Assisted Dying

[Slim]

A proposed law to give terminally ill people in England and Wales the right to choose to end their life will be voted on by MPs on 29 November.

Although this is in the news predominantly because of the vote on Friday I don't think it's essentially a political issue, or not party political anyway and it has support and opposition right across the political spectrum - so I'm going to presume to post this here.

[Thenop]

We have a law on this here. The right to decide, the freedom to choose is important to me.

We did have a case where a group of people actively advocated and sold drugs to end your life, and they were found guilty. It was not a noble or particularly well informed group that sold chemicals to end your life, supposedly in a peaceful manner. Not so much it turned out, nor was there a proper assessment which caused some young people struggling with mental illness to die. Sad.

In my view, no one has the right to decide for me though.

As far as it being politicized, that's very much a sign of the times and some regulation seems in order. As long as any religious argumentation is left out, I am fine with that.

[captainkurtz]

I'd say yes, but it needs to be very heavily monitored and regulated.

[Slim]

One significant thing about this for me is that the opposition to it seems to a large degree to be on religious grounds. To be fair, it isn't being framed that way necessarily but the fact that dissent about it seems to have coalesced around religious authority figures is a bit of a red flag.

I mean - there are non-religious arguments on both sides but I'm never going to be swayed by an argument that's ultimately predicated on the existience of a sky fairy.

[Nickslikk2112]

No.

If you want to do it do it yourself. The NHS are already willing to assist people die even if they don't want to, this will only encourage them.

[The Picnic Wasp]

No.

If you want to do it do it yourself. The NHS are already willing to assist people die even if they don't want to, this will only encourage them.

Like, but without the DIY part.

[The Picnic Wasp]

One significant thing about this for me is that the opposition to it seems to a large degree to be on religious grounds. To be fair, it isn't being framed that way necessarily but the fact that dissent about it seems to have coalesced around religious authority figures is a bit of a red flag.

I mean - there are non-religious arguments on both sides but I'm never going to be swayed by an argument that's ultimately predicated on the existience of a sky fairy.

Wrong thread for the debate I am aware, but topics such as this and every new, catastrophic news story that comes our way leads me towards my increasing belief that the symbolism within the Book Of Revelation being a certainty. I may not be the smartest visitor to this site but I'm definitely of sufficient intelligence to weigh up any evidence on offer with regards to the likelihood or otherwise of such possibilities. To me the likelihood is so strong now that it's harder to ignore than accept.

[The Picnic Wasp]

I'd say yes, but it needs to be very heavily monitored and regulated.

How would you go about determining that there wasn't a Lucy Letby type on the decisions panel? That's of course based on the assumption that the jury was correct.

[The Picnic Wasp]

No, we have to have a health service which we can all safely assume will always do everything to preserve life. What happens if this becomes law and the consultant tells you that something is inoperable, incurable or some other unfathomable medical equation of facts which you don't understand? We have to be able to believe these people without question. They can't be driven by accountants dishing out instructions from some bookmaker's spreadsheet. When will the Hippocratic oath be withdrawn? At present I would think that doctors are drawn to the profession for the right reasons for the most part. That might change if power becomes a selling point.

[Matt2112]

One significant thing about this for me is that the opposition to it seems to a large degree to be on religious grounds. To be fair, it isn't being framed that way necessarily but the fact that dissent about it seems to have coalesced around religious authority figures is a bit of a red flag.

I mean - there are non-religious arguments on both sides but I'm never going to be swayed by an argument that's ultimately predicated on the existience of a sky fairy.

Just to point out that the Chair of the campaign group Dignity In Dying makes much the same points and he's a Rabbi.

And there's plenty of support generally for the bill from the devoutly religious (whatever their motivation).

[Slim]

I'm only really a "yes" on balance, I can see valid justifications on both sides. I found something that Esther Rantzen said a few months ago quite affecting: she lost her husband, her mother and her dog over the space of a few months years ago, and the dog had the least painful and the most peaceful death.

Esther is being confronted by her own mortality of course.

I get the point about needing to trust the medical professionals to a point but there is a very clear stipulation in the bill that the person wishing to end their life must have the mental capacity to take that decision, and to have done so free from coercion. Besides, we already place life and death decisions in the hands of the medics.

While there could from time to time be a death arising from an error - let's say someone was misdiagnosed - well, fatal errors happen in other walks of life. Car drivers make mistakes that prove fatal to others. Electricians and civil engineers do. Politicians do, pharmacists do. You have to balance the risk of fatal accidents against the potential to ease suffering.

[The Picnic Wasp]

We're a strange lot us Brits. We are considering doctors being permitted legally to euthanise patients and yet when our police force make a split second decision to shoot a dangerous criminal we consider charging them with murder.

[captainkurtz]

I'd say yes, but it needs to be very heavily monitored and regulated.

How would you go about determining that there wasn't a Lucy Letby type on the decisions panel? That's of course based on the assumption that the jury was correct.

Well you can't...although im not sure someone in Letby or Shipman's position would have got their rocks off sitting on a panel making the decision..

[Slim]

Lucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

[dom]

Ì do worry about the possible element of coercion or feeling you should go to stop being a burden,  but if you have 6 months left to live and those 6 months are set to be pretty miserable then why not?

In terms of the religious side, Sam Wells, vicar at St Martin in the Fields, was on thought for the day this morning and was very balanced and compassionate on the argument.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0k78vjg