Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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’.

[Steve H]

As assisted dying is currently illegal and think the correct word isn’t ‘coerced’ but ‘forced’.

I think you'll find they're synonyms.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

And MPs vote in favour 330 - 275

[Steve H]

And MPs vote in favour 330 - 275

Good show - not a landslide, but a comfortable majority.

[Roses]

It will take quite a while for assisted dying to become law if indeed it does.

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Outrider]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pro assisted dying MP's spot snag.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmgvdkwkeo.amp