Dignity in dying or legalised killing?

Today Parliament will take a vote on the principle of legalising the assisted death of terminally ill people who wish to die

I have no special insights into this topic and have not studied the two cases. Had I remained as an MP I would have widely consulted with constituents and voted in accordance with where I thought the majority lay. I would not have argued a case or adopted a view of my own. Today I have no need to decide as I have no vote.

As a result I am offering this unusual short opinion free blog as an opportunity for those of you who know more of this than I do or who have a strong case to make to do so.

The case for assisted death majors on the desirability of people having this freedom. The case against rests on the dangers of others placing undue pressure on a sick person and of a wrong diagnosis of how ill the person is.

127 Comments

  1. Mark B
    November 29, 2024

    Good morning.

    My concern is ‘mission creep.’

    All these things start out with supposed good intentions. eg to releave suffering of a terminally ill person. We all ready have been practicing a form of euthenasia in the form of abortions. It is all life at the end of the day.

    But I believe that the day will come when we could see a policy of getting rid of what the Left have called in the past, ‘Useless eaters.’ ie the very old and those who have disabilities.

    Are we about embark on a slippery slope ?

    Reply
    1. Sharon
      November 29, 2024

      Mark B

      Those are my concerns too. Particularly, as so many on the left seem to be un-empathetic . Look how they scream at those who even dare to disagree with their views…

      Your phrase, ‘useless eaters’ could come to pass in their future decision making – scary thought!

      Reply
    2. Mike Wilson
      November 29, 2024

      All these things start out with supposed good intentions. eg to releave suffering of a terminally ill person

      Not really. It isn’t to ‘relieve the suffering of a terminally ill person’ – because that terminology implies that it is something being done to a person – like taking a pet to the vets to be ‘put out of its suffering’.

      It isn’t that at all. It is allowing medical professionals to facilitate a decision made by someone who is terminally ill to avoid unbearable pain and indignity as their life ebbed away. There can be no mission creep as long as it absolutely clear it is the dying person’s decision.

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        November 29, 2024

        Agree

        Reply
      2. Ed M
        November 29, 2024

        For some / a lot of people, their worst enemies in life are their own families.
        Family members could easily subtly and passively-aggressively manipulate a family member to pull the plug when all the vulnerable person really wants is some warmth and love – not to die!

        Reply
        1. Mickey Taking
          November 29, 2024

          I don’t agree one bit. All the person wants is to end the painful misery of their useless existance.
          The expression us two hear over and over again is ‘what a welcome release for xxxx, they were trapped in their horror situation and nobody could/would help them end it’.
          How many do NOT have warmth and love? Normally there are family reduced to sobs after leaving the bedside feeling any God is CRUEL!

          Reply
          1. Ed M
            November 30, 2024

            Because we’ve lost our belief in the heroic. In the Greek heroes. In Rites of Passages.
            That God does exist but that we have to be heroes (with a sense of humour – at the appropriate time). We’re soft compared to the Greek heroes. The Spartans. Vast majority of Brits from WW2 who would have hated ‘assisted dying’ and they had no palliative care like we have. But they had far more faith in God. And they prayed much more to become like these heroic-like figures – in life and dying and death. To help them transform into something wonderfully divine. But humble.

          2. Ed M
            November 30, 2024

            Your comment is far more WOKE than Spartan.
            I’m completely unimpressed.
            I can’t believe some Tories (and Reform) voted for Assisted Dying (in fairness to Labour, a lot of them voted against. But the Lib Dems were the worst in terms of % of their MPs in Parl).
            We need to bring back National Service as quickly as possible to toughen up our men (who in turn toughen up and support our women over challenging things such as dying and death).

    3. Lifelogic
      November 29, 2024

      My concern too is “mission creep” as we have seen wherever it has been tried. I would be in favour if we had sensible doctors and judges in control. But that is not likely.

      Look at the sick joke of the vastly expensive Covid Enquiry.

      Reply
    4. Donna
      November 29, 2024

      Precisely. And the MP responsible for the proposed Bill has recently admitted that she would want to extend the “eligibility” criteria. It will soon become Coerced Euthanasia.

      Reply
    5. Ian B
      November 29, 2024

      @Mark B – +1 so very true. All response through our Politicos start out with good intentions and then through other events get distorted and removed from the purpose originally intended.

      Another topic in the Media right now, the Chagos Island have never been part of Mauritius that are over a 1000 miles away and closer to other Island groups. We accept the principle when it is talked about of self-determination the Chagos Island people have had no say, they would I am sure have welcomed their Islands back. This Government with out asking anyone has just given their lands away – what has even Parliament had to say about it? Mission creep in Action

      Reply
    6. Peter
      November 29, 2024

      “The case against rests on the dangers of others placing undue pressure on a sick person and of a wrong diagnosis of how ill the person is.”

      Not the entire case against.

      Taking a life by suicide, or by assistance in suicide was also considered wrong – even sinful – for a long time.

      The same applies with abortion. This was illegal in this country until comparatively recently. Now the ( people Ed)in charge are looking to force medics to perform the operation even if they object on moral grounds !

      America is more religious than the UK, so resistance there is stronger.

      Reply
    7. Peter
      November 29, 2024

      I watched my father die of mesothelioma in a care home – an unpleasant end to a very active life. Working on construction, it was a known hazard that was not made public for a long time to suit the main manufacturer. Even the welfare of those in and near the factories were ignored.

      Suicide, or assisted death, was never even considered. I think my father would have been extremely upset at the thought of such an end.

      Reply
      1. Mark B
        November 30, 2024

        Peter

        I am sorry for your loss.

        Reply
    8. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      
the ‘useless eaters’ included the poor.
      With the current political class in charge, who will not be poor? Only the corrupt.

      Reply
  2. DOM
    November 29, 2024

    Terminally ill people have no wish to die. Their only wish is to assert control over HOW THEY DIE. There is a subtle difference.

    My brother died of penile cancer. He was thirty three. It was absolutely avoidable. He’d express a desire to commit suicide but we persuaded him against it. He passed away in a hospice.

    It’s a terribly sad topic of debate.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      November 29, 2024

      Agree – My father died of cancer 40 years ago, and with a nod from the nhs hospital doctor, he was given extra pain killers to help his journey; 10 years ago my mother died of cancer but her life was extended, in a hospise, by an extra year, a terrible final year, a year she didn’t want …40 years ago there was a bit more flexibility but today they artificially intervened in fear of court action
      Agree, It’s a terribly sad topic of debate

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        She should have said she was in pain. They would have administered morphine – repeatedly
.
        There has always been a way which did not legally overturn the Hippocratic Oath.

        Reply
    2. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      Dom

      Like Peter I am sorry for your loss.

      Reply
  3. David Andrews
    November 29, 2024

    It all seems too rushed to me and worthy of more discussion before the vote is taken. Sometimes the decision to die is taken by the seriously ill patient declining the offer of further treatment that would prolong life. My late brother in law opted for this route, understandably so because his life post the offered operation would have been intolerable for him. He was already very ill and unable to live life normally. I suspect he would not have opted for a legally assisted death but cannot be absolutely sure about that.

    Reply
  4. Ian wragg
    November 29, 2024

    It would become a prescribed option by the GPs.
    The longest journey starts with a first step.
    This is he first step.

    Reply
    1. Narrow Shoulders
      November 29, 2024

      How easy is it now to be signed off work by a GP?

      Reply
      1. Peter
        November 29, 2024

        NS,
        Agreed.

        Reply
      2. a-tracy
        December 4, 2024

        I know a person who got signed off sick for 30 weeks the doctor didn’t see him in person once, didn’t refer him to speak to anyone even though he was ill with stress. The person was caught out in two lies, not a truthful person at all.

        Reply
    2. Ian B
      November 29, 2024

      @Ian wragg – A prescribed option by Governments to make the sums work. A ‘Statuary Instrument’ can be stretched that far regardless of what some think of as safe guards.

      Reply
    3. K
      November 29, 2024

      We’re not talking about a GP. We’re talking about a GP and a Judge for those in the last six months of a terminal illness.

      Reply
      1. K
        November 29, 2024

        TWO GPs and a judge.

        Reply
      2. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        Who knows when there is 6 months left and who knows what a ‘terminal’ illness is? The papers are full of people who have miraculous recoveries, or who were given 6 months and lived 20 years.
        Of course no Dr will ever be proven wrong once the patient is dead.
        And we all trust Doctors, especially after the COVID jabs, don’t we?

        Reply
  5. Nick
    November 29, 2024

    We already possess the right to die. It is possibly our only inalienable human right. No one can stop us hanging ourselves or jumping off a cliff if we choose.

    This Bill is about establishing a right to be killed by someone else. Those expected to do the deed – doctors and judges – should be heard with attention. I gather neither group have been widely consulted.

    I once put to a doctor friend that a letter signed by two doctors and ratified by a judge should be enough to establish the right to medical euthanasia. He replied with vehemence that he would NEVER sign such a letter.

    Reply
    1. K
      November 29, 2024

      No. It’s not about killing people. It’s about *assisted* dying for terminally ill people.

      The clue is in the name.

      Reply
      1. Peter
        November 29, 2024

        K,

        A euphemism for an action that brings about death is another way of looking at it.

        Reply
      2. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        The clue is that people are now legally allowed to kill people and be immune from prosecution.

        Reply
    2. Dave Andrews
      November 29, 2024

      The doctors directly involved with end of life care are particularly opposed. How can a person who has trained to administer health care be required to become an assassin?

      Reply
    3. Ian B
      November 29, 2024

      @Nick – UK Government have shown the never consult and never think things through, everything is for today’s sound-bite headline. They have lost our trust and are not trying to earn it.

      Reply
    4. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      +1.

      Reply
  6. Peter Wood
    November 29, 2024

    I think this decision will divide between those who have watched and helped a loved one go through painful, last days or weeks of life, and those who have not.
    I think it not beyond the wit of those well versed in law to put in good precautions.

    Reply
    1. hefner
      November 29, 2024

      PW, exactly.

      Reply
    2. K
      November 29, 2024

      +1000

      I am still having nightmares about Dad’s death nearly ten years ago.

      Reply
    3. Ian B
      November 29, 2024

      @Peter Wood – but what about those that a future Government deems not worthy. If you think that cant happen just look at the re-interpretation of our World, now, today in the hands of a new breed of politicos. The ‘well meaning’ start is there to be distorted to fit agendas.

      Reply
    4. Rod Evans
      November 29, 2024

      Sadly Peter, I think it is completely beyond the wit of law to do such. Think about the recent Alison Pearson example of law in action and consider what will happen when the zealots are given life and death options to opine on.

      Reply
    5. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      People well versed in law like Starmer? They have done so well on more simple things haven’t they, like stopping illegal immigration?

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        November 29, 2024

        Most lawyers are very happy to defend clear guilt for their fee…..
        Some live well on minor moral judgements, in the case of much more senior lawyers with power, they manage to sleep at night. Amazing.

        Reply
  7. David Frank Paine
    November 29, 2024

    Those still adhering to Judeo-Christian traditions might possibly question whether it is right or not to wrest the decision from the hand of God and give it to flawed human beings.
    As a nation, we have abandoned those traditions so I guess we will continue down the rabbit hole of doom.

    Reply
    1. K
      November 29, 2024

      You wrest the decision from the had of god when you take medicine to cure you.

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        November 29, 2024

        There isn’t any medicine to cure the terminal ill, but you can artificially extend life ….but thats no life, bed bound taking huge amount of pain-killers, knowing you’re terminal

        Reply
    2. graham1946
      November 29, 2024

      Why should those with faith have dominion over their fellow man, especially if that person does not share that faith? See my piece below and see if you still think that is the right thing to do to your fellow man.

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        Why should those with NO faith have dominion over others, and decide to administer death?

        Reply
    3. hefner
      November 29, 2024

      This early morning we had in Parliament a number of MPs who would have preferred the bill not even have a second reading (ie the first time the MPs can debate the detailed text.)
      A vote against it this afternoon would put off a proper debate by maybe six-seven years (the last attempt at such a law was in 2015).
      Even if there is a positive vote today, it will only ensure a significant debate within and outside Parliament. And whatever bill with amendments after discussions in commissions with external participants could still be opposed at Third Reading later next year.

      I can only conclude that the opponents to the present state of the Bill are no friends of debate and/or ‘freedom’.

      I’m all for an improvement to the end-of-life care provided by hospices, but would point out that they are funded only about a third by the NHS, and the rest by various private sources and charitable donations.
      Will the MPs want to improve on that and make sure there is a similar level of care in all hospices? (hospiceuk.org 16/07/2024 ‘Urgent call to save end of life care as 20% of hospices are threatened by cuts’.)
      Will they want to give doctors guidelines about how they might/could/should use morphine?

      Do people realise that practically no private health insurance covers end-of-life care?
      (carehome.co.uk 22/10/2024 ‘Do I need to pay for palliative and end-of-life care?’)

      Reply
    4. forthurst
      November 29, 2024

      Judeo-Christian is an oxymoron. The fact is that doctors have always helped patients on their way if they were suffering greatly and had no hope of survival. The law is invading every nook and cranny of our lives and will continue to do so unless a political party with a libertarian ethos takes power to roll back the state to make it a country worth living in. What next: bipolar patients in a depressive phase demanding their human right of assisted suicide?

      Reply
      1. Sharon
        November 29, 2024

        Forthurst

        “What next: bipolar patients in a depressive phase demanding their human right of assisted suicide?”

        That’s already happening in Canada, Netherlands.

        A Canadian woman posted a comment in The Telegraph a while back. She’d visited her GP to ask about a stair lift to help with her poor mobility. She said, ” I kid you not, I was offered voluntary euthanasia!”

        Reply
      2. Lynn Atkinson
        November 30, 2024

        Just as an aside Judeo-Christian is the foundation of everything we are. The single difference is that the Christians believe the Saviour has come and the Jews are still waiting. Note that the Christians are also waiting, for the second-coming.
        So the real difference is between the Old Testament and the Christian New Testament where it is claimed that the battle is won and that Christians live in a state of Grace (undeserved favour).
        If you want confirmation regarding Judeo-Christianity, ask any Moslem.

        Reply
    5. Peter
      November 29, 2024

      DFP,
      Correct. Some may describe it as ‘moral relativism’. I see it as the absence of any principles on how you should live your life.

      It is symptomatic of a nation in steep decline, which has been evident for decades now.

      As others note, there are few in positions of responsibility I would trust these days. Politicians, judges, police, scientists, medical journalists etc, etc…

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        Some doctors are keen for organs
.

        Reply
  8. Narrow Shoulders
    November 29, 2024

    Terminally ill people can already kill themselves, They don’t need state sanctioned help.

    Where will that lead us?

    Reply
  9. Roy Grainger
    November 29, 2024

    As usual not much account has been taken of the experience of other countries. In Canada they started off with very narrow applicability and strong safeguards and over time these have been expanded through legal and political challenges and now there is wide applicability (extending to the disabled, those in pain but not at risk of immediate death, those with depression and various mental health conditions etc.) and a death industry has grown up to service it with doctors who only work in this area to provide the necessary rubber-stamp sign-offs. 60,000 people in Canada have died in this way. In Oregon USA the scope has also expanded – having diabetes at any age is a qualification for assisted death because without medication it is a terminal illness. The UK proponents of this bill, who have been very well funded (by whom ?) will not stop at this first step and will try to get the applicability expanded – firstly by challenging it under ECHR discrimination laws (if you have access when you have 6 months to live why not 12 months ?).

    Although there is a clear majority of the public who support the principle Starmer has probably managed to scupper the bill through sheer incompetence. It wasn’t in his manifesto and seems to have been fast-tracked by him only because Esther Ranzen asked him to. He then tried to introduce it via a Private Members Bill with very limited time for debate and consideration and there are big holes in the drafting of the bill. He personally has provided no leadership on it at all and we don’t even know how he will vote. It should have started with a commission and public consultation period lasting 1-2 years to get input from all relevant groups, followed by a government-sponsored properly drafted bill. Next time maybe.

    Reply
  10. agricola
    November 29, 2024

    My only experience is with animals. One senses when a pet is very near to the end of its life from visible symptoms. Consultation with a vet confirms that it is not going to get any better and that one should end its visible suffering.
    Again when shooting, not every bird downed is instantly killed. It is the duty of the gun to kill the bird if the bird has not fallen to the gamekeeper or beaters first. When rough shooting or pigeon shooting it is down to the gun.
    I accept that with us humans it is different, religion for one can get in the way of making a logical decision. The desire for it is due to the fact that end of life hospice care, though excellent in quality is inadequate in availability. The answer is to correct the inadequacy. As far as I can ascertain, hospices provide the end of life service painlessly and ethically that others outside the event cannot. So fund the existing hospices adequately to expand as necessary. Do not under any circumstance put their services in the hands of care home serrvices. Leave the final decision to the patient and doctors that entry to a hospice is due. I do not like the idea of anyone with a vested interest having any input.

    Reply
  11. Sakara Gold
    November 29, 2024

    Ester Rantzen wants to legalise what is in all probability already going on in the NHS. The elderly and the disabled are already having “Do Not Resuscitate” signs placed on their beds.

    Other countries which have gone down this route have regretted it because of the coercion issue. I should be happy to see Ms Rantzen euthanased – if that is what she wants – but this issue must be left to Parliament on a free vote for the rest of us.

    Reply
  12. K
    November 29, 2024

    Now we know. For Labour at least. The mask mandates, the lockdowns, the destruction of our economy and expensive working from home by public sector workers and assisted dying (of which I support) … none of it was about saving granny.

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      And the removal of the Winter Allowance.

      Reply
  13. Bryan Harris
    November 29, 2024

    It comes down to a matter of trust – we simply do not trust parliament to get it right. They have shown all too often over the last few decades just how they have failed to protect our interests. Legislation often is vague, open to interpretation and full of holes.
    Where other countries have passed such legislation the original promises are quickly out of date and changes are made so that any initial safeguards become worthless.

    This is yet one more global fad that we simply must have, but for no good reason. It is simply keeping in line with international ideology.

    Yes of course, people should be allowed to die with dignity when living becomes a major burden, but the decision needs to be kept simple and totally under the control of each individual.

    Reply
  14. Berkshire Alan
    November 29, 2024

    Not an easy vote at all.
    Those who have seen huge suffering of family members for years in a nursing homes, unable to swallow, being fed by a tube, partly paralysed, unable to even sit up in bed without being put in position being surrounded by pillows, doubly incontinent, and with all other bodily functions failing, including eyesight, but the brain and speech still mainly functioning, all be it more slowly, and listening to their complete and utter frustration at their condition and prospects, with them simply wanting it all to stop, may feel rather more strongly in their views.
    Many in the above condition would find it impossible to medicate themselves, as is being suggested.
    I certainly feel that life is precious, but for some who want a painless way out, a controlled painless death, surrounded by family members, has to surely be better than perhaps a violent one committed by suicide (if able) which may then involve complete strangers.
    The important matters are to avoid coercion and pressure from family, and perhaps others, so safeguards are certainly required, many would feel that two independent Doctors and a Judge is good enough, others will not.
    Given how the present system of making doctors appointments, and the extended period for anything that requires legal decisions, most people I would suggest if terminally ill, would pass away during the suggested 6 month period before they even got to see a judge, and so their suffering is not shortened at all !.
    Not an easy decision, but on the basis of safeguards being in place, I am just in favour.

    Reply
  15. javelin
    November 29, 2024

    Talk to a Canadian.

    I’ve heard horrific stories of people being encouraged to kill themselves.

    The law has it correct.

    I would have to hear a compelling case publicly discussed in front of three high court judges to move the case law on this subject.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      +1. My father never recovered from the war. His serious illness killed my mother so I looked after him for 34 years. He was officially 100% disabled. He had a painful disease. But he came to terms with it and it was the only life on offer. He lived in his head, he was intellectually 100% fit. He had a full and interesting life.
      I have never counted the ‘cost of caring for him’. It is a total irrelevance. He never chose to shorten his life.

      Reply
  16. Mike Wilson
    November 29, 2024

    I feel very strongly about this. It is not for MPs, or anyone else, to make a moral judgement on this. I don’t CARE what anyone thinks about the morality of a terminally ill person choosing to bring forward their death to avoid pain, helplessness and indignity. Why should I care what you think about it? Why should your opinion affect me when my turn comes? I don’t give a toss what Dianne Abbott or Jacob Rees-Mogg (who believes in the absurdity that is Catholicism – I was indoctrinated as a child) think. All am MP has to do is put in place the legal safeguards to make sure the patient is not being encouraged against their will, is terminally ill and is of sound mind. It’s my body. It’s nothing to do with you. I’ve seen family members die in the most heartbreaking and disturbing way. I would go so far as to say that people who want to vote against the bill are monsters – insisting that a gruesome end must be endured by other people.

    Reply I am not an MP and did not express an opinion!

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      November 29, 2024

      Good words Mike

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        November 29, 2024

        and heart felt.

        Reply
    2. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      Nobody is insisting that ‘a gruesome end must be endured by others’. Take responsibility for yourself. Nobody can stop you and nobody could have stopped your family had they wished to avoid the ‘gruesome end’.

      Reply
    3. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      It is about who gets to make the decision and under what circumstances. If a person wishes to end their life, whether they are fit or not, they can. It is called suicide, and it is their choice. The issue I have, and you have expressed it well, is when other people get involved, whether they be professionals or not and the longterm ramifications of further changes to the threasholds.

      Reply
  17. Geoffrey Berg
    November 29, 2024

    There is a case for allowing a private Zurich type euthanasia to operate in Britain but it certainly shouldn’t be part of the N.H.S. nor entail the horrifically expensive (and slow) legal system though on the whole I take the view that those capable of killing themselves who wish to do so should just do so.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      They do. They don’t tell anyone – anyone threatening is just demanding attention. It’s cheap.

      Reply
    2. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      I would consider that anyone wishing to end ‘their’ life early just buy a ticket to Switzerland. Many have.

      Reply
  18. Michael Staples
    November 29, 2024

    The problem in many cases of extreme pain in a terminal illness is that, before the Harold Shipman case, doctors would increase the dose of morphine sufficiently to ease the patient towards death. Since that case there has been greater reluctance to do so.

    Reply
  19. Rodney Needs
    November 29, 2024

    I am for we already have a choice suiside or pallative. If it does not get approved i would consider one or other. This just introduces safeguards and gives you a little longer till you say bye

    Reply
  20. Ukret123
    November 29, 2024

    DNR is the unspoken default position for many presently over a certain age unless you have someone who can speak up for you, sadly.
    What is required instead is a more open defined process than what we presently have to avoid any abuses cover up.

    Reply
  21. Michael Dalgleish
    November 29, 2024

    John, I think you miss the point. This vote is about personal agency. Do you wish to continue a system where an individual’s agency is denied? We should all be allowed to make our our decisions in life, where no harm is caused to others.

    Reply
  22. alison barnes
    November 29, 2024

    I can’t forget how block DNR’s were imposed on care homes during covid and their occupants left to die alone, neither treated nor taken to hospital when otherwise they would have been. A doctor and nurse I spoke to at the time found DNRs “helpful” as an indication that the person didn’t care if they died, to decide their fate, which is a far cry from the instruction that resuscitation not be attempted if they had died. For that very ‘slippery slope’ reason I would vote against assisted dying.

    Reply
    1. Dave Andrews
      November 29, 2024

      Pardon me if I’m wrong, but I thought DNRs were also a doctor’s decision, where he feels resuscitation would be futile. Isn’t making someone die twice just horrible?

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        Doctors were instructed during COVID to issue DNRs to a large section of the population, whether they were well or not, without even seeing them. Then they signed the death certificates not having seen the body – it might still have been breathing for all they knew.

        Reply
  23. MBJ
    November 29, 2024

    This argument was my BaHons dissertation and I still don’t know what is the right way to go.

    Reply
    1. MBJ
      November 29, 2024

      Which

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 29, 2024

        You leave the decision to each person.

        Reply
        1. MBJ
          November 29, 2024

          If they are capable..If they are not coerced.If they are not practicing self sacrifice for the sake of others,if they sre not so tormented that a split decision is made and feel the need not to go back on their decision etc

          Reply
          1. Lynn Atkinson
            November 30, 2024

            If they did not make the decision when they were capable they do not want to be killed.
            Not wanting to be kept alive is not the same as wanting to be killed.

    2. Mickey Taking
      November 29, 2024

      The individual affected should decide. Simple.

      Reply
      1. MBJ
        November 29, 2024

        Your also have to think about those administering the fatal dose.The God complex isn’t easy to take on.

        Reply
        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 30, 2024

          Nobody should ever administer a fatal dose to anyone else. That’s the point.

          Reply
          1. MBJ
            November 30, 2024

            Yes ,but this is what is being debated.That is the point.

    3. MBJ
      November 29, 2024

      Harold Shipman comes to mind.
      Myself and many colleagues have cared for and witnessed distressing slow deaths.
      If we are not sure.. leave alone.
      Perhaps the Swiss option should be made more accessible.

      Reply
  24. Ian B
    November 29, 2024

    “Dignity in dying or legalised killing?” legalised killing of course.

    Given the way Government uses ‘Statutory Instruments’ to bypass Parliament once the Laws have been passed its not a stretch to see them manipulate the situation to suit political aspirations. So-called safe guards do not exists in the way the UK handles Democracy

    Reply
  25. Donna
    November 29, 2024

    Prior to the Covid Tyranny, I probably would have decided in favour of very limited Assisted Suicide.

    Post, Covid Tyranny – and the knowledge that a cocktail of life-ending midazolam/morphine was administered by “our wonderful NHS” to countless frail elderly people whilst their family members were unable to see/visit them – I am absolutely opposed.

    Leadbetter, MP, has already admitted that she would want the option extended from the initial criteria. In other words, it will become a slippery slope to coerced euthanasia …. just as it has in Canada.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      Yes they kill our people in the womb, they will kill us when the saving on our pension and care costs are deemed to be ‘wasted’ and in between they will pump us full of mBNA.
      We stand on the cusp of the post-human era.

      Reply
  26. William Long
    November 29, 2024

    My doubts about the desirability of ‘Assisted dying’ centre around the difficulty of being certain that the decision is that of the subject person, and not the result of input from anyone else at all. Even if someone is capable of making the decision, there is a great danger that they may feel under some sort of obligation to avoid trouble for others. If they become incapable, then I do not think that anyone else, medical, judicial, or family member should be allowed to decide what might be best for them. My wife was ore or less incapable for two years before she die, and one often wondered, what was the point? But then one would be greeted with a smile and knew that ending things would be premature and wrong. Pain is obviously hugely difficult to deal with, but proper palliative care can provide control and relief; the danger is that our Nationalised Health service will see ending things as a cheaper option.

    Reply
    1. Donna
      November 29, 2024

      Quite. Coercion can take many forms. Imagine an elderly person who is terminally ill, frail …. and whose only remaining pleasure in life is a weekly visit from his/her adult child/ren.

      If said adult child/ren hoped to inherit some money and thought that it would be “preferable” if their parent didn’t live too many more months, they could explain that unfortunately they won’t be able to visit any more due to xxxxxx. Perhaps that vulnerable, elderly person would decide that under those circumstances, with their only pleasure being withdrawn, life was indeed no longer worth living.

      Don’t think it wouldn’t happen. Adult child/ren have done far worse things to get their hands on a parent’s money.

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        November 29, 2024

        Perhaps that vulnerable person would insist on a solicitor coming to produce a new will to be signed urgently?

        Reply
  27. graham1946
    November 29, 2024

    No-one who has not had experience of this matter can know what is involved at the end for someone with cancer for example where palliative care is not sufficient. My brother had mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure 50 years before. When doctors gave him 6 months to live, he did not want to die and wanted to fight as hard as possible and took all their treatments in that direction. He went from being 6 feet two inches, eighteen stone man that in the final weeks, I carried him to the toilet. Skin was hanging from his legs which were no more than thin sticks and I was shocked to see his emaciated state. He had a hospital bed in his lounge with morphine pump in the end. He was in a great deal of pain all the time and no amount of the allowed morphine assuaged this. He died a couple of weeks later, still in great pain. This could have been avoided if the law had allowed. It was obvious to us, all even without any medical training that he was not going to survive. So I say to those without this experience, don’t judge just on your moral or religious outlook. Don’t condemn people you don’t know to an unbelievably awful death. If you wouldn’t do it to your dog, why do it to a fellow human? This bill must pass, but I have my doubts that the politicians will have the courage to do it.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      November 29, 2024

      Agree Graham

      Reply
    2. David Paine
      November 29, 2024

      Maybe doctors should be allowed to administer sufficient morphine to take away the pain, even if such a dose might be fatal.

      Reply
  28. Chris S
    November 29, 2024

    As I was born in the same year as our host, 1951, we are both of an age where we will naturally have been thinking about this.
    My view is that in the event of a catastrophic illness like Motor Neuron disease, I would feel reassured that it would be an option.

    MPs already know that a clear majority of the electorate are in favour of the measure, so, unless they want to distance themselves even further from their voters, as they already have over migration, Foreign Aid, and Net Zero, MPs should support Assisted Dying.
    I believe that the parliamentary process is robust enough to come up with adequate safeguards as the bill proceeds through Parliament so I have few concerns.

    Reply
  29. Ian B
    November 29, 2024

    From the Telegraph – running comments
    “Definition of ‘terminally ill’ is almost ‘meaningless’, warns Tory MP
    Danny Kruger said “terminally ill” is a “term of great elasticity, almost to the point of meaningless” as he criticised the assisted dying Bill.
    The Tory MP said it is “impossible for doctors to predict with any accuracy that somebody will die within six months, it is a purely subjective judgement”.
    The proposals set out in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would only apply to the terminally ill who are judged to have less than six months left to live.

    Senior Labour MP tells Leadbeater: ‘We are here to legislate for society as a whole’
    Veteran Labour MP Barry Gardiner said that Kim Leadbeater had “focused on the individual and the individual choice but we are here to legislate for society as a whole”.

    Assisted dying Bill has ‘strongest set of safeguards in the world’, claims Leadbeater
    Kim Leadbeater said her assisted dying Bill “contains the most robust and strongest set of safeguards in the world”. – ME ‘Ian B’. But not from Government Interference as proven with their use of ‘Statutory Instruments’ used to reinterpret without approval of the House

    Oliver Dowden warns ‘excessive judicial activism’ could push assisted dying laws too far
    Oliver Dowden, the Tory former deputy prime minister, warned that “excessive judicial activism” could see judges push assisted dying laws too far.
    He asked Kim Leadbeater what assurance she could give that her proposed laws would not be expanded into a “totally different place” to what Parliament intended.
    He said: “We have seen time and time again excessive judicial activism taking the words in this House and expanding their meaning into places we had not seen in the first place. What reassurances can she give that the words in her Bill will be respected by the judiciary and we won’t find ourselves in a decade’s in a totally different place that this House did not intend?”
    The Labour MP replied: “The courts have repeatedly put this issue back to Parliament. This is not their domain.”

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      November 29, 2024

      We have all heard the one about ‘No Tax Rises’

      Reply
    2. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      For me, as Graham1946 laid out above, the first questions should be; “Is the person in constant pain ?” If someone like Graham1946 brother is in that condition then it should be an option which must start with the person in question if they are able to. I think that should be the ONLY red line, and even then, I do not want the State involved.

      Reply
  30. Rod Evans
    November 29, 2024

    We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The one that has been turning for generations where close relatives and the caring medical staff speak openly but quietly about the delicate matter of life and comfortable death already exists.
    That conversation should never be compromised by institutionalised rules and regulations.
    The dangers of mission creep once the legal teams of institution policy are released are well documented.
    We must not go down this dystopian route of state intervention in private health decisions.

    Reply
  31. glen cullen
    November 29, 2024

    The government should just stop intervening ….with a history of brexit, net-zero, fisheriers, NI, ZEV, petitions etc etc ; I no longer trust any MP nor there pointless debates

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      November 29, 2024

      Government still can’t define ”women”

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        November 29, 2024

        and economically literate, with a maths degree, and still they cannot decide when ‘no tax rises’ means no tax rises.

        Reply
  32. Kenneth
    November 29, 2024

    I am against. It’s too risky.

    There is also the issue of who authorises the killing and by what authority.

    I would certainly not trust this to the NHS to be involved.

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      My next door neighbour (in his 80’s) has been booted out of hospital despite numerous ailments. All to make room for the Christmas Rush. Such is the wonderful NHS.

      Reply
  33. Old Albion
    November 29, 2024

    Many words have been uttered on this subject. I say only this; If I decide I no longer wish to live. No one has the right to deny me my death at my time of choosing.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      Nor could or would they stop you. But you must have the courage to take action yourself and not transfer your problem to somebody else. If you have a degenerative disease, take action before you can’t.

      Reply
    2. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      +1

      Reply
  34. Mark
    November 29, 2024

    We were surely already there during covid, although with how much legal support is questionable. Matt Hancock has admitted that DNR orders “could have been handled differently”. Emptying hospitals into care homes and refusing hospital care to many who were left to die at home contributed to excess deaths for non covid reasons. The difference was that it was the State and SAGE that was deciding, not individuals. Many long time readers of this blog will recall that I put together charts showing what was happening, like this one:

    https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0ZXy6/1/

    Reply
  35. Mike Wilson
    November 29, 2024

    I have begged, instructed and informed my wife and sons that in the event of a stroke, or other catastrophic event, which leaves me incapable with no chance of recovery, the machine is to be switched off PLEASE.
    Further, in the event of ending my life through cancer – if it involves helplessness, loss of control over bodily functions etc. then I pray to a god I don’t believe in, that someone will help me end it.

    Reply
  36. Peter+van+LEEUWEN
    November 29, 2024

    Since 2003 I have had the possibility of euthanasia, and see it as a kind of insurance policy: To have the freedom of choice in particular cases. It does require updating my wishes every 5 years. I’m still healthy and I don’t think it likely I will choose a euthanasia like solution for me, with the improvements of paliative sedation over the years. Still it feels good to have that autonomy. Cases I’ve experienced in my environment, gave me the chance to say my last goodbye in a dignified manner.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      There are a series of boats from Port of Tyne to Amsterdam each day.

      Reply
    2. Ed M
      November 29, 2024

      I’m a big fan of the Dutch and the Netherlands and visit an old Dutch friend there a lot but when it comes to leading the way in ‘assisted dying’ I have no respect whatsoever. Whole thing gives me the creeps. Leaves me cold.

      Reply
      1. Peter+van+LEEUWEN
        November 30, 2024

        @ED M:
        I respect that. There are some people in the Netherlands who still have great reservations to assisted dying, for religious or other reasons, but nobody is coerced into going for euthanesia. The bulk of the problem is about people who hoped for assisted dying, but in the end were denied. It is really not at all “simple” to receive euthanesia. There are lots of conditions, both legal and medical.

        Reply
  37. Joan Sawyers
    November 29, 2024

    Having watched both parents and a very good friend die of cancer and all wishing they could end t when the pain got unbearable, the the best will in the world the medical profession cannot always be there when you need further medication, I think that given the choice I would like to end my life when I decide, not some stranger. This s just my opinion.

    Reply
    1. Ed M
      November 29, 2024

      80 years ago, time of WW2, vast majority of people here would have just seen ‘assisted dying’ as evil (especially considering what was going on in Europe) even though their palliative care is nothing compared to now. Dying / death is a Rite of Passage. ‘Assisted dying’ just gives me the creeps. Leaves me cold. As it would have vast majority of people back then.

      Reply
  38. JoolsB
    November 29, 2024

    Whether you agree with this or not, I am spitting feathers that even though it only applies to England and Wales, yet again those interfering MPs from north of the border and in this case, NI MPs as well, had the audacity to stick their nibs in even though it won’t affect them or their constituents. Your party failed us miserably on this one John and Labour will be no better. England will continue to be shafted both constitutionally and financially by the anti English uni party.

    Reply
  39. Mickey Taking
    November 29, 2024

    On a slightly sober and for some disconcerting thoughts, my elderly mother, many years ago now, fell badly and broke a hip severely. Yes of course she expressed pain but not to help her end life – no not at all!
    It was reported to me from a sibling later that an operation could not be done later in the day, so a ‘strong dose of morphene’ was administered. She died presently. This was a misjudgment of what she needed? Or was it a test of what she could manage to survive on the operating table? After all success or failure records on the operating table matter, don’t they! I will always wonder how often this scenario happens.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 29, 2024

      Turns out that women in particular suffer from very thin bones when aging. Apparently the hip breaks which causes the fall rather than the other way around. That’s why the operations to set the bones are so dicey. Very little material to set.
      The same thing happened to my aunt, and she turned her face to the wall and ‘opted out’ too.

      Reply
  40. Lynn Atkinson
    November 29, 2024

    Taking of State Killing, Johnson in an interview with The Telegraph (video online) admits: “We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel,” Johnson said in an interview with The Telegraph.
    700,000 Ukrainians dead 100,000 Russians all assisted by the UK in dying.
    Their families are going to be forever grateful.

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      So bascially what, Johnson is saying is; “We’ve not killed as many Russians as we could have.”

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 30, 2024

        You can see why he never made General! Else he would have led men into battle – he claims.
        Of course Enoch Powell signed up in the ordinary way as a Private. But then Johnson is not in the same league as Powell.

        Reply
  41. Linda Brown
    November 30, 2024

    I cannot see why you cannot buy a packet of pills and end it all if so desired without having a legal bill to make sure you do it with government approval. This is where things go wrong and people come along and change the original concept of what has been put into law. This law has been pushed on us by people who have their own agendas and I don’t like it.

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 30, 2024

      The agenda is more State control over our lives. Quite literally, ‘from the cradle to grave’

      Reply
  42. Peter D Gardner
    December 1, 2024

    To keep it short let me just say I agree with Danny Kruger.
    PD James wrote about this in her prophetic novel, Children of Men, made into a film of the same name. Calamitous.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.