Assisted Dying Proposal

[egg]

36 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

When you listen to those who have lost people in harrowing circumstances it becomes pretty clear that those suffering would rather not be here. No one can say with any certainty that every single case will be perfect but should we deny the majority of people the right to die with dignity because a few might not meet the criteria by 100%. These people are not going to go in and have a decent quality of life. They are all going to die soon and in great discomfort. They will make the decision themselves and also have the opportunity to change their mind after they have made the initial recon if they so wish. Two doctors and a judge will have to sign off on their decision. Even if the claimant wishes to end their life earlier so as not to be a burden on others, isn’t that a valid personal choice? I don’t want my loved ones to see my die in great discomfort. The idea that there are thousands of family members currently rubbing their hands because they can possibly get their hands on the family silver a few months earlier seems, frankly, ridiculous.

I've watched people die, over time and literally in front of my eyes. My late father in law was pulling out his tubes in hospital , in front of me, because he wanted to die. It's horrific. As I've said, I agree the principle, but cannot agree with your last point.

In a perfect world dying people would not be made to feel a burden and people's greed would not rule their ethics. We don't live in a perfect world though, and the reality is that people will be encouraged to elect death contrary to their actual wish. That cannot be policed. 

[egg]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Assuming that you're being serious and not just trolling as usual "the idea that there are thousands of family members currently rubbing their hands because they can possibly get their hands on the family silver a few months earlier seems, frankly ridiculous" show you haven't understood the position or the arguments of the people on the other side of the argument to you. 

I'd assumed it was a rise tinted view rather than trolling, but wasn't sure. 

[aintforever]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

and the reality is that people will be encouraged to elect death contrary to their actual wish. That cannot be policed. 

There may end up with some cases like this but I think they would be very rare. The law only applies to people who will be dead soon anyway so I don't see what anyone would have to gain by risking prison trying to make someone go early even if they were that screwed up.

The benefits of reducing suffering more than out-weigh any risks IMO.

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

There may end up with some cases like this but I think they would be very rare. The law only applies to people who will be dead soon anyway so I don't see what anyone would have to gain by risking prison trying to make someone go early even if they were that screwed up.

The benefits of reducing suffering more than out-weigh any risks IMO.

Basically you would need someone who is medically diagnosed as terminally ill AND all their living relatives are literal psychopaths AND they are collectively able to mislead all medical authorities AND the patient involved has to be completely complicit and not raise any flags during consultation with their doctors.

It's a very rare set of circumstances which would be very hard to orchestrate for a family who, as you pointed out, is going to get all the money in a few months anyway. That risk doesn’t come close to outweighing the suffering of thousands which will be eased by this bill.

[sadoldgit]

I think the bottom line comes down to this. Does the individual have the right to choose how they end their lives in certain circumstances? I don’t see why or how anyone should be denied that right and MPs should vote for the individuals themselves. It is not about their consciences or religious beliefs. It is not about them. It is about each and every one of us in our individual circumstances.

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, aintforever said:

There may end up with some cases like this but I think they would be very rare. The law only applies to people who will be dead soon anyway so I don't see what anyone would have to gain by risking prison trying to make someone go early even if they were that screwed up.

The benefits of reducing suffering more than out-weigh any risks IMO.

 

 

Edited 28 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I think the bottom line comes down to this. Does the individual have the right to choose how they end their lives in certain circumstances? I don’t see why or how anyone should be denied that right and MPs should vote for the individuals themselves. It is not about their consciences or religious beliefs. It is not about them. It is about each and every one of us in our individual circumstances.

You can agree with that and oppose this bill, as many people are doing. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

24 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is not about their consciences or religious beliefs.

Of course it is…Bizarre to think otherwise. 
 

You’re either in a wind up over this serious topic, or you’re an idiot. I haven’t worked out which yet. 

[aintforever]

51 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Basically you would need someone who is medically diagnosed as terminally ill AND all their living relatives are literal psychopaths AND they are collectively able to mislead all medical authorities AND the patient involved has to be completely complicit and not raise any flags during consultation with their doctors.

It's a very rare set of circumstances which would be very hard to orchestrate for a family who, as you pointed out, is going to get all the money in a few months anyway. That risk doesn’t come close to outweighing the suffering of thousands which will be eased by this bill.

Exactly.

I remember when my dad was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer - you treasure every single moment you have left. You would have to be some sort of sicko to even suggest ending it early to a loved one in that situation. His last few weeks were awful and I'm sure he would have wanted the option of a pain free death had he been given the choice, I know I certainly would.

[buctootim]

A lot of this discussion is pissing against the wind anyhow. At some stage soon we will need to have a much wider debate about who lives and who dies. 

As medical treatment advances more and more people can be kept alive for longer. That means more people kept alive to draw more pension and to still be alive to later contract a new illness that also needs to be treated. Whilst ability to treat disease increases our capacity to pay for it doesn't - so instead we just make everyone wait. All rationing by waiting does is lead to ever more people disabled by illness and claiming benefits which in itself reduces society's ability to pay for healthcare and benefits. 

When I worked for the NHS we experimented with QALYs - a measure to prioritise access to treatment by gauging how many more good quality extra life years a treatment would bring - but politicians bottled difficult choices then. Its bound to come around again. 

Countries across the globe are battling the same aging and sick population issues. The difficult choices that will throw up will make the right to die controversy pale into insignificance.  

Edited 28 November, 2024 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

If the bill passes it still has to go through a long period of discussion and scrutiny. It won’t just happened from the next day.

We all have a terminal illness. It is called life. Most of us will not suffer a prolonged and painful death. I hope that those who face it are given a choice in how their life ends.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dpwg1lq9yo.amp

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/the-law/

I have heard doctors tell us about how the time limit of 6 months isn’t perfect science. That is not the point. It doesn’t matter whether the person passes in three months or 12 months in the end. The point is that they will die in a relatively short period of time and in great discomfort and distress. 6 months has been chosen as a period that reflects that end of life is imminent.

As an aside, I have an acquaintance who is currently in hospital with a brain tumour. His wife said that he wasn’t expected to make it through the night a week ago, but he is still with us. Just before he entered hospital he had a fall and badly injured his leg. The doctors, despite knowing that he has little time left, wanted to amputate his leg as they felt that the injury was life threatening for him. Where is the logic in that? 

 

 

 

[egg]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I think the bottom line comes down to this. Does the individual have the right to choose how they end their lives in certain circumstances? I don’t see why or how anyone should be denied that right and MPs should vote for the individuals themselves. It is not about their consciences or religious beliefs. It is not about them. It is about each and every one of us in our individual circumstances.

Most people agree. I don't understand why you can't grasp the issue that some of us raising. You don't have to agree, this is a deeply personal subject and i respect people supporting it, but please understand that there can be a difference between stated choice and actual preference, with all potential for pressure to assist someone to arrive at stated choice. 

[egg]

3 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Basically you would need someone who is medically diagnosed as terminally ill AND all their living relatives are literal psychopaths AND they are collectively able to mislead all medical authorities AND the patient involved has to be completely complicit and not raise any flags during consultation with their doctors.

It's a very rare set of circumstances which would be very hard to orchestrate for a family who, as you pointed out, is going to get all the money in a few months anyway. That risk doesn’t come close to outweighing the suffering of thousands which will be eased by this bill.

FFS. All it needs is a greedy sod to talk the old girl round. I get the "she'll have died anyway and they'll have got the cash" counter argument, but that somewhat misses the point. 

[The Kraken]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

Most people agree. I don't understand why you can't grasp the issue that some of us raising. You don't have to agree, this is a deeply personal subject and i respect people supporting it, but please understand that there can be a difference between stated choice and actual preference, with all potential for pressure to assist someone to arrive at stated choice. 

🤣 surely you've worked out his MO by now!

[hypochondriac]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

Most people agree. I don't understand why you can't grasp the issue that some of us raising. You don't have to agree, this is a deeply personal subject and i respect people supporting it, but please understand that there can be a difference between stated choice and actual preference, with all potential for pressure to assist someone to arrive at stated choice. 

I feel confident that I could broadly articulate the main positions of those on here who support this Bill. I don't have the same confidence that they would be able to do the same for those who oppose it. They keep repeating the same arguments that people either don't disagree with or largely haven't argued. 

[Whitey Grandad]

39 minutes ago, egg said:

FFS. All it needs is a greedy sod to talk the old girl round. I get the "she'll have died anyway and they'll have got the cash" counter argument, but that somewhat misses the point. 

With the new Inheritance Tax changes coming in there must in some cases be an incentive to get rid of the old git a few weeks early.

Edited 28 November, 2024 by Whitey Grandad

[Lighthouse]

43 minutes ago, egg said:

FFS. All it needs is a greedy sod to talk the old girl round. I get the "she'll have died anyway and they'll have got the cash" counter argument, but that somewhat misses the point. 

No, a ‘greedy sod’ is someone who takes three slices of cake when it’s someone’s birthday in the office. If your mother gets told she has terminal cancer and has 4 months to live, if your reaction to that is, "no mum, you need to die right now!" You’re not a greedy sod, you’re literally a soulless psychopath. The situations you’re talking about basically involve someone’s entire family being cold blooded killers and the doctors being completely oblivious. You’re deliberately trivialising the issue to make a very specific and unlikely set of circumstances seem like a mundane occurrence which will happen every week.

The argument doesn’t miss the point at all, if you’re talking about the kind of coercion that risks a lengthy prison sentence, there really is no motivation to kill someone who’s terminally ill anyway.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No, a ‘greedy sod’ is someone who takes three slices of cake when it’s someone’s birthday in the office. If your mother gets told she has terminal cancer and has 4 months to live, if your reaction to that is, "no mum, you need to die right now!" You’re not a greedy sod, you’re literally a soulless psychopath. The situations you’re talking about basically involve someone’s entire family being cold blooded killers and the doctors being completely oblivious. You’re deliberately trivialising the issue to make a very specific and unlikely set of circumstances seem like a mundane occurrence which will happen every week.

The argument doesn’t miss the point at all, if you’re talking about the kind of coercion that risks a lengthy prison sentence, there really is no motivation to kill someone who’s terminally ill anyway.

In what way is this such a ridiculous fantasy that something similar to this would never happen? 

[Lighthouse]

So no medical diagnosis of terminal illness then, a made up scare story which conveniently skips the massive safeguard of a judge having to sign off on two independent doctors diagnosis.

[hypochondriac]

55 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So no medical diagnosis of terminal illness then, a made up scare story which conveniently skips the massive safeguard of a judge having to sign off on two independent doctors diagnosis.

A judge you say? Might be worth reading the thoughts of Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division for his serious reservations on that and why having a judge is no safeguard at all:

https://transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dying-what-role-for-the-judge/

https://transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dying-what-role-for-the-judge-some-further-thoughts/

As he suggests, a judge who doesn't have the time or resources to investigate properly - and who only has to rubber stamp the procedure has been followed in any event - isn't anywhere near enough. 

Also as already explained it's a diagnosis from two medical practitioners - not necessarily doctors who make the determination. You can shop around for a medical practitioner to give you the answer you want and then there's no way to challenge the rulings or for anyone to investigate possible cases of coercion - even if they turn out to be a rarity. 

 

Edited 28 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Most people agree. I don't understand why you can't grasp the issue that some of us raising. You don't have to agree, this is a deeply personal subject and i respect people supporting it, but please understand that there can be a difference between stated choice and actual preference, with all potential for pressure to assist someone to arrive at stated choice. 

Of course I understand the difference between a personal choice and external pressure. I don’t see why we should be denied our own choice just because other people think that there could be an issue of external pressure. Do you know antibody who would put pressure on a loved one to end their life slightly earlier? We are talking about people who are going to die soon, not in years to come. I really don’t get the idea that the country is full of people who are champing at the bit to kill off relatives a few months earlier to get their hands on their money or because they can’t be bothered to deal with their illness any longer. Perhaps you know people who would try and encourage a loved one or relative to end their life earlier for their own benefit. Everyone I have spoken to have said that they would not want a loved one to die before their time but would support their wish if they felt that had had enough and wanted to end it now rather than hang on for a few more months in pain. Allowing people to die a bit earlier with dignity if they so chose should not be denied because some people think that it will open the door to mass exploitation. There may be some people who will be prepared to put pressure on a relative or “loved one” because of their own interests, but the process is designed to ensure that the patients wishes are paramount.

No system is perfect but the point of this bill is to allow people a proper choice without having to either carry on and suffer regardless, commit suicide or travel abroad without support (unless their loved ones are prepared to face prosecution when they return to the UK). I think that far more people will benefit from this bill than be possibly exploited by it. My opinion is no big deal. The testimony of so many people who have seen loved ones die in agony and have begged to be put out of their misery is a big deal.

Terminally ill people are in professional constant care. Do you really believe that people will get this signed off if they are not in a position that they will die in a short time frame in poor circumstances?

 

 

Edited 28 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Of course I understand the difference between a personal choice and external pressure. I don’t see why we should be denied our own choice just because other people think that there could be an issue of external pressure. Do you know antibody who would put pressure on a loved one to end their life slightly earlier? We are talking about people who are going to die soon, not in years to come. I really don’t get the idea that the country is full of people who are champing at the bit to kill off relatives a few months earlier to get their hands on their money or because they can’t be bothered to deal with their illness any longer. Perhaps you know people who would try and encourage a loved one or relative to end their life earlier for their own benefit. Everyone I have spoken to have said that they would not want a loved one to die before their time but would support their wish if they felt that had had enough and wanted to end it now rather than hang on for a few more months in pain. Allowing people to die a bit earlier with dignity if they so chose should not be denied because some people think that it will open the door to mass exploitation. There may be some people who will be prepared to put pressure on a relative or “loved one” because of their own interests, but the process is designed to ensure that the patients wishes are paramount.

No system is perfect but the point of this bill is to allow people a proper choice without having to either carry on and suffer regardless, commit suicide or travel abroad without support (unless their loved ones are prepared to face prosecution when they return to the UK). I think that far more people will benefit from this bill than be possibly exploited by it. My opinion is no big deal. The testimony of so many people who have seen loved ones die in agony and have begged to be put out of their misery is a big deal.

 

 

I'm not sure anybody is labouring under some misapprehension of what the point of this bill is. No one has suggested they aren't fully aware of what the point of it is. The potential of the bill to be misapplied, the fact that our healthcare system isn't anywhere near equipped to deal with this change, the lack of safeguards, the poor wording and the lack of investigative ability when things inevitably go wrong along with the proven history of the slippery slope in the numerous countries with this legislation are big deals. Absolutely baffling - though not surprising - that you think they aren't. 

[sadoldgit]

26 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

A judge you say? Might be worth reading the thoughts of Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division for his serious reservations on that and why having a judge is no safeguard at all:

https://transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dying-what-role-for-the-judge/

https://transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dying-what-role-for-the-judge-some-further-thoughts/

Also as already explained it's a diagnosis from two medical practitioners - not necessarily doctors who make the determination. You can shop around for a medical practitioner to give you the answer you want and then there's no way to challenge the rulings or for anyone to investigate possible cases of coercion - even if they turn out to be a rarity. 

I know you are desperate to find issue with allowing people to make their own choice If a loved one of yours was diagnosed with a terminal illness with a short life expectancy (not by a quack but a medical professional), was is constant pain, was only given months to live and begged you to allow them to die now with some dignity, would you tell them no, you want them to carry on suffering until they die naturally?

Shopping around to find doctors who are going to give you the answer you want? WTF? If you are terminally ill and have a relatively short life expectancy why would you have to “shop around” to tell you what you have already been diagnosed with? Medicine is a bit more advanced than the Middle Ages. Your user name does not apply to those who, not only have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, but suffer with the physical effects of those illnesses. People now know what to expect. They will be able to make a decision that, when the worst happens, they can call an end to the suffering when they are ready. You would have to be pretty callous to deny somebody that right.

Edited 28 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I know you are desperate to find issue with allowing people to make their own choice If a loved one of yours was diagnosed with a terminal illness with a short life expectancy (not by a quack but a medical professional), was is constant pain, was only given months to live and begged you to allow them to die now with some dignity, would you tell them no, you want them to carry on suffering until they die naturally?

Don't be more of a colossal prick than you normally are. Like I said earlier, you are unable to properly articulate the main arguments of those who disagree with you.

There is a ton of things that should happen before this sort of thing is even close to being considered. You need proper safeguards in place to reduce the likelihood of coercion. Possibly properly funded social workers specially trained to spot coercion, you'd need evidenciary hearings in court where cases are investigated properly and you'd want actual money to fund this and a significant improvement in palliative care prior to the implementation of this. I still wouldn't support it in those circumstances but it would at least be marginally more acceptable than this terrible written and poorly conceived Bill being introduced at the wrong time and with none of the details properly articulated. 

Even the likes of Liberty who support assisted dying have urged MPs to vote against this Bill because they don't think the safeguards are sufficient. 

Edited 28 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

No, a ‘greedy sod’ is someone who takes three slices of cake when it’s someone’s birthday in the office. If your mother gets told she has terminal cancer and has 4 months to live, if your reaction to that is, "no mum, you need to die right now!" You’re not a greedy sod, you’re literally a soulless psychopath. The situations you’re talking about basically involve someone’s entire family being cold blooded killers and the doctors being completely oblivious. You’re deliberately trivialising the issue to make a very specific and unlikely set of circumstances seem like a mundane occurrence which will happen every week.

The argument doesn’t miss the point at all, if you’re talking about the kind of coercion that risks a lengthy prison sentence, there really is no motivation to kill someone who’s terminally ill anyway.

This from Dominic Grieve highlights another point that you didn't mention:

[Lord Duckhunter]

53 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Do you know antibody who would put pressure on a loved one to end their life slightly earlier? We are talking about people who are going to die soon, not in years to come. I really don’t get the idea that the country is full of people who are champing at the bit to kill off relatives a few months earlier to get their hands on their money or because they can’t be bothered to deal with their illness any longer.

You seem incapable of understanding that people may feel a burden on their families or the state DESPITE their family putting absolutely no pressure on them. People who have suicidal thoughts often feel they are a burden & all their families problems would go away should they kill themselves. The pressure wouldn’t necessarily come from family, it would come from within the person themselves. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

So no medical diagnosis of terminal illness then, a made up scare story which conveniently skips the massive safeguard of a judge having to sign off on two independent doctors diagnosis.

The judge will not speak to the individual. The judge will assume genuine consent.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

The judge will not speak to the individual. The judge will assume genuine consent.

The judge has no obligation to investigate any case, merely to rubber stamp the procedure. Remember too that this is a severely underfunded and overstretched judiciary who won't have the time to investigate even if they were required to - which they aren't. 

[Lighthouse]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

The judge will not speak to the individual. The judge will assume genuine consent.

I never said that he would.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I never said that he would.

You said a judge signing off was a "massive" safeguard despite that being disputed by an incredibly experienced judge who actually goes through the wording in the bill as it applies to judges and despite nothing in the bill addressing the overcrowding, lack of resources, the fact the judge doesn't have to meet anyone involved in the case or has to investigate the circumstances of cases (nor is there a right to appeal or to notify any next of kin.) It's not a massive safeguard. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Although the “usual suspects” won’t accept it, I  just listened to a very good interview with Boris over this. He said pre Shipman the balance was probably about right, a lot of people were “helped” along the way towards a comfortable end of life, and certain unspoken trade offs were accepted.
 

He said a dignified painless end of life needs to be legally found, but this particular bill isn’t it. He worries that it slightly blurs the line between dignified right to die and state endorsed  suicide 

[The Kraken]

41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Although the “usual suspects” won’t accept it, I  just listened to a very good interview with Boris over this. He said pre Shipman the balance was probably about right, a lot of people were “helped” along the way towards a comfortable end of life, and certain unspoken trade offs were accepted.
 

He said a dignified painless end of life needs to be legally found, but this particular bill isn’t it. He worries that it slightly blurs the line between dignified right to die and state endorsed  suicide 

And maybe it isn’t.

My understanding of a private members bill is that it can be brought back to debate multiple times, it doesn’t have to pass or fail at the first reading. If this ends up being just the beginning of a debate then it serves a worthy purpose.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

And maybe it isn’t.

My understanding of a private members bill is that it can be brought back to debate multiple times, it doesn’t have to pass or fail at the first reading. If this ends up being just the beginning of a debate then it serves a worthy purpose.

 

[The Kraken]

Then I can see why it’s so tight, given public opinion.

I’m repeating everyone else but it seems the right initiative to me, but extremely rushed. 

[aintforever]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

 

At least post the whole article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/28/assisted-dying-bill-will-not-be-adopted-as-government-bill-if-it-passes-vote

You could just have easily have quoted: 

“the bill has a longer period of scrutiny in bill committee than most other government bills.

MPs could vote twice more on the bill, including on any new amendments and again at third reading, after which it will go to the House of Lords.”

 

 

 

Edited 28 November, 2024 by aintforever

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I never said that he would.

He? No room for such sexism on this forum

[sadoldgit]

Interesting listening to some Dutch people talking about it this morning (it is legal in the Netherlands). They seem to have a much more pragmatic view about it and one person even described it as a “gift”. We need to look on it as such, it is a release. All I hear is about coercion and reasons not to give people the release that they seek. It really needs to be viewed as a positive thing and not the negative that some are painting it. We need to be a lot more grown up about death and the individuals own right to chose. The focus should be on what is best for the patient, not what is best for the conscience of those not directly involved.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Interesting listening to some Dutch people talking about it this morning (it is legal in the Netherlands). They seem to have a much more pragmatic view about it and one person even described it as a “gift”. We need to look on it as such, it is a release. All I hear is about coercion and reasons not to give people the release that they seek. It really needs to be viewed as a positive thing and not the negative that some are painting it. We need to be a lot more grown up about death and the individuals own right to chose. The focus should be on what is best for the patient, not what is best for the conscience of those not directly involved.

Ah yes such a gift in the Netherlands:

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Interesting listening to some Dutch people talking about it this morning

[hypochondriac]

As predicted it passes. A very sad day. 

[hypochondriac]

Will be interesting to revisit this thread over the next couple of years when the first lot of questionable death stories come out and when the rules are relaxed from the expected to die within six months standard. 

Edited 29 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

Common sense has prevailed, but it is only over the first hurdle and it still needs to get through the Lords and I doubt if the bishops will be for it.

Don’t worry hypo, it isn’t mandatory so you are safe. The idea that it will all go wrong after a few years and the rules relaxed is just your assumption. It’s only a shame that you didn’t have the same view on Brexit when you cast your vote, eh?

This vote will bring comfort to many people now and finally, a choice at last to many more who want it, in the future. I’m not sure how that can be seen as sad news. According to several polls it has massive public support. Here is one of them.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law

Edited 29 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[Lighthouse]

Pleased to read this. A long way to go obviously but this is a bill which will help the most desparately suffering members of society. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Common sense has prevailed, but it is only over the first hurdle and it still needs to get through the Lords and I doubt if the bishops will be for it.

Don’t worry hypo, it isn’t mandatory so you are safe. The idea that it will all go wrong after a few years and the rules relaxed is just your assumption. It’s only a shame that you didn’t have the same view on Brexit when you cast your vote, eh?

This vote will bring comfort to many people now and finally, a choice at last to many more who want it, in the future. I’m not sure how that can be seen as sad news. According to several polls it has massive public support. Here is one of them.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law

I don't normally bite at you, but that is ridiculous even by your standards. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Common sense has prevailed, but it is only over the first hurdle and it still needs to get through the Lords and I doubt if the bishops will be for it.

Don’t worry hypo, it isn’t mandatory so you are safe. The idea that it will all go wrong after a few years and the rules relaxed is just your assumption. It’s only a shame that you didn’t have the same view on Brexit when you cast your vote, eh?

This vote will bring comfort to many people now and finally, a choice at last to many more who want it, in the future. I’m not sure how that can be seen as sad news. According to several polls it has massive public support. Here is one of them.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-law

You're a cunt and a troll. Do everyone a favour and leave. 

Edited 29 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Pleased to read this. A long way to go obviously but this is a bill which will help the most desparately suffering members of society. 

This. There are obviously risks but it has to be a good thing to end the suffering of so many people. There is a reason why doctors did what they did before the whole Shipman thing.

It's refreshing to see Parliament put all the party bullshit aside and actually make sensible decisions like adults for a change. Hope fully a lot of care and thought is put into the final law so that works well.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

This. There are obviously risks but it has to be a good thing to end the suffering of so many people. There is a reason why doctors did what they did before the whole Shipman thing.

It's refreshing to see Parliament put all the party bullshit aside and actually make sensible decisions like adults for a change. Hope fully a lot of care and thought is put into the final law so that works well.

The vote shows there's divided thinking on this, but we live in a democracy, and I hope that the HOL see the holes in this bill and make sensible amendments to address the issues that have been raised on here. 

And yep, it's great to see parliament being respectful to something so sensitive, and MP's being allowed to vote with genuine freedom. 

[sadoldgit]

Agreed.

Let us hope that none of us or our loved ones ever have the need of assisted dying, but at least now we will have a choice

[Baird of the land]

Very much a positive step imo. We'll see whether it makes its way onto the statues though, or whether at some point its kicked into the long grass

[Turkish]

48 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Agreed.

Let us hope that none of us or our loved ones ever have the need of assisted dying, but at least now we will have a choice

Well we’re all going to die at some point so I’d suggest your hope is misplaced.