Starmer's vision quest

[Stevo 666]

I agree. I also think we shouldn't feed cats cheese, we shouldn't paint big ben bright pink and we shouldn't expect flamingos to cook dinner.
Glad we agree that a thing that wasn't going to happen isn't going to happen. I'm just not sure why you brought it up.

I haven't agreed anything. If you know the future net immigration numbers then please let us know, otherwise not sure how you can say it won't be an issue.

Fact remains many people think that the numbers are too high regardless of what you think.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In Belgium 370 people received euthanasia for mental health reasons between 2002 and 2021, including eating disorders. 4.6% of those were due to autistic disorders. I think that's a dismal failing of the mental health service and social services. I don't think it's what people imagine when they talk about assisted dying but it's what you end up with when legislation isn't thoroughly thought through with adequate safeguards.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/Kimmi520381244/status/1922254798365008304?t=2WcU3qbdUcGqYl5XlXBeOw&s=19

 

[Psamathe]

(Previously posted to the wrong thread!)
Re: Assisted Dying
Important subject with many aspects. Worth a separate thread (particularly Starmer isn't expressing strong views).?

Ian

 

[Bazzer]

In Belgium 370 people received euthanasia for mental health reasons between 2002 and 2021, including eating disorders. 4.6% of those were due to autistic disorders. I think that's a dismal failing of the mental health service and social services. I don't think it's what people imagine when they talk about assisted dying but it's what you end up with when legislation isn't thoroughly thought through with adequate safeguards.

Well now you have switched to autism rather than anorexia, but even so, on average19 people a year took assisted dying for mental health reasons.
There are increased protective measures for people with mental suffering and/or the person has a serious and incurable psychiatric disorder. As I am sure you have read, the increased measures include an obligation for the consultation of two physicians, one of whom must be a psychiatrist.
How is someone who has a psychiatric disorder/mental health issues, who has voluntarily repeatedly applied for assisted dying and has been assessed by two physicians a "dismal failing of the [Belgian] health service and social services"?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Both are mental health issues. It's offering assisted dying to people who are not terminally ill, not physically ill or even in physical pain. It's a failure because autism, depression, anorexia, are not terminal illnesses. All can be helped or recovered from with good care.

Scaling up for population, Belgium's 19 would be 114 assisted dying deaths for mental health issues a year in the UK.

https://www.autismeye.com/autistic-euthanasia-netherlands/

I think when a precedent is set of assisted dying for mental health issues it suggests to the already vulnerable that there is no path to getting well, no hope of recovery. The fact that loneliness and isolation were factors in many people's decision to end their lives indicates that with appropriate care and support they might have felt less despondent.

 

[Psamathe]

Both are mental health issues. It's offering assisted dying to people who are not terminally ill, not physically ill or even in physical pain. It's a failure because autism, depression, anorexia, are not terminal illnesses.

So surely they would be excluded under the currently proposed Westminster changes.

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not necessarily. If the terminology is sufficiently vague and the safeguards not in place it might. Once a law with insufficient safeguards is passed it's hard to walk it back.

 

[Pblakeney]

Not necessarily. If the terminology is sufficiently vague and the safeguards not in place it might. Once a law with insufficient safeguards is passed it's hard to walk it back.

Just to be clear. You are against assisted dying in any form whatsoever.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Both are mental health issues. It's offering assisted dying to people who are not terminally ill, not physically ill or even in physical pain. It's a failure because autism, depression, anorexia, are not terminal illnesses. All can be helped or recovered from with good care.

Yes but the other thing is if people are able to make their own choices. (and being able to make your own choice in a legal sense is anrequireent for asisted dying in the Netherlands)
Why would they be needed to force to endure endless therapy, treatments etc. etc. ?
The freedom of choice also dictates that we respect choice we might ourselves not entirely understand or agree with.
Also asisted dying isn't something medical professional do easily they have a whole load of regulations they have to comply with in the past doctors have been prosecuted for sometimes as little as filling in one from to little, i mean its not like they stop all other diagnosis and treatment options it's just that a person tht can legally decide over their own body also has the abilty to chose to end their life insted of ongoing treatments. How is that different then someone not choosing to treat and physical disease that might slowly or quickly kill that person?

Scaling up for population, Belgium's 19 would be 114 assisted dying deaths for mental health issues a year in the UK.

i don't think that's how numbers work on topics like this. because of the complexity

I think when a precedent is set of assisted dying for mental health issues it suggests to the already vulnerable that there is no path to getting well, no hope of recovery. The fact that loneliness and isolation were factors in many people's decision to end their lives indicates that with appropriate care and support they might have felt less despondent.

It seems to me the job of medical professionals is to show that that road to recovery is there but also explaining the other options which in the Netherlands (and Belgium and other countries) also includes asisted dying. The way the law is written also enforces medical professionals to explain all routes, treatment options and so on. The quote above reads like someone who has her opinion made up and it looking for some reasoning to support them rather them someone who looks at all data and forms an opinion on that basis.
That does not do justice to the rigorous laws on asisted dying and the many frameworks they have to make sure poeple who chose for asisted dying don't do that in a whimp it has to be a ''solid'' decision

 

[AndyRM]

Yes but the other thing is if people are able to make their own choices. (and being able to make your own choice in a legal sense is anrequireent for asisted dying in the Netherlands)
Why would they be needed to force to endure endless therapy, treatments etc. etc. ?
The freedom of choice also dictates that we respect choice we might ourselves not entirely understand or agree with.
Also asisted dying isn't something medical professional do easily they have a whole load of regulations they have to comply with in the past doctors have been prosecuted for sometimes as little as filling in one from to little, i mean its not like they stop all other diagnosis and treatment options it's just that a person tht can legally decide over their own body also has the abilty to chose to end their life insted of ongoing treatments. How is that different then someone not choosing to treat and physical disease that might slowly or quickly kill that person?


i don't think that's how numbers work on topics like this. because of the complexity



It seems to me the job of medical professionals is to show that that road to recovery is there but also explaining the other options which in the Netherlands (and Belgium and other countries) also includes asisted dying. The way the law is written also enforces medical professionals to explain all routes, treatment options and so on. The quote above reads like someone who has her opinion made up and it looking for some reasoning to support them rather them someone who looks at all data and forms an opinion on that basis.
That does not do justice to the rigorous laws on asisted dying and the many frameworks they have to make sure poeple who chose for asisted dying don't do that in a whimp it has to be a ''solid'' decision

Well this is new, I agree with you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Just to be clear. You are against assisted dying in any form whatsoever.

No. I've said several times I'm not against assisted dying. I think this particular bill is a poor piece of legislation which hasn't been given enough scrutiny and is being pushed through by a committee that was hand picked by the bill's proposer. Almost every suggested safeguard has been voted down.

 

[Pblakeney]

No. I've said several times I'm not against assisted dying. I think this particular bill is a poor piece of legislation which hasn't been given enough scrutiny and is being pushed through by a committee that was hand picked by the bill's proposer. Almost every suggested safeguard has been voted down.

Oh. Sorry.
I thought you wanted every safeguard under the sun rendering it redundant.

 

[AuroraSaab]

How is that different then someone not choosing to treat and physical disease that might slowly or quickly kill that person?

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

The quote above reads like someone who has her opinion made up and it looking for some reasoning to support them rather them someone who looks at all data and forms an opinion on that basis.

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.

That does not do justice to the rigorous laws on asisted dying and the many frameworks they have to make sure poeple who chose for asisted dying don't do that in a whimp it has to be a ''solid'' decision

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.

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.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Oh. Sorry.
I thought you wanted every safeguard under the sun rendering it redundant.

How is 'You have to ask for it' rather than 'Doctors can suggest it to you' a pointless safeguard? The act of a doctor putting it on the table as an option, without the patient even mentioning it, will be enough for some vulnerable people to be swayed into something they don't really want.