Assisted Dying

[pwa]

One potential pitfall of the arrangements in the bill is that dying people might choose assisted suicide for the benefit of their loved ones. To save them the emotional burden of extra weeks of hospital visits. But, I ask myself, what would be so terrible about foreshortening one's death for that reason? Knowing that death is coming soon anyway.

[axel_knutt]

As someone who watched their dearest loved one suffer enormously for months prior to a painful death I am glad the bill passed. We can only hope that various nutters etc dont get it watered down. The safeguards seem more than adequate to me.

Al

A nutter being anyone who disagrees with you?

For the larger part of my life I've been angry that terminally ill people aren't allowed to have assisted suicide if they want it, my views only changed when I experienced the NHS the way they really are instead of seeing them through rose tinted spex like everyone else. I still do support assisted dying if a system could be devised that the NHS have no control over.

In a refreshing move, our MP has posted on social media to say how he voted, and why. His post was long and detailed, laying out the factors that guided him. He voted in favour. But he also said he wants the bill to be amended later on, or he intends voting against it at the third reading. I am impressed by his desire to engage with his constituents.

From my MP on Twitter:

It looks like well over 100 MPs who wanted to speak in this debate have not been able to do so. The Private Members Bill process is not well suited to a bill of this complexity. The rest of the bill process, if it is voted through today, will not be able to address the core deficiencies in the bill as drafted. The inconsistencies will invite legal challenge, with a high likelihood of success, and will change who falls in scope. I know those promoting the bill do so with the best of intentions, but our job as MPs is to look at the detail.

What the bill will legalise, not just what the authors want it to legalise.

What the unintended consequences could be, rather than just hoping they won’t crystallise

I have listened carefully to the debate today. I remain convinced that this bill is not ready to progress and I will vote against it.

https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/statu ... 3766003014

[pwa]

As someone who watched their dearest loved one suffer enormously for months prior to a painful death I am glad the bill passed. We can only hope that various nutters etc dont get it watered down. The safeguards seem more than adequate to me.

Al

A nutter being anyone who disagrees with you?

For the larger part of my life I've been angry that terminally ill people aren't allowed to have assisted suicide if they want it, my views only changed when I experienced the NHS the way they really are instead of seeing them through rose tinted spex like everyone else. I still do support assisted dying if a system could be devised that the NHS have no control over.

In a refreshing move, our MP has posted on social media to say how he voted, and why. His post was long and detailed, laying out the factors that guided him. He voted in favour. But he also said he wants the bill to be amended later on, or he intends voting against it at the third reading. I am impressed by his desire to engage with his constituents.

From my MP on Twitter:

It looks like well over 100 MPs who wanted to speak in this debate have not been able to do so. The Private Members Bill process is not well suited to a bill of this complexity. The rest of the bill process, if it is voted through today, will not be able to address the core deficiencies in the bill as drafted. The inconsistencies will invite legal challenge, with a high likelihood of success, and will change who falls in scope. I know those promoting the bill do so with the best of intentions, but our job as MPs is to look at the detail.

What the bill will legalise, not just what the authors want it to legalise.

What the unintended consequences could be, rather than just hoping they won’t crystallise

I have listened carefully to the debate today. I remain convinced that this bill is not ready to progress and I will vote against it.

https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/statu ... 3766003014

And if Parliament continues to grapple with the details for a while, and actually make a better assisted dying bill that they pass into law, I will be happy. What I won't be happy with is if they give up and leave us with no assisted dying option. I don't think that is acceptable to the public anymore.

[djnotts]

This is the main obstacle to enactment in anything but a very restricted form:

"......some Cabinet ministers are concerned that Sir Keir's targets could be eclipsed by the legalisation of assisted dying. They say the change would increase pressure on the most broken public services, namely the justice system and the NHS." (BBC front pages summary.)

[pete75]

This is the main obstacle to enactment in anything but a very restricted form:

"......some Cabinet ministers are concerned that Sir Keir's targets could be eclipsed by the legalisation of assisted dying. They say the change would increase pressure on the most broken public services, namely the justice system and the NHS." (BBC front pages summary.)

But if it save sa few months of end of life care then it should save the NHS money. `The justice system shouldn't need to be involved. If a person gives informed consent to being euthanised then that should be enough.

[djnotts]

This is the main obstacle to enactment in anything but a very restricted form:

"......some Cabinet ministers are concerned that Sir Keir's targets could be eclipsed by the legalisation of assisted dying. They say the change would increase pressure on the most broken public services, namely the justice system and the NHS." (BBC front pages summary.)

But if it save sa few months of end of life care then it should save the NHS money. `The justice system shouldn't need to be involved. If a person gives informed consent to being euthanised then that should be enough.

Once sent home doesn't come out of NHS budget line I think.

I agree re judicial involvement, but I really cannot see that being eliminated.

[axel_knutt]

The justice system shouldn't need to be involved. If a person gives informed consent to being euthanised then that should be enough.

Don't you remember the woman waving a consent form in front of the camera on the news during the Alder Hey scandal? The hospital told her it had been signed by her husband when she had never been married.

'Consent' is only informed if the NHS answer the patients questions.

[djnotts]

Strong indications today that this will once again simply be kicked into the long grass aka beyond the next Election. Too late for me, start saving for The Swiss Trip........

Perhaps Reform will be more "liberal" on this one policy? Or Putin will save us the trouble......

[Cowsham]

Even when it's been passed through the legislative council on the IOM there's still years to go before it's all up and running.
https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of- ... to-effect/

[Jdsk]

Passed Third Reading in the Commons. Now off to the unelected chamber.

Jonathan

[PH]

Passed Third Reading in the Commons.
Jonathan

Though much closer than I was expecting 313/291
I always feel a bit uneasy when such radical changes have small majorities, I'm glad there's a second chamber to take into consideration the opinions of the 291.

[axel_knutt]

I wonder if this will lead to an increase in the number of people not being told they're terminally ill.

[gbnz]

I wonder if this will lead to an increase in the number of people not being told they're terminally ill.

Surely not. There's quite an incentive to any medical provider (Nb. Not the background medication/equipment suppliers), to ensure patients are disposed of, more quickly. Doubt if it'll make a significant difference, but it could relatively quickly, assist in reducing medical labour costs & who knows, even reduced capital infrastructure needed in the future, relative to population numbers.

Perhaps what's really needed, are "hidden benefits", to encourage some to opt for a quicker disposal ? I.e. FOC funerals, even FOC floral displays ? £1k for a huge display of FOC flowers, would be a fraction of the medical labour costs, FOC funerals would negate any concern at the funeral costs family/friends might face.

Headlines could be superb........more hospital beds available, quicker turn around times, quicker treatment times, there's a decent incentive there, to do something.

[Jdsk]

I wonder if this will lead to an increase in the number of people not being told they're terminally ill.

I'm guessing that's mostly about doctors. How do you think that this law might change the incentives for them about this?

(The Hillier amendment about not "initiating conversations" was defeated.)

Thanks

Jonathan

[djnotts]

I wonder if this will lead to an increase in the number of people not being told they're terminally ill.

I'm guessing that's mostly about doctors. How do you think that this law might change the incentives for them about .....

Jonathan

I do hope not - would have negative impact on access to benefits at a time when most needed. And hamper relatives and carers in planning how to cope. Difficult enough to get an estimated "when" out of medics.

I am just so pleased that got this far. I was apprehensive that the wealthy who can afford care were going to condemn the poor to squalid, painful, death.