Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[AuroraSaab]

Just read a new statesman interview with her, and she's managed to link Assisted Dying to forced.marriage and suicide attempts. I am struggling with this reasoning already.

She had a forced marriage during which she was subjected to coercion by her husband.
Her concern is that ill people might be coerced into assisted dying by a spouse, or other relative, whether forcibly or by persuasion, or guilted in to it. Just as people goad their partners into suicide.

This is the view of domestic violence charities too. Surprised you haven't heard of such things. This really is a pointless discussion when you struggle with the reasoning that such things are inter related.

 

[First Aspect]

It's an issue, potentially. Hence the safeguards in the legislation.

What's she proposed specifically and what's wrong with the safeguards currently?

I ask because you seem opposed in principle, making me wonder why you fixate on the specifics.

 

[Psamathe]

The palliative care specialists, the hospices, and the college of psychiatrists seem to be against it though. Unlike some areas it's not one where they have a vested interest.

I'm forming my own views rather than going along with the views of others. I will listen to the reasons for their views eg the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was interviewed on TV the other day about their objections and none seemed major in terms of the principle, more on the practicality.

In many of these organisations views are split and one has to be careful about who is actually expressing them. For example, I understand last poll of members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists had 45% supporting the bill, 45% not supporting. eg. On TV the other day they were doing a "focus group" of GPs who were talking about making a terminal diagnosis yet in reality I can't see a GP having much experience of making such diagnoses as they'd normally have referred their patient on to a consultant who would be making the diagnosis (and writing to the GP about it).

Ian

 

[First Aspect]

I just want to touch upon the discussion regarding vulnerable groups and people with mental health issues.

Their is what I believe is technically termed a "farkton" of virtue signalling around this topic, mostly by the virtuously opposed.

The "threat" was a presumption on my part that the virtuously opposed wouldn't actively wish to cause offense by posting grotesquely uniformed things about, e.g. anorexia, disabled groups.

That's all.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not ideologically opposed to it, which I've said several times, but your 'fair warning' (of what?) was directed at me. I've had quite enough of aggressive blokes on this forum, thanks.

 

[First Aspect]

I'm not ideologically opposed to it, which I've said several times, but your 'fair warning' (of what?) was directed at me. I've had quite enough of aggressive blokes on this forum, thanks.

Sorry, but some of the things you are saying are a bit offensive to me.

It's an emotive subject, which is why I would recommend a more dispassionate discussion on more population level health policy grounds, in place of the "what if" imaginary scenarios that discussion on this topic is prone to.

Conversely, if you want to carry on regardless, go right ahead. However please put the gender card away.

 

[First Aspect]

It's an issue, potentially. Hence the safeguards in the legislation.

What's she proposed specifically and what's wrong with the safeguards currently?

I ask because you seem opposed in principle, making me wonder why you fixate on the specifics.

So, back to the more dispassionate discussion about something that's happened....

Where did we get to on this? Google tells me there have been 274 amendments out forward so far. Not sure precisely which one we are talking about.

 

[AuroraSaab]

One minute you're warning me and playing the lived experience card, now you want a dispassionate discussion. Crack on.

 

[First Aspect]

I have a question on the all party parliamentary committee. There has been a suggestion that it was somehow hand picked by Kim Leadbeater. There is also an inference that this biased in favour of the legislation. There is a further suggestion that the legislation is so bad, Kim Leadbetters friend has changed her mind about it.

I spent literally several seconds googling this.

Turns out - and you may be shocked - there's a committee of selection to select the committee. Kim Leadbetter put forward an initial list, then the select committee was responsible. I don't think she's a member of the committee appointing the committee to discuss her own private members bill, because that would be wrong wouldn't it.

Also turns out the committee assessing the bill is cross party and includes multiple strong opponents. Even of those who voted the initial bill, several wanted amendments even before being on the committee.

Thought this issue could so with some balance.

 

[classic33]

Because mental health issues can be recovered from, they aren't terminal illnesses.

I think it's reasonable to look at the experiences of other countries and see how 'mission creep' has led to unintended consequences with assisted dying. It accounts for 4.7% of deaths in Canada, 5.4% of deaths in the Netherlands.



Yet every safeguard that would help ensure that in Kim Leadbetter's law has been voted down.

Research from the Netherlands on GP's experience suggests it isn't as trouble free as you suggest.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7960528/

52% of GP's felt assisted dying was an emotional burden for them. 47% felt uncertain about the mental competence of those who chose it due to dementia to make a decision. 42% felt pressured by relatives.

How can euthanising those with a mental illness ever be guaranteed to be a 'solid decision' by the patient? It's the mental illness that contributes to them thinking dying is the only solution.
View attachment 8305

There are so many aspects to this piece of UK legislation. There's coercive issues, disability rights issues. There's the way that assisted dying is a class and sex issue. The whole thing about how we as a society view disability and mental illness and the idea of 'a life worth living'.

We have to look beyond the bodily autonomy argument and the 'I don't want to die in pain like xxxx did ...' to the wider issues that affect others.

I've asked you this before but its never received a proper answer. Is epilepsy a mental or physical disability/illness? In recent years it has been reclassified as an NCD, with for some on the outside looking in their emphasis is on the "D".
At its most basic definition it's an abnormal electric discharge in the brain.
Bear in mind the side effects from the medications and other treatments that may have been used, will have had physical and mental side effects.

It can limit treatments for other conditions, and may result in them not being offered in the first place. People living with it may find they've to decline treatment(s) because of it. They find themselves having to decline treatment for one or more conditions, and their records marked as "declined treatment". Simply because they've had to decide which poses the greater danger to their health.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Of those on the committee, 14 voted for the bill, 9 against. So 14 vs 9. The 2 ministers chosen for the committee are both pro. Of the 21 MP's who spoke against the bill in the HOC the only one chosen for the committee was Danny Kruger. Of 9 MP's put forward by Kruger for the committee - who has been the main voice against the bill - only 2 were chosen. 3 of those 9 chosen who voted against are fairly 'soft' opponents. If you have confidence in your legislation you'd choose robust critics.

The sponsor of a private members bill gets to pick the committee from those put forward as far as I know.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-assisted-dying-bill-committee-b2662800.html

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've asked you this before but its never received a proper answer.

You constantly say this about stuff and it's never true.

Is epilepsy a mental or physical disability/illness?

As it's physiological in origin I would call it a medical condition. Whether it's a disability depends on its severity I suppose.

 

[Bazzer]

The sponsor of a private members bill gets to pick the committee from those put forward as far as I know.

It's in Hansard and is as @First Aspect told you.

https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/p...embers-bill-procedure-in-the-house-of-commons

 

[First Aspect]

You constantly say this about stuff and it's never true.

As it's physiological in origin I would call it a medical condition. Whether it's a disability depends on its severity I suppose.

What now? How has epilepsy been shoehorned in?

 

[First Aspect]

Of those on the committee, 14 voted for the bill, 9 against. So 14 vs 9. The 2 ministers chosen for the committee are both pro. Of the 21 MP's who spoke against the bill in the HOC the only one chosen for the committee was Danny Kruger. Of 9 MP's put forward by Kruger for the committee - who has been the main voice against the bill - only 2 were chosen. 3 of those 9 chosen who voted against are fairly 'soft' opponents. If you have confidence in your legislation you'd choose robust critics.

The sponsor of a private members bill gets to pick the committee from those put forward as far as I know.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-assisted-dying-bill-committee-b2662800.html

You are aware that of those 14 several had reservations and wanted amendments going in? And that there are several readings? And it goes via the Lords? This is the legislative process that knocks the corners off legislation.

It is not helpful to present it as binary. There are those who are for something, those opposed, those opposed but would be for it subject to changes, and those for something who will be opposed to it unless there are changes. On that basis, I would bet a testicle that the committee is as balanced as it can be.

On the other side of the coin, 274 amendments put forward, if that number is correct (possibly it's over 500 now), seems much higher than normal. One of a conspiracy theorist bent migbt argue that the ideologues against assisted dying are trying to filibuster.

Over 150 have been accepted already, incidentally.