Assisted dying bill

[parsley1]

Where to start with this

My concern is potential for abuse and misuse

Can’t be disregarded

[samuel1980]

I think there should be a change in the law as the current status quo is not ok and leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering and anguish. I do appreciate and understand the concerns though.

As a lawyer, I am quite fascinated by the legal mechanism of how this will work. I think the safeguards being proposed (sign off by 2 doctors and review by a High Court Judge) are sensible. It will be interesting to review the draft legislation if the Bill passes the first reading stage to examine the details and assess how stringent the measures preventing abuse are.

My father had terminal cancer and passed away earlier this year. He suffered a very rapid deterioration and ended up in end of life hospice care dosed up on large amounts of morphine. I think if he had the option he would have chosen an early assisted death.

Let’s hope the Bill is given the chance to be debated and scrutinised properly.

[Someone in a tree]

The church of England is against this so surely it must be a good thing? Seriously as long as robust safeguards are implemented then we really should it have it on the statute books. Too long people have suffered for no valid reason.

[duncan]

Its 2024, the Church is a total irrelevance to the vast majority. Coupled with their systemic covering up of child abuse they should have no shovel in this game.

...and having just been through this situation last month, assisted dying will be a great thing.

[oxfordsimon]

There absolutely must be a way for people to have control over the end of their own life without resorting to suicide attempts.

It should be done with dignity, care and compassion.

Dying slowly in a hospital bed is not how I want to go. I want to be able to draw things to an end without having to go through that final decline.

Having lost my father this summer, I know for certain I don't want to share the indignities of his final weeks.

[lynette]

Nov 12, 2024 1:35:08 GMT samuel1980 said:

I think there should be a change in the law as the current status quo is not ok and leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering and anguish. I do appreciate and understand the concerns though.

As a lawyer, I am quite fascinated by the legal mechanism of how this will work. I think the safeguards being proposed (sign off by 2 doctors and review by a High Court Judge) are sensible. It will be interesting to review the draft legislation if the Bill passes the first reading stage to examine the details and assess how stringent the measures preventing abuse are.

My father had terminal cancer and passed away earlier this year. He suffered a very rapid deterioration and ended up in end of life hospice care dosed up on large amounts of morphine. I think if he had the option he would have chosen an early assisted death.

Let’s hope the Bill is given the chance to be debated and scrutinised properly.

I don't think there are safeguards strong enough to avoid the inevitable abuse of this law. As a lawyer, you, I am sure, can list the times unscrupulous people have tried to take advantage of elderly relatives’ estates. If you haven’t then, I can direct you to lawyers who have. Perhaps as in your father’s case, some indication of how one would like to die should be included in your GP’s records and I believe there is some such thing. It should be more widely known about. 

[samuel1980]

Out of curiosity, why don’t you think the safeguards will be strong enough? They seem pretty robust to me. Sadly there will always be unscrupulous people taking advantage of elderly relatives’ estates but that should not mean people who wish to die with some dignity should not have that option available to them. The current law does not allow that to happen.

[parsley1]

Nov 12, 2024 15:14:38 GMT samuel1980 said:

Out of curiosity, why don’t you think the safeguards will be strong enough? They seem pretty robust to me. Sadly there will always be unscrupulous people taking advantage of elderly relatives’ estates but that should not mean people who wish to die with some dignity should not have that option available to them. The current law does not allow that to happen.

I work in medicine

The current management of death and pain and end of life care needs to be better

Sorry to be so direct but the NHS is sh*te

I don’t trust them to deliver assisted dying without error and safeguarding issues arising

Just have a look at the vast numbers of NHS scandals over the years

Take your pick

[amyja89]

We treat our pets better than we treat our people. Granted there are definite factors of misuse to consider, but I can't see why it can't be an available option in civilised, safeguarded society.

[samuel1980]

I agree that there needs to be better management of end of life care but that does not deal with the crux of the issue. I believe people should be given a choice to end their life if they choose to do so in order to alleviate suffering and I think this Bill could work if robust safeguards are implemented. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes on the 29th.

[Phantom of London]

Is it any coincidence that it has blown up with the CoE, when this is about to be debated?

Why is a cat/dog any different to a human.

[oxfordsimon]

For those with concerns about the potential for abuse/coercion, what is the evidence from those places who have already adopted assisted dying laws?

Is coercion an issue there?

[marob]

I do think people should have the option to end their life pain-free and with dignity, but do also have concerns about how/when this would be implemented. I would also hope there are safeguards to prevent it from ever being seen as a more “cost-effective” measure than a home or hospice, because the NHS can and does refuse treatment on those grounds.

[oxfordsimon]

Doing a quick bit of goggling about the evidence from other countries/states

"Assisted dying has been legal in Oregon since 1997. There have been no cases of abuse, no extension of the law and no 'slippery slope'. None of the fears expressed by those who opposing change in Oregon have come true."

Now this is from a campaign site so might be discounted by some.

But I have been unable to find any real world evidence of abuse of assisted death laws.

I don't deny it is a genuinely held fear.

But the evidence shows that it does not lead to people being exploited

[oxfordsimon]

Having seen my father through his final week in the care of the NHS, it was horrific.

All food and fluids were stopped.

He needed frequent pain relief.

His breathing would stop and restart.

And rather than passing within a couple of days, he took a week.

The morphine was more and more frequent in his final 24 hours.

That is no way to treat anyone. No way at all. It will haunt me for the rest of my life.

It was clear that there was no hope of recovery from his various issues and so we, as a family, urged the medics to go down the palliative care route.

I almost wish we hadn't as that final week was so distressing for him and us.

There has to be a better way. Better end of life care is essential. But also allowing those who can to make an informed choice as to when to make their final farewells is vital. I want that choice. I don't want to fight for each breath. Dignity in life and death for everyone.

[SilverFox]

Nov 12, 2024 19:14:30 GMT oxfordsimon said:

Doing a quick bit of goggling about the evidence from other countries/states

"Assisted dying has been legal in Oregon since 1997. There have been no cases of abuse, no extension of the law and no 'slippery slope'. None of the fears expressed by those who opposing change in Oregon have come true."

Now this is from a campaign site so might be discounted by some.

But I have been unable to find any real world evidence of abuse of assisted death laws.

I don't deny it is a genuinely held fear.

But the evidence shows that it does not lead to people being exploited

But the fear for many is that they (I) will be condemned to a long, lingering, inhumane and possibly painful end, with no say in the matter. The current proposals do not go far enough. It is not often that I agree with Parsley, but "The current management of death and pain and end of life care needs to be better. Sorry to be so direct but the NHS is sh*te" is, in my experience with my father and step-mother, an understatement. One which I have no wish to repeat. It should surely be possible for people to opt in, or out, of a scheme legally and with witnesses. One side should not deny the other.

[oxfordsimon]

Nov 12, 2024 19:29:21 GMT SilverFox said:

Nov 12, 2024 19:14:30 GMT oxfordsimon said:

Doing a quick bit of goggling about the evidence from other countries/states

"Assisted dying has been legal in Oregon since 1997. There have been no cases of abuse, no extension of the law and no 'slippery slope'. None of the fears expressed by those who opposing change in Oregon have come true."

Now this is from a campaign site so might be discounted by some.

But I have been unable to find any real world evidence of abuse of assisted death laws.

I don't deny it is a genuinely held fear.

But the evidence shows that it does not lead to people being exploited

But the fear for many is that they (I) will be condemned to a long, lingering, inhumane and possibly painful end, with no say in the matter. The current proposals do not go far enough. It is not often that I agree with Parsley, but "The current management of death and pain and end of life care needs to be better. Sorry to be so direct but the NHS is sh*te" is, in my experience with my father and step-mother, an understatement. One which I have no wish to repeat. It should surely be possible for people to opt in, or out, of a scheme legally and with witnesses. One side should not deny the other.

Given how we know things operate around the world, it is absolutely possible to set up a scheme that has necessary safeguards.

[lynette]

Much as I applaud the people of Oregon I don't think we should base the law of the UK with its very different demographic and history on the law of one American state. Care of dying people and very ill people including those suffering mental health problems needs to be improved substantially. If we are putting forward assisted dying, they won’t be, why bother? That is just one consequence of the proposed Bill. The choice will be one sided because not choosing to die will cause you problems and others inconvenience. Looking after ill people and old people is a challenge for sure but also not a burden, it enhances life, not diminishes it.
One little unforeseen consequence will be the lack of research on terminal illness or interest in unusual health problems and ‘difficult’ health issues. Again, why bother? If the teenager can be persuaded to kill himself because he will never lead a ‘normal’ life, we don’t need to spend all this money on his drugs or research into finding more. Sorry be a downer on this but assisted dying has hardly been debated at all amongst the population, yet the Bill is being presented as something fully thought out. It most certainly isn’t.

[oxfordsimon]

Offering people the right to end their lives in the final months of a terminal illness does not mean that all of those will choose to exercise that right.

So the need to improve end of life care will continue to be an important priority.

There are no proposals to extend this right beyond the limits of a life expectancy of 6 months or less due to terminal condition along with the proposed safeguards.

Yes, there are countries and states that have gone beyond that to include other conditions. But we are not being asked to consider that.

I do wish this bill was being given more time for debate.

It is not about saving money on drugs/care. It is about giving individuals the right to end their life with a sense of dignity and personal autonomy. That is the humane option to my mind. And one that I wish had been open to both my parents. My mother would not have chosen it. But my father may well have done. They should have had the right to make that choice.

[Phantom of London]

People who oppose this give many reasons, but really behind their reasons is that God gave life and God takes it, they just don’t say it.
The checks and balances are there, 6 months, no quality of life/in pain, 2 doctors, 1 judge. As long as the decision to euthanise a person isn’t on the grounds of financial gain and if this did come in law, there is always going to be the odd case that will circumvent the law for gain, it’s going to happen.

I have a mother who has early signs of dementia, would I want to see her euthanised, no. I also had a father who died of pancreatic cancer, died in a lot of pain, euthanasia would’ve been ideal.

As Simon said if someone’s wish to die, who are we to stop it.

[samuel1980]

I don’t understand Wes Streeting’s position on this. He previously supported assisted dying but now he opposes it when more stringent safeguards are being proposed. He keeps making public objections when the Government is supposed to adopt a neutral stance. He really should wind his neck in a bit.

[jr]

Surely if in other countries with assisted dying laws people are not being killed left and right, the same could be done here?

It is terrible how people die slowly here with minimal help all based on absurd religious reasons masked as concerns.

[Jan]

Nov 15, 2024 6:04:39 GMT jr said:

Surely if in other countries with assisted dying laws people are not being killed left and right, the same could be done here?

There are two issues here: the principle of assisted dying and the actual implementation of it. Even if you agree with the former the experience in Canada (where so far 60,000 people have died this way) of the latter is not at all encouraging. They started off with very tight eligibility and safeguards and over time, quite rapidly, these have been loosened and eroded via legal challenges and political and medical establishment interference and now assisted suicide is applied quite widely not just to terminal illness but in cases of disability, and continuous pain, and mental health conditions and so on and there have been cases where people have apparently been pressured to take this route. There is a serious risk in UK that restrictions in the bill to limit it to a very narrow and specific group of people would be challenged under ECHR anti-discrimination provisions to widen the scope of applicability.



This legislation should also not be introduced by a Private Members Bill the text of which has only been published days before a vote - it should have been a full Government-sponsored bill for such an important issue. And also, of course, none of this was in Labour's manifesto so their haste to introduce it without significant time for debate and public consultation is puzzling.

[oxfordsimon]

I don't see the Canadian experience as a reason not to proceed with our own version.

The first attempt to change the law was back in the 1930s. There have been around 15 bills introduced at Westminster since then.

The current one is the 11th since 1997.

So whilst I think the current timeline for this bill is too short, parliament has looked at this a number of times in recent years. The issues are known and there is now a lot more international evidence that can help create a better law.

And as for the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, the fact that the law could be expanded in scope is not sufficient reason to establish the right as a principle.

No one should be forced to end their life. But neither should someone be forced to live through pain and suffering for months.

Yes, end of life care is in need of radical improvement in this country. But that does not take away the fact that even if that improvement were to be implemented rapidly, people would still experience suffering that some would wish to avoid of they could.

This should be a matter of personal choice.

Let us not delude ourselves into believing that doctors do not already engage in forms of bringing lives to an end. Various opiates and other drugs are administered on a daily basis that hasten deaths in hospitals. Yes, that tends to be right at the end of the process. But it happens and has happened for many, many years.

I believe that being able to choose how your life ends is something that should exist in our legal system. I also believe that there should be limits and safeguards in place.

This should have been a government bill with a free vote. But the government should now give this bill adequate debate time to allow all voices to be heard.

But we should allow people the right to end their lives.

[samuelwhiskers]

It's naive and reductive to claim that being anti-euthanasia is based on God and religious belief. I'm sure that's a factor for some people, especially in America which has the religious right and fundamentalism. But Britain is one of the most agnostic/atheist countries in the world, and the anti-euthanasia movement in the UK is lead pretty much entirely by the disabled community.

Non-disabled people with no lived experience really have no idea how much euthanasia is rooted within ableism and how much ableism is rooted within society, and how terrifying it is to grow up being told that your life has no value and that you're better of dead. Non-disabled people aren't aware of how many disabled people have been killed by government policies that fundamentally say that disabled people don't deserve to be alive.

That's why so many disability rights campaigners are also anti-euthanasia campaigners (and why many British anti-euthanasia activists are atheists).

I recommend watching the Liz Carr documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001z8wc

There are far too many stories of perfectly physically healthy young people dying of euthanasia. How can anyone see those stories and say fears aren't justified?