Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The legal profession needn't be involved at all. Two doctors should be enough.

Haven't you heard of unlawful killing?

[Steve H]

Haven't you heard of unlawful killing?

You don't trust two doctors, but you do trust one judge? 

[ProfessorDavey]

The Bill will pass or fail on the question of scrutiny.

No it will pass or fail on the basis of the wording that is passed back to parliament for final approval (or otherwise). That wording may have changed as part of the committee process and amendments, or it may not have changed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Haven't you heard of unlawful killing?

Which it wouldn't be if the law allows this. And remember that it isn't the doctor who administers the lethal dose - the patient themselves is required to do this.

[Nearly Sane]

Getting a retired judge in cunjors up thoughts of films where they get befuddled, drunk and past it doctors to sign death certificates.

You don't trick people into thinking something one thing and then reverse it just to get it past them and to claim you are being being adult and honest.

No one has been tricked. This is the process. It was made perfectly clear in the debate. If you weren't listening, go back and do so, and retract the comment. Of you were then you are lying, and should retract the comment.

As so often even if I might agree with some people on something, it is so often the arguments that they put forward, particularly when done in such a manner as you have here, that I find most persuasive for the other side.

[Nearly Sane]

There can't be a slippery slope before the bill has even become law! All bills get scrutinised and revised before becoming law. "Slippery slope" is just a meaningless parrot-cry of those who haven't got any real arguments.

The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.

[Steve H]

The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.

Liberalisation of the law in the future could only happen with parliament's consent after a debate, so I don't think slippery slope arguments are relevant (they never are where laws in democratic countries are concerned).

[ProfessorDavey]

The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.

But a slippery slop argument is about unintended consequences of a policy once enacted. There cannot be a slippery slope before the policy is enacted. And if parliament votes in favour of an a version of the bill which is different to the version first presented then this will be what they intended, not an unintended consequence, so no slippery slope.

[ProfessorDavey]

Liberalisation of the law in the future could only happen with parliament's consent after a debate, so I don't think slippery slope arguments are relevant (they never are where laws in democratic countries are concerned).

I agree - if in the future parliament consents to a relaxation of the current proposals, that wouldn't be a slippery slope as it would be what parliament intended at that point in the future.

See my gay rights analogy.

[Nearly Sane]

Liberalisation of the law in the future could only happen with parliament's consent after a debate, so I don't think slippery slope arguments are relevant (they never are where laws in democratic countries are concerned).

This seems to be missing the point, since I specifically said that it isn't a reason not to pass the bill. Rather I think that if people are lying about their intentions, it has an effect on how I perceive what is likely to happen afterwards.

[Nearly Sane]

But a slippery slop argument is about unintended consequences of a policy once enacted. There cannot be a slippery slope before the policy is enacted. And if parliament votes in favour of an a version of the bill which is different to the version first presented then this will be what they intended, not an unintended consequence, so no slippery slope.

You seem to be replying to an entirely different post since of the above is about changes to the bill at this stage.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be replying to an entirely different post since of the above is about changes to the bill at this stage.

But the notion of slippery slope is irrelevant at this stage as the bill hasn't been enacted so there is currently no intended consequences of the decision (as a decision has yet to be made) so there cannot be any unintended consequences of the decision, which is what slippery slope arguments are about.

[Nearly Sane]

But the notion of slippery slope is irrelevant at this stage as the bill hasn't been enacted so there is currently no intended consequences of the decision (as a decision has yet to be made) so there cannot be any unintended consequences of the decision, which is what slippery slope arguments are about.

Again this seems completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and is at best a straw man.

[jeremyp]

The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy.

I don't agree with your characterisation. It seems to me it's just caution. The phrase "slippery slope" implies an inevitable "slide" towards unregulated assisted dying. The reality is that, once this law has been passed (if it is passed), any future lifting of restrictions will be subject to similar levels of debate and scrutiny. For example, I believe that the six month life expectancy clause is unnecessary, in fact I would argue it is morally reprehensible. However, it is for people like me to advocate that and persuade parliament to change the law, which will be just as hard as this first phase. Nobody will be saying "well, we've come this far, we might as well just remove that restriction".

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy because it implies an inevitable slide into some undesirable state. The reality is that persuasive arguments have to be made for further change to occur.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again this seems completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and is at best a straw man.

Nope - you've completely lost me know.

You said:

'The bill has been presented by those putting it forward as being what is required. If they are thinking getting it passed, and then let's change it bit by bit then there is an intentional use of a slippery slope policy. U should note that zi don't think the idea that the law might change is nma reason not to pass it but rather that it's worth looking at the intentions of those proposing it as to whether they are being honest. Now I think you are, but not everyone proposing the bill is being honest about that.'

I made the point that slippery slope arguments only have credence once a decision has been made - i.e. a law has been passed (this hasn't happened yet). You went on to confirm that your discussions about slippery slope were about the current passage of the bill (my emphasis):

'You seem to be replying to an entirely different post since of the above is about changes to the bill at this stage.'

So my comments are entirely relevant - specifically that there cannot be a slippery slope as the changes that may be made at this stage will be entirely intended by parliament as they will vote on those changes.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree with your characterisation. It seems to me it's just caution. The phrase "slippery slope" implies an inevitable "slide" towards unregulated assisted dying. The reality is that, once this law has been passed (if it is passed), any future lifting of restrictions will be subject to similar levels of debate and scrutiny. For example, I believe that the six month life expectancy clause is unnecessary, in fact I would argue it is morally reprehensible. However, it is for people like me to advocate that and persuade parliament to change the law, which will be just as hard as this first phase. Nobody will be saying "well, we've come this far, we might as well just remove that restriction".

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy because it implies an inevitable slide into some undesirable state. The reality is that persuasive arguments have to be made for further change to occur.

Absolutely - and slippery slope arguments also require that the inevitable and undesirable consequences are unintended. That cannot be the case in legislative terms if any changes made in the future require the specific authorisation by parliament - in which case they are entirely intended at the point the changes are made.

See my earlier analogy of gay rights. Gay marriage wasn't due to a slippery slope from the 1967 homosexuality legislation - nope it was a specific and intended change to the law many years later.

[Nearly Sane]

How to tighten up the bill


https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/assisted-dying-bill-to-include-getting-past-gps-receptionist-20250211254732

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/21/legalising-assisted-dying-england-and-wales-may-hamper-suicide-prevention-work-says-adviser

[Steve H]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/21/legalising-assisted-dying-england-and-wales-may-hamper-suicide-prevention-work-says-adviser

"My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step." But the whole point is that fpr people who could   avail themselves of assisted suicide there is no "other side".
OTOH, the pro-bill Labour MPs pretending to be offended by the phrase "assisted suicide" are taking the piss.

[Nearly Sane]

"My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step." But the whole point is that fpr people who could   avail themselves of assisted suicide there is no "other side".
OTOH, the pro-bill Labour MPs pretending to be offended by the phrase "assisted suicide" are taking the piss.

I would have thought that a more open recognition of how we see suicide in society could help with dealing with it. Suicide may not be painless, but enforcing suffering creates all sorts of problems for an honest discussion.

And I agree about the Labour MPs

[Steve H]

And I agree about the Labour MPs

Actually, it doesn't say "Labour MPs", just "MPs": I don't know why I though he specified "Labour". I also wonder if such MPs actually exist: it could be yet another right-wing "woke madness" myth.

[jeremyp]

"My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step."

My concern is that people with such feeble intellects that they have no idea that we are talking about people where there is no other side get column inches in national newspapers and have prominent jobs in government.

Well, OK, it's not my only concern but yes, let's call it what it is: it is assisted suicide and it would be the state conceding that taking one's own life should be allowed in some circumstance. But I say so what? Can he articulate why it would be wrong to allow suicides in some circumstances? He wants us to adhere to a principle that condemns some people to indignity and pain without any chance of relief. If he wants to do that he needs to come up with a really good reason.