Best Of

If you allow assisted dying it is inevitable that some people will be coerced or emotionally blackmailed into killing themselves, whatever safeguards are put in place. If you don't allow assisted dying, a far greater number of people will endure unnecessary pain and suffering. The reality is that there is a trade-off, and there are no easy answers. People can reasonably come to different views on it. It's an emotive topic for obvious reasons, and it's good we are having a thorough debate about it. Being of a greater good for the greater number kind of frame of mind, I am supportive.

I don't believe in the greater good theory when it comes to harm to the vulnerable. I don't think it is for the many but rather a proposal for the few at the expense of the many.

There has not been a thorough debate at all. Leadbetter did not want even to hear evidence from psychiatrists then backed down and now has given them a central role in her proposed law, despite them saying they cannot support it. The law will come automatically into force in 2029 regardless of whether there has been adequate training and preparation and funding, unlike with all other laws. This is crass, incompetent law-making.

With good palliative care there is no need for unnecessary pain and suffering, as palliative care specialists have explained. See also this from Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the hospice movement - https://x.com/treesey/status/1934969805510963675?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA.

The really difficult issue which this Bill does not even attempt to address is when you have someone with dementia who cannot possibly be assisted to commit suicide. Or people with locked in syndromes where they cannot do anything for themselves but do wish to die. In both cases someone else would have to kill them. Is this really a taboo we want to break by making it lawful rather than applying mercy in very hard cases?

People who wish to decide when to die are already free to do so. It is those who do not want to be pressured we should be thinking about. If this law passes, the below describes perfectly what will forever be in the corner of the mind of every vulnerable person, every disabled person, every sick person, every old person.

Reading the abortion discussion I feel very conflicted, as birth and issues around it have, at one time or another, featured in our family's discussions.

First of all, eldest son was two months premature which meant, back in the 60's, two months isolation from his mother. He survived and his poor start doesn't seem to have affected him either intellectually or socially.

Secondly, fast forward twenty something years, our daughter, his younger sister was pregnant with her first child, and was told, fairly late in the process, that 'there appears to be something wrong with the baby; do you want a termination?" And I clearly recall her telling us that she could 'hear' the baby telling her that it was fine 'don't hurt me'. She didn't, and the child was perfectly normal, and indeed now has a doctorate.

However, in her late 40's and suffering from MND her contraception failed and she became pregnant. She was advised to have a late termination and did so. We were told the foetus appeared to have 'issues' and might or might not survived. Our daughter died of her MND when the baby would have been about a year old.

Fairly late in my pharmaceutical career I had a post which required me, sometimes, to make up 'balancing feeds' for premature babies, who were, one way and another short of various minerals due to abbreviated foetal development. At least one of these babies still has challenges, thirty years later, although I believe he has quite a demanding job.

I don't feel therefore that there's a simple answer to this matter unless it be to ALWAYS let nature take it's course, which would, equally, have lead to considerable problems in the last case. Thou shalt not kill/but do not strive/officiously/to keep alive seems to be a thought plus cheap, easily available contraception and contraceptive advice.