UKC

The right to die

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 ByEek 11 Sep 2015
The Assisted Dying Bill has just been rejected in a free vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34208624

I am however curious to know why despite polls showing consistent support in favour of such legislation by the general public, MPs consistently appear to err on the side of caution by not getting involved or voting against. Is this an example of politicians being out of touch with the electorate or is this one of those issues where they kind of know best? Better the devil you know and all that.
 Trangia 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

118 For
330 Against

I am staggered that it was such a resounding rejection.

I really believe that it should be a matter of individual choice to be made in advance when of sound mind.

It will probably be decades before there is another vote, meanwhile many terminally ill people will have to go on enduring a living hell whilst waiting for death by natural causes.
OP ByEek 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Trangia:

> It will probably be decades before there is another vote, meanwhile many terminally ill people will have to go on enduring a living hell whilst waiting for death by natural causes.

Or for those with the means - go to Switzerland. I completely agree. I just can't understand why there is such a disconnect - I mean - we voted for them!

That said, Cameron was quoted as saying about Yorkshiremen "We just thought people in Yorkshire hated everyone else, we didn't realise they hated each other so much." I wonder if he has ever met someone from the general public?
 BarrySW19 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

> Is this an example of politicians being out of touch with the electorate or is this one of those issues where they kind of know best? Better the devil you know and all that.

It's hardly an unknown area - plenty of other countries have such legislation already. All the scaremongering arguments are just that. There are plenty of places proving that euthanasia can work. It may well be a case of politicians thinking they know best, but then being generally wrong seems to be an important qualification for the job.
 Nicola 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

I am extremely disappointed by the results of this debate. Not because the result was different to my opinion. But for the reasons given for refusing it. Passing this bill doesn't change anything in itself, but gives a legal choice to those amongst us with terminal illness in their horrendous situation. How can MPs make a decision for those people. The main reason given is a fear of the bill leading to manslaughter. Dr Shipman didn't need this bill to kill people. Rejecting this bill does not safeguard people from murderers.

However do I think more should be said about the British Medical Association being against any form of assisted dying. We couldn't possibly have a bill requiring doctors to do something that their union and fundamental principles are against.

I hope that the campaigners for assisted dying focus on the BMA and work out how doctors could be brought on board with a bill with suitable safeguards for them to support this.
 Ridge 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

I'm sure Cameron said he once met a black fellow who was eating a Greggs pasty in Leeds. I suspect he made that up.
 The New NickB 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

MPs are generally a conservative bunch, Conservatives more so. Probably more likely to practice religion or at least pretend to, older.

They generally reflect a subset of society not society as a whole. Probably not a subset that has a majority of people in favour of assisted dying.
Pan Ron 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

Can't help but feel that those who oppose the bill are both idealogical and callous.

Painful and undignified deaths are unnecessarily being forced upon individuals and their families. The only justification for maintaining that status quote is the "possibility" that right to die legislation might be abused.

I'd say that the chances of that happening, while real, are small and far outweighed by the horror of dooming people to frankly awful deaths and denying what should be their most primary of human rights.
 Timmd 11 Sep 2015
In reply to David Martin:

It contrasts with our treatment of animals which are suffering, I think.

(UKC qualifier. To do with pets being put down, I'm not commenting on the meat industry, which is another kettle of fish.)
 radddogg 11 Sep 2015

We are a democracy. The vote was democratic. Whether or not we agree with the outcome does not change the fact that the vote was just. The only other option would be some kind of referendum but then that sort of negates the point of a parliament.

I imagine the 'against' voters were thinking of all the negative consequences of passing the bill rather than 'lets see these people suffer'. Misdiagnosis, lawsuits, abuse of the system, etc.
Post edited at 16:58
1
 MG 11 Sep 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> We are a democracy. The vote was democratic. Whether or not we agree with the outcome does not change the fact that the vote was just. The only other option would be some kind of referendum but then that sort of negates the point of a parliament.

True.

> I imagine the 'against' voters were thinking of all the negative consequences of passing the bill rather than 'lets see these people suffer'.

Some of them. A lot were following their contorted religious beliefs I reckon, which often come very close to celebrating suffering.

 radddogg 11 Sep 2015
In reply to MG:

> Some of them. A lot were following their contorted religious beliefs I reckon, which often come very close to celebrating suffering.

Quite possibly but back to point 1....

(I'm an atheist by the way)
 Coel Hellier 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Nicola:

> I hope that the campaigners for assisted dying focus on the BMA and work out how doctors could be brought on board with a bill ...

As I understand it, doctors are not unanimously opposed. Rather, they are about 60:40 opposed, and that's sufficient to mean that the BMA's official stance is opposition, despite a large minority of doctors supporting assisted dying. For what it's worth, polls also show about three quarters of nurses in favour.
 Ridge 11 Sep 2015
In reply to David Martin:

> Can't help but feel that those who oppose the bill are both idealogical and callous.

> Painful and undignified deaths are unnecessarily being forced upon individuals and their families. The only justification for maintaining that status quote is the "possibility" that right to die legislation might be abused.

> I'd say that the chances of that happening, while real, are small and far outweighed by the horror of dooming people to frankly awful deaths and denying what should be their most primary of human rights.

<sigh> I agree completely, have a like.
Wiley Coyote2 11 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

I suspect that many MPs took the view that the religious opponents would feel more strongly about the issue and might therefore be more disposed to vote against an MP who was in favour of assisted suicide.

However, it does seem to run counter to the idea that older people get everything they want because they are ones who vote. Among my friends, who are mostly now in the bus pass generation, there is a virtualy unanimous support for assisted suicide, possibly because death is a bit closer for us.
 ThunderCat 11 Sep 2015
In reply to MG:

> True.

> Some of them. A lot were following their contorted religious beliefs I reckon, which often come very close to celebrating suffering.

Suffering is sacred. Some major religions make no secret of this.

And despite thinking it slightly demented, I absolutely appreciate (and would fight for their right to believe etc etc etc) someone's right to choose a natural death, with palliative care right up until the end.

What I do not appreciate a religions belief that they have a right to force that choice on me.

I just want choice, and the right to self determination. It goes both ways.
In reply to ThunderCat:

Nothing (primarily) to do with religion. All to do with values. A very difficult philosophical issue. Needs a huge amount of careful thought.
2
Thickhead 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> As I understand it, doctors are not unanimously opposed. Rather, they are about 60:40 opposed, and that's sufficient to mean that the BMA's official stance is opposition, despite a large minority of doctors supporting assisted dying. For what it's worth, polls also show about three quarters of nurses in favour.


It's (probably) only the BMA members which are counted in that statistic too.

Lots of doctors are not BMA members and have their own views.

I'm not sure what the actual statistics are but from personal experience it always seems around 50:50. Public opinion to me has always seemed a lot closer than the Commons vote would suggest.

Presumably if such a bill was passed not every individual doctor would have to practice assisted dying/euthanasia, but would maybe have to refer to a clinic (like Dignitas) that could, should a request be made.

There are quite a number of countries, including parts of USA, that allow assisted dying. Its definitely time in my opinion as a doctor, to join that list of countries.
 Rob Exile Ward 11 Sep 2015
In reply to David Martin: I'm a bit agnostic about this but your point is well made.

 ThunderCat 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Nothing (primarily) to do with religion. All to do with values. A very difficult philosophical issue. Needs a huge amount of careful thought.

Hmm...

Could not agree more about the latter part of your reply. It's a huge issue and I fully appreciate the concerns about slippery slopes, vulnerable people feeling 'pressured' into early suicide to save families expense, etc

But lets talk about this? Discuss ways to protect vulnerable people whilst allowing people the chance to make a fully informed choice about how to end their lives if the suffering becomes too much, rather than just an outright "no" based on what often seems to be ideological / and religious beliefs - suicide being sin, suffering being sacred, etc. I see a regular blanket refusal to discuss this from a lot of friends based on religious beliefs.

.....is what I meant.
In reply to ThunderCat:

I really can't talk about this now. To examine this subject properly would probably take about 60 hours of discussion at an absolute minimum, and unfortunately (well, fortunately) I have work to do as a writer at the moment, so can't spare any time, sorry. Maybe we'll have a crack at it in c. 2 years time?

The thing is that one's whole philosophy of life has to be examined in order to answer this question properly. If one doesn't have a philosophy, beyond a few attractive and beguiling soundbites, then that all has to be worked out/through and put in place.

Be very careful talking about rights, because that's one side of a rather 'callous' coin.

I'm a completely unreligious person, philosophically agnostic, but think our latest Archbish is broadly right on this.
 ThunderCat 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No worries Gordon. Got to pay those bills.

I can only speak from personal experience. Maybe I don't have enough of it to see the wider picture. I just think there is something fundamentally flawed with the current situation, and that we as a society should accept that and at least start some dialogue into a way forward.

But anyhoo - get yourself back to work. I think it's time for bed for me now.

All the best.

TC

In reply to ThunderCat:

Thanks, TC. I can speak about v painful personal experience on this subject too (but won't)

ab, G
In reply to ThunderCat:

Final thought: you've got to be so careful not to overturn the most important values of all.
 ThunderCat 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Final thought: you've got to be so careful not to overturn the most important values of all.

The power of love? (A force from above?)
 radddogg 11 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Nothing (primarily) to do with religion. All to do with values.

Aren't our British values based on historical Christian values?
In reply to ThunderCat:

> The power of love? (A force from above?)

You've lost me. This is not something I've any knowledge of.
In reply to radddogg:

> Aren't our British values based on historical Christian values?

Well, as Britons we must, I suppose, have older pagan values. The Christian tradition borrowed much from the ancient Greeks, anyway.

My study of values goes back to the Greeks (Plato/Aristotle etc) and Christian values have always been secondary to this, because that's the way the history went. I studied a lot about Celtic beliefs in Britain too (see my Peak book for more on this.)
 radddogg 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Sorry the point I was making was that our values are descended from religious values.
In reply to radddogg:

My point is that they aren't entirely.
In reply to radddogg:

In fact, I'd go further and say that Britain now has largely (over 50% of the population?) reverted to its pre-Christian, pagan values.
 radddogg 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't know what pagan values are without looking at Wikipedia. I'd agree that the majority don't bother with religion.

Another way to look at it is like the ten commandments, to an extent we live to them without being religious
In reply to radddogg:

And of course, the ten commandments are pre-Christian.

Frankly, I find these kind of forum discussions terrifying because they expose such an abyss of ignorance re our whole culture.

I think - once I'm free of the horrendously hard work (mostly research) of the biography I'm writing at the moment - I'm going to have to throw myself back into philosophy and try to help revive interest in it, because its dormancy now is really scary.
 Sharp 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> ...I'm going to have to throw myself back into philosophy and try to help revive interest in it, because its dormancy now is really scary.

I have to disagree with that last bit Gordon but of course it depends where you look. There are far more people taking an intrest in their own belief system than there were 100 years ago when almost the entirity of the population took their values from what they were told and I'd argue that amongst a lot of the younger generation philosophy has seen a minor revival.

Having said that for me this isssue is much more of a practical problem than a philosophical one, and that's coming from a philosophy graduate. I was personally appauled but not suprised by the outcome of the bill, I do think a lot of it has to do with ingrained beliefs/taboo's or religion whichever you choose to classify it as. I personally have seen two of the closest members of my family suffer long drawn out and inevitable deaths and I'll will never understand people who try to justify that kind of suffering. We treat dogs more humanely.
 Pero 12 Sep 2015
It is a very practical problem. Especially given that medicine will generally only get better at prolonging the suffering. If and when my turn comes, I dread to think how long they will be able to keep me alive.

Thickhead 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Pero:

> It is a very practical problem. Especially given that medicine will generally only get better at prolonging the suffering. If and when my turn comes, I dread to think how long they will be able to keep me alive.

You can refuse treatment. This is about actively assisting death.
 Pero 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Thickhead:

It's not as simple as that. Refusing treatment might makes things worse - perhaps a terrible month or three months of unendurable agony. Whereas, accepting treatment may make things slightly more bearable, but prolong life for several years. This is what's only going to get worse.

You can refuse food and starve yourself to death without any help from anyone. Easier said than done.
 Ridge 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Pero:
> You can refuse food and starve yourself to death without any help from anyone. Easier said than done.

Mrs Ridge's mum did exactly that. She was pushing 90 with a perforated bowel. Attempts at surgery failed due to the rest of the bowel being too fragile to effect a repair. It was a choice between dying slowly over months in hospital, (we looked at Hospice provision, but in that area it was only available if you had Cancer or AIDS), or refusing treatment and food. Even then Mrs Ridge and her sister ended up doing shifts by the beds to stop doctors ignoring the request. Not a nice way to go. Many years ago the staff would have just overdone the morphine, but syringe drivers and the fear of litigation have effectively closed off that option. The Liverpool Care Pathway, which might have improved things, wasn't being used at that time.
Post edited at 13:04
 ThunderCat 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> And of course, the ten commandments are pre-Christian.

> Frankly, I find these kind of forum discussions terrifying because they expose such an abyss of ignorance re our whole culture.

> I think - once I'm free of the horrendously hard work (mostly research) of the biography I'm writing at the moment - I'm going to have to throw myself back into philosophy and try to help revive interest in it, because its dormancy now is really scary.

I'm sure all us ignoramuses are lookin' mighty forward to bein' educated. Yee Haw....
 ThunderCat 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> You've lost me. This is not something I've any knowledge of.

That's tragic. Make love your goal, Gordon.
In reply to ThunderCat:

You said something about 'a force from above'. I still haven't a clue what you meant, unless it was simply a metaphor.
 ThunderCat 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> You said something about 'a force from above'. I still haven't a clue what you meant, unless it was simply a metaphor.

Song lyric. Felt to be getting a bit serious, thought I'd change track slightly.

Post edited at 13:24
In reply to ThunderCat:

Ah !!!
 ThunderCat 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

And it was late....how goes the writing?
In reply to ThunderCat:

> And it was late....how goes the writing?

As you say 'it was late' (plus a bit too much vino methinks)

How goes the writing? Slowly I'm certainly never going to tackle another biography. Telling a whole life story is a very big deal.
 ThunderCat 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> As you say 'it was late' (plus a bit too much vino methinks)

Frankie Goes To Hollywood lyrics are always the ultimate vino tell tale...


Thickhead 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Pero:

> It's not as simple as that. Refusing treatment might makes things worse - perhaps a terrible month or three months of unendurable agony. Whereas, accepting treatment may make things slightly more bearable, but prolong life for several years. This is what's only going to get worse.

> You can refuse food and starve yourself to death without any help from anyone. Easier said than done.

It is quite simple.

You refuse any life prolonging treatment but accept any treatment necessary to keep you comfortable. For example you would accept pain relief but not antibiotics for a chest infection.

That's the basis of advance directives.

Sometime though medicine isn't enough to keep you comfortable and that's the basis of the argument for allowing assisted dying.

 Dax H 12 Sep 2015
In reply to Thickhead:

> There are quite a number of countries, including parts of USA, that allow assisted dying. Its definitely time in my opinion as a doctor, to join that list of countries.

Damn right it's time. I didn't really understand why with this current vote there was a clause about you dieing within 6 months.
Obviously I won't know unless it happened but sitting here now if I were to say bin my bike and become paraplegic with the loss of quality of life and the burden it would put on my wife I would want to end it even though I could live for many years.
The only stipulation should be that I am of sound mind, level of injury or illness should not be a factor.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...