Scotland's assisted dying bill rejected
Discussion
I wonder if we’ll ever be allowed to make a choice about dying. Seems bizarre to me that we can’t do right by our loved ones in their hour of need.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33j3nd1kvko
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33j3nd1kvko
Arrivalist said:
I wonder if we ll ever be allowed to make a choice about dying. Seems bizarre to me that we can t do right by our loved ones in their hour of need.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33j3nd1kvko
Medieval superstition that prevents some people from accepting this humane way with dealing with souls who have a dreadful time and just want out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33j3nd1kvko
Not wishing to sound vindictive but I hope anyone who opposes this suffers personally from seeing a loved one or even themselves go through the agony of not being allowed to end the pain.
That is a pretty vindictive sentiment, wishing someone a painfully horrible death is about as vindictive as you can get.
I'm glad this was rejected. Not because I oppose the principle, but this shower of idiots would f
k it right up. If it encourages the lords to progress with the currently proposed legislation to be enacted then that would be the most positive thing that could come from this.
I'm glad this was rejected. Not because I oppose the principle, but this shower of idiots would f
k it right up. If it encourages the lords to progress with the currently proposed legislation to be enacted then that would be the most positive thing that could come from this.It's actually an incredibly complex issue and I can well understand why politicians wrestle with it.
I'm verging on the evangelical atheist and not at all comfortable with it so it's not the simple religious issue many seem to think it is.
Having witnessed too many times the pitiful way in which many folk end their days I believe in everyone's right to take control of their own death but I do see problems with assisted dying at the practical level. Shipman has a lot to answer for.
I'm verging on the evangelical atheist and not at all comfortable with it so it's not the simple religious issue many seem to think it is.
Having witnessed too many times the pitiful way in which many folk end their days I believe in everyone's right to take control of their own death but I do see problems with assisted dying at the practical level. Shipman has a lot to answer for.
It seems crazy to me that we 'do the humane thing' for every living creature except actual humans.
If I'm staring down the barrel of a terminal diagnosis with a painful, protracted death then I want the right to go out on my terms, when and where I want and in a peaceful, pain-free way.
At the moment we force people in that situation to have to endure hell. It's not right.
If I'm staring down the barrel of a terminal diagnosis with a painful, protracted death then I want the right to go out on my terms, when and where I want and in a peaceful, pain-free way.
At the moment we force people in that situation to have to endure hell. It's not right.
This view is probably more appropriate for the unpopular opinions thread but I would be happy to see a Buy It Now button on an instant death.
That's never going to happen but I really feel that assisted dying is something that an individual should be able to opt into.
I can understand people feeling uncomfortable about it - in that case, make sure you don't tick the box where you can opt into the system.
I'm really sad to see the way Scotland has gone on this.
That's never going to happen but I really feel that assisted dying is something that an individual should be able to opt into.
I can understand people feeling uncomfortable about it - in that case, make sure you don't tick the box where you can opt into the system.
I'm really sad to see the way Scotland has gone on this.
Lotobear said:
It's actually an incredibly complex issue and I can well understand why politicians wrestle with it.
For me I think what makes it more complex is that there are some pretty extreme views on either end of the spectrum based on deeply personal experiences, and those in the middle not affected by such things choose to remain blind & not really interested in it. If I had a vote, it would be to allow it, just in case I or others dear to me could benefit, however I am respectful of the outcome rather than disappointed .
If it had gone through, I think there were a number of sensible amendments/conditions attached that appeared to be well thought out to limit opportunities on both sides for abusing it. (Or making our country a one way ticket destination, like many joke about Switzerland)
Funk said:
It seems crazy to me that we 'do the humane thing' for every living creature except actual humans.
If I'm staring down the barrel of a terminal diagnosis with a painful, protracted death then I want the right to go out on my terms, when and where I want and in a peaceful, pain-free way.
At the moment we force people in that situation to have to endure hell. It's not right.
I very strongly agree.If I'm staring down the barrel of a terminal diagnosis with a painful, protracted death then I want the right to go out on my terms, when and where I want and in a peaceful, pain-free way.
At the moment we force people in that situation to have to endure hell. It's not right.
Essentially by voting against this, they've sentenced people to prolonged, painful deaths without dignity.
s. Every last one of them.Have a look at the coverage of the debate. Although there were some absolutely vehement opinions on both sides of the argument, the majority of the discussion appears to have been around the practicalities. For once, Holyrood actually functioned as it was intended to and there were accommodations sought from the UK government to allow this to work had it been passed.
I think this may be one of those issues where the majority of both parliamentarians and the public are largely in favour of the principle, but very much concerned about how it would be implemented and, for once, the pitfalls appear to have been properly explored. No doubt this will return to parliament at some point in the 2030s, it seems to be proposed at Holyrood on a fairly regular basis.
Overall I just wish the members of that chamber could behave more often in the way that they have with this bill. It might mean far less of the badly drafted legislation they’ve cooked up over the last few years.
I think this may be one of those issues where the majority of both parliamentarians and the public are largely in favour of the principle, but very much concerned about how it would be implemented and, for once, the pitfalls appear to have been properly explored. No doubt this will return to parliament at some point in the 2030s, it seems to be proposed at Holyrood on a fairly regular basis.
Overall I just wish the members of that chamber could behave more often in the way that they have with this bill. It might mean far less of the badly drafted legislation they’ve cooked up over the last few years.
alangla said:
Have a look at the coverage of the debate. Although there were some absolutely vehement opinions on both sides of the argument, the majority of the discussion appears to have been around the practicalities. For once, Holyrood actually functioned as it was intended to and there were accommodations sought from the UK government to allow this to work had it been passed.
I think this may be one of those issues where the majority of both parliamentarians and the public are largely in favour of the principle, but]very much concerned about how it would be implemented and, for once, the pitfalls appear to have been properly explored.No doubt this will return to parliament at some point in the 2030s, it seems to be proposed at Holyrood on a fairly regular basis.
Overall I just wish the members of that chamber could behave more often in the way that they have with this bill. It might mean far less of the badly drafted legislation they ve cooked up over the last few years.
I call bI think this may be one of those issues where the majority of both parliamentarians and the public are largely in favour of the principle, but]very much concerned about how it would be implemented and, for once, the pitfalls appear to have been properly explored.No doubt this will return to parliament at some point in the 2030s, it seems to be proposed at Holyrood on a fairly regular basis.
Overall I just wish the members of that chamber could behave more often in the way that they have with this bill. It might mean far less of the badly drafted legislation they ve cooked up over the last few years.
ks on this.There's robust data from the 9 European countries who have various implementations of assisted dying.
davek_964 said:
Not just the religious. I think it's Tanni Grey Thompson that always pipes up that it's an awful idea because disabled people (like her) will start feeling obliged to use it.
Yes but it's more comforting if people pretend the only reason anyone would oppose their ideas is because the other person is religious and not a rational thinker like they are.It concerns me that a lot of political energy has been spent on this whilst the related issue of palliative care is very much neglected.
I'd much rather see this country getting its house in order with palliative care before venturing off into new territory.
Nearest hospice bed is 84 miles distant. District nursing provision at weekends is abysmal. My day job is a GP. I'm maybe too old fashioned but with the lack of service I often make myself available on weekends to cover a very poor service, quite often phone advice for family/patient and less often in person along with one of the Macmillan nurses who lives locally but is increasingly burnt out.
I'd much rather see this country getting its house in order with palliative care before venturing off into new territory.
Nearest hospice bed is 84 miles distant. District nursing provision at weekends is abysmal. My day job is a GP. I'm maybe too old fashioned but with the lack of service I often make myself available on weekends to cover a very poor service, quite often phone advice for family/patient and less often in person along with one of the Macmillan nurses who lives locally but is increasingly burnt out.
TheJimi said:
I call bks on this.
There's robust data from the 9 European countries who have various implementations of assisted dying.
"various implementations". Whilst it's horrific that people are prohibited from determining the ending of their own life, there's publicised cases in Canada where the process is used with alarming zeal. Live in a remote area where there's no doctors to treat your not-life-threatening-but-otherwise-extremely-unpleasant condition? MAiD to the, ahem, rescue.....ks on this.There's robust data from the 9 European countries who have various implementations of assisted dying.
Scotland saying no is good news.
Both sides have powerful arguments;
- No-one wants to imagine themselves / a loved one suffering. The whole Liverpool pathway style thing is/was horrific and thinking only of this, it's very easy to buy in to the Esther Rantzen position. Be kind etc...
- But there have to be safeguards to look after the vulnerable; To prevent coercion, be that external coercion (family, doctors, etc), but also internal coercion. It shouldn't be the case that someone makes the decision to end their life because they feel like a burden etc.
The law needs to protect those that cannot protect themselves, and all the reading I've done around the assisted dying legislation (and implementations in other countries (Canada etc) ) does the exact opposite. It's a law proposed by and written for those that can at the expense of those that cannot. And that makes it a terrible proposal.
Both sides have powerful arguments;
- No-one wants to imagine themselves / a loved one suffering. The whole Liverpool pathway style thing is/was horrific and thinking only of this, it's very easy to buy in to the Esther Rantzen position. Be kind etc...
- But there have to be safeguards to look after the vulnerable; To prevent coercion, be that external coercion (family, doctors, etc), but also internal coercion. It shouldn't be the case that someone makes the decision to end their life because they feel like a burden etc.
The law needs to protect those that cannot protect themselves, and all the reading I've done around the assisted dying legislation (and implementations in other countries (Canada etc) ) does the exact opposite. It's a law proposed by and written for those that can at the expense of those that cannot. And that makes it a terrible proposal.
TheJimi said:
Funk said:
It seems crazy to me that we 'do the humane thing' for every living creature except actual humans.
If I'm staring down the barrel of a terminal diagnosis with a painful, protracted death then I want the right to go out on my terms, when and where I want and in a peaceful, pain-free way.
At the moment we force people in that situation to have to endure hell. It's not right.
I very strongly agree.If I'm staring down the barrel of a terminal diagnosis with a painful, protracted death then I want the right to go out on my terms, when and where I want and in a peaceful, pain-free way.
At the moment we force people in that situation to have to endure hell. It's not right.
Essentially by voting against this, they've sentenced people to prolonged, painful deaths without dignity.
s. Every last one of them.king problem? All this talk of the system being abused, that s bks, there are plenty of safeguards in the proposal. Oh and guess what - you don t actually HAVE to use it. If that comment above about Grey Thompson is true then she ought to better spend her time looking at her family and friends rather than denying everyone else a peaceful dignified off-ramp.
My SiL has just been diagnosed with MND, and whilst she s unfortunately severely religiously afflicted, and thus wouldn t use it anyway, knowing what that disease is like and how it ends you, I d certainly like to have an alternative option if that were me.
f
king disgraceful, the whole thing. Edited by -Cappo- on Wednesday 18th March 11:20
sjabrown said:
It concerns me that a lot of political energy has been spent on this whilst the related issue of palliative care is very much neglected.
I'd much rather see this country getting its house in order with palliative care before venturing off into new territory.
Nearest hospice bed is 84 miles distant. District nursing provision at weekends is abysmal. My day job is a GP. I'm maybe too old fashioned but with the lack of service I often make myself available on weekends to cover a very poor service, quite often phone advice for family/patient and less often in person along with one of the Macmillan nurses who lives locally but is increasingly burnt out.
A very good point.I'd much rather see this country getting its house in order with palliative care before venturing off into new territory.
Nearest hospice bed is 84 miles distant. District nursing provision at weekends is abysmal. My day job is a GP. I'm maybe too old fashioned but with the lack of service I often make myself available on weekends to cover a very poor service, quite often phone advice for family/patient and less often in person along with one of the Macmillan nurses who lives locally but is increasingly burnt out.
"We won't let you opt to die but we WILL force you to endure s
t care and potentially bankrupt you on top of your terminal illness."On a positive note, kudos to you for going above and beyond with your patients to try and solve some of the issues.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff