Assisted dying bill

I think there should be a change in the law as the current status quo is not ok and leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering and anguish. I do appreciate and understand the concerns though.

As a lawyer, I am quite fascinated by the legal mechanism of how this will work. I think the safeguards being proposed (sign off by 2 doctors and review by a High Court Judge) are sensible. It will be interesting to review the draft legislation if the Bill passes the first reading stage to examine the details and assess how stringent the measures preventing abuse are.

My father had terminal cancer and passed away earlier this year. He suffered a very rapid deterioration and ended up in end of life hospice care dosed up on large amounts of morphine. I think if he had the option he would have chosen an early assisted death.

Let’s hope the Bill is given the chance to be debated and scrutinised properly.

Its 2024, the Church is a total irrelevance to the vast majority. Coupled with their systemic covering up of child abuse they should have no shovel in this game.

...and having just been through this situation last month, assisted dying will be a great thing.

I don't think there are safeguards strong enough to avoid the inevitable abuse of this law. As a lawyer, you, I am sure, can list the times unscrupulous people have tried to take advantage of elderly relatives’ estates. If you haven’t then, I can direct you to lawyers who have. Perhaps as in your father’s case, some indication of how one would like to die should be included in your GP’s records and I believe there is some such thing. It should be more widely known about. 

I work in medicine

The current management of death and pain and end of life care needs to be better

Sorry to be so direct but the NHS is sh*te

I don’t trust them to deliver assisted dying without error and safeguarding issues arising

Just have a look at the vast numbers of NHS scandals over the years

Take your pick

I agree that there needs to be better management of end of life care but that does not deal with the crux of the issue. I believe people should be given a choice to end their life if they choose to do so in order to alleviate suffering and I think this Bill could work if robust safeguards are implemented. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes on the 29th.

For those with concerns about the potential for abuse/coercion, what is the evidence from those places who have already adopted assisted dying laws?

Is coercion an issue there?

Doing a quick bit of goggling about the evidence from other countries/states

"Assisted dying has been legal in Oregon since 1997. There have been no cases of abuse, no extension of the law and no 'slippery slope'. None of the fears expressed by those who opposing change in Oregon have come true."

Now this is from a campaign site so might be discounted by some.

But I have been unable to find any real world evidence of abuse of assisted death laws.

I don't deny it is a genuinely held fear.

But the evidence shows that it does not lead to people being exploited

But the fear for many is that they (I) will be condemned to a long, lingering, inhumane and possibly painful end, with no say in the matter. The current proposals do not go far enough. It is not often that I agree with Parsley, but "The current management of death and pain and end of life care needs to be better. Sorry to be so direct but the NHS is sh*te" is, in my experience with my father and step-mother, an understatement. One which I have no wish to repeat. It should surely be possible for people to opt in, or out, of a scheme legally and with witnesses. One side should not deny the other.

Much as I applaud the people of Oregon I don't think we should base the law of the UK with its very different demographic and history on the law of one American state. Care of dying people and very ill people including those suffering mental health problems needs to be improved substantially. If we are putting forward assisted dying, they won’t be, why bother? That is just one consequence of the proposed Bill. The choice will be one sided because not choosing to die will cause you problems and others inconvenience. Looking after ill people and old people is a challenge for sure but also not a burden, it enhances life, not diminishes it.
One little unforeseen consequence will be the lack of research on terminal illness or interest in unusual health problems and ‘difficult’ health issues. Again, why bother? If the teenager can be persuaded to kill himself because he will never lead a ‘normal’ life, we don’t need to spend all this money on his drugs or research into finding more. Sorry be a downer on this but assisted dying has hardly been debated at all amongst the population, yet the Bill is being presented as something fully thought out. It most certainly isn’t.

People who oppose this give many reasons, but really behind their reasons is that God gave life and God takes it, they just don’t say it.
The checks and balances are there, 6 months, no quality of life/in pain, 2 doctors, 1 judge. As long as the decision to euthanise a person isn’t on the grounds of financial gain and if this did come in law, there is always going to be the odd case that will circumvent the law for gain, it’s going to happen.

I have a mother who has early signs of dementia, would I want to see her euthanised, no. I also had a father who died of pancreatic cancer, died in a lot of pain, euthanasia would’ve been ideal.

As Simon said if someone’s wish to die, who are we to stop it.

Surely if in other countries with assisted dying laws people are not being killed left and right, the same could be done here?

It is terrible how people die slowly here with minimal help all based on absurd religious reasons masked as concerns.

I don't see the Canadian experience as a reason not to proceed with our own version.

The first attempt to change the law was back in the 1930s. There have been around 15 bills introduced at Westminster since then.

The current one is the 11th since 1997.

So whilst I think the current timeline for this bill is too short, parliament has looked at this a number of times in recent years. The issues are known and there is now a lot more international evidence that can help create a better law.

And as for the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, the fact that the law could be expanded in scope is not sufficient reason to establish the right as a principle.

No one should be forced to end their life. But neither should someone be forced to live through pain and suffering for months.

Yes, end of life care is in need of radical improvement in this country. But that does not take away the fact that even if that improvement were to be implemented rapidly, people would still experience suffering that some would wish to avoid of they could.

This should be a matter of personal choice.

Let us not delude ourselves into believing that doctors do not already engage in forms of bringing lives to an end. Various opiates and other drugs are administered on a daily basis that hasten deaths in hospitals. Yes, that tends to be right at the end of the process. But it happens and has happened for many, many years.

I believe that being able to choose how your life ends is something that should exist in our legal system. I also believe that there should be limits and safeguards in place.

This should have been a government bill with a free vote. But the government should now give this bill adequate debate time to allow all voices to be heard.

But we should allow people the right to end their lives.