Assisted Dying Legislation

[Berwickhibby]

About time this subject was debated in Westminster, at long last there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to protect individuals. Imho I hope this passes and those who chose to leave can do so with dignity.

[Smartie]

I’m absolutely torn on this one.

My Dad is an almost retired GP who had to watch his mother die of Alzheimer’s. As a result, he’s very much in favour of assisted dying, being of the opinion that it’s a travesty we can treat our pets more humanely than our relatives. He’s someone who judgment I tend to have total respect for.

I just have a nagging doubt about the creep of fascism and the downright nastiness that exists in our society these days - and have concerns about what might happen if we open the door to this. I’m a “health professional” myself and can on occasion be absolutely blown away by how often I can be genuinely appalled by the morals and ethics of supposedly caring professionals. When I hear some of the people from the other side of the debate saying their piece I can absolutely relate to their concerns.

I’d be abstaining and remain to be convinced 100% by either side.

[Ozyhibby]

I’m well and truly in favour of this. I haven’t followed the debate closely but it works well elsewhere and so long as we make sure we put in the same safeguards then it should work well here. It is certainly something I would want for myself when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I’m well and truly in favour of this. I haven’t followed the debate closely but it works well elsewhere and so long as we make sure we put in the same safeguards then it should work well here. It is certainly something I would want for myself when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's it you'd think in other nations they euthanize at 67 the way some MPs are going on. The truth is it's mostly people in sound mind who have pain that medication can't reach and have no road ahead bar constant agony.

[tamig]

About time this subject was debated in Westminster, at long last there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to protect individuals. Imho I hope this passes and those who chose to leave can do so with dignity.

Absolutely. However, I can see the bill failing based on some of the points/examples being raised in the debate so far. Its frustrating listening to these MPs because they’re coming out with stuff that there’s a perfectly valid counter argument to. I also think its one of those topics where personal biases are clearly going to influence the vote. MPs with strong faith are showing their true colours and there’s no way they are voting on behalf of their constituents.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

Absolutely. However, I can see the bill failing based on some of the points/examples being raised in the debate so far. Its frustrating listening to these MPs because they’re coming out with stuff that there’s a perfectly valid counter argument to. I also think its one of those topics where personal biases are clearly going to influence the vote. MPs with strong faith are showing their true colours and there’s no way they are voting on behalf of their constituents.

Don't worry if it does fail. Despite more pressing matters needing to be addressed by Parliament, time will be set aside to rehash and reintroduce this until it does pass.

[Bishop Hibee]

Im 100% against this bill.

[wookie70]

Passed fairly easily. I am in favour of being in control of how I end my life, however there are some pretty big problems with the bill having listened to a few of the speakers against it. Doctors who issued the medication not noted on Death Cert would be one of the biggest issues for me.

[CropleyWasGod]

Passed fairly easily. I am in favour of being in control of how I end my life, however there are some pretty big problems with the bill having listened to a few of the speakers against it. Doctors who issued the medication not noted on Death Cert would be one of the biggest issues for me.

That's just the first stage, though. A few hoops to jump through yet.

And it relates to England and Wales only.

[Stairway 2 7]

Mad that kate Forbes got so much grief for being religious when so many were using religion in that debate, ridiculous in a secular country. If we still had that big Tory majority I'm not sure abortion would pass into law if it was illegal

[AgentDaleCooper]

I’m absolutely torn on this one.

My Dad is an almost retired GP who had to watch his mother die of Alzheimer’s. As a result, he’s very much in favour of assisted dying, being of the opinion that it’s a travesty we can treat our pets more humanely than our relatives. He’s someone who judgment I tend to have total respect for.

I just have a nagging doubt about the creep of fascism and the downright nastiness that exists in our society these days - and have concerns about what might happen if we open the door to this. I’m a “health professional” myself and can on occasion be absolutely blown away by how often I can be genuinely appalled by the morals and ethics of supposedly caring professionals. When I hear some of the people from the other side of the debate saying their piece I can absolutely relate to their concerns.

I’d be abstaining and remain to be convinced 100% by either side.
That's where i am too.

[matty_f]

I think with the right safeguarding in place, it's a no-brainer. I know my own wishes would be to be allowed to die when I wanted to if my health had deteriorated to such an extent that there was no quality of life. I think it's a more humane thing to do for all involved, and I think the notion of any law - never mind this one - being held up on religious grounds to be deeply offensive.
I am absolutely in favour of people's right to faith and religious beliefs, but I sure as **** don't want legislation to be passed or held up on the grounds of some fictional being.

[Dmas]

Mad that kate Forbes got so much grief for being religious when so many were using religion in that debate, ridiculous in a secular country. If we still had that big Tory majority I'm not sure abortion would pass into law if it was illegal

It always amazes me how these people can quite easily forget religious beliefs and abandon their faith when it come to sending troops to war or taking pensioners and children into poverty but have such a moral stance on subjects like this one

[Bishop Hibee]

There’s no chance whatever goes through first time will stay the euthanasia legislation for all time. It’ll get chipped away. It’ll save the NHS a few bob I suppose.

[Ozyhibby]

There’s no chance whatever goes through first time will stay the euthanasia legislation for all time. It’ll get chipped away. It’ll save the NHS a few bob I suppose.

Any evidence for this?

Thankfully the MP’s appear to have taken a more thoughtful and respectful approach on both sides and the conduct of the parliament was impressive. It’s very rare that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corstorphine Hibby]

I think with the right safeguarding in place, it's a no-brainer. I know my own wishes would be to be allowed to die when I wanted to if my health had deteriorated to such an extent that there was no quality of life. I think it's a more humane thing to do for all involved, and I think the notion of any law - never mind this one - being held up on religious grounds to be deeply offensive.
I am absolutely in favour of people's right to faith and religious beliefs, but I sure as **** don't want legislation to be passed or held up on the grounds of some fictional being.

You feel offended, yet your 'fictional being' quote has offended me.

[Moulin Yarns]

You feel offended, yet your 'fictional being' quote has offended me.

Have you got proof of a supreme being not being fictional?

[Corstorphine Hibby]

Have you got proof of a supreme being not being fictional?

Nope.

[matty_f]

You feel offended, yet your 'fictional being' quote has offended me.

I can’t do anything about you feeling offended about that, luckily for you my views on God’s existence don’t influence people’s decision making and won’t impact your life in any way.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

I can’t do anything about you feeling offended about that, luckily for you my views on God’s existence don’t influence people’s decision making and won’t impact your life in any way.

I think that the general consensus of both the Parliamentary and general debate yesterday was one of respect and understanding from both sides. There were non religious MP's arguing against the bill as well as those with religious beliefs. If you think that your 'fictional being' reference wasn't in any way disrespectful or offensive to those of us who do have faith, then you're mistaken.

[matty_f]

I think that the general consensus of both the Parliamentary and general debate yesterday was one of respect and understanding from both sides. There were non religious MP's arguing against the bill as well as those with religious beliefs. If you think that your 'fictional being' reference wasn't in any way disrespectful or offensive to those of us who do have faith, then you're mistaken.

I’m not sure how else I would describe a being that exists only in people’s imaginations?

I absolutely respect your right to faith and belief, that’s totally up to you, but imho it shouldn’t come into the discussion for legislation.

[Pretty Boy]

I've joined a fair few people with higher profiles and far more influence than me who have flipped on this. I used to be in favour but now oppose.

I think we need to look more closely about the standards and expectations of palliative care in the UK. I'd argue it is failings in that area that have made the right to die as pressing an issue as it is. I've seen 2 people close to me pass away after prolonged periods in which quality of life and dignity was non existent and I certainly wished an end to their suffering on more than one occasion. Really though I'm not convinced the care on offer was as optimal as it should have been, not so much on the part of the caregivers who were doing their best, but through systematic failings. The 2nd occasion was just after the Liverpool Pathway had been withdrawn as standard practice and the 'condition specific' care that was meant to have replaced it was sadly lacking.

I respect others views on this one though. It's an emotive topic and I don't think inflammatory language, intentional or otherwise, helps anyone.

[matty_f]

I've joined a fair few people with higher profiles and far more influence than me who have flipped on this. I used to be in favour but now oppose.

I think we need to look more closely about the standards and expectations of palliative care in the UK. I'd argue it is failings in that area that have made the right to die as pressing an issue as it is. I've seen 2 people close to me pass away after prolonged periods in which quality of life and dignity was non existent and I certainly wished an end to their suffering on more than one occasion. Really though I'm not convinced the care on offer was as optimal as it should have been, not so much on the part of the caregivers who were doing their best, but through systematic failings. The 2nd occasion was just after the Liverpool Pathway had been withdrawn as standard practice and the 'condition specific' care that was meant to have replaced it was sadly lacking.

I respect others views on this one though. It's an emotive topic and I don't think inflammatory language, intentional or otherwise, helps anyone.

That’s fair. :aok:

[Paul1642]

I’ve come to my own personal opinion on this by imagining my future self in the position of being in untreatable pain for an incurable disease with no meaningful quality of life which is only getting worse.

10 times out of 10 I think I would want to call it a day under those circumstances and the thought of not being allowed to is actually quite scary. The only real argument to be had is around how we safeguard the process from abuse.

Also fully agree with Matty that despite having zero issue with anybody’s faith, it should have no bearing whatsoever on legislation in this day and age.

[Bostonhibby]

I’ve come to my own personal opinion on this by imagining my future self in the position of being in untreatable pain for an incurable disease with no meaningful quality of life which is only getting worse.

10 times out of 10 I think I would want to call it a day under those circumstances and the thought of not being allowed to is actually quite scary. The only real argument to be had is around how we safeguard the process from abuse.

Also fully agree with Matty that despite having zero issue with anybody’s faith, it should have no bearing whatsoever on legislation in this day and age.Similar views to my own with a particular emphasis on the irrelevance of faith to the debate, does one faiths views on life/the afterlife prevail? Not fair to ignore the many of no faith either.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

Similar views to my own with a particular emphasis on the irrelevance of faith to the debate, does one faiths views on life/the afterlife prevail? Not fair to ignore the many of no faith either.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

I agree about not ignoring people but crucially - as is the case with the abortion issue in America, those who are against it on religious grounds can choose not to participate in assisted dying, they have a choice.

Refusing the option for everyone on the grounds of faith removes the choice from those that don’t share those beliefs and that’s why it shouldn’t come into the equation imho

I can’t impose my non-belief into the options of those of faith.

If you take the example of Sunday opening, which was a really contentious issue once upon a time, the opening of shops allowed the people who didn’t believe in God to get their messages, it didn’t force those that do believe to fire into Tesco.

[Bostonhibby]

I agree about not ignoring people but crucially - as is the case with the abortion issue in America, those who are against it on religious grounds can choose not to participate in assisted dying, they have a choice.

Refusing the option for everyone on the grounds of faith removes the choice from those that don’t share those beliefs and that’s why it shouldn’t come into the equation imho

I can’t impose my non-belief into the options of those of faith.

If you take the example of Sunday opening, which was a really contentious issue once upon a time, the opening of shops allowed the people who didn’t believe in God to get their messages, it didn’t force those that do believe to fire into Tesco.Yep, applying commonsense and opt outs for those who have a reason to opt out seems emminently sensible. Fairest way to acknowledge those who have a reason to object, religious or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

Similar views to my own with a particular emphasis on the irrelevance of faith to the debate, does one faiths views on life/the afterlife prevail? Not fair to ignore the many of no faith either.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Is faith totally irrelevant though or should it be?

Certainly powerful (or once powerful at any rate) institutions trying to throw their weight around leaves me uncomfortable and really has no place in a secular society. Should an individual with faith disregard their beliefs entirely if it plays a part in calibrating their own moral compass though? Is it a case of there being a perceived 'greater good' at play? Given the breakdown of the vote I'd suggest everyone who voted against the bill isn't some religious fanatic so should atheists who opposed have disregarded whatever shaped their decision in the same way? What if someone of faith voted in favour because they saw an innate compassion in assisted death? Should they have disregarded their faith as well or is that ok because they voted the 'right' way? Is it a case of faith = bad when it disagrees with my viewpoint?

I'd assume those who voted against on religious grounds will point to 'thou shall not kill' and personally I'd argue it's not wholly relevant in this debate. I'd perceive that to mean violent or unwanted death (something those who are both religious and support 'just' wars or capital punishment seem happy to disregard mind you). Is such a belief exclusive to the religious though? I'd argue it's part of the basic morals of most people. That's why I think reducing the debate to religious v atheist (or rather anti theist is probably more accurate) simplifies it unnecessarily. Most people probably approach it from a position of killing is inherently wrong and then have to decide if there are situations in which it isn't.

There are issues to be debated around safeguarding, around coercion and around devaluing the lives of some. Those are far more relevant than a belief or otherwise in a supreme being or other supernatural entities. There is certainly a growing feeling among those with Down's Syndrome and their families around the latter point with an argument from some that there is a stealth eradication of them as a community with termination of pregnancy being offered immediately after an in utero suspected diagnosis. Many women have spoken of feeling strongly pressured and almost coerced into complying because they don't have a 'normal' baby.
I've always taken a practical approach to my views on abortion in the sense that it exists and has done for thousands of years so making it available in a safe environment makes sense both practically and ethically. Stories like the aforementioned leave me uncomfortable though and question the morality in such situations. It's all very well saying it isn't intentionally coercive behaviour but if a woman perceives it as such then there is still a conversation to be had. I'd be uncomfortable if similar perceived coercion was reported in those with MND as an example.

I've read conflicting reports of how this has played out in somewhere like Canada and I'm intrigued to see how the debate progresses. I'm glad there will be further scrutiny as it's the type of legislation that really has to be watertight and scrutinised on an ongoing basis.

[Bristolhibby]

I’m absolutely torn on this one.

My Dad is an almost retired GP who had to watch his mother die of Alzheimer’s. As a result, he’s very much in favour of assisted dying, being of the opinion that it’s a travesty we can treat our pets more humanely than our relatives. He’s someone who judgment I tend to have total respect for.

I just have a nagging doubt about the creep of fascism and the downright nastiness that exists in our society these days - and have concerns about what might happen if we open the door to this. I’m a “health professional” myself and can on occasion be absolutely blown away by how often I can be genuinely appalled by the morals and ethics of supposedly caring professionals. When I hear some of the people from the other side of the debate saying their piece I can absolutely relate to their concerns.

I’d be abstaining and remain to be convinced 100% by either side.

Two doctors and a High Court judge have to sign this off. At any time they can veto.

If there’s pressure to die it will be there anyway. Frankly if it were me I’d rather have the option of going out on my terms. Having seen relatives die in agony with Cancer it’s not even a decision for me. My life my choice.

J

[Bristolhibby]

I've joined a fair few people with higher profiles and far more influence than me who have flipped on this. I used to be in favour but now oppose.

I think we need to look more closely about the standards and expectations of palliative care in the UK. I'd argue it is failings in that area that have made the right to die as pressing an issue as it is. I've seen 2 people close to me pass away after prolonged periods in which quality of life and dignity was non existent and I certainly wished an end to their suffering on more than one occasion. Really though I'm not convinced the care on offer was as optimal as it should have been, not so much on the part of the caregivers who were doing their best, but through systematic failings. The 2nd occasion was just after the Liverpool Pathway had been withdrawn as standard practice and the 'condition specific' care that was meant to have replaced it was sadly lacking.

I respect others views on this one though. It's an emotive topic and I don't think inflammatory language, intentional or otherwise, helps anyone.

We need to rectify failings in Palliative care AND allow assisted dying.

J

[Bostonhibby]

Is faith totally irrelevant though or should it be?

Certainly powerful (or once powerful at any rate) institutions trying to throw their weight around leaves me uncomfortable and really has no place in a secular society. Should an individual with faith disregard their beliefs entirely if it plays a part in calibrating their own moral compass though? Is it a case of there being a perceived 'greater good' at play? Given the breakdown of the vote I'd suggest everyone who voted against the bill isn't some religious fanatic so should atheists who opposed have disregarded whatever shaped their decision in the same way? What if someone of faith voted in favour because they saw an innate compassion in assisted death? Should they have disregarded their faith as well or is that ok because they voted the 'right' way? Is it a case of faith = bad when it disagrees with my viewpoint?

I'd assume those who voted against on religious grounds will point to 'thou shall not kill' and personally I'd argue it's not wholly relevant in this debate. I'd perceive that to mean violent or unwanted death (something those who are both religious and support 'just' wars or capital punishment seem happy to disregard mind you). Is such a belief exclusive to the religious though? I'd argue it's part of the basic morals of most people. That's why I think reducing the debate to religious v atheist (or rather anti theist is probably more accurate) simplifies it unnecessarily. Most people probably approach it from a position of killing is inherently wrong and then have to decide if there are situations in which it isn't.

There are issues to be debated around safeguarding, around coercion and around devaluing the lives of some. Those are far more relevant than a belief or otherwise in a supreme being or other supernatural entities. There is certainly a growing feeling among those with Down's Syndrome and their families around the latter point with an argument from some that there is a stealth eradication of them as a community with termination of pregnancy being offered immediately after an in utero suspected diagnosis. Many women have spoken of feeling strongly pressured and almost coerced into complying because they don't have a 'normal' baby.
I've always taken a practical approach to my views on abortion in the sense that it exists and has done for thousands of years so making it available in a safe environment makes sense both practically and ethically. Stories like the aforementioned leave me uncomfortable though and question the morality in such situations. It's all very well saying it isn't intentionally coercive behaviour but if a woman perceives it as such then there is still a conversation to be had. I'd be uncomfortable if similar perceived coercion was reported in those with MND as an example.

I've read conflicting reports of how this has played out in somewhere like Canada and I'm intrigued to see how the debate progresses. I'm glad there will be further scrutiny as it's the type of legislation that really has to be watertight and scrutinised on an ongoing basis.

A lot to think about there, points well made, thanks for that.

I personally don't see this as a debate where non believers should prevail over, or be treated any different to those of faith. I should have said atheist or similar views make no difference either.

Wherever you do or don't worship I think it's right that governments allow you to control how your life ends in circumstances where you have no hope of recovery, quality of life or are suffering greatly.

A lot of what I'm hearing is driven by religious groups and other pro life at all cost groups but maybe that's understandable given the end game here? People should be given the right to choose so long as checks and balances exist. I do feel that the parliamentary debate as a whole has actually been quite uplifting given how it usually looks.

I share your views on abortion and coercion but its surely better to work on the checks and balances than drive it underground.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I've joined a fair few people with higher profiles and far more influence than me who have flipped on this. I used to be in favour but now oppose.

I think we need to look more closely about the standards and expectations of palliative care in the UK. I'd argue it is failings in that area that have made the right to die as pressing an issue as it is. I've seen 2 people close to me pass away after prolonged periods in which quality of life and dignity was non existent and I certainly wished an end to their suffering on more than one occasion. Really though I'm not convinced the care on offer was as optimal as it should have been, not so much on the part of the caregivers who were doing their best, but through systematic failings. The 2nd occasion was just after the Liverpool Pathway had been withdrawn as standard practice and the 'condition specific' care that was meant to have replaced it was sadly lacking.

I respect others views on this one though. It's an emotive topic and I don't think inflammatory language, intentional or otherwise, helps anyone.

That’s not the choice though is it? The choice is between assisted dying and the palliative care we have now? There was nothing in the budget recently to improve this?
Gordon Brown made this argument recently as he always does. He framed as a choice between assisted dying and a fantasy system that has no chance of ever happening. It’s a favourite debate tactic of his. Like vote no for ‘home rule’ or ‘close to federalism’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

A lot to think about there, points well made, thanks for that.

I personally don't see this as a debate where non believers should prevail over, or be treated any different to those of faith. I should have said atheist or similar views make no difference either.

Wherever you do or don't worship I think it's right that governments allow you to control how your life ends in circumstances where you have no hope of recovery, quality of life or are suffering greatly.

A lot of what I'm hearing is driven by religious groups and other pro life at all cost groups but maybe that's understandable given the end game here? People should be given the right to choose so long as checks and balances exist. I do feel that the parliamentary debate as a whole has actually been quite uplifting given how it usually looks.

I share your views on abortion and coercion but its surely better to work on the checks and balances than drive it underground.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

With assisted dying, nobodies religious freedoms have been curtailed. If you don’t want it then it’s fine. It’s about choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

We need to rectify failings in Palliative care AND allow assisted dying.

J

Absolutely!!

[Bostonhibby]

With assisted dying, nobodies religious freedoms have been curtailed. If you don’t want it then it’s fine. It’s about choice.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIndeed

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

Is faith totally irrelevant though or should it be?

Certainly powerful (or once powerful at any rate) institutions trying to throw their weight around leaves me uncomfortable and really has no place in a secular society. Should an individual with faith disregard their beliefs entirely if it plays a part in calibrating their own moral compass though? Is it a case of there being a perceived 'greater good' at play? Given the breakdown of the vote I'd suggest everyone who voted against the bill isn't some religious fanatic so should atheists who opposed have disregarded whatever shaped their decision in the same way? What if someone of faith voted in favour because they saw an innate compassion in assisted death? Should they have disregarded their faith as well or is that ok because they voted the 'right' way? Is it a case of faith = bad when it disagrees with my viewpoint?

I'd assume those who voted against on religious grounds will point to 'thou shall not kill' and personally I'd argue it's not wholly relevant in this debate. I'd perceive that to mean violent or unwanted death (something those who are both religious and support 'just' wars or capital punishment seem happy to disregard mind you). Is such a belief exclusive to the religious though? I'd argue it's part of the basic morals of most people. That's why I think reducing the debate to religious v atheist (or rather anti theist is probably more accurate) simplifies it unnecessarily. Most people probably approach it from a position of killing is inherently wrong and then have to decide if there are situations in which it isn't.

There are issues to be debated around safeguarding, around coercion and around devaluing the lives of some. Those are far more relevant than a belief or otherwise in a supreme being or other supernatural entities. There is certainly a growing feeling among those with Down's Syndrome and their families around the latter point with an argument from some that there is a stealth eradication of them as a community with termination of pregnancy being offered immediately after an in utero suspected diagnosis. Many women have spoken of feeling strongly pressured and almost coerced into complying because they don't have a 'normal' baby.
I've always taken a practical approach to my views on abortion in the sense that it exists and has done for thousands of years so making it available in a safe environment makes sense both practically and ethically. Stories like the aforementioned leave me uncomfortable though and question the morality in such situations. It's all very well saying it isn't intentionally coercive behaviour but if a woman perceives it as such then there is still a conversation to be had. I'd be uncomfortable if similar perceived coercion was reported in those with MND as an example.

I've read conflicting reports of how this has played out in somewhere like Canada and I'm intrigued to see how the debate progresses. I'm glad there will be further scrutiny as it's the type of legislation that really has to be watertight and scrutinised on an ongoing basis.

I think it’s entirely possible to argue that all life is sacred without it being a religious point of view and atheists can come at the debate from a moral perspective and then it’s a case of weighing up the nuances of the conversation.

You don’t have to believe in God to believe in the right for a Down’s child to be born but equally not believing in God doesn’t mean that you would think that the perception of a lower quality of life is justification to abort a Down’s pregnancy. It’s a high emotive issue and almost impossible to apply a one size fits all approach and it’s why removing the choice to terminate on someone else’s religious views is wholly unacceptable.

I think I have a really strong moral compass, despite having strong views on religion/the existence of God. I feel bad that I’ve offended someone in this discussion and I know it looks like a contradiction to at the same time say I respect people’s right to faith while saying I find the notion of God ridiculous but it’s true - I would never try to convince someone of faith that they’re wrong, or that they shouldn’t believe etc - it’s totally their choice, my opinion and thoughts on it are irrelevant, it’s completely personal to them.

I just think it should go both ways and , fortunately, these days it very, very rarely happens - at least not in a historically Christian country, I know atheists in other regions of the world might have a harder time than us with that.

I totally agree about safeguarding - you’re spot on and it’s essential those controls are in place , and absolutely nobody should be coerced into it.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

This is always going to be a difficult subject to discuss. In my opinion it shows our democratic system at it's best by allowing free speech, but in the same breath I feel that we should have looked to keep the debate a bit more narrow as it feels like we already missing the point. I welcome Esther Rantzen's perceptive comments about decisions based largely on faith , and that those people should try and put that to one side and look for the "real reason ".

[grunt]

Mad that kate Forbes got so much grief for being religious when so many were using religion in that debate, ridiculous in a secular country.
The lying Tory right wing weren't really bothered by her religion. It was just a stick to beat her and the SNP with. Any stick will do.

[grunt]

Refusing the option for everyone on the grounds of faith removes the choice from those that don’t share those beliefs and that’s why it shouldn’t come into the equation imho

I can’t impose my non-belief into the options of those of faith.

If you take the example of Sunday opening, which was a really contentious issue once upon a time, the opening of shops allowed the people who didn’t believe in God to get their messages, it didn’t force those that do believe to fire into Tesco.
:aok: Well said.

[Hibrandenburg]

On the one side I know that if I was in the situation where I knew there was only pain left in my life and an undignified death, then I'd want to choose a death that would spare me that, on the other hand, just like the death penalty, there will be mistakes made that are then irreversible.

[Bristolhibby]

That’s not the choice though is it? The choice is between assisted dying and the palliative care we have now? There was nothing in the budget recently to improve this?
Gordon Brown made this argument recently as he always does. He framed as a choice between assisted dying and a fantasy system that has no chance of ever happening. It’s a favourite debate tactic of his. Like vote no for ‘home rule’ or ‘close to federalism’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s the choice of killing yourself also. Thing that has been available since forever. This is just bringing it out in the open. Like abortion, or being gay. Times change but it’s always been there.

J

[Bristolhibby]

Just to check this legislation only relates to adults of sound mind with less than 6 months to go?

There’s no children involved? Correct?

[matty_f]

There’s the choice of killing yourself also. Thing that has been available since forever. This is just bringing it out in the open. Like abortion, or being gay. Times change but it’s always been there.

J

It’s not an option for those that are incapable of committing suicide due to their physical health.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just to check this legislation only relates to adults of sound mind with less than 6 months to go?

There’s no children involved? Correct?

Over 18s in England and Wales.

[Smartie]

It’s not an option for those that are incapable of committing suicide due to their physical health.

With very heavy consequences for anyone found to be guilty of having assisted in such an act.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

Just to check this legislation only relates to adults of sound mind with less than 6 months to go?

There’s no children involved? Correct?

No children, no, not yet, but once legislation is passed the boundaries of what is 'acceptable' can easily be widened. You were asking about adults of sound mind?....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutch-woman-euthanasia-approval-grounds-of-mental-suffering

[Pretty Boy]

Not sure this is the right thread but the below article highlights the absolutely appalling lack of funding for and coordination within palliative care services in the UK. In 10 years we have gone from being one of the best to a shambolic also ran.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zv670m7no

One of the things that seems to keep coming up when the decline of basic services in the UK is discussed is the lack of any joined up thinking or strategising. It seems a minefield of bureaucracy with multiple agencies involved leading to a total jumble of a service. Healthcare seems particularly bad for this but it seems to be across the board. It needs more money but if the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing a service is never going to work properly and money is inevitably going to be used inefficiently.

[Jones28]

Really poignant piece on assisted dying from the States.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0029vwg/assisted-dying-the-final-choice