[Politics] Assisted dying

[chip]

You don’t “commit” suicide. It’s not a crime and hasn’t been since 1961.

Which is why it is odd that you can be prosecuted for helping someone do something that is legal

 

[birthofanorange]

Exactly, and it's difficult, barbaric and undignified... and causes often severe emotional trauma to those exposed to it.

Yet it remains solely the choice if the individual and needs no input from the state/other persons, thus negating the risk of errors/coercion, no matter how small.
I agree, it can ( and does) cause trauma, but this is effectively no different - it still is a form of suicide.
As I say, I'm completely on the fence with this one - there are pros and cons for both.
I wouldn't choose to vote on this.

 

[jcdenton08]

You don’t “commit” suicide. It’s not a crime and hasn’t been since 1961.

Not a crime in a legal sense, but Christians believe it’s a committing a crime before God. I don’t share this view, just that “committing suicide” as a phrase isn’t inherently wrong if viewed through a religious lens.

 

[The Clamp]

Not a crime in a legal sense, but Christians believe it’s a committing a crime before God. I don’t share this view, just that “committing suicide” as a phrase isn’t inherently wrong if viewed through a religious lens.

There is no specific condemnation of suicide in Christian doctrine.

 

[jcdenton08]

There is no specific condemnation of suicide in Christian doctrine.

I won’t let this deteriorate into a boring theological discussion, but the widely held Christian viewpoint across practically all denominations is that suicide is bad and against God’s wishes. Exodus 20:13 is widely interpreted as self-murder by mainstream churches and the only characters in the Bible do so dishonourably, notably Saul and Judas.

You’re quite right it doesn’t say “You must not kill yourself”, but there’s a lot of things the Bible doesn’t outright say you shouldn’t do, which are interpreted by the church using the other commandments and parables as a guide.

 

[Questions]

Not really a matter for MPs, doctors or judges. It should be entirely a personal choice.

But to make a choice we need MPs, doctors and judges to make the right decisions.

 

[Questions]

It’s one of the few charities I’ve donated to in the past. I know some of the peoples stories ……. You have to think passionately…. People suffer far too long …… Yes it has to be debated and written up - and that’s not easy - but it’s the right way forward.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Also also - if this goes through there will be inevitably be horrible cases of people dying who didn't want to die and who were coerced into it. Unfortunately that comes with the territory and the greater good of giving relief to desperately ill people must be persuasive. No regime can be perfect and I think it's unreasonable to expect it to be.

The greater good argument was used in much the same way to justify capital punishment. Miscarriages of justice was the price 'we' were willing to pay to allow proper punishment of wrong-uns. I was never comfortable with that, and have implacably opposed all 'calls' to reinstate it

So, in much the same way, but with much less certainty (I was always against capital punishment even for the guilty) I am not comfortable with assisted dying.

I like @beorhthelm 's caveats/safeguards, and so I would countenance it only if someone has singed a legal document when they were well enough to do so that made it clear what was to happen if they lost the ability to make a choice.

And the reasons for that loss of ability to make a choice should be stipulated. It should be possible to generate a comprehensive list of scenarios. It would be a long document for those planning on an assisted passage to read and consider, but so be it.

There must of course be safeguards against coercion when a person is capable of making a choice, and steps to mitigate against it must be part of the rubric. This should include assessment of inheritance.

This of course means that those deemed incapable of making an informed decision when the reach adulthood due to severe mental impairment would not and should not be considered eligible for assisted death under any circumstances.

That would not include persons in a permanent vegetative state due to measurable absence of brainstem activity. But switch-off of life support is already covered by laws.

Those who become 'locked in' with a working brain but no way of communicating are the most difficult cases. If they signed up to assisted death when they were well, they still have the capacity to change their mind, albeit without any longer having the means of communicating this. That one is a dilemma I cannot resolve.

Incidentally the Canadians are f***ing idiots when it comes to lots of things. Jack Kevorkian was an American but his outlook had a lot of traction in Canada. When I lived there I found a preponderance of adults with infantile outlooks that was quite disproportionate to my experience before and after of people in the UK. Their politics has been parochial and volatile, with weird parties such as SoCred, and a sense of nationhood diluted by literal provincialism. Vancouver, one of the richest and most lovely cities in the world, had the highest divorce rate in the world when I live there, with couples splitting up over matters we might consider trivial (I used to joke that they might divorce over babysitting if her Pilates clashed with his squash night). I wouldn't follow a Canadian model of anything. I am happy to have my views updated by current residents, of course. Eh.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You don’t “commit” suicide. It’s not a crime and hasn’t been since 1961.

It is in the eyes of god according to some religions.

Another argument for preventing the religious from exercising any sort of veto over the laws that govern us.

 

[J2 DOG]

Something you cannot generalise about . No cases would ever be the same. If someone is suffering then they should have the right to pass. That’s what happens with our pets??

 

[birthofanorange]

Something you cannot generalise about . No cases would ever be the same. If someone is suffering then they should have the right to pass. That’s what happens with our pets??

With all due respect, as much as I love animals/pets, they are not human beings, so cannot be judged in the same way.

 

[smillie's garden]

Antenatal is post birth. There are unnecessary abortions, like it or not. It’s a whole different discussion.

Hmm, have you talked to a lot of formally pregnant people who have told you their abortions were unnecessary? If they were pregnant, and did not want to bring the embryo or foetus to term, then that abortion was necessary.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Which is why it is odd that you can be prosecuted for helping someone do something that is legal

That's because assisted suicide is (you can guess the rest).

By the same token, driving a car is not illegal, but driving a car while sitting on someone's lap, with you doing the steering and your 'friend' operating the gas and break pedals . . . .

Another analogy, having a wee in a public toilet is not illegal, but if a 'friend' is holding your willy for you....

(and so on)

 

[tronnogull]

The greater good argument was used in much the same way to justify capital punishment. Miscarriages of justice was the price 'we' were willing to pay to allow proper punishment of wrong-uns. I was never comfortable with that, and have implacably opposed all 'calls' to reinstate it

So, in much the same way, but with much less certainty (I was always against capital punishment even for the guilty) I am not comfortable with assisted dying.

I like @beorhthelm 's caveats/safeguards, and so I would countenance it only if someone has singed a legal document when they were well enough to do so that made it clear what was to happen if they lost the ability to make a choice.

And the reasons for that loss of ability to make a choice should be stipulated. It should be possible to generate a comprehensive list of scenarios. It would be a long document for those planning on an assisted passage to read and consider, but so be it.

There must of course be safeguards against coercion when a person is capable of making a choice, and steps to mitigate against it must be part of the rubric. This should include assessment of inheritance.

This of course means that those deemed incapable of making an informed decision when the reach adulthood due to severe mental impairment would not and should not be considered eligible for assisted death under any circumstances.

That would not include persons in a permanent vegetative state due to measurable absence of brainstem activity. But switch-off of life support is already covered by laws.

Those who become 'locked in' with a working brain but no way of communicating are the most difficult cases. If they signed up to assisted death when they were well, they still have the capacity to change their mind, albeit without any longer having the means of communicating this. That one is a dilemma I cannot resolve.

Incidentally the Canadians are f***ing idiots when it comes to lots of things. Jack Kevorkian was an American but his outlook had a lot of traction in Canada. When I lived there I found a preponderance of adults with infantile outlooks that was quite disproportionate to my experience before and after of people in the UK. Their politics has been parochial and volatile, with weird parties such as SoCred, and a sense of nationhood diluted by literal provincialism. Vancouver, one of the richest and most lovely cities in the world, had the highest divorce rate in the world when I live there, with couples splitting up over matters we might consider trivial (I used to joke that they might divorce over babysitting if her Pilates clashed with his squash night). I wouldn't follow a Canadian model of anything. I am happy to have my views updated by current residents, of course. Eh.

I lived in Canada for nearly 30 years. There are certainly some cultural differences between many Canadians and many in the UK but overall I wouldn't have said that they were any more f*****ng idiotic than people anywhere else in the world. ( I don't doubt your personal experiences but mine were much different. )

 

[The Clamp]

It is in the eyes of god according to some religions.

Another argument for preventing the religious from exercising any sort of veto over the laws that govern us.

Well, in the eyes of UK law it is not a crime and that is what we are dealing with.

to “commit” suicide is not a helpful phrase.

Apart from adding stigma and shame to an already desperate situation, it’s inaccurate.

But yes, I see your point.

Anyway, I digress.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

With all due respect, as much as I love animals/pets, they are not human beings, so cannot be judged in the same way.

Which is very little, on this occasion. The English have a very special way with words....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I lived in Canada for nearly 30 years. There are certainly some cultural differences between many Canadians and many in the UK but overall I wouldn't have said that they were any more f*****ng idiotic than people anywhere else in the world. ( I don't doubt your personal experiences but mine were much different. )

Fair play. I have a long memory and the capacity to bear a grudge.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Seven years ago, before I got incurable cancer, I would definitely have had said yes but now I would edge towards no. It’s difficult because the outcome could have very real implications for me. My concerns are these:

I don’t really see how the safeguards against bullying will actually work as pressure can be applied in subtle ways particularly when a patient is vulnerable and dependant. In a recent case someone I know with cancer was kept away from their friends and relatives by their partner who did absolutely nothing to give them a life. My friend just gave up and their partner was already planning his new life they were dying.

I am also concerned about the pressure that patients will apply to themselves. I am completely independent but it is quite likely that this will change. How will I cope with seeing myself as a burden? I can get round the 6-month terminal prognosis requirement by simply refusing the treatment that is keeping me alive. Having incurable cancer involves a constant battle to keep my head together; throwing in guilt could make things unbearable. This would be exacerbated if I knew that my death would give children or grandchildren the chance to buy a home.

Finally I am not re-assured by the evidence of Canada and think it could be a slippery slope. In Canada I may well have been offered it already. One of the more alarming things to come out of Covid was the willingness, or even enthusiasm, with which some elements of society were prepared to view the sick or vulnerable as disposable. Eugenics has made a significant comeback over the last 4 years, these days dressed up as wellbeing and anti-vaccination.

I totally respect the motives of the politicians that are advocating for a change in the law and the people on here that support this but, on balance, I am against it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well, in the eyes of UK law it is not a crime and that is what we are dealing with.

to “commit” suicide is not a helpful phrase.

Apart from adding stigma and shame to an already desperate situation, it’s inaccurate.

But yes, I see your point.

Anyway, I digress.

I agree. I don't like the term for the same reasons as you. Pejorative.

 

[birthofanorange]

Which is very little, on this occasion. The English have a very special way with words....

It was a token effort at politeness, indeed.