Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[Bazzer]

I, and possibly others, are trying to understand where you are coming from with this legislation.
You having referenced Naz Shah at least twice, I thought, obviously incorrectly, that she had made more detailed statements outside the PMB committee, about the proposed legislation beyond the article to which you linked. Furthermore, that these expanded statements aligned with your own.
From your response, your concerns seem to be with Sections 2 and 31 of the proposed bill. Is this correct?
As to my views on the proposed amendments you screenshoted, I haven't had the opportunity to read the tens of thousands of words that was said in committee arguing for or against the amendments you listed. Also simply listing the amendments in the manner presented does not always provide a context to the amendment. But from my initial reading of the legislation as amended, I am content with its form.
You presumably have read the minutes of the committee meetings in full, considered the arguments for and against and have come to the conclusion that the amendments should not have been rejected?
The floor is yours to persuade me and possibly others, that the amended legislation is flawed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

From your response, your concerns seem to be with Sections 2 and 31 of the proposed bill. Is this correct?

I have concerns about many details in the bill.
The discussion about the specifics are all in the public domain so there's no point going through them in detail for someone who hasn't been bothered enough to follow them in the mainstream news.

I haven't had the opportunity to read the tens of thousands of words that was said in committee arguing for or against the amendments you listed..... But from my initial reading of the legislation as amended, I am content with its form.

That's the difference then. You aren't really interested in the details because you agree in principle with assisted dying. I agree in principle with assisted dying but think the details of such potentially far reaching legislation are very important.

The floor is yours to persuade me and possibly others, that the amended legislation is flawed.

It's you who is seeking to change the law so it's you who needs to do the persuading that this bill is fit for purpose. As you aren't really open to looking at the detail - you admit you haven't followed the ammendments that were suggested during committee - it's pointless going through them one by one.

You seem happy you vote through legislation simply because you agree with the broader principle. I'm not.

 

[First Aspect]

This is pointless.

 

[Bazzer]

I have concerns about many details in the bill.
The discussion about the specifics are all in the public domain so there's no point going through them in detail for someone who hasn't been bothered enough to follow them in the mainstream news.


That's the difference then. You aren't really interested in the details because you agree in principle with assisted dying. I agree in principle with assisted dying but think the details of such potentially far reaching legislation are very important.



It's you who is seeking to change the law so it's you who needs to do the persuading that this bill is fit for purpose. As you aren't really open to looking at the detail - you admit you haven't followed the ammendments that were suggested during committee - it's pointless going through them one by one.

You seem happy you vote through legislation simply because you agree with the broader principle. I'm not.

Two questions.
1. Did you read all of the tens of thousands of words as recorded by Hansard, of the committee's discussions, or is the basis of your argument what you have read in the media such as your link the other day?
2. Which part of "my initial reading of the legislation as amended" did you not understand?

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's too big a topic to engage with on a forum unless people are prepared to move beyond a simple 'my choice' and engage with the wider issues in forensic detail - which you need to do when you are making legislation. Plenty of experts on X for those who want to think about the wider concerns. eg

https://x.com/kesleeman

 

[AuroraSaab]

Two questions.
1. Did you read all of the tens of thousands of words as recorded by Hansard, of the committee's discussions, or is the basis of your argument what you have read in the media such as your link the other day?
2. Which part of "my initial reading of the legislation as amended" did you not understand?

No. Neither have you. I have followed the debate in the media and on X, where people with greater expertise than I - eg palliative care specialists, disability rights groups, medical academics, hospice care providers - continue to highlight concerns about the specifics of the bill. Perhaps you think their points have no merit because they weren't able to make them in front of the committee.

I understand what you said. You agree with it and have no concerns about it at all.

 

[classic33]

It's too big a topic to engage with on a forum unless people are prepared to move beyond a simple 'my choice' and engage with the wider issues in forensic detail - which you need to do when you are making legislation. Plenty of experts on X for those who want to think about the wider concerns. eg

https://x.com/kesleeman

Which is precisely what you're not prepared to do.
You've latched onto one part and clung to it.
You put lived experience as counting for nothing, when an opposing opinion is presented, preferring your own "expertise".

A DNR isn't something that you can just get put on your records. There's a whole load of "what ifs" to be considered, conditions to be met before they'll place it on record. High up in those conditions to be met, for myself, is not being kept "alive" solely by machines, unable to do anything. That isn't living by my standards.
There's only so much the brain, and the body, can take before they say enough.

Should I decline treatment and something happens after that, I don't want anyone getting blamed for doing what they did.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm going to decline to respond to your constant personal bs from now on, I think. I'm sure others on here will be happy to engage with whatever point you're making.

 

[Bazzer]

No. Neither have you. I have followed the debate in the media and on X, where people with greater expertise than I - eg palliative care specialists, disability rights groups, medical academics, hospice care providers - continue to highlight concerns about the specifics of the bill. Perhaps you think their points have no merit because they weren't able to make them in front of the committee.

I understand what you said. You agree with it and have no concerns about it at all.

You having raised eating disorders and their consequences at least a couple of time IIRC in relation to the proposed legislation, this appeared to one of your main concerns. Coercion was also raised by you (post #60) and possibly in other posts within the separate Starmer thread. Hence my questioning at post #61 whether it was Sections 2 and 31 which concerned you. In other words, look at the application of specific areas and cut out some of the background noise.
Whether on the basis of my experiences to date, and/or reading of the legislation, I am content with the proposed legislation is irrelevant to a discussion. My experiences may be replicated by some, but it is clear they do not mirror all, neither would I expect them to.
I have spent all of my career applying legislation and there have been innumerable instances where a contrary opinion to mine was taken by the other side. Sometimes I have been persuaded by the other side to alter my view and a number of times a judge has been the ultimate decider. I was therefore quite happy to engage with you about specific sections of the proposed legislation.
You may have changed my mind about the proposed legislation as a whole, or you may have caused me to see the same doubts that you clearly have, but I am not prepared to play discussion wackamole.

 

[classic33]

I'm going to decline to respond to your constant personal bs from now on, I think. I'm sure others on here will be happy to engage with whatever point you're making.

The only BS on here is coming from yourself. Along with the personal insults when you can't answer, or want to acknowledge that there are differing opinions and viewpoints to your own.
A "discussion" would involve having to acknowledge the wider view, something you're not willing to do.

A DNR isn't a simple case of getting what you want doing, or not doing, if the worst happens. It goes a lot further than simply saying turn the machines off. It also covers what will happen to those who may do something or maybe nothing. What the legal implications for their careers will mean. They enter the job to preserve life, and they're met with a set of conditions when a person is brought in. Conditions that go against all their training.
The DNR is the closest thing, at present, to assisted dying in the UK at present.

I have at least put some thought into the wider issues. About what might happen to those left, as well as myself.
The human body can be kept "alive" almost indefinitely. The limit is placed on the decomposition of the body, some parts decompose faster than others. As is natures way.

SUDEP could see me dead at any time, despite the best efforts of all around to keep me in the land of the living. And it's perfectly natural, recognised, and would be without blame on anyone. It is, at it's most basic, the body having a final say in how long it wants to continue.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You may have changed my mind about the proposed legislation as a whole, or you may have caused me to see the same doubts that you clearly have, but I am not prepared to play discussion wackamole.

It would be a pointless endeavour for you and I to go back and forth over a dozen or more specific ammendments in a bill you've already said you're happy with as it stands.

 

[Pblakeney]

When a pointless endeavour is encountered it is usually best to simply walk away.

 

[All uphill]

Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who has been a health professional.

Their view was that end of life legislation, even if imperfect, is better than the alternative. They see the alternative as a risky, inconsistent patchwork of practice that informally allows some people to die while others are constrained to continue their existence.

I must admit that hadn't occurred to me before, even though I have been involved in two decisions to withdraw care - in neither case, to my knowledge, was the decision documented.

 

[First Aspect]

Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who has been a health professional.

Their view was that end of life legislation, even if imperfect, is better than the alternative. They see the alternative as a risky, inconsistent patchwork of practice that informally allows some people to die while others are constrained to continue their existence.

I must admit that hadn't occurred to me before, even though I have been involved in two decisions to withdraw care - in neither case, to my knowledge, was the decision documented.

Esther Rantzen has been quite eloquent on this over the years. Basically the argument is that it's been happening since the dawn of man anyway so why not make it safe and legal. She's quite right. Moreover it will continue to happen outside of the boundaries of the law even if it is passed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

A better alternative - to this poor piece of legislation anyway - is to ensure high standards of palliative care throughout the UK. The hospice movement is mostly funded through charity for a start. If anything though, passing this law will make that less likely as palliative care has improved more slowly in those countries with assisted dying than in those without. (Can't find the link for this atm, will post if I find it). The NHS still hasn't implemented palliative care improvements that were mooted 10 years ago.