Assisted Dying Proposal

[Lighthouse]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

We haven't even had the budget yet. Are they going to whack up capital gains? Will we see interest rates climb so mortgage rates bounce up again? Interesting to see the guardian of all things suggesting that the private school vat policy is more complex than they thought (won't really raise much at all it's just a policy of spite.) we've had the same thing about the non dom policy which is now projected to lose money. Will they plough ahead with them anyway? Then we've got the possibility of legalised killing to look forward to. If granny doesn't freeze to death you can bump her off another way. The fact it's all being done with halfwits like Lammy and Raynor in power is just salt in the wound. Like you say a grand old start. 

If you’re talking about the prospect of assisted suicide, I think that policy is long overdue and was dismayed it got voted against so strongly last time. I cannot think of a single reason why somebody would want to deny a terminally ill person that right.

[Tamesaint]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

If you’re talking about the prospect of assisted suicide, I think that policy is long overdue and was dismayed it got voted against so strongly last time. I cannot think of a single reason why somebody would want to deny a terminally ill person that right.

Have a look at the documentary done by the actress Liz Carr "Better off dead". Its on BBC iplayer. It certainly makes you think. 

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Have a look at the documentary done by the actress Liz Carr "Better off dead". Its on BBC iplayer. It certainly makes you think. 

I’ve not seen that documentary but I did see an interview with her on iPlayer in which she came across as ignorant and self absorbed to the point of being insulting to people this bill affects. Basically when asked about it she told an anecdote about getting on the bus one day and how people tutted and rolled their eyes when she needed the ramp for her wheelchair, saying we needed to be more inclusive and respectful to people with disabilities. This issue is nothing to do with disability access or delaying a bus timetable, it’s about terminally ill people in so much pain that the most humane thing to do is end it peacefully and with dignity. Carr is in her fifties and has been living with disabilities since childhood, so it’s clearly nothing to do with her.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I’ve not seen that documentary but I did see an interview with her on iPlayer in which she came across as ignorant and self absorbed to the point of being insulting to people this bill affects. Basically when asked about it she told an anecdote about getting on the bus one day and how people tutted and rolled their eyes when she needed the ramp for her wheelchair, saying we needed to be more inclusive and respectful to people with disabilities. This issue is nothing to do with disability access or delaying a bus timetable, it’s about terminally ill people in so much pain that the most humane thing to do is end it peacefully and with dignity. Carr is in her fifties and has been living with disabilities since childhood, so it’s clearly nothing to do with her.

I'd watch the documentary if I were you rather than arrpgantly dismissing what she has to say. It's also a view passionately espoused by Tanni grey-thompson. Also have a look at Canada with the horror of some of the assisted dying over there (or someone who asked a local council over there to fit a ramp for her and she was given the option to kill herself instead.) or the fact there's not a single place where this has been legalised and then the original terms of what has been agreed hasn't then been widened to encompass more people. 

Also Google shante de corte. I can give you myriad other examples from all over the world if you like. 

Edited October 6 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd watch the documentary if I were you rather than arrpgantly dismissing what she has to say. It's also a view passionately espoused by Tanni grey-thompson. Also have a look at Canada with the horror of some of the assisted dying over there (or someone who asked a local council over there to fit a ramp for her and she was given the option to kill herself instead.) or the fact there's not a single place where this has been legalised and then the original terms of what has been agreed hasn't then been widened to encompass more people. 

I did listen to what she had to say and it was horse sh*t, nothing at all to do with the issue at hand, which as far as I can see isn’t one that affects her at all. Likewise Dame TGT, she was a Paralympic champion for crying out loud. How is she in any way an authority on being days/weeks away from death and in unbearable pain? More to the point, since neither of them are on Saintsweb, why do YOU think terminally ill people should be denied the option if it’s of their choosing?

The fact that someone in Canada was offered the chance to kill themselves as an alternative to having a wheelchair ramp installed is at best a gross admin error, which would obviously never be followed through, or at worst a sinister manipulation of the facts by people with their own agenda. Either way, we’re not about to start euthanising people who broke their leg skiing.

As for the last bit about the terms being widened to encompass more people; what’s wrong with that? They start off being ultra cautious in introducing the law, then gradually expand it to allow the option to more people after a proven trial period.

[whelk]

It will be free vote so not something to lay at the door of the government pushing an agenda

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

It will be free vote so not something to lay at the door of the government pushing an agenda

The existence of the vote and the makeup of the commons means it will almost certainly be labour MPs that get this passed. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

The existence of the vote and the makeup of the commons means it will almost certainly be labour MPs that get this passed. 

Isn’t that how democracies work?

[Tamesaint]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I did listen to what she had to say and it was horse sh*t, nothing at all to do wthe issue at hand, which as far as I can see isn’t one that affects her at all. Likewise Dame TGT, she was a Paralympic champion for crying out loud. How is she in any way an authority on being days/weeks away from death and in unbearable pain? More to the point, since neither of them are on Saintsweb, why do YOU think terminally ill people should be denied the option if it’s of their choosing?

The fact that someone in Canada was offered the chance to kill themselves as an alternative to having a wheelchair ramp installed is at best a gross admin error, which would obviously never be followed through, or at worst a sinister manipulation of the facts by people with their own agenda. Either way, we’re not about to start euthanising people who broke their leg skiing.

As for the last bit about the terms being widened to encompass more people; what’s wrong with that? They start off being ultra cautious in introducing the law, then gradually expand it to allow the option to more people after a proven trial period.

You say that you did not watch the documentary but you know that it is horse shit. Hmmm. 

The subject is more complicated than you are making out. Watch that documentary and you will appreciate that point. 

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I did listen to what she had to say and it was horse sh*t, nothing at all to do with the issue at hand, which as far as I can see isn’t one that affects her at all. Likewise Dame TGT, she was a Paralympic champion for crying out loud. How is she in any way an authority on being days/weeks away from death and in unbearable pain? More to the point, since neither of them are on Saintsweb, why do YOU think terminally ill people should be denied the option if it’s of their choosing?

The fact that someone in Canada was offered the chance to kill themselves as an alternative to having a wheelchair ramp installed is at best a gross admin error, which would obviously never be followed through, or at worst a sinister manipulation of the facts by people with their own agenda. Either way, we’re not about to start euthanising people who broke their leg skiing.

As for the last bit about the terms being widened to encompass more people; what’s wrong with that? They start off being ultra cautious in introducing the law, then gradually expand it to allow the option to more people after a proven trial period.

You're an intelligent chap, you can't seriously ask what is wrong with the terms being widened and not be aware of the implications of that. Canada agreed to have an assisted dying bill and then two years later expanded it to people with non terminal illnesses and it has now expanded so that you can be assisted with you death for mental illness. This includes someone with anorexia, a Canadian army veteran with ptsd was offered the option of killing himself unprompted and shante de corte from a different country was a young woman who legally killed herself because she was traumatised by a terror attack. Like I said plenty of other cases so not just an admin error like you try to claim. 

Once it expands it becomes an option for older relatives who don't want to be a burden on their children, or some children will no doubt put subtle pressure on mum and dad so they can get their inheritance faster. Some will view the option of killing someone as a heck of a lot easier than treating someone with complex problems. And of course disabled people have a right to be concerned about this law given that they will be the ones viewed by some as burdens on society, who are a net drain and so there will be pressure or at best a perceived pressure to do everyone a favour. That's before you even get into the details of the law such as the idea that you will be able to kill yourself if a doctor says you have six months to live (because that's never been wildly incorrect before.) So no it's not just about killing someone with a few days left to live because it actually affects a heck of a lot more people than that and they need to be heard. 

Edited October 6 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Isn’t that how democracies work?

Yes but it obviously is something to lay at the government's door given that the vote and possible passing of the bill wouldn't be happening without them being in power. 

[Lighthouse]

10 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

You say that you did not watch the documentary but you know that it is horse shit. Hmmm. 

The subject is more complicated than you are making out. Watch that documentary and you will appreciate that point. 

I said I watched the shorter interview she did and it was horse sh*t, not the documentary. I may give it a go later this week if I’ve time but she’ll have to do a lot better than she did in the interview. If she starts talking about bus drivers getting in a huff about running late, or teenagers making fun of her wheelchair, I’m switching off.

Out of interest, what’s the best point you think she made against an assisted dying law?

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The existence of the vote and the makeup of the commons means it will almost certainly be labour MPs that get this passed. 

Hopefully. It is a complex issue but on balance I think it is right that people have the choice in certain situations. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Hopefully. It is a complex issue but on balance I think it is right that people have the choice in certain situations. 

I've outlined in detail my concerns above. Obviously I strongly disagree with the proposed law even though I also acknowledge that there are some people who suffer with terminal illness. Like you say it's a complex issue and I can see valid arguments on both sides. 

Edited October 6 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You're an intelligent chap, you can't seriously ask what is wrong with the terms being widened and not be aware of the implications of that. Canada agreed to have an assisted dying bill and then two years later expanded it to people with non terminal illnesses and it has now expanded so that you can be assisted with you death for mental illness. This includes someone with anorexia, a Canadian army veteran with ptsd was offered the option of killing himself unprompted and shante de corte from a different country was a young woman who legally killed herself because she was traumatised by a terror attack. Like I said plenty of other cases so not just an admin error like you try to claim. 

Once it expands it becomes an option for older relatives who don't want to be a burden on their children, or some children will no doubt put subtle pressure on mum and dad so they can get their inheritance faster. Some will view the option of killing someone as a heck of a lot easier than treating someone with complex problems. And of course disabled people have a right to be concerned about this law given that they will be the ones viewed by some as burdens on society, who are a net drain and so there will be pressure or at best a perceived pressure to do everyone a favour. That's before you even get into the details of the law such as the idea that you will be able to kill yourself if a doctor says you have six months to live (because that's never been wildly incorrect before.) So no it's not just about killing someone with a few days left to live because it actually affects a heck of a lot more people than that and they need to be heard. 

Clearly there would need to be very strict regulation on what constitutes terminal illness and everyone offered the option of assisted dying would have to have at least a second, possibly third opinion from a qualified doctor.

If Canada is offering AD for conditions like anorexia and PTSD, that’s clearly a step too far and not something we should be copying in the UK, but we’re miles away from anything like that. The whole idea that disabled or elderly people will be pressured into suicide by fed up bus passengers and greedy next of kin wanting inheritance is just hysterical fear mongering. I don’t know a single person who wasn’t devastated when their elderly parents passed away, having your healthy mother bumped off because you want a first class trip to the Maldives is the act of a psychotic serial killer. They do exist but that very, very small number of cases is why you have safeguards and independent medical diagnosis.

We’re not even talking about people with six months to live either. We are literally talking about people at deaths door and/or in chronic, unbearable pain. Nobody diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live wants to be euthanised immediately, it just doesn’t happen. Most people want as long as they can to do what they can with the time available. If it transpires that there was a misdiagnosis and the patient actually has a benign cyst or whatever, then hurrah, he gets to live. Assisted dying doesn’t even enter the equation until he’s lying in a hospital/hospice with a few days, possibly a week left, being pumped full of morphine on a ventilator.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

33 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

As for the last bit about the terms being widened to encompass more people; what’s wrong with that? They start off being ultra cautious in introducing the law, then gradually expand it to allow the option to more people after a proven trial period.

That's the scariest thing I've read here in a while.

I'm not as up on it as hypo, but it's widened even further since I last read about it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/

Considering all the health and social errors and scandals, would you really trust them with a widened assisted dying programme?

"Posing as a woman named Joann, she told the doctor that she wanted to die by Christmas. Reciting basic MAID criteria, the doctor told her that she needed to be over 18, have an insurance card, and be experiencing “suffering that cannot be remediated or treated in some way that’s acceptable to you.”

I'll miss you when they widen it to Mods going through a rough patch.

[Tamesaint]

7 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I said I watched the shorter interview she did and it was horse sh*t, not the documentary. I may give it a go later this week if I’ve time but she’ll have to do a lot better than she did in the interview. If she starts talking about bus drivers getting in a huff about running late, or teenagers making fun of her wheelchair, I’m switching off.

Out of interest, what’s the best point you think she made against an assisted dying law?

Hypo covers many of her points in his excellent post above. I come from it from the angle of protecting the rights of disabled people. This is one of the main features of the programme - summed up in its title. 

My first wife became severely disabled and lived for many years with MS before she died. She used to worry that a euthanasia bill could lead to disabled people becoming regarded as second class citizens. Liz Carr illustrates this fear very well. 

I fully appreciate that there are sensible arguments why assisted suicide should be allowed. It  is a highly complex subject. I am just surprised that you, who normally acts as the voice of reason on this forum, cannot see the problems with assisted suicide. 

 

[Tamesaint]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Clearly there would need to be very strict regulation on what constitutes terminal illness and everyone offered the option of assisted dying would have to have at least a second, possibly third opinion from a qualified doctor.

If Canada is offering AD for conditions like anorexia and PTSD, that’s clearly a step too far and not something we should be copying in the UK, but we’re miles away from anything like that. The whole idea that disabled or elderly people will be pressured into suicide by fed up bus passengers and greedy next of kin wanting inheritance is just hysterical fear mongering. I don’t know a single person who wasn’t devastated when their elderly parents passed away, having your healthy mother bumped off because you want a first class trip to the Maldives is the act of a psychotic serial killer. They do exist but that very, very small number of cases is why you have safeguards and independent medical diagnosis.

We’re not even talking about people with six months to live either. We are literally talking about people at deaths door and/or in chronic, unbearable pain. Nobody diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live wants to be euthanised immediately, it just doesn’t happen. Most people want as long as they can to do what they can with the time available. If it transpires that there was a misdiagnosis and the patient actually has a benign cyst or whatever, then hurrah, he gets to live. Assisted dying doesn’t even enter the equation until he’s lying in a hospital/hospice with a few days, possibly a week left, being pumped full of morphine on a ventilator.

 

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Clearly there would need to be very strict regulation on what constitutes terminal illness and everyone offered the option of assisted dying would have to have at least a second, possibly third opinion from a qualified doctor.

If Canada is offering AD for conditions like anorexia and PTSD, that’s clearly a step too far and not something we should be copying in the UK, but we’re miles away from anything like that. The whole idea that disabled or elderly people will be pressured into suicide by fed up bus passengers and greedy next of kin wanting inheritance is just hysterical fear mongering. I don’t know a single person who wasn’t devastated when their elderly parents passed away, having your healthy mother bumped off because you want a first class trip to the Maldives is the act of a psychotic serial killer. They do exist but that very, very small number of cases is why you have safeguards and independent medical diagnosis.

We’re not even talking about people with six months to live either. We are literally talking about people at deaths door and/or in chronic, unbearable pain. Nobody diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live wants to be euthanised immediately, it just doesn’t happen. Most people want as long as they can to do what they can with the time available. If it transpires that there was a misdiagnosis and the patient actually has a benign cyst or whatever, then hurrah, he gets to live. Assisted dying doesn’t even enter the equation until he’s lying in a hospital/hospice with a few days, possibly a week left, being pumped full of morphine on a ventilator.

"Hysterical scare mongering. " 

Please watch that programme and appreciate that it is not hysterical scare mongering for many people. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Tamesaint said:

Hypo covers many of her points in his excellent post above. I come from it from the angle of protecting the rights of disabled people. This is one of the main features of the programme - summed up in its title. 

My first wife became severely disabled and lived for many years with MS before she died. She used to worry that a euthanasia bill could lead to disabled people becoming regarded as second class citizens. Liz Carr illustrates this fear very well. 

I fully appreciate that there are sensible arguments why assisted suicide should be allowed. It  is a highly complex subject. I am just surprised that you, who normally acts as the voice of reason on this forum, cannot see the problems with assisted suicide. 

 

Both my aunt and my mother had and have MS and I have relatives in Canada so I can absolutely identify with what you post. Even if we just ignore all the other arguments made above, a society that moves from a state of care towards one that normalises death as a solution to suffering will absolutely have broader societal effects. It will have an inevitable change on how certain illnesses and people are viewed and how they view themselves as you've outlined. For some there will be an encouragement of death as a solution and Canada is not the only country to introduce this with the best of intentions only to see it expanded in very short order with the view of life in society permenently altered. 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

That's the scariest thing I've read here in a while.

I'm not as up on it as hypo, but it's widened even further since I last read about it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/

Considering all the health and social errors and scandals, would you really trust them with a widened assisted dying programme?

"Posing as a woman named Joann, she told the doctor that she wanted to die by Christmas. Reciting basic MAID criteria, the doctor told her that she needed to be over 18, have an insurance card, and be experiencing “suffering that cannot be remediated or treated in some way that’s acceptable to you.”

I'll miss you when they widen it to Mods going through a rough patch.

I’m not advocating for it to be expanded to include literally anyone. You can take Hypo’s argument as far as you want. If people on wheelchairs can be euthanised for annoying bus drivers, what about people on benefits, or illegal immigrants, people who sit in the middle lane doing 58mph or people who say,  “can I get a…” in coffee shops. The fact that Canada has overstepped the mark doesn’t mean we have to.

I’m talking about starting with the most obviously chronic and painful conditions first, then expanding it to reasonable parameters after a robust trial period. It’s like anything in life, if Airbus designs a new plane, they don’t cram it full of passengers and send it no stop to Sydney or its first flight.

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Clearly there would need to be very strict regulation on what constitutes terminal illness and everyone offered the option of assisted dying would have to have at least a second, possibly third opinion from a qualified doctor.

If Canada is offering AD for conditions like anorexia and PTSD, that’s clearly a step too far and not something we should be copying in the UK, but we’re miles away from anything like that. The whole idea that disabled or elderly people will be pressured into suicide by fed up bus passengers and greedy next of kin wanting inheritance is just hysterical fear mongering. I don’t know a single person who wasn’t devastated when their elderly parents passed away, having your healthy mother bumped off because you want a first class trip to the Maldives is the act of a psychotic serial killer. They do exist but that very, very small number of cases is why you have safeguards and independent medical diagnosis.

We’re not even talking about people with six months to live either. We are literally talking about people at deaths door and/or in chronic, unbearable pain. Nobody diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live wants to be euthanised immediately, it just doesn’t happen. Most people want as long as they can to do what they can with the time available. If it transpires that there was a misdiagnosis and the patient actually has a benign cyst or whatever, then hurrah, he gets to live. Assisted dying doesn’t even enter the equation until he’s lying in a hospital/hospice with a few days, possibly a week left, being pumped full of morphine on a ventilator.

We aren't miles away from a Canada type situation. It took just two years from Canada legalosing assisted dying for terminal illnesses to the situation they are in today and no we aren't literally talking about people on deaths door. Look at the bill being proposed and then also consider the implications once it inevitably expands. 

It's nonsensical for you to pretend that there would not be situations where people would feel pressure either overtly or subtley to end their lives prematurely. It happens whenever these bills are introduced. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m not advocating for it to be expanded to include literally anyone. You can take Hypo’s argument as far as you want. If people on wheelchairs can be euthanised for annoying bus drivers, what about people on benefits, or illegal immigrants, people who sit in the middle lane doing 58mph or people who say,  “can I get a…” in coffee shops. The fact that Canada has overstepped the mark doesn’t mean we have to.

I’m talking about starting with the most obviously chronic and painful conditions first, then expanding it to reasonable parameters after a robust trial period. It’s like anything in life, if Airbus designs a new plane, they don’t cram it full of passengers and send it no stop to Sydney or its first flight.

Not sure why you're using ridiculous examples. The proposed assisted dying bill isn't talking about starting with the most obviously chronic and painful conditions. That's not what is being proposed. 

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Hypo covers many of her points in his excellent post above. I come from it from the angle of protecting the rights of disabled people. This is one of the main features of the programme - summed up in its title. 

My first wife became severely disabled and lived for many years with MS before she died. She used to worry that a euthanasia bill could lead to disabled people becoming regarded as second class citizens. Liz Carr illustrates this fear very well. 

I fully appreciate that there are sensible arguments why assisted suicide should be allowed. It  is a highly complex subject. I am just surprised that you, who normally acts as the voice of reason on this forum, cannot see the problems with assisted suicide. 

The problems with assisted dying are why we have doctors, the doctors have supervisors and they have second opinions. You have to go through a whole process just to get an organ transplant, hospitals have whole committees to make sure various standards and criteria are met when dealing with such matters. Matters such as  AD will clearly have similar, even more stringent safety measures.

The case for assisted dying will have to be put forward individually. If a relatively healthy senior citizen asks to be euthanised because their psychotic son wants their house/inheritance, that’s very, very obviously going to throw up a bunch of red flags. As is somebody in a wheelchair who feels self conscious about holding up a bus. Cases like that would never get through even the most basic of case analysis’, so this is a complete straw man argument from Carr.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

The problems with assisted dying are why we have doctors, the doctors have supervisors and they have second opinions. You have to go through a whole process just to get an organ transplant, hospitals have whole committees to make sure various standards and criteria are met when dealing with such matters. Matters such as  AD will clearly have similar, even more stringent safety measures.

The case for assisted dying will have to be put forward individually. If a relatively healthy senior citizen asks to be euthanised because their psychotic son wants their house/inheritance, that’s very, very obviously going to throw up a bunch of red flags. As is somebody in a wheelchair who feels self conscious about holding up a bus. Cases like that would never get through even the most basic of case analysis’, so this is a complete straw man argument from Carr.

I don't think you're going to understand but you're just wrong about cases like that never getting through because they have done so in other countries where this has been legalised. No one other than yourself has brought up holding up a bus on this forum. There are a plethora of other entirely valid scenarios outlined above that you dismiss as unrealistic when I'm telling you that they're not and giving you real world examples of cases exactly like them that have resulted in people ending their lives. 

Edited October 6 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure why you're using ridiculous examples. The proposed assisted dying bill isn't talking about starting with the most obviously chronic and painful conditions. That's not what is being proposed. 

They’re no more ridiculous than the idea of AD being approved for people who need a ramp to access a bus or have serial killer children. If there’s no medical case to put forward to a doctor, then they’re all equally non-starters. The idea of killing the disabled for being a burden on society is straight out of Mein Kampf, we’re absolutely nothing like that as a society and this bill isn’t going to move us in that direction. This is the exact opposite, it’s about showing compassion for those who are suffering the most and allowing them a dignified and merciful choice.

[Tamesaint]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

The problems with assisted dying are why we have doctors, the doctors have supervisors and they have second opinions. You have to go through a whole process just to get an organ transplant, hospitals have whole committees to make sure various standards and criteria are met when dealing with such matters. Matters such as  AD will clearly have similar, even more stringent safety measures.

The case for assisted dying will have to be put forward individually. If a relatively healthy senior citizen asks to be euthanised because their psychotic son wants their house/inheritance, that’s very, very obviously going to throw up a bunch of red flags. As is somebody in a wheelchair who feels self conscious about holding up a bus. Cases like that would never get through even the most basic of case analysis’, so this is a complete straw man argument from Carr.

We will just have to agree to disagree. One man's strawman is another man's cogent argument. Just try to approach this subject with an open mind. It is highly complex and is not as straightforward as you originally set out. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

They’re no more ridiculous than the idea of AD being approved for people who need a ramp to access a bus or have serial killer children. If there’s no medical case to put forward to a doctor, then they’re all equally non-starters. The idea of killing the disabled for being a burden on society is straight out of Mein Kampf, we’re absolutely nothing like that as a society and this bill isn’t going to move us in that direction. This is the exact opposite, it’s about showing compassion for those who are suffering the most and allowing them a dignified and merciful choice.

A Canadian literally requested a ramp for her house from the local government and was instead given the option of assisted suicide so that's not some ridiculous far fetched scenario, it actually happened in a country that legalised a very similar bill that we are proposing. You say you disagree with the Canadian move towards assisted dying for any sort of pain both physical or mental. Can you not see how quickly Canada went down that path once assisted dying was legalised? That could very easily happen here and in my opinion would actually be quite likely. 

You're just wrong to suggest that this bill wouldn't move us closer towards the direction of prematurely ending the lives of those who are considered by others or consider themselves to be a burden. I know you're wrong because it's actually happened and is happening in countries that legalised this now. I really think you should look into this a bit more because what is proposed doesn't do what you think it does. 

Anyway you're not going to agree. You set out saying you couldn't think of a single reason why someone would object to this bill, hopefully at the very least you can see many perfectly valid reasons to object to it even if you don't agree. 

Just in case you do want to approach the subject with a more open mind, here's a good article on the subject with even more terrible examples from Canada:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/

Edited October 6 by hypochondriac

[Holmes_and_Watson]

41 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m not advocating for it to be expanded to include literally anyone. You can take Hypo’s argument as far as you want. If people on wheelchairs can be euthanised for annoying bus drivers, what about people on benefits, or illegal immigrants, people who sit in the middle lane doing 58mph or people who say,  “can I get a…” in coffee shops. The fact that Canada has overstepped the mark doesn’t mean we have to.

I’m talking about starting with the most obviously chronic and painful conditions first, then expanding it to reasonable parameters after a robust trial period. It’s like anything in life, if Airbus designs a new plane, they don’t cram it full of passengers and send it no stop to Sydney or its first flight.

There were proponents of it in Canada who also said that of course, it would follow the strictest of controls. That it was there only to show compassion to those clearly at end of life. Then that any expansion would follow the strictest of requirements.

And here we are, with the real life examples given. It's naive to think we would somehow avoid all of the issues Canada, and other countries have.

Plenty of headlines talking about care, physical and mental health crises. No shortage of scenarios where people mistakenly feel they are being a burden, or are beyond help or being cared for. No shortage of abuses and negligence.

[Lighthouse]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

A Canadian literally requested a ramp for her house from the local government and was instead given the option of assisted suicide so that's not some ridiculous far fetched scenario, it actually happened in a country that legalised a very similar bill that we are proposing. You say you disagree with the Canadian move towards assisted dying for any sort of pain both physical or mental. Can you not see how quickly Canada went down that path once assisted dying was legalised? That could very easily happen here and in my opinion would actually be quite likely. 

You’re making an absolute mountain of what is quite clearly a rogue employee, who clearly has a very sarcastic attitude problem, has been universally slammed by everyone else concerned up to and including the Canadian PM. That employee has now been suspended and the disabled veteran was never at any point under any actual danger of being euthanised. Clearly this person’s attitude was grossly inappropriate but it’s a very, very tenuous argument to stretch that to people in wheelchairs being basically executed by proxy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html

[hypochondriac]

Some quotes from the article:

 

In The New Atlantis, Alexander Raikin described the case of Rosina Kamis, who had fibromyalgia and chronic leukemia, along with other mental and physical illnesses. She presented these symptoms to the MAID assessors and her death was approved. Meanwhile, she wrote in a note evidently meant for those to whom she had granted power of attorney: “Please keep all this secret while I am still alive because … the suffering I experience is mental suffering, not physical. I think if more people cared about me, I might be able to handle the suffering caused by my physical illnesses alone.” She was put to death on September 26, 2021, via a lethal injection, at the age of 41.

 

In The Free Press, Rupa Subramanya reported on the case of a 23-year-old man named Kiano Vafaeian, who was depressed and unemployed, and also had diabetes and had lost vision in one eye. His death was approved and scheduled for September 22, 2022. The doctor who was to perform the procedure emailed Vafaeian clear and antiseptic instructions: “Please arrive at 8:30 am. I will ask for the nurse at 8:45 am and I will start the procedure at around 9:00 am. Procedure will be completed a few minutes after it starts.” Vafaeian could bring a dog with him, as long as someone would be present to take care of it.

About two weeks before the appointment, Vafaeian’s 46-year-old mother, Margaret Marsilla, telephoned the doctor who was scheduled to kill her son. She recorded the call and shared it with The Free Press. Posing as a woman named Joann, she told the doctor that she wanted to die by Christmas. Reciting basic MAID criteria, the doctor told her that she needed to be over 18, have an insurance card, and be experiencing “suffering that cannot be remediated or treated in some way that’s acceptable to you.” The doctor said he could conduct his assessment via Zoom or WhatsApp. Marsilla posted on social media about the situation. Eventually, the doctor texted Marsilla, saying that he would not follow through with her son’s death.

the Associated Press reported on the case of Alan Nichols. Nichols had lost his hearing in childhood, and had suffered a stroke, but for the most part was able to live independently. In June 2019, at age 61, he was hospitalized out of concern that he might be suicidal. He urged his brother Gary to “bust him out” of the facility as soon as possible. But within a month, he applied for a physician-assisted death, citing hearing loss as his only medical condition. A nurse practitioner also described Nichols’s vision loss, frailty, history of seizures, and general “failure to thrive.” The hospital told the AP that his request for a lethal injection was valid, and his life was ended. “Alan was basically put to death,” his brother told the AP.

When people who were suffering applied to the MAID program and said, “I choose to die,” Canadian society apparently had no shared set of morals that would justify saying no. If individual autonomy is the highest value, then when somebody comes to you and declares, “It’s my body. I can do what I want with it,” whether they are near death or not, painfully ill or not, doesn’t really matter. Autonomy rules

 

Within just a few years, the number of Canadians dying by physician-assisted suicide ballooned (the overwhelming majority of them by lethal injection). In 2021, that figure was more than 10,000, one in 30 of all Canadian deaths. The great majority of people dying this way were elderly and near death, but those who seek assisted suicide tend to get it. In 2021, only 4 percent of those who filed written applications were deemed ineligible.

If autonomy is your highest value, these trends are not tragic; they’re welcome. Death is no longer the involuntary, degrading end of life; it can be a glorious act of self-expression. In late 2022, the Canadian fashion retailer La Maison Simons released a branding video that paid tribute to the assisted suicide of a 37-year-old woman afflicted with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects the body’s connective tissue. The video, titled “All Is Beauty,” was released the day after the woman’s death. In a series of lush images of her on tourist-destination beaches and at a dinner party, the video portrayed her death as “the most beautiful exit”—a sort of rich, Instagram-ready consumer experience that you might get from a five-star resort.

Tyler Dunlop is a physically healthy 37-year-old man who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, and has no job or home or social contact. “When I read about medically assisted dying,” he told a local news website earlier this year, “I thought, well, logistically, I really don’t have a future.” Knowing that “I’m not going anywhere,” as he put it, he has started the process for approval under MAID. The New Atlantis published slides from a Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers seminar, in which a retired care coordinator noted that a couple of patients had cited poverty or housing uncertainty, rather than their medical condition, as their main reason for seeking death.

Similarly, when a nation normalizes medically assisted suicide, and makes it a more acceptable option, then more people may choose suicide. A 2022 study in the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health found that in four jurisdictions—Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium—where assisted dying is legal, “there have been very steep rises in suicide,” including both assisted and unassisted suicide. The physician who assists one person to die may be influencing not just that suicide but the suicides of people he will never see

 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

You’re making an absolute mountain of what is quite clearly a rogue employee, who clearly has a very sarcastic attitude problem, has been universally slammed by everyone else concerned up to and including the Canadian PM. That employee has now been suspended and the disabled veteran was never at any point under any actual danger of being euthanised. Clearly this person’s attitude was grossly inappropriate but it’s a very, very tenuous argument to stretch that to people in wheelchairs being basically executed by proxy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html

I'm really really not. Look at the quotes from the article I posted above. Better yet read it for yourself. I can find you plenty of other examples but they are ending the lives of Canadians at a rate of 10,000 a year. 

[hypochondriac]

A young woman who survived an ISIS bombing chose euthanasia rather than live with the trauma, according to a report.

Shanti De Corte was a 17-year-old student traveling with her classmates at Brussels Airport when ISIS terrorists detonated a bomb. The March 2016 blast, along with two others set off by the group at a Brussels subway station, killed 32 people and left more than 300 injured.

De Corte was not physically injured in the attack, but endured years of panic attacks and depression afterward, the Mirror reported.

She tried to kill herself twice, in 2018 and 2020, and posted regularly on social media about her struggles.

De Corte, then 23, chose to be euthanized earlier this year, which is legal in Belgium. She died on May 7 after two psychiatrists signed off on her request.

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm really really not. Look at the quotes from the article I posted above. Better yet read it for yourself. I can find you plenty of other examples but they are ending the lives of Canadians at a rate of 10,000 a year. 

So what do you think that’s proof of? 83,000 people died of cancer alone in Canada last year. Even ignoring every other terminal disease and chronic, debilitating condition out there, the idea that one in eight people dying of cancer choosing to end it humanely really isn’t an absurd or alarming one.

[hypochondriac]

Have you just wilfully ignored the cases I have posted above? I would say the most alarming statistic is that only 4% of those who apply for assisted death get denied. 

 

Suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease at 41, Sean Tagert required 24-hour care, but British Columbia only provided 16-hour assistance. Paying caretakers for the remaining eight hours cost Tagert CA$264 per day. Health authorities did offer to move Tagert to an institution, but its location was far from the young son who was clearly his father’s prime reason for living, as Tagert described such a separation as a “death sentence”. The man managed to raise CA$16,000 to invest in medical equipment that would allow him to remain at home, but the funds were insufficient. So instead he applied for euthanasia. The end

At the age of 61, Alan Nichols had a history of depression and was hospitalised as a suicide risk in 2019 — something of an irony, as in due course the hospital staff, according to his family, was altogether too helpful in facilitating the patient’s application for euthanasia. That application was accepted, even though the only health condition it cited as so intolerable that Nichols wanted to die was “hearing loss”. After Nichols was put to death, his family objected that the man was not suffering unbearably, had been refusing to take his medication, and wouldn’t use the cochlear implant that helped him hear. But no medical personnel had ever contacted his relatives, out of respect for patient confidentiality.

In more than one instance in Canada, too, patients seem to have been actively pressed to consider pulling their own plug to save the health system money. Hospitalised for a degenerative brain disorder, Roger Foley was, according to Associated Press, “so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations”. In one recording, the hospital’s director of ethics informs Foley that his hospital stay is costing the institution “north of $1,500 a day” — quite the guilt trip. Foley asks about the plan for his long-term care. “Roger, this is not my show,” the “ethicist” said. “My piece of this was to talk to you, to see if you had an interest in assisted dying.” But Foley himself had never expressed the slightest interest in dying

For while the Australian province of Victoria, for example, forbids doctors from bringing up the option of euthanasia, lest it be mistaken for medical advice, Canada’s physicians can cheerfully recommend being killed as one of patients’ “clinical care options”. Thus, Sheila Elson took her daughter to an emergency room in Newfoundland six years ago. Unprompted, the doctor informed Elson that her daughter of 25, who had cerebral palsy and spinal bifida, was a good candidate for euthanasia. As Elson later told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the doctor chided that not taking up the state’s kindly offer to slay her daughter would be “selfish”.

At least four cases have been unearthed of veterans with, say, PTSD being encouraged to consider assisted dying in preference, as one staffer put it diplomatically, to “blowing your brains out”. Maid has been active in prisons as well, whose population is also costly and understandably prone to feeling glum.

Edited October 6 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

Interesting discussion but could do with being split out from Starmer thread 

[whelk]

You can see in local councils that decisions on special educational needs are now clearly driven by costs rather than welfare of the child. Hence the push by many for inclusion in mainstream that rarely works in secondary education. This is under the guise of it being better for the child which clearly isn’t. Although no one has the budget so no easy solution.

[Saint in Paradise]

It's a very serious subject and I can see and agree with points from both sides. I am well over 3 score years and 10 so

it won't be much of a loss when I go. At the moment I am in reasonable health for my age and I don't suffer from depression

so I won't be asking for assisted ending of life for a long time.

However there are it seems more than a few old people who do suffer from mental health issues and some say there is help available.

My question though is, WHERE is that help? given all the long waiting lists and past major reductions in facilities. These poor souls are

just as likely to walk in front of a lorry or a train. Ok their personal problem has gone but what about the trauma caused to the lorry and

train drivers? They will now suffer all because the people who committed suicide were denied the help they desperately wanted.

[hypochondriac]

59 minutes ago, Saint in Paradise said:

It's a very serious subject and I can see and agree with points from both sides. I am well over 3 score years and 10 so

it won't be much of a loss when I go. At the moment I am in reasonable health for my age and I don't suffer from depression

so I won't be asking for assisted ending of life for a long time.

However there are it seems more than a few old people who do suffer from mental health issues and some say there is help available.

My question though is, WHERE is that help? given all the long waiting lists and past major reductions in facilities. These poor souls are

just as likely to walk in front of a lorry or a train. Ok their personal problem has gone but what about the trauma caused to the lorry and

train drivers? They will now suffer all because the people who committed suicide were denied the help they desperately wanted.

That's a different discussion but hard to disagree with any of that. I agree mental health support could be much improved but surely the answer is not in the absence of support you can just die and remove the burden of care from anyone else? 

[Lighthouse]

Where I would agree there is room for discussion is surrounding the grey area what constitutes quality of life and exactly where the boundary is. I don’t have anywhere near enough medical knowledge to sit here and say exactly which conditions fall either side of the line and how far they need to progress. Personally the idea of AD for someone with anorexia or PTSD seems uncomfortable but then I wasn’t the doctor who dealt with either of those cases (which are very much in the minority). 99.9% of the people affected by this bill will be in hospital beds, hooked up to painkillers with days to live, whatever they choose to do.

What I don’t agree with at all is the separate point that this bill will turn us into some bizarre mix of Nazi Germany, where those too weak and feeble to work will be put to death, and that John Smiths advert where Peter Kay tries to get rid of his mother so he can out a snooker table in her bedroom. We’re not heading in that direction and the point being put forward by people like Carr and TGT is a non-sequitur. Nothing they are apparently afraid of is being proposed and one disgruntled employee in Canada sending sarcastic emails isn’t evidence of that.

[badgerx16]

In principle the provision of a dignified consensual end for somebody approaching the end of palliative care makes humanitarian sense, but as with all things that 'professionals' or politicians get involved with, there will always be the risk of "mission creep".

 

[whelk]

What we need to be careful of is a surge in demand when England get knocked out of the WC semi final on penalties. Was bad enough after the Bournemouth game. 

[aintforever]

12 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

  Like you say it's a complex issue and I can see valid arguments on both sides. 

Which is why it's right to be debated in the House of Commons with the MPs having a free vote.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

In principle the provision of a dignified consensual end for somebody approaching the end of palliative care makes humanitarian sense, but as with all things that 'professionals' or politicians get involved with, there will always be the risk of "mission creep".

 

I mostly agree with that. If there was some way to guarantee it applied solely to those with weeks to live then I could see a scenario where I could support it. Practically that's impossible though. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Where I would agree there is room for discussion is surrounding the grey area what constitutes quality of life and exactly where the boundary is. I don’t have anywhere near enough medical knowledge to sit here and say exactly which conditions fall either side of the line and how far they need to progress. Personally the idea of AD for someone with anorexia or PTSD seems uncomfortable but then I wasn’t the doctor who dealt with either of those cases (which are very much in the minority). 99.9% of the people affected by this bill will be in hospital beds, hooked up to painkillers with days to live, whatever they choose to do.

What I don’t agree with at all is the separate point that this bill will turn us into some bizarre mix of Nazi Germany, where those too weak and feeble to work will be put to death, and that John Smiths advert where Peter Kay tries to get rid of his mother so he can out a snooker table in her bedroom. We’re not heading in that direction and the point being put forward by people like Carr and TGT is a non-sequitur. Nothing they are apparently afraid of is being proposed and one disgruntled employee in Canada sending sarcastic emails isn’t evidence of that.

Your entire second paragraph is an invention in your own mind and you've just ignored all the many examples ive given you of instances where Canada has expanded the law beyond its original remit. Canada is just one example and there are others. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

In principle the provision of a dignified consensual end for somebody approaching the end of palliative care makes humanitarian sense, but as with all things that 'professionals' or politicians get involved with, there will always be the risk of "mission creep".

 

 

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I mostly agree with that. If there was some way to guarantee it applied solely to those with weeks to live then I could see a scenario where I could support it. Practically that's impossible though. 

These.

For all the safeguards that supporters want to put at the start of this, even with the best of intentions, we can look to other countries to see how that worked out.

Do you trust social, economic, health, administrative and political practices and outcomes to always do the best thing for vulnerable people? If it's a "not always" then it's to be avoided.

[Gloucester Saint]

I think it’s significant that it’s reached a free vote and debate stage - I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that it would pass as there’s plenty of Lab-Lib MPs who are from faith backgrounds but conversely there are a few Tory MPs who are likely to be free choice for individuals. 

Taking the matter out of party politics for a moment, because it’s far bigger than that, pressure has been building for a long-time through campaigners and the different court cases. It’s something which needs discourse in our democracy especially as more people are living longer with multi-health conditions and the wealthier people considering it can afford to travel to Switzerland and other countries.

I’m personally a bit uncomfortable, I wonder whether the existing right to cease treatment/DNR could be adapted rather than a brand new bill? I sadly had to deal with this issue in the family a few years back and it is highly triggering just discussing this. But too important to put away in a cupboard. I’m wary that this becomes a default for otherwise healthy people to exit because we’ve cut services beyond the bone for mental health and lack of societal understanding and minimum training of reasonable adjustments.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/improvement-hub/wp-content/uploads/sites/44/2017/11/Advance-Decisions-to-Refuse-Treatment-Guide.pdf

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/end-of-life-care/your-wellbeing/withdrawing-treatment/

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/end-of-life-care/planning-ahead/advance-decision-to-refuse-treatment/

Edited October 7 by Gloucester Saint

[sadoldgit]

We treat our pets with far more humanity and compassion that we do our fellow humans. We don’t allow them to suffer but we don’t currently have a system where our loved ones can depart this world with dignity at a time of their choosing. It is my life. If I am dying and being pumped full of drugs to keep me going it is my decision (or those who I nominate to make the decision for me if I in no mental state to do so) to end my life.

Of course there need to be cheques and balances, but just because another country might manage the system differently and not to your liking, that does not mean that we should decide not to treat those here who are desperate to end their suffering with respect for their wishes.

Just before my mother passed away I was asked if I would like her to be resuscitated if the situation arose. I was given that choice over possible life and death. Should that option not be given either? Assisted dying is just that. It helps those who are dying to do so on their terms. We are not talking about bumping off all the oldies so that younger generations can get their hands on their money.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

We treat our pets with far more humanity and compassion that we do our fellow humans. We don’t allow them to suffer but we don’t currently have a system where our loved ones can depart this world with dignity at a time of their choosing. It is my life. If I am dying and being pumped full of drugs to keep me going it is my decision (or those who I nominate to make the decision for me if I in no mental state to do so) to end my life.

Of course there need to be cheques and balances, but just because another country might manage the system differently and not to your liking, that does not mean that we should decide not to treat those here who are desperate to end their suffering with respect for their wishes.

Just before my mother passed away I was asked if I would like her to be resuscitated if the situation arose. I was given that choice over possible life and death. Should that option not be given either? Assisted dying is just that. It helps those who are dying to do so on their terms. We are not talking about bumping off all the oldies so that younger generations can get their hands on their money.

It doesn't surprise me that you would fail to understand the nuances of an issue. Besides, your morals are entirely out of kilter to the extent that anyone should generally be concerned if they're on the same side as you on something like this. According to you supporting child rape is not the worst crime in the world. 

Edited October 8 by hypochondriac

[benjii]

13 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It doesn't surprise me that you would fail to understand the nuances of an issue. Besides, your morals are entirely out of kilter to the extent that anyone should generally be concerned if they're on the same side as you on something like this. According to you supporting child rape is not the worst crime in the world. 

Tedious. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, benjii said:

Tedious. 

Indeed. Trying to pretend that the issue is simply about allowing people days from death to end their life with dignity and nothing else is indeed very tedious.