Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[SteveH]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Gordon]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Alan Burns]

You seem incapable of empathy

In this instance my empathy lies with concern for the health of our human souls.

[Outrider]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[jeremyp]

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). 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.

[Nearly Sane]

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). 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.

[SteveH]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd've thought the inadequacy of palliative care a reason to vote for it.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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'

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Evasion noted.

You appear to have your own personal meaning of evasion.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.