Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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/

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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..

[Outrider]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Gordon]

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'. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?