Assisted dying again

Costero Poderoso said:
Having witnessed 2 family members and a friend have prolonged deaths which included extended vegetative states one with significant pain, assisted dying is a humanistic response to ending suffering. It has to be dealt with carefully, and I'm not convinced that a single leading politician has the capability to really think through this issue. Obviously religious groups will want to get involved in the debate, which is entirely inappropriate as they can't contribute anything to the debate based on religious doctrine or thinking.
Click to expand...
Religions will have their belief and may want to advise their followers accordingly. That’s perfectly reasonable. Beyond that however they should have no official part to play in any decision making. After all no one will be forced to accept it. It’s not a law that we will be required to follow. It’s just about giving people a choice.
 
traffordtang said:
Religions will have their belief and may want to advise their followers accordingly. That’s perfectly reasonable. Beyond that however they should have no official part to play in any decision making. After all no one will be forced to accept it. It’s not a law that we will be required to follow. It’s just about giving people a choice.
Click to expand...
It would be enabling legislation. The law would have to be obeyed - that is the nature of the Law. However, if you mean that assisted dying would not be compulsory then, of course, you're right.
 
traffordtang said:
Religions will have their belief and may want to advise their followers accordingly. That’s perfectly reasonable. Beyond that however they should have no official part to play in any decision making. After all no one will be forced to accept it. It’s not a law that we will be required to follow. It’s just about giving people a choice.
Click to expand...
Is it advise or dictate to their followers?? bearing in mind that religions tend to deem activities outside their permitted activities are a sin, and that sin affects their mortal soul and their chance for salvation and a "good afterlife".
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Is it advise or dictate to their followers?? bearing in mind that religions tend to deem activities outside their permitted activities are a sin, and that sin affects their mortal soul and their chance for salvation and a "good afterlife".
Click to expand...
Your point is another important consideration in this morally inscrutable debate.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Is it advise or dictate to their followers?? bearing in mind that religions tend to deem activities outside their permitted activities are a sin, and that sin affects their mortal soul and their chance for salvation and a "good afterlife".
Click to expand...
I did toy with putting instruct instead of advise. Have to say most religious people I know would never make it through those pearly gates.
 
Its not very often I would say that Diane Abbott has something sensible to say, but the point about improving and providing assisted living is important. Kier Starmer at the same time is declaring war on benefit cheats, I get that they are trying to focus on "cheats", but the practicality is that it affects all people who are on benefits, taking help from people who genuinely need help, because the systems are deeply flawed.

It does seem that the legislation is being written rather badly with processes and systems that are again deeply flawed.
 
Been listening for an hour, it's really been superb with some excellent speeches from both sides.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I can see both sides, but I am against :

1) I think religious faith is a red herring here. It gets confused with morality, and they are two different things.

2) I worry that people will manipulate and exploit this for their own ends.

3) I think it could impose further burdens on a health care system that is already buckling under a combination of poor systems and unhelpful demography.
Click to expand...
Religious beliefs will dictate how many MP’s vote today. That is a certainty in our multi-faith society. It shouldn’t happen, because they are in Parliament to represent the wishes of the people, not the god they believe in.

Without doubt there will be a tiny minority who might try to coerce members of their family. Sadly, that is the world we live in and there are examples of people killing family members for financial gain. It is not a reason to say no, because at least here, we have safeguards.

As for the notion that this will be an added burden on NHS, there isn’t any doctor I’ve listened to that supports that notion. It would be one part of the end of life care approach, another tool in the box should it be requested.

When you’ve seen extreme suffering at the end of life, you cannot look at this in any other way.
 
I generally come down on these sorts of issues on bodily autonomy, and choice has to be with each individual, I don't think there could be much debate on that if you want to reduce human suffering. The debate really is in how the system is designed, built, managed, and run including how it is financed. The issues in the NHS for even basic treatments tend to indicate that government isn't capable of dealing with the issue that won't be a) selectively available, and b) open to abuse and c) open to vindictive re-legislation or manipulation by more cynical, and venal administrations

I can see that in the current society, the justice system, and the legislative system, and the nature of government, which gives bias towards systems and entities over people, including private entities and large private and privatised systems, there could be numerous problems, Mahmood the justice secretary brings up recent scandals in the Post Office, Hillsborough and in the transfusion service - all failures of systems in the pursuit of financial gain, or financial efficiency, almost all driven by government policy at one level or another.

Both the members of Cabinet who have publicly come out against are openly religious, and in my opinion are putting their religious beliefs above any proper ethical debate, Streeting's main objection seems to be cost to the NHS, he is literally putting finance above human suffering.
 
Last edited:
TimperleyTangerine said:
Religious beliefs will dictate how many MP’s vote today. That is a certainty in our multi-faith society. It shouldn’t happen, because they are in Parliament to represent the wishes of the people, not the god they believe in.

Without doubt there will be a tiny minority who might try to coerce members of their family. Sadly, that is the world we live in and there are examples of people killing family members for financial gain. It is not a reason to say no, because at least here, we have safeguards.

As for the notion that this will be an added burden on NHS, there isn’t any doctor I’ve listened to that supports that notion. It would be one part of the end of life care approach, another tool in the box should it be requested.

When you’ve seen extreme suffering at the end of life, you cannot look at this in any other way.
Click to expand...
MPs are not delegated by "the wishes of the people".
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I generally come down on these sorts of issues on bodily autonomy, and choice has to be with each individual, I don't think there could be much debate on that if you want to reduce human suffering. The debate really is in how the system is designed, built, managed, and run including how it is financed. The issues in the NHS for even basic treatments tend to indicate that government isn't capable of dealing with the issue that won't be a) selectively available, and b) open to abuse and c) open to vindictive re-legislation or manipulation by more cynical, and venal administrations

I can see that in the current society, the justice system, and the legislative system, and the nature of government, which gives bias towards systems and entities over people, including private entities and large private and privatised systems, there could be numerous problems, Mahmood the justice secretary brings up recent scandals in the Post Office, Hillsborough and in the transfusion service - all failures of systems in the pursuit of financial gain, or financial efficiency, almost all driven by government policy at one level or another.

Both the members of Cabinet who have publicly come out against are openly religious, and in my opinion are putting their religious beliefs above any proper ethical debate, Streeting's main objection seems to be cost to the NHS, he is literally putting finance above human suffering.
Click to expand...
"Streeting's main objection seems to be cost to the NHS, he is literally putting finance above human suffering."

I don't believe that to be the case.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
"Streeting's main objection seems to be cost to the NHS, he is literally putting finance above human suffering."

I don't believe that to be the case.
Click to expand...
he basically put two arguments one the cost (and the potential that assisted dying would move financial and other resources form other care provisions) and a slippery slope argument, but his main argument there is that individuals will potentially be coerced into assisted dying to relieve financial burden on the NHS or otherwise.
 
Lala said:
Really happy with this. Humans deserve dignity in death as in life.
Click to expand...
its the right thing, they just need to legislate correctly, without all the loopholes that seem to be there at the moment. Beyond that how it is then designed and implemented is just as problematic the way it has been presented so far, some of the systems suggested just wouldn't function in an NHS system that is overloaded, In the same way good palliative care is unequally distributed and often is some way below adequate.
 
Really pleased its gone through today.

Obviously a lot of T & C’s to go through before the law is changed but I’m feeling really happy it’s got passed the first hurdle. 👏
 
I’m in favour. The bill seems to have far stronger safeguards, than any other country where this is legal, have in place.

I want to be able to choose. My wife wants to be able to choose. I don’t want her with a criminal record because of me and likewise.
 
Lala said:
amp.theguardian.com

UK justice secretary attacks assisted dying bill as ‘state death service’

Shabana Mahmood has written to her constituents saying she is ‘profoundly concerned’ about Friday’s Commons vote
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

So the bill will soon be voted on, this Friday to be precise.

Now I know there are some contentious issues that need a lot of work, but the basics of what are being described in the bill seem to start covering off the unknowns.
Now in the article above the justice secretary is vehemently against the bill. She claims to have a few reasons, but religion is one of them.
I’m a little put out at that being a consideration because surely those of us without faith shouldn’t have their options restricted by those who do ?
It’s quite clear her constituents are of diverse religious backgrounds, and she herself is muslim, which obviously informs some of her decision. making

Should religion be allowed to block the bill ?
Click to expand...
I know it’s an important debate that raises all sorts of issues.

But ultimately if I decide to end my own life because living is intolerable, then that’s what I’m going to do.

And I don’t really care if that upsets anyone on avftt.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
he basically put two arguments one the cost (and the potential that assisted dying would move financial and other resources form other care provisions) and a slippery slope argument, but his main argument there is that individuals will potentially be coerced into assisted dying to relieve financial burden on the NHS or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware of what he said. However, his main thrust - and a good one - is that palliative care is not good enough atm, to deal with the dying in a way that might be good enoughto allow them a civilised death. In that sense he is not trying to avoid costs, rather restructure the health service in order to accommodate the costs of a nationwide, quality palliative care service.
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
I know it’s an important debate that raises all sorts of issues.

But ultimately if I decide to end my own life because living is intolerable, then that’s what I’m going to do.

And I don’t really care if that upsets anyone on avftt.
Click to expand...
Mex, climb down off your soap box. If you can afford to do Dignitas, good luck to you. If you're sufficiently aware what you want, good luck to you. If you are neither of these things then it's better if the law is on your side.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Mex, climb down off your soap box. If you can afford to do Dignitas, good luck to you. If you're sufficiently aware what you want, good luck to you. If you are neither of these things then it's better if the law is on your side.
Click to expand...
I haven’t taken a side.

Rich or poor, we can always decide when to end our own lives.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Yes I am aware of what he said. However, his main thrust - and a good one - is that palliative care is not good enough atm, to deal with the dying in a way that might be good enoughto allow them a civilised death. In that sense he is not trying to avoid costs, rather restructure the health service in order to accommodate the costs of a nationwide, quality palliative care service.
Click to expand...
If that's what he means then I would agree, but I've not really seen anything where that is his core message to me, most of his public messaging on the NHS is geared to cost. He is s openly and apparently religious, so I will take whatever arguments he makes on this issue with skepticism, as I tend to think that his principle argument will be religious dictat, and he is finding arguments that will align with his faith. That is a prejudice of mine that I am well aware of,
 
Costero Poderoso said:
If that's what he means then I would agree, but I've not really seen anything where that is his core message to me, most of his public messaging on the NHS is geared to cost. He is s openly and apparently religious, so I will take whatever arguments he makes on this issue with skepticism, as I tend to think that his principle argument will be religious dictat, and he is finding arguments that will align with his faith. That is a prejudice of mine that I am well aware of,
Click to expand...
Not patronising here..you're a thoughtful poster whose views I respect. However, I think Streeting's views on cost are driven by Labour's long term wish to restructure the NHS and community care. Within the confines of the free vote on the assisted dying debate I'm not seeing this in him. If I find out I'm wrong I will be both apologetic and displeased.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I know it’s an important debate that raises all sorts of issues.

But ultimately if I decide to end my own life because living is intolerable, then that’s what I’m going to do.

And I don’t really care if that upsets anyone on avftt.
Click to expand...
I think that’s fair enough 👍
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Not patronising here..you're a thoughtful poster whose views I respect. However, I think Streeting's views on cost are driven by Labour's long term wish to restructure the NHS and community care. Within the confines of the free vote on the assisted dying debate I'm not seeing this in him. If I find out I'm wrong I will be both apologetic and displeased.
Click to expand...
Maybe, I'm wrong about a lot of things. I sometimes have to curtail my skepticism before it becomes cynicism.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Yes I am aware of what he said. However, his main thrust - and a good one - is that palliative care is not good enough atm, to deal with the dying in a way that might be good enoughto allow them a civilised death. In that sense he is not trying to avoid costs, rather restructure the health service in order to accommodate the costs of a nationwide, quality palliative care service.
Click to expand...
Palliative care could be the best in the world, but it cannot help in a lot of cases. There is pain from some things that even the best drugs cannot alleviate. An approach where palliative care is given until it no longer helps, then the individual has a choice. It is right and humane.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I know it’s an important debate that raises all sorts of issues.

But ultimately if I decide to end my own life because living is intolerable, then that’s what I’m going to do.

And I don’t really care if that upsets anyone on avftt.
Click to expand...
Mexboroseasider said:
I know it’s an important debate that raises all sorts of issues.

But ultimately if I decide to end my own life because living is intolerable, then that’s what I’m going to do.

And I don’t really care if that upsets anyone on avftt.
Click to expand...
And why if you want to end your life but are not physically able to do that. Would you be happy for someone to assist you who may then end up in prison for doing so?
 
A huge part of this bill seems to hinge on a timescale of having 6 months to live.

During that period, a terminally ill loved one has to have been seen, and reported on by 2 independent GP's, and have each individual case, along with the GP's reports, read, fully understood and even possibly discussed with the person involved, and reported on by a high court judge.

Do we really expect to be able to fulfill such time restrictive criteria in 6 months?

If, (and it's a big IF.....) this ever makes it's way onto the statute books, (as it appears a lot of MP's who voted 'yes', only did so to be able to scrutinise the bill in more detail), then I can't see how it will be a workable option.
I do think that it'll eventually be a case of 'yes' it's now law, but when you throw the inevitable appeals from the 'anti' protest groups into the mix of stringent 'failsafe' requirements, then how many terminally ill people will it actually benefit.
 
I'm sure I'm not alone in having seen people suffering , unnecessarily in their final throws, Care Homes, Hospitals and particularly Hospices all do a fantastic job trying to make the final months of someone terminally ill as comfortable as is humanly possible.

My step father died of terminal cancer and suffered for about three weeks before his death, but the one that sticks in my mind was a lovely old lady at the care home I worked in who had a terminal disease, was visited daily by the Doctor who had given her all he could to keep her from suffering. Around a week before she passed away, she was crying out asking the doctor to put her out of her misery, which obviously he was unable to do, he had tears in his eyes.

She could not be comforted and even in the times she awoke from the potions she was given she cried out, upsetting not only the other residents, but also the staff. It was a blessed relief for all but mainly herself when she finally passed away. It is the main reason I am, for the right to die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top