Assisted dying

[johnny crossan]

I know mate and sorry to hear that. People believe widening it to make it available to people with MS or other degenerative diseases will start what they call the slippery slope to providing it for other illnesses that the majority of us would determine shouldn't be eligible now. The trouble is, once this comes in it becomes more normalised and then people naturally start to be more open to expanding it. That's where a lot of the concern comes from. Where does it stop?

Exactly as Lord Sumption wrote in the his article posted earlier - it won't stop.

"The sanctity of life is an almost universal social instinct, common to all civilised societies, to all developed legal systems and to people of all faiths or none. [] The result of allowing assisted suicide is bound to be its progressive normalisation as an available exit route. This poses significant risks for the old and ill, who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. The statutory tests can offer them only partial protection."

The article goes on to address this key area of concern criticizing Supreme Court judge Baroness Hale's view:
"The promoter of the bill, Kim Leadbeater, has suggested that the sense of being a burden is a perfectly acceptable reason for wishing to kill oneself. Baroness Hale, a supporter, has said the same. I think that this is a morally inadequate answer, because the low self-esteem of the old and sick is largely our doing. It arises because of our society’s cruelly negative perception of sickness and old age and its habit of outsourcing familial care duties that would once have been accepted as a matter of course. Historically, it was not always thus. But in an age of impersonal professional care, utilitarian attitudes to life, and fragmented families our current attitudes are unlikely to change."

I can’t rejoice at this assisted dying bill. Where is the humanity?

After sitting as a justice of the Supreme Court, and having seen friends struggle with end-of-life choices, Jonathan Sumption believed the law should change. But he feels the new bill is over-engineered and coldly inhumane

web.archive.org

Baroness Hale defends her view in this Prospect Magazine podcast in debate with Rowan Williams

Is assisted dying moral? Rowan Williams and Brenda Hale in conversation

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

(Article here

‘You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this’: should assisted dying be legal?

As parliament moves to—once again—discuss assisted dying, Prospect invited former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and former President of the ...

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

 

[johnny crossan]

Diane thinks 2 plus 2 is 18,763 so it doesn't concern me tbh:-)

"Many echoed the concerns expressed by Diane Abbott about coercion: ‘Robust safeguards for the sick and dying are vital to protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state and, above all, to protect them from themselves. There will be those who say to themselves that they do not want to be a burden. … Others will worry about assets they had hoped to leave for their grandchildren being eroded by the cost of care. There will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital bed.’ And evidence of coercion is hard to find and trace: ‘Coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but what you do not say—the long, meaningful pause.’

An analysis shared on X by law lecturer Philip Murray found an association between the level of deprivation in a constituency and how likely a Labour MP was to vote against the bill. He also shared figures showing that 2/3 of MPs from ethnic minorities voted against it. In other words, MPs from areas where people are vulnerable and at risk were more sensitive to the dangers of helping people to kill themselves. "

 

[kaz7]

Sorry to hear that @kaz7 and apologies for taking something so raw and using it as a basis for debate, but MS wouldn't qualify as a terminal illness because whilst it is incurable it is something you can live with for a number of years. A terminal cancer diagnosis would (with 6 months remaining) but I know from reading about this issue extensively, many with MS would like this extended to them.

This, like many other issues with the Bill (on both sides) are why this has been so controversial. Why should people suffering from MS not be eligible? Or on the reverse side, if people with MS qualify then just how far do you extend this?

Dont say sorry lovely. When he got the terminal cancer he would have qualifed and would have done it, the cancer ate his aorta and he died instantly but with blood everywhere, he wouldnt have wanted that for her , she had been together since she was 15 and her mum gave her permisson for them to marry when she turned 16 . He would have spared her from being left covered in his blood . My point really is there is nothing wrong with assisted dying for your family as well as yourself

 

[kaz7]

The bill does nothing for long term degenerative disease sufferers. My wife is making her own provisions to go out when she wants. After 20 years of MS she's had enough.

I cant go much longer in the constant pain i am in , i have done thirty plus years . Last year it moved up a gear and now is uncontrollable, i am putting aside enough meds to take down a elephant and will choose when to say nite ntie, probably when i lose merlin, i couldnt leave him alone

 

[supercity88]

"Many echoed the concerns expressed by Diane Abbott about coercion: ‘Robust safeguards for the sick and dying are vital to protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state and, above all, to protect them from themselves. There will be those who say to themselves that they do not want to be a burden. … Others will worry about assets they had hoped to leave for their grandchildren being eroded by the cost of care. There will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital bed.’ And evidence of coercion is hard to find and trace: ‘Coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but what you do not say—the long, meaningful pause.’

An analysis shared on X by law lecturer Philip Murray found an association between the level of deprivation in a constituency and how likely a Labour MP was to vote against the bill. He also shared figures showing that 2/3 of MPs from ethnic minorities voted against it. In other words, MPs from areas where people are vulnerable and at risk were more sensitive to the dangers of helping people to kill themselves. "

I don't think you can break this down the way some have tried to. It's too early and too high level to make a bold assessment of the information available. There's likely to be a stronger link to religion in areas with high numbers of ethnic minorities and that would drive their opposition more than poverty/vulnerability.

 

[supercity88]

Exactly as Lord Sumption wrote in the his article posted earlier - it won't stop.

"The sanctity of life is an almost universal social instinct, common to all civilised societies, to all developed legal systems and to people of all faiths or none. [] The result of allowing assisted suicide is bound to be its progressive normalisation as an available exit route. This poses significant risks for the old and ill, who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. The statutory tests can offer them only partial protection."

The article goes on to address this key area of concern criticizing Supreme Court judge Baroness Hale's view:
"The promoter of the bill, Kim Leadbeater, has suggested that the sense of being a burden is a perfectly acceptable reason for wishing to kill oneself. Baroness Hale, a supporter, has said the same. I think that this is a morally inadequate answer, because the low self-esteem of the old and sick is largely our doing. It arises because of our society’s cruelly negative perception of sickness and old age and its habit of outsourcing familial care duties that would once have been accepted as a matter of course. Historically, it was not always thus. But in an age of impersonal professional care, utilitarian attitudes to life, and fragmented families our current attitudes are unlikely to change."

I can’t rejoice at this assisted dying bill. Where is the humanity?

After sitting as a justice of the Supreme Court, and having seen friends struggle with end-of-life choices, Jonathan Sumption believed the law should change. But he feels the new bill is over-engineered and coldly inhumane

web.archive.org

Baroness Hale defends her view in this Prospect Magazine podcast in debate with Rowan Williams

Is assisted dying moral? Rowan Williams and Brenda Hale in conversation

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

(Article here

‘You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this’: should assisted dying be legal?

As parliament moves to—once again—discuss assisted dying, Prospect invited former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and former President of the ...

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

Again, there are two sides to this though. No one should feel guilt in being a burden to their family and I think there are plenty of people on here, myself included who would have reinforced that message to our loved ones when they were suffering from a terminal illness. But that doesn't change the fact that those loved ones wanted to die because they were suffering from intense pain and had a desire not to put their loved ones through the misery of seeing them in that situation. That's their call and there's nothing wrong with making that decision for the benefit of yourself and others.