Assisted Dying Proposal

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

High Court Judge's apparently, almost undoubtedly Family Division. If there's lots of cases I wouldn't be surprised if the jurisdiction trickles down to court of protection or family court judges. 

How would that be remotely practical if the level of cases are anywhere close to comparable schemes in other countries? 

[egg]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How would that be remotely practical if the level of cases are anywhere close to comparable schemes in other countries? 

It depends how it's done. If it's essentially a paper sign off you'd imagine a Judge could get through quite a few in a sitting day. I'm not sure why it needs a High Court judge personally, and if there's volume, it's hard to see the High Court being able to absorb loads of applications which can't be delayed. 

[hypochondriac]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

It depends how it's done. If it's essentially a paper sign off you'd imagine a Judge could get through quite a few in a sitting day. I'm not sure why it needs a High Court judge personally, and if there's volume, it's hard to see the High Court being able to absorb loads of applications which can't be delayed. 

If that's the case then it's simply not going to receive the vital care and attention required for each case. If it works as you describe the it isn't a safeguard at all-it's a box ticking exercise. 

[hypochondriac]

Oh my god this interview is an absolute car crash. I say this as someone who doesn't want this to pass but you think they would have chosen someone to talk about this bill who wasn't a complete moron. 

https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1856475110300901604?t=lY0oCIIJpENHjhBfmlIrIQ&s=19

[Tamesaint]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

The implication being, and I'll admit I haven't seen any mention time limit imposed in this proposal, that she would have made that decision at some point following her initial diagnosis. In cases of dementia a slightly more challenging set of circumstances would be presented in that there would have to be an agreement from doctors that the point of zero QoL has been reached, with the patient having previously consented to AD whilst of sound mind.

I haven't read the proposed bill but from what I have read this is not how it would work. There is  no proposal for AD to take effect "at sometime in the future". The current proposal states that the person needs to have no more than 6 months to live. 

To achieve what you would have wanted for your grandmother the current AD proposal would need to be widened. The supposedly "strictest safeguards in the world" would need to be relaxed.... proving that they aren't very strict after all and the fears of vulnerable people would be strengthened . 

Edited 13 November, 2024 by Tamesaint

[Weston Super Saint]

10 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

The implication being, and I'll admit I haven't seen any mention time limit imposed in this proposal, that she would have made that decision at some point following her initial diagnosis. In cases of dementia a slightly more challenging set of circumstances would be presented in that there would have to be an agreement from doctors that the point of zero QoL has been reached, with the patient having previously consented to AD whilst of sound mind.

Whilst a doctor has to prescribe the lethal dosage, the patient has to administer it themselves (whilst still of sound mind), so this would not have been an option for your Grandmother.  It would still be illegal for anyone else to administer the final injection (I'm assuming injection rather than pills?).  This would also rule out anyone who doesn't have use of their limbs.  

[hypochondriac]

Yet another reason not to do this. Will be a huge load of additional pressure on a system already unfit for purpose:

 

[sadoldgit]

More from Parliament

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl4p3yg769o.amp

I have listened to a lot of compelling arguments against the bill in the last few weeks but I still think that the choice should still be there for those who want it. I do accept that there is a problem about policing and how decisions are arrived at and the “slippery slope” arguments  are clearly a concern, but, in certain circumstances I still think that we should have the right to end our lives with dignity and without have to resort to either suicide or going through a traumatic end of life, if it can be avoided.

Coming from someone who knows a lot more about the proposed legislation than most of us, apparently the bill is a lot more watertight and less likely to be able to be challenged in court for the purposes of amendments than other legislation around the world.

Edited 21 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[The Kraken]

YouGov poll landed today, 78% in favour of assisted dying in principle and in practise. I thought it would be favourable overall but didn’t think the consensus would be quite that high.

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

[Lighthouse]

I have to say, I did find it very reassuring to learn that Diane Abbott was opposed to my viewpoint. I can never be certain my opinions are correct but that's about the best litmus test there is.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

YouGov poll landed today, 78% in favour of assisted dying in principle and in practise. I thought it would be favourable overall but didn’t think the consensus would be quite that high.

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

I'm not surprised at all. Quite a few will support it but I expect a rather large number have not thought through the consequences of it all. 

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not surprised at all. Quite a few will support it but I expect a rather large number have not thought through the consequences of it all. 

That is exactly the issue. The principle in theory is clear. It is the consequences that cause me the issues. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

That is exactly the issue. The principle in theory is clear. It is the consequences that cause me the issues. 

And me. I completely agree with the principle in theory. 

[Lighthouse]

10 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

That is exactly the issue. The principle in theory is clear. It is the consequences that cause me the issues. 

What are the consequences of not approving this bill?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

What are the consequences of not approving this bill?

In my view outweighed by the consequences of doing the opposite. I still think it will pass though which will make it a sad day when it does. 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In my view outweighed by the consequences of doing the opposite. I still think it will pass though which will make it a sad day when it does. 

A small number of people who are terminally ill and suicidal may use this scheme to kill themselves a few months earlier than they would have passed away organically, rather than throwing themselves off a bridge. That doesn't even come close to outweighing the thousands of people who will be spared an agonising, debilitating death if it passes.

You can't simply dismiss anyone who supports this as having, "not thought through the consequences."

[badgerx16]

13 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I have to say, I did find it very reassuring to learn that Diane Abbott was opposed to my viewpoint. I can never be certain my opinions are correct but that's about the best litmus test there is.

Presumably that means you have never felt like shagging Jeremy Corbyn ?

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Presumably that means you have never felt like shagging Jeremy Corbyn ?

I think many people would take assisted dying over that.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

6 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I think many people would take assisted dying over that.

An unusual amendment to the bill, to watch out for. 🙂

[egg]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

A small number of people who are terminally ill and suicidal may use this scheme to kill themselves a few months earlier than they would have passed away organically, rather than throwing themselves off a bridge. That doesn't even come close to outweighing the thousands of people who will be spared an agonising, debilitating death if it passes.

You can't simply dismiss anyone who supports this as having, "not thought through the consequences."

You don't seem able to grasp the consequences that people have explained. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

A small number of people who are terminally ill and suicidal may use this scheme to kill themselves a few months earlier than they would have passed away organically, rather than throwing themselves off a bridge. That doesn't even come close to outweighing the thousands of people who will be spared an agonising, debilitating death if it passes.

You can't simply dismiss anyone who supports this as having, "not thought through the consequences."

Firstly I didn't dismiss people who supported it. It's my belief that as with almost every opinion poll ever, a number of people will agree with the principle and the headline - as I do - but many of these people will not have answered considering the consequences of the decision. If the question is if you support assisted dying under certain circumstances then in that poll I would be counted as someone in favour. 

Secondly your characterisation of the two sides of the argument is entirely false and proves you either haven't read or simply dismissed arguments different from your own (we already know you didn't watch the documentary about it). 

Edited 23 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly I didn't dismiss people who supported it. It's my belief that as with almost every opinion poll ever, a number of people will agree with the principle and the headline - as I do - but many of these people will not have answered considering the consequences of the decision. If the question is if you support assisted dying under certain circumstances then in that poll I would be counted as someone in favour.  

That is the question on the bill isn't it?

The specific circumstances being :

1. The patient must be terminally ill.

2. That terminal illness must be in its last six months.

 

[egg]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

That is the question on the bill isn't it?

The specific circumstances being :

1. The patient must be terminally ill.

2. That terminal illness must be in its last six months.

 

At a simple level, yes, but as has been discussed at length, there are more complex issues of true consent, coerced consent, etc at play. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That is the question on the bill isn't it?

The specific circumstances being :

1. The patient must be terminally ill.

2. That terminal illness must be in its last six months.

 

Just read the thread. There's no need to repeat what's been posted on here multiple times. 

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

At a simple level, yes, but as has been discussed at length, there are more complex issues of true consent, coerced consent, etc at play. 

None of those are going to go away if the question is 'if you support assisted dying under certain circumstances' are they?

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

None of those are going to go away if the question is 'if you support assisted dying under certain circumstances' are they?

Entirely depends what the circumstances are. 

[Lighthouse]

47 minutes ago, egg said:

You don't seem able to grasp the consequences that people have explained. 

No I do, it’s just that the vast majority of the cases put forward, including the documentary with a bunch of irrelevant people trying to be the victim of the bill, don’t fulfil the criteria of being independently diagnosed as terminally ill.

Im not saying there’ll never be a case of somebody who could have lived longer using this proposal to end their own life but those numbers will be massively outweighed and outnumbered by the people dying in pain this bill will help.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No I do, it’s just that the vast majority of the cases put forward, including the documentary with a bunch of irrelevant people trying to be the victim of the bill, don’t fulfil the criteria of being independently diagnosed as terminally ill.

Im not saying there’ll never be a case of somebody who could have lived longer using this proposal to end their own life but those numbers will be massively outweighed and outnumbered by the people dying in pain this bill will help.

 

This response proves you haven't engaged with the opposing arguments in any meaningful sense. 

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

This response proves you haven't engaged with the opposing arguments in any meaningful sense. 

I have, you just don’t like the fact that I’ve dismissed most of them. If you keep putting forward examples which clearly don’t fulfil the criteria of being terminally ill, I’ll continue to disregard them.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I have, you just don’t like the fact that I’ve dismissed most of them. If you keep putting forward examples which clearly don’t fulfil the criteria of being terminally ill, I’ll continue to disregard them.

No you haven't. There's no valid dismissal of the arguments that you've posted, you've just decided to ignore them or you haven't read them. 

Go and have another go. Engage with the actual arguments rather than dismissing them:

https://x.com/philipmurraylaw/status/1860275371138068964?t=SJ9dbg_Lact5X16A-KAzRA&s=19

Worth noting as well that there's quite a few people who have said they are pro assisted dying but have big problems with the legislation as written and the manner that it has been put forward. 

Edited 23 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I have, you just don’t like the fact that I’ve dismissed most of them. If you keep putting forward examples which clearly don’t fulfil the criteria of being terminally ill, I’ll continue to disregard them.

 

[egg]

47 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

 

That's horrific. 

[whelk]

Good discussion on Laura K. First time have respected Nadine Dorries who was very good

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, whelk said:

Good discussion on Laura K. First time have respected Nadine Dorries who was very good

I'll check it out cheers. 

[whelk]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'll check it out cheers. 

Her husband had bowel cancer and given 6 months. He was googling Dignitas and they talked him round and they said was so best for everyone that he went naturally.

she also made point of all those in care homes that don’t always have family 

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Her husband had bowel cancer and given 6 months. He was googling Dignitas and they talked him round and they said was so best for everyone that he went naturally.

she also made point of all those in care homes that don’t always have family 

Thanks, I'll take a listen. The bit I take from your post is that he was talked around. On that occasion he was talked around to the natural end, but my concern remains that others may be talked the other way. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Her husband had bowel cancer and given 6 months. He was googling Dignitas and they talked him round and they said was so best for everyone that he went naturally.

she also made point of all those in care homes that don’t always have family 

I watched it. It was quite emotional and Nadine makes an excellent point. 

[sadoldgit]

I have heard “the slippery slope” mention so many times over the last few weeks. If we stopped making decisions over fears of “the slippery slope” nothing would ever get done. I understand that the legislation is going to be very tight and if the vote goes through there will be further scrutiny to make sure that it sticks to a tight protocol. We really need to stop putting our own judgements before others when it comes down to what we feel is best and allow people to make their own decisions about their own lives when the end is near. The only people who have a right to determine how they die are those faced with certain death in a certain timeframe with an understanding of how difficult that death will be for them. Not the church, not keyboard warriors on social media, not people who worry about “slippery slopes”. We really need to give people the right to a dignified death on their own terms. Why on earth would you deny someone that? What right do we have to insist that people have to die an awful death when we wouldn’t put our own pets through the same trauma?

[hypochondriac]

Whatever your stance, this is worrying and should not be happening. At the very least I requires a full debate and proper examination of the issues. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Whatever your stance, this is worrying and should not be happening. At the very least I requires a full debate and proper examination of the issues. 

Agreed. All sides should be able to express their views, and through them. the views of their constituents. It's too important, and will have such an impact, that it shouldn't be rushed.

I think I heard that this format might be something to do with the way the bill was raised and the normal time allotted to such bills. So procedural, impacting on a topic with such strength of opinion. Someone can correct me, if I'm misremembering.

[sadoldgit]

Some of the pro bill MPs have said that they think the bill will fail. Some commentators saying that many MPs have yet to make up their minds. Apparently a lot of the new MPs feel that this bill has come to soon for them and they would prefer to get a bit more experience under their belts before they deal with such an important and emotive piece of legislation.

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Some of the pro bill MPs have said that they think the bill will fail. Some commentators saying that many MPs have yet to make up their minds. Apparently a lot of the new MPs feel that this bill has come to soon for them and they would prefer to get a bit more experience under their belts before they deal with such an important and emotive piece of legislation.

Good if that's true. Really everyone should be supporting the amendment stating that there hasn't been enough time and that it needs a proper debate. 

[hypochondriac]

[egg]

44 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Good if that's true. Really everyone should be supporting the amendment stating that there hasn't been enough time and that it needs a proper debate. 

Yep. This is a bloody serious issue and needs proper debate, and then an opportunity for MP's to reflect. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those MP's though. 

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I've no idea if this device would be legally approved in the UK if the bill passes but it seems decent in principle to me. Hypoxia is probably about the most painless and humane way to go, with the least associated risk of side effects or complications. Certainly most of the aviation accidents attributed to hypoxia have basically involved everyone onboard falling asleep and never waking up, like the Helios accident and the one which killed Payne Stewart.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Yep. This is a bloody serious issue and needs proper debate, and then an opportunity for MP's to reflect. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those MP's though. 

Imagine if something as profound as this does pass on Friday with such little debate and scrutiny. It really does change society quite profoundly in a way that I'm not sure we have seen in decades and yet MPs who want to contribute to the debate will likely have less than a couple of minutes to debate it. 

Edited 27 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

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? 

 

 

Edited 28 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[egg]

28 minutes 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.

 

 

I'm not against the principle of a choice to end life early where a person is near the end of life. You mention choice, but it must true/free/independent choice, and i remain concerned that people will elect death when the choice isn't truly theirs. Policing that will be impossible so I'm still, just about, against this.

[sadoldgit]

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.

[hypochondriac]

21 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.

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.