[UK politics] Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ColonelFazackerley**

Second reading of this bill is Friday. Time to write to your MP and tell them how best to represent your views.

https://www.writetothem.com/

The bill

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/assisteddyingno2.html

edit:

transcript of the debate

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150911/debtext/150911-0001.htm#column_656

It was voted down approx 3:1

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Not that I have a say in your bill as an American, but I hope it passes, and that by the time I reach an age where something like that is more likely to happen to me, we have something similar here.

**Paradigm**

Definitely hope this one goes through. If it brings even a handful of people/families place and a dignity then it's worth it.

**Ketara**

There's an upside (people can legally be killed) and a downside (people can legally be killed). I'm ambivalent about which way this one goes.

**-Shrike-**

I'd tend to agree with Ketara, although I'm probably marginally more in favour of it passing than not.

**ColonelFazackerley**

I am in favour. The only reasonable argument against is the worry about abuse. However, the evidence from jurisdictions that have similar laws is that it is not abused. This law has good checks and balances.

**Ketara**

ColonelFazackerley wrote:
I am in favour. The only reasonable argument against is the worry about abuse. However, the evidence from jurisdictions that have similar laws is that it is not abused. This law has good checks and balances.

That's a very definitive statement. If it was abused, would you know about it? The answer is, probably not. Because if it was abused, it would be murder. Which means that anyone who abused it would have the utmost motivation to cover it up, from a potentially bribed doctor or two, down to the people bribing them.

As with any system, it will be abused at some point. It's not really a question of if, but when.

The serious question here, is what proportion the one will occur to the other. How many people will we allow to die with dignity for what proportion of potentially vulnerable people murdered? Will it be a hundred dignified deaths for each murder? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? At what stage do we regard the figures to be acceptable? That's the decision we, as mature, conscientious societies, need to make. Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, accurate figures will not be available due to the severity of the crime. So we need to weigh it up in our minds how probably we regard it, where we consider the moral boundary to be, and petition our MP's to vote accordingly.

**Frazzled**

ColonelFazackerley wrote:
Second reading of this bill is Friday. Time to write to your MP and tell them how best to represent your views.

https://www.writetothem.com/

The bill

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/assisteddyingno2.html

Does it have provisions for "living will" or that already in place.

Personal note now that the statute of limitations have rolled. For the two weeks mom was in hospice I carried a bag full of hyperstrong painkillers and relaxers in case she wanted that. My view was the law can go

itself and anyone who would have intervened wouldn't have had time to regret it (highly unlikely given the hospice conditions and no one was going to do an autopsy.)
So while a Texan I am onside.

**Daemonhammer**

I should expect large amounts of opposition will come from religious groups on this matter as usual.

Any idea how the British public feels about this at the moment?

**Humble Guardsman**

Daemonhammer wrote:
I should expect large amounts of opposition will come from religious groups on this matter as usual.

Will it really though? I know suicide is considered a grave sin by many, but is that still the case when it is another person pulling the trigger or pushing the button?

Even the most vocal opponents of suicide would probably admit that someone else killing you (and that is what this is) after you have made your peace, is preferable to spending your last moments/days/weeks/months in agony.

**LordofHats**

Humble Guardsman wrote:

Will it really though? I know suicide is considered a grave sin by many, but is that still the case when it is another person pulling the trigger or pushing the button?

Even the most vocal opponents of suicide would probably admit that someone else killing you (and that is what this is) after you have made your peace, is preferable to spending your last moments/days/weeks/months in agony.

I'd argue (from my own religious perspective) that god has empowered no man to judge the soul of another, and that if someone else wants to end their suffering at the point laying in a bed in agony is all they can do it's not my problem. God will know his own as they say. If the big G has a problem with it, well that's his problem and it's his job to sort it out

**Daemonhammer**

Humble Guardsman wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
I should expect large amounts of opposition will come from religious groups on this matter as usual.

Will it really though? I know suicide is considered a grave sin by many, but is that still the case when it is another person pulling the trigger or pushing the button?

Oh yea. Religious conservatives will call it murder, and will bring up the holocaust as an example of euthanasia.
While I cannot predict how the British public will react overall I do know how the Religious peoples will act, ive argued with people about this many times as it is a rather important topic to me.

Even the most vocal opponents of suicide would probably admit that someone else killing you (and that is what this is) after you have made your peace, is preferable to spending your last moments/days/weeks/months in agony.

I would think that atleast half of the people involved in these movements will not oppose it, some might because at times people have this strange optimistic view where they assume things can always get better no matter what is actually happening.
And there are always those with religious motivations, like I mentioned above.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

I'd argue (from my own religious perspective) that god has empowered no man to judge the soul of another, and that if someone else wants to end their suffering at the point laying in a bed in agony is all they can do it's not my problem.

This is another thing, people will use the opposite side of this argument "Only god can end a life" (or something like that) and they bring it up a lot to oppose assisted suicide.

**Humble Guardsman**

LordofHats wrote:

I'd argue (from my own religious perspective) that god has empowered no man to judge the soul of another, and that if someone else wants to end their suffering at the point laying in a bed in agony is all they can do it's not my problem. God will know his own as they say. If the big G has a problem with it, well that's his problem and it's his job to sort it out

Very well said, have an exalt.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Oh yea. Religious conservatives will call it murder, and will bring up the holocaust as an example of euthanasia.
While I cannot predict how the British public will react overall I do know how the Religious peoples will act, ive argued with people about this many times as it is a rather important topic to me.

I believe it's incorrect to make the claim that all, or even the majority, of religious people will react overwhelmingly in the negative. Certainly I know some who would support it, and it would certainly divide the others a great extent. As you said, opinion would be split in these movements, including religious ones to an extent.

**Daemonhammer**

Humble Guardsman wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
Oh yea. Religious conservatives will call it murder, and will bring up the holocaust as an example of euthanasia.
While I cannot predict how the British public will react overall I do know how the Religious peoples will act, ive argued with people about this many times as it is a rather important topic to me.

I believe it's incorrect to make the claim that all, or even the majority, of religious people will react overwhelmingly in the negative. Certainly I know some who would support it, and it would certainly divide the others a great extent. As you said, opinion would be split in these movements, including religious ones to an extent.

Look at that part I highlighted. :v
You are right however. I suppose the more religious they are the higher the chance they will decide to oppose it. Though would think the percentage of very religious people is low enough in Britain (compared to other countries).

**Orlanth**

We don't need it in the UK, what we need is for the government to formally not interfere if people go to euthanasia centres abroad. Currently they informally do nothing, but if you dont jump through the hoops you may be prosecuted.

Euthanisia has a lot of problems. While its voluntary pressures will exist, not least the slow moral pressure 'not to be a burden'.
We live in a selfish society, the majority of people in nursing homes don't get any visitors from family. Neglect might turn to peer pressure

Advocates might claimm that the pressure will not materialise, and to some limited extent this is true, you will not be able to overtly coerce a patient to agree to euthanasia order but indirect techniques will be commonplace.

After all for comparison you can be sold something without your will, but indirect pressure can help make a sale to the extent that whole industries exist around thr ability to make sales by indirect pressure.
These techniques are replicable here (not claiming th professions are).

The second major bugbear is that with medical rights what the law states isnt oten what happens. For example the Uk allowed abortion early and the legislation for abortion persisted under the same act from the IIRC late 50's until the Blair era.
During this time abortion was only supposed to be legal under the circumstances of the health of the mother. yet despite that being the law abortions were de facto carrieed out with casual reasons. Because the law was unenforced and to some extend unenforcable it was not changed.

A Euthenasia bill will need not only tight wording but tight monitoring to ensure it stays true to purpose. I am not saying it shouldnt happen, but the legislation is not easy to make. Existing legislation is not adhered to and the methodologies to abuse euthenasia legislation are already well established.

**ColonelFazackerley**

Daemonhammer wrote:
I should expect large amounts of opposition will come from religious groups on this matter as usual.

Any idea how the British public feels about this at the moment?

The only opposition has come from religious leaders. eg Archbishop Welby
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34166605

Polls show around 80% of the British public support the idea. Even the majority of the religious support the idea. It is only religious leaders opposing the idea. Annoys me how they feel they have a right to insist others live on in pain.

**Orlanth**

ColonelFazackerley wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
I should expect large amounts of opposition will come from religious groups on this matter as usual.

Any idea how the British public feels about this at the moment?

The only opposition has come from religious leaders. eg Archbishop Welby
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34166605

Polls show around 80% of the British public support the idea. Even the majority of the religious support the idea. It is only religious leaders opposing the idea. Annoys me how they feel they have a right to insist others live on in pain.

That is a twisted viewpoint. The only objection from the Archbishop is on the grounds given, that there would be pressure to euthanise the vulnerable. The CoE does not oppose people going to European euthanasia clinics, and AFAIK never has. The current bill has insufficient safeguards.

**Daemonhammer**

Orlanth wrote:
We don't need it in the UK, what we need is for the government to formally not interfere if people go to euthanasia centres abroad.
Currently they informally do nothing, but if you dont jump through the hoops you may be prosecuted.

Yes, make them put an even bigger financial strain on their families by making them fly to another country.

**Frazzled**

Daemonhammer wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
We don't need it in the UK, what we need is for the government to formally not interfere if people go to euthanasia centres abroad.
Currently they informally do nothing, but if you dont jump through the hoops you may be prosecuted.

Yes, make them put an even bigger financial strain on their families by making them fly to another country.

Indeed, only the rich should be free from pain.

**Steve steveson**

ColonelFazackerley wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
I should expect large amounts of opposition will come from religious groups on this matter as usual.

Any idea how the British public feels about this at the moment?

The only opposition has come from religious leaders. eg Archbishop Welby
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34166605

Polls show around 80% of the British public support the idea. Even the majority of the religious support the idea. It is only religious leaders opposing the idea. Annoys me how they feel they have a right to insist others live on in pain.

Thats not true. Most of the opposition has come from disability rights groups, who quite rightly fear that this will lead to pressure for people with high care needs to take this option. We have already seen people who were not in pain, but with mobility limiting conditions, conditions many people enjoy full and happy lives with, going to overseas. There was a man who broke his back playing rugby and was paralised from the chest down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/3689907/Parents-of-rugby-player-in-Dignitas-assisted-suicide-will-not-face-charges.html

It is not as clear cut as "people in pain with terminal illnesses choosing when to die". There is a serious issue of people with disabilities being pressured, or being aloud to commit suicide rather than getting treatment for depression.

**Humble Guardsman**

Steve steveson wrote:

It is not as clear cut as "people in pain with terminal illnesses choosing when to die".

Should it be? Even if I wasn't in pain I can't imagine a life I'd personally be okay with living if I was paralyzed from the neck down.

There is also Alzheimer cases, many would prefer a dignified death to a slow mental crippling. Sure, you could argue that it doesn't require assistance, but it's very hard to commit suicide in a composed manner. This Bill should not be restricted to those in agony, it should include those who have made their peace and want to end their life with dignity, ideally with the blessing/understanding of their loved ones. We've moved on from the days where the village elders would wander out into the cold to die.

**Steve steveson**

Many people want to end their lives for many reasons, some physical, some mental. Where DO you draw the line? That is the worry that disability groups have. We have also moved on from the days when people with disabilities are left to die of exposure.

Having seen, first hand, how people with disabilities struggle to get the support they are legally supposed to have (thanks ATOS...) the fear is that people will take this option. I hear so much people making emotional arguments about people in pain and who are suffering wanting the option of assisted suicide, but no one is talking about how people will be effected on the other side. We have also moved on from the days when disabled children were left out to die rather than be a burden on the village.

I think Scope put the argument much clearer than I can:

http://www.scope.org.uk/media/scope-against-legalising-assisted-suicide

Why Scope is against legalising assisted suicide
About our views opposing change in assisted dying laws

An Assisted Dying Bill was recently debated in the House of Lords.

Scope – along with the Prime Minister, disabled activists, doctors, lawyers, older people’s charities and national newspapers – is opposed to a change in the law on assisted dying.

Here’s why.
1. People are understandably scared of being disabled or having a terminal condition – let’s address that fear, not encourage people to act on it

It’s understandable that people fear being disabled and dying for themselves or their loved ones.

We have to guard against supporters of assisted dying ‘painting such a terrifying future of pain and suffering’ when it comes to being disabled or having a life-limiting condition.

In recent polling, two-thirds (65%) of disabled people said people assume disabled people don’t have a good quality of life.

Scope believes we should focus more on challenging these assumptions about disability, not reinforcing them. We believe the lives of disabled people to be full and worth hanging on to. Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of Scope, said: “Why is it that when people who are not disabled want to commit suicide, we try to talk them out of it, but when a disabled person wants to commit suicide we focus on how we can make that possible?”

At the same time, changing the law takes away the protection disabled people have against these attitudes turning into something worse, and coming under pressure to end their lives from other people.
2. The safeguards in the bill are inadequate

Firstly the definition of who could be included is broad. The bill refers to people who could be ‘reasonably expected to die’ within six months. This definition is much more vague than it sounds, and would include many disabled people who in fact have lived fulfilling lives for many years.

The Bill also fails to acknowledge the negative assumptions that people make about their own quality of life when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness or disability. These feelings of depression and despair can change over time. People need support to come to terms with these feelings, rather than help to end their lives.

Baroness Jane Campbell, who has a progressive disability, told the Today Programme:

"My fears about this Bill are because, unfortunately, I don't believe it's safe in any degree. I've looked at all the safeguards. I've been given six months to live probably about five times in my life - the last time a few years ago. It didn't happen... It's difficult, if not impossible, to predict when you're going to die. I have to have absolute faith that my doctors will be there for me, that they will not give up on me and that they will not think the best thing they can do is help me to die."
3. International experience shows this kind of legislation is being used for reasons other than pain, by disabled people not terminally ill and by other people

Lord Falconer’s Bill is based on the system in place in Oregon, USA. There, 40% of those requesting to end their life do so because they feel a burden on friends and family – nothing to do with being in pain. In Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal for those who are terminally ill, 61 per cent of all those given lethal drugs to end their lives listed feeling a burden on family, friends or care-givers as one of the reasons for wanting to die.

In Belgium, the assisted suicide law was extended recently allowing euthanasia for children. A Dutch ethicist said: "Don’t go there".

He wrote that recent developments in Holland include “a shift in the type of patients who receive these ‘treatments’”. He said: “Whereas in the first years after 2002 hardly any patients with psychiatric illnesses or dementia appear in reports, these numbers are now sharply on the rise. Cases have been reported in which a large part of the suffering of those given euthanasia or assisted suicide consisted in being aged, lonely or bereaved. Some of these patients could have lived for years or decades.”

The majority of disabled people are concerned about a change in the law.

The research shows that many of the people who are committing suicide are not people who are in the late stages of cancer, or have other terminal illnesses, but those who need mental health help.

**Humble Guardsman**

The majority of suicides are done by people who can, you know, physically carry out the act of committing suicide.

I'll agree that the 'expected death in 6 months' requirement is a bit broad for my liking. While I certainly believe people are entitled to die with dignity and without pain, I am uncertain how restrictive the law should be to successfully discourage abuse and improper use.

**Smacks**

I think I am generally against the idea, even though there have been very moving arguments for it. Action T4 was originally introduced as "compassionate", the Kretschmar family petitioned the government to be able to euthanize their severely disabled child, as an act of mercy. Which ultimately spiralled into the deliberate killing of about 200,000 people with mental and/or physical disabilities. They also had (good sounding) checks and balances: Dr. Brandt said: "We are stern on constructing a careful medical sequence of evaluation before any patient is put to death." He and others devised a system that required a doctor, a lawyer, and a psychiatrist to review each case file and make sure death was "compassionate and consistent with medical ethics." . But after war broke out the situation quickly deteriorated.

I'm conscious that I'm making something very close to a slippery slope argument here, but I'm not sure we want to take the lid off this box. And I'm not sure that anyone with suicidal intentions can be considered "of sound mind", which makes consent a difficult issue.

**Frazzled**

Steve steveson wrote:
Many people want to end their lives for many reasons, some physical, some mental. Where DO you draw the line? That is the worry that disability groups have. We have also moved on from the days when people with disabilities are left to die of exposure.

Why? What business is it of yours? if these are consenting adults its their fething rights not yours.

**ColonelFazackerley**

Steve steveson wrote:

The research shows that many of the people who are committing suicide are not people who are in the late stages of cancer, or have other terminal illnesses, but those who need mental health help.

I dont think that is true. Take Oregon as an example
http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year13.pdf
Largest single group is cancer, and very few mental health.

The 6 month life expectancy and mental capacity restrictions would prevent abuse of this bill (marris June 2015) on those needing mental health help.

**Humble Guardsman**

Frazzled wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
Many people want to end their lives for many reasons, some physical, some mental. Where DO you draw the line? That is the worry that disability groups have. We have also moved on from the days when people with disabilities are left to die of exposure.

Why? What business is it of yours? if these are consenting adults its their fething rights not yours.

So for physically healthy people that are depressed and suicidal we should give them two thumbs-up?

**Compel**

I'm surprised Terry Pratchett hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet.

**VorpalBunny74**

I've got mixed feelings about this - almost everyone has had an elderly relative that is/was in pain, has no chance of getting better, and deserves dignity in passing peacefully and painlessly.

However there are monsters out there that would abuse this. Not many I'd hope, but the elderly are both the most likely to need this, and the most vulnerable to abuse of it.

**Daemonhammer**

Im not actually going at anything or anyone here, its just something I found today that further fortifies my point that I made yesterday about religious groups opposing euthanasia.

Spoiler: