as the reality is that those people and campaigning groups will never accept there has been sufficient time, nor sufficient safeguards as their opposition is actually on principle and time for debate and safeguards are irrelevant, albeit used as a convenient harbour of convenience to muddy the waters.
I don't see why the motivations of some may not be completely honest is useful in deciding what to do.
So you don't want an honest debate? Astonishing, given this is a really, really important issue and surely they very least we should expect is an honest debate.
-
But it is deeply disingenuous if you campaign on aspects of the argument that are frankly irrelevant to your actual position. And it tell us loads about the strength of their actual position if people who disagree on principle based on religious dogma fail to mention their actual reason for disagreeing but focus on 'too rushed', 'too few safeguards', 'NHS over-stretched'. Why don't they just be honest and argue on - because the bible says it is wrong ... erm rhetorical question, I think we all no the answer to this.
And of course the repost to:
'Too rushed' is 'so how long is reasonable for this debate?'
'Too few safeguards' is 'what level of safeguards are sufficient?' etc
But you'll never get an answer to those questions as the reality is that those people and campaigning groups will never accept there has been sufficient time, nor sufficient safeguards as their opposition is actually on principle and time for debate and safeguards are irrelevant, albeit used as a convenient harbour of convenience to muddy the waters.
So you don't want an honest debate? Astonishing, given this is a really, really important issue and surely they very least we should expect is an honest debate.
That's not what I said. I said it's not useful in deciding what to do. That is not the equivalent of not wanting an honest debate.
-
That's not what I said. I said it's not useful in deciding what to do. That is not the equivalent of not wanting an honest debate.
So if you want an honest debate presumably you think individuals and groups should focus on the issues that they consider are determinative in decision making, which for those who disagree on principle will not be the time permitted in parliament, the level of safeguards etc as for them no amount of time, nor level of safeguards will be sufficient.
I think an honest debate is key, but that requires honesty from those engaging in the debate.
-
So if you want an honest debate presumably you think individuals and groups should focus on the issues that they consider are determinative in decision making, which for those who disagree on principle will not be the time permitted in parliament, the level of safeguards etc as for them no amount of time, nor level of safeguards will be sufficient.
I think an honest debate is key, but that requires honesty from those engaging in the debate.
I don't think the motivations of the people affect the arguments which is what matters. If someone is lying about their motivation, it does not mean that the arguments they're are bad.
-
I don't think the motivations of the people affect the arguments which is what matters. If someone is lying about their motivation, it does not mean that the arguments they're are bad.
But in many cases they are using those 'arguments' that are irrelevant to them as cover to prevent them actually debating the real reason for their opposition. Why are these folk so unwilling to have the argument about their principled opposition to assisted dying?
And if an individual or an organisation's argument is 'too little time', 'too few safeguards' etc it is a reasonable expectation that they need to be clear about how much time would be sufficient and what levels of safeguards would be sufficient. Otherwise they are not actually engaging in the debate are they, merely muddying the waters.
This is an incredibly important decision and we should expect honesty in the debate.
-
Then perhaps it should be an option - I can't imagine a greater example of love than for her to let me go when the time is right for my family. I doubt anyone can legislate precisely for that, given individual circumstances, but to think this is about process and procedure is to entirely miss the personal perspective.
I doubt many people, and very few MPs do think it is just about process, and procedure but law makes that what it needs to be. I suspect that the debate will concentrate on personal perspectives, and personal stories from the MPs lives, and constituents. I think it will be one of the better debates that we will see in parliament because it won't just be about the party political divisions, and is something that is not hugely technical.
It's one of the benefits of it being a Private Members Bill that frees ot up to be more personal. I'm ambivalent about the use govts make of Private Members Bill's in such situations, as it feels in part like passing the buck, but it doesn't affect the arguments.
-
But in many cases they are using those 'arguments' that are irrelevant to them as cover to prevent them actually debating the real reason for their opposition. Why are these folk so unwilling to have the argument about their principled opposition to assisted dying?
And if an individual or an organisation's argument is 'too little time', 'too few safeguards' etc it is a reasonable expectation that they need to be clear about how much time would be sufficient and what levels of safeguards would be sufficient. Otherwise they are not actually engaging in the debate are they, merely muddying the waters.
This is an incredibly important decision and we should expect honesty in the debate.
If the arguments are good arguments, then they aren't 'muddying the waters', and all the arguments that will be made in this will be ones that some people honestly agree with.
-
If the arguments are good arguments, then they aren't 'muddying the waters', and all the arguments that will be made in this will be ones that some people honestly agree with.
If their principled arguments were good ones then why are these individuals and organisations so unwilling to debate on the basis of those.
But the argument 'too rushed', 'too few safeguard' is actually only an argument if you are able to articulate what constitutes 'not rushed' and 'enough safeguards' - otherwise even the framing of the argument is dishonest.
-
If their principled arguments were good ones then why are these individuals and organisations so unwilling to debate on the basis of those.
But the argument 'too rushed', 'too few safeguard' is actually only an argument if you are able to articulate what constitutes 'not rushed' and 'enough safeguards' - otherwise even the framing of the argument is dishonest.
And perhaps there are some who make those arguments honestly, who make statements about what they think is required, and they may be joined in some of those statements by those who make them from dishonest motivations but you seem to just be throwing out the arguments because of the motivations of that second group, which s already covered doesn't affect whether the arguments themselves are bad.
Just as that some on the pro assisted dying side will laud the safeguards as excellent when they will be looking to get them removed in the future because they see the bill as a necessary first step. Note, there are of course MPs, groups, and individuals who will be honest about that, just as Alan us honest about his motivation, but some won't, and that doesn't affect whether those are good arguments either.
-
Just as that some on the pro assisted dying side will laud the safeguards as excellent when they will be looking to get them removed in the future because they see the bill as a necessary first step.
Really!?! Do you really think that there are people on the pro assisted dying side who want to remove all safeguards. If so I don't think there are any here and I don't believe I've ever encountered anyone who wants to remove all safeguards.
But even if they did want to get rid of all safeguards (they don't by the way) any removal or alterations in safeguards around the process would require a change in the law and would therefore require that argument to be won at a point in the future when it was proposed and debated.
-
Really!?! Do you really think that there are people on the pro assisted dying side who want to remove all safeguards. If so I don't think there are any here and I don't believe I've ever encountered anyone who wants to remove all safeguards.
But even if they did (they don't by the way) any removal or alterations in safeguards around the process would require a change in the law and would therefore require that argument to be won at a point in the future when it was proposed and debated.
I think there are lots of people whobthink the safeguards in the bill are excessive, some have said it openly, and some have not. I think those people are lying about their motivations and stating the bll will be the end of it, and they don't intend it to be. In terms of motivations, that's lying about it.
But as I said, that I think that doesn't make any difference to whether the arguments are good or not.
-
I think there are lots of people whobthink the safeguards in the bill are excessive, some have said it openly, and some have not. I think those people are lying about their motivations and stating the bll will be the end of it, and they don't intend it to be. In terms of motivations, that's lying about it.
Not what you said NS - you said they were looking to get safeguards removed in the future - not just to amend them. To quote:
'Just as that some on the pro assisted dying side will laud the safeguards as excellent when they will be looking to get them removed in the future because they see the bill as a necessary first step.'
Do you really think that there are people who want to remove all safeguards NS? I've never met someone who thinks like that.
-
Not what you said NS - you said they were looking to get safeguards removed in the future - not just to amend them. To quote:
'Just as that some on the pro assisted dying side will laud the safeguards as excellent when they will be looking to get them removed in the future because they see the bill as a necessary first step.'
Do you really think that there are people who want to remove all safeguards NS?
Apologies for not being clear, my previous post clarified that.
-
I think there are lots of people whobthink the safeguards in the bill are excessive, some have said it openly, and some have not. I think those people are lying about their motivations and stating the bll will be the end of it, and they don't intend it to be. In terms of motivations, that's lying about it.
It is perfectly reasonable to consider that the current Bill is a reasonable first step, but to think that it could be improved at some point in the future. And that could be via amendments during the current process or through change in the law in the future. And those people will fall in both directions - those that may wish to see the criteria extended and/or safeguards loosened (although I've never met someone who would want them removed) and those who may wish to see the criteria tightened and/or safeguards loosened.
But we are debating the currently proposals - not some hypothetical proposals that may or may not be brought forward at some point in the future. And the law always has an element of compromise and there will always be people who think that it could be better, yet they may be content not to allow the good to be the enemy of the excellent. In other words to support even though they might ideally wish for something different and may even campaign for something different in the future.
You seem to be engaging in the classic deceit that is the slippery slope argument - effectively that we should reject something that is broadly accepted by society because it will inevitably and without intention lead to something unacceptable. It won't unless the government of the day chooses to refine the law further and they'd presumably only do that if they deemed that the revised position was broadly accepted at the time in the future when they are making that decision.
Use homosexuality as an argument - no doubt back in 1967 when homosexuality became lawful I'm sure there were some who used slippery slop arguments that if you made it legal, next gay people would be saying their 'pretend' relationships should be accepted, and that they might want to adopt children and ... heaven help us, get married. And guess what, all those things have come to pass - not through some unintended slippery slope shift to a place which society deems unacceptable. Nope it shifted because the attitudes of society have moved on and society broadly is now comfortable that not only should homosexuality be legal, but that gay people should be able to marry and adopt children etc. But each of these steps required a distinct new decision by lawmakers.
-
Apologies for not being clear, my previous post clarified that.
Apologies accepted - I'm glad we've clearer that up.
But my point remains - we can only really debate what is proposed. If something else is proposed at some point in the future, that is the time to debate that. See my gay rights argument. Probably back in 1967 there were gay people who really would have loved to be able to get married - but that isn't what the 1967 debate was about, so it isn't dishonest of those people to clearly indicate that they supported the 1967 changes to the law even if ultimately they wished for the extension of rights to go further.
-
Just wondering if some of the 'demand' for AD could be met by allowing a service along the likes of Dignitas to operate here for those whose life expectancy qualified them, who we able to access it and who might otherwise have travelled to Europe - would also make dealing with post-death arrangements more practical for relatives.
-
Just wondering if some of the 'demand' for AD could be met by allowing a service along the likes of Dignitas to operate here for those whose life expectancy qualified them, who we able to access it and who might otherwise have travelled to Europe - would also make dealing with post-death arrangements more practical for relatives.
I think that is quite possible, particularly as far as I understand it the Bill, if passed, will not result in provision via the NHS.
I suspect it is quite possible that if legalised assisted dying may well remain only available under private provision. And while that might seem inequitable on the basis of ability to pay, it is also quite possible that the charitable sector will fill the gaps, effectively delivering provision and covering costs. Remember, of course, that currently a lot of palliative care is provided, not by the NHS but by private charitable organisations.
Now in an ideal world we'd want properly integrated provision where patients may use palliative care and some may at a later stage choose to use assisted dying. I think that is actually the case in Oregon where about 90% of people using assisted dying were also using hospice provision at the time. However I am worried that some hospice organisations will refuse to engage with assisted dying on idealogical grounds, which would be a shame as the care and provision (whether palliative or assisted dying) should alway be focussed on the needs and choices of the patient - any ideology should, surely be secondary to the best interests of the individual patient.
-
Apologies accepted - I'm glad we've clearer that up.
But my point remains - we can only really debate what is proposed. If something else is proposed at some point in the future, that is the time to debate that. See my gay rights argument. Probably back in 1967 there were gay people who really would have loved to be able to get married - but that isn't what the 1967 debate was about, so it isn't dishonest of those people to clearly indicate that they supported the 1967 changes to the law even if ultimately they wished for the extension of rights to go further.
It is dishonest if they represent their intentions as this and no further when they aren't.
-
Links to the Scottish bill, and its timetable
https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-adults-scotland-bill
-
It is dishonest if they represent their intentions as this and no further when they aren't.
But I don't think that is what people are doing - they are indicating whether or not they support the current proposals. That doesn't seem dishonest even if, in an ideal world, they might prefer something different. If that something different is sufficiently close to what is proposed to be a likely amendment, then fair enough to suggest that change. But if what someone would ideally want is something pretty radically different I don't see it as dishonest to indicate what their views are on the current proposals, but park their ideal scenario until or unless this becomes the topic of some future debate about a change to the law.
Was it dishonest for a gay person in 1967 to indicate that they supported a change in the law to make homosexual acts lawful, even if in their ideal world they would wish to marry someone of their own sex. I don't think there is any dishonesty at all.
The time to debate some hypothetical future development of assisted dying is for just that - the future. Currently we are focussed on what is currently proposed.
-
My MP voting against bill, letter attached outlining reasoning.
-
Some interesting polling on assisted dying showing very strong support amongst the public.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law
Well actually not very interesting as there has been strong public support for many years now and this shows exactly the same picture. What is perhaps interesting is the breadth of the support - so support is pretty consistent across all age groups, men and women, all parts of the country and across all political persuasions. If there was ever an issue where you would conclude that there is a broad consensus across the population this is it.
-
Some interesting polling on assisted dying showing very strong support amongst the public.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law
Well actually not very interesting as there has been strong public support for many years now and this shows exactly the same picture. What is perhaps interesting is the breadth of the support - so support is pretty consistent across all age groups, men and women, all parts of the country and across all political persuasions. If there was ever an issue where you would conclude that there is a broad consensus across the population this is it.
Although I agree with them, I don't set much store by polls like this, because most members of the public have never thought bout the pros and cons n any dept, or done any research. We elect politicians to devote themselves to these questions and do the necessary research. . That's one reason I generally don't like referrenda.
-
Although I agree with them, I don't set much store by polls like this, because most members of the public have never thought bout the pros and cons n any dept, or done any research. We elect politicians to devote themselves to these questions and do the necessary research. . That's one reason I generally don't like referrenda.
I think it does show as Prof D comments that it's not a party political issue and that is a consistency across different groupings. I don't think it's being suggested that that makes it right.
-
Although I agree with them, I don't set much store by polls like this, because most members of the public have never thought bout the pros and cons n any dept, or done any research. We elect politicians to devote themselves to these questions and do the necessary research. . That's one reason I generally don't like referrenda.
No sure I agree - I think plenty of members of the public have thought about this and not just in an abstract sense, but in a very real sense. Why, well because many members of the public will have watch loved ones travel through that end of life journey.
-
I think it does show as Prof D comments that it's not a party political issue and that is a consistency across different groupings.
True, although the big divide for decades now has been between the opinions of the general public (who have been strongly in favour for a considerable while now) and the views of MPs, who have consistently voted against. There is a democratic deficit there.
I don't think it's being suggested that that makes it right.
There is always the issue of the tyranny of the majority - specifically where something that has majority support is imposed on a minority who don't support and to the detriment of that minority. But I cannot see how that applies here. The right of an individual to choose not to use assisted dying if that is their choice is not affected by this bill.
If there is an issue currently it is tyranny of the minority where a minority view is imposed on the majority preventing them from making the choices they want even though were they to be allowed to make those choices if could not affect the rights of the minority to make the choices they currently do.
-
True, although the big divide for decades now has been between the opinions of the general public (who have been strongly in favour for a considerable while now) and the views of MPs, who have consistently voted against. There is a democratic deficit there.
There is always the issue of the tyranny of the majority - specifically where something that has majority support is imposed on a minority who don't support and to the detriment of that minority. But I cannot see how that applies here. The right of an individual to choose not to use assisted dying if that is their choice is not affected by this bill.
If there is an issue currently it is tyranny of the minority where a minority view is imposed on the majority preventing them from making the choices they want even though were they to be allowed to make those choices if could not affect the rights of the minority to make the choices they currently do.
Have you ever considered that the society you think is in favour of assisted dying might also be one that is also for it for economic reasons.
Have the public just been polled on whether they want it or why they want it?
The law is decided by Parliament is it not.
I confess I would be pissed off if I were you and learned that doubts about this were not just from the religious.
-
Have you ever considered that the society you think is in favour of assisted dying might also be one that is also for it for economic reasons.
Well if you want to suggest that point I suggest the onus is on you to provide the evidence. And given that this is a Schrödinger's Bill with regard to cost (with some claiming it will save money for the NHS, while others suggest it will cost money to the NHS), you could just as well argue that those that oppose might be doing so for economic reasons.
Have the public just been polled on whether they want it or why they want it?
Clearly you haven't actually bothered to look at the detail of the yougov polling, as yes, they have been asked about why they do or do not support. And the key point here is that 73% support assisted dying on principle, which of course wouldn't involve consideration of costs to the NHS or other practicalities. The polling does then go on to address issues relating to practicalities and there are some minor shifts in opinion, but even taking into account all practical issues still two thirds of those polled are in support.
-
Gordon Brown on assisted dying
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/22/assisted-dying-palliative-care-end-of-life
-
Economic aspects should be left entirely out of consideration.
-
Economic aspects should be left entirely out of consideration.
I agree with you - particularly as, as far as I'm aware, any decision to allow NHS funding for assisted dying would involve a completely separate decision making process and a completely separate decision.
-
I agree with you - particularly as, as far as I'm aware, any decision to allow NHS funding for assisted dying would involve a completely separate decision making process and a completely separate decision.
How are you thinking that decision would be made?
-
How are you thinking that decision would be made?
As set out in Section 32 of the Bill.
My understanding is that any decision to allow provision within the NHS in England and Wales rests with the Secretary of State for Health, to introduce through regulations, which are therefore a completely separate decision to the enactment of the Bill itself (were that to happen). And of course the current Secretary of State for Health does not support the Bill so may choose not to bring forward regulations to allow provision within the NHS even if the Bill is passed.
The wording is as follows:
"Provision through NHS etc
32 Secretary of State’s powers to ensure assistance is available
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision—
(a) to secure that arrangements are made, by the Secretary of State or other persons, for the provision of assistance to persons in accordance with this Act, and
(b) for related matters.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, enable the provision of such assistance as part of the health service in England and the health service in Wales.
(3) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by an enactment passed or made before the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure."
-
Well if you want to suggest that point I suggest the onus is on you to provide the evidence. And given that this is a Schrödinger's Bill with regard to cost (with some claiming it will save money for the NHS, while others suggest it will cost money to the NHS), you could just as well argue that those that oppose might be doing so for economic reasons.
Clearly you haven't actually bothered to look at the detail of the yougov polling, as yes, they have been asked about why they do or do not support. And the key point here is that 73% support assisted dying on principle, which of course wouldn't involve consideration of costs to the NHS or other practicalities. The polling does then go on to address issues relating to practicalities and there are some minor shifts in opinion, but even taking into account all practical issues still two thirds of those polled are in support.
I’m afraid I find nothing in the survey that deals with possible economic pressures on the decision. Please feel free to correct me.
-
I’m afraid I find nothing in the survey that deals with possible economic pressures on the decision. Please feel free to correct me.
If you want to make a case that people are supporting assisted dying on economic grounds, then the onus is on you to provide that evidence.
That said I would have thought it to be clear that asking people whether they supported assisted dying on principle will not include any consideration of economic factors.
-
If you want to make a case that people are supporting assisted dying on economic grounds, then the onus is on you to provide that evidence.
That said I would have thought it to be clear that asking people whether they supported assisted dying on principle will not include any consideration of economic factors.
Then you acknowledge the survey tells us nothing about it and the matter still needs to be looked at.
Or are you saying there cannot possibly be economic pressure?
When in Canada in 2022 the demise of some through possible economic pressure was a news topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death
-
Then you acknowledge the survey tells us nothing about it and the matter still needs to be looked at.
Or are you saying there cannot possibly be economic pressure?
When in Canada in 2022 the demise of some through possible economic pressure was a news topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death
So another person arguing on process rather than on principle.
So same question that I posed to NS (and he kindly answered).
Do you support assisted dying on principle? Point being that if you oppose on principle then discussion of practicalities seems rather moot as no amount of reassurance on practicalities, economics etc will lead you to support, if you oppose on principle.
-
So another person arguing on process rather than on principle.
So same question that I posed to NS (and he kindly answered).
Do you support assisted dying on principle? Point being that if you oppose on principle then discussion of practicalities seems rather moot as no amount of reassurance on practicalities, economics etc will lead you to support, if you oppose on principle.
I think there are pros and cons but believe there have to be majority pros to move forward with it.
What do you think the principle is here since there seem to be two...Dying and Assistance.
-
I think there are pros and cons but believe there have to be majority pros to move forward with it.
What do you think the principle is here since there seem to be two...Dying and Assistance.
The principle is:
That people with terminal illnesses and towards the end of their lives should be able lawfully to have assistance to end their lives should they choose to.
So it is both dying and assistance ... as might be expected given that we are concerned with assisted dying.
So Vlad - do you support or oppose that statement on principle.
-
The principle is:
That people with terminal illnesses and towards the end of their lives should be able lawfully to have assistance to end their lives should they choose to.
So it is both dying and assistance ... as might be expected given that we are concerned with assisted dying.
So Vlad - do you support or oppose that statement on principle.
You have not defined assisted adequately. A stinking skate over on your part? You’ve therefore got a fucking cheek pressing me on this.
-
You have not defined assisted adequately. A stinking skate over on your part? You’ve therefore got a fucking cheek pressing me on this.
OK - here we go - lawfully assisted by a doctor I would have thought that to be obvious (almost as if you are trying to avoid the question). So let's try it one more time:
People with terminal illnesses and towards the end of their lives should be able lawfully to have assistance from a doctor to end their lives should they choose to.
So Vlad - do you support or oppose that statement on principle.
-
When in Canada in 2022 the demise of some through possible economic pressure was a news topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death
Completely irrelevant as this is about people who are not terminally ill, so this would remain completely illegal in the UK even if the Bill were passed.
-
Apparently an advert on the London underground. Hmm...
-
Polly Toynbee criticises slippery slope fallacy while committing the mother of all argumentum ad populum.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/26/assisted-dying-labour-legacy-death-vote
-
Polly Toynbee criticises slippery slope fallacy while committing the mother of all argumentum ad populum.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/26/assisted-dying-labour-legacy-death-vote
She's not making an argument for assisted dying, she's pointing out that the argument broadly across the populace has already been won. She's making the case that, in a democracy, something that has so clearly been the majority will of the people for such an extended period of time should be made law. Democracy is, in principle, an argumentum ad populum - no-one is claiming a truth on the basis of that, so it's not the logical fallacy you're making it out to be.
O.
-
She's not making an argument for assisted dying, she's pointing out that the argument broadly across the populace has already been won. She's making the case that, in a democracy, something that has so clearly been the majority will of the people for such an extended period of time should be made law. Democracy is, in principle, an argumentum ad populum - no-one is claiming a truth on the basis of that, so it's not the logical fallacy you're making it out to be.
O.
I thought her message was "Don't listen to your opponents" which doesn't sound very democracy friendly to me.
What she wants is for this to be an all positive thing with no dark side. It can never be consequence free, a condition and attitude Toynbee has prospered on since the sixties.
Like the death penalty supporters are culpable whenever the wrong person is hanged.
-
I thought her message was "Don't listen to your opponents" which doesn't sound very democracy friendly to me.
Who would have imagined you'd read what someone wrote and the form an opinion based on what you thought rather than what they wrote? That's never happened befo... oh, wait.
What she wants is for this to be an all positive thing with no dark side.
No, what she wants is the people in authority to realise that people have already looked at those issues and consistently and significantly found the arguments against assisted dying to be insufficient. She's not making the argument for assisted dying, she's making the argument that Labour, now they're in power, should reflect the clear will of the people on this.
It can never be consequence free, a condition and attitude Toynbee has prospered on since the sixties.
She's not suggesting that it is. She's suggesting people are already aware of the potential and have balanced that against the benefits. She's also aware that staying as we are is not consequence-free, either, and that balance has already been judged.
Like the death penalty supporters are culpable whenever the wrong person is hanged.
And opponents are on the hook when a released prisoner re-offends - if there were no down-sides to one side of the argument there wouldn't be an argument.
O.
-
No, what she wants is the people in authority to realise that people have already looked at those issues...
Oh really?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/26/no-one-has-grappled-with-how-courts-should-deal-with-assisted-dying-requests-says-expert
-
Oh really?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/26/no-one-has-grappled-with-how-courts-should-deal-with-assisted-dying-requests-says-expert
And the man in the street who wants the law is supposed to what about this? The point is that the law should be written, and then once it is the guidance for the courts comes along, and grows as it sets precedents. That's how our legal system operates - we don't hold up other decisions because the legal profession has come to a unanimous decision on it, why should this be any different?
O.
-
And the man in the street who wants the law is supposed to what about this? The point is that the law should be written, and then once it is the guidance for the courts comes along, and grows as it sets precedents. That's how our legal system operates - we don't hold up other decisions because the legal profession has come to a unanimous decision on it, why should this be any different?
O.
It does seem a rather bizarre intervention to me.
Whenever a new law is passed the courts won't have experience of dealing with this specific law. But of course they will do over time.
But you also have to look at the elements of the new law that the courts might need to exercise their judgement over and whether these are areas where they won't have experience. And in this case it seems to me (and I do have significant experience in this area) that the courts are very well equipped to consider the key issues of patient competence, broader consent (including the possibility of coercion), medical decision making where the decision may result in, or bring forward, death and the medical evidence that is brought to bear for example on whether the patient is terminally ill and/or whether further treatment would be futile. The courts have huge amounts of experience in all of these areas, as a quick skim over all 2,384 densely written pages of Kennedy & Grubb (the go to professional book on medical law) will tell you.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Law-Ian-Kennedy/dp/0406903255
-
It does seem a rather bizarre intervention to me.
Whenever a new law is passed the courts won't have experience of dealing with this specific law. But of course they will do over time.
Oh yes, I suppose they can pick the tune up as they go along. What's a few bum notes among friends?...Have you ever had a job with real consequences?
-
Oh yes, I suppose they can pick the tune up as they go along.
But they won't need to - as the elements they'd need to consider are currently regularly considered in court rulings on medical issues. So do the courts have extensive experience of:
1. Receiving complex medical diagnoses/prognoses, including those that relate to end of life decisions - tick, yup they do.
2. Assessing the competency of an individual to determine whether they are able to provide consent - tick, yup they do.
3. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives are sufficiently informed of the nature of the decision and its consequences - tick, yup they do.
4. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives might have been subjected to coercion or pressure from family, friends or medical professionals - tick, yup they do.
etc, etc
I'm struggling to see, from the standpoint of a court, why assisted dying decisions would be different in terms of the things they would need to assess compared to a terminally ill person deciding to refuse further life sustaining medical intervention. Or a competent adult refusing life saving blood transfusion. These kinds of decisions have been bread and butter in the courts in medical law terms for decades.
What's a few bum notes among friends?...Have you ever had a job with real consequences?
But the status quo isn't consequence free Vlad as for every day that assisted dying remains illegal there will be people suffering horrible, intolerable and deeply traumatic deaths with complete loss of control and dignity, who desperately did not want to die that way and whose manner of death could be avoided with a change in the law.
-
But they won't need to - as the elements they'd need to consider are currently regularly considered in court rulings on medical issues. So do the courts have extensive experience of:
1. Receiving complex medical diagnoses/prognoses, including those that relate to end of life decisions - tick, yup they do.
2. Assessing the competency of an individual to determine whether they are able to provide consent - tick, yup they do.
3. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives are sufficiently informed of the nature of the decision and its consequences - tick, yup they do.
4. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives might have been subjected to coercion or pressure from family, friends or medical professionals - tick, yup they do.
etc, etc
I'm struggling to see, from the standpoint of a court, why assisted dying decisions would be different in terms of the things they would need to assess compared to a terminally ill person deciding to refuse further life sustaining medical intervention. Or a competent adult refusing life saving blood transfusion. These kinds of decisions have been bread and butter in the courts in medical law terms for decades.
But the status quo isn't consequence free Vlad as for every day that assisted dying remains illegal there will be people suffering horrible, intolerable and deeply traumatic deaths with complete loss of control and dignity, who desperately did not want to die that way and whose manner of death could be avoided with a change in the law.
You seem to be telling the personnel who will be associated with this to just shut up about any issues an "Get on with it"
-
You seem to be telling the personnel who will be associated with this to just shut up about any issues an "Get on with it"
I'm not - all I am doing is explaining that our judges are very experienced in considering the key elements that they will need to consider in assisted dying cases through their very long-standing involvement in a whole range of medical law cases involving consent and end of life decisions.
But to an extent the courts will need to get on with it - as they always are when a new piece of legislation is brought in. Because that's their job.
-
Apparently an advert on the London underground. Hmm...
And the adverts have had some reaction
https://x.com/fleurmeston/status/1861130257606054213
-
Well that is an opinion and not one that many people agree with. But the reality is that we, as people and societies, determine which choices are freely available to people and which aren't on the basis of what we decree to be lawful and unlawful.
But that is exactly what you are doing if you act to deny people the freedom to choose, for example by opposing changes in the law which would extend freedom to choose.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/viewers-praise-heartbreaking-interview-as-emotional-paul-blomfield-shares-story-of-fathers-suicide-following-terminal-diagnosis-3907408 (Warning contains lots of adverts)
I respected PB a long time ago and even more after this.Mr Blomfield said: “The current law prevents people from having choice at the end of their life and it drives people to take very desperate measures in cases, like my father did.
-
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/viewers-praise-heartbreaking-interview-as-emotional-paul-blomfield-shares-story-of-fathers-suicide-following-terminal-diagnosis-3907408 (Warning contains lots of adverts)
I respected PB a long time ago and even more after this.
Powerful and moving stuff.
And those like Vlad who seem to think that the current law has no consequences should take note.
-
Powerful and moving stuff.
And those like Vlad who seem to think that the current law has no consequences should take note.
No, we know the consequences of the status quo.
What we don't know, as I have pointed out are some of the consequences of going ahead.
It is you who is ignoring those.
You have overlooked those having to do the assistance part of this.
Where I start from is I I know I could probably assist in someway by procuring the pill but don't know if I could pop the pill in and I should imagine, neither do you. I think I would feel I could not ask anyone else to do it and I would expect to be tried in a court if I did do it. In any case I would be in extremis.
What of those you would be pressuring to do it as a job?
You may not make people do it but will you and those of your ilk
Expect people to do it and vilify them like you would if they had walked away from a car crash?
We need to know then exactly what your answer is to these questions and then society must decide if it wants to put attitudes like yours front and centre.
-
From the morning news, I understand that any medication used would have to be self-administered:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l7m6r55do
-
From the morning news, I understand that any medication used would have to be self-administered:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l7m6r55do
Exactly - which makes Vlad's point about not being able to bring himself to administer it completely irrelevant - as anyone doing so would be committing an offence.
-
No, we know the consequences of the status quo.
We do - and in many, many cases the consequences are harrowing, horrific and deeply, deeply inhumane.
What we don't know, as I have pointed out are some of the consequences of going ahead.
Well we have examples in other jurisdictions (e.g. Oregon) which will give a good clue.
But ultimately we need to look at the overall consequences and look at what we have currently, which fails many, many people and what would happen under the proposed law, which would be that those that do not want assisted dying can continue to die as they currently do, while some (but not all) of those that desperately do not want to die in the only way currently available will have an alternative if they choose.
It is you who is ignoring those.
You have overlooked those having to do the assistance part of this.
Where I start from is I I know I could probably assist in someway by procuring the pill but don't know if I could pop the pill in and I should imagine, neither do you. I think I would feel I could not ask anyone else to do it and I would expect to be tried in a court if I did do it. In any case I would be in extremis.
What of those you would be pressuring to do it as a job?
I'm not ignoring those people but Vlad you seem to completely misunderstand the proposed law. The law provides a conscience clause - in other words that no-one with an objection will be required to participate in providing assistance. This is effectively the same clause as operates (successfully) in the case of abortion and IVF and has done for decades.
Regarding the public - as the drugs must be administered by the person themselves, there will be no expectation or requirement that a family member or friend assists - indeed to do so will be against the law.
Vlad I suggest you actually find out what the Bill does, and does not, propose rather than make ill-informed, and frankly flat out wrong, assertions.
-
I see Kim Leadbetter also asking the legal profession to just muddle through.
-
I see Kim Leadbetter also asking the legal profession to just muddle through.
Evidence please.
And as pointed out above the legal profession will not need to 'muddle through' as the key legal elements they will need to consider around capacity, consent, end of life decisions, coercion etc etc are all part of decisions they have been making for decades, so they are extremely experienced in these matters and there is a huge amount of legal precedent (noting that legal precedent is not necessarily directly about a particular piece of legislation).
I guess you spent the evening speed reading the 2000+ pages of Kennedy & Grubb so you will have acquainted yourself with the wealth of legal background relating to consent to end of life decisions.
-
Evidence please.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/nov/27/pmqs-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-assisted-dying-bill-liz-truss-labour-tories?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917#block-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917
-
Evidence please.
And as pointed out above the legal profession will not need to 'muddle through' as the key legal elements they will need to consider around capacity, consent, end of life decisions, coercion etc etc are all part of decisions they have been making for decades, so they are extremely experienced in these matters and there is a huge amount of legal precedent (noting that legal precedent is not necessarily directly about a particular piece of legislation).
I guess you spent the evening speed reading the 2000+ pages of Kennedy & Grubb so you will have acquainted yourself with the wealth of legal background relating to consent to end of life decisions.
This sounds suspiciously like your are asking for the nature of this to be ignored and treated like another type of case in a kind of one size fits all. In fact Falconer has admitted short term problems.
Steamroller?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/nov/27/pmqs-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-assisted-dying-bill-liz-truss-labour-tories?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917#block-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917
So your link completely refutes your claim that Leadbetter is asking the legal profession to 'muddle through'.
In fact her view is very similar to mine and completely the opposite to 'muddling through' - specifically that High Court Judges are really experienced at considering cases involving end-of-life decision making where the issue of consent is key. In fact many of the cases they would have been used to will be far more complex than anything that would need to be considered in assisted dying cases. This is because the assisted dying legislation is restricted to adults and has an absolute requirement for consent. Many of the challenging cases the High Court will have dealt with in the past involve children who may or may not have capacity to consent and also situations where a decision needs to be made, under best interests, even when the individual is unable to consent. Neither of these really challenging features (children, authorisation of medical interventions on the basis of best interests) will be relevant to assisted dying.
-
Kim Leadbetter been very good in proposing the bill
-
Sadly don't have time to listen to all the debate this morning. But will pick up later.
-
It strikes me the opponents to the bill are very quick to raise the risk of coercion - understandably, I'm not suggesting that it's not part of the discussion - but no-one seems to be pointing out that to retain the status quo is to coerce those who wish to die into remaining in suffering. The reality is that there are people in this situation on both sides of the debate - one side is offering them choice, the other is not.
O.
-
It strikes me the opponents to the bill are very quick to raise the risk of coercion - understandably, I'm not suggesting that it's not part of the discussion - but no-one seems to be pointing out that to retain the status quo is to coerce those who wish to die into remaining in suffering. The reality is that there are people in this situation on both sides of the debate - one side is offering them choice, the other is not.
O.
As assisted dying is currently illegal and think the correct word isn’t ‘coerced’ but ‘forced’.
-
As assisted dying is currently illegal and think the correct word isn’t ‘coerced’ but ‘forced’.
I think you'll find they're synonyms.
-
Oh yes, I suppose they can pick the tune up as they go along. What's a few bum notes among friends?...Have you ever had a job with real consequences?
If "the courts might make mistakes" was considered a good reason for not enacting legislation, there would be no laws.
-
And MPs vote in favour 330 - 275
-
And MPs vote in favour 330 - 275
Good show - not a landslide, but a comfortable majority.
-
It will take quite a while for assisted dying to become law if indeed it does.
-
I haven't been able to find out how my MP, David Taylor, actually voted, but before the vote he said he was going to vote for.
-
I haven't been able to find out how my MP, David Taylor, actually voted, but before the vote he said he was going to vote for.
Voted in favour
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/11/how-every-mp-voted-on-the-assisted-dying-bill/
-
Voted in favour
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/11/how-every-mp-voted-on-the-assisted-dying-bill/
Jolly good - thanks.
Lots of ill-informed, sanctimonious bollocks now being spouted by antis on FB, including by some idiot who thinks that if someone was declared mentally incompetent under the mental health act, they could be bumped off against their will under this act.
-
Voted in favour
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/11/how-every-mp-voted-on-the-assisted-dying-bill/
Obviously this being a bill for aengland and Wales, it's not a surprise that no SNP members voted, but I have to admit I feel a bit odd that my MP did vote, as it happens against, at all. I don't think I would have voted on this were I advising Scottish MP.
-
Jolly good - thanks.
Lots of ill-informed, sanctimonious bollocks now being spouted by antis on FB, including by some idiot who thinks that if someone was declared mentally incompetent under the mental health act, they could be bumped off against their will under this act.
Well one pro MP said using the term suicide was offensive and shouldn't be used, even though it is in terms of the Bill taking your own life.
ETA - I doubt there is a subject under the sun in which the proponents and opponents don't each have a numpty quotient
-
Obviously this being a bill for aengland and Wales, it's not a surprise that no SNP members voted, but I have to admit I feel a bit odd that my MP did vote, as it happens against, at all. I don't think I would have voted on this were I advising Scottish MP.
I recall reading something on the BBC's live coverage page that the SNP had decided not to take part as the Scottish Parliament has its own bill, but one of other Scottish party leaders was of the opinion that this bill would inevitably have an effect on that one, so they felt it appropriate to take part. In the absence of an English assembly, I don't see an easy way to deal with those sorts of issues.
My MP, unsurprisingly, voted against. I thought we'd have to get better than Damian Hinds in the boundary changes, but it appears not.
O.
-
I recall reading something on the BBC's live coverage page that the SNP had decided not to take part as the Scottish Parliament has its own bill, but one of other Scottish party leaders was of the opinion that this bill would inevitably have an effect on that one, so they felt it appropriate to take part. In the absence of an English assembly, I don't see an easy way to deal with those sorts of issues.
My MP, unsurprisingly, voted against. I thought we'd have to get better than Damian Hinds in the boundary changes, but it appears not.
O.
Of course even with an English assbly there would be problems here as the bill covers England and Wales due to the different devolved settlements. I can see the argument that there will be an effect but I don't think it outweighs the vote being specific to the different countries.
-
I actually thought that this time the bill would probably not get enough votes but it would be very close. I am very pleased that it has passed this stage and just hope that in its future amended/modified form it will to some extent assuage the fears of its detractors and become a genuine comfort to many of those who wish to have that choice available to them.
-
I actually thought that this time the bill would probably not get enough votes but it would be very close. I am very pleased that it has passed this stage and just hope that in its future amended/modified form it will to some extent assuage the fears of its detractors and become a genuine comfort to many of those who wish to have that choice available to them.
I think that the govt effectively has to intervene to suspend some of the rules usually but not always applied to Private Members Bill's, particularly around the amount of time available for debate.
-
I actually thought that this time the bill would probably not get enough votes but it would be very close. I am very pleased that it has passed this stage and just hope that in its future amended/modified form it will to some extent assuage the fears of its detractors and become a genuine comfort to many of those who wish to have that choice available to them.
But I fear there will be many, when presented with a choice, will feel it is their duty, rather than their will, to opt to do what others consider is the right thing to do.
-
But I fear there will be many, when presented with a choice, will feel it is their duty, rather than their will, to opt to do what others consider is the right thing to do.
And there are many who are presented with no choice just now, and you want presented with no choice, who will die in pain because that is what you want.
The sheer inability of some on both sides to accept the implications of their positions when simplistically arguing for that position is often the most persuasive argument for me for the other side.
-
The sheer inability of some on both sides to accept the implications of their positions when simplistically arguing for that position is often the most persuasive argument for me for the other side.
I so agree with this. And it applies to practically any vaguely controversial or controversial topic that is current in society presently.
No space for nuance.
No place for empathy.
No chance of trying to understand why people are where they are on a particular subject.
Just shoutyMcshoutface, I am right, you don't count, your feelings are irrelevant.
Fuck the human race.
-
But I fear there will be many, when presented with a choice, will feel it is their duty, rather than their will, to opt to do what others consider is the right thing to do.
Hopefully such fears will be addressed in more detail as the bill goes through its committee/report stage and it is possible that this particular bill will be addressed by a committee of the whole House. Either way, MPs will be able to propose amendments on a day to day basis as the committee discusses the bill.
However you might like to consider the possible pressures on someone who is dying right now. I can think of three pertinent ones straight away.
1) The pressure of not wanting any member of their loved ones to see them in a debilitated condition
2) The pressure of continuing to take life prolonging drugs because of the wishes of their loved ones when they would far rather not prolong their agony.
3) The pressure of attempting to commit suicide(whilst they are still able), often in a lonely and painful manner and running the risk that they will only end up surviving the attempt.
However if your bottom line is one of faith, insisting upon the absolute sanctity of life, then I feel that there is nothing I could do to persuade you otherwise. Suffice it to say that I am pleased with the result of the bill's passage through Parliament so far.
-
Hopefully such fears will be addressed in more detail as the bill goes through its committee/report stage
Any idea how? Isn't that making it up as you go along and it is possible that this particular bill will be addressed by a committee of the whole House. Either way, MPs will be able to propose amendments on a day to day basis as the committee discusses the bill.
However you might like to consider the possible pressures on someone who is dying right now. I can think of three pertinent ones straight away.
1) The pressure of not wanting any member of their loved ones to see them in a debilitated condition
2) The pressure of continuing to take life prolonging drugs because of the wishes of their loved ones when they would far rather not prolong their agony.
3) The pressure of attempting to commit suicide(whilst they are still able), often in a lonely and painful manner and running the risk that they will only end up surviving the attempt.
But they are the one's ending their own lives aren't they. No one else is involved in the act are they?
However if your bottom line is one of faith, insisting upon the absolute sanctity of life, then I feel that there is nothing I could do to persuade you otherwise. Suffice it to say that I am pleased with the result of the bill's passage through Parliament so far.
-
As I've said before, as someone who qualifies as 'terminal', and assuming that Holyrood proceeds with this, the only reason that I would consider it would be to shorten the distress to my family and friends should my progress through the final furlong be a difficult one for them to endure.
Given the time this will take to become law, it might be too late for me anyway.
-
Any idea how? Isn't that making it up as you go along
The checks and balances made when a decision is made to turn off life support are generally accepted. I suggest that the procedures for assisted dying will be much more rigorous.
But they are the one's ending their own lives aren't they. No one else is involved in the act are they?
I was replying to Alan's point about pressures and making the point that there are potential pressures as the law stands.
My opinion as regards your point is that it is more compassionate to have the choice of assisted dying than to not have it.
-
But they are the one's ending their own lives aren't they. No one else is involved in the act are they?
Not necessarily if the individual has asked that life support technology is stopped. That will involve someone other than the patient themselves assisting by actually turning off the equipment.
And while the assisted dying bill would only allow this for competent patients, consenting themselves and administering the medication themselves, decisions to turn off life sustaining equipment are often taken, not be a competent patient consenting, but on behalf of a patient who cannot make that decision themselves.
-
Pro assisted dying MP's spot snag.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmgvdkwkeo.amp
-
Pro assisted dying MP's spot snag.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmgvdkwkeo.amp
MPs seek to improve bill in ways they spoke abput during the debate using parliamentary process that they knew they were going to.
-
But I fear there will be many, when presented with a choice, will feel it is their duty, rather than their will, to opt to do what others consider is the right thing to do.
But you think it is their duty to continue to suffer. Don't talk about duty.
-
Pro assisted dying MP's spot snag.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmgvdkwkeo.amp
Isn't that the point of the process, that it can be amended/improved during the next phase.
I note that the article was no indication of how many MPs are in this group - I think just three are name-checked. And, of course, there will be other MPs who are the opposite - voting against at second reading but may vote in favour depending on any amendments.
I note one of the 'concerns' is that 'doctors present all options to patients' - well they are already required to do this as part of any consent process. Not to do so can (and has) resulting in negligence claims against medical professionals. So I suspect this is something that some MPs don't understand. Indeed the greater issue is those saying that doctors should only discuss assisted dying if a patient brings it up. This runs counter to the basic principles of consent in medical decision making, whereby all options should be clear to the patient.
So for a robust consent process, patients should be inform of all options available to them in an unbiased manner. That would include active treatment (if clinically indicated) and palliative care as well as assisted dying. It should also be clear in the information and in discussion that the choice is for the patient, and the patient alone, to make. Again this is standard consent stuff. Not to include one option (regardless of whether that is palliative, active treatment or assisted dying) would, in consent terms, be considered not to be providing adequate and sufficient information for the patient to make a choice and therefore render the consent invalid.
-
So for a robust consent process doctors (or other decision-making gatekeepers) should involve patients being informed of all options available to them in an unbiased manner. That would include active treatment (if clinically indicated) and palliative care as well as assisted dying. It should also be clear in the information and in discussion that the choice is for the patient, and the patient alone, to make. Again this is standard consent stuff. Not to include one option (regardless of whether that is palliative, active treatment or assisted dying) would, in consent terms, be considered not to be providing adequate and sufficient information for the patient to make a choice and therefore render the consent invalid.
This. The possible requirement for doctors not to mention assisted dying until the patient brings it up is in direct conflict with the doctor's duty to inform the patient of all the options (assuming assisted dying becomes legal).
-
This. The possible requirement for doctors not to mention assisted dying until the patient brings it up is in direct conflict with the doctor's duty to inform the patient of all the options (assuming assisted dying becomes legal).
Absolutely - it would be the equivalent of a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy not being informed that termination is an option to consider.
-
This. The possible requirement for doctors not to mention assisted dying until the patient brings it up is in direct conflict with the doctor's duty to inform the patient of all the options (assuming assisted dying becomes legal).
But they are options for palliative care, or cure. Where this is an option for oblivion (A notion based on philosophy).
Perhaps Doctor's in this field should wear body cam to show there has been no coercion.
Is the Doctor's assistance in line with her hippocratic oath, since you mention duty?
-
But they are options for palliative care, or cure. Where this is an option for oblivion (A notion based on philosophy).
I note your rather hysterical terminology Vlad, which isn't really appropriate as this is a serious discussion, or rather should be. But to use your own terminology, palliative care is hastened oblivion (compared to ongoing active treatment), cessation of life sustaining treatment (e.g. turning off of life support) is oblivion, just as much as assisted dying.
But doctors will support patient choices in those matters, so why should they not in assisted dying. Remember that we have moved far, far beyond the world where the doctor dictated and the patient acquiesced.
Nope, for decades now the medical profession recognise that patient autonomy is determinative in decision making over medical matters. Hence, that it is well established that a competent patient may refuse a life saving blood transfusion even though they will die as a result, and even though doctors fully recognise that they could save that life but also recognise that their duty under autonomy is to step back and allow that person to die.
Perhaps Doctor's in this field should wear body cam to show there has been no coercion.
Why only in this case Vlad - if you are so concerned about doctor coercion, surely they'd need to wear body cams for all conversations about significant medical decisions where there may be a risk of coercion.
But remember that not only are doctors very well trained in the elements of consent (including the need for voluntariness), but also if a doctor coerces a patient or fails to provide relevant information that may have made the patient take an alternative decision they can be charged with negligence (and in this case a much more significant offence) and would be struck off. Why would a doctor risk their livelihood and their liberty to coerce a patient when they fully recognise that the decision must be the patient's and the patient's alone.
Is the Doctor's assistance in line with her hippocratic oath, since you mention duty?
Well the hippocratic oath isn't really a thing, but doctors are required to abide by strict professional ethical codes of practice, and right at the top of their duties in this regard will be to respect the autonomous decision making of a competent patient. So yes, were assisted dying to be legalised, supporting the free decision making of patients and respecting their decisions would be absolutely what that code of ethics would require, just as currently allowing a competent 25-year old to refuse a blood transfusion or have their life support turned off and therefore to die is also what that code of ethics would require.
-
But they are options for palliative care, or cure. Where this is an option for oblivion (A notion based on philosophy).
Nope.
If one of the options is cure, this law will not allow you to offer assisted dying.
Maybe you should try to understand what the bill says before talking crap about it.
Is the Doctor's assistance in line with her hippocratic oath, since you mention duty?
If I am in extreme pain with no hope of relief and no quality of life, I would regard it as harming me to make me carry on living.
-
But they are options for palliative care, or cure. Where this is an option for oblivion (A notion based on philosophy).
Not quite, if the condition is cureable they aren't eligible to take advantage of this law, so the options are for palliative care (and, in some instances, still a degree of suffering), no treatment at all (and presumably a degree of suffering in more instances) or, in you words, oblivion (where there is no suffering).
Sounds like there are circumstances where there's a reduction in suffering.
Is the Doctor's assistance in line with her hippocratic oath, since you mention duty?
Given that not all doctors take the Hippocratic oath, and there is no requirement to do so in order to practice medicine, it seems somewhat moot. Even if you do consider it important, the oath itself has undergone many variations over time, and most medical schools have their own version, so it would depend in an absolute sense on which medical school they attended, whether that school required it or requested it...
O.
-
Not quite, if the condition is cureable they aren't eligible to take advantage of this law, so the options are for palliative care (and, in some instances, still a degree of suffering), no treatment at all (and presumably a degree of suffering in more instances) or, in you words, oblivion (where there is no suffering).
Sounds like there are circumstances where there's a reduction in suffering.
Given that not all doctors take the Hippocratic oath, and there is no requirement to do so in order to practice medicine, it seems somewhat moot. Even if you do consider it important, the oath itself has undergone many variations over time, and most medical schools have their own version, so it would depend in an absolute sense on which medical school they attended, whether that school required it or requested it...
O.
As I said before, the Hippocratic oath isn't a thing anymore, beyond a kind of ceremonial tradition in some medical schools. Doctors and other medical professionals registered with the General Medical Council are, however, expected to abide by the professional standards set out in Good Medical Practice:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/good-medical-practice-2024---english-102607294.pdf
-
Nope.
If one of the options is cure, this law will not allow you to offer assisted dying.
What I am saying is for thousands of years that was the goal of the medical profession and the expectation of the public
Maybe you should try to understand what the bill says before talking crap about it.
If I am in extreme pain with no hope of relief and no quality of life, I would regard it as harming me to make me carry on living.
I’m not asking anyone to carry on living but then again I’m not asking for anyone to assist someone dying.
-
Given that not all doctors take the Hippocratic oath, and there is no requirement to do so in order to practice medicine, it seems somewhat moot. Even if you do consider it important, the oath itself has undergone many variations over time, and most medical schools have their own version, so it would depend in an absolute sense on which medical school they attended, whether that school required it or requested it...
But there was no requirement for medicine and it’s practice to assist people in dying.
How do you propose to justify it’s introduction merely on the basis of ‘Things change’ or to put it technically, merely by arguing that it's Evolutionary?
-
But there was no requirement for medicine and it’s practice to assist people in dying.
How do you propose to justify it’s introduction merely on the basis of ‘Things change’ or to put it technically, merely by arguing that it's Evolutionary?
Perhaps a better term would be 'social progress and enhanced personal autonomy', Vlad, since, as you may have noticed, as you make use of this relatively new-fangled internet thingy to post here, that 'things change'.
'Evolution' is the wrong term since, when it comes to this policy the vast number of people to whom it may be relevant will have done all the reproducing they are ever going to do - and that it may apply to some much younger people is desperately sad.
-
Well the hippocratic oath isn't really a thing, but doctors are required to abide by strict professional ethical codes of practice, and right at the top of their duties in this regard will be to respect the autonomous decision making of a competent patient. So yes, were assisted dying to be legalised, supporting the free decision making of patients and respecting their decisions would be absolutely what that code of ethics would require, just as currently allowing a competent 25-year old to refuse a blood transfusion or have their life support turned off and therefore to die is also what that code of ethics would require.
As far as I know the original oath from which other oaths, agreements, contracts etc. Descend contained the promise not to administer poison to a person. Presumably they had assisted suicide in mind here. Were they then wrong to do so? And if they were wrong, do you think this is another case of them being merely Bronze aged goat farmers. Again you seem to be justifying this on the grounds of ‘change happens’ and in your case, pulling the carpet of language used in the medical profession to cover what is a revolution in the definition of medicine.
I think you highlight the point that medical professionals will be thought of as negligent if they do not provide information of this. For you then the removal of competence from the profession must be worth it.
As it stands we have lawyers not sure what to do, and MP’s not sure if they can continue to see the bill through because of the risk of good doctors being vilified.
I see no justification in making doctors give information on it if you are also saying that a doctor’s involvement is voluntary.
-
But there was no requirement for medicine and it’s practice to assist people in dying.
How do you propose to justify it’s introduction merely on the basis of ‘Things change’ or to put it technically, merely by arguing that it's Evolutionary?
Why don't you drop the silly-clever arguments, and consider the question with a modicum of compassion?
Also. as I've pointed out many time before. "it's" is short for "it is" or "it has". The word for "belonging to it" is "its", with no apostrophe.
-
Perhaps a better term would be 'social progress and enhanced personal autonomy', Vlad, since, as you may have noticed, as you make use of this relatively new-fangled internet thingy to post here, that 'things change'.
'Evolution' is the wrong term since, when it comes to this policy the vast number of people to whom it may be relevant will have done all the reproducing they are ever going to do - and that it may apply to some much younger people is desperately sad.
I think you would have to outline the social progress being made here so that progress doesn’t merely mean change.
-
Why don't you drop the silly-clever arguments, and consider the question with a modicum of compassion?
Also. as I've pointed out many time before. "it's" is short for "it is" or "it has". The word for "belonging to it" is "its", with no apostrophe.
I’m only doing what a devil’s advocate worth their salt would do and if any topic deserved a devil’s advocate, this is it.
If you are going to argue that assisted dying would be a voluntary matter then everything about it should be voluntary.
-
I think you would have to outline the social progress being made here so that progress doesn’t merely mean change.
I would have thought that giving people the autonomy to truncate their personal suffering in certain circumstances would be an example of social progress.
-
I’m only doing what a devil’s advocate worth their salt would do and if any topic deserved a devil’s advocate, this is it.
If you are going to argue that assisted dying would be a voluntary matter then everything about it should be voluntary.
What about the proposal isn't voluntary?
-
I’m only doing what a devil’s advocate worth their salt would do and if any topic deserved a devil’s advocate, this is it.
So you're working for the 'devil' now! That explains a great deal.
If you are going to argue that assisted dying would be a voluntary matter then everything about it should be voluntary.
Whether I choose to vote or not is a voluntary matter, but if I wish to do so arrangements are required to ensure that a) I am qualified in the first place, and b) there is the opportunity for me to do so.
-
I’m only doing what a devil’s advocate worth their salt would do and if any topic deserved a devil’s advocate, this is it.
If you are going to argue that assisted dying would be a voluntary matter then everything about it should be voluntary.
This is exactly what i mean: stop treating it as a facile intellectual game, and treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.
-
I would have thought that giving people the autonomy to truncate their personal suffering in certain circumstances would be an example of social progress.
To be fair, people have had the autonomy to end their personal suffering generally. This is a move to facilitating that by giving them specific means to do so, with the approval of the state.
-
This is exactly what i mean: stop treating it as a facile intellectual game, and treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.
I’ve only turned out here because there are lawyers who don’t know what to do and the definition of voluntary was apparently not settled by the bill. That’s no fucking game.
-
I’ve only turned out here because there are lawyers who don’t know what to do and the definition of voluntary was apparently not settled by the bill. That’s no fucking game.
But the Bill isn't settled yet: it's a work in progress, and it is by no means certain that it will become law in England and Wales.
-
But there was no requirement for medicine and it’s practice to assist people in dying.
And there were no vaccinations, which introduce a microscopic risk in order to massively reduce other risks. Medicine has had to develop more nuance as it has developed higher capacity, and as social mores change. This is another example of that - it's an emphasis shift from 'do no harm' to 'reduce harm'. Some will be comfortable with that, and others won't.
How do you propose to justify it’s introduction merely on the basis of ‘Things change’ or to put it technically, merely by arguing that it's Evolutionary?
I don't propose to justify it on the basis of either of those arguments, Mr Gummidge, maybe go put on your thinking head?
O.
-
What I am saying is for thousands of years that was the goal of the medical profession and the expectation of the public
Are you seriously trying to pretend that the ongoing research to cure fatal diseases is going to be affected by giving somebody who is definitely going to die in the next six months the option to get it over with?
You must be so desperate to be using crap like that. Give it up.
I’m not asking anyone to carry on living but then again I’m not asking for anyone to assist someone dying.
Where's the extra harm? If a doctor doesn't want to assist somebody to die, there will be no obligation on them to do so.
-
I’m only doing what a devil’s advocate worth their salt would do and if any topic deserved a devil’s advocate, this is it.
A devil's advocate worth their salt would use arguments that aren't crap.
If you are going to argue that assisted dying would be a voluntary matter then everything about it should be voluntary.
I agree. A doctor shouldn't have to assist somebody to die if their conscience does not permit.
-
Are you seriously trying to pretend that the ongoing research to cure fatal diseases is going to be affected by giving somebody who is definitely going to die in the next six months the option to get it over with?
One would hope not and there would be less of a risk if assisted dying were to be entirely a matter of choice for patients and practitioners. There is also the question of whether this issue is medicine or whether language has been massaged to include it. Do Doctors and medical practitioners need to be involved at all?
You must be so desperate to be using crap like that. Give it up.Where's the extra harm? If a doctor doesn't want to assist somebody to die, there will be no obligation on them to do so.
But apparently that might not be the case completely.
-
A doctor shouldn't have to assist somebody to die if their conscience does not permit.
And they aren't. The Bill provides a 'conscience' clause which is similar to those for abortion and IVF. Effectively no doctor is required to assist. However, a conscientious objection must not be used to frustrate the right of a patient to access abortion, IVF or, if the law is passed, assisted dying. So if a doctor has a conscientious objection they are required to pass the patient onto another doctor who does not have the same conscientious objection to ensure that the patient is not prevented to accessing the service should they choose to do so. This is exactly the same as the current practice for abortion and IVF, which have worked effectively for decades.
-
And there were no vaccinations, which introduce a microscopic risk in order to massively reduce other risks. Medicine has had to develop more nuance as it has developed higher capacity, and as social mores change. This is another example of that - it's an emphasis shift from 'do no harm' to 'reduce harm'. Some will be comfortable with that, and others won't.
I don't propose to justify it on the basis of either of those arguments, Mr Gummidge, maybe go put on your thinking head?
O.
isn’t assuming this is just another medical procedure or a medical procedure at all just begging the question particularly when it emphatically wasn’t part of any code of medical ethics?
-
isn’t assuming this is just another medical procedure or a medical procedure at all just begging the question particularly when it emphatically wasn’t part of any code of medical ethics?
Given that you seem obsessed with a long defunct 'oath' that has no role in modern medical practice, then I will take your claimed reliance on codes of medical ethics with a massive mountain of salt.
I have linked to the code of ethical practice which registered doctors are required to follow - perhaps you should read it. At its heart is the requirement for a doctor to act in the interest of the patient, and for the patient's interest to be best determined by, err, the patient - hence the primacy of patient autonomy and consent in medical ethical practice. There is absolutely nothing in the current code which is in any way inconsistent with assisted dying, where this is lawful and the consensual choice of a dying patient.
-
I’ve only turned out here because there are lawyers who don’t know what to do and the definition of voluntary was apparently not settled by the bill. That’s no fucking game.
What are you on about. The concept of voluntariness will be exactly the same as in all other consent to medical decision making situations (including ones that result in the patient dying, e.g. refusal of life sustaining interventions). There is nothing new in this Bill in those legal terms and the law is pretty settled on these matters from decades of case law on voluntariness and valid consent.
If you are talking about the voluntariness of doctors - in other words conscientious objection. Again this is the same as in other situations - specifically abortion and IVF where the process has worked well for decades.
-
isn’t assuming this is just another medical procedure or a medical procedure at all just begging the question particularly when it emphatically wasn’t part of any code of medical ethics?
We're talking about Doctors being asked to consider it, we're wrapping it up in a presumed medicalisation of end-of-life situations, we're talking about it in the context, specifically, of people who are already in medical care for incurable conditions. No, we're not assuming that, it's the situation it's come to light in. It wouldn't be wrong, perhaps, to suggest that it should be taking out of medicine and undertaken by a different group of people, but Doctors would still need to be cognizant of the fact that it's an option, and to explain it to people in their car when they're offering palliative care and other scenarios.
O.
-
It's possible that the requirement for a judge to sign each request off could be dropped. I certainly hope so: the safeguards as they stand are too restrictive. (Apologes for linking to the Hate-Mail.)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/need-for-high-court-to-sign-off-on-assisted-death-could-be-dropped/ar-AA1vhD7S
-
It's possible that the requirement for a judge to sign each request off could be dropped. I certainly hope so: the safeguards as they stand are too restrictive. (Apologes for linking to the Hate-Mil.)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/need-for-high-court-to-sign-off-on-assisted-death-could-be-dropped/ar-AA1vhD7S
So when the bill was drafted did they put that in with the intention of seeking to have it removed in which case there was already a slippery slope approach? Or didn't they think about the practicalities?
I think that if it were to change it would make less it a lot less likely to pass.
-
So when the bill was drafted did they put that in with the intention of seeking to have it removed in which case there was already a slippery slope approach? Or didn't they think about the practicalities?
I think that if it were to change it would make less it a lot less likely to pass.
The "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Of course people are going to argue about whether the safeguards are too restrictive or not.
For what it's worth, the Dutch version of this law does not require sign off by the courts. Nor does it require that life expectancy must be six months or less. We don't see an epidemic of Dutch people being bumped off by their relatives or doctors because it's inconvenient to keep them alive.
-
So when the bill was drafted did they put that in with the intention of seeking to have it removed in which case there was already a slippery slope approach? Or didn't they think about the practicalities?
I think that if it were to change it would make less it a lot less likely to pass.
As JP pointed out the slippery slope argument is a fallacy and muddled thinking.
But it certainly doesn't apply here. Effectively slippery slope arguments are that we shouldn't allow something that is deemed acceptable (to society/legislators etc) as it will necessarily shift to a new position which was unintended and not accepted by those groups.
But the Bill hasn't passed yet. Were the high court authorisation to be removed at amendment stage and that to become law, this would be precisely what the legislators intended and accepted as they would have voted not only for that amendment, but to approve the amended Bill.
-
The "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Of course people are going to argue about whether the safeguards are too restrictive or not.
For what it's worth, the Dutch version of this law does not require sign off by the courts. Nor does it require that life expectancy must be six months or less. We don't see an epidemic of Dutch people being bumped off by their relatives or doctors because it's inconvenient to keep them alive.
As JP pointed out the slippery slope argument is a fallacy and muddled thinking.
But it certainly doesn't apply here. Effectively slippery slope arguments are that we shouldn't allow something that is deemed acceptable (to society/legislators etc) as it will necessarily shift to a new position which was unintended and not accepted by those groups.
But the Bill hasn't passed yet. Were the high court authorisation to be removed at amendment stage and that to become law, this would be precisely what the legislators intended and accepted as they would have voted not only for that amendment, but to approve the amended Bill.
I'll take both comments - I'd point out that they post doesn't make the 'slippery slope' argument, as it's not about whether the bill should be passed, but rather that the comment that the requiremen could just be dropped plays into the idea that when those proposing it say they have built in the safeguards based on the need for this to be the strongest safeguards and that being why the bill.should be passed that they are lying in order to get it through.
Given that some support was according to speeches in the debate, and comments after, from those who thought there should be more safeguards, dropping one would seem to me to make it less likely to pass as it jeopardises some of the support. That could be in theory offset by support from anyone who had voted against it because there were too many safeguards but I am not aware that that was anyone's position.
-
It's possible that the requirement for a judge to sign each request off could be dropped. I certainly hope so: the safeguards as they stand are too restrictive. (Apologes for linking to the Hate-Mail.)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/need-for-high-court-to-sign-off-on-assisted-death-could-be-dropped/ar-AA1vhD7S
Already he's talking about dropping safe guards.
-
I'll take both comments - I'd point out that the post doesn't make the 'slippery slope' argument,
Well I, and perhaps JP too, would disagree. The post read to me very clearly as alluding to the slippery slope argument.
... as it's not about whether the bill should be passed, but rather that the comment that the requiremen could just be dropped plays into the idea that when those proposing it say they have built in the safeguards based on the need for this to be the strongest safeguards and that being why the bill.should be passed that they are lying in order to get it through.
Given that some support was according to speeches in the debate, and comments after, from those who thought there should be more safeguards, dropping one would seem to me to make it less likely to pass as it jeopardises some of the support. That could be in theory offset by support from anyone who had voted against it because there were too many safeguards but I am not aware that that was anyone's position.
It is nothing like as simple as you imply.
Firstly there are MPs who think that the levels of safeguards go over the top and the overlay of a requirement in all cases for high court judicial approval is unnecessary, not consistent with other critical end of life decisions and problematic as it would act to delay the process. So those people may be more likely to vote in favour.
But there has been another criticism - specifically that the system isn't equipped to cope with the extra workload, and that has been levelled at both the NHS and the courts. So removing an automatic layer of court oversight, again, make make some MPs more likely to support as assisted dying would have less impact on an already stretched judicial system.
And the final point is that removing automatic oversight of the courts would require an amendment of its own, which would require a vote. So presumably only those who would be comfortable with the amended Bill would vote for the amendment and would presumable be OK with the amended bill being passed. So there is a kind of self levelling approach here - should the amendment pass, then we can presume there is majority support for the amended bill. If there isn't majority support for the amended bill then presumably the amendment won't pass. The only spanner in the works would be MPs playing silly 'wrecking' games - in other words those who oppose voting in favour of amendments that make the bill less likely to be supported.
But, of course, none of this has any relevance to your claimed slippery slope as whatever amendments are passes and whatever amended bill gets passed (should it pass) will be what was intended and accepted by parliament.
-
Already he's talking about dropping safe guards.
Who is he?
And as discussed with NS, the bill hasn't passed yet, so you cannot talk about dropping anything yet as the bill is still processing through parliament and I imagine a whole range of amendments, some that appear to tighten safeguards, some that appear to relax safeguards and some that have nothing to do with safeguards will be debated and voted on.
-
Given that you seem obsessed with a long defunct 'oath' that has no role in modern medical practice, then I will take your claimed reliance on codes of medical ethics with a massive mountain of salt.
This suffers from being a fallacy of modernity and the fallacy of saying that because one part should be rejected the whole can be rejected.
I have linked to the code of ethical practice which registered doctors are required to follow - perhaps you should read it. At its heart is the requirement for a doctor to act in the interest of the patient, and for the patient's interest to be best determined by, err, the patient - hence the primacy of patient autonomy and consent in medical ethical practice.,
But Professor that is at the heart of any professional code. It is the bare and vague minimum. The only thing like assisted dying at the end of the day is assisted dying. Your analogous situations are not as analogous as you believeThere is absolutely nothing in the current code which is in any way inconsistent with assisted dying, where this is lawful and the consensual choice of a dying patient.
I think you rather have this arse about face.
-
On a side issue, I get fed up of people suggesting that their knowledge or experience means that their opinion carries more weight, eg "I'm a palliative care doctor and I favour assisted dying", or "I'm disabled and I oppose assisted dying" (like that tiresome Carr woman). By all means express your opinion, but don't assume we've got to agree with you. It's like saying "There must be a God, because the Archbishop of Canterbury says so, and he's an expert".
-
Already he's talking about dropping safe guards.
And that will be argued. If it is successfully argued that the judge safeguard is not needed, then it will be dropped. If it is successfully argued that the judge is needed but that it will be impossible to find a judge due to workload, it is likely that the bill will fail.
You and NS don't need to get hysterical about this.
-
Well I, and perhaps JP too, would disagree. The post read to me very clearly as alluding to the slippery slope argument.
The clue was in NS's post explicitly mentioning a "slippery slope approach".
-
(Caption top of the article)
Labour MP Marie Tidball voted in favour of the bill but wants the law amended to ensure doctors present all options to patients
Not sure how (or if) that's a snag?
-
(Caption top of the article)
Not sure how (or if) that's a snag?
I don't think it is a snag as doctors are already required to present all options to patients as part of consent. Rather than being an issue for those in favour it may actually act to rebut those who are opposed who have suggested that doctors should only discuss assisted dying if a patient brings it up first. That would run completely counter to the basis tenet of 'adequate and sufficient' information that requires patients to be informed of alternatives.
By contrast with those opposed who seem to want to restrict information I'm unaware of those in favour suggesting anything other than all options should be presented. Certainly I'd expect all options to be presented and discussed as part of the process.
Point being - that I don't think there is any need to amend the bill as the requirement to present all options is implicit in the consent. However I've no issue with this amendment being inserted but it will make no difference in practice (unless opponents attempt to stifle the requirement for all options to be presented).
-
The clue was in NS's post explicitly mentioning a "slippery slope approach".
It was indeed.
-
This suffers from being a fallacy of modernity and the fallacy of saying that because one part should be rejected the whole can be rejected.
It is nothing of the sort. I was merely pointing out that the hippocratic oath is no longer the ethical code of practice that doctors are required to adhere to, so is of no relevant.
As mentioned previously the professional ethical code of practice that doctors are required to adhere to is the GMC's Good Medical Practice:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/good-medical-practice-2024---english-102607294.pdf
I presume you've read this, and it's relevant further guidance, e.g. on consent which is linked to in the main document.
So more than happy to discuss the ethical code of practice that doctors in the UK are required to adhere to with you. But discussing an ethical code that is not in actual use in medical practice in the UK is rather pointless I would have thought.
-
But Professor that is at the heart of any professional code. It is the bare and vague minimum.
Actually it isn't - the notion of patient autonomy/consent and the patient themselves being the best person to determine what is in their best interests is rather radically modern. Really only becoming the prime concern in the past 50-100 years or so. Prior to this medicine was not about patient's making choices for themselves (autonomy), but paternalism where the doctor was the 'expert' and therefore decided what was best for the patient (regardless of whether they would choose it themselves).
Oh - and the hippocratic oath is completely silent on patient autonomy and consent - indeed it actually advocates concealing information from patients. Not surprising then that the hippocratic oath is no longer used as a code of ethical conduct.
-
The only thing like assisted dying at the end of the day is assisted dying. Your analogous situations are not as analogous as you believe.
[Posting here as well as on the 'Abortion' thread as Vlad is making the same (to my mind non-sense) assertion.]
Don't agree.
A consenting person requesting that a life support machine is turned off seems almost entirely analogous to assisted dying. Both involve the consent of an individual who wishes to die but cannot do so without the assistance of others. In both cases the death is as a direct result of the intervention and in both cases the assistance is required as the individual themselves is not in a position to take direct action themselves to allow them to die - they can only do so with assistance.
There are differences, however when we look at the details of the Bill going through parliament and what is already permitted under law.
The turning off of life support machine requires a direct intervention by a third party to ensure that the person dies - in other words someone other than the patient will turn off the machine. For assisted dying, although there is assistance to prescribe the medication, only the patient themselves would be permitted to take them - they cannot be administered by a third party.
The current law allows individuals to make advance directives allowing turning off of a life support machine under circumstances where they can no longer consent. That isn't the case for the proposed assisted dying - where the person must be competent both when they request and when they take the drugs.
The current law allows others to take decisions to turn off life support on behalf of a person who is not competent. The proposed assisted dying does not allow anyone other than a competent patient to take those decisions.
The current law on switching off of life support only requires high court authorisation for 'difficult' cases - where a competent person is consenting for themselves they would not get involved. The proposed assisted dying bill requires high court authorisation in all cases, even when an analogous case (competent person consenting) would not require this for cessation of life support.
So while the fundamentals are pretty well identical - person wishes to die and cannot do so without direct/indirect third party intervention - the proposals are way more strict on assisted dying than cessation of life support.
-
No, one involves the ending of treatment to allow a natural end, the other involves administering a "poison" to kill.
It is important for you then to justify that the means of killing is not a poison or instrument. In withdrawal of treatment, there are no instruments.
Now, in the system of dying proposed, the patient administers the instrument. So the killing is suicide and therefore the practitioner arguably does not kill. Where the line is has been arbitrarily decided by the vote.
This is Vlad's reply to my previous post.
This is the kind of theoretical philosophical sophistry which has no place in the real world. These convoluted 'dancing on head of a pin' arguments are usually concocted by people to justify a conclusion that they have already decided upon rather than being used as logical philosophical instruments to develop a conclusion. They also have a tendency to crumble to dust when challenged under analogous scenarios, such as:
So imaging a person comes across another who is dangling over a precipice clinging onto a rope where a fall would mean certain death. The first man takes out a knife and he:
a). Stabs the second man in the heart which stops beating and the second man dies or
b). Cuts the rope and the second man falls and he dies
Is there a 'moral' distinction between these two acts - I don't think so, and certainly in legal terms both would be clear murder.
And you can make it even closer to the medical scenario:
A nurse enters a side room with a man whose life is being sustained by a life support machine. The man wants to live and there is no medical reason to stop treatment. The nurse:
a). Adds a lethal level of a drug into his drip and the patient dies or
b). Turns off the life support machine and the patient dies
Again is there a moral distinction between those two acts - nope, they are both murder. So it isn't the issue of 'ending treatment' rather than 'administering a lethal dose' which is a relevant moral distinction as in this scenario both are morally indefensible. So Vlad, come back with a valid reason which the turning off of life support is morally distinct from administering a lethal dose - one that will actually not crumble when tested in various scenarios. Here is a clue - it might focus on consent rather than the means by which the person's life ends.
Oh and by the way someone who dies following turning off of life support doesn't die a 'natural death' as they weren't living a 'natural life' as some vital functions were being sustained artificially rather than naturally, so it is the removal of the artificial sustaining elements that results in death, not some natural process.
-
No, one involves the ending of treatment to allow a natural end, the other involves administering a "poison" to kill.
Two problems here.
1: this is the naturalistic fallacy - assuming that what is natural is right (although whether it is really natural is debatable, see PD's answer and below).
2: under the proposed law, the poison must be self-administered.
It is important for you then to justify that the means of killing is not a poison or instrument. In withdrawal of treatment, there are no instruments.
Now, in the system of dying proposed, the patient administers the instrument. So the killing is suicide and therefore the practitioner arguably does not kill. Where the line is has been arbitrarily decided by the vote.
I would argue that, in the case of turning off life support, the doctor is taking an action to end a life. In the second, the patient is taking the action. The fact that the doctor is turning something off makes no difference to the fact that they are ending a life. For example, if you were a deep sea diver and I shot you with one of those James Bond spear guns, it would be murder. However, if I merely turned off your life support, are you claiming that it would be somehow less bad?
-
Two problems here.
1: this is the naturalistic fallacy - assuming that what is natural is right (although whether it is really natural is debatable, see PD's answer and below).
2: under the proposed law, the poison must be self-administered.
I would argue that, in the case of turning off life support, the doctor is taking an action to end a life. In the second, the patient is taking the action. The fact that the doctor is turning something off makes no difference to the fact that they are ending a life. For example, if you were a deep sea diver and I shot you with one of those James Bond spear guns, it would be murder. However, if I merely turned off your life support, are you claiming that it would be somehow less bad?
Indeed.
Vlad should spend a couple of hours in the company of my delightful old medical ethics tutor, Jonathon Glover, much of whose work has been a systematic demolition of those hoary old philosophical sophistries of double effect, acts vs omissions and the distinction between killing and letting die. He is the most gentle and charming of characters but with the very sharpest intellect that would leave any of those tired, defunct notions that Vlad trots out in pieces within a couple of minutes.
-
Indeed.
Vlad should spend a couple of hours in the company of my delightful old medical ethics tutor, Jonathon Glover, much of whose work has been a systematic demolition of those hoary old philosophical sophistries of double effect, acts vs omissions and the distinction between killing and letting die. He is the most gentle and charming of characters but with the very sharpest intellect that would leave any of those tired, defunct notions that Vlad trots out in pieces within a couple of minutes.
Fortunately he has provided a very generous website in which one could spend very many happy hours trawling.It looks like a veritable toyshop...if it's the same Jonathan Glover.
-
Fortunately he has provided a very generous website in which one could spend very many happy hours trawling.It looks like a veritable toyshop...if it's the same Jonathan Glover.
Yup - likely to be the very same.
https://jonathanglover.org
He was the lead tutor when I did my MA in Medical Ethics and Law about 20 years ago. One of his seminal works is 'Causing death and saving lives', which I'd thoroughly recommend you read. Also I'd recommend 'Killing and letting die' by Steinbock and Norcross.
-
Yup - likely to be the very same.
https://jonathanglover.org
He was the lead tutor when I did my MA in Medical Ethics and Law about 20 years ago. One of his seminal works is 'Causing death and saving lives', which I'd thoroughly recommend you read. Also I'd recommend 'Killing and letting die' by Steinbock and Norcross.
Thanks.
-
BMA campaign for Doctor's right to foist beliefs on to patients?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/15/doctors-to-speak-out-against-changes-to-proposed-assisted-dying-law-in-england-and-wales
-
BMA campaign for Doctor's right to foist beliefs on to patients?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/15/doctors-to-speak-out-against-changes-to-proposed-assisted-dying-law-in-england-and-wales
That's not what the article says at all. The BMA just wants doctors to be allowed to lay out all the options for terminally ill patients. I agree with them.
-
BMA campaign for Doctor's right to foist beliefs on to patients?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/15/doctors-to-speak-out-against-changes-to-proposed-assisted-dying-law-in-england-and-wales
You have it the wrong way around Vlad.
A key element of consent is that patients are informed about all the options that are available to them. That is, of course, the only way in which that person can make an informed consensual choice about which option they wish to choose. If a doctor deliberately refuses to mention one available choice due to their own personal beliefs then they are foisting their belief onto patients as the patient is deliberately not informed about an option that may be the choice they may wish for. Effectively the doctor is saying 'I don't want you to choice option X, because of my personal beliefs, therefore I won't tell you that option X exists'. That is unethical and unprofessional.
Now in the real professional world there are a small number of areas of medical practice (abortion, IVF and likely assisted dying) where a legal conscientious clause is available to doctors and other healthcare professionals. However, this does not allow the doctor actually to attempt to ensure that a patient is not informed of the choice their personally oppose. Rather it requires a doctor (or other professional) who has that objection to pass their patient onto another doctor who is able to discuss all options with the patient. So while the conscience of the professional is protected, this is not allowed to prevent the freedom of the patient to choose from all options.
-
You have it the wrong way around Vlad.
A key element of consent is that patients are informed about all the options that are available to them. That is, of course, the only way in which that person can make an informed consensual choice about which option they wish to choose. If a doctor deliberately refuses to mention one available choice due to their own personal beliefs then they are foisting their belief onto patients as the patient is deliberately not informed about an option that may be the choice they may wish for. Effectively the doctor is saying 'I don't want you to choice option X, because of my personal beliefs, therefore I won't tell you that option X exists'. That is unethical and unprofessional.
Now in the real professional world there are a small number of areas of medical practice (abortion, IVF and likely assisted dying) where a legal conscientious clause is available to doctors and other healthcare professionals. However, this does not allow the doctor actually to attempt to ensure that a patient is not informed of the choice their personally oppose. Rather it requires a doctor (or other professional) who has that objection to pass their patient onto another doctor who is able to discuss all options with the patient. So while the conscience of the professional is protected, this is not allowed to prevent the freedom of the patient to choose from all options.
But I'm not talking about the right of the patient to assisted dying, they will presumably have that right.
I'm talking about providing, albeit accidently the practitioner space to inflict their beliefs on the issue.
-
But I'm not talking about the right of the patient to assisted dying, they will presumably have that right.
I'm talking about providing, albeit accidently the practitioner space to inflict their beliefs on the issue.
You don't half spout some prize bollocks.
-
You don't half spout some prize bollocks.
Talking shite again,Steve?
-
But I'm not talking about the right of the patient to assisted dying, they will presumably have that right.
But they won't be able to make a consensual decision on the matter unless they are informed about it along with the other options.
I'm talking about providing, albeit accidently the practitioner space to inflict their beliefs on the issue.
Which is exactly what will happen, completely intentionally, if a doctor (or other medical professional) refuses to inform the patient that assisted dying is an option available to them due to their own personal beliefs.
So if you are concerned about doctors foisting their personal opinions on patients I think the place to look is doctors who dogmatically oppose assisted dying failing to inform patients of their rights to access this option, or to actively push patients to choose other options.
-
But they won't be able to make a consensual decision on the matter unless they are informed about it along with the other options.
Consensual makes it sound like there’s more than one person making the decision to die. One person is making that decision and that’s the person dying. The independence of that should be paramount and it is the government’s place to inform everyone of their right.
So if you are concerned about doctors foisting their personal opinions on patients I think the place to look is doctors who dogmatically oppose assisted dying failing to inform patients of their rights to access this option, or to actively push patients to choose other options.
So there is a potential problem then with influence. Whether it’s from people wanting patients backing down or pressuring people not to change their minds.
-
Consensual makes it sound like there’s more than one person making the decision to die.
No it doesn't - it means that a decision is made through the consent of the individual making that decision, which is pretty clearly defined legally and ethically for medical decision-making (which is clear that the decision is the indidivual's and the individual's alone).
One person is making that decision and that’s the person dying. The independence of that should be paramount and it is the government’s place to inform everyone of their right.
Of course as it would be in this case and in other medical decision making where the individual has the capacity to consent. But consent also requires there to be sufficient and adequate information to allow that decision to be made. And that must involve the individual being informed about the various options available to them, including assisted dying.
So there is a potential problem then with influence. Whether it’s from people wanting patients backing down or pressuring people not to change their minds.
Theoretically, but the medical profession are extremely well trained and experienced (and professional) and there are highly relevant exemplars (where there hare conscientious objection clauses) that having worked well for decades (e.g. abortion and IVF). And as with abortion and IVF an objecting doctor will be legally required to ensure that the individual will be able to access all options available to them by passing them onto to another professional who has not exercised a conscientious objection.
-
No it doesn't - it means that a decision is made through the consent of the individual making that decision, which is pretty clearly defined legally and ethically for medical decision-making (which is clear that the decision is the indidivual's and the individual's alone).
Of course as it would be in this case and in other medical decision making where the individual has the capacity to consent. But consent also requires there to be sufficient and adequate information to allow that decision to be made. And that must involve the individual being informed about the various options available to them, including assisted dying.
Theoretically, but the medical profession are extremely well trained and experienced (and professional) and there are highly relevant exemplars (where there hare conscientious objection clauses) that having worked well for decades (e.g. abortion and IVF). And as with abortion and IVF an objecting doctor will be legally required to ensure that the individual will be able to access all options available to them by passing them onto to another professional who has not exercised a conscientious objection.
I couldn't go without questioning the notion of Death as
just another "Treatment option" a term close to that other piece of officialese "solution", term not used in connection with Death for about 8 decades.
It is up to the government to inform the population that this is a society where this is an option, not foist it onto doctors pretending it's a treatment option no matter how much people with interests in medical ethics might want ownership of this.
-
I couldn't go without questioning the notion of Death as
just another "Treatment option" a term close to that other piece of officialese "solution", term not used in connection with Death for about 8 decades.
It is up to the government to inform the population that this is a society where this is an option, not foist it onto doctors pretending it's a treatment option no matter how much people with interests in medical ethics might want ownership of this.
Who exactly is presenting Assisted Death as being a 'treatment' option?
Surely the point is for the affected person to consciously and permanently choose to end their pain and suffering, and not to 'treat'.
-
I'm talking about providing, albeit accidently the practitioner space to inflict their beliefs on the issue.
But you are trying to inflict your beliefs on the issue on all the patients.
-
It is up to the government to inform the population that this is a society where this is an option, not foist it onto doctors pretending it's a treatment option no matter how much people with interests in medical ethics might want ownership of this.
No it isn't.
It is for the government to determine whether or not assisted dying should be an option and if so what criteria apply in terms of who is able to access assisted dying (in the Bill this is terminal illness diagnosis, considered to have less than 6 months to live, have capacity to give consent etc).
Once the government has made that decision (should it chose to do so) then it will be for medical practitioners to put the provisions of the law into practice. And that will include the provision of information about choices available to a terminally ill person. It is very important that information about all options is provided as this is the only way in which consent to one of those choices would be valid (legally and ethically).
-
No it isn't.
It is for the government to determine whether or not assisted dying should be an option and if so what criteria apply in terms of who is able to access assisted dying (in the Bill this is terminal illness diagnosis, considered to have less than 6 months to live, have capacity to give consent etc).
Once the government has made that decision (should it chose to do so) then it will be for medical practitioners to put the provisions of the law into practice. And that will include the provision of information about choices available to a terminally ill person. It is very important that information about all options is provided as this is the only way in which consent to one of those choices would be valid (legally and ethically).
I'm sure what you describe is the way things will, wrongly go, so I can't fault you on your administrative acumen.
The medical profession has no role in persuading or dissuading
People from this decision since this is not treatment as such and it is the Government who have sanctioned this.
Once it is passed it is unlikely that anyone will not have heard of the availability of assisted dying and those who avail themselves of it will merely experience a freedom from any constraint they would now come across.
Information on whether assisted dying is legal or not is not a medical matter.
-
The medical profession has no role in persuading or dissuading
People from this decision since this is not treatment as such and it is the Government who have sanctioned this.
But it does have a key role in informing people of their choices and options. Not to do so would be deeply unethical as it would mean that people were making choices without sufficient information about the options available to them. That would render their consent invalid.
-
I couldn't go without questioning the notion of Death as just another "Treatment option" a term close to that other piece of officialese "solution", term not used in connection with Death for about 8 decades.
Healthcare is moving beyond merely being about physical ailments and diseases - it started with adopting psychiatric conditions as part of its remit, and it's now extending into a joined up system with social care and general welfare.
It is up to the government to inform the population that this is a society where this is an option, not foist it onto doctors pretending it's a treatment option no matter how much people with interests in medical ethics might want ownership of this.
No, it's up to an individual's doctor(s) to inform patients what their options are - it's for the government to implement legislation that determines the limits of what the doctors can talk about. It's for neither the government nor a doctor to set absolute limits on what a patient shouldn't be informed about, unless there's grounds to think that they're incapable of making informed judgements for themselves.
O.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/21/assisted-dying-bill-amendment-anorexia-loophole
-
Healthcare is moving beyond merely being about physical ailments and diseases - it started with adopting psychiatric conditions as part of its remit, and it's now extending into a joined up system with social care and general welfare.
No, it's up to an individual's doctor(s) to inform patients what their options are - it's for the government to implement legislation that determines the limits of what the doctors can talk about. It's for neither the government nor a doctor to set absolute limits on what a patient shouldn't be informed about, unless there's grounds to think that they're incapable of making informed judgements for themselves.
O.
This seems influenced by a proneness to the fallacy of modernity and change for the sake of it, with a hint of landing one one on the believers in the sanctity of life.
It isn't the only post here which smacks of "Yes, it is a personal decision but then again, only if it has been run past a scientist."
It is of course a decision to say goodbye to all that....expertise, debate, knowledge, treatment or whatever.
-
This seems influenced by a proneness to the fallacy of modernity and change for the sake of it, with a hint of landing one one on the believers in the sanctity of life.
Something is new, therefore it's the fallacy of modernity... the idea that informed consent requires, you know, information, is not new.
It isn't the only post here which smacks of "Yes, it is a personal decision but then again, only if it has been run past a scientist."
And where is anyone suggesting that it be run past a scientist?
It is of course a decision to say goodbye to all that....expertise, debate, knowledge, treatment or whatever.
Expecting a medical professional to explain all the options to a patient is, to your eyes, saying goodby to expertise, debate and knowledge? Hmm....
O.
-
This seems influenced by a proneness to the fallacy of modernity and change for the sake of it, ...
But it is actually you Vlad who is guilty of the opposite - effectively dismissing things simply because they, as you perceive them, modern.
I don't think the rest of us are guilty of your accusation, that somehow we perceive things that are more modern as inherently better. Nope each development, or lack of development, needs to be considered on its own merit - rather than (as we don't) falling into the fallacy of modernity or (as you do Vlad) falling into the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
And as Outrider points out, autonomy and the right of people to make their own choices is hardly a modern notion.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/21/assisted-dying-bill-amendment-anorexia-loophole
While anorexia nervosa, for example, does not itself meet the criteria for terminal illness … its effects (malnutrition) in severe cases could be deemed by some as a terminal physical illness, even though eating disorders are treatable conditions and recovery is possible even after decades of illness
That's some kind of high grade bullshit. No reasonable judge would rule malnutrition to be a terminal disease. This is just paranoia (which is also not terminal).
-
That's some kind of high grade bullshit. No reasonable judge would rule malnutrition to be a terminal disease. This is just paranoia (which is also not terminal).
I agree - this seems to be scaremongering of the first degree.
Increasingly I feel those who are against are resorting to increasingly hysterical approaches and/or completely failing to address the actual issue, rather focussing solely on process. A good example being the Schroedingers approach to parliamentary time - at the same time criticising the assisted dying debate as taking up precious parliamentary time that could be better used for more important issues while also criticising the assisted dying debate for not being given sufficient parliamentary time for proper scrutiny.
Feels as if those on the opposing side realise that they have lost the argument on principle.
-
Can watch hearing here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy5k0qyled2t
-
For a doctor to assist a patient to die requires that he renounce his title of a doctor. Because as a doctor his job is to treat patients, where 'treat' is defined as "to use drugs, exercises, etc. to cure a person of a disease or heal an injury".
-
For a doctor to assist a patient to die requires that he renounce his title of a doctor.
Nice of you to decide that for the entire profession - maybe, just maybe, we should leave it to them to decide if they want to adopt your definition, or if they're more interested in harm-reduction, or alleviating suffering, or any of a number of other ways of phrasing their motivation? Or, maybe, like much of the rest of existence, one definition does not fit all of the people involved - maybe it's for each Doctor to determine what their own motivation is, where their own ethical lines are.
Because as a doctor his job is to treat patients, where 'treat' is defined as "to use drugs, exercises, etc. to cure a person of a disease or heal an injury".
Is it? Can you show where that definition comes from? My own understanding - and this is my definition, you understand - is that they are there to help people. It's more open ended than yours, it encompasses yours, but it's not limited to yours. How does your standard help when the harm is continued life? Should the healthcare professionals just universally be required to wash their hands of it and let you suffer in silence when your disease is beyond their current available treatments?
You appear to be coming at this from a point of view of venerating life above all - please, correct me if I'm wrong in that - but for many of us life is a means to an end, not and end in itself, and if that life is no longer beneficial, no longer useful to us, no longer pleasant, no longer worth living for the person living it... how is stopping that suffering not treatment of what ails them?
O.
-
Is it? Can you show where that definition comes from?
The Cambridge dictionary.
Should the healthcare professionals just universally be required to wash their hands of it and let you suffer in silence when your disease is beyond their current available treatments?
I've observed the process of dying when working as a healthcare assistant. Far from washing their hands of a patient and letting them suffer, if a disease is beyond available treatment the job of a healthcare professional is to relieve pain and prevent discomfort.
harm-reduction, or alleviating suffering
You will never be able to research a patient's experience of suicide and find out if the harm they experienced at death was less than dying naturally.
-
. I've observed the process of dying when working as a healthcare assistant. Far from washing their hands of a patient and letting them suffer, if a disease is beyond available treatment the job of a healthcare professional is to relieve pain and prevent discomfort.
That is not always possible. In the debate about the bill,, I've read of people constantly vomiting faeces and other horrors.
-
The Cambridge dictionary.
Dictionaries don't define usage, they track usage, and I'd suggest that the point of this whole exercise is that, collectively, we're deciding to update that usage.
I've observed the process of dying when working as a healthcare assistant. Far from washing their hands of a patient and letting them suffer, if a disease is beyond available treatment the job of a healthcare professional is to relieve pain and prevent discomfort.
And now they'll have another tool in their arsenal - now patients won't always be trapped into that pained existence, and healthcare assistants won't always be limited to mitigating pain. In the future, if the disease is beyond available treatment, relieving pain and preventing discomfort will be one option on the table, it's not being taken away.
You will never be able to research a patient's experience of suicide and find out if the harm they experienced at death was less than dying naturally.
It will be for a significantly shorter duration, though. It will not be visible to their loved ones. It won't be something that circumstance makes them share with those around them. It won't be robbing them of their dignity and self-respect for days or weeks or months or years... It's almost like people in need will, finally, have a choice rather than being condemned by circumstance.
O.
-
You will never be able to research a patient's experience of suicide and find out if the harm they experienced at death was less than dying naturally.
It's exactly the same: they die.
It's not about the harm we experience - everybody dies so we all end up with the same amount of harm. No, it's about alleviating the suffering on way to death.
Your position is essentially to stand by watching people being tortured on behalf of a faith they don't necessarily believe in. It's a pretty nasty attitude.
-
Far from washing their hands of a patient and letting them suffer, if a disease is beyond available treatment the job of a healthcare professional is to relieve pain and prevent discomfort.
Of course that is the aim of palliative medicine - but it isn't always successful, even with the best palliative care currently available. And it isn't just pain and discomfort that are really important to people at the end of their lives but also dignity and autonomy. And often the very interventions that aim to relieve pain (typically very high doses of morphine) rob a person of dignity and autonomy. I've watched both my parents die and in both cases they had palliative care as good as anything available. In both cases the last few days were anything other than peaceful.
My experience of watching my father was of someone in terrible distress, but completely unable to be comforted as the morphine levels that were needed to deal with the pain had rendered him unable to interact, but clearly his largely unconscious state appeared wracked with what I can only describe a regular nightmares (I don't and cannot know what they were as he died shortly afterwards without regaining any meaningful consciousness). What was clear was that he was in a state of significant distress without anything family, or palliative care, could do to alleviate.
He had no choice other than to endure this awful state for several days before he died - what this bill is about is giving people like him a choice.
-
In both cases the last few days were anything other than peaceful.
I'm sorry to hear that. Do you know whether whatever it is that is given to patients to drink so that they die is pain-free? When our cat Spud was put to sleep the nurse came out crying. Afterwards I learned that the animal goes through acute distress when the lethal dose is given.
-
Ledbetter U turn on High Court Approval.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egl17pvldo
-
Ledbetter U turn on High Court Approval.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egl17pvldo
Not really a U turn but more what this stage of the Bill is for.
-
Ledbetter U turn on High Court Approval.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egl17pvldo
a rather tendentious way of putting it, since she probably only put that provision in in the first place to appease the opponents. The safeguards are unnecessarily restrictive at the moment, and should be reduced.
-
a rather tendentious way of putting it, since she probably only put that provision in in the first place to appease the opponents. The safeguards are unnecessarily restrictive at the moment, and should be reduced.
I think that that approach would tie in more with Vlad's comment. The change looks more to me about practicality and knowledge, and is part of what this stage should be looking at. The idea that the bill is framed solely to get through and to be changed later to be less restrictive is why in some cases the 'slippery slope' is not a fallacy.
-
I think that that approach would tie in more with Vlad's comment. The change looks more to me about practicality and knowledge, and is part of what this stage should be looking at. The idea that the bill is framed solely to get through and to be changed later to be less restrictive is why in some cases the 'slippery slope' is not a fallacy.
There can't be a slippery slope before the bill has even become law! All bills get scrutinised and revised before becoming law. "Slippery slope" is just a meaningless parrot-cry of those who haven't got any real arguments.
-
There can't be a slippery slope before the bill has even become law! All bills get scrutinised and revised before becoming law. "Slippery slope" is just a meaningless parrot-cry of those who haven't got any real arguments.
Getting a retired judge in cunjors up thoughts of films where they get befuddled, drunk and past it doctors to sign death certificates.
You don't trick people into thinking something one thing and then reverse it just to get it past them and to claim you are being being adult and honest.
-
Not really a U turn but more what this stage of the Bill is for.
Exactly - the point of this stage in the process is for scrutiny and amendments. The suggestion seems sensible to me as it brings a greater range of expertise into the panel compared to a single judge.
And there was also concert that the judge stage may have resulted in unreasonable delays to decision-making which, as the person will only have months, or even weeks/days, to live would have created unnecessary distress and potential even rendered the choice of the individual irrelevant as they may have died before a decision was taken.
-
Getting a retired judge in cunjors up thoughts of films where they get befuddled, drunk and past it doctors to sign death certificates.
You don't trick people into thinking something one thing and then reverse it just to get it past them and to claim you are being being adult and honest.
Of there we are - back to the Schrödinger opposition - on the one hand the scrutiny stage is too rushed and won't allow any changes - yet when changes are proposed the opposition pivots to claims of U-turns, effectively suggesting that there shouldn't be changes.
Say it after me Vlad - this stage of the Bill process is where the original wording is scrutinised and changes are debated and may be implemented.
-
You don't trick people into thinking something one thing and then reverse it just to get it past them and to claim you are being being adult and honest.
But this will only become law if MPs vote in favour at the final vote - which will be on the basis of the amended Bill. If they aren't comfortable with the changes, presumably there will be sufficient MPs who change their vote from 'yes' to 'no' and the bill won't become law. That's how our parliamentary system works - just because the bill gained a majority at second reading allowing it to progress to the committee stage does not guarantee that the bill (whether or not amended) will pass at third reading and become law.
-
The idea that the bill is framed solely to get through and to be changed later to be less restrictive is why in some cases the 'slippery slope' is not a fallacy.
But it would only be a 'slippery slope' if the current bill (assuming it becomes law) necessarily led to unintended consequences, different to those that the legislators intended. If the law was amended at some point in the future, then those changes would need to be formally approved by parliament and they would be intended and therefore not a 'slippery slope' at all.
Does the notion that gay people can now marry reflect a 'slippery slope' from the legalisation of gay sex in 1967 - I don't think so as the decision to allow gay marriage required new legislation and was an intended consequence of that legislation, not an unintended consequence of the 1967 legislation.
-
But this will only become law if MPs vote in favour at the final vote - which will be on the basis of the amended Bill. If they aren't comfortable with the changes, presumably there will be sufficient MPs who change their vote from 'yes' to 'no' and the bill won't become law. That's how our parliamentary system works - just because the bill gained a majority at second reading allowing it to progress to the committee stage does not guarantee that the bill (whether or not amended) will pass at third reading and become law.
The Bill will pass or fail on the question of scrutiny.
There is of course the matter that those promoting it were sure that a high court judge provided that scrutiny.
With the suggestion of retired judges, not necessarily high court,
this seems to be Leadbeaters second final level of safeguarding which isn't the original solution "plus" as she suggests.
-
Getting a retired judge in cunjors up thoughts of films where they get befuddled, drunk and past it doctors to sign death certificates.
You don't trick people into thinking something one thing and then reverse it just to get it past them and to claim you are being being adult and honest.
The legal profession needn't be involved at all. Two doctors should be enough.
-
The legal profession needn't be involved at all. Two doctors should be enough.
Haven't you heard of unlawful killing?
-
Haven't you heard of unlawful killing?
You don't trust two doctors, but you do trust one judge? ::)
-
The Bill will pass or fail on the question of scrutiny.
No it will pass or fail on the basis of the wording that is passed back to parliament for final approval (or otherwise). That wording may have changed as part of the committee process and amendments, or it may not have changed.
-
Haven't you heard of unlawful killing?
Which it wouldn't be if the law allows this. And remember that it isn't the doctor who administers the lethal dose - the patient themselves is required to do this.
-
Getting a retired judge in cunjors up thoughts of films where they get befuddled, drunk and past it doctors to sign death certificates.
You don't trick people into thinking something one thing and then reverse it just to get it past them and to claim you are being being adult and honest.
No one has been tricked. This is the process. It was made perfectly clear in the debate. If you weren't listening, go back and do so, and retract the comment. Of you were then you are lying, and should retract the comment.
As so often even if I might agree with some people on something, it is so often the arguments that they put forward, particularly when done in such a manner as you have here, that I find most persuasive for the other side.
-
There can't be a slippery slope before the bill has even become law! All bills get scrutinised and revised before becoming law. "Slippery slope" is just a meaningless parrot-cry of those who haven't got any real arguments.
The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.
-
The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.
Liberalisation of the law in the future could only happen with parliament's consent after a debate, so I don't think slippery slope arguments are relevant (they never are where laws in democratic countries are concerned).
-
The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.
But a slippery slop argument is about unintended consequences of a policy once enacted. There cannot be a slippery slope before the policy is enacted. And if parliament votes in favour of an a version of the bill which is different to the version first presented then this will be what they intended, not an unintended consequence, so no slippery slope.
-
Liberalisation of the law in the future could only happen with parliament's consent after a debate, so I don't think slippery slope arguments are relevant (they never are where laws in democratic countries are concerned).
I agree - if in the future parliament consents to a relaxation of the current proposals, that wouldn't be a slippery slope as it would be what parliament intended at that point in the future.
See my gay rights analogy.
-
Liberalisation of the law in the future could only happen with parliament's consent after a debate, so I don't think slippery slope arguments are relevant (they never are where laws in democratic countries are concerned).
This seems to be missing the point, since I specifically said that it isn't a reason not to pass the bill. Rather I think that if people are lying about their intentions, it has an effect on how I perceive what is likely to happen afterwards.
-
But a slippery slop argument is about unintended consequences of a policy once enacted. There cannot be a slippery slope before the policy is enacted. And if parliament votes in favour of an a version of the bill which is different to the version first presented then this will be what they intended, not an unintended consequence, so no slippery slope.
You seem to be replying to an entirely different post since of the above is about changes to the bill at this stage.
-
You seem to be replying to an entirely different post since of the above is about changes to the bill at this stage.
But the notion of slippery slope is irrelevant at this stage as the bill hasn't been enacted so there is currently no intended consequences of the decision (as a decision has yet to be made) so there cannot be any unintended consequences of the decision, which is what slippery slope arguments are about.
-
But the notion of slippery slope is irrelevant at this stage as the bill hasn't been enacted so there is currently no intended consequences of the decision (as a decision has yet to be made) so there cannot be any unintended consequences of the decision, which is what slippery slope arguments are about.
Again this seems completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and is at best a straw man.
-
The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy.
I don't agree with your characterisation. It seems to me it's just caution. The phrase "slippery slope" implies an inevitable "slide" towards unregulated assisted dying. The reality is that, once this law has been passed (if it is passed), any future lifting of restrictions will be subject to similar levels of debate and scrutiny. For example, I believe that the six month life expectancy clause is unnecessary, in fact I would argue it is morally reprehensible. However, it is for people like me to advocate that and persuade parliament to change the law, which will be just as hard as this first phase. Nobody will be saying "well, we've come this far, we might as well just remove that restriction".
The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy because it implies an inevitable slide into some undesirable state. The reality is that persuasive arguments have to be made for further change to occur.
-
Again this seems completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and is at best a straw man.
Nope - you've completely lost me know.
You said:
'The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.'
I made the point that slippery slope arguments only have credence once a decision has been made - i.e. a law has been passed (this hasn't happened yet). You went on to confirm that your discussions about slippery slope were about the current passage of the bill (my emphasis):
'You seem to be replying to an entirely different post since of the above is about changes to the bill at this stage.'
So my comments are entirely relevant - specifically that there cannot be a slippery slope as the changes that may be made at this stage will be entirely intended by parliament as they will vote on those changes.
-
I don't agree with your characterisation. It seems to me it's just caution. The phrase "slippery slope" implies an inevitable "slide" towards unregulated assisted dying. The reality is that, once this law has been passed (if it is passed), any future lifting of restrictions will be subject to similar levels of debate and scrutiny. For example, I believe that the six month life expectancy clause is unnecessary, in fact I would argue it is morally reprehensible. However, it is for people like me to advocate that and persuade parliament to change the law, which will be just as hard as this first phase. Nobody will be saying "well, we've come this far, we might as well just remove that restriction".
The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy because it implies an inevitable slide into some undesirable state. The reality is that persuasive arguments have to be made for further change to occur.
Absolutely - and slippery slope arguments also require that the inevitable and undesirable consequences are unintended. That cannot be the case in legislative terms if any changes made in the future require the specific authorisation by parliament - in which case they are entirely intended at the point the changes are made.
See my earlier analogy of gay rights. Gay marriage wasn't due to a slippery slope from the 1967 homosexuality legislation - nope it was a specific and intended change to the law many years later.
-
How to tighten up the bill
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/assisted-dying-bill-to-include-getting-past-gps-receptionist-20250211254732
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/21/legalising-assisted-dying-england-and-wales-may-hamper-suicide-prevention-work-says-adviser
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/21/legalising-assisted-dying-england-and-wales-may-hamper-suicide-prevention-work-says-adviser
"My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step." But the whole point is that fpr people who could avail themselves of assisted suicide there is no "other side".
OTOH, the pro-bill Labour MPs pretending to be offended by the phrase "assisted suicide" are taking the piss.
-
"My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step." But the whole point is that fpr people who could avail themselves of assisted suicide there is no "other side".
OTOH, the pro-bill Labour MPs pretending to be offended by the phrase "assisted suicide" are taking the piss.
I would have thought that a more open recognition of how we see suicide in society could help with dealing with it. Suicide may not be painless, but enforcing suffering creates all sorts of problems for an honest discussion.
And I agree about the Labour MPs
-
And I agree about the Labour MPs
Actually, it doesn't say "Labour MPs", just "MPs": I don't know why I though he specified "Labour". I also wonder if such MPs actually exist: it could be yet another right-wing "woke madness" myth.
-
"My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step."
My concern is that people with such feeble intellects that they have no idea that we are talking about people where there is no other side get column inches in national newspapers and have prominent jobs in government.
Well, OK, it's not my only concern but yes, let's call it what it is: it is assisted suicide and it would be the state conceding that taking one's own life should be allowed in some circumstance. But I say so what? Can he articulate why it would be wrong to allow suicides in some circumstances? He wants us to adhere to a principle that condemns some people to indignity and pain without any chance of relief. If he wants to do that he needs to come up with a really good reason.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wxq28znpqo
'I could live 30 years - but want to die': Has assisted dying in Canada gone too far?