Two thirds of country back assisted dying

14 comments

1. I don’t remember having a referendum

2. I couldn’t even give yes and no answer. It such complex issue

   I know they paid hell of lot money but I glad I not voting on issue

3. This is one of those issues where public opinion is important, but not that important. Other factors will be more relevant.

4. There’s a few people I would be willing to assist dying. 🙃

   Also this is the kind of thing we should be having referendums on.

5. Why should my right to die with dignity be taken away because of someone else?
   Should be legal right away.

6. If anybody doesn’t want to use assisted dying when you’re terminally ill and you’ve had enough, don’t. If you want to, do. It’s that simple. It’s like abortions, it’s cool if you don’t want one, but you don’t get a right to say that others don’t have bodily autonomy over themselves.

7. A dying nation

8. With the low birth rate and this for dying we will be able to entice a lot more foreign men of fighting age to come to our/their country

9. I fully support this however working with old people I see a lot of family members who are a lot more concerned with finances then health, biggest area where I think problems would occur

10. Let me say straight off, I agree with the principle. We give dying pets more dignity in their end than we give human beings. The right to end on your own terms should be an inalienable human right.

    But my god there needs to be controls around this. Serious, significant controls, with no loopholes. This legislation needs more care in creating it than anything ever seen.

    So I understand not wanting to proceed with what they have. But this can’t just be kicking it into the long grass. Proceed with the analysis and oversight, but do so on the basis that the principle of assisted death is agreed, and the aim of the commission is establishing how to do it safely, in a timely manner.

11. Anyone who has watched someone be mummified alive in their death journey would never question anyone’s right to choose.

12. I’m a dementia/older persons mental health nurse. I support the right to die at the time and place of your choosing. I can only hope that it can be done safely and morally. I worry about mission creep and about vulnerable people being pushed into it. I am not convinced that I trust the NHS or the government (I don’t trust those cretins with anything) to do this properly.

13. There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides, especially in the areas of overt or indirect influences, but the ultimate question is that of bodily autonomy.

    Many of the arguments against are founded on wishful thinking rather than the situation as it really is, such as the comments about palliative care which, in the experience of my late Brother and Mother basically forced them to endure a degrading and painful decline from terminal and untreatable cancer to the point where their experience amounted to little better than torture.

    Whilst the medical profession is cited as being opposed to the concept, the British Medical Association survey carried out in 2020 resulted in the majority (61%) of doctors voting for the BMA to change its policy of opposition to assisted dying and more doctors personally supported law change (50%) than opposed it (39%).

    The current situation is that the medical profession take life and death decisions every day as to whether to offer or continue treatment and the reality is that age, resources (including budgets) and the obscure machinations of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) along with the systems of governance by individual NHS trusts (a corporate not clinical body) all play a part as to who gets, and does not, get treatment and that can highly variable in different parts of the country.

    The parlous state of adult social care, especially for the elderly and the poor, is something no government wants to address, they talk a lot about it but prefer tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations to spending on giving all a decent quality of life. For those with terminal illnesses in this situation, unable to to take advantage of the likes of Dignitas, it is really is a case of dragging out the inevitable and the professionals doing just enough not to get criticised. There also is the elephant in the room where carers are undervalued for the work, especially family members and the financial rewards and support is maintained at poverty levels.

    The chaotic mess in which the elderly were subject to being incarcerated in care homes and put at risk during the COVID crisis shows the real level of concern for the weak, frail and aged by government. when Patrick Vallance revealed to the COVID enquiry his notes recording that Boris Johnson said his party “thinks the whole thing is pathetic and Covid is just nature’s way of dealing with old people – and I am not entirely sure I disagree with them” and Mr Johnson agreed with the Conservative Party’s Chief Whip Mark Spencer when he said “we should let the old people get it and protect others”.

    The reduction in NHS resources stemming from the austerity policies starting in 2010 has led to delayed treatments with over 6.37 million patients waiting for health treatment at end of December 2023 and cancer targets across the NHS were still being missed, even when somebody has been diagnosed with the disease, with one vital target now not hit for eight years. Leandre Archer, from the Society of Radiographers, said “Long waiting times mean that cases become more complex and for some patients, even a two-week delay can mean the difference between life and death.”. The BMJ in a report Published 04 November 2020 stated “Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers.” This is not a criticism of medical professional but the practical outcome of government under resourcing these treatments means that the numbers of people likely to face terminal diagnoses will probably rise over time – for them the question is not about death but the type of death they face.

    When it comes to the suggestion that family or carers might exert undue influence that is a concern but it can go both ways, such as where family refuse permission to cease treatment or switch off life support against medical advice. Some of these issues could be dealt with by revising the current limitations to a living will. Currently while you have mental capacity, you can make an advance decision to refuse certain medical treatment and this could be amended to include specific terms and conditions that relate to assisted dying. This could be re-enforced with making it a specific criminal offence to influence or coerce another in terms of assisted dying in the same way it is currently a crime to abuse a power of attorney for personal financial benefit and impose harsh penalties for doing so.

    I support the arguments made by Esther Rantzen and, to my mind, where an individual is sane and can convince that the decision is made on the basis of a personal choice it should be respected.

    Typically it seems to me that those people who comment most vehemently about morality and complain about ‘wokeness’ or ‘nanny state’ are quite happy to refuse to assist the needy arguing they should take responsibility and not rely on others but then deny the right for competent individuals to decide when and how to end their life. Arguing about the sanctity of life when refusing to address the nature of that life and providing for quality of end of life care is pure hypocrisy.

14. Time to turn all those useless phone boxes into suicide boxes!

Comments are closed.