Starmer's vision quest

[AuroraSaab]

Telling the person with a disability/illness that you know better than them, about the impact on their daily lives isn't very dignified. It comes over as callous, unsympathetic and demeaning.

Nobody is telling anybody this. One of the concerns is that people who actually do want to live, even when ill or severely disabled, will feel pushed towards assisted dying because society feels that the high level of care they need leaves them living an undignified life. Society, not them.

The bodily autonomy argument has implications for all of us and is not a legislative path we should undertake without being aware of unintended consequences.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, you should have a choice, within limits. I'm not against assisted dying per se. In fact we have it to some extent already. I'm against a bill that is as poorly constructed and ill considered as this one.

As to dignity, we should come to a reasonable consensus as a society as to what it means if we are going to expect the state to assist us to kill ourselves because we don't have it. Some people might think living life in a wheelchair or with blindness means no dignity for them. Would we want assisted dying available for the blind?

It's a sign of society's failure that we see it as undignified to need a high level of help with an illness or disability, or that people who need high amounts of intimate care are viewed as living undignified lives.

I would want Assisted Dying, for those who wish it.

Personally, it has nothing to do with "how it is viewed", it is how I feel about it, it is my life.

 

[icowden]

There is no sign of slowing down, unless a major halt to immigration is undertaken

You mean apart from the signs of slowing down that I linked to in a previous post? The ones where migration is already dipping? Those signs?

 

[icowden]

Yes, you should have a choice, within limits. I'm not against assisted dying per se. In fact we have it to some extent already. I'm against a bill that is as poorly constructed and ill considered as this one.

Why do think it is poorly constructed and ill considered? It has been debated numerous times, passed through multiple readings and has considerable safeguards within it. If you think you can push Aunty Agnes into opting for assisted dying because you want the inheritance, it isn't going to happen. Not with the number of doctors and panels Agnes has to convince.

 

[First Aspect]

Quite possibly.
"Scotland is the only UK country with a projected [population] fall by 2045," said Esther Roughsedge, head of population and migration statistics at NRS.

The SNP are painting this as another Westminster policy against Scotland. However the reality is too few people want to move there. There aren't many places that are both nice and have work.

i.e. The problem isn't Westminster, it's Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen. And, to an extent, the Scottish. You can't have fundamentally anti English politics for 20 years and then bleet about too few people moving there.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It got 5 hours in the Houses of Parliament.
The committee was chosen by the proposer, Kim Leadbetter, and consists of those who are already in favour of it. Just about every ammendment has been vetoed down by the committee. Disability groups don't want it. Hospices don't want it. Doctor's groups are expressing worries.

In every country that has assisted dying the rules have ended up covering those who aren't in physical pain or in distress but who have mental health conditions like depression or anorexia, or who simply don't have the support or money to cope adequately with their disability.

Here's some of the safeguards the committe voted down:

For example, anorexia would count as a terminal illness because without treatment patients might die within 6 months. Do we want to be euthanising 18 year old kids, even if they insist it's what they want?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I would want Assisted Dying, for those who wish it.

Personally, it has nothing to do with "how it is viewed", it is how I feel about it, it is my life.

But decisions about body autonomy that are enshrined in legislation affect all of us, don't they? Especially when those most affected are already vulnerable, like the disabled.

Most people are in favour of Assisted Dying, but this particular bill isn't the way to go about it.

 

[First Aspect]

It got 5 hours in the Houses of Parliament.
The committee was chosen by the proposer, Kim Leadbetter, and consists of those who are already in favour of it. Just about every ammendment has been vetoed down by the committee. Disability groups don't want it. Hospices don't want it. Doctor's groups are expressing worries.

In every country that has assisted dying the rules have ended up covering those who aren't in physical pain or in distress but who have mental health conditions like depression or anorexia, or who simply don't have the support or money to cope adequately with their disability.

Here's some of the safeguards the committe voted down:

View attachment 8300

For example, anorexia would count as a terminal illness because without treatment patients might die within 6 months. Do we want to be euthanising 18 year old kids, even if they insist it's what they want?

The problem with arguments like this is how the reality gets twisted by both sides.

Anorexia, for example, would NOT be captured because it is not a terminal illness. It can be cured with treatment. The same applies to any psychological disorder.

You have taken the reservations of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that is in the news today and grossly distorted it's scope.

GPs are fairly evenly split. However they are not a representative segment of the population, or even of the medical profession. We live in a democracy, and not one run by GPs. They will also not be compelled to participate.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Anorexia wasn't covered in the legislation of the countries who already have it, but it has been extended to include it without further legislation being passed. The wording of Leadbeater's bill is ambiguous enough to include mental health issues that result in physical decline.

https://blogs.bmj.com/spcare/2025/0...norexia-be-coming-to-the-nhs-by-chelsea-roff/

In the rush to push through assisted dying people are overlooking the many issues with this particular piece of legislation because all they can see is the principle being 'right' without considering the ramifications 5 or 10 years down the line.

 

[icowden]

The wording of Leadbeater's bill is ambiguous enough to include mental health issues that result in physical decline.

But precise enough to include that the patient must have been ruled to have capacity to make the decision.

 

[classic33]

Nobody is telling anybody this. One of the concerns is that people who actually do want to live, even when ill or severely disabled, will feel pushed towards assisted dying because society feels that the high level of care they need leaves them living an undignified life. Society, not them.

The bodily autonomy argument has implications for all of us and is not a legislative path we should undertake without being aware of unintended consequences.

You're making assumptions based on your own opinions, I did the same. However I'm the one with the disability.

I've had people telling me how I should feel my whole life. On the professional front, I've yet to meet anyone in a similar position. And for me it's the quality of life from my point of view that matters, not someone else's viewpoint.
I've been refused treatment because of the underlying condition, and only yesterday I'd to decline treatment due to it. In simple terms I'd to prioritise which condition would have the greater impact on me, if treatment for was disrupted.

I'll ask you this question, and expect the answer to apply to yourself only, not society, as anything but is a cop-out in my book.
Have you ever had machines doing the work that your body should have been capable of, whilst immobile in a hospital bed. What did you make of it? Me, I removed them setting the alarms off in a darkened(nighttime?) ward.
I got a "welcome back to the land of the living" and a telling off for removing them in the same breath.

I do not want to be in that position permanently. And neither yourself or anyone else has the right to tell me I'm wrong.
"Society" wants to appease itself, it can find some other way of doing so.

It's partly why the DNR is on my records. The impact on my quality of life, as seen from my viewpoint, not that of strangers who have no idea what it's like on a day to day basis.

If it were a family pet in a similar condition, would you and society insist that everything possible be done to keep it "living". Even if it was unaware of it?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'll ask you this question, and expect the answer to apply to yourself only, not society, as anything but is a cop-out in my book. Have you ever had machines doing the work that your body should have been capable of, whilst immobile in a hospital bed. What did you make of it?

Yes, I have, several times. Not nice, but I wouldn't consider it such a poor quality of life that I wanted to die.

I do not want to be in that position permanently. And neither yourself or anyone else has the right to tell me I'm wrong.

When we make laws that apply to everyone they have to take many things into account not just the wishes of particular individuals. It's not a question of whether assisted dying is right or wrong in principle - that's a moral question - it's a question of whether this legislation addresses the many concerns that passing this bill might result in.

It's partly why the DNR is on my records. The impact on my quality of life, as seen from my viewpoint, not that of strangers who have no idea what it's like on a day to day basis.

It's not all about you. Nor is it just about other individuals on here who know what they want. It's about those who don't have people to advocate for them, who might be prone to exploitation or influence, who might feel that they could still have a pain free quality of life with the proper support. Those are the ones this legislation should be safeguarding.

 

[First Aspect]

But precise enough to include that the patient must have been ruled to have capacity to make the decision.

It's a blog post by a not lawyer and a not doctor. She conflates the usage of a single word in one legal context with how a term containing that word within a statute would be interpreted by the courts. The rest of her blog concerns other countries with "similar" laws. If it's not the same, and if it's not interpreted within the same legal machinery, such analysis is essentially irrelevant.

The truth is that a term in legislation adopt a meaning initially with reference to guidance notes, and later supplemented by caselaw. Caselaw elsewhere would only be of assistance where there is some legal harmonisation (e.g. EU law or an international treaty implemented in multiple countries). Possibly reference would also be made if the corresponding legislation and legal framework was so similar as to provide helpful precedent.

Reading an article like this, one should not consider each "might" and "may be" as cumulative. Instead, treat them like probabilities.

On my ride today I might get a puncture. I might be going fast when I get a puncture. I might be on a busy road when I get a puncture. I might fall off it I get a puncture. I might get hit if I fall off. I might die if I fall off.

If there's a 1-5% chance of each, that doesn't add up to a 25% risk of death today for me, it's more like somewhere between 10^-8% to 3x10^-6%. That means even a generous assessment of the risk of death by puncture is about 50:50 after cycling daily for four and a half thousand years.

That is the jist of your argument, Aurora. Hence why the article considers maybe 30-60 deaths over a decades amongst combined populations of about a half a billion.

Some perspective is needed, because there is absolutely no comment whatsoever about risks to other groups, e.g. those for which palliative care is ineffective. Those numbers would be orders of magnitude higher.

Public health policy is a balance of harms, not an exercise in zero harm to anyone.

Aside from all of that, philosophically, I have no issues with someone who is tortured by a condition such as anorexia to the most extreme extent discussed in the article from seeking assisted dying. We can't on the one hand demand respect for mental illness and wring our hands at how its not treated like other illness, then have it the other way when it comes to personal choices like this. In my view.

 

[First Aspect]

But precise enough to include that the patient must have been ruled to have capacity to make the decision.

People with anorexia likely have capacity.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Anorexia wasn't covered in the legislation of the countries who already have it, but it has been extended to include it without further legislation being passed.

More bullshit, I believe. Perhaps you could point us to the particular legislation. Does it refer to anorexics or merely to a specific group of anorexics with specific conditions?
Anyhow my dignity, is precisely that. It isn't for society to decide on. My FIL died last year. He was kept alive for at least 6 months when he actively wanted to die. He no longer had quality of life, in his view. However, the NHS kept him alive - that is it's role and that's generally a good thing.