Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Alan Burns]

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

[SteveH]

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.

[SteveH]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Enki]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

   

[Roses]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Alan Burns]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.