The Assisted Dying Bill
Discussion
Ridgemont said:
MC Bodge said:
The result of the assisted dying vote was the correct one, but it does need to go further.
Other countries have managed to enact legislation on this.
The people who are against it do appear to tend to be swayed by religious feelings, even if many are pretending otherwise.
On the whole, religious people really need to stop worrying about what *other* people are doing with their own lives.
That is patently not true.Other countries have managed to enact legislation on this.
The people who are against it do appear to tend to be swayed by religious feelings, even if many are pretending otherwise.
On the whole, religious people really need to stop worrying about what *other* people are doing with their own lives.
There are concerns about this opening floodgates.
MAID, the Canadian version, is now responsible for 4% of all Canadian mortalities.
Its scope has increased well beyond the original premise, with now ‘mentally ill’ candidates being considered.
Ranting about religion does not a positive contribution to the debate make.
You are a religious person.
QED.
I despise Andy Burnham (the politician) with every ounce of my soul but I agree with his comments on Radio 4 yesterday when he said he was pleased that this discussion is moving to the next round, and he supports the bill but not at the expense of improved social care and hospice funding, those should be corrected first to reduce the need for assisted dying,
Right, I'm back to hating him now!
Right, I'm back to hating him now!
Baroque attacks said:
It would be useful if people voting heed that and not let religion corrupt their view.
I'm not sure that's really fair, or even possible. There is no such thing as absolute morality; even those of us who are atheists or agnostic have lived our entire lives in a society whose moral framework has been heavily influenced by religious beliefs because as far as I know all major human societies' ethical frameworks are based on religious tenets of some sort. Not sure if it has been posted yet but the 2022 Canada Annual report on MAID is here;
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/pu...
No doubt 2023 will be along soon.
My mother suffered an agonisingly prolonged, painful death due to a collapsing spine and associated conditions. She was religious and would not have sought assistance.
I’m not religious and believe that I definitely would.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/pu...
No doubt 2023 will be along soon.
My mother suffered an agonisingly prolonged, painful death due to a collapsing spine and associated conditions. She was religious and would not have sought assistance.
I’m not religious and believe that I definitely would.
Baroque attacks said:
Ridgemont said:
Ranting about religion does not a positive contribution to the debate make.
It would be useful if people voting heed that and not let religion corrupt their view.The first is the arrogance of those who place their beliefs in the way of my autonomy and as a result remove my choice to avoid needless suffering. Others have seen love ones suffer needlessly.
Another reason is the dishonesty of some of the objections - slippery slopes and whataboutery when really religious people should be honest and say 'I oppose this because my belief is that only my God can take away life'. It reminds me of the Fox hunting debate when opponents of the ban were justifying hunting on the spurious grounds of pest control rather than being honest and saying they wanted to be free to continue having their naughty fun
The pitfalls should be addressed by careful legislation. The parlous state of the NHS palliative care isn't a reason to deny choice. The state of care is irrelevent to me. If I faced a 6 month prognosis, I'd want to check out before I started getting symptoms. The uncertainty of which manner of suffering and death I faced would be enough for me before the physical torment started.
I hope that legislators accept that they are enacting the wishes of our mostly non religious demos and concentrate on making the law safe and workable.
Ridgemont said:
But now we move into state assisted death.
Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
State Assisted Death sounds so emotive when you type that.Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
Person in pain choosing to relieve their pain early sounds a little more accurate and desirable, doesn’t it?
Love to see how MAID resulted in a homeless person being forced to die early. Got any links to details, or is it just a load of baloney?
kambites said:
Sounds appalling to me, but not as appalling as forcing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to spend their final days/weeks/months in agony.
There's no right solution, but to my mind the new bill (assuming it becomes law) will make our solution slightly less wrong.
100% agree with this.There's no right solution, but to my mind the new bill (assuming it becomes law) will make our solution slightly less wrong.
There will never be a perfect answer to all scenarios, but at least this moves us forward towards treating the terminally ill almost as well as we treat our pets….
Ridgemont said:
kambites said:
Ridgemont said:
MAID, the Canadian version, is now responsible for 4% of all Canadian mortalities.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? With modern medicine having solved a lot of the easy problems, a huge proportion of people these days ultimately die of diseases which make their quality of life pretty bloody awful in their final days. If I get to the point where I'm not enjoying life anymore and there is no realistic prospect of me doing so in the future, I want to be part of that 4% thank you very much!It’s certainly not a religious thing and it certainly deserves discussion.
What concerns many opponents is what may be hidden in that 4%. What is a well intentioned act may be open to enormous abuse.
Sounds perfectly likely to me.
We spend a lot of time ensuring our entry to life is painless…..then ignore the bit up until the end, where we try to prolong life as long as possible.
Indeed, the religious zealots Stateside want complete control over women’s bodies to force them to give birth even when conception was through rape, in some cases. Appalling.
Until you have witnessed the agony towards the end, or perhaps had an otherwise gentile relative tell you very firmly and seriously that they “JUST WANT TO DIE”, your opinion tends to be rather less informed.
kambites said:
Baroque attacks said:
It would be useful if people voting heed that and not let religion corrupt their view.
I'm not sure that's really fair, or even possible. There is no such thing as absolute morality; even those of us who are atheists or agnostic have lived our entire lives in a society whose moral framework has been heavily influenced by religious beliefs because as far as I know all major human societies' ethical frameworks are based on religious tenets of some sort. Veering to vote X way because of Y personal belief or influence, when you are voting on something which doesn’t only impact you. Quite hard to be open when your religion has such a firm view…
We don’t let Denise Coates vote on gambling legislation.
Some of the views on the thread are great examples.
MC Bodge said:
Ridgemont said:
MC Bodge said:
The result of the assisted dying vote was the correct one, but it does need to go further.
Other countries have managed to enact legislation on this.
The people who are against it do appear to tend to be swayed by religious feelings, even if many are pretending otherwise.
On the whole, religious people really need to stop worrying about what *other* people are doing with their own lives.
That is patently not true.Other countries have managed to enact legislation on this.
The people who are against it do appear to tend to be swayed by religious feelings, even if many are pretending otherwise.
On the whole, religious people really need to stop worrying about what *other* people are doing with their own lives.
There are concerns about this opening floodgates.
MAID, the Canadian version, is now responsible for 4% of all Canadian mortalities.
Its scope has increased well beyond the original premise, with now ‘mentally ill’ candidates being considered.
Ranting about religion does not a positive contribution to the debate make.
You are a religious person.
QED.
t.mikeiow said:
Ridgemont said:
But now we move into state assisted death.
Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
State Assisted Death sounds so emotive when you type that.Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
Person in pain choosing to relieve their pain early sounds a little more accurate and desirable, doesn’t it?
Love to see how MAID resulted in a homeless person being forced to die early. Got any links to details, or is it just a load of baloney?
The challenges of administering MAID are massive. It is not a panacea and is I believe causing all sorts of unintended moral quandaries.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/cana...
you also said said:
Until you have witnessed the agony towards the end, or perhaps had an otherwise gentile relative tell you very firmly and seriously that they “JUST WANT TO DIE”, your opinion tends to be rather less informed.
Well my dementia struck mum regularly requests to be ‘put down like a dog’ and then 24 hours later insists she wants to go on holiday to Northern Ireland.My father died a pretty agonising death from cancer.
I can quite understand the desire to prevent needless suffering.
I’m also however quite concerned about the risk of needless death.
Ridgemont said:
mikeiow said:
Ridgemont said:
But now we move into state assisted death.
Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
State Assisted Death sounds so emotive when you type that.Which starts at a minimalistic approach but will be subject to constant boundary pushing ala Canada. Where a homeless woman was recommended a MAID path. For being homeless.
Person in pain choosing to relieve their pain early sounds a little more accurate and desirable, doesn’t it?
Love to see how MAID resulted in a homeless person being forced to die early. Got any links to details, or is it just a load of baloney?
The challenges of administering MAID are massive. It is not a panacea and is I believe causing all sorts of unintended moral quandaries.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/cana...
you also said said:
Until you have witnessed the agony towards the end, or perhaps had an otherwise gentile relative tell you very firmly and seriously that they “JUST WANT TO DIE”, your opinion tends to be rather less informed.
Well my dementia struck mum regularly requests to be ‘put down like a dog’ and then 24 hours later insists she wants to go on holiday to Northern Ireland.My father died a pretty agonising death from cancer.
I can quite understand the desire to prevent needless suffering.
I’m also however quite concerned about the risk of needless death.
& the Canada example reads weirdly. The Expert Committee had some concerns - surely they then have the power to say “no”. Feels like they haven’t done their job.
Still….edge cases. Some of those might have thrown themselves under a bus/train/etc. Stronger social care is also needed: assisted dying is a small area in comparison.
mikeiow said:
Sorry to hear of your parents. Yet you wouldn’t have wanted your father to have a quicker release. Feels odd.
& the Canada example reads weirdly. The Expert Committee had some concerns - surely they then have the power to say “no”. Feels like they haven’t done their job.
Still….edge cases. Some of those might have thrown themselves under a bus/train/etc. Stronger social care is also needed: assisted dying is a small area in comparison.
They don’t have the power to say no. It’s an expert panel in Ontario, not a legislative body.& the Canada example reads weirdly. The Expert Committee had some concerns - surely they then have the power to say “no”. Feels like they haven’t done their job.
Still….edge cases. Some of those might have thrown themselves under a bus/train/etc. Stronger social care is also needed: assisted dying is a small area in comparison.
The details on this really bemuse me:
article said:
Another case focused on Ms B, a woman in her 50s suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, who had a history of mental illness including suicidality and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was socially isolated and asked to die largely because she could not get proper housing, according to the report.
Committee members could not agree whether her death was justified; some said that because her inadequate housing was the main reason for her suffering, she should have been disqualified from euthanasia. Others argued that “social needs may be considered irremediable” if other options have been explored.
So some members of that expert panel considered that if social needs are considered irremediable then euthanasia should be considered an option.Committee members could not agree whether her death was justified; some said that because her inadequate housing was the main reason for her suffering, she should have been disqualified from euthanasia. Others argued that “social needs may be considered irremediable” if other options have been explored.
And that was in Canada of all places, not Nazi Germany which had a similar policy, where when MAID was originally implemented it was stated that it was only to be for those suffering from a terminal illness. A few years later we are looking at individuals whose social needs are not met being assisted to die by the state.
Madness.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't claim to have kept an eye on this but some of the stuff I've heard about in Canada is utterly bonkers.
I get the "slippery slop" argument but I genuinely would like to think that between our political, legal, and medical institutions we're not going to end up there.
A lot of the Canada slippery slope scare stories are cherry picking extreme examples.I get the "slippery slop" argument but I genuinely would like to think that between our political, legal, and medical institutions we're not going to end up there.
Someone posted a link to the 2022 annual report on MAID, a few grabs from it:
MAID deaths being 4.1% is generally quoted (increasing year on year), but only 3.5% of that 4.1% (so 0.14% of all deaths) were assessed as not having a reasonably foreseeable natural death. For these there is a 90 day assessment period.
63% of MAID deaths had cancer
19% had cardiovascular conditions
15% 'other conditions'
13% neurological
The top two causes being the leading cause of death anyway. Yes, it adds up to more than 100%, probably inevitably; some people have multiple issues.
Average age of recipients: 77
18.6% of requests did not result in administration of MAID. 3.5% were ineligible (so a request CAN be turned down), 1.9% withdrew their request and 13.3% died before MAID could be implemented. Those ineligible included lack of patient capacity, not providing informed consent, for those applying where natural death wasn't reasonably foreseeable, ineligibility grounds included not having a serious illness, disease or disability, not in advance decline and not suffering.
My summary; even the Canadian model has a raft of checks and balances, is being heavily scrutinised and is only being used for a small proportion of those that pass away each year. It is mostly being used where death and or loss of functional life is inevitable and already in progress.
Even if it is impossible to reduce to zero the chance of someone using it inappropriately; right now in this country, the only options you have to reduce your own suffering (and that of any friends/family watching you fade away) probably risks someone breaking a law or an extreme act that will inevitably require someone to clear up after you. That is not civilised, kind, dignified nor fit for purpose. I don't disagree with those that are saying that end of life treatment like hospices need to be better funded, but even that is a sticking plaster and could be used as an excuse to kick this down the road.... then ignore the hospices once our backs are turned.
Feel free to go look at the MAID scheme and draw your own conclusions, but my scan of this morning, it doesn't seem bonkers to me: please get something like this on the books and I'll sign up.... then hope I don't need to use it for a couple of decades! Although; I absolutely expect to need something in place by the time my existence becomes non-functional and any quality in my life is gone (I have said it before; I have a degenerative condition, so progressive loss of function is inevitable, although at the moment relatively slowly).
MC Bodge said:
Which superstitious religious beliefs should we stand by then?
None of them. I’m not sure what your confusion is here. Pointing out that the scientific method isn’t appropriate to answer all questions (something it doesn’t claim in the first place, and is completely non-contentious) doesn’t mean supporting, adopting or accepting any religious positions at all. I’m an atheist through and through, but I also understand the limits of the scientific method. Yes, science just uses methods. Knowledge and understanding increases/changes as more is learned. It is not like a religon.
If "science" cannot currently explain something, then why should the only alternative be to come up with hypotheses based on nothing at all that cannot be disproven and no evidence be found to justify them?
"we don't know" does not equal "god did it" unless the definition of "god" is purely "the unknown". It does not require somebody to fill the unknown with a fanciful answer.
If "science" cannot currently explain something, then why should the only alternative be to come up with hypotheses based on nothing at all that cannot be disproven and no evidence be found to justify them?
"we don't know" does not equal "god did it" unless the definition of "god" is purely "the unknown". It does not require somebody to fill the unknown with a fanciful answer.
MC Bodge said:
Yes, science just uses methods. Knowledge and understanding increases/changes as more is learned. It is not like a religon.
If "science" cannot currently explain something, then why should the only alternative be to come up with hypotheses based on nothing at all that cannot be disproven and no evidence be found to justify them?
"we don't know" does not equal "god did it" unless the definition of "god" is purely "the unknown".
That isn’t the only alternative, you seem to have read that into what I posted. If "science" cannot currently explain something, then why should the only alternative be to come up with hypotheses based on nothing at all that cannot be disproven and no evidence be found to justify them?
"we don't know" does not equal "god did it" unless the definition of "god" is purely "the unknown".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff