Assisted Dying Legislation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

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

J

---

Absolutely!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

---

Indeed

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

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.

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 ".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Over 18s in England and Wales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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.

Really poignant piece on assisted dying from the States.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...e-final-choice