 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad , hopefully it'll facilitate a dignified death for those who fit the criteria , that's the next challenge." Quite agree. When palliative treatment stops working and you are in constant pain it will be good to have the option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who believes that the issue of assisted dying is so significant a question that it should have been put to a public vote via referendum, rather than letting our politicians decide? With a mere 23 votes it's quite a close decision. Personally, I'm pleased with the outcome of the vote, I think it's a significant step forward, and I hope it will bring comfort and dignity to those who need it. " I don't. These people come to use once every 5 years, and offer to make these difficult decisions on our behalf. Let them get on with it - they wanted this job. Now, where's my crayons . . . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thinks it’s a decision some will live to regret. It reduces the value of human life to that of an animal." I look at it the other way around. If you let a sick animal suffer then you could be prosecuted for cruelty, yet we are happy to force people who only have a few days left to live to suffer in pain when palliative care stops working. If you object to assisted dying then you don’t have to accept it if you were ever unfortunate to be in the terminal phase of an illness, those who do want the option shouldn’t be denied the choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who believes that the issue of assisted dying is so significant a question that it should have been put to a public vote via referendum, rather than letting our politicians decide? With a mere 23 votes it's quite a close decision. Personally, I'm pleased with the outcome of the vote, I think it's a significant step forward, and I hope it will bring comfort and dignity to those who need it. " I agree something like this should be more of a referendum issue as it's so huge. I've no idea what my local MP thinks and he's never asked me for my view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who believes that the issue of assisted dying is so significant a question that it should have been put to a public vote via referendum, rather than letting our politicians decide? With a mere 23 votes it's quite a close decision. Personally, I'm pleased with the outcome of the vote, I think it's a significant step forward, and I hope it will bring comfort and dignity to those who need it. " It's literally what we pay them for. This country can not run referendums, they need to take a better look at Ireland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Great, now we can 'off' those burdensome nearly dead relatives and inherit their cash! Wonderful! " As meatloaf once said, "you took the words right out of my mouth." Lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just found out, I'm feeling emotional. Humanist UK have been working really hard to get this bill through and I'm proud to have played a small part. Fantastic news "Are you due an inheritance or something? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Personally I’d rather the public were not allowed to vote on this look at the mess caused when the people were allowed to vote on Brexit!,britains got talent or X factor is about the limit for most British people." Whilst I agree with you, I think local non-binding referenda could've been useful so MPs had a consensus to consider. He or she could just vote how they want and only consider their own beliefs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just found out, I'm feeling emotional. Humanist UK have been working really hard to get this bill through and I'm proud to have played a small part. Fantastic news
Are you due an inheritance or something?"Lighten up non of are getting out alive!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thinks it’s a decision some will live to regret. It reduces the value of human life to that of an animal." So it's OK for a human to suffer but not an animal. Twisted logic. I congratulate all the mp who voted in favour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thinks it’s a decision some will live to regret. It reduces the value of human life to that of an animal." No, it gives humans the same degree of mercy as we give to animals. Currently we make humans suffer agonies for months and years, I don’t see how that is a better outcome? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair." Agree, I’m for this law, my MP voted against. No local consultation, she voted her own feeling. I understand that you can’t have referendum for everything, but on the basis that we exited Europe when most didn’t understand the issues, this would have been a much ‘easier’ ask of the General Public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair." MP’s vote on loads of different things that can affect our lives. Should we put everything that MP’s vote on to a public referendum. I didn’t have a choice to come into this world, but I’d at least like to have a say when I can go if I were to become terminally ill | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair. MP’s vote on loads of different things that can affect our lives. Should we put everything that MP’s vote on to a public referendum. I didn’t have a choice to come into this world, but I’d at least like to have a say when I can go if I were to become terminally ill " Haha... I didn't say we should have a referendum on everything. This specifically I think we should have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair." It's known as representative democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair." Because the last referendum went so well? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair. Because the last referendum went so well? " It's not the same, why bring that up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the current UK population of around 69.6 million and 650 MPs in Westminster, each MP effectively has made a life-or-death decision on behalf of approximately 107,000 people!!! This stark statistic highlights the gravity of the issue! While I believe the question of Assisted Dying should have been put to a national vote, I think the right decision has been made by our representatives in Parliament in this instance. Nonetheless, such a vitally important subject arguably warranted a direct say from the people of the UK themselves." The state is only going to intervene in assisted death if the actual person indicates that is their wish to do so. It's not going to be Logan's run | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the current UK population of around 69.6 million and 650 MPs in Westminster, each MP effectively has made a life-or-death decision on behalf of approximately 107,000 people!!! This stark statistic highlights the gravity of the issue! While I believe the question of Assisted Dying should have been put to a national vote, I think the right decision has been made by our representatives in Parliament in this instance. Nonetheless, such a vitally important subject arguably warranted a direct say from the people of the UK themselves. The state is only going to intervene in assisted death if the actual person indicates that is their wish to do so. It's not going to be Logan's run" Exactly, but that's precisely why it's striking that such a fundamental issue wasn't put to a national vote. A matter of such profound personal significance arguably demands direct input from the people themselves, rather than relying solely on parliamentary decision-making. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the current UK population of around 69.6 million and 650 MPs in Westminster, each MP effectively has made a life-or-death decision on behalf of approximately 107,000 people!!! This stark statistic highlights the gravity of the issue! While I believe the question of Assisted Dying should have been put to a national vote, I think the right decision has been made by our representatives in Parliament in this instance. Nonetheless, such a vitally important subject arguably warranted a direct say from the people of the UK themselves." MP’s are voting to change the law to allow those who are late stage terminally ill to be able to choose for themselves when they want to pass if the palliative care drugs stop working and they are in constant pain. No one is forcing anyone die early, just giving them the right to choose for themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Compos Mentis. Springs to mind. I believe the only one deciding if and when to do is the person suffering themselves. What it's got to do with a national vote beats me." I accept your point about personal choice, and I agree the person suffering should be the one to decide. But when something like Assisted Dying becomes law, it affects the whole country and sets a big precedent. I think it's really important that the public should have had a say in this. It's not about taking away individual freedom, but about making sure the law reflects what the people want and not just the 650 in the House of Commons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thinks it’s a decision some will live to regret. It reduces the value of human life to that of an animal. I look at it the other way around. If you let a sick animal suffer then you could be prosecuted for cruelty, yet we are happy to force people who only have a few days left to live to suffer in pain when palliative care stops working. If you object to assisted dying then you don’t have to accept it if you were ever unfortunate to be in the terminal phase of an illness, those who do want the option shouldn’t be denied the choice." well said  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Compos Mentis. Springs to mind. I believe the only one deciding if and when to do is the person suffering themselves. What it's got to do with a national vote beats me. I accept your point about personal choice, and I agree the person suffering should be the one to decide. But when something like Assisted Dying becomes law, it affects the whole country and sets a big precedent. I think it's really important that the public should have had a say in this. It's not about taking away individual freedom, but about making sure the law reflects what the people want and not just the 650 in the House of Commons." You've got a point as it wasn't in Labour's manifesto. However we vote for MPs to decide on the laws of the country, by making assisted dying legal is, as I've stated previously only going to impact those whose chose to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in favour having lost friends and family to painful deaths. Cancer and MND. Would want my own choice respected in that situation. However look at Canada who legalised it. They have depressed people going to the doctor getting terminated, people who can't pay their rent being offered termination too. Will we descend to that level too? And what about granny feeling guilty and not wanting to be a burden taking that option too. They talk about safeguards but they don't work safeguarding vulnerable people now so without resources there will be failures with the inevitable enquiries saying lessons will be learned again. " I'm sure at least one of the criteria will be a terminal disease with a limited expected life span | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in favour having lost friends and family to painful deaths. Cancer and MND. Would want my own choice respected in that situation. However look at Canada who legalised it. They have depressed people going to the doctor getting terminated, people who can't pay their rent being offered termination too. Will we descend to that level too? And what about granny feeling guilty and not wanting to be a burden taking that option too. They talk about safeguards but they don't work safeguarding vulnerable people now so without resources there will be failures with the inevitable enquiries saying lessons will be learned again. I'm sure at least one of the criteria will be a terminal disease with a limited expected life span" To start with... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who believes that the issue of assisted dying is so significant a question that it should have been put to a public vote via referendum, rather than letting our politicians decide? With a mere 23 votes it's quite a close decision. Personally, I'm pleased with the outcome of the vote, I think it's a significant step forward, and I hope it will bring comfort and dignity to those who need it. I agree something like this should be more of a referendum issue as it's so huge. I've no idea what my local MP thinks and he's never asked me for my view." Well you could have written to your MP and now you can check how they voted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Compos Mentis. Springs to mind. I believe the only one deciding if and when to do is the person suffering themselves. What it's got to do with a national vote beats me. I accept your point about personal choice, and I agree the person suffering should be the one to decide. But when something like Assisted Dying becomes law, it affects the whole country and sets a big precedent. I think it's really important that the public should have had a say in this. It's not about taking away individual freedom, but about making sure the law reflects what the people want and not just the 650 in the House of Commons." Chill your boots, it's overwhelmingly popular and should have been legalised ages ago | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in favour having lost friends and family to painful deaths. Cancer and MND. Would want my own choice respected in that situation. However look at Canada who legalised it. They have depressed people going to the doctor getting terminated, people who can't pay their rent being offered termination too. Will we descend to that level too? And what about granny feeling guilty and not wanting to be a burden taking that option too. They talk about safeguards but they don't work safeguarding vulnerable people now so without resources there will be failures with the inevitable enquiries saying lessons will be learned again. " Britain's judicial system doesn't work like Canada. You'll have to pass any subsequent laws through parliament in Britain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Compos Mentis. Springs to mind. I believe the only one deciding if and when to do is the person suffering themselves. What it's got to do with a national vote beats me. I accept your point about personal choice, and I agree the person suffering should be the one to decide. But when something like Assisted Dying becomes law, it affects the whole country and sets a big precedent. I think it's really important that the public should have had a say in this. It's not about taking away individual freedom, but about making sure the law reflects what the people want and not just the 650 in the House of Commons. Chill your boots, it's overwhelmingly popular and should have been legalised ages ago " BigDickEnergy.....Are you even reading the posts you're responding to? I've clearly stated that I agree with Parliament's decision on Assisted Dying in this instance!! Your typical lazy attempt to troll is based on a false assumption that I'm opposed to the outcome. Instead, I'm highlighting the importance of direct democracy on issues like this, where a national vote would provide a more nuanced understanding of the people's will. Your boorish, flippant and blatantly rude 'chill your boots' response misses the point entirely. Try engaging with the topic rather than resorting to your usual characteristic mindless trolling! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions." Well Said ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions." I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions. I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. " You've decided that assisted dying is important, what about the recently passed abortion laws in England and Wales, what if I think Solar Farms are the most important issue? Just because it goes to a public vote is unlikely to change people's opinion on a matter - Brexit being the prime example. Our MPs and maybe they should follow American naming, are the lawmakers and that's one of the reasons we elect them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thinks it’s a decision some will live to regret. It reduces the value of human life to that of an animal." Interesting. Take old Fido to the vets and have him painlessly put to sleep. But let Granny face and painful undignified torture of a death. Following years of health issues a Dutch friend was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. Something unrelated to previous problems. She was certain to die from the brain tumour. After discussing it with her 2 daughters and Doctors she opted for assisted suicide, which is legal in the Netherlands under strict regulations. She was prepped by a doctor. She said her goodbyes with her loved ones around her. Crucially she set the process in motion herself. She pushed the button herself. She was able to pass away without the agonising death that was certain to come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there should have been a referendum on this. I can't see how just over 600 people making a decision as big as this on behalf of almost 70 million is right or fair. Because the last referendum went so well? It's not the same, why bring that up? " Isn’t it? Look at the lies and misinformation that delivered a result that has damaged this country economically, and a bunch of clowns that managed to piss off our closest neighbours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m truly confused . Is the Bill about the right to die or about the right to avoid suffering ? If the latter, why is it restricted to only people with a terminal diagnosis . Many people suffering excruciating pain and indignity , with non terminal illness and disability , may want to die too . Are we to exclude them? Unless we are all given the right to assisted suicide , then the Bill should be shelved. " The bill is about giving those who are terminally ill (with less than 6 months to live) the right to choose if they wish to shorten their death if they wish to. This could be because palliative treatment is no longer working. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The public are too thick to decide issues like this. That’s why we have MPs. It’s a tough issue but we should have the right to decide when we die. If you look at the nations that allow this they are democratic civilised countries. We need this. " Hmmmm!..."The public are too thick to decide issues like this" is a pretty sweeping and somewhat insulting and simplistic statement, isn't it? Considering the significant public investment in education over the years, it's hard to justify such a broad-brush dismissal of the public's capacity for informed decision-making. You're right that we should have the right to decide when we die, and that's precisely why it's crucial to get the legislation right. Which is why Parliament is currently debating and refining the necessary laws to ensure that assisted dying is implemented in a safe and responsible manner. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in favour having lost friends and family to painful deaths. Cancer and MND. Would want my own choice respected in that situation. However look at Canada who legalised it. They have depressed people going to the doctor getting terminated, people who can't pay their rent being offered termination too. Will we descend to that level too? And what about granny feeling guilty and not wanting to be a burden taking that option too. They talk about safeguards but they don't work safeguarding vulnerable people now so without resources there will be failures with the inevitable enquiries saying lessons will be learned again. I'm sure at least one of the criteria will be a terminal disease with a limited expected life span" It will be. It will only be allowed when you are on your last legs (the stage when you are about to go to a hospice) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions. I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. You've decided that assisted dying is important, what about the recently passed abortion laws in England and Wales, what if I think Solar Farms are the most important issue? Just because it goes to a public vote is unlikely to change people's opinion on a matter - Brexit being the prime example. Our MPs and maybe they should follow American naming, are the lawmakers and that's one of the reasons we elect them" You're right that there are many important issues competing for attention, but Parliament itself has deemed assisted dying important enough to consider legislation. Interestingly, if we apply the same logic to other 'life or death' issues, it's surprising that the recent abortion laws in England and Wales weren't put to a public vote. Given the profound implications for individuals' lives, that issue would seem to warrant direct public input. However, for issues where 'life or death' isn't directly involved, like Solar Farms, a public vote might not be necessary. But when it comes to fundamental questions about the value and sanctity of human life, such as assisted dying or potentially reinstating the death penalty, it's arguable that the public should have a direct say. After all, these decisions have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad , hopefully it'll facilitate a dignified death for those who fit the criteria , that's the next challenge. Quite agree. When palliative treatment stops working and you are in constant pain it will be good to have the option." But over time, will palliative care still be available if the opportunity for them to be persuaded to die becomes the norm? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions. I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. You've decided that assisted dying is important, what about the recently passed abortion laws in England and Wales, what if I think Solar Farms are the most important issue? Just because it goes to a public vote is unlikely to change people's opinion on a matter - Brexit being the prime example. Our MPs and maybe they should follow American naming, are the lawmakers and that's one of the reasons we elect them You're right that there are many important issues competing for attention, but Parliament itself has deemed assisted dying important enough to consider legislation. Interestingly, if we apply the same logic to other 'life or death' issues, it's surprising that the recent abortion laws in England and Wales weren't put to a public vote. Given the profound implications for individuals' lives, that issue would seem to warrant direct public input. However, for issues where 'life or death' isn't directly involved, like Solar Farms, a public vote might not be necessary. But when it comes to fundamental questions about the value and sanctity of human life, such as assisted dying or potentially reinstating the death penalty, it's arguable that the public should have a direct say. After all, these decisions have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. " Perhaps the UK should go down the route of Switzerland and put these fundamental moral issues to the whole population | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m truly confused . Is the Bill about the right to die or about the right to avoid suffering ? If the latter, why is it restricted to only people with a terminal diagnosis . Many people suffering excruciating pain and indignity , with non terminal illness and disability , may want to die too . Are we to exclude them? Unless we are all given the right to assisted suicide , then the Bill should be shelved. " Good question! You're right to point out the difference between the right to die and the right to avoid suffering. The current Bill is focused on helping terminally ill people who are expected to pass away within six months. It would allow them to choose when and how they die, rather than waiting for their condition to progress. If the goal is to reduce suffering, it's worth considering whether the Bill should apply to others who are also suffering, but aren't terminally ill. Some people might argue that assisted dying should be available to anyone who wants it, while others might be concerned about the potential risks. It's also worth noting that this Bill might be just the beginning of a bigger conversation about end-of-life care. As society's views and medical technology change, we can expect to see more discussions and debates and further legislation with regards assisted dying in the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The do gooders that oppose it might change their mind if they ever become seriously ill. I think people are the owners of their own body, not some sanctimonious politician. Of course there will be safe guards, but people who are all fully and mentally aware should have their decision respected" Where there's a will there's a relative remember | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions. I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. You've decided that assisted dying is important, what about the recently passed abortion laws in England and Wales, what if I think Solar Farms are the most important issue? Just because it goes to a public vote is unlikely to change people's opinion on a matter - Brexit being the prime example. Our MPs and maybe they should follow American naming, are the lawmakers and that's one of the reasons we elect them You're right that there are many important issues competing for attention, but Parliament itself has deemed assisted dying important enough to consider legislation. Interestingly, if we apply the same logic to other 'life or death' issues, it's surprising that the recent abortion laws in England and Wales weren't put to a public vote. Given the profound implications for individuals' lives, that issue would seem to warrant direct public input. However, for issues where 'life or death' isn't directly involved, like Solar Farms, a public vote might not be necessary. But when it comes to fundamental questions about the value and sanctity of human life, such as assisted dying or potentially reinstating the death penalty, it's arguable that the public should have a direct say. After all, these decisions have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. Perhaps the UK should go down the route of Switzerland and put these fundamental moral issues to the whole population " Yes, I agree absolutely! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions. I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. You've decided that assisted dying is important, what about the recently passed abortion laws in England and Wales, what if I think Solar Farms are the most important issue? Just because it goes to a public vote is unlikely to change people's opinion on a matter - Brexit being the prime example. Our MPs and maybe they should follow American naming, are the lawmakers and that's one of the reasons we elect them You're right that there are many important issues competing for attention, but Parliament itself has deemed assisted dying important enough to consider legislation. Interestingly, if we apply the same logic to other 'life or death' issues, it's surprising that the recent abortion laws in England and Wales weren't put to a public vote. Given the profound implications for individuals' lives, that issue would seem to warrant direct public input. However, for issues where 'life or death' isn't directly involved, like Solar Farms, a public vote might not be necessary. But when it comes to fundamental questions about the value and sanctity of human life, such as assisted dying or potentially reinstating the death penalty, it's arguable that the public should have a direct say. After all, these decisions have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. " You could argue that deciding on renting rights to prevent means living in homes “unfit for human habitation”, means testing of PIP and other benefits and the implications of that have bigger effects on way more people. You could argue that fire safety regulations and their enforcement (Grenfell) are of life and death importance and so the public should have a say on that. And air pollution in cities which shortens people’s lives. Maybe we should have public votes on those too? Who decides? Abortion and assisted dying do not suddenly become issues where the public needs to vote just because they (sort of) affect a single individual and so seem more emotive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The average member of the public doesn't have the time or inclination to listen and consider the evidence of experts in medicine, ethics and law, before coming to a conclusion. That's what MPs were elected to do. I don't want them passing the buck back to us every 5 minutes so they can dodge making difficult decisions. I fully understand the perspective that suggests that the average member of the public may not have the time or inclination to engage with complex issues like assisted dying. If people feel they're not equipped to make informed decisions, they can choose not to participate. However, this shouldn't restrict others from voicing their democratic opinion. The vote on assisted dying highlights the importance of public involvement, given the narrow margin of just 23 votes (314 to 291) with 45 MPs abstaining. This outcome means that the population of no less than 45 constituencies effectively went unrepresented on this vital issue! Moreover, it's a stark reminder that even in so-called democracies, the system often fails to truly represent the people. When the current electoral system was introduced, the majority of the population lacked access to education and were often illiterate. However, in the intervening period, billions of pounds of public money have been invested in education, transforming the nation's literacy and critical thinking abilities. Paradoxically, the electoral system has not evolved to reflect this significant societal shift, continuing to rely on a method that was suited to a different era. With today's technology, marking an X on a ballot paper is archaic. The way forward in democratic politics is to empower citizens to decide on major issues directly, rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Given the complexity and personal nature of issues like assisted dying, a broader societal conversation seems essential. Allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process ensures that the nuances of the issue are thoroughly debated. This approach complements MPs' roles by providing a direct mandate from the people. On matters as personal and profound as the right to die, it's my view that it's crucial that the public has a say in shaping the legislation that affects us all. You've decided that assisted dying is important, what about the recently passed abortion laws in England and Wales, what if I think Solar Farms are the most important issue? Just because it goes to a public vote is unlikely to change people's opinion on a matter - Brexit being the prime example. Our MPs and maybe they should follow American naming, are the lawmakers and that's one of the reasons we elect them You're right that there are many important issues competing for attention, but Parliament itself has deemed assisted dying important enough to consider legislation. Interestingly, if we apply the same logic to other 'life or death' issues, it's surprising that the recent abortion laws in England and Wales weren't put to a public vote. Given the profound implications for individuals' lives, that issue would seem to warrant direct public input. However, for issues where 'life or death' isn't directly involved, like Solar Farms, a public vote might not be necessary. But when it comes to fundamental questions about the value and sanctity of human life, such as assisted dying or potentially reinstating the death penalty, it's arguable that the public should have a direct say. After all, these decisions have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. You could argue that deciding on renting rights to prevent means living in homes “unfit for human habitation”, means testing of PIP and other benefits and the implications of that have bigger effects on way more people. You could argue that fire safety regulations and their enforcement (Grenfell) are of life and death importance and so the public should have a say on that. And air pollution in cities which shortens people’s lives. Maybe we should have public votes on those too? Who decides? Abortion and assisted dying do not suddenly become issues where the public needs to vote just because they (sort of) affect a single individual and so seem more emotive." Thanks, you are highlighting that issues like housing standards, benefit assessments, fire safety regulations, and air pollution do have significant implications for people's lives, but they differ from issues like assisted dying, abortion, or the death penalty, where the life-or-death question is immediate and directly at stake. Given the direct and personal nature of these latter issues, it's arguable that the public should have a say in shaping the laws and policies that govern them. If we're considering public input on assisted dying and abortion, it's worth considering whether other issues with direct life-or-death implications, like the death penalty, should also be put to a public vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Personally, I’m pleased it passed. Seeing its for England and Wales, why were Scotland and Northern Ireland MPs allowed to vote? Without these votes, would the numbers have been wider apart? " I agree that the vote went the right way. But a very valid point you raise about the voting process! As MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland were allowed to vote on a bill specific to England and Wales, it's logical to question whether the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales should also have had a say on this issue as it clearly affects their constituents too. Perhaps there should be a more devolved approach to decision-making on such a crucial matter, allowing each region to determine its own laws and policies on assisted dying? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having watched my father decline over a period of 2 years following an inoperable cancer diagnosis and listening to him begging to die for the last few weeks of his life, I fully support the concept of assisted dying provided that it is sensitively managed. " Similar experience with my mum. This is a very complex issue. With 'proper safeguards', I am generally in favour of assisted dying, but agreeing these 'proper safeguards' is going to be the difficult bit. I certainly don't want anyone to die before they need to, but I'm even more certain that I don't want anyone to suffer the way my mum did in her last month | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Personally, I’m pleased it passed. Seeing its for England and Wales, why were Scotland and Northern Ireland MPs allowed to vote? Without these votes, would the numbers have been wider apart? I agree that the vote went the right way. But a very valid point you raise about the voting process! As MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland were allowed to vote on a bill specific to England and Wales, it's logical to question whether the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales should also have had a say on this issue as it clearly affects their constituents too. Perhaps there should be a more devolved approach to decision-making on such a crucial matter, allowing each region to determine its own laws and policies on assisted dying?" English and Welsh MP’s get to vote on things that affect the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Just because Scotland has its own parliament we are still mostly governed by Westminster | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Personally, I’m pleased it passed. Seeing its for England and Wales, why were Scotland and Northern Ireland MPs allowed to vote? Without these votes, would the numbers have been wider apart? I agree that the vote went the right way. But a very valid point you raise about the voting process! As MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland were allowed to vote on a bill specific to England and Wales, it's logical to question whether the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales should also have had a say on this issue as it clearly affects their constituents too. Perhaps there should be a more devolved approach to decision-making on such a crucial matter, allowing each region to determine its own laws and policies on assisted dying? English and Welsh MP’s get to vote on things that affect the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Just because Scotland has its own parliament we are still mostly governed by Westminster " The West Lothian question... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Personally, I’m pleased it passed. Seeing its for England and Wales, why were Scotland and Northern Ireland MPs allowed to vote? Without these votes, would the numbers have been wider apart? " I'm surprised this issue isn't reserved to Westminster, like abortion. When they were deciding on the split of powers between Edinburgh and London back in the 1990s, abortion was one where the risk of different rules in different parts of the UK was seen as something to be avoided. So abortion was reserved to Westminster. I'm surprised this issue isn't the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My MP voted against. Never asked my opinion and what right does she have to decide that I don’t have the right to die when I wish should I have no quality of life. " My MP voted in favour. Never asked my opinion and what right does he have to decide that I should have the right to die when someone else assumes that I have no quality of life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My MP voted against. Never asked my opinion and what right does she have to decide that I don’t have the right to die when I wish should I have no quality of life. " did you write to her? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My MP voted against. Never asked my opinion and what right does she have to decide that I don’t have the right to die when I wish should I have no quality of life. My MP voted in favour. Never asked my opinion and what right does he have to decide that I should have the right to die when someone else assumes that I have no quality of life." _ammymac and LookingFor:- thanks, both equally valid points! You're highlighting the complexity of this issue and the importance of personal autonomy. Perhaps one way to address this would have been to put the question to the electorate, allowing the public to decide on such a critical issue. Whilst I agree that the vote's outcome aligns with my own view, I think you're right that further debate is needed to clarify the legal details and ensure the bill is robust and effective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is evidence that hospitals and care givers have been found to interpret end of life care in totally the wrong way , This is not an accusation but a statement that instruction needs to be without vagaries something this bill has failed to address . Mission crepe will set in now that Pandora has had her knickers removed and her box well and truly opened" Thanks Gary1066, I totally agree. The lack of clarity in the bill could potentially lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications of end-of-life care, which could have serious consequences. It's crucial that all associated legislation provides clear guidelines and safeguards to ensure that patients receive the care they need and want. This is clearly an issue that requires further refinement and specification to avoid potential misinterpretations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the people should actually look into the details before making crass comments about people being bumped off because they are a burden or lamenting people being treated like Animals. It is quite an involved and complicated process to follow legally not just a case of rocking up to your GP and asking them to sign a note so can slip them a quick overdose of their pain meds. As a nation of Animal lovers (supposedly) it is deemed to be the right,humane and caring thing to do to put a suffering cat or dog or whatever out of their misery so why is it so terrible to want to do the same to our loved ones or have them do it to us? Having seen family members suffer long slow excruciating deaths and battling incurable illnesses I for one am glad that this bill has been passed and sadly should the time ever come I will gladly put myself forward should needs be and I say this without any badgering or influence of anyone and no one trying to get rid of me for my cash or because I am a burden. I say this purely because it should be my right to do so " Thank you for sharing your thoughtful and heartfelt perspective SecretGayGuy. It's clear that you've given this issue a lot of consideration, particularly in light of your personal experiences with loved ones. Your point about the complexity of the process and the need for informed discussion is well-taken. The comparison to animal care is also a poignant one, highlighting the importance of compassion in end-of-life care. Your emphasis on personal autonomy and the right to make choices about one's own life and death is a crucial aspect of this debate. It's essential that we approach this topic with empathy and understanding, recognising the deeply personal nature of these decisions. I appreciate your courage in sharing your views and experiences | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the people should actually look into the details before making crass comments about people being bumped off because they are a burden or lamenting people being treated like Animals. It is quite an involved and complicated process to follow legally not just a case of rocking up to your GP and asking them to sign a note so can slip them a quick overdose of their pain meds. As a nation of Animal lovers (supposedly) it is deemed to be the right,humane and caring thing to do to put a suffering cat or dog or whatever out of their misery so why is it so terrible to want to do the same to our loved ones or have them do it to us? Having seen family members suffer long slow excruciating deaths and battling incurable illnesses I for one am glad that this bill has been passed and sadly should the time ever come I will gladly put myself forward should needs be and I say this without any badgering or influence of anyone and no one trying to get rid of me for my cash or because I am a burden. I say this purely because it should be my right to do so " Well said that man | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It won't ever see the light of day, the lords are set to block it, put it to a referendum " I completely agree that a referendum would be the right way to have settled this crucial issue but now that's unlikely to happen at this stage. As for the Lords blocking it, they can certainly delay or amend the Assisted Dying Bill, but their powers are limited. If they reject or significantly alter it, it'll go back to the Commons, and if the two Houses can't agree, the Parliament Acts allow the Commons to override the Lords' block after a certain period. In reality, it's likely to take years of political procedure and debate before it actually appears on the statute book. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My MP voted against. Never asked my opinion and what right does she have to decide that I don’t have the right to die when I wish should I have no quality of life. My MP voted in favour. Never asked my opinion and what right does he have to decide that I should have the right to die when someone else assumes that I have no quality of life." It’s your decisions not some one else’s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It won't ever see the light of day, the lords are set to block it, put it to a referendum I completely agree that a referendum would be the right way to have settled this crucial issue but now that's unlikely to happen at this stage. As for the Lords blocking it, they can certainly delay or amend the Assisted Dying Bill, but their powers are limited. If they reject or significantly alter it, it'll go back to the Commons, and if the two Houses can't agree, the Parliament Acts allow the Commons to override the Lords' block after a certain period. In reality, it's likely to take years of political procedure and debate before it actually appears on the statute book." The “i “ paper reported earlier that MP’s in the House of Lords opposed to the bill would add loads of amendments so that the bill would eventually be timed out so would not become law | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As for the Lords blocking it, they can certainly delay or amend the Assisted Dying Bill, but their powers are limited. If they reject or significantly alter it, it'll go back to the Commons, and if the two Houses can't agree, the Parliament Acts allow the Commons to override the Lords' block after a certain period. In reality, it's likely to take years of political procedure and debate before it actually appears on the statute book. The “i “ paper reported earlier that MP’s in the House of Lords opposed to the bill would add loads of amendments so that the bill would eventually be timed out so would not become law" It seems there's a bit of confusion here - MPs don't actually sit in the House of Lords, it's Peers who comprise the Upper Chamber. MPs sit in the House of Commons - the Lower House. Given that, it's possible that Peers in the House of Lords might try to amend the Assisted Dying Bill, potentially delaying it. The Lords do have flexibility to amend or reject Private Member's Bills like this one, and they can delay legislation for a period. However, if the Lords were to unduly delay or block the bill, the government could potentially adopt it as their own, thereby making it a Government Bill. As a Government Bill, it would be protected by the Salisbury Doctrine, which limits the Lords' ability to delay or block it. With 234 out of 403 government MPs having voted in favour of the bill, it's likely that the government would have the numbers to push it through under the Parliament Acts, should they choose to take it forward themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why all the red tape and bureaucracy to say that you want to die ??? typical of how things run in this country...." Fair point blue shirt1 :- The process does seem lengthy, but it's because the Assisted Dying Bill deals with incredibly sensitive and complex issues - both medically and legally. Currently, anything other than natural death is illegal under British law, which is the driving force behind the proposed bill to change the law and give terminally ill individuals a choice about ending their life with medical assistance. The Assisted Dying Bill proposes to allow terminally ill individuals to choose medically assisted death, with safeguards such as capacity assessments and multiple medical opinions to protect vulnerable people. It's a very emotive and highly complex issue both medically and legally, so every aspect needs to be considered and provided for in law - much work is yet to be done on the proposal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My MP voted against. Never asked my opinion and what right does she have to decide that I don’t have the right to die when I wish should I have no quality of life. My MP voted in favour. Never asked my opinion and what right does he have to decide that I should have the right to die when someone else assumes that I have no quality of life. It’s your decisions not some one else’s. " Thanks _ammymac, I agree that it's an individual's decision, and that's precisely why Assisted Dying needs to be firmly established in law. Clear legislation would ensure that individuals have the autonomy to make choices about their own end-of-life care, free from ambiguity and uncertainty. This would also provide safeguards and protections for both the individual and those assisting them, promoting a compassionate and dignified approach to end-of-life care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately the decision to help those terminally ill people in pain resolve their problem will undoubtedly result in weaker willed people being conned by greedy beneficiaries into being killed. It also opens the door to the establishments ability to decide that dissident voice are "seriously ill" and need termination. If you think any "safeguards" will stop unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of others for their own nefarious end..then I'll just say one word:TRUMP." Utter bollocks how are unscrupulous beneficiaries going to get around the safe guards? If a person has 6 months or less to live the benefit to a beneficiary is minimal and they would have to find two doctors to sign. A friend of mine’s mum literally rotted to death her last few days were in excruciating pain because the drugs weren’t working at the levels that she needed. They had to put her in a special room because of the smell of rotting tissue. As for the state eliminating “undesirables” -Jeffrey Epstein | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately the decision to help those terminally ill people in pain resolve their problem will undoubtedly result in weaker willed people being conned by greedy beneficiaries into being killed. It also opens the door to the establishments ability to decide that dissident voice are "seriously ill" and need termination. If you think any "safeguards" will stop unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of others for their own nefarious end..then I'll just say one word:TRUMP. Utter bollocks how are unscrupulous beneficiaries going to get around the safe guards? If a person has 6 months or less to live the benefit to a beneficiary is minimal and they would have to find two doctors to sign. A friend of mine’s mum literally rotted to death her last few days were in excruciating pain because the drugs weren’t working at the levels that she needed. They had to put her in a special room because of the smell of rotting tissue. As for the state eliminating “undesirables” -Jeffrey Epstein" You may be seriously overlooking the opportunity for subtle pressure to be applied to grannie is she is sitting a a pile of dosh and the relatives are wanting to get access to it. Frail old people will feel, or maneuvered into feeling, that they are a burden on the family or the state. There is a massive motive to be rid of them earlier. It will happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
