Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

My MP voting against bill, letter attached outlining reasoning.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon Brown on assisted dying

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/22/assisted-dying-palliative-care-end-of-life

[Steve H]

Economic aspects should be left entirely out of consideration.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently an advert on the London underground. Hmm...