Assisted dying

L L

law74

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Feb 2007
Messages
10,066
Location
backing three legged donkeys
It has been said that if (when) Labour form the government after the next election, they will "allow" a "free vote" on "assisted dying" aka "legalised suicide".
Personally, I believe that this is a change that should be put to the people in its own right, not left to those in the House of Commons.
Regardless of the rights of the individual and family, an issue like this shouldn't dictate who I trust with the economy etc for the next five years.
 
I tend to agree but I do think it's probably like abortion in that no matter what the law says or doesn't say it will always go on. Murder is pretty much a crime everywhere but it has not stopped it. Bottom line, assisted dying is moving in only one direction and it is only a matter of time.
 
About time this happened , having witnessed thousands of deaths i can say that some go in horrific pain and suffering , drs used to give enough morphine to keep patients sedated and it ultimately surpressed their breathing so much they die peacefully but over time that has changed and drs are not doing that , i assume because of the odd person who would look to sue them

I agree a free vote but also it needs the country to have a vote, it is that important a decision . I think every poll shows people are in favour and have been for years but the mps are shit scared to vote for it so bypass them or do both votes

If every health trust had a panel who come together to discuss individual patients , made up of drs , legal people and pallative care along with that patients gp then i can see how the checks can be made to avoid pressure and coersion on the patient involved , that is key
 
I think a banning referenda policy in a manifesto would be a bigger vote winner.

Assisted suicide should be available, but with heavy regulation. No vote needed then as it is available should a person want it and not if they don’t.
 
law74 said:
It has been said that if (when) Labour form the government after the next election, they will "allow" a "free vote" on "assisted dying" aka "legalised suicide".
Personally, I believe that this is a change that should be put to the people in its own right, not left to those in the House of Commons.
Regardless of the rights of the individual and family, an issue like this shouldn't dictate who I trust with the economy etc for the next five years.
Click to expand...
Since when has it been aka 'legalised suicide'?
The negative connotations of the word paint a picture that is usually wrong regardiing those who are facing a bleak future through ill-health.
 
I’m all for it. Think it’s a disgrace that people can’t choose to go out with a bit of dignity.
Sure, it’d be a bit of a nightmare to police and unfortunately due to the human race being a bit cunty there will always be things open to abuse but overall it’s something that should have been in place a long time ago.
 
Phil1 said:
I’m all for it. Think it’s a disgrace that people can’t choose to go out with a bit of dignity.
Sure, it’d be a bit of a nightmare to police and unfortunately due to the human race being a bit cunty there will always be things open to abuse but overall it’s something that should have been in place a long time ago.
Click to expand...


It'll end up like the purge, maybe they are doing a sly trial run in Haiti again to see how it goes.
 
People have paid to go to Dignitas for years.. I'm for it 100%

Watching somebody who is really struggling to come back from a stem cell transplant and after ~9 years dealing with cancer, I believe that this change to legislation would offer another option for some people....

I wouldn't wish what we're dealing with on anybody so I can imagine how impossible the decision would be to choose euthanasia IF it was an option... As I think somebody mentioned, we treat our pets more humanely then our fellow man
 
stonerblue said:
Since when has it been aka 'legalised suicide'?
The negative connotations of the word paint a picture that is usually wrong regardiing those who are facing a bleak future through ill-health.
Click to expand...
It was the terminology used in the media before I posted this thread.
I have my own MIXED feelings about the topic, but feel very strongly that it should be for the electorate to decide on this legislation and not just 650 members of the HoC, regardless of a free vote or a three line whip.
I think it is too emotive a topic to have as an issue in a General Election, and as such I feel that it should be a "stand alone" issue and vote.
"I agree with your policies on the economy, health, social care, defence, immigration, education etc etc, but I will vote for the other person because of......"
 
I just wanted to clarify something regarding this topic: it is not “suicide”, it is medically assisted death.

All medical care is merely prolonging—and improving the quality of—life. When the quality of life becomes so poor, with no treatment that can improve it, that an individual does not wish to continue suffering, medical care can also help end life more peacefully than would otherwise be the case.

I have always supported this, but my experience over the last few years has strengthened my belief that this is an option that should be available to everyone. Forcing people to go on against their will, often imposing severe suffering on them to make others feel more comfortable, is both inhumane and ultimately conflicts with the intention of medical care and the spirit of personal liberty.

Of course, not every situation is simple, and there should obviously be safeguards to prevent most problematic abuses, but inherent complexity should not be a reason to deprive everyone of this path.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I just wanted to clarify something regarding this topic: it is not “suicide”, it is medically assisted death.

All medical care is merely prolonging—and improving the quality of—life. When the quality of life becomes so poor, with no treatment that can improve it, that an individual does not wish to continue suffering, medical care can also help end life more peacefully than would otherwise be the case.

I have always supported this, but my experience over the last few years has strengthened my belief that this is an option that should be available to everyone. Forcing people to go on against their will, often imposing severe suffering on them to make others feel more comfortable, is both inhumane and ultimately conflicts with the intention of medical care and the spirit of personal liberty.

Of course, not every situation is simple, and there should obviously be safeguards to prevent most problematic abuses, but inherent complexity should not be a reason to deprive everyone of this path.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Lost both my parents to cancer who suffered harrowing pain towards their end. Mum in particular, was either screaming in pain or out of it on morphine. It was cruel to carry on keeping her alive , but that was the law.

I do hope we are given a chance to look at this again and discuss it thoroughly. Hopefully, the Government will pass it this time
 
I don't understand the requirement for a public vote on this. If someone is facing a horrific end to their life and has the cognitive ability to CHOOSE this option, why should some delinquent who thinks 'the government is trying to kill us off to harvest our organs' be allowed to have a say in that? Opinion polls show exactly what the voters think, and it would be an overwhelming majority in a referendum, so stop wasting time and change the law so people suffering can die with dignity.

It's one of those scenarios that people will look back on in 100 years and say, 'Why did it take them so long?'
 
Manchester33 said:
I don't understand the requirement for a public vote on this. If someone is facing a horrific end to their life and has the cognitive ability to CHOOSE this option, why should some delinquent who thinks 'the government is trying to kill us off to harvest our organs' be allowed to have a say in that? Opinion polls show exactly what the voters think, and it would be an overwhelming majority in a referendum, so stop wasting time and change the law so people suffering can die with dignity.

It's one of those scenarios that people will look back on in 100 years and say, 'Why did it take them so long?'
Click to expand...
Yep. We’ve already shown that referenda are a shit show in this country, debated in bad faith.

If it’s optional, there’s no need for any public vote.
 
I get the romantic bravado of it all, it seems so simple and nobody wants to think of dying in pain or having to be fed like a baby but there a deeply practical, legal and moral issues at stake here.

You are asking a medical professional to administer a lethal dose whose oath is to neither hasten nor delay death. How can you possibly force them to do so just because it’s lawful to? You can’t so you won’t be pitching up at your local hospital and going through the process - you’ll be needing to travel to a specialist centre - assuming that you could staff it with enough people who are willing to do this.

Then there is a whole debate to be had around consent. You need to have all your faculties and be able to make an informed decision at time of administering it. Medical professionals cannot rely on a pre signed piece of paper to say you agree as you may have changed your mind and they can’t confirm or otherwise so they won’t do it. To overcome this you will be choosing to die whilst you still have a reasonable quality of life.

Once you make it possible for a medically fit person to be killed you open up all sorts of moral and legal issues.

It is certainly an important debate the country should have and be heard to have. I doubt many people have really thought it through and that’s before you get the religious nut jobs involved.
 
metalblue said:
I get the romantic bravado of it all, it seems so simple and nobody wants to think of dying in pain or having to be fed like a baby but there a deeply practical, legal and moral issues at stake here.

You are asking a medical professional to administer a lethal dose whose oath is to neither hasten nor delay death. How can you possibly force them to do so just because it’s lawful to? You can’t so you won’t be pitching up at your local hospital and going through the process - you’ll be needing to travel to a specialist centre - assuming that you could staff it with enough people who are willing to do this.

Then there is a whole debate to be had around consent. You need to have all your faculties and be able to make an informed decision at time of administering it. Medical professionals cannot rely on a pre signed piece of paper to say you agree as you may have changed your mind and they can’t confirm or otherwise so they won’t do it. To overcome this you will be choosing to die whilst you still have a reasonable quality of life.

Once you make it possible for a medically fit person to be killed you open up all sorts of moral and legal issues.

It is certainly an important debate the country should have and be heard to have. I doubt many people have really thought it through and that’s before you get the religious nut jobs involved.
Click to expand...
Nobody has any right to decide if someone who makes this very hard decision is doing it for romantic reasons. As for moral, legal and practical? Again, what has that got to with anybody else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top