[The Weeping Angel]

An objective look at this bill would be to look at the pros and cons. Instead crabcakes has just dismissed any objections as people as being uncomfortable about death or they're religious types and you can't trust them can you?

[Crabcakes]

Except you haven't been objective. You're supporting this bill wholeheartedly which you're of course entitled to do. Any complaints about the bill are dismissed out of hand and of course the people doing them are uncomfortable with death or religious types like catholics. So no you haven't been objective about this.

I meant about the article, really - I deliberately left out mentioning the medical doctor whose argument is just “I don’t agree, we should do this” and just said the other points were quite interesting given the previous articles about the Canadian system. Whereas she seemed thoroughly subjective, and so would be quite a poor ‘spokesperson’ for the anti-euthanasia argument. As I say though, you’re perfectly welcome to draw attention to her being in the article as well - but I would suspect it’d have more of a Streisand effect than anything else.

All that said, you can be objective and have an opinion - even a strong one. I am just yet to be swayed otherwise. I dismiss things because I remain unconvinced of the merits of any anti-arguments, as they’re either technicalities, fearmongering, whataboutery or dogma. That’s why I specifically mention people with a strong religious bent in particular (such as the lady in the BBC article) as they should have next to no influence on any decision given they have zero objectivity. They can’t possibly approach the matter logically if they fear eternal punishment for supporting it and/or believe in an afterlife that must be earned and a life that must be lived until their deity decides time is up.

I’d be equally furious at anyone denying someone any other medical treatment based on dogma, for example. So it’s not just death but the extension of life as well.

[Crabcakes]

PS on a more practical front, I posted in February about proposed changes to the bill I would happily support, so I demonstrably don’t just dismiss things out of hand.

[The Weeping Angel]

Fair enough.

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... from-court

Woman who killed her terminally ill father walks free from court
Judge passes suspended sentence on Lisa Davenport, who smothered Barrie Davenport in 2022 in ‘an act of mercy’

If MPs fail to legalize assisted dying after this, they'll look ridiculous. I'm expecting most of the opponents to remain very quiet about this case and sentence, which I actually find worse than a right to life hardliner saying she should have been sent down for a proper stretch.

[Youngian]

Juries have been refusing to convict mercy killers for over two decades and the problem was plonked on DPP Starmer's desk as the government and parliament were too timid to confront the dilemna (under Gordon Brown IIRC). A suspended sentence for pleading guilty for manslaughter was probably an outcome of Keir's guideline changes. There's an argument for facing an investigation and due process but no sentence given as it acts as a safety valve against malovent intentions.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It seems very odd that anyone can be happy with this situation. Legalized assisted dying is unthinkable because in some case it might get vulnerable people killed. But letting off someone who by their own admission kills a vulnerable person, that's passed over in embarrassed silence?

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Government have produced an impact assessment.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ter-decade

You remember all that "they won't tell us how much this will cost" stuff from opponents?

the potential savings to the NHS of accelerating the deaths of terminally ill people were expected to range from between £919,000 and £10.3m in the first year to between £5.8m and £59.6m in the 10th.

So what do opponents make of it?

Gordon Macdonald, the chief executive of Care Not Killing, which is opposed to a change in the law, said the document “confirms that changing the law will save money … exactly as we have seen in other jurisdictions which have introduced state-assisted killing, placing pressure on vulnerable terminally ill people to end their lives”.

Pressure from whom? I can see pressure from horrible relatives, but I'd expect the system to develop expertise to manage that. Pressure from the NHS to save a tiny percentage of its budget, I think that's dubious. The NHS all the time manages to make decisions that cost it money, because that's what doctors do.

You may not be surprised to hear that Gordon Macdonald holds general "pro life" positions. Which is his prerogative but why do we treat such opponents as though they're soberly weighing up the Bill and finding it wanting?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Update on what's been happening. Including this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... dying-bill

Other amendments proposed by MPs that are gathering support include prohibiting doctors from raising the prospect of an assisted death with patients – a change proposed by the Labour MP Meg Hillier

I have no idea why that would be bad. I think a court is going to be reluctant to convict a doctor who's told a patient they don't actually have to suffer in agony forever.

There's been a strand of opinion all the way through that has a very low view of doctors and the NHS.

Another amendment has been accepted by Kim Leadbetter.

the government must undertake “an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate health services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs”. It says that should be made at the earliest opportunity in the reporting on the implementation of the legislation.

I can see why she's accepted it, but I think this is just going to be used as an excuse to make assisted dying look bad. Of course, palliative care can't do anything at all about the extended agony that lots of people face.

[Abernathy]

We’ve discussed this earlier in the thread. Informing a patient of all the choices and options available to him or her on the basis of the patient’s prognosis - whether those options include an assisted death or not - is simply what medical professionals do.

“Don’t mention assisted dying. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.”

This is farcical nonsense.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I wonder if it's in good faith, given that Hillier has opposed all the way through, with some energy. If it's not accepted, it's something else to latch on to. And even if it is, it creates a fairly negative vibe. Is there anybody actually there thinking this could make the difference between supporting or not?

A doctor who wants to sees it as their duty to inform is going to find a way to do it. There's a tale in my family about an old dying relative. I expect lots of families have the same story. It was clear to everybody that they were not long for the world, nobody wanted them to suffer any more. The doctor came up with some euphemism and was left alone with the patient, and emerged a bit later to say they'd died. Everybody knew the score.

Doctors are clever people. They write essays. They can come up with a form of form of words for what they think is best.

[Tubby Isaacs]

My hundredth moan about the Guardian this week, but I've found the coverage of assisted dying pretty negative, even though I think the editorial is in favour. Here's an example.

MPs are to scrap the requirement for a high court judge to decide on assisted dying cases amid growing concerns over the legislation, with an expert panel to scrutinise decisions instead.

Kim Leadbetter, who has done sterling work overall, had made a bit of an error in requiring a high court judge, given the shit the courts system has been in. So she came up with a credible alternative, an expert panel including a very senior lawyer to replace the judge. Sounds fine to me, but "growing concerns", when there's been virtually nobody who's changed their mind publcly.

My view is this is an enormously important reform, up there with the sort of measure passed under Roy Jenkins. I'd expect, if not cheerleaders and trumpets, a more positive vibe,

[Crabcakes]

Update on what's been happening. Including this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... dying-bill

Other amendments proposed by MPs that are gathering support include prohibiting doctors from raising the prospect of an assisted death with patients – a change proposed by the Labour MP Meg Hillier

I have no idea why that would be bad. I think a court is going to be reluctant to convict a doctor who's told a patient they don't actually have to suffer in agony forever.

That is a terrible, terrible amendment. Apart from anything else it’s unworkable in practice as people will simply go round it, as has already been suggested. Plus I assume the argument is, if you [the patient] don’t know about it you clearly haven’t looked it up for yourself to see if it’s an option, and so it obviously isn’t of interest to you. But that makes some huge assumptions - not least of which being that someone quite ill and potentially already in a fair bit of pain’s first priority when told they’re terminal is settling down to do some care research.

It also assumes lack of awareness = lack of interest. But some people trust their doctors to tell them all the options - and if they don’t, they may simply assume it isn’t an option for them for some reason. The suggestion any valid choice should be kept from people in this way is astonishingly selfish, especially given it is impossible to ask people afterwards if they would have made a different choice had they been informed.

[Yug]

I get the impression that one side of this debate regards all doctors as wannabe Harold Shipmans. Can't wait to see their patients dead.

Most doctors want what's best for their patients. Shipman is remembered because cases like him are so fucking rare.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Absolutely. I'm not an expert on medical ethics, but presumably they already cover a doctor all but forcing something on somebody. And as you say, ignorance of options isn't some sort of blessed state.

I appreciate that law has to guard against the worst cases, but there's something about all this that suggests a not particularly high opinion of medical professionals. The impression given is of a bunch of shysters trying to finish people off and personally pocketing the money that palliative care would have cost. Opponents have managed to get arguments out of completely opposite points of view. If assisted dying costs extra money, bad because we need it for palliative care. If it saves money, bad because people will be killed to save money.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I get the impression that one side of this debate regards all doctors as wannabe Harold Shipmans. Can't wait to see their patients dead.

Most doctors want what's best for their patients. Shipman is remembered because cases like him are so fucking rare.

You beat me to it

[Tubby Isaacs]

First stage of Scotland's assisted dying bill passed by 70-56.

[davidjay]

More on my mum - she's back in hospital, being treated even though everyone knows what's really best for her. She's in a strange position where she's frail, ill, confused and horrendously agitated, yet at the same time strong and aware. She really is too ill to live and too well to die.

[kreuzberger]

A hug. That's all I have. I am so sorry it has come to this.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

More on my mum - she's back in hospital, being treated even though everyone knows what's really best for her. She's in a strange position where she's frail, ill, confused and horrendously agitated, yet at the same time strong and aware. She really is too ill to live and too well to die.

So sorry to read this, a dreadful, undignified situation.
Like Kreuz all I can offer is sympathy and virtual hugs, but they are sincerely meant.