Categories
That’s Life? – politicalbetting.com
That’s Life? – politicalbetting.com
In Britain since the 1961 Suicide Act, a person can choose the time and manner of their death without being criminalised (if they fail). Plenty (mostly men) do so: 6,069 suicides in 2023, up on 5,642 in 2022, the highest rate since 1999. The data and analysis can be found here and here. There are some people who are unable to do so because of their almost total physical incapacity. Worth noting that all the very sad court cases brought to change the law have involved such people seeking legal approval for someone to do to them what they are unable to do for themselves. Not for those with the ability to commit suicide.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm broadly in favour of the concept of assisted dying, but the fact there's a vote without knowing the details is not reassuring.
There are things that I'd like to see amended from this Bill, like the absurd 6 month restriction. Anyone for any reason, like those living in chronic conditions that could last for years, ought to be able to choose to end their life with dignity if that is their choice of their own free will.
But there's no reason why this shouldn't proceed at second reading and through the amendment process within Parliament to be improved upon.
1) I enjoy life. I enjoy going out, walking, running, visiting places. I enjoy reading, watching TV, and having fun with my family. If I get myself into such a state that I can no longer do these things, where I am in pain, where I cannot wipe my own bum, or move, and there is minimal chance of recovery, then I would choose death.
2) When animals are in pain and are suffering, we put them down compassionately. We are far less compassionate towards people's suffering.
Under the current situation we actively want people to suffer. That is, in my view, immoral. I also suspect it puts doctors into a rather difficult situation, and causes some to end suffering.
That's not to say that this bill is the right one, and there are not big potential issues with assisted dying. But there are massive moral issues with forcing people who are suffering with no chance of recovery, often in pain, to live in that pain. And no, pain relief often doesn't work that well.
The idea is a good one but it needs a year of refinement and discussion before going through Parliament, And if it is talked out rather than voted on that would allow it to be refined and reintroduced later..
As a nation of animal lovers we treat our pets, who can not communicate their choice, with more dignity in death than we do our fellow men and women who can communicate their own desires.
Suicide attempts are often a cry for help, or a break in a moment.
Assisted dying is completely different and being regulated has essentially a built in cooling off period to ensure this is actually somebodies desired will.
If you want to (fallaciously) compare the two then getting people from unregulated taking actions in their own way through to a thoughtful, considered process with a cooling off period is essentially a part of suicide prevention, not it's antithesis.
There appears to have been little thought put into how this law would work in practice, and how to deal with the many ethical dilemmas that it introduces.
Other countries that have enacted similar laws, such as Canada, have seen some distrurbing cases such as people who are young and depressed choosing to end it all rather than take councelling, and elderly people ‘encouraged’ by family to avoid prolonged and expensive care costs.
That a private member's bill is badly drafted is almost a given since many government bills are badly drafted, at least if the number of amendments is any guide.
If suicide and attempted suicide are legal, what is the principled objection to assisted suicide? To placing the metaphorical pearl-handled revolver by the hospital bed? Are we to ban the infirm from travel to Switzerland, just in case?
But yes, I have no real answer to the questions around coercion, or how to judge imminent death (although in practice, many doctors do this every day with varying and probably unmeasured degrees of accuracy: most of us will have experienced that call to come and visit our relatives whose death is thought to be imminent) or how to allow staff to opt out.
What worries me more in immediate practical terms is that doctors, especially in this post-Shipman age, might be withholding adequate pain relief where death is a possible side effect.
Honestly sometimes PB is a such a navel gazing self obsessed freakshow. A clucking henhouse of narcissists. Sometimes - like me - you have to go far around the world to glamorous hotels and invent cocktails - like I just did, literally, just now - to see how petty PB is, and how egocentric
I’m sorry to be blunt but sometimes the bitter truth is the only medicine. Or maybe a really good clever new cocktail
Assisted dying is something that sounds humane, but which is not, in practice.
Certainly not oversight of the care of vulnerable people and kids.
In principle, I am in favour of assisted dying. I don't really agree with the point that this bill only relates to those who are unable to do it to themselves. Many would rightly fear making a mess of it or causing unnecessary stress in others, such as the poor train drivers. I also have less concerns than many about those feeling a burden. Pointless, painful ongoing life is a burden not just on those with the moral duty of caring but on the person themselves.
In short, if I was an MP and assured that there will be time for proper scrutiny I would be inclined to vote yes but if I did not get that assurance (and very little has been said about it so far, at least as far as I have seen) I would vote no.
Worries about coercion seems overdone when lifespan is so short anyway. And what of quality of life within those six months? We keep people alive for the sake of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rg98rl9p2o
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
I'd much rather what they do in that situation to be formalised and under due process, than doctors decide on their own.
It's a superb piece by Cyclefree, and if nothing else indicates the need to pause,and think, and make careful decisions.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
In other words, it'll be theft on a massive scale.
The crime of this bill is that it challenges the great British vice of hypocrisy, attempting to formalise something that everyone knows goes on but would rather avert their eyes from.
As Eek says, I think this needs time and thorough scrutiny.
I've seen a few people now approach their end, weak, with decent palliative care and drifting in and out of awareness with their family around, and I would probably choose not to go down an assisted dying route if B this were my own end. Assisted dying should not be disentangled from palliative care obligations.
I am worried about placing a duty on the NHS to make this service available, and one wonders how much NHS and social care budget pressures might be passively influencing its urgency.
The header is effectively a well argued case for the long grass. Something of which Cyclefree is not regularly a fan.
The Lords is one of the largest revising chambers in the world. I would guess there are a couple of bodies on their benches capable of addressing some of the admirably detailed lacunae in the bill.
Now we see a quarter of a million abortions every year in the UK.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/470890/legal-abortions-performed-in-england-and-wales/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg0l8r3zy1o
I think that the current system is in the right place in that we assume that killing someone else is wrong but don't tend to prosecute people who do it at the request of a terminally I'll person. Maybe there's a way to further codify that understanding.
My grandmother is elderly and in pain with her hip but she's all there, much loved by all her relatives who see her regularly. She's terrified of being a burden to other people and would be highly suggestible to any doctor who even mentioned assisted suicide.
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
On the bill the 6 month terminal diagnosis leaves some other groups without recourse.
1) those in chronic pain that cannot be relieved
2) those with dementia who contract a secondary serious health condition
By the latter, I envisage an increasing number of dementia patients who contract cancer, but are not able to remember that and are very distressed by / refuse treatment. Are they to be left to die slowly and painfully from the cancer or forcibly treated when it makes them feel ill?
A very difficult moral area.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
Disgraced Republican Who Voted to Repeal Obamacare Now Needs Money For Medical Expenses After Polo Accident
How much drafting, redrafting and scrutiny did that get?
It's actually going to be 2 businessmen looking at everything line by line as to how to privatise it so they (or their mates) can profit from it...
Northern Trains are often late/cancelled so people have legitimately bought an off peak ticket but arrive at peak time due to delays/cancellations.
Then we need scrutiny in a year or so time when the revised bill is reintroduced into Parliament.
This is a private members bill and an important private members bill - it doesn't need to be pushed through in year one of a new Parliament...
I concede I hide my republicanism well.
Do you believe the quality of the Lords will be improved by removing members who owe no favours to party leaders?
I can understand outright opposition to the bill, but advocating the long grass seems to me effectively to be the same thing, without saying so.
I have seen too much end of life suffering - for the patient and the circle around them - to accept that we must just wait until God decides you have experienced enough pain to be allowed to move on. Our health service already deals with ending viable life - there were over a quarter of a million abortions in England and Wales in 2022. A very small proportion were undertaken to save the life of the mother. The number of assisted suicides will be tiny in comparison.
The continuation of the status quo will simply mean that those wealthy enough can get on a flight to the increasing number of regimes that will allow you to end your suffering. Pain will be for the poor.
Going on living whilst trapped in a body tormented by pain is my worst nightmare. I will be very sympathetic towards those who put in place a scheme to enable me to end that torment, even if it has some rough edges.
Double effect pain medication is somewhat formalised. Doctors don’t decide on their own: they are in discussion with the patient or their relatives if the patient is unconscious.
If you're a quiet asian student who hasn't maanged to read all the T&Cs on the railcard - big fine. If you're a 6ft 4in white man in a suit - not checked. If you're a 20-year old jumping the barrier, a blind eye too.
They seem to exclusively target tourists on the Highland Main Line.
I'm also sure that many constituents will highlight their view points to their MPs and those viewpoints will influence the MPs vote...
Why not do what has been done in the past:
An independent bill, but in government time and will the drafting support of the civil service.
That way you get a bill that is considered.
I really don’t like the argument “vote for this even if you disagree and we will fix it later”
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
On care costs - my own view is that if I get to the state that permanent care is required then I want to die rather than incurring the expensive care costs that you refer to. Why can't my choice be respected by medical professionals (which need not be the NHS) rather than me having to take matters into my own hands?
As with so much of what goes on nowadays, it’s become about the personal and the feels. I get eg why disabled people might feel uncomfortable about any such legislation and noisily oppose it, but is their discomfort a valid reason for imposing their view on everyone? Since the proposition is that assistance would only be given when illness is terminal within 6 months, I don’t see why anyone with a lifelong or long term disability would be affected. The argument seems to be that this is the thin end of the wedge which is always a crap argument against anything.
Laters.
I must admit I did laugh at that and it coaxed a smile out of one or two others too.
Something which runs counter to the US oath of office, which stipulates loyalty only to the constitution.
The same principle seems to be about to be applied to the military.
Trump draft executive order would set up board to oust generals en masse
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
The transition team for President-elect Trump is working on an executive order that would speed up the firing of top military brass if signed, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
The draft executive order would set up a “warrior board” of retired generals and noncommissioned officers given power to review three- and four-star officers and to recommend anyone “lacking in requisite leadership qualities,” according to the document, reviewed by the Journal.
If signed by Trump once he takes office, it could allow the quick removal of generals and admirals and purge the ranks of those the future commander-in-chief takes issue with for whatever reason...
I repeat - this is only for those with life expectancies of a max of six months. I'm really surprised that so many are against it. I would have expected a slam-duck with the exception of those who are religiously inclined.
But that's also why I don't think assisted dying (6 month rule) would save much. Many of the end-of-life costs that are incurred would remain, with the addition of the legal issues that would come with it.
In theory, assisted dying is good thing.
Having personally encountered a member of hospital staff who believed that terminally ill patients should die immediately, to save bother… regardless of the wishes of the patient…. I wonder what advice she would be giving the patients on her ward.
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
That was a quarter of a century after England & Wales legalisation.
Even at age 100, average life expectancy is 2 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21FHnC57R9g
Protest takes odd forms when people are denied free expression and redress of grievances.
Hope it doesn't end with another Tiananmen.
It's a lottery though, your mother's situation reflects that of 2/4 of my grandparents, who were in care of some sort for over a decade.