Assisted dying

[law74]

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.

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......"

 

[BrianW]

To my mind, it's only 'emotive' if you make it compulsory.

It is no freaking business of anyone else if an individual decides they've had enough.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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.

 

[mosssideblue]

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.

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

 

[Blue and true]

Euthanasia should be an option available to everyone - on the proviso they are compos mentis and fully aware of the gravity of their decision.

 

[Manchester33]

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?'

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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?'

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.

 

[Manchester33]

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.

Yep, optional with the right regulation (like what happens in Switzerland). Let people who have the capacity to make their own decisions... make their own decisions.

 

[metalblue]

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.

 

[Phil1]

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.

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?