Assisted Dying Proposal

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

First point, stuff like that was said by many people to try and discredit many issues they disagreed with. If you don’t want to accept that people say that kind of thing but we’re talking about a much higher level of hysteria here, literally Nazi levels of social cleansing were the elderly and disable are being coerced into unnecessary euthanasia as a matter of public convenience.

You and hypo have repeatedly ignored the same point throughout this discussion; this law will need to be based on medical sound diagnosis’ of a terminal illness. It’s not something you can just pop into Boots for on your lunch break, you will need a doctor (with a second opinion) to sign off on the fact that you are terminally ill and/or of seriously degraded quality of life. If you’re 83, fit as a fiddle and tell a doctor, "well I want my grandkids to have a deposit for a house," your application is going to be rejected.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, we’ll see what gets said in parliament. It’s just a shame that if it does get defeated, people in unbearable pain will have to go through the discomfort of travelling abroad to end their life humanely.

You're the only person who has mentioned nazi levels of social cleansing. You're deliberately creating wild exagerratiobs to try to discredit the very valid point. I've already explained to you that it was the case in both Canada and Belgium that a terminal medical diagnosis was required abd then the rules changed. I explained to you that a tiny percentage of applications get turned down in Canada. De Corte was 23 and deeply traumatised after witnessing a terrorist attack. How can it possibly be OK for her to be out to death in that scenario? All signed off by two psychiatrists by the way. Or Raikin above who had lots of terrible illnesses but decided that nobody cared about her and that her problems were mostly mental but decided to ask to be killed anyway because she considered herself to be a burden. 

If as seems likely this passes, it will be a tragedy that cases like I have described will happen (and there plenty more so let's not try to pretend they don't exist anymore) and it's also tragic that you utterly fail to see a differing and perfectly valid alternative point of view from your own. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

First point, stuff like that was said by many people to try and discredit many issues they disagreed with. If you don’t want to accept that people say that kind of thing but we’re talking about a much higher level of hysteria here, literally Nazi levels of social cleansing were the elderly and disable are being coerced into unnecessary euthanasia as a matter of public convenience.

You and hypo have repeatedly ignored the same point throughout this discussion; this law will need to be based on medical sound diagnosis’ of a terminal illness. It’s not something you can just pop into Boots for on your lunch break, you will need a doctor (with a second opinion) to sign off on the fact that you are terminally ill and/or of seriously degraded quality of life. If you’re 83, fit as a fiddle and tell a doctor, "well I want my grandkids to have a deposit for a house," your application is going to be rejected.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, we’ll see what gets said in parliament. It’s just a shame that if it does get defeated, people in unbearable pain will have to go through the discomfort of travelling abroad to end their life humanely.

The point you overlook is the risk that people could arrive at that decision with outside influence or coercion. The risk of abuse is just too great for me. As you say though, points have been made and as much as I disagree with your opinion, people will have differing opinions on this and everyone is entitled to the opposite view. 

[Lighthouse]

Okay, I get our concerns death of loved ones is never a pleasant topic to discuss and if you start adding a choice into equation it starts to get pretty heavy. The criteria of this bill are pretty clear and definitive to me:

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/55997/documents/4980
 

It states quite clearly the need for multiple safeguards against the issues people are concerned about. All of the arguments were taken into account when the bill was drafted, hence the need for a clear informed decision, signed by an independent witness, who cannot stand to profit from the will. That’s as well as a sound, independent medical diagnosis of terminal illness, and a certified second opinion from a doctor who cannot be a colleague of the original doctor. People with disabilities and mental illness are specifically mentioned as being excluded. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Okay, I get our concerns death of loved ones is never a pleasant topic to discuss and if you start adding a choice into equation it starts to get pretty heavy. The criteria of this bill are pretty clear and definitive to me:

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/55997/documents/4980
 

It states quite clearly the need for multiple safeguards against the issues people are concerned about. All of the arguments were taken into account when the bill was drafted, hence the need for a clear informed decision, signed by an independent witness, who cannot stand to profit from the will. That’s as well as a sound, independent medical diagnosis of terminal illness, and a certified second opinion from a doctor who cannot be a colleague of the original doctor. People with disabilities and mental illness are specifically mentioned as being excluded. 

There were multiple safeguards in place in Canada (they lasted less than two years) and Oregon. Other countries as well though I would have to get the details. 54 MPs are trying to get the bill to be expanded already:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/05/widen-access-to-assisted-dying-say-labour-mps/

They want the bill to apply. To the terminally ill and "the incurably suffering" 

From Canada: 

“When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.”

But “that’s what happened” 

 

[whelk]

If you take up the offer will it void any life insurance ? One of my policies clearly states won’t payout for suicide 

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

If you take up the offer will it void any life insurance ? One of my policies clearly states won’t payout for suicide 

No policies pay out for suicide.

[aintforever]

57 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There were multiple safeguards in place in Canada (they lasted less than two years) and Oregon. Other countries as well though I would have to get the details. 54 MPs are trying to get the bill to be expanded already:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/05/widen-access-to-assisted-dying-say-labour-mps/

They want the bill to apply. To the terminally ill and "the incurably suffering" 

From Canada: 

“When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.”

But “that’s what happened” 

 

Doesn’t mean it has to happen here. The concerns over mission creep are obvious but I don’t see that as a reason for not easing the suffering of the terminally ill. Anyway, expanding the criteria will only ever happen if the existing legislation is considered successful.

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Doesn’t mean it has to happen here. The concerns over mission creep are obvious but I don’t see that as a reason for not easing the suffering of the terminally ill. Anyway, expanding the criteria will only ever happen if the existing legislation is considered successful.

Again, it depends what you mean by successful. Certain people in power in Canada obviously considered it to be successful which is why they have expanded it in such short order and caused so many problems that have already been outlined. At least you've stated that the concerns about misson creep are obvious, it seems we only disagree about whether that should stop bills like this from going through or not. I can respect your difference of opinion on that even if I can't agree with it. 

[whelk]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

No policies pay out for suicide.

That wasn’t the question 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, whelk said:

If you take up the offer will it void any life insurance ? One of my policies clearly states won’t payout for suicide 

Most insurance policies will pay out for 'terminal' illness.

[hypochondriac]

I think the main question is whether you trust the state to carry this out in an ethical and extremely limited manner. I don't believe it can:

 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I think the main question is whether you trust the state to carry this out in an ethical and extremely limited manner. I don't believe it can:

 

More information is needed regarding this one specific case.

Was the 'inflammatory bowel disease' a terminal diagnosis?  If not, it would not be relevant to what the UK is proposing.

The rest of it regarding the family not being consulted is likely to be whataboutery (again, more info is possibly needed), as it states the man was over 40, therefore legally an adult that can make his own decisions.

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

More information is needed regarding this one specific case.

Was the 'inflammatory bowel disease' a terminal diagnosis?  If not, it would not be relevant to what the UK is proposing.

The rest of it regarding the family not being consulted is likely to be whataboutery (again, more info is possibly needed), as it states the man was over 40, therefore legally an adult that can make his own decisions.

How many times? Canada proposed the exact same thing. They expanded the definition within 4 years, something a significant number of MPs are already pushing for before they have even got this bill through. 

[Lighthouse]

41 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How many times? Canada proposed the exact same thing. They expanded the definition within 4 years, something a significant number of MPs are already pushing for before they have even got this bill through. 

We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it, for what is currently being proposed I see no reasonable cause for concern. As Weston said, more information would be needed for that specific case and whether or not two doctors would sign him off as being terminally ill.

[sadoldgit]

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied.

The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it, for what is currently being proposed I see no reasonable cause for concern. As Weston said, more information would be needed for that specific case and whether or not two doctors would sign him off as being terminally ill.

The issues in Canada include people being able to shop around for doctors until they find two willing to sign it off even if others have already turned them down. Did you look into the De Corte case where she was allowed to kill herself in Belgium at 24 after being traumatised by a terror attack? 

From Canada: 

“When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.”

But “that’s what happened” 

Why would we think things would be different here? There's at the very least a reasonable risk of that happening once it has been normalised so it warrants being part of the discussion. 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The issues in Canada include people being able to shop around for doctors until they find two willing to sign it off even if others have already turned them down. Did you look into the De Corte case where she was allowed to kill herself in Belgium at 24 after being traumatised by a terror attack? 

 

We aren't Canada!

Good luck 'shopping around' for doctors in the UK.  I can't get mine to look at the blood test results they received a week ago!

I think you are drawing far too many inferences from specific, isolated cases and believing the worst case will always happen.  Anyone who is so determined to kill themselves (legally) by 'shopping around' for doctors after being traumatised or whatever, is not going to be put off from suicide (killing themselves illegally) if the legal route is not open to them (which it won't be in the UK).

Checks and balances need to be put in place.  So far, from what I've heard of our proposals, that is what will happen.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We aren't Canada!

Good luck 'shopping around' for doctors in the UK.  I can't get mine to look at the blood test results they received a week ago!

I think you are drawing far too many inferences from specific, isolated cases and believing the worst case will always happen.  Anyone who is so determined to kill themselves (legally) by 'shopping around' for doctors after being traumatised or whatever, is not going to be put off from suicide (killing themselves illegally) if the legal route is not open to them (which it won't be in the UK).

Checks and balances need to be put in place.  So far, from what I've heard of our proposals, that is what will happen.

We absolutely are comparable to a country like Canada, particularly when we already have a number of MPs putting pressure on to expand those eligible for this bill. You can also see similar scenarios in Ohio, Holland and Belgium where assisted dying was also introduced along similar lines to what is proposed here. I don't think the worst case will always happen, my entirely valid concern is everything that I have already articulated in numerous posts but also that there is a greater risk that some people will lose their lives unnecessarily, that life will become less valued, that those who are old or disabled will feel coerced overtly or covertly to end things now that the option is available to them etc etc. I understand the other side of the argument but IMO it's an unacceptable risk to take and it will be a sad day if/when this is passed for those reasons. 

Edited 12 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

We absolutely are comparable to a country like Canada, particularly when we already have a number of MPs putting pressure on to expand those eligible for this bill. I don't think the worst case will always happen, my entirely valid concern is everything that I have already articulated in numerous posts but also that there is a greater risk that some people will lose their lives unnecessarily, that life will become less valued, that those who are old or disabled will feel coerced overtly or covertly to end things now that the option is available to them etc etc. I understand the other side of the argument but IMO it's an unacceptable risk to take and it will be a sad day if/when this is passed for those reasons. 

I disagree. The handful of cases you’ve highlighted (going purely by media articles and without having the information or expertise to give them an accurate medical assessment) do not negate the right of thousands of people every year do have their pain and suffering ended quickly and with dignity. Even that is assuming all your fears about mission creep are realised and dubious cases start to creep through the net, which at the moment there is no suggestion will happen.

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I disagree. The handful of cases you’ve highlighted (going purely by media articles and without having the information or expertise to give them an accurate medical assessment) do not negate the right of thousands of people every year do have their pain and suffering ended quickly and with dignity. Even that is assuming all your fears about mission creep are realised and dubious cases start to creep through the net, which at the moment there is no suggestion will happen.

I know you disagree. You've mischarictarised what I've said again. What accurate medical assessment is required to condemn the death of DeCorte? 

Edited 11 hours ago by hypochondriac

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied.

The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

Watch out it may come to extend to silly old men who make a fool out of themselves on football forum 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Watch out it may come to extend to silly old men who make a fool out of themselves on football forum 

In that case maybe I'll change my deeply held beliefs and vote in favour. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied.

The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

Decent and well considered post, although my view remains that this is a bad idea, and I disagree with you in the slippery slope issue. However, I respect that views are for and against, and I've read some well thought out stuff for both sides of the argument.

Just on the highlighted part. No mp can possibly hope to vote on this knowing the conscience of the group they represent, and I suspect will vote based on their personal opinion. Changes to the law, and the scope of who is included, will follow in the same way.

I appreciate that's our democracy, but I see no reasonable way of allowing us, the voting public, to put our views on such a massive subject to the few hundred people who will determine who can elect to die and in what circumstances. 

Tough subject is this, and nice to see it being discussed mostly sensibly. 

Edited 10 hours ago by egg

[Picard]

Recent report on euthanasia in Canada.

Euthanasia report

[sadoldgit]

My understanding is that, under our system, only the terminally ill will be considered.  What others do is down to them and doesn’t mean that we will end up following suit.

[sadoldgit]

I’d be interested to know if those who are strongly against the policy of assisted dying for those who are terminally ill -

a) If you are also against abortion and

b) do you agree or disagree with making an anti-resuscitation decision for next of kin or dependants?

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I appreciate that's our democracy, but I see no reasonable way of allowing us, the voting public, to put our views on such a massive subject to the few hundred people who will determine who can elect to die and in what circumstances. 

We managed to do it with the question of whether or not we should leave the EU, so it should be possible.

Actually, that was a poorly judged, ill-thought out clusterfuck that has inflicted massive damage to this country, so let's not do that again.

[egg]

59 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

We managed to do it with the question of whether or not we should leave the EU, so it should be possible.

Actually, that was a poorly judged, ill-thought out clusterfuck that has inflicted massive damage to this country, so let's not do that again.

😂

That highlights the good and bad of our system. This one is such an emotive issue. Is it best to leave it to the masses or MP's voting on personal beliefs/experiences, not the view of their constituents? 

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I’d be interested to know if those who are strongly against the policy of assisted dying for those who are terminally ill -

a) If you are also against abortion and

b) do you agree or disagree with making an anti-resuscitation decision for next of kin or dependants?

a) apples/pears. And personally I have no wish to see a decent thread dragged down by debating a discrete issue on a moral equivalence basis. 

b) ditto.

Don't derail another thread SoG.