Why is euthanasia such a taboo debate in the U.K.?

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

Some religious folk are against it, and some people do have concerns about people potentially being coerced into it, but on the whole I think the public are broadly supportive.

[-]

I think the concerns aren't so much about active coercion so much as people choosing it because the support just isn't in place to allow them to live a good life. This is the concern I have. Liz Carr's recent documentary was very thought provoking in this issue.

The state of the NHS, social care, mental health services and disability services makes me very concerned about the chances of assisted dying being implemented well. I worry we'd experience issues that Canada has with it, but even worse.

I didn't always feel this way, I used to pretty firmly support it but the more I've thought about it and read about it the more equivocal I've become. I suspect it's one of those issues where a simple yes/no poll does show a significant majority in favour, but it practice opinions are much more complicated.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

Absolutely agree. If we lived in a country with top notch gold standard elderly and end of life care, and that really valued and supported disabled people then I would be fine with assisted dying. We’re a long long way off that though.

[-]

Fordmister@reddit

I mean surely that's just the most evasive reasoning ever?

Like imagine going onto a cancer ward, finding some old dear in constant pain begging for the right to die with a bit of dignity and saying "sorry, but we don't have a gold standard of top notch hospice care just yet, and because allowing assisted dyeing without that makes me uncomfortable im just going to need you to suffer a horrible death for me until the wider political situation improves.

Like the logical a as theoretical policy position holds, but when confronted with the reality of people suffering to death in the here and now it just falls apart. I really don't think that we have the right to tell somebody else they have to suffer a horrible death because we haven't fixed other support systems.

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

That's a very simplified idea of what someone requesting assisted dying looks like. There have been a number of studies on the reasons people choose euthanasia and an extremely common concern among them is "being a burden". Some people are choosing to die, not because they don't want to live but because they perceive themselves as being too much of a burden on other people.

[-]

marbmusiclove@reddit

Okay… but why should it be anything other than their right to decide that? I know there are broader ethical issues around demonstrating informed consent, but if someone wants to pass before they do actually become sick enough to ‘become a burden’, surely that’s their prerogative? I’d rather pass peacefully in my own home with loved ones than have to endure 3 months of intensive healthcare prior to that being an option.

[-]

Reasonable_Coffee872@reddit

I was making your same point the other day but someone turned me round.

[-]

marbmusiclove@reddit

Care to elaborate?

[-]

Dr_Nefarious_@reddit

And that should be an acceptable reason to make that choice. Let people choose, stop clutching your pearls on other people's behalf, and let them choose. Not wanting to be a burden is a valid reason, whether that is a burden on themselves or others.

I don't want to waste away into dementia or Parkinson's with all the associated loss of independence that entails. I don't want my existence to be a burden. You don't have the right to deny me that choice, so stop trying to, just because it makes you uncomfortable. Deal with it.

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

You think people should be killing themselves because they think it costs too much for them to live?

Society tells us that disabled people are a burden. The fact that prejudice makes people feel their lives hold less value than other people's because they're disabled isn't a good reason for them to die.

It's not a free choice when you have other people treating you like all you are is a burden. People are being killed because they've been told by the world that they're worthless.

You need to question your own prejudices if you think a life without independence automatically lacks value. The fact you don't even think this is a debate, that it's not a complex subject that needs to be considered carefully & safeguards need to be looked at, and instead jump to accuse me of trying to "deny your choice" because it makes me "uncomfortable" speaks volumes

[-]

Dr_Nefarious_@reddit

How dare you dismiss my view as prejudice. I stated this was my choice, you don't get to choose for me. I am allowed to decide that I do not wish to live in those circumstances. You don't get to decide for me. I never said other people should be forced to make the same decision I would, you have jumped to that conclusion all on your own bias and prejudice.

Stop trying to decide for other people, back off and mind your own business. You should be able to make the decision you want, so should I. I wouldn't force you, you shouldn't stop me.

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

Wtf.

Why are you acting like I am deciding for anyone? What kind of powers do you think I have? You're acting like I'm personally oppressing you because I have a different viewpoint. I never even said that there should be no euthanasia, just that it's a complex issue and we need to consider ALL the factors.

A policy on euthanasia doesn't just affect you, this is not about you. You are not the centre of the universe. This is about creating something that works for everyone and that means looking at the dangers.

You associate lack of independence with worthlessness and being a "burden", how is that not prejudiced? People generally aren't aware of their prejudices so the fact you don't think you are doesn't mean a lot. Ableism is ingrained into our society, it would be surprising if you didn't have prejudices.

[-]

Dr_Nefarious_@reddit

I didn't assign any value to lack of independence, I simply stated my choice not to live like that. Again, your bias assuming you know how I think. I also didn't say the policy didn't require thought or care, just that people should be allowed the choice and fearmongering should not prevent that.

I'm guessing by your comments you have not had the experience of watching someone you love suffering before they die. It changes your outlook.

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

fearmongering should not prevent that.

You describe pointing out reported problems in current euthanasia systems as "fear mongering" and you think you don't have bias 🤣

Again, I've explicitly said I'm not anti-euthanasia, yet you talk about my "bias" because I'm not uncritically in favour of it. You're a joke.

Yes, I have watched people die suffering. Dying isn't a fun process. I also have chronic pain & will be in pain every day until the day I die. I have multiple disabilities and know what it's like to be that person helpless in a hospital bed. So I think it's fair to say that the issue hits me closer than it does you.

Now get lost

[-]

lives_ironically@reddit

Why would feeling like a burden not be a valid reason to want to die? If you are helpless or in agony, and you can see and feel the way that your continued existence is draining your loved ones of their own happiness, why would you not want to make one final choice independently? No one wants to feel responsible for taking away someone else's quality of life.

[-]

Dimac99@reddit

But we're not necessarily talking in this particular instance about people who are helpless or in agony feeling like a burden, we're also talking about people with health conditions/disabilities that don't preclude them from living a decent life - if they have the right support.

But ever since the bullshit "strivers and skivers" nonsense, nobody has been able to talk sensibly and compassionately about the benefit system, and we all know how incredibly underfunded social care is. People with disabilities especially are living in poverty and expected to be grateful that they're not being warehoused away from society. It's being suggested to some now, most appallingly to young people, being told they can't get care at home and need to go into nursing homes full of elderly, senile folk. Completely inappropriate, but they're "costing too much" if they stay in their own homes

It's no surprise that people who have to choose between heating and eating, people who aren't allowed to choose their own mealtimes and bedtimes, people who have ongoing, even progressive illnesses but have to "prove" their disability on a regular basis and have their benefits cut for months until their appeal goes through, might feel a lot of pressure from the state that they are a burden on society.

[-]

lives_ironically@reddit

To be clear, I am speaking as a person with a condition that doesn't currently preclude me from having a normal life with the right support. I am also speaking as someone who worked in a care home full of elderly, senile folk. I am talking about my own future.

It is not a matter of these care homes being inappropriate. When I worked in that place, I witnessed abuse and neglect I don't dare to speak of. I fear being alone and forgotten in such a place - and I will be alone and forgotten, because I cannot have biological children and I don't imagine I will be able to adopt. Why would I pay to live like that? I want to die with dignity before I lose all my health, and leave what little money I have to the people I love.

It is not about being a burden on society. It is about being a burden on the people who mean something to us, who will have to put their lives on hold to care for us while navigating every dirty attempt by DWP to inconvenience them at every turn and underpay them for years, only to turn around and say that too much was paid out.

My health is my problem. My loved ones shouldn't have to suffer because they are unfortunate enough to be related to me. I want to live and die on my own terms - which, at the end of the day, is what everyone else wants too.

[-]

BaileysBaileys@reddit

Are there really such studies? (I worry you just *say* that there are such studies)

The people close to me who chose assisted dying (I am not from the UK) really wanted it and had a much better end of life thanks to it. I'm worry you lie to make yourself feel comfortable, whilst preventing people who will suffer horribly from evading such suffering.

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269216307076345?journalCode=pmja

Yes, there have been studies, but thanks for accusing me of lying because I brought up something that you don't want to hear

[-]

Fordmister@reddit

Yes it is simplified, because its the current situation int its most simple form. For all the other side arguments and data points you can pull its undeniable that there are definitely people suffering to death in horrific pain that would like the right to end it all.

You don't get to pretend they don't exist, as every argument around "we don't have appropriate safeguards" or "we should focus on better EOL care instead" ignore that fact that in all of them you are telling that person in constant pain who want the right to end it all in a dignified manner "sorry but because we don't have all these things in place that i would like so you are going to have to die a miserable death in constant pain for me"

Its simple because that the simple underline to all of this, there are people in horrible pain who would like the right to a dignified death that you are making the argument should be denied to them. Unless you can go to a cancer ward, find that person and say to their face "you need to suffer to death for x y and z" then the counter arguments just aren't worth it.

There's nothing stopping us fixing those things and giving people the right to a dignified death. If the right to assisted dying is such a threat to the provision of proper hospice and EOL care then why are both of those things so shit right now in spite of suicide, assisted or otherwise being a crime since the Christianity first turned up? they come across to me as things people only briefly care about to force other people to suffer a miserable death and then forget about the moment the assisted dying question goes away

[-]

adeathcurse@reddit

I would make the old dear suffer so that millions of working class people who can't afford good care don't off themselves just because they can't afford a standard of life that's worth living.

[-]

ConsistentCranberry7@reddit

It's a similar logic to pet owners who keep their pet going far longer than should be allowed just because they'll feel a bit sad when its PTS

[-]

worotan@reddit

So if we lived in a perfect world, you’d let people do what they want with their bodies, but as we don’t, they have no say in their own life and death?

What a bizzare world of hypotheticals you live in.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

What can I say, I'm just a stickler for protecting vulnerable people from getting murdered.

[-]

JMM85JMM@reddit

Initial proposals seem to be focussed on people with terminal diagnoses with X months remaining. So choosing it because of a lack of support for a good life wouldn't really be an option?

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

The issue is that it won't stop there. As you say, those are initial proposals. Once it's introduced, pressure will immediately move onto expanding the scenarios where it's accessible. Indeed, I've already seen proponents making the argument that the proposed bill won't go far enough.

So it's vital we have these conversations. I really worry that this is a really nuanced, difficult topic and we really aren't having the sort of national conversation about it that we should be. Discussion around it seems much too black and white to me.

[-]

BothMyKneesHurt@reddit

This is why part of the practice must put many opportunities in place for the patient to pull out of the process.

Yes, there will likely be cases where the system is abused, but I'd say the number of these will pale in comparison to the good it would do for thousands of others, and processes can and will be put in place to either minimise or eradicate those cases.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

It's not the system being abused, that's not the concern. It's people using the system in a totally legitimate and correct way, but who perhaps would not actually choose to die if more support were available to them.

That's the concern: that our services in healthcare, social care, disability care, mental health, general social support and so on are so lacking that they do leave people in a situation where they are living a grim life and want to end it. But the grimness of their experience is highly influenced by society's lack of support for them, and their choice might be different if we provided better support.

And that makes me very uncomfortable. I am not against legalising assisted dying. But neither am I unequivocally for it. As I said, I'm equivocal, I instinctively support it but I have doubts. I am dubious about anybody who is too unequivocal in their view though, I think it's one of those subjects that is simply too complicated and nuanced for an unequivocal stance to be sensible.

[-]

volunteerplumber@reddit

I don't think euthanasia will be "allowed" for mental health issues, or at least that would be unlikely. Euthanasia will probably be "legal" for those that have a terminal illness that they have no hope of recovery, or those that realistically have no chance of ever getting "better".

We have to stop acting like other countries don't already do this, we can literally see how they implement it and the consequences of those actions. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

[-]

BuenoSatoshi@reddit

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutch-woman-euthanasia-approval-grounds-of-mental-suffering

[-]

volunteerplumber@reddit

I was talking about the UK specifically, but interesting to note that so thank you. I was aware some other countries do allow it.

For the record, providing appropriate safeguards, I am completely okay with someone being able to end their life for mental health issues. I just think it's a lot harder to provide safeguards for these circumstances.

[-]

BuenoSatoshi@reddit

Well hang on a sec then. First you were saying this would be easy – we don’t need to reinvent the wheel because other countries have already sorted this, alongside claiming that you can’t see this expanding to mental illness.

I’ve just pointed out that more than 100 people have already been killed by doctors in the Netherlands on the basis of mental illness.

What are the safeguards you believe would prevent happening in the UK precisely what is already happening in both Canada and the Netherlands? Why would our legislators be better able to navigate some sort of Goldilocks solution here?

[-]

volunteerplumber@reddit

It's a comment on Reddit, not a scientific paper but in essence I read somewhere that the UK wasn't looking to implement it for mental illnesses to begin with, I could be completely wrong on that front though - to be honest I hope I am wrong.

I looked at your links, and if those people wanted to die, they should be able to. I'm not against it at all.

I had a look at this paper regarding the safeguards and they sound fine to me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9251055/

100 people since the 1990s seems pretty reasonable if I'm honest. Does not seem like it's getting abused IMO.

Ofc we should pause and investigate, but let's not pretend we're trail blazers here.

[-]

cdca@reddit

Alright, let's at least start with the most unambiguous cases and work it out from there.

I've just watched my mum die of bone cancer after spending a week wailing in agony, despite all the morphine and sedatives. I'll never get that sound out of my head and every second I remembered her saying she never wanted to go through it and would much rather die earlier and at peace.

We don't have to work out every tiny little nuance and hypothetical before we even start to discuss it. Everyone who has watched a loved one die in needless pain knows that some situations are simple. Let's at least do that.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

Generally, I don't think embarking on major public policy without having these nuances worked out is a good idea. I'm sure many of us know what it's like to see a loved one suffer, but I think starting public policy from the place of focusing on the easiest and most obvious cases is when you get into trouble. Because it's never those cases that are going to be the issue.

I doubt many people outside of the very religious minority believe people like your poor mother should be able to access assisted dying. But the difficulty is as soon as you introduce a system where she can, you immediately create edge cases and that's where you start to get into problems.

And I do think when it comes to assisted dying we don't talk about about the issues I mentioned. The debate is very black and white, which can't be good.

[-]

cdca@reddit

I don't get why it's OUR job to work out all the nuances before at least taking the first steps. That's legislators' job. Of course they'll be edge cases but that's the case for literally every law, should we just stay paralysed with indecision about everything?

The absolute least we can do is constantly shout "This situation is monstrous, do something about it!", because the religious nutters will certainly be applying negative pressure. It needs to be more trouble to do nothing than putting in the hard work and thought to make assisted dying feasible in at least the most egregious situations.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

I haven't said it's our job. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also talk about these issues and try to think about the nuance. We need to talk about them if we want legislators to talk about them. A public that doesn't care for nuance begets legislators that don't care for nuance.

There's a very good chance it's legalised very soon in some form, given the government is bringing forward a bill on it in the imminent future. And once that's done, we can probably be sure over time the situations eligible for it will be gradually expanded. So we absolutely need to be talking about the detail here. On issues as big as this, it shouldn't just be left to legislators to discuss it, we all need to be thinking about these things.

[-]

sobrique@reddit

I agree. I'm absolutely ok with the principle that someone who could choose to commit suicide, could also choose a more humane and gentle end.

I'm extremely wary of situations where - as you say - people end up living a grim life because there's no support for them.

As you get older - and start to 'fall behind' on cleaning/maintenance, etc. you can quite quickly spiral into dismal living circumstances that get progressively worse, and it's only when it gets really bad that there's any assistance available at all.

And some people have family who live near by who can help out, but others ... well, don't.

And similarly I'm very concerned about how awful mental health services are here in the UK.

I came very close to the edge a couple of years ago, and ... well, I changed my mind, and I now want to live.

But it's been an immense struggle to get treated and get my brain 'sorted', and some of the mental health services are just not fit for purpose.

Which is not to say there's not lovely people there who are really trying, they're just so severely under resourced that they may actually be making the problem worse.

Someone who's depressed who gets handed a pack of Anti-Ds and fobbed off... might very find themselves worse off as a result, because they absolutely can mess you up more and ... you have a hard time engaging with the health services in the first place.

That's not particularly unusual either, because ... GPs don't really have psychiatric training, but unlike 'take 2 paracetamol and call back in the morning'... mental health, especially depression, doesn't work like that.

I'm not alone either - my story is not at all unusual. It's shocked me somewhat how many people I know who've talked to me about their struggles with mental health, and yes, their attempts to end their lives. But no one's really talking about it, because ... they don't feel they can.

And the NHS support has been sucked dry - mental health has never been particularly well supported, but when hospitals and emergency services are struggling too, it's not hard to see why the funding priority shifts.

But I think 'bad mental health' is just as dangerous as cancer - it just moves slower, and kills insidiously, and wrecks a lot of things in the process.

So with that in mind, I'm reluctant to support assisted death, because I really thing we need a much better supporting framework before it will be 'safe'.

[-]

worotan@reddit

Sounds like you’ve only listened to the people advocating against it, and not looked at what actually happens elsewhere and would be legislated for here.

Not a great way to contribute to a discussion, really.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

I haven't. I've listened to both sides. I used to be firmly in favour. It was listening to people who have concerns about it that changed my mind. Also looking at what has happened in Canada.

With respect, I think my two comments have added much more to the discussion than yours here.

[-]

Checkers2837942@reddit

It this is passed do you think the care for these people will increase? Or do you think the likely cheap solution is to abandon them to lessen the cost to the state and assisted suicide will be the solution, the solution should be better healthcare, better prospects for individuals, Better care overall! This should never be a option! We should endeavour to push science, push healthcare and give these people the quality of live they deserve, this should perhaps be a option for 80-90+ years old individuals who explicitly state this is their wishes over a prolonger period but for the many this is not good and will result in unwanted and unneeded deaths!

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

I don't see anything currently to make me think these services are going to drastically improve any time soon.

[-]

Checkers2837942@reddit

I agree, but if we make the solution to kill these individuals then what follows will not be nice and corruption will use this as a tool for bad unethical things. There may be a argument for a very tiny fraction of people but 99.9% of people in hospital want to get better... If you make their only way out to be death and no other viable solution all we do is push death to the mases who could recover, rather than promoting solutions and HEALING people!

[-]

BothMyKneesHurt@reddit

Valid point, completely agree, and actually not something I'd considered.

P.s. I think I may have responded to the wrong comment. I meant to reply to the guy you were replying to 😅

[-]

mingy@reddit

I worry we'd experience issues that Canada has with it, but even worse.

Those stories are fiction. Basically people pushing a narrative for their own reasons.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

Yes, I'm sure the UN Human Rights Council criticised it on the basis of fictional stories.

[-]

mingy@reddit

Is that the same Human Rights Council with Saudia Arabia and other dictatorships as members?

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

Saudi Arabia isn't a member, no. Just three days ago it failed again with a bid to get on it.

Even if it were, that doesn't mean you can just wave away UN criticisms of Canada's approach.

[-]

mingy@reddit

The UN is a political body which makes political decisions.

Sorry about citing Saudi. They were members last I looked. Now there are countries like Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cote D'ivoire, etc..

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

If you want to say the UN's judgements don't count you do you. Personally, I think that's silly.

With respect, I'll trust the finding of a qualified UN assessor and the reporting of plenty of reputable news sources over a random Redditor.

[-]

mingy@reddit

I understand you not believing me but you trusting the UN shows tremendous naivety on your part. UN decisions are political and not bound to reality. Not only are the delegates corrupt, they are prone to various influences. It is unsurprising that nations opposed to MAID (as most are, primarily for religious reasons) would attack Canada's MAID program. Moreover, they are fed information by Canadian special interest groups which oppose MAID. Since MAID is a personal choice - as the wise people on the Supreme Court recognized - there are no special interest groups pushing MAID. Similarly, the UNHRC is lobbied by religious organizations since they have almost no status in Canada itself.

Recently the UNHRC attacked Canada's Temporary Foreign Worker program. This is a program were workers come to Canada voluntarily, and have the same rights and privileges as Canadian workers, and when their typically seasonal employment is completed they return home. It is very popular with both the workers and the employers, mostly because it is hard to find agricultural workers today. The UNHRC compared it to slavery - which is rich since many of its members actually have literal slavery.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

Ok pal. You do you.

[-]

mingy@reddit

That's the entire point of MAID: it is an issue of fundamental individual rights. If you don't have the right to bodily autonomy, you don't have any rights. Of course religious people can't understand that, but for the rest of us it matters.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

As you didn't pick it up from my previous comment: I don't really have any interest in discussing it any further with you given the way you've engaged.

[-]

adeathcurse@reddit

Yeah for me I think it's dangerous to have this conversation while everything else is so shit. Like if you're facing living in a shit nursing home while they take all your money and leave your kids with nothing... You might want to opt out of that. But that doesn't mean you couldn't enjoy life if you had the means.

What are we going to do if it turns out that working class people are 5x more likely to off themselves than their middle class peers? Once we make it legal, we'll never go back again. It just feels like we're fighting for the right to kill off people who can't afford good health care.

[-]

sweetmynd@reddit

This is an excellent point. I was all for it and now I’m going to think about it more.

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

This was exactly the journey I've been on with it. I was all for it, and then in the last couple of years I started hearing this argument and now I'm undecided how I feel about it.

[-]

Exciting_Way6210@reddit

Exactly where I’m at with it as well. In theory I’d support it, but in practice here in the UK I worry a lot about both coercion and people opting for it when the support they could have isn’t accessible to them. Scapegoat by Katharine Quarmby is a harrowing account of how disabled people aren’t receiving the basic care they need to live, and I worry people in these situations would feel forced to opt for euthanasia.

I’d also worry about people with mental illnesses being labelled as “terminal” as well, this is happening to people with severe eating disorders source: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2022.11.9.4

I’m personally against euthanasia being allowed here in the UK for these reasons, and it does pain me to say this as I know the other side to the debate has very important points. I once had a hospital visit and in the bed next to me was an elderly lady who desperately just wanted to go. It was horrible to witness so I can’t imagine the pain people in this situation must face. But fhe state of our NHS is awful so allowing euthanasia at a time like this feels incredibly worrying to me for the above reasons.

[-]

appletinicyclone@reddit

because the support just isn't in place to allow them to live a good life. This is the concern I have. Liz Carr's recent documentary was very thought provoking in this issue.

This. Where is Liz carrs documentary sorry

I think it's less for wellbeing and more for less obligations to support the elderly

[-]

imminentmailing463@reddit

It was called 'Better Off Dead?'. Looks like it's still available here

[-]

appletinicyclone@reddit

It was called 'Better Off Dead?'. Looks like it's still available here

Thanks

[-]

InJaaaammmmm@reddit

I only left my gran for 5 minutes when you euthanised her!

She said she had enough of seeing Misery and wanted it to be over

She was on about the film we were just watching

My bad!

[-]

mingy@reddit

Canadian here. Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) was made legal a number of years ago by the Supreme Court because various governments were too cowardly to pass laws. By and large it has been a great success: a dear friend with a terminal illness took advantage of it an all who cared about him were happy.

However I constantly read articles about people being coerced into MAID, both in Canadian and foreign press. These stories are invariably fables concocted by special interest groups pushing a particular narrative. For example "Woman opts for MAID because she can't find an apartment" or "Veteran offered MAID instead of proper treatment", etc.. Nobody who knows anything about MAID knows that these people would not qualify, however, most reporters have the IQ of cabbages so they simply regurgitate the narrative.

So if you read about such horror stories from Canada you can safely treat them as the fiction they are.

Personally I was concerned MAID would result in people with severe disabilities opting for it. As near as I can tell, this has not been an issue.

[-]

PurpleEsskay@reddit

Honestly religion shouldn't be coming into it at this point. It really pissed me off seeing them ask someone from the church about it. When it came to the question about what if someone is in severe pain the response was basically that it was gods plan. Sorry but no, fuck that.

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

I’m not religious either, but a fair number of people are. I’m not really against Church figures having their input as presumably their view will be one that’s shared with a lot of their congregation, and people who are religious will probably look to the bishops for guidance on it.

[-]

Bleuuuuugh@reddit

The bishops probably won’t be available for comment- too busy with the choir boys.

[-]

Jbulls94@reddit

That's great, they can choose not to do it then, but why should what they believe impact the lives of others that don't believe that?

You wanna live in unbearable pain because you think it's what some bloke in the sky wants, good for you. But that shouldn't have any bearing on what others want to do with theirs.

[-]

TheBoldB@reddit

Everyone has a religious position. Atheism included. Our worldview shapes our decisions, but that worldview varies from person to person. Excluding "religion" is simply making naturalistic, atheistic materialism the standard.

[-]

saccerzd@reddit

Exactly! Whenever there's a moral or ethical debate, they always go to a religious figure for comment. So annoying. They're not philosophers, they're people with dodgy critical thinking skills if they believe in religion in the first place, representing a dodgy institution. Why should they get to be moral arbiters in the 21st century?

[-]

TobblyWobbly@reddit

Yes. All that "God won't send you more than you can handle" rubbish. Sorry. That's your god, not mine.

I remember talking to a Christian lassie about suicide one time. She said that God would be really angry with people who took their own lives because he had laid on this amazing world for us, and imagine if we held a brilliant party and some people decided to leave early. Wouldn't we be angry? No, we freaking wouldn't! Not if we were decent human beings, we wouldn't. We'd be sad for them and concerned. There's no arguing with this level of stupid.

[-]

Bleuuuuugh@reddit

Religious folk shouldn’t get to bring their ridiculous fairy tales into other peoples lives. I can’t think of an opinion less valuable than ‘because religion says so’.

[-]

gogginsbulldog1979@reddit

My mum's 73 and already told me to off her if she gets bad dementia or so sick she can't look after herself. I'll happily oblige her, I'd want exactly the same.

[-]

some_total@reddit

When an elderly person becomes a financial and emotional drain some family members could push to euthanise them. I think you’d be surprised at how many would.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

It’s not; there’s literally a literal debate going to take place in the House of Commons where the monarch’s government and ministers are going to weigh the pros and cons. That’s about as far from taboo as it’s possible to be!

As soon as the guard rails are agreed, we should be good to go.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

Religion has stood in the way of sensible pathways to dignified deaths for a very long time in the UK. The current debate is happening decades too late.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Not just religion; we’re only a few generations away from the good old days of eugenics, and even closer to the days where you worked until you dropped.

A (pro)longed retirement and a gradual old age where dementia/cancer are the popular ways to die is a recent phenomenon, taking away the option of a nice clean heart attack due to smoking at 60.

There’s still plenty of issues to resolve, or rather, reassure the public on, but I agree the government does seem to be a bit lagging behind general consensus.

[-]

Thetonn@reddit

The other thing to remember is that between the Post Office debarcle, Contaminated Blood Scandal, Windrush, all of the problems with the NHS and the whole, Iraq, thing, while one could concede the hypothetical argument that it would be a good thing to allow in theory while recognising that there are legitimate questions whether the current incarnation of the British state can be trusted to effectively maintain the safeguards needed to introduce something this big.

[-]

Squire-1984@reddit

This is the most valid point and needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I feel this is deliberately ignored by people and UK bots who are looking to push it through legislation.

For a lot of people the question is, do you trust the government? And based on evidence a lot of people say no.

They can put all the laws etc in place to act as safeguards, but they can also create new laws etc so this is not a validnpro trust the government argument.

Also there are many ways for someone to harmlessly kill themselves. Again I feel people are aware of this and simple chose to ignore it to push their own political points

[-]

LauraDurnst@reddit

Also there are many ways for someone to painlessly kill themselves

Sure, if they have access to enough morphine to kill themselves. And if they have enough physical health to administer it themselves. But the problem is people who don't, who no longer wish to suffer in pain, whose pain relief is (rightfully) monitored and controlled, who have no way of achieving a peaceful death without medical intervention.

[-]

Daewoo40@reddit

There was an article floating around in the last month of a euthanasia pod, which pumps inert gases into an airtight container with a person in it.

If you retain the faculty/wherewithal to say yes and then press a button, it isn't exactly a pipe dream, it just needs legalising and enabling. Other European countries have managed it.

[-]

Lavidius@reddit

Nitrogen.

Mammals don't suffer from nitrogen gas deaths as our bodies can only detect a buildup of carbon dioxide.

We don't react to a buildup of nitrogen so we just pass out and die

[-]

Not-All-That-Odd@reddit

I'm pretty much a lifelong substance abuser. I can tell you that when you have enough of something like heroin and pass out, you do indeed know absolutely nothing about it.

Whilst I'm sure that prior knowledge you were about to willingly and knowingly end your existence would change things massively, I still can't think there could possibly be a more peaceful, pain free exit.

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

Hugs

[-]

Not-All-That-Odd@reddit

Much appreciated.

I don't suppose you've got a differently wired brain to go with it at all?

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

What do you mean? I've got a compassionately wired brain. It's pretty different, it seems.

[-]

Not-All-That-Odd@reddit

I was meaning for me. My fault for lack of clarity.

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

I don't have a different brain but I do have ibogaine. What country are you in?

[-]

Not-All-That-Odd@reddit

I'm Scottish

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

DM me. You are allowed to have ibogaine in Scotland. Idk if that appeals to you or you have researched it?

[-]

wandering_beth@reddit

See this is what I thought, but hasn't america tried nitrogen executions recently and been slated for the effects on the prisoner.

Iirc it wasn't just human rights campaigners that were calling it inhumane but vets and animal rights people too saying there's a reason it isn't used and deemed unacceptable for euthanasia for most animals

That said I recently read about the pod and that went well, so probably likely the US prisons hitching another execution. But even so the executions have made me rethink my plan of a mask and a helium canister 😂

[-]

O6Explorer@reddit

I think the effects of hypoxia (e.g. euphoria) are seen as being at odds with an execution. I don’t think the general public would like to see a mass murderer go out on a high.

[-]

Lavidius@reddit

I haven't heard about that, I know the Americans were botching the lethal injection but first I've heard of them using nitrogen

[-]

wandering_beth@reddit

Found the article, they did their second ever one in September this year

From the second one

Miller shook and trembled on the gurney for about two minutes with his body at times pulling against the restraints, followed by about six minutes of gasping, according to the Associated Press.

First one took place in Alabama

An eyewitness for the Associated Press described the death then of Kenneth Smith, 58. “Smith began to shake and writhe violently, in thrashing spasms and seizure-like movements … The force of his movements caused the gurney to visibly move at least once. Smith’s arms pulled against the straps holding him to the gurney. He lifted his head off the gurney and then fell back.”

[-]

Lavidius@reddit

Jesus. Maybe it's not what I thought then

[-]

wandering_beth@reddit

Yeah it's why I said that I'm sceptical now. Sorry for the ramble after this btw 😅

I'd always heard inert gas asphyxiation is painless etc. and helium is still my planned way out if I ever get that bad (lighter than air so if the mask slips off no risk to whoever finds me), and the recent nitrogen pod story reassured me, but when I read about the executions I just don't know

Like did it happen how it did in the executions because it was botched in some way such as an imperfect mask seal, or does the nitrogen pod company have a vested interest in saying that it is pain free?

The part about it not being used for animal euthanasia for ethical reasons is the part that really makes me worry. We've seen how some animals are treated in farms and abbatoirs; surely chickens in a nitrogen room would be preferred to the electric head dunk before killing (that doesn't always stun) if inert gas asphyxiation was humane

[-]

Daewoo40@reddit

Vaguely recall Argon being used, could be Nitrogen.

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

That's a miniscule amount of people, compared to the millions with expensive or chronic conditions including mental health issues which since the Tories have had very little help or hope of treatment.

Honestly, I don't trust the NHS as it is these days to not expand the criteria eventually (as has happened in Canada and Switzerland) and push people who could be successfully treated down the path of euthanasia simply due to them being a burden.

[-]

LauraDurnst@reddit

It's a miniscule amount of people and yet makes up the bulk of people pushing for euthanasia to be discussed.

We can talk about potential downsides for years, or we could make it legal for terminally ill cancer patients whom have two doctors confirming a diagnosis and multiple tests showing no medical intervention will work to have a dignified death. Or even make it legal to plan your euthanasia in the potential situation that you are diagnosed with terminal cancer. These two scenarios can co-exist. Instead, it gets dangerously close to anti-abortion rhetoric which would ban early abortions because of the small amount of late-term abortions.

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

The issue is that the slippery slope argument here has aggravating rather than mitigating factors in a welfare state with an NHS.

Abortion as a right (which I support) will be protected by such a government because fewer unwanted/ill babies = lower cost for the state and NHS, whereas euthanasia being allowed for terminal conditions will be protected and likely broadened to non-terminal conditions because fewer chronically ill people = much less cost for the state and NHS.

The incentives are reversed.

Given what I have seen in the NHS over the last 10 years and the lack of support I and many other people with chronic conditions have had compared to prior to that, I don't trust the UK state with this power.

As horrible as this is, unless there are extreme safeguards and a very public promise not to expand this to non-terminal conditions as has happened in Canada and Switzerland, I'd not support euthanasia.

The state should not have that power, which we decided in the late 60's when we outlawed capital punishment.

[-]

Splodge89@reddit

Are they asking for the state to have to power to end someone’s life? Or are they asking to empower people to end their own lives and end their own suffering? There’s a big distinction between them.

I don’t think anyone on the pro euthanasia side of the debate are asking that others should be allowed to say whether someone gets to live or die, but allow someone a dignified death if they themselves want it.

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

People have been legally allowed to end their own lives since 1961 in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Act_1961#:~:text=Suicide%20is%20defined%20as%20the,could%20also%20potentially%20be%20prosecuted.

Euthanasia is by definition the state assisting a person to commit suicide or even administering drugs to do this for them.

[-]

Splodge89@reddit

Exactly. It’s not the state deciding who lives or who dies. It’s providing the means if they cannot do it themselves.

Shockingly, not everyone knows someone who can or will willingly get them lethal doses of morphine to end it painlessly. And even if they do, that person is potentially facing murder charges. It’s that that’s the problem.

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

I'm aware, I studied criminal law in depth at university.

There should be a defence for a person (like a spouse or immediate family) with appropriate safeguards to the offence of Murder in common law when assisting a person to die who has a terminal condition and has attested that they wish to die in the presence of a non-interested third party, but that should not apply to medical professionals.

Unless and until chronic and mental health care is funded and provided properly in the NHS, the danger of coercion is far too great.

As it is, in cases of genuine euthanasia in the UK, other partial defences/lesser charges like Voluntary Manslaughter are often used with many cases recieving as a sentence a Conditional Discharge.

CD is effectively a verdict of "you can go free as long as you don't euthanize anyone else", which whilst undesirable does mean that people helping partners die in line with their wishes as an act of mercy are treated exceptionally leniently by the UK justice system.

A defence of Assisting Suicide for a Terminally Ill person would prevent such cases from even resulting in a lengthy trial in most cases.

[-]

ParsnipFlendercroft@reddit

That’s far worse.

Family member offs their gran and claims they were assisting suicide vs 2 I dependant doctors having to sign off a number of times over a period of weeks.

And you think the independent doctors are the more likely to abuse the system?

Meanwhile over here in the real world……

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

Sadly, doctors aren't as "independent" as you think in the NHS. They have a vested interest in lowering the number of high dependency patients especially nowadays.

I'm not saying that's a system, I'm saying having a system that allows the state via the NHS to coerce someone into suicide that has a vested interest in doing so isn't a great idea, and that this small change to the current legal situation would at least provide for the few situations that are genuinely suitable for leniency as opposed to letting such a case go to court and putting that person through a lengthy and expensive legal process.

[-]

ParsnipFlendercroft@reddit

Independent as in independent from each other. And if you think all NHS doctors are colluding to kill people then I don't think there's any point continue this discussion. (And yes I've read all your posts below already)

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

I never said they were "colluding", there are good ones, but there are also terrible ones who very much should not be trusted with such decisions.

[-]

ParsnipFlendercroft@reddit

You said they weren't independent. They're either independent from each other or they're colluding. That's the two options here. Which are saying it is?

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

That's not, you're framing it based on your idea of independence from each other as opposed to independent from institutional pressure.

[-]

ParsnipFlendercroft@reddit

I am doing that yes - because I was the one who first talked about independent doctors and you are the on who then followed that up by telling me doctors aren't independent.

To accuse me of framing it incorrectly is just bizarre. Don't try to gaslight me sunshine. You're the one framing it differently from the original context.

[-]

LauraDurnst@reddit

They have a vested interest in lowering the number of high dependency patients especially nowadays.

This is conspiracy theory nonsense.

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

Not really, I have first hand experience of being refused care despite having been assessed for several years by a former Clinical Lead Psychologist as having C-PTSD in the same situation as previously receiving said care.

I was told directly by the manager of an NHS CMHT that they wouldn't provide treatment due to limited resources.

[-]

LauraDurnst@reddit

Individually receiving subpar care does not equate to your implication that doctors would murder high-care patients to ease their workload.

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

I've seen people who are obviously suicidal be discharged from acute care psychiatric wards also, as well as heard senior nursing staff say "hopefully they'll do it, not come here", as well as two separate psychiatrists accuse patients of lying about incidents on the wards and a patients symptoms to deny care. These are just a few of the things I have seen personally.

There are many more, including a friend of mine who told a psychiatrist he was having suicidal thoughts who on supervised leave from the ward jumped in front of a train in front of a member of staff.

Do I believe doctors will murder patients outright? No.

But I do believe there are plenty of doctors who would happily nudge a person towards euthanasia out of apathy or dislike and I've known several doctors who have acted knowing that a patient will very likely die simply as a result of lack of resources or the required work being onerous for them.

[-]

Accomplished-Digiddy@reddit

So you'd force people's loved ones to carry the burden of knowing they killed their relative? Not allow them to seek help from a medical professional.

Because you believe that someone who stands to directly inherit an estate is less likely to have a conflict of interests than a doctor under vague pressures from on high to reduce the overall cost to the nhs and social care.

(I am absolutely not saying that everyone who assists someone to commit suicide is doing it just to inherit their royal Coylton. But surely even you can see there's a risk there)

[-]

dmmeyourfloof@reddit

I can see the risk there, which is why such deaths would (as they are now) investigated by a coroner's inquest and subsequently the CPS and the courts if there were suspicious circumstances and no, I'm not saying I would "force people's loved ones to carry the burden of knowing they killed their relative".

You entirely misunderstood my point, or didn't read what I wrote.

I was saying that a new system that is so open to abuse would be too easily weaponized against the disabled and that the current system is preferable with the CAVEAT that the small change I suggested would mean those who ALREADY CHOOSE THIS COURSE would be LEGALLY PROTECTED FROM PROSECUTION.

I highlighted in upper case the parts you failed to take in in my previous comment.

[-]

Weird1Intrepid@reddit

Give me £50 and half an hour, I'll have enough opiates to off myself without having to go to the doctor lol.

[-]

Ok-Village-607@reddit

If the morphine didn’t kill you, the side effects might be worse than the pain you took it for.

[-]

Squire-1984@reddit

Strawmen arguments ahoy. Not getting into your strawman. No not just morphine.

[-]

winterval_barse@reddit

How many grandads will decide to die now just to keep their house in the family rather than see it sold to pay for their end of life care?

Why is that even a question? Because successive governments have decimated care services

Don’t trust the government with this at all.

[-]

Squire-1984@reddit

Yes! And so many other examples too.

[-]

Real-Fortune9041@reddit

People have completely forgotten about “let the bodies pile high”.

There is a huge scope for assisted dying laws to be abused. Financial abuse of the elderly is a huge problem.

But the lemmings clap for “dignified dying”.

[-]

Squire-1984@reddit

Lemmings and UK government linked bots. If Russian bots have been found on places like reddit you can bet your bottom dollar UK gov will be at it too, especially around subjects like this where the gov I'd desperate to get their claws into people.

If people want to kill themselves its very easy to do so painlessly and quickly.

[-]

LordBoomDiddly@reddit

The difficulty with suicide is that others can be implicated in it because it's illegal.

[-]

Squire-1984@reddit

Not really. It essentially depends on the method. It's perfectly possible to do completely alone in a way where no one else is implicated.

[-]

LordBoomDiddly@reddit

Sure, but if you want family & friends around when you die that isn't possible with suicide or assisted dying due to legal implications

[-]

Squire-1984@reddit

Sorry am not doing strawmen with this.

[-]

Unhappy_Spell_9907@reddit

Particularly regarding any regulations to prevent pressure and coercion, especially towards disabled people. I want to live. No one with even a hint of authority should ever be able to suggest that I die or present it as an option, especially if they have a vested interest in my demise. That would mean no advertising campaigns and no pen pushers calculating how much money they'd save if I wasn't around. There could be absolutely no involvement ever from anyone at the department for work and pensions, including any health professionals who do PIP and work capability assessments for them.

[-]

jonewer@reddit

Canada is really a great case study for this kind of thing.

People are being offered death as an alternative to treatment for treatable diseases, or just being old, or depressed etc.

[-]

Ok-Village-607@reddit

Well considering how painful the PIP process is & how excluded disabled people are from society… I’m pretty sure it might be more cruel not to give them a chance at opting out than denying them that choice. The problem here is choice. Are people actually in charge of the choice? Or will we just be manipulated into it…

[-]

Ok_Adhesiveness3950@reddit

It's not necessarily the state thats the weak link, but the heirs with a massive financial incentive to facilitate/encourage /act as power of attorney and get you bumped off before care home fees consume their inheritance.

[-]

Ok-Village-607@reddit

This could be a real problem

[-]

Wild-Lengthiness2695@reddit

Especially in the week after where the Covid enquiry has found that at least one hospital applied blanket DNR notices during Covid which undoubtedly led to people dying who shouldn’t. Last week Police also announced a hospital where over 20+ staff are under investigation for the over use of prescribed drugs to shorten the lives of patients.

I do get it , my own dad died from a terminal disease that slowly eroded away at him then , maybe mercifully ? , accelerated within a week. The safeguards are a worry because it seems like the NHS isn’t overall great at stopping preventable deaths let alone being involved in actively causing death early.

[-]

sexy-egg-1991@reddit

Which they can't. Dwp can't even safeguard claimants and they say it's a high priority for them. The amount of people on pip and uc that have killed themselves due to how they're treated is unfathomable

[-]

AbleCollection6040@reddit

Damn, you hit the nail on the head as I’m currently on a flight to my 60 y/o dad’s funeral due to heart attack thanks to a lifetime of smoking.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

There are also incredibly worrying concerns based on the experiences of Canada and the Netherlands where euthanasia has been pushed on disabled people so that the government would not have to continue supporting them, including young disabled persons with treatable conditions.

There are very real concerns that under capitalism allowing euthanasia will inevitably lead back to a form of eugenics.

[-]

thesavagekitti@reddit

Yes, I have read that with MAID (Canada), quite a few disabled people have opted for maid, because they are eligible for it, but more because of cost of living issues rather than the disability.

It's very worrying, and I think people should remember that it is much easier for the government if the economically inactive/less active self delete. Then they don't have to come up with policies and fund inconvenient things like disability payments, palliative care ect.

[-]

Gullible_Tune_2533@reddit

In the UK the dwp certainly pushes people to suicide with its kafka-esque systems and abusive assessors.

[-]

SelectTrash@reddit

I Sat in a wheelchair in a PIP interview and the guy wouldn't even acknowledge me half the time all the medical notes and he said I had a bad ankle. Luckily I contested it and won as they didn't understand why I was there. I complained about him but of course, it wasn't his fault, the nasty twat.

[-]

silentv0ices@reddit

I had a pip medical where I had two falls on the walk from the door to the interview room which the assessor witnessed but my report claimed I walked without issue. Won at tribunal the entire system is not fit for purpose and a huge waste of tax payers money.

[-]

SelectTrash@reddit

I agree it is a terrible system

[-]

JohnnyRyallsDentist@reddit

It should not be legal unless you have a specific advancing, incurable, terminal disease. Surely this would be easy to build into legislation?

[-]

senaiboy@reddit

Sounds a bit far-fetched to me, but do you have sources to back these statements?

[-]

mrev@reddit

It's a quick Google away. Look up MAIDS controversies in Canada.

[-]

senaiboy@reddit

The claim above is that euthanasia has been pushed onto disabled young people by the government so they don't have to support them for the rest of their lives.

From Google it's all criticisms/controversies (not evidence) of euthanasia in terms of unclear criteria, mental health concerns, etc but not that people are being encouraged to choose euthanasia to save money.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

The sources are on google, but for instance here is a scientific paper reviewing cases in which medically assisted death has been offered to people with personality disorders, especially Borderline Personality Disorder (for which suicidality literally is a diagnostic criterium). It found that “only one patient (1%) had received any of the standard PD-specific evidence-based treatments currently in existence” before they were sanctioned for death as “untreatable”. With how difficult it is to access mental health services in the UK this is a particularly terrifying scenario.

Then, this article talks about the pressure exerted in Canada on disabled individuals with expensive conditions to “choose” to die instead:

‘Roger Foley, a patient at a hospital in Ontario who has a degenerative brain disorder, was disturbed enough by how often the staff talked about assisted dying that he began recording their conversations. The hospital’s director of ethics informed Foley that if he were to stay in the hospital, it would cost Foley “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that he felt he was being coerced into death. “Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist replied. “I told you my piece of this was to talk to you about if you had an interest in assisted dying.”’

Setting up a system that creates a financial incentive to end disabled people’s lives is an absolutely terrifying and deeply immoral idea.

[-]

Ok-Veterinarian-5381@reddit

This is horrifying, but not replicable, we have the NHS in the UK.

I'm pro euthanasia. To the point where I'd like the option for it even if I don't have a debilitating disease. but it has to be a free, personal choice made in sound mind.

I don't want people to be coerced into it which is why we need a robust, but not overly beauracratic, system that respects the dignity of the individual, while safeguarding their choices

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

And in what way would the NHS prevent this? Especially in the current situation where it is so overstretched, and underfunded, that you can only really access very limited care for things like mental health issues.

The problem is that free personal choice doesn’t exist outside of societal pressure. And once you have created a system of state sanctioned suicide, there is a lot of pressure on individuals with “costly” health conditions, and/or who cannot access the health care they need (and are instead offered suicide) to make that decision of their own “free will”.

[-]

Ok-Veterinarian-5381@reddit

Well, you wouldn't have the direct issue described above because the individual doesn't provide the costs for care. It's a matter for the trust.

With that in mind, you'll not find NHS admin bods going round trying to coerce old people into suicide. It'd cause too many problems with angry relatives, national newspaper scandals and lawsuits would be much more costly in the short term.

You've also got to look at things demographically. Around 23% of our population is over 60, some estimates have that number growing to 30% in 10 years. That population is living longer, but not better. As a society we have an obligation to ask, not only is it right to make individuals suffer on a personal level, but society more broadly.

Is it acceptable to traumatise health and care workers by forcing them to provide palliative care to people who actively want to end their suffering? Is it right that we take their time and expertise and resources that could be used to cure others or drastically improve their quality of life? Is it right to keep pushing more and more tax money into a health system that is disproportionately adding more painful years to people who have nothing more to give, when we could be spending on our infrastructure or education?

You might ask who I am to ask those questions, or make those calls, and I might ask who you are to prolong someone's suffering out of the fear that someone else might abuse their power. Ultimately it's down to neither of us, it's down to the person making the choice. If they're tricked or coerced, then it's our job to ensure that they get justice.

Uk society, in its current iteration, robs from the poor to give to the rich and robs from the cradle to gild the grave. And it's unsustainable. Something needs to change.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

It is the same in Canada!!! Canada has a publicly funded healthcare system!!!! The disabled man cited in this article was pressured precisely because of this — because it was suggested to him by the healthcare worker who should have treated him that his care would place too much of a financial burden on society!!!!

This is deeply wrong and eugenicist!!! And we have a duty to prevent that from becoming an acceptable option here in the UK, in the way it has become in Canada and the Netherlands where people are effectively murdered by a system that thinks they are better off dead!

[-]

Gullible_Tune_2533@reddit

The fucking ignorance of who you're replying to, I'm not even going to engage with them directly because it makes me angry but it's unbelievable the sacred cow status of the NHS, it'll save us from anything because it's magic. 🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

[-]

Ok-Veterinarian-5381@reddit

That's not what I said at all

[-]

Gullible_Tune_2533@reddit

'With that in mind, you'll not find NHS admin bods going round trying to coerce old people into suicide. It'd cause too many problems with angry relatives, national newspaper scandals and lawsuits would be much more costly in the short term.'

You've far too faith in systems that have been shown to be easily corrupted many times.

[-]

Ok-Veterinarian-5381@reddit

That's... not faith in the system? That's faith in families, lawyers and the press. Three groups that have never hesitated to pull the NHS up over even minor failings?

You literally seem angry over a point I haven't made dude.

[-]

Ok-Veterinarian-5381@reddit

So we need effective safeguards. We can use the lessons from the Canadian and Netherlands systems to make ours more robust.

Saying that euthanasia is inherently eugenics is like saying prison is inherently facism

[-]

mrev@reddit

Variety of sources from across the political spectrum:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/13/canada-medical-assisted-death

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11505167/Canada-lawmakers-criticized-looking-offering-euthanasia-CHILDREN.html

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/canada-maid-law-disabled

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/most-read-2022-why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor/

https://jacobin.com/2024/05/canada-euthanasia-poor-disabled-health-care

[-]

Opening_Succotash_95@reddit

There's a documentary on iPlayer called " Better Off Dead?" which gives a good up to date account of the debate including the situation in Canada. It's presented by a disabled woman with a very much anti-euthanasia viewpoint, I found it made quite a compelling case, and now have a lot of concerns about what could happen.

[-]

senaiboy@reddit

Thanks for the info, I'll give it a watch. It's something that's being debated within the medical communities as well (my stand is that healthcare professionals should not be involved in the debate on whether euthanasia should be allowed or not).

[-]

Opening_Succotash_95@reddit

It's not an easy issue for sure.

[-]

silentv0ices@reddit

I believed it's being touted as a solution to the homeless too, sounds a lot like Hitlers ultimate solution.

[-]

Empress_arcana@reddit

Really? The Dutch kill their disabled and demented elderly? There are so many strict regulations in place here. So many people declared, when fit, they wanted euthenasie when they suffer from dementia. Almost nobody gets it when they do suffer later on. Because you can't euthanise someone who says no. Dont spread lies.

[-]

Wise-Field-7353@reddit

This is my concern, as someone who is disabled. I've had peers offered death before treatment. Imagine the trauma.

[-]

stayh1ghh@reddit

I think it's everyone's concern. But we have to look at the bigger picture aswell, the hundreds of thousands currently suffering from cancer and other ailments that aren't given the dignity to choose when they die, instead they are forced to live their last days on this earth in writhing agony not even being able to wipe their own arse. I've witnessed it first hand, inhumane and despicable, and the family that are the only ones to care enough to help get jailed, fucked up system.

[-]

BonafideBallBag@reddit

I disagree. That isn't the bigger picture. How many want to go to dignitas? How many disabled in this country?

[-]

Wise-Field-7353@reddit

I'm largely in agreement, but I don't think we can say it's clear cut - there are any number of factors beyond physical suffering and life expectancy that might make someone feel pressured to go before their time. It's quite the minefield.

[-]

stayh1ghh@reddit

Which is why it should never be something 'offered' to a patient, but something they are to seek out themselves.

To say we should make millions suffer until eventual death, on the assumption somebody 'might' feel pressured into it just is not an excuse. In all systems their are flaws and there will be mistakes, the question we need to ask though is, do the benefits outweigh the risks, and to me they do

[-]

Ok-Village-607@reddit

We need to ask why people seek it in the first place. This is an opportunity to stop suffering for people. The question is one about short term vs long term change. As usual we choose the short term change over long term change in this country. It’s how politicians and the civil service make their money.

What is happening in this country that is leading to such poor health outcomes? Do people have access to good quality palliative care? Most of all, why are we not legalising drugs that could ease people’s pain without opiate side effects? How could we do more research into disability or extreme medical conditions?

Then we have to look at implementation, do we have the resources to do it? What will happen to the economy of a local area that is associated with death? How can we make sure it’s separate from medicine, if medicine is required to enable this?

[-]

Unhappy_Spell_9907@reddit

The bigger picture almost always conveniently excludes disabled people and dismisses the harm to us. Without iron clad guarantees that this legislation can't be weakened, it's going to end up with disabled people paying the price again.

[-]

SelectTrash@reddit

I haven't but it doesn't surprise me. We live in a world not adapted for us and often can feel a burden which is where this comes up from people who have never experienced it.

I was in my 20s when I became disabled so I felt like it and I do at times think “Would it be better without me?” 2 people have told my mum when she did care for me “I feel sorry for you it must be such a burden and hard work” My mum told them both times “Why? We have holidays, go swimming, travel and do everything you do but with a few restrictions but it's never been a burden”

I am a wheelchair user who luckily I still have use of my legs but for short distances only so I can walk into the house to where I need to be.

[-]

yetanotherweebgirl@reddit

This is the major concern. Given the way the UK Govt already mistreats and vilify the disabled and elderly, including allowing the media to stoke up resentment and with some rags, outright hatred to divert anger away from the political choice of austerity and artificial suppression of wages/ inflation of prices.

I foresee a govt that will inevitably push to euthanise those who aren’t of net profit to the country and oligarchy to make room for those who can toil 60hrs a week on minimum wage for vultures like portfolio landlords and exploitative conglomerate board members to gouge.

It’ll be the broken legged work horse treatment for the less able Brit

[-]

droznig@reddit

The whole thing with Canada is literal fake news. There was a moratorium put on euthanasia for certain illnesses, including mental health issues at the same time that certain media outlets were reporting that they are killing people for the same issues. It's important to note that the moratorium means a delay in implementing it, not that they were doing it and stopped, meaning that it never went ahead and maybe never will in Canada.

Literally 30 seconds of googling is all it takes to stop spreading misinformation.

[-]

Unhappy_Spell_9907@reddit

It's not misinformation or fake news. The problem isn't mental health issues. The problem is physically disabled people being pushed to death for someone else's benefit.

[-]

Gullible_Tune_2533@reddit

Is not even remotely misinformation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html

[-]

lilianlaslandes@reddit

Hey do you have some good sources I can read about this. This is the second time in 2 days I’ve heard this point made and I would love to understand it more.

[-]

WillNumbers@reddit

There's a good documentary on the subject recently called "better off dead", which might be worth a watch.

The cusp of the argument is that if you make assisted dieing legal, do you put any limits on it, any "qualifiers", and if so what are they?

Those qualifiers, eg. just merely being disabled, means some people may decide or even be encouraged, to take their own life.

[-]

lilianlaslandes@reddit

Thanks I’ll check it out. I was blissfully ignorant to this ‘threat’ until my elderly mother mentioned it yesterday. Initially I thought she’d been online too much and had her tin foil hat on, but it seems like a widespread concern from the comments here.

[-]

Brave_Bluebird5042@reddit

How many?

[-]

JohnnyRyallsDentist@reddit

Surely it wouldn't be an option for young disabled people, or those with treatable conditions. At least, I like to hope not. I think most people in favour of this are thinking of terminal cancer and advancing dementia.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

It is in Canada and the Netherlands. Once these things become accepted they tend to expand in reach.

[-]

mrev@reddit

I don't think it's a capitalism thing. This would still be the concern under communism or most other systems, it's just that the language used would be different.

[-]

Gullible_Tune_2533@reddit

The USSR institutionalised it's disabled, they were too close in time and hatred to the Nazis to go the full killing route.

[-]

reciprocatingocelot@reddit

Did you see Liz Carr's program about euthanasia? After having been in favour all my life, it actually made me a lot more wary. And one of the main points was the Canadian health service releasing figures for how much money they'd saved by killing their citizens, in a really off putting up beat way. Another point was that economic factors have a big effect on how tolerable someone's life is. So it's not so much that their life is unbearable, they just can't afford the services that would make it OK. And the government isn't going to pay if they can get out of it.

[-]

Gullible_Tune_2533@reddit

Canada is somewhat dystopian lately..

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

100% this!!! It is absolutely terrifying and the exact same thing would happen here if it was introduced!

[-]

coyotelurks@reddit

Please provide sources. I live in the Netherlands and this concerns me.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

You can literally just scroll down to the comments below. Or alternatively google it, there are plenty of articles about it. But yeah, it should concern you! Last year 5% of deaths in the Netherlands were due to medically assisted suicide, including on young people without terminal illness. If that’s not scary I don’t know what is.

[-]

coyotelurks@reddit

I saw a bunch of stuff about Canada, but not about the Netherlands. I don't speak Dutch so I'm not really finding a lot.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

Yeah to be fair the Netherlands get overshadowed by the Canadian examples a fair bit, despite having a similarly awful system. But you get a fair few results by just googling “netherlands euthanasia criticism” including this pretty harrowing article about couples being approved for common suicide.

[-]

coyotelurks@reddit

Thank you for linking that.

[-]

TheDreadfulCurtain@reddit

Massive upvote due to the slippery slope argument

[-]

silentv0ices@reddit

Bit ironic that people can be pro euthanasia which ultimately is about the dignity of controlling one's own life but anti smoking, as long as the smoking is done in a manner not to harm others I can't see a issue.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Not really. Both issues I see as quality of life enhancing and being healthy for the maximum time. Plus, given the dwindling number of smokers and improvements in medical care, they’re a net drain on society (ie harming my wallet, if we want to get brutal about it!).

(Yes, I’m delighted about products to help with obesity and society needs to do more to help with the mental health/work-related causes; No, I wouldn’t stop people being injured in the course of exercise as that has many net benefits at a societal level if not for the injured individual).

Cost.

‘Benefit’

[-]

EntiiiD6@reddit

Im not sure you uderstand how death or health works, people died of old age in the past ALL the time, the main (real) reason human life expetency was so low was beacuse of all the infant death.. or plagues if you go back a bit further ... if you take that away people generally lived the same length of time we do.

So, from some bones found that were dated between the years 900 - 1531 we scientifically concluded that most adults in that time period lived to at least 50 years old AND Justinian the gerat was a roman emperor born in the \~500s who lived until he died of old age.. at age 83.*

so we have been dying from old age wayyyy before eugenics or we had to work until we dropped dead, dying from natrual proccess isnt new at all..
"where dementia/cancer are the popular ways to die is a recent phenomenon, taking away the option of a nice clean heart attack due to smoking at 60"

so the actual leading causes of mortality in order are - ischameic heart disease (inclu heart attack), stroke, COPD, lower respitory infections, lung cancer, alzheimers, diabetes, kidney disease, tuberculosis.** in fact going back to 1945 the leading cause of death in people aged 55+ was heart disease (same as today) and "senile decay" before that.. people used to live for so long their cause of death was litearlly their brain being too old to work anymore.. ***

yeh.. we are pathetically behind when it comes to talking about dignified ways and the choice of when to die.

So what other issues does the gov need to "reassure the public on" instead of actually fucking do something?

https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php *

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death **

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/causesofdeathover100years/2017-09-18 ***

[-]

No-Mechanic6069@reddit

Yes and no. Yes, we must take into account infant and childhood mortality, but people are still living a whole lot longer once they pass that hurdle:

Life expectancy at 18:
1841: \~60
2011: \~80

ONS website

The problem is that, although we are very good at keeping people alive these days, we still can't do much to keep their brains from degenerating.

[-]

AgreeableNature484@reddit

Very few of those born in 1841 saw 60

[-]

No-Mechanic6069@reddit

That’s why the figures are basic on life expectancy at age 18.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Yup; using a broad brush for rhetorical reasons.

I’m not sure that we should discount the fact that post-industrial societal changes mean that death is a more medical/legal activity undertaken away from the home, so opportunities to “ease someone’s passing” just aren’t there.

[-]

NeverCadburys@reddit

We're only a few years away from doctors refusing to treat, even removing vents from disabled people, in the height of covid and lockdowns, because it was assumed all disabled people have a poor quality of life, less chance of survival as a base line, and no chance of surviving a major health event that would require CPR. They put DNRs on autistic people as a matter of course.

And people want us to trust the same doctors with euthanasia? If my friend with Duchenne goes in hopsital for a broken leg or a tummy bug, he better come back out again.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

I’m not aware of the potential legislation involving doctors nominating anyone; the debate is around people requesting this for themselves as far as I am aware. Indeed, that’s how OP’s question is phrased.

[-]

NeverCadburys@reddit

Yes but we're also talking about the slippery slope, and you already mentioned them. And we see it already in Canada. You have the really obvious cases like OP's grandad, if all that's left is suffering and pain, that's a decent reason for someone to opt for themselves for ethanasia.

But then we have a history of making disabled people feel like burdens to others. The goverment want us off benefits and to work, but employers won't employ us with all of the accommodations we need, people don't want to work with people with people who go off sick all the time leaving work either undone or on their own plate. We can't get on buses because parents use the pram space, but we're told we're not reliable if we can't get to work on time. The care bill in this country is astronomical (because of private companies having their own profit margins), and the NHS is collapsing. And it's alwasy "Well I wouldn't want to live like that", or "Imagine a life on a ventilator...". People tie in the ability to work, being productive with how valuable a human life is. We are not ignorant to that. So how do you know if someone really wants to die because they are suffering, or because a fulfilling life has been denied to them because of soceities failings?

What about in care homes with abuse and neglect? There are people left in their own waste for hours not because they are incontinent but because staff did not turn up when the person called. There are people who could manage their pain if painkillers and effective treatment is given, but largely people are being neglected because they're old and it's treated like it's such a waste of time when they're so old and have nothing to give society anymore. That's not a life someone would want to live, so what if they opt for euthanasia?

I'm sure you've heard of the incident in canada where a woman in need of a new wheelchair and accessible home was denied these things, but offered a discount for their euthanasia scheme. I have no doubt we'll go the same way.

[-]

Ok-Village-607@reddit

I don’t know about what didn’t or did happen in Canada but I believe it could happen. After all I’ve seen how those who require help are resented and not given the help they need. We like to think of ourselves as generous but once we deal with people asking for things 24/7, we become cold. Being productive aka earning money fools us into thinking we are independent. Reality is no one is an island and most of us will develop a disability in our lifetime. Don’t look up when looking down will give you the answers.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

I’ve not heard of the incident you mention, and would be advocating for assisted dying to be tied to unambiguous criteria solely around survivability.

[-]

NeverCadburys@reddit

1) Google is free, my friend. So, you can read all about it if you can be arsed to

2) There's no such thing as unambigous criteria when able bodied people always assume to know better than disabled poeple without power and disabled people continue to be seen as low value in society.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

You shouldn’t have got annoyed and insulting, then I’d have ignored it and you could carry on believing something that there is no evidence for.

Is this a Streisand Effect?

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

You’re arguing about a situation that hasn’t occurred, isn’t proposed, is being strongly argued to be guarded against, and is highlighted by an (as yet) unsupported anecdote from another jurisdiction.

I’m unsure what to make of this.

[-]

pitchblaca@reddit

I've always thought than euthanasia was a humane choice.

For example, when my cat had cancer, I made the decision to take her home, feed her all of the rubbish food she liked, spoil her, and show her as much love as possible. When she started struggling to eat, she was euthanized to prevent her from further suffering. It was the best decision for her but broke me, I stayed with her so she'd know she wasn't alone, again, a decision for her, not for me. I am aware, however, that watching her starve would have been far, far worse for both of us in the long run.

I can, however, after reading your comment, see the implications if it was to be agreed for humans which I haven't considered before. I think most people, myself included, see it as a kindness. Greed and corruption aren't considerations I've thought of.

Would I trust the government, no. Would I like to know that should I develop an incurable illness, I can remove myself from the pain, yes.

[-]

kwaklog@reddit

Eugenics was a response to Darwinism: Building your race to be the strongest through science. It wasn't a religious movement

[-]

United-Chipmunk897@reddit

“Nice clean heart attack at 60.” Do you work in logistics?

[-]

Big_Red12@reddit

I'm a staunch atheist but I really think religion only shoulders a portion of the blame here. There are very strong arguments about safeguards which I don't think have been adequately addressed.

In theory I am all for assisted dying but in practice I have seen how disabled and chronically ill people are treated by our society, including by government, health care providers and even their families. During Covid, people were given Do Not Resuscitate orders without the agreement of the patient or the family, in some instances simply because they were learning disabled. This is not a society I trust with assisted dying.

[-]

Bluepob@reddit

I don’t know your personal situation, so I’m not going to comment on that. I have experience of DNR’s being put into place. Most often DNR’s are suggested by medical professionals because it would be futile to start a resus if someone did suffer a cardiac arrest. Even recently healthy individuals have a small chance (less than 10%) of being resuscitated once they’ve arrested and that number falls even further when looking at surviving long enough to actually leave hospital. From my experience a lot of DNR’s are predominantly put in place because resuscitation just wouldn’t work.

The quality of life type of issues do occasionally come up, but that is then dealt with at a multi-disciplinary team level where ethics discussions are had and the patient and/or their family will be involved in some way. Some people and their families don’t want to be involved, some do.

Some people don’t like being told they are being recommended as not for resus, and if they don’t agree their decision trumps everyone else’s. But, in my experience, once the reasoning of the decision is properly communicated and the person has had ample opportunity for asking questions and has a full understanding of their situation they end agreeing.

[-]

Big_Red12@reddit

That all sounds great until it just... doesn't happen.

I'm talking about this kind of thing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/new-do-not-resuscitate-orders-imposed-on-covid-19-patients-with-learning-difficulties

And about care home staff telling ambulances that their residents are low priority because they're old or disabled.

How many people are going to feel obliged to go through with an assisted suicide because they feel like a burden to their families? What possible safeguards can prevent that? Whereas if we lived in a society that actually supported people adequately that pressure wouldn't be there.

[-]

Bluepob@reddit

You can always find a horror story in any subject you care to look into. Yes, of course, bad stuff has happened. But, thankfully, it’s a very rare thing. There are tens of thousands of DNR’s in place as I’m typing this. All with good reason.

If I looked at the horror stories involving planes, I’d never get on one again and think anyone who did was mad. But in reality, they’re one of the safest ways to travel. Your opinion is very valid, all I’m saying is look at the reality of the situation and the supporting evidence as a whole rather than fixating on the (very, very rare) horror story.

Of course it’s important to put safeguards in place (to protect staff as well as patients) and also to look at what’s gone wrong in the past and learn from it. But, objectively, DNR’s are safe and effective.

[-]

Big_Red12@reddit

I wish I had your faith in the systems.

How would we know if you were wrong, by the way? Many of the people it's gone wrong for will be dead and unable to speak for themselves.

[-]

Bluepob@reddit

There is more than one person involved in making such a big decision. When you think about it, it wouldn’t be fair on the patient or the member of staff if it was a single decision maker. The vast majority include the patient and their family along with other health professionals in the decision making process. It’s a stringent set of rules that need to be followed to get a DNR in place and the system is set up to protect everyone involved. Lessons have already been learnt from past incidents.

As a side note, it initially surprised me how amenable the vast majority of patients are to being given a DNR. It was something I was not looking forward to being involved with but, most people, just know that it’s the best thing for them. It doesn’t mean they will get any reduction in care or treatment, it only means that if they enter cardiac arrest they won’t be put through the (pretty brutal) process of ALS.

A DNR isn’t right for everyone but they are a useful tool that has a place in reducing suffering and maintaining dignity.

[-]

Y_ddraig_gwyn@reddit

Not in this case. The ‘taboo’ is specifically with Parliament. The House of Lords, leaders of all major UK religions, affected charities, medical profession and general public are all in favour. However, despite regular recommendations this is the first time in years our ‘representative’ parliamentarians have deigned to act.

Source: LLM healthcare law & ethics

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

I went to a debate on this. Lots of people want to off their own families and say it's euthanasia. That's the main problem with it.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

There obviously has to be a rigourous set of checks and balances before someone is allowed to go through the process. Watching the last few months of torment of a close friend or relative who is definitely terminal is just awful and 100% unnecessary.

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

I think you're right but another very good point was raised. Are we gonna go ahead and trust the people in power to act in people's best interests? Is there a slight risk of eugenics here? Wouldn't it be great to save money on healthcare and all that money people put away in pensions? It's problematic :s

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

I mean if you're not going to trust a panel of doctors to act in your best interests you're already fucked. No, I don't think eugenics has any real relevance in this debate, no one is suggesting offing people because they have a specific disease or disorder.

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

No it was just said about them trialling it Canada and boasting about the money saved in the economy. I think corruption has relevance in every debate.

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

But think of all the death tourism we could get if we did it like the Swiss.

[-]

JFK1200@reddit

I’ve never heard or seen religion being the hurdle to assisted dying, more so the morality of it, who decides if the patient is unable to consent themselves, the implications it has on doctors for essentially ending someone’s life and the many other dilemmas it creates.

I’ve never understood why we extend this courtesy to animals to prevent them suffering but not to humans. Watching my nan die a slow and undignified death to cancer was awful and will always stay with me. I know her preference would’ve been for euthanasia if it were an option.

[-]

I_swallow_dogs@reddit

See, as someone who's had pets and doesn't have infinite resources I've come close to having to euthanise them, not because their suffering couldn't be alleviated, but because I as an individual didn't have the resources to do it. Say your pet needs expensive medication every two hours. Do you just not sleep until they die? Do you quit your job to become a full time carer for it? If you do, how do you afford its expensive meds?

I can absolutely guarantee that 1000's of very loved pets have been killed, when they could have had some more happy life, because the resources simply weren't there to give them that life. I'm an atheist and I fully support people's bodily autonomy and right to end their own life but I have deep concern over what bringing in euthanasia as a medical option will mean, with the nhs struggling the way it is now.

The reason we extend euthanasia as a grace to animals and not people is not because we value the comfort of animals more, but because we are comfortable with killing them for human convenience.

[-]

pedantasaurusrex@reddit

Yes and I've also had dogs put down because even with treatment their quality of life would only degrade

The reason we extend euthanasia as a grace to animals and not people is not because we value the comfort of animals more, but because we are comfortable with killing them for human convenience.

You have no basis to say this outside of your own anecdotes

[-]

I_swallow_dogs@reddit

I'm not sure it's particularly controversial to say that the reason we've been euthanising animals for decades and not people, is because we're more comfortable with killing animals than people. We kill animals for all sorts of reasons, with few legal barriers to doing so.

I'm not against euthanasia for either animals or humans but it's not a simple subject and the idea that it should be easy to do it for people because we already have it in place for animals is absurd. People euthanise their pets because they don't want the bother and expense of treating them. Or because they're moving house. Or the animal has become aggressive. I spent thousands extending the life of my rabbit but I could have killed and eaten him and faced no legal consequences.

Setting up a system for human euthanasia which has no risk of the abuse which is commonplace in the animal system is going to be very difficult, maybe even impossible.

[-]

pedantasaurusrex@reddit

People euthanise their pets because they don't want the bother and expense of treating them. Or because they're moving house. Or the animal has become aggressive.

And people euthanize animals because the benefits of the treatment dont outweigh the suffering of the condition the animal has.

You keep missing that one out, dont you, despite it being a well recognised issue in both human and animal medical fields.

I'm not sure it's particularly controversial to say that the reason we've been euthanising animals for decades and not people, is because we're more comfortable with killing animals than people.

And it's not people killing people, its allowing an indevidual the choice to end their own life.

[-]

I_swallow_dogs@reddit

I don't keep missing it out, I said I wasn't against euthanasia, and that's why. I've reiterated that several times already. Obviously it serves an ethical, useful purpose or it wouldn't be such a contested debate.

But using animal euthanasia as an argument for human euthanasia when animal euthanasia is riddled with the exact circumstances which people fear will come to pass in human euthanasia is not a smart move. The animal model of euthanasia is precisely what we're trying to avoid, even though it is often used and intended benevolently and serves a valid purpose.

The question isn't "Is death a valid medical treatment?" but "Can we introduce death as a medical treatment, without the risk of it superseding other potentially viable treatments, despite it being cheaper, quicker and more convenient than those other treatments?"

[-]

pedantasaurusrex@reddit

The question isn't "Is death a valid medical treatment?" but "Can we introduce death as a medical treatment, without the risk of it superseding other potentially viable treatments, despite it being cheaper, quicker and more convenient than those other treatments?"

Yes we can easily. As i said in my comment. By allowing the indevidual themselves the choice over whether they want euthanasia or not. Its up to them what counts as viable treatment and whether they want that or they have had enough.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

Most religions are not in favour of euthanasia, (source)source

[-]

InsaneInTheRAMdrain@reddit

Religion barely registers as an issue when it comes to this. Religion has been out of the uk general mindset in politics for ages except for maybe Ireland.

The biggest problem is where to draw the line, and that's what no one can agree on.

[-]

No_Shopping_1277@reddit

There are bishops in the House of Lords. Of course religion has (far undue) influence

[-]

DannyBrownsDoritos@reddit

Yeah and they do fuck all

[-]

No_Shopping_1277@reddit

Except for blocking legislation

[-]

bigjoeandphantom3O9@reddit

Considering this has never made it past the Commons for the Lords to kill the bill, how exactly do you think a tiny fraction of the Lords are blocking legislation on this topic?

[-]

Tasin__@reddit

House of lords couldn't even block the rwanda plan despite the human rights violations. All they did was delay it.

[-]

mr-no-life@reddit

Lords can’t block anything since the 1910s, only delay it.

[-]

bigjoeandphantom3O9@reddit

In fairness, they often 'kill' bills via delay as Parliament has limited time to spend on legislation - however, you are quite right that the Commons has been able to force through any bill it truly wants to since 1911.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Most people are not in favour of religion ;-)

[-]

LuinAelin@reddit

I'd argue that not being religious does not mean you're against religion

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

To argue further, I’d argue that most people are not against belief but are against religion.

It seems odd that elderly social influencer males playing weekly gigs to the small audiences who lap up their poor interpretations of Bronze Age literature have any traction at all.

[-]

Sad-Yoghurt5196@reddit

I'm not wired for belief, only fact. So it's all just stories to me, but I dislike the fact that different groups of peoples stories, so inflame each other, that it leads to violence and division. While I'm against book burning, I'd make an exception for religious texts. Seems to me we'd be better off without it.

Morality exists outside of religion. If you need a carrot and a stick to be a nice person, that doesn't make you better than the man who believes in nothing, but exists only to help, and not harm.

Belief in deities is the only delusion not covered in the DSM V.

But that's enough of my opinions lol.

[-]

forfar4@reddit

What is even more odd is that the House of Lords still has representation from the Church of England as of right. They are the "high ups" in the church (usually archbishop or bishop) and now represent a minority of people in the UK who attend church. Unelected.

[-]

mynaneisjustguy@reddit

Everyone pretty much in the House of Lords is unelected. We don’t live in a representative democracy. The sooner people realise that we have no constitution nor a fair system of electing representatives the sooner we can get some stuff set on fire.

[-]

warriorscot@reddit

You can almost certainly guarantee that the vast majority of those are not big fans of religion in their actual government even if they're tolerant of having religions.

[-]

A-Pint-Of-Tennents@reddit

Most people are irreligious now but religious organisations maintain plenty of soft power, and crucially you've still got plenty of religiously minded politicians who are influenced by that when making laws, even if they claim otherwise.

[-]

Tao626@reddit

But a lot of ethical and moral opinions are routed in religion, passed down and taught to younger generations regardless of whether or not they believe in any religion themselves.

There really isn't any other reason to value human life for the sake of life so highly even above the immense untreatable pain and suffering the person in question may be subject to, yet, people do. Like it or not, you can thank religion for it.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Morals and ethics are just ways our big brains interpret behaviours exhibited by social animals.

‘Belief’ is a way of interpreting more complex matters that science hadn’t yet understood or society had not yet catered for.

‘Religion’ is a way to institutionalise/monetise/coordinate politically society parallel to ‘the state’.

[-]

AlternativeFair2740@reddit

For a secular country, we have a specific portion of the legislature that is reserved for religious figures. They have traditionally been at the forefront of the debates on euthanasia.

[-]

someguyhaunter@reddit

A long with your other reply, even if most people are not in favour of religion, it doesn't mean in doesn't have power.

All it requires is enough people in the right places.

[-]

SildurScamp@reddit

Right, like when surveyed most UK citizens don’t hate trans people, yet politics would have you believe that anti-trans policies and legislation are happening on behalf of some big public outcry.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

Exactly, like the church being able to appoint lords for instance.

[-]

Psittacula2@reddit

Oddly, you say religion is the problem due to OVERT reasoning, yet a few generations ago, infants or the old if they were in a morbid state were quietly put to sleep for their own and everyone else’s mercy…

What has changed? My guess is hyper-regulation by more governmental oversight systems in combination with higher prolonged morbidity due to modern medicine.

[-]

Apsalar28@reddit

What changed was the Harold Shipman case.

Up until then Dr's weren't really questioned about the suspiciously high dose of morphine occasionally given to a terminal cancer sufferer after a reading between the lines conversation with the family. It was something never really talked about but a lot of people knew was going on and approved of

Afterwards everything was a lot more closely monitored to make sure there weren't any more serial killers taking advantage.

[-]

Splodge89@reddit

My other half works in healthcare, and did before the shipman case. Before he said it was relatively normal to “help someone along” with bigger than strictly necessary doses of painkillers. Not that they outright gave lethal doses you understand, but made someone properly comfortable. There was a reason a ward would have a big ole bottle of morphine which wasn’t really measured properly. Since the shipman case that’s no longer a thing.

[-]

Apsalar28@reddit

My Dad had terminal brain cancer just before the Shipman case went to court and when it got to the point where he couldn't talk, move at all or recognize my Mum the Dr waited until Grandma and my younger siblings were out of the room and then there was a conversation along the lines of "We could increase his pain meds but that may have an impact on his breathing..." followed by a meaningful pause and a couple of nods from me and Mum. Nothing else was said, even between me and Mum, but we both knew what was being offered and weren't surprised when he died that evening.

I was grateful at the time and after seeing what some other relatives and friends have endured in the last couple of days of their lives, even with the best hospice care, am even more so now.

[-]

Psittacula2@reddit

Yes, I think this is very applicable example, where a spotlight avoids some enormous evil but equally ends up becoming a different form of tyranny, pain and suffering itself. Thank you for the insightful example.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

Religion has stood in the way of legislation because of dogma and 'man in the sky' doesn't like it, says so here in my ancient book of bullshit.

[-]

Psittacula2@reddit

The above sentence reads more akin to a fever dream than a constructive premise.

If you wish to consider, many of the regulations on healthcare and medical code of conduct all derive from professional bodies such as in the UK the BMA (British Medical Association) and at global levels such as WHO (World Health Association).

They amongst other have direct input into such codes which are converted into the relevant legislation concerning the infirm.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

If the WHO is the regulator then why the discrepancy between countries with regrard to euthanasia and why do so many people have to go abroad to get a dignified death? That doesn't ring true.
There's nothing "fever dream" about religious dogma standing in the way of a sensible debate in the UK regarding assisted dying, religions have too much political sway and they have stood in the way.

[-]

Psittacula2@reddit

The WHO is not a “de facto” source but part of the regulatory framework which then informs other inputs from other legislation and expert bodies.

That all dictates and influences policy far more than secular religion in Europe does today.

[-]

JournalistSilver810@reddit

It's been debated at least twice before. It was rejected before on grounds of "conscience". Religious? Not sure.

Shame they don't have the same approach to expenses, privilege etc. That's a free for all.

I'm all for assisted dying. But with free will and dignity.

I saw my father die the most horrendous death due to cancer. But I am very cynical about this government's approach to it. I suspect they just want the elderly and vulnerable gone. End of. The parameters will be widened...no free will. No dignity.

[-]

Sad-Yoghurt5196@reddit

I'd much rather see a body that evaluates, and pays for you to fly to Switzerland. I don't trust anyone in this country to set it up the way it should be.

[-]

JournalistSilver810@reddit

Exactly!

This lot have Soylent Green vibes about them.

[-]

KingOfTheHoard@reddit

Religious groups are the main source of funding behind campaigns against assisted dying. There are very well thought out arguments raised by, for example, disability advocate groups that are important to listen to, but it's religious groups throwing in the cash.

[-]

JFK1200@reddit

I don’t doubt that they fund much of the opposition groups, my point was that the religion aspect itself isn’t really considered amongst the main points of debate in the current day, it’s practically a footnote in the House of Lords Library link I shared.

[-]

KingOfTheHoard@reddit

That's because, as with gay marriage, and trans rights, religious groups explicitly campaign on supposedly secular grounds, and have done so since the Intelligent Design programs in the early 2000s. It doesn't change the fact their their basis is religious.

[-]

Anxious_wank@reddit

Every time a child reaches the national news with an inoperable brain issue and have medically been declared brain dead but the parents refuse switching off the machines which leads to it gets taken through the courts all of the religions groups that are the "anti-abortion, where's there's a heart beat there's life" type dump funding and a massive amount of PR into the families/parents and then dump them when the courts inevitable rules in favour of switching off life support.

You may not have heard of them getting involved but they're always involved.

[-]

360Saturn@reddit

Traditional Christianity has it as a sin to take your own life, as well as to kill someone else. That pretty much stopped any discussion of euthanasia in its tracks.

[-]

speedmuppet@reddit

The UK's top catholic shaman says suffering is good:

[My imaginary friend] brings our humanity to its full glory precisely through the gateway of suffering and death.

I’ve never heard or seen religion being the hurdle to assisted dying

You have now.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

I must question where you have your information from, as religions/those holding religious belief are the significant majority of dissenters I’ve heard from (the others being campaigners for the disabled/vulnerable whose fears need to be addressed in legislation, and the hospice industry).

[-]

JFK1200@reddit

Reading this there is a small reference to Christian Action Research and Education but on the whole the debate comes back to concerns regarding morality and potential opportunities for exploitation and abuse of the system. 73% of the public support assisted dying for those with terminal illnesses.

In fact it goes on to say: “In September 2021, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey and rabbi Jonathan Romain, a vice chair of Dignity in Dying, launched a new religious alliance in support of doctor-assisted dying. They argue that belief in the sanctity of life “does not mean believing in the sanctity of suffering or disregarding steps to avoid it”.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/assisted-dying-bill-hl/

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

The Lords Spiritual have been doing good work of late with social issues.

It’ll be interesting to see how they respond to the more reactionary components of the Church / laity (though in all fairness, most of the evangelicals broke with the CofE in the 90s to fleece/abuse their congregations without oversight).

[-]

Ok-Apartment-8284@reddit

While "noble" as it is to end a terminal person's life of suffering, this open a can of expired worms that'll lead back to eugenics, rather than working on a solution for an ailment, yeah let's just let them die

[-]

No_Shine_4707@reddit

Its an ethical debate as much as a religious issue. If you open the gates to state sanctioned suicide, there are a whole host of issues around legitimacy. People may feel the need to end their life instead of burdening others, people may feel pressured. Families may pressure people into suicide, rather than having to pay care bills etc. NHS and care givers may advise ending life instead of end of life care. People with severe disabilities may feel obligated to 'put themselves out of their misery'. Law and circumstance is far more complex than green lighting the terminal granny to choose to die by assisted suicide.

[-]

LordBoomDiddly@reddit

It's not just that, the biggest problem is that it's not being used as a loophole for people to commit murder

[-]

Toffeemanstan@reddit

I think the disabled are the biggest objectors to it at the moment, some think there'll be more pressure on them to be euthanized.

[-]

Status_Common_9583@reddit

There are absolutely a chunk of people in this country in good health who believe life below a certain level of mobility, mental capacity, personal independence and communicative ability is not worth living and would probably voice these opinions loudly if asked.

So somewhere I do understand the concerns of disabled people, especially with severe disabilities who object to euthanasia on that basis. I think it’s a valid angle to worry about opening the gateway at all, in case there’s any likelihood euthanasia could slowly transform from being “legal, but with massive hurdles to actually access for someone who desperately wants it” to eventually being a culling of anyone the government or mass public deem as unworthy to live.

What’s your take?

[-]

Toffeemanstan@reddit

I can understand their concerns and sympathise to a point but ive watched both parents die slowly from cancer. Dad had a stash of pills to give to mum when it got too bad but he never got chance and we had to watch her waste away. Dad asked me to stop his pain but I couldn't go through with it. Nobody should have to go though that so im probably being a bit harsh when saying this but I couldnt give a shit if someone with a disability feels like they'll be pressured to do it, they still have a choice and there will be safeguards. Other countries that have it aren't all of a sudden purging the disabled either so I dont think it should be stopping us doing this.

[-]

Status_Common_9583@reddit

I’m sorry to hear about your parents, it’s absolutely awful to watch people suffer until the end.

I don’t think it’s harsh, I felt uncomfortable to even visit my uncle when he was at the stage of being barely conscious with a morphine pump going automatically. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he’d mentioned prematurely ending it to my aunt at some point, who 15 years on is still deeply traumatised by being a bystander watching HOW he passed away.

Ultimately I do largely agree with you. Being strictly realistic I cannot foresee the UK being a trailblazer for state mandated euthanasia based on disability. It’s rare that people with severe disabilities are even sterilised based upon a court decision, and even that has historically been a controversial topic for 100 years give or take. I think it’s safe to say we’re a hell of a long way off euthanising disabled people via trial.

[-]

KelpFox05@reddit

Until the idea in society that 'If you can't work, you're worthless' goes away, disabled people who are less capable or incapable of work WILL be pressured to choose voluntary euthanasia, both by the NHS and the DWP. We already saw some of this during the pandemic when disabled people that were considered to have a "lower quality of life" were put under involuntary DNRs.

[-]

YippieSkippy1000@reddit

Canada has an assisted dying program called MAID (medical assistance in dying) and it is disabled advocacy groups who are the biggest objectors to the initial rules for MAID as well as every time proposals to expand it are made

[-]

Silver-Appointment77@reddit

i agree in a away as my husband is disabled and is getting worse, plus theres no cure. He doesnt want to be euthanised just because hes disabled, but he does want to be euthanised of he has terminal cancer.

[-]

No_Raspberry_6795@reddit

plus you do hear horror stories coming out of Canada. It is not somthing to be changed likely.

[-]

Slow_Ball9510@reddit

Great, well, I'm not religious, and I don't see why it should have any say in how I live my life.

[-]

AnglachelBlacksword@reddit

I’m assuming you are too young to remember the appalling Mary Whitehouse? A

[-]

ClassicWorld4805@reddit

I would say we haven't been in a state to set it up properly and avoid all the associated risks. I think now is a good time for debate, not the 70s.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

Tell that to all the people who've had to watch their relatives die long drawn out undignified painful deaths completely unnesessarily.

[-]

ClassicWorld4805@reddit

I don't need to tell them that. It is a horrible situation and I think it's pretty rude of you to assume that I'm not included in that group. However, there are levels of protection (social, legal, and medical) that need to be in place and my personal opinion is that we haven't been ready for that for the decades you mentioned.

[-]

Snoo3763@reddit

I'm sorry I came across horrible and am sorry you've also had to watch relatives in discomfort. I've been hoping (and writing letters to my MP) that we can progress on assisted dying for some time and it feels like we're having this debate too late for my liking. Sometimes I feel like people who are oppsed to the idea for dogmatic reasons hide behind the necessary protections you mentioned. Again, sorry if I came across like a dick, the subject stirs strong emotions.

[-]

ClassicWorld4805@reddit

You didn't come across horrible, the situation of seeing a loved one in pain is a horrible one to be in. I think regardless it's important to keep the subject in the public conscious so great to hear you have been writing to your MP.

In a perfect world there would be a simple solution but sadly I just don't think we've had to infrastructure to protect as much as possible against all the risks until relatively recently.

[-]

Silent-Silvan@reddit

I don't think religion really plays a factor in the UK. Most people are non-religious.

There are genuine (and valid) concerns about coerced euthanasia. Imagine someone doesn't want to lose their inheritance by keeping great aunt mabel alive for several years and paying for social care. Let's persuade her she's a burden to her family and presto, she gets euthanized and her relatives get her worldly goods.

[-]

LobsterMountain4036@reddit

It will be an absolute disaster.

[-]

ladyatlanta@reddit

It’s being met with a shit ton of backlash from citizens, regardless of the government discussing it.

And it will continue to be something people judge you over for a long time.

It’s stupid because most of the people who disagree with it have never watched a loved one suffer

[-]

Kistelek@reddit

You've answered your point in your last sentence. Having watched my mother languish, barely conscious/unconscious and unable to communicate for several weeks as cancer killed her, it makes me so angry when people argue against it. As I said to a nurse at the hospital once, if I kept a dog in the condition of my mother, I would rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. It needs all of these self righteous pricks to go and spend some time in a hospice and see people die of cancer.

[-]

vminnear@reddit

It's short sighted not to see that euthanasia is the government's wet dream. Get rid of the old and disabled clogging up the NHS and free it up for the economically useful people at a moment when its pension pots are drying up and the population is declining.

My dad died of motor neurone disease, he was loved and valued right up to the end and never wanted to be euthanised. In another world, someone out there with the same illness is going to pick euthanasia because their family can't or won't support them and the government doesn't have any help to offer them except suicide. That could easily be you or me, it's not out of the realm of imagining.

This isn't to say I disagree with the idea of euthanasia or that I don't have utmost sympathy for people who choose it for themselves or the people who have to watch their loved ones suffer. The scenario in which someone is on their death bed suffering with no way out is the best example of why it should be made available. But euthanasia could open the doors to abuse and enable the government to renege on any duty of care they have towards the elderly and disabled, we need to be really, really careful about not allowing that to happen.

[-]

ladyatlanta@reddit

The fact it could be abused is exactly why discussions are involving ways to stop it being abused.

[-]

Sco0basTeVen@reddit

Literally a literal

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Given the shift of illiterates using ‘literally’ to mean ‘figuratively’, the extra ‘literal’ is to literally ensure ‘literally’ was taken literally. Hope that’s cleared it up ;-)

[-]

Mind_if_I_do_uh_J@reddit

Or, just don't use it, as it adds nothing. Unless you meant there's literally a figurative debate happening?

[-]

Nearby-Lifeguard5123@reddit

How literal are we talking?

[-]

negras@reddit

That debate has been taking place for a long long time with no resolution. This was the central theme from my Medical ethics class when I was a law student more than 15 years ago.

[-]

Necessary_Doubt_9762@reddit

I didn’t know this, I hope that assisted euthanasia becomes legal here at some point. We were talking about my grandmother passing away the other day, it was awful. We let people go past the point of no return and continue to let them suffer until they pass naturally. My grandmother had dementia and when she reached the end, she was in bed for the last week of her life, rarely conscious and didn’t eat or drink, we were putting moisture in her mouth with a sponge on a stick. She was not going to come back from that. If an animal was suffering like that, we would’ve had them put to sleep the same day. Why, in this day and age, is it acceptable to let people suffer like that? We should all be able to sign a document which would allow drs to act on our behalf for assisted euthanasia if our qualify of life is severely impacted or you are past the point of no return. It’s so much kinder.

[-]

BonafideBallBag@reddit

To you yes. To the disabled, as seen in Canada/Belgium, it is not.

[-]

SnittingNextToBorpo_@reddit

I have to disagree - it is taboo, as a culture. We're very death avoidant in general and this is too confronting a topic to engage with for loads of people. Though it's in parliament, it's been years and it's on its third reading as I recall - it keeps getting shut out so I would argue the opposite, that it isn't that close to being a reality or anywhere near being 'not taboo'

[-]

Checkers2837942@reddit

Reddit is such a cesspool!! Its taboo for a reason and most of these comments are BOTS!!!! Once self suicide is permitted like it has been in other locations anyone in a hospital bed can plausibly be put down for any reason under this act! This is why its not passed after all these years. Its nice to consider the example above as it seems resonable but what about the man who is in his 50s with kids who suddenly gets a drug to put him down because the costs will be to high for the hospital, or even a grandma who wants to live and has capacity but the hospital doesent deem it neccesery, and the 1000s of others or political opposition who dont align with the intrests of the elite? Suddenly murder becomes legal and easy and it WILL be used nefariously. this is why its not eben passed but it soon will be... be scared

[-]

pullingteeths@reddit

Are these things happening in countries that already allow assisted dying or not?

[-]

Checkers2837942@reddit

YES! These things already happen in hospitals now without legislation! It will be allot worse with it! We need to make the NHS and hospitals in general about HEALTH and healing! Yes its underfunded yes its a crap show right now but we need to put blame on the people running the country for allowing this to happen and to underfund it for YEARS! 99.9% of people in hospital want to get better, we should not encourage making death the only escape of ill health, we should be using all this science and education to better care, enable people to live good lives not just execute them when they become a liability! All you will hear are great stories about how really Ill or old people died together peacefully, advertised, but this is NOT the reality!

[-]

pullingteeths@reddit

People's lives come to an end and there can be great suffering with no chance of recovery. It's not true that 99.9% of people who are old and dying "want to get better", people aren't immortal and everyone dies. What do you say to those people who are suffering great pain every day and know their end is coming and want the right to end THEIR life but you want to deny them autonomy over their own life and force them to keep suffering?

[-]

Checkers2837942@reddit

I understand the desire, there is a small subset of people who yes they want to choose to die with dignity or end the suffering they are feeling, most are elderly that is true, and for these people I think we can all agree that assisted suicide may well be the answer, it is a complex topic but of course they deserve to make a choice for their personal life, and if there is a way to facilitate this then yes I think it could be a net good, however the process that they will introduce will not be this.. and will have much larger implications to the general public than just that small fraction of the population

[-]

worotan@reddit

No, people who disagree with you are not bots.

Why would bots be deployed to give the other side from yours of the euthanasia debate, when there are plenty of people who share that view? In fact, it’s debated in Parliament and in the media.

You really need to stop thinking in cliches, by the way.

[-]

Checkers2837942@reddit

I dont think the average user understand the implications of LLM models, its so easy to set up and push a narrative and reddit has become so toxic and overrun with these types of cheap social directing tools!

[-]

andtheniansaid@reddit

this guy is a bot ↑

[-]

Ok-Coconut88@reddit

What the fuck are you even talking about

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Hyperbolic on many points there.

Without giving much thought, I can imagine a system where, with good palliative care:

99.9%: 2-3 days left; 2x professionals agree.

Few dozen :< 6 months; some sort of medical panel

<10 cases per annum: find life intolerable; judicial review.

[-]

RexWolf18@reddit

There have been literal debates about legalising cannabis too, that doesn’t make it any less taboo. I agree medical euthanasia isn’t taboo here but it being debated in parliament isn’t a reason something isn’t taboo.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

It’s interesting you raise that, as the government’s drug Czar was appointed, and then sacked when he concluded that changes would be good (in spite of the Palace of Westminster being awash with charlie).

Drugs and assisted dying seem to be areas where the people are more ‘progressive’ than the politicians (who fear the gerontocracy and court their favour for votes), and it’ll be interesting to see where the political scales now find their balance.

[-]

kungpowpeanus@reddit

You don't know what taboo means

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

This ‘taboo’?

“A taboo, also spelled tabu, is a social group’s ban, prohibition, or avoidance of something (usually an utterance or behavior) based on the group’s sense that it is excessively repulsive, offensive, sacred, or allowed only for certain people.”

Would you be as good as to point out my, and indeed, everyone on this thread’s, failing?

If you have a definition that falls outside the one above, would you be as kind as to share?

Thanks!

[-]

kungpowpeanus@reddit

Your first comment states that a government ruling on an issue makes it as far from taboo as something could possibly be. This is a batshit, completely backwards thing to say because it is an issue that is SO taboo that only the government, after thousands of years, can decide on the ruling. The right to kill and the parameters of this right have been one of, if not THE most, taboo things in human society.

So, when you pull out the definition of taboo and ask where you don't understand, after claiming something very VERY taboo is not taboo because of a reason that actually proves that it is, in fact, taboo, makes no sense and shows that you're just saying words at random with confidence, as many redditors do

Thanks! :)

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Times change; it was taboo but certainly isn’t now.

Polling shows the UK is firmly in favour of assisted dying.

Also, perhaps dial down the language; it’s doing your argument few favours.

[-]

kungpowpeanus@reddit

'winning' or 'losing' any 'argument' here truly doesn't matter mate, i'm not here to 100% optimally debate people who use words to mean the exact opposite of their definition and then pull the definition and post it without actually using their brain during any of the process. Again, you described one of the biggest most divisive issues HUMANITY AS A WHOLE has ever fuckin had to deal with as being as far away from taboo as it is possible to be entirely because the government is discussing it. This is a stupid thing to say and doesn't make any sense, and proves that even though you can read the definition of a word you can still somehow use it completely and utterly wrong

Thanks! :)

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

But we’re on a UK sub where a question about the UK’s contemporary attitude to assisted dying was asked, and there’s strong evidence to show that UK people now don’t see it as taboo.

I’m not sure why you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about it given the context.

[-]

kungpowpeanus@reddit

Absolutely insane how you can just read all those words and not a single one is understood

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

In all honesty, my eyes did scan it; I wasn’t concerned about a perceived competition and I lost interest in parsing it thoroughly at ‘mate’.

[-]

stayh1ghh@reddit

Cannabis legalisation I'd argue is 'taboo' aswell, that was discussed by the the government and was shot down instantly. Just because the government are discussing it doesn't mean it isn't taboo, it just means they're putting on a show to tell the public 'we're discussing it'. I'll bet my life savings this also, is shot straight down.

[-]

Not-All-That-Odd@reddit

Literally a literal?

Fuck me.

[-]

SebsNan@reddit

This supposed debate has been talked about in parliament for as long as I can remember and is still no nearer being resolved . As a general rule, we don't even like talking about a normal death in this country, let alone euthanasia. Sadly, I think it will be many more years before we catch up with places like Switzerland. If we were all much more comfortable talking about it perhaps it would also help with things like organ donation which is also sadly lacking in the UK.

[-]

juGGaKNot4@reddit

You would think they want to get rid of sick and old people

[-]

Dr_1nking@reddit

Just to clarify, there is not a debate on euthanasia but on the more limited concept of assisted dying. As part of assisted dying, the patient must be already dying i.e incurably and terminally ill with a prognosis of under 6 months. Euthanasia is more broad and can involve ending the life of people with no limited prognosis if they wish for it due to suffering/illness.

[-]

Spank86@reddit

Pretty sure it's also at least the third time it's been looked at and debated in my lifetime at least.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

Yup; looks like, with the right wording, it might have a chance this time though (at least in its least-complex cases).

[-]

J_Class_Ford@reddit

It's not. Thanks

[-]

keepleft99@reddit

That’s only for people with terminal diseases. Not for quality of life decisions. You can’t just off yourself because you can no longer walk, need someone to wipe your bum, cook your food, etc. you need something that will kill you then you can end it earlier.

[-]

East-Substance-8302@reddit

That's such a simplistic way to look at this. "Taboo" is not a binary switch - it's more of a spectrum. Just because it's being debated (great progress - yes), that doesn't erase the complex web of ethical, moral and religious beliefs that have contributed to the sensitivity around assisted dying and made it a precieved taboo in the first place.

[-]

concretepigeon@reddit

I’m 30 and it’s been a common topic of debate for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a time where people have been overly worried about discussing it.

[-]

Kistelek@reddit

Has it been a topic of debate though or, as it seems to me, just something that pops up in the news every time some poor soul with a debilitating condition goes to court to decriminalise their desired treatment pathway? We need a lot of very serious debate, discussion and we need to look at how everywhere else does it and we aren't doing that. We're just huffing and puffin about maybe thinking about looking into it. I am 61 and a strong believer in people having the right to choose a dignified end having lost 2 very close relatives to cancer in a manner that would have appalled them if they'd been awake enough to know, but we really need to look at how we can do it safely in all circumstances. How we don't encourage people to ask for it "to avoid being a burden" and that it is only to bring dignity to people beyond current medical care.

[-]

ItsSuperDefective@reddit

Reading this thread I get the impression that alot of people are conflating the idea of a thing been taboo or controversial with the idea of a debate about it been controversial.

[-]

East-Substance-8302@reddit

I think the answer is that it's less taboo than before, but still taboo for some. I am a similar age and grew up in a fairly religious education system etc and it was definitely taboo. Depends on the circles you move in I guess.

[-]

concretepigeon@reddit

Some people not agreeing with it doesn’t mean the debate is taboo.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

‘Taboo’ and ‘complex’ are different words with different meanings. As we’ll see in the debate/draft legislation, the specific use of words to shield medical professionals and protect vulnerable people will be pivotal in gaining agreement if any changes are to be made.

If Op meant ‘complex’ they should have used that word instead, as the subject is by no means ’prohibited by social custom’ these days (and religion ceased to have relevance for the population at least 20-30 years ago).

[-]

Normal_Hour_5055@reddit

good point, well made

[-]

East-Substance-8302@reddit

Fair point about being precise with words! But saying religion doesn't matter anymore might be a bit of a stretch. For quite a lot of people, those beliefs still run deep, even if it's not the 'norm' now. It's kinda like we can talk about it, but it's still a sensitive topic for some.. which is understandable.. I say this as a non religious person.

[-]

RickJLeanPaw@reddit

I can agree on this, especially if it’s a ‘belief’ and not a practical decision.

Thing is, most people don’t have this belief, and many have had the practical experience of seeing loved ones die.

Those who have had the unfortunate opportunity to see the loved one in the last 48-72 hours before death (when they’ve lost the ability to repeat ‘please let me die’ and just lie there moaning and groaning) aren’t particularly persuaded by arguments that other people’s imaginary friend is going to be miffed at reducing their existence by c 0.01%.

It’s always hard when other people don’t share ‘obvious’ principles, but the religious need to reformulate their objections as appeals to the divine seem increasingly outré (or…taboo).

[-]

dnnsshly@reddit

It's also currently illegal, which I would count as being taboo...

[-]

AlternativeFair2740@reddit

You will rarely find a parliamentary session when it isn’t discussed tbh. It’s unlikely to be solved.

[-]

Cyberhaggis@reddit

My MP sees things differently when I asked her. She thinks "enhanced palliative care" is the way to go, whatever she means by that. If you're just going to drug people into a pain free state, then just let them have the decision to let go before it gets to that point. Absolutely ridiculous position for her to have.

[-]

Marsof1@reddit

Theres being petitions to change the law for 30 years but repeated governments don't want to give control to doctors etc. It's all about British values apparently.

Animals are treated better than humans in this country.

[-]

Fit_Manufacturer4568@reddit

The fear is the “right” sort of people will encourage the “wrong” sort of people to use it.

[-]

pinesinthedunes@reddit

Why are people demanding death rather than better palliative care?!

[-]

pinesinthedunes@reddit

Because in few short years the right to die will become an obligation to die. Given the state of the NHS and generally declining prosperity of the UK the criteria which qualifies someone for help to die will rapidly expand and put all vulnerable people at huge risk. We stopped the world the 'save the NHS' during COVID, it's no longer not that hard for anyone to imagine how quickly expensive life extending treatment and social care will be withdrawn from granny and grandpa when they can just hop in the pod and stop being a burden. We also have a declining birthrate, the number of taxpayers to retirees is falling precipitously, old age will be a luxury the state can't afford. Only the wealthy will be able to afford to live longer lives.

[-]

Be-My-Enemy@reddit

Harold Shipman.

[-]

Flap_flap_flappy@reddit

This, an English GP. One of modern histories most prolific serial killers, approximately 284 victims over 30 years. Apprehended in 1998.

[-]

GurDesperate6240@reddit

Euthanasia can be abused, the person can be guilt tripped into agreeing to die because they feel a burden. Mental health a person with a depressive episode may wish to die, but with correct treatment want to live. People with locked in syndrome were surveyed re quality of life each and every one said they wished to live and be treated if they got an infection such as pneumonia. Fortunately in making such a decision emotion cannot be brought into it, many bad decisions are made when emotions are high.It would be much better for investment into end of live care to improve people’s quality of life in their last days.

[-]

Viking793@reddit

People talk about the politics of it all and worried about the abuse. Then maybe Oregon and Switzerland need to be looked at as when it works, and how it works. Those who are diagnosed with terminal diseases like camcer or dementia always have enough faculties before their deterioration to make that decision ahead of time for themselves. I know I would.

[-]

Demka-5@reddit

It is difficult as I fully agree when in pain /wasted away euthanasia is the best solution but...... there are some greedy people who would push/bully older family members for euthanasia so they can get quick inheritance.

[-]

branflakes14@reddit

Because Britain revolves around liability, not common sense.

[-]

Milky_Finger@reddit

I believe there are a lot of religious and non-religious that sanctify life in a way where it's seen as a blessing above our own right to give it up if we want to. That's the main argument, because a pragmatic society wouldn't do this and just allow euthanasia for people who need it.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

Because, as has been the case in Canada, if your society doesn't have good options for palliative care or financial support for the disabled, a lot of vulnerable people will be encouraged to opt for medically assisted death.

I've been disabled by Covid, and now have ME/cfs. I'm suffering a lot. The NHS do not recognise my condition, and offer no treatments. Benefits and care support in this country are just not good enough either. If you cannot support yourself, you usually need to burden friends or family, which never feels good. I'm lucky to have my parents.

Rather than better funding disability and care support even to the level it was 15 years ago, the government want to fast track assisted dying. This means a lot of people who could keep living with the right support will opt or be coerced into opting for dying. The cynical reason for doing so is that it's cheaper. In modern society, if you cannot contribute to the economy you're a liability that the state doesn't want to pay for. People have value beyond their ability to work, and we should enable everyone who wants to keep living to do so.

That's what's unethical.

I was pro medically assisted dying before I was disabled. Now that I can see how the system works from the inside, and all of its failings, I do not at all trust this or any recent government to implement any such policy in good faith. We need to prioritise living and palliative care, not legal killing.

[-]

Difficult_Cream6372@reddit

I can’t see that being the case. You have the choice to say yes or no. They aren’t going to forced someone into it who doesn’t want it.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

The point is that living with a disability that affects your ability to work is almost impossible, at the very least painfully miserable, for those without family/friends to help, so assisted dying would be offered as an alternative.

Our Government seems to equate human value to earning potential, as well as prioritising profit over people, so a system that allows assisted dying could easily be abused.

[-]

anecdotalgalaxies@reddit

This is an argument to implement it carefully, not an argument to not implement it.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

My point indeed.

[-]

2xw@reddit

You say "our government" as if it's a recent thing, but actually humans have been valued for their contributions to societies since humans have lived in societies. Thalaikoothal and absuke being good examples of this.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Sure, but A) We are civilised, apparently, and part of civilisation is caring for ill members of society and B) Earning potential is not a great marker of what an individual can contribute, for example, those with learning difficulties that struggle to hold down a full-time job, but put in the hours at community projects. Alternatively, stay-at-home parents. They 'earn' nothing, but they're raising the next generation.

[-]

2xw@reddit

I dunno about civilised. We currently expend massive resources in life extension at the cost of (and ignoring) quality of life, pushing folks far beyond their natural lives for no apparent reason. Your second point I agree with wholeheartedly

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

I fully agree, the NHS seems set up to prolong suffering not to prevent it. It doesn't have to be that way in all cases though. For many, better or faster treatment would raise their quality of life immensely.

[-]

jiggjuggj0gg@reddit

No. There is plenty of evidence of ancient societies looking after their disabled people.

This disregard of human life if you can’t go to a 9-5 job is entirely a capitalism thing.

The thing is, governments could make it easier for disabled people who can work a bit but not with a commute, or full time, or have to work around flare ups, but they don’t want to because it would destroy the illusion that we all need to be working 9-5 and that’s the only way the country can run.

[-]

2xw@reddit

And there is plenty of evidence of ancient and modern societies practising sinicide and suicide, as mentioned in my op. Disregard for human life is not only associated with capitalism - communists and fascists have killed just as many people with a casual disregard for human life.

[-]

Exposition_Fairy@reddit

I think there needs to be some legislation in place to prevent others from suggesting that someone should request assisted suicide. It should only be performed if the person explicitly seeks it out themselves. But I think this is quite an extreme assumption. I don't think allowing assisted suicide equates to doctors 'offering it as an alternative' to treatment and support for disability.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Oh I don't mean Doctors would literally offer it, and I don't mean it would happen so explicitly. My concern is that it'd be accepted as the alternative to the suffering, rather than increasing investment into healthcare/support services, which would also reduce suffering.

[-]

gyroda@reddit

Basically, it's the "guess I'll just die" meme.

Doctors won't suggest that you go down that route, but if it's the only option left to you (because the doctors can't/won't do anything) and it looks like you're not gonna get any support from society/the government (scrounger rhetoric, lack of investment in care/social services) it's not hard to imagine someone feeling like they're being nudged in that direction.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Nailed it.

[-]

FenderForever62@reddit

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Yes, you have to opt in. But the implications of having the system in place mean that money isn’t put towards services to help people with those conditions. Palliative care, for example, could see a massive decline in funding, which means people may not get the choices they offer now (such as dying at home, where a hospital bed is set up in your own house and you don’t need to die in hospital/hospice. It may mean with less funding, the only option is to pass in a hospice.)

Retirement homes get even less funding as it’s seen as a lesser option, and a sort of punishment of ‘well you could have chosen to die, but you’ve instead chosen to continue having further care, and now you’re complaining the quality of that care isn’t good - why don’t you just go the euthanasia route?’

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

It won’t be as blatant as someone being led to an appointment while objecting, but there will be subtle and not so subtle pressures and expectations that lead people to a decision they don’t truly want to make

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

They absolutely will. Abusive caretakers, irresponsible doctors and DWP rejecting claims and benefits under the advice to seek medically assisted death absolutely will influence people to opt for dying, especially for those who have mental or cognitive issues or have had to give away power of attorney.

And that's to say nothing of all of the things that contribute to someone wanting to die beyond simply their health: housing insecurity, financial insecurity, an abusive household, medical neglect, lack of mental health support, loneliness.

A yes or no doesn't take into account all of the environmental factors that, if addressed, would make someone not want to die. If we address these things first, across society, then we can talk about people being able to make a choice about their health.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

100% agree, this is exactly my experience. Since becoming disabled with ME/CFS my opinion on this has shifted completely and I now think that introducing a system of medically assisted dying in the UK would absolutely lead to the murder of some of the most vulnerable.

[-]

anecdotalgalaxies@reddit

Have you also had the experience of watching someone die slowly and beg for it to come sooner?

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

Yes I have actually. I have cared for a family member who was slowly fading away because they couldn’t eat or drink anymore. I have also become disabled at a young age and have seen that the government and much of society would rather I didn’t exist than continue to need expensive care, and I don’t want to live in a society that has a financial incentive to kill us rather than invest in research and care for our incurable conditions.

[-]

anecdotalgalaxies@reddit

And that family member begged you for a quick and peaceful death? And you thought it was right that they should be denied and forced to suffer longer? Did it last two years? Did they sob to you on a regular basis for two years that they wanted to die rather than live in their broken body any more? And you thought "it's right that this person must continue to suffer"? If so then I guess we are just very different people.

[-]

Fantastic_Coach490@reddit

I am very sorry that happened to you and I can imagine how horrible it must have been. And at the same time I don’t think creating a system with an incentive to kill disabled people like myself is the way towards less suffering.

[-]

anecdotalgalaxies@reddit

Well I hope you never have to go through it, but if you do, I expect you will change your mind. I understand the need to implement any such system carefully and the difficulties in doing so, but having seen what I've seen, it seems worth it to try and do that well rather than give up.

There are two separate situations. One is when someone is stuck in a fairly long term terminal situation and does not want to experience their condition any more, or does not want to experience it worsening. This is the situation I witnessed for two years.

The second situation is when someone is actively dying and there is nothing to do but wait until something happens like their lungs fill with fluid and they suffocate. This I witnessed for 5-7 days. Throughout that entire time my mum was aware and awake, until the last few hours. I'd always assumed in a situation like this someone would be kept sedated to the point of unconsciousness but that's not the case. We were told they have to limit the sedation because it can cause breathing difficulties that make the experience even more distressing and painful so all you can do is wait and carefully watch for any signs she's waking up, at which point you have to go and beg for more sedation which sometimes takes a while to arrive so she wakes up and asks again why she's still here and when she's going to die. All the time you're watching her breathing change through different types of chokes and wheezes and rattles and seeing her skin change colour. Multiple times you wonder if that sound she's currently making is the "death rattle" you've heard about but when that finally happens, minutes before she finally stops choking, it's unmistakable.

Surely surely surely at least in the second scenario, when it is clear to everyone that death is imminent (they even put a little sticker of a flower next to the patient's name on the board, indicating they are dying) it should be possible to speed things along peacefully and not make them wait days until suffocation or something like that occurs? In the first scenario there are difficulties and nuances but in the second?? It's just clearly unconscionable that we are forcing people to die this way when we medically don't have to.

I am sorry that you are disabled and, having helped my mum navigate the system for healthcare and benefits (and having needed various health and mental health care myself) I do understand how fucking shit it is, how fucked the NHS is, and I understand the suspicion of the government and the fear of them using any legislation for nefarious purposes but it is is just so so so so so so awful to suffocate to death slowly, choking in a hospital bed. We have to stop that. We just have to.

You said you can't imagine what it must have been like. I would remind yourself of that the next time you are having an opinion about it. I mean that only with kindness.

[-]

Mountain-Jicama-6354@reddit

I want to upvote this 1000 times.

People are so flippant about this issue, it upsets me. As if we trust the govt after everything that’s happening/happened. Particularly with covid.

[-]

anecdotalgalaxies@reddit

If you don't want to be medically assisted to die then don't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for others who are suffering worse than you or actively dying slowly.

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

I agree. I'm disabled with a variety of health conditions, including colitis, ME & Long COVID. I'm quite sure that this current government would heave a sigh of relief if I were to be "put to sleep". I'm not going to give them the satisfaction.

I don't want to see people suffer - of course not - but I'm concerned that there will never be enough safe guarding around this. It has already been suggested by some think tank or other that people over 75 should be allowed to end their lives simply for having "lived long enough". It is terrifying & disgusting. But I wouldn't put anything past the Powers That Be.

[-]

Acrobatic_Holiday741@reddit

Why shouldn’t someone be “allowed” to end their own life? Do individuals not have the right to autonomy?

[-]

TheWeebWhoDaydreams@reddit

People are already allowed to end their own lives.

[-]

Toffeemanstan@reddit

They arent allowed to though, they are breaking the law if they do.

[-]

Glaivekids@reddit

Committing suicide is not a crime in the UK anymore, that ended in the 1960s

[-]

Toffeemanstan@reddit

Oh right, thanks for the correction

[-]

Ok_Cow_3431@reddit

which is more taboo than assisted dying, and very difficult for the families as the police will always intervene, taking letters that have been left for them etc for the coroner's hearing.

We have a very very weird view of death in western culture.

[-]

Alternative_Head_416@reddit

They are, but methods of suicide are generally very painful and traumatic, not just for those killing themselves but also for those who find the body/have to deal with the aftermath etc. Allowing people to do it in a clinical setting surrounded by loved ones is surely more humane, if that’s the decision the individual has made.

Not that I necessarily agree with it myself, but I can certainly see where they might be coming from.

[-]

someguyhaunter@reddit

To add onto this, the less... messy methods... are somewhat less successful leading to more pain and suffering for the original victim.

[-]

batteryforlife@reddit

This. Ive imagined countless ways of how to set up my suicide that wouldnt traumatise anyone else, but ultimately it would be messy and someone would have to clean it up when they arent prepared for it. Stick a needle in me in a hospital bed, job done.

[-]

Exposition_Fairy@reddit

Only in violent and/or unreliable ways that are more likely to leave you alive and disabled than actually kill you.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

When there are coercive forces at work, and the person is vulnerable, as every single person in the position of wanting to choose death is by definition, it's not as simple as a yes or no choice.

People should absolutely have autonomy, but that means making sure every other option is accounted for. If the choice is between a system that will neglect the patient, and death, then you privilege the latter choice. If you want to introduce assisted dying, you need to have excellent options for continuing to live too.

[-]

Acrobatic_Holiday741@reddit

I don’t disagree with the majority of what you are saying.

What I struggle to square with myself is, as you’ve stated, those that are wanting to choose death are inherently vulnerable. For me this is taking away their autonomy. Who are we to say that? What if they’ve thought long and hard about it and the cons of staying alive outweigh the pros?

[-]

randombubble8272@reddit

To be fair you can kill yourself at home any time

[-]

Acrobatic_Holiday741@reddit

You can’t really though. Downing some OTC or prescription meds isn’t going to do it. So you’re left with the gruesome methods, and with these survival instinct is an incredibly strong thing to overcome. Not to mention the risks or surviving with brain damage, like this: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/my-son-left-brain-damaged-17448133.amp

[-]

randombubble8272@reddit

I agree for young healthy people but elderly people or the severely disabled who would be more likely to avail of this should have access to stronger medication no?

[-]

No_Sentence1451@reddit

My dad did have very strong anti-pain medication near the end, but it was strictly administered by nurses. Even if he had access to his entire prescription, he was in no condition to figure out what would be a lethal dose vs something that his body would potentially violently eject. As I understand it ODing on pills is often a horrible, messy, painful thing with no guarantee of death. Granted probably more likely to be lethal for the very elderly than for someone young and able-bodied who will take the pills, pass out, vomit them up and live (feeling horrible).

Having seen how much it's possible to suffer even on very strong opiates, I very much want to ensure I never end up in a similar situation. Had no idea about Canada's situation, trying to encourage people to end their lives is vile.

I do wonder how many people who die of 'natural causes' (which could even be a sudden, strong heart attack or stroke), how many of them suffer, and how many people truly have a peaceful end. Horrible accidents are always possible, but to know I wouldn't have to potentially go through what my dad did would be a relief.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

People are already having their autonomy infringed by inadequate systems of health and social care that do not allow them to live comfortably, participate in society, and access health treatments that could improve their quality of life.

I absolutely respect people's right to choose, but under the current system there is no way whatsoever to safeguard against disabled, chronically and terminally ill people having their autonomy taken away by being railroaded towards assisted dying due to the lack of access to assisted living. Let's address that, first, otherwise an awful lot of people will be forced to choose death rather than suffering that could be easily treated. Let people be able to choose to live well in the world, with sufficient support.

True autonomy requires a fair choice.

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

Individuals certainly do have the right to autonomy, and I completely understand why someone might want to end their lives. And they do. No one is stopping them from taking that personal decision. Suicide is no longer criminalised which I do agree with, actually. I've even been there myself. Every day is a struggle for me. I just can't see this law not being abused once it's brought in, and is very likely to be a slippery slope to "getting rid of awkward people".

[-]

LakesRed@reddit

The notion of it being criminalised baffles me. What are they going to do, put your corpse in jail?

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

I know! But it wasn't decriminalised until the 1960's. Suicides were also prevented from being buried in consecrated ground. Not very compassionate! Thankfully that's all changed now.

[-]

Acrobatic_Holiday741@reddit

I’m sorry to hear that, and I do understand. I do understand what you’re saying when you state this could be open to abuse.

I don’t think it’s true that nobody is stopping people from taking their own lives. We’ve basically gotten rid of drugs that are ‘easy’ to overdose on. The LD50 of OTC or prescription drugs is extremely high. Anyone wanting to kill themselves in this country are essentially left with gruesome methods.

Yes we’ve decriminalised it, but we’ve also setup the commonly held narrative that those looking to end their lives must be ‘not in their right mind’. To me that is much more sinister. With this narrative we don’t have to listen to their reasons or logic, they can just be dismissed.

[-]

Anaksanamune@reddit

It has already been suggested by some think tank or other that people over 75 should be allowed to end their lives simply for having "lived long enough". It is terrifying & disgusting.

Why?

It's their life and they should be able to choose their ending.

If you think that, then you can make the choice for yourself to keep living, but denying someone else that choice is no different to being pro-life in the abortion debate.

[-]

anchoredwunderlust@reddit

I mean if we are going to start at this age and acknowledge that many are not able to live well at that age then retirement should certainly need to be much sooner to let people have those years back no?

[-]

Anaksanamune@reddit

The problem with that is that the retirement age is budgeted on the basis of people on average living for a set number of years, if people make it past that number there is not enough funds.

If that amount for example is 20 years, and someone knows for certain they want to pass at 75, by all means give them a pension from 55, but you can't give everyone a pension at 55 in case some people go onto being 95, and you can hardly offer people one realistically at 45 on the agreement that they die at 75 as they might change their mind.

So not sure how you solve that...

[-]

Pepsi_E@reddit

Completely agree. I think free will to live should also mean free will to die.

My grandmother is reasonably healthy in a lot of ways but it fairly disabled due to arthritis- she's 89, and to put it bluntly, at the stage of her life where she just sits around waiting to die. She has said she wants to go, personally I'd be pro people making those decisions for themselves in those circumstances.

[-]

Jlloyd83@reddit

How do you know for certain it’s their decision though, and they aren’t being pushed into it? Especially people suffering from dementia and other illnesses that effect their cognitive abilities.

[-]

AgainstThoseGrains@reddit

Because in a society where people can sign a box to end their life, there's a serious risk that in our modern world where the state would rather do the bare minimum when you're no longer a financial contributor that attitudes will shift to coerce people into ending their life to stop being 'a burden' on things like services.

[-]

mingy@reddit

I bet most people in Canada didn't think the MAID slope would be slippery.

It was not. Don't believe the lies you read.

[-]

172116@reddit

"How dying early will give your grandchildren a brighter future!"

This is one of the things that really freaks me out. You just have to look at the mad schemes people on the ukpf sub relate their elderly relatives coming up with to try and evade care costs and iht. I can imagine a future post "how do I persuade my granny that the council won't take her house unless she goes through with euthanasia?".

I'm also pretty concerned about what happened in Canada, particularly with regard to those with chronic disabilities.

[-]

sobrique@reddit

I think I sort of agree, and sort of don't. To which I agree entirely in principle - anyone can choose to commit suicide, and having the choice to do it 'gently' and in a planned sort of way ... I think is good.

But at the same time, I think a lot of people who want to cease to exist... aren't in the right mental state to make that decision.

I think that's a difficult thing to balance - I mean, if you're suffering enough, then it's almost inevitable that you will also be somewhat depressed.

But depression symptoms are insidious, and self reinforcing, and ... well, you're inclined to give up far earlier than you otherwise would.

I truly believe that's a tough line to walk, and that I think we need to really get on top of the frankly execrable mental health care in this country before we should be considering that.

Even if I do agree with the basic principle.

[-]

fleapuppy@reddit

You can elect to never use assisted dying, while still supporting the right of other people to access it.

[-]

Kevinteractive@reddit

Canada already started being lazy about their options on offer, because there's this one great solution to every problem. The reality is that within a generation that'll bleed into funding as a whole, and that will be the only option offered for more and more things. Then into innovation e.g. cancer therapy. Bottom line is, if there isn't an absolutist stance on saving life, then the repercussions won't stay in the bubble where you think it's justified. If you mind your own business today, it'll become your children's business tomorrow.

[-]

fleapuppy@reddit

That’s a slippery slope fallacy. I don’t believe for a second that cancer treatment will be deprioritised because we allow terminal people a dignified way to die

[-]

Kevinteractive@reddit

I don't believe in slippery slopes Naming the fallacy doesn't actually argue anything. Fallacy fallacy™ See? Real fallacy. In any case, you won't see exaggerated consequences like "TEN THOUSAND LABS SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF NO FUNDING". It'll just be a gradual cooling off as spending priorities shift. It'll all sound like a good idea. Free up beds, free up funds for more immediate problems than old people and rare illness people dying etc. etc. etc. If you go to your doctor and their only option isn't making you better, then the path of least resistance starts to look appealing to everyone, and the culture will shift to accommodate it. When it happens, it won't sound so horrific to anyone, and you can't complain that a miracle cure could have been invented, because it was just never invented, too bad.

[-]

Kevinteractive@reddit

I don't believe in slippery slopes Naming the fallacy doesn't actually argue anything. Fallacy fallacy™ See? Real fallacy. In any case, you won't see exaggerated consequences like "TEN THOUSAND LABS SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF NO FUNDING". It'll just be a gradual cooling off as spending priorities shift. It'll all sound like a good idea. Free up beds, free up funds for more immediate problems than old people and rare illness people dying etc. etc. etc. If you go to your doctor and their only option isn't making you better, then the path of least resistance starts to look appealing to everyone, and the culture will shift to accommodate it. When it happens, it won't sound so horrific to anyone, and you can't complain that a miracle cure could have been invented, because it was just never invented, too bad.

[-]

turkishhousefan@reddit

What is terrifying and disgusting about it? Not dumping on you, btw.

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

Well...my parents are both over 75 & still have much to offer the world. "Hello parents! You've lived long enough now so off you pop before you can spend our inheritance!" Can you imagine it?

[-]

Outside-Contest-8741@reddit

But that's not what would happen. It would be your parents choice, not anyone else's. If they wanted to do that, then they should have the freedom to do that, because it would be their choice.

You're acting like people would be forced to do it.

[-]

LakesRed@reddit

Some would be coerced or guilt tripped. It'd just take something like constant moaning from the child about what a burden the parent is.

[-]

Outside-Contest-8741@reddit

You really believe all of the professionals involved would sign off on it just because the children moan about them being 'burdens'? You actually honestly believe that?

Of course it's not going to be that easy. There will be a tonne of restrictions in place, and most likely, it won't even be free. It'll be something you have to pay for, like in Sweden or Switzerland or wherever it is that has this already.

[-]

LakesRed@reddit

I honestly believe it could have an influence. Not necessarily be the absolute main factor nor that it means we shouldn't even consider it. Just that it needs thought, discussion, safeguards, and will have negatives as well as positives. The world isn't as black and white as Reddit.

[-]

someguyhaunter@reddit

Why would i imagine that?

Are you going to?

No?

Then there would be no effect on the law for your parents would there?

You seem to think that just because something is available to those truly suffering that everyone has to take part, why are you so convinced people would en masse be asking their parents to get euthanised?

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

I'm only talking about the suggested over 75's clause, for elderly people who aren't necessarily suffering but feel they have lived long enough. In my opinion - and it's only my opinion - that's taking things far too far.

[-]

someguyhaunter@reddit

Yeah, but shouldn't the choice be in their hands? I've known plenty of old people who can't function how they want, not due to 1 serious issue, but many minor bodily issues which can be simply named as becoming old. These old people are mentally sharp but so fucking miserable as they can't do anything and they don't want to, they have no one left to be there for them emotionally and all their friends and family have died. They literally want to die but can't as their issues aren't actually harming any vital bodily functions.

The law would be brought in mainly for those people if not solely.

You keep thinking that everyone is suddenly going to be asking for their perfectly healthy 75 year old parents to go to the clinic when they hit 75.

[-]

Fred776@reddit

That's not what it's about. I hope your parents don't die a horrible death from cancer but if they do I promise you, you will change your mind.

[-]

TobblyWobbly@reddit

But the reality is that people do and will suffer. My brother died of cancer. He was in hospital, then in a hospice. He suffered, despite the "palliative care". And not giving people the option to end their life medically leads to some taking their own lives in ways that destroy the lives of total strangers. Just ask any train driver.

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

My condolences. I am so sorry for what your brother went through. Palliative care & support needs to be a heck of a lot better than it is.

[-]

Fred776@reddit

There is a limit to how good it can be though.

[-]

Toffeemanstan@reddit

Palliative care is actually pretty good in this country, its just that palliative care itself isn't whats needed or wanted in lots of cases.

[-]

OldManAndTheSea93@reddit

This is the problem with euthanasia right here. Very well put.

[-]

denseplan@reddit

It is a problem with poorly implemented euthanasia.

There is also a problem with needlessly prolonging pain and suffering.

Both these problems can be solved with a good policy. It won't be perfect, nothing ever is, but trying to solve the problem is better than simply giving up, condemning countless people to spend their final years in agony.

[-]

LordBoomDiddly@reddit

I'm in favour of it for the elderly, looking after people with dementia is obscenely expensive and achieves nothing since it is not curable. Same with any other terminal illness. My parents have talked about just deciding to die at a certain point in life if the system allowed it, because they have lived their lives and don't want to burden anyone anymore if they become too feeble to do the things they want.

[-]

back_to_samadhi@reddit

We need to prioritise living and palliative care, not legal killing.

How about we do both? Governments don't need to tunnel vision one pathway.

[-]

Redditisabinfire@reddit

If you were actually dying, you'd see that palliative care in this country is really good.

The system of hospices is great, but even before that, palliative nurses attend your hime with high strength painkillers, allowing you to have far less pain and enjoy those last few weeks when you are mobile.

I've taken care of someone with Co morbidities. Diabetes, heart condition, cancer, colostomy bag, mobility issues, arthritis plus others.

Disability care was hit and missed, but as soon as the cance was late stage, the care was fantastic.

Trust me, if you were actually dying, you'd know that palliative care was actively promoted, and there are options to stay at home, hospital, or hospice.

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

I am not so sure. I spent my father's last week running round pharmacies to access just in case meds. There was mix-up with paperwork due to it being signed off in late afternoon so we had opiates but couldn't give as district nurses need a booklet of coupons to administer to protect them from accusations of over-dosing.

The district nurses are incredibly stretched. Think it was 3 teams of 2 for an area including most of North Lanarkshire. You called and if by chance, teams were in Lanark, it would be an hour for them to get to you. Reasonable and they were all lovely, dedicated people. But hour a long time if sitting with someone dying.

A friend had it much worse. Her father was sent home to die on a Friday, in rural area on Easter bank Holiday. Five days before everything in place. He couldn't physically eat so was starving to death and pain meds a must. And just not there. Like many things, it is a postcode lottery dependent on council services and rural provision patchy.

We also lucked into palliative services. Because my father had family looking after him, we were left to it. I came over to do switch over and called an ambulance as pretty sure he was falling off the cliff. The ambulance crew wrote a brutal letter to the GP about lack of "infrastructure" for someone in last stage organ failure and TBF we did get hospital at home very quickly. But a lot of people wouldn't have called ambulance out and if not in the system, those last weeks would have been bad.

[-]

Redditisabinfire@reddit

It is a postcode lottery like everything else but compare it to what other countries have, we have ot well.

Can it be better, yes, but at least we have it and are trying to make it work.

O also support the choir to end your life, but I would also like people to spend a few hours volunteering or donating to these local services so they there when you need the. We aren't taxed enough to cover everything. If you want it like Norwich countries we'd need higher taxes or a mythical oil well.

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

We do and we don't. NHS/council services being such a monopoly means provision of alternative services is limited outside of basic care needs. And if you can get NHS services, well then it is fantastic and we were lucky enough with my Dad. My partner's Mum is another matter and really struggling there. So better than elsewhere if in a good postcode, worse if you are not. And if you think leaving someone to die from stomach cancer with no service provision or pain meds for a week is acceptable because it might be better than elsewhere (not sure where) then that is a concern.

I can't support or donate to the services outside the roughly 10% of my salary that goes to the NHS and the 5% that goes to the council in council tax. I mean I work in government offering another set of services. We took 33% funding cuts for austerity, laid of 20% of staff and learnt to better use what we had though end users got a necessarily degraded service. NHS ring-fenced and looking at cost management and prioritisation of money, I do think they might have benefitted from the need to do that deep review as well. Though it looks like the nezt austerity round will be focused on NHS too which could be a good or a bad.

I have my own charities to support financially which are not ones the government commits to pay for but still deliver necessary services for people. And timewise, better to focus on the actual overtime my government job requires to deliver those public services. The idea of taxation and national community service too to the great holy cow the NHS frankly makes me very uneasy.

[-]

DameKumquat@reddit

Mostly, but even that is struggling. Hospices have long waiting lists, because obviously they only get a vacancy when a resident dies. My MIL needed a hospice but the only one in 100 miles which could meet her needs had no space, so she had to stay in a very boring hospital for 4 months. She finally made it to the hospice, which was lovely, the week before she died.

Even nurses visiting homes have issues. My mate had MND. Lasted 6 years, but by the last 2 years was on a ventilator, using EyeGaze software to communicate, etc. He coped with that, but wanted his wife to ensure he wouldn't die by suffocation. It got to the point where he had a chest infection, couldn't cough, ventilation was insufficient, and he was dying. No way would he live more than another few days. The palliative care nurse came but didnt want to up his dose of morphine 'as it would shorten his life'.

So his last two days were in pain because the nurse wouldn't give more drugs because she was too worried about being in trouble for shortening his life further.

[-]

Redditisabinfire@reddit

There is a fine balance in pain management between decreasing pain and rendering someone unconscious.

If she'd given your friend anymore, he would have been unresponsive and likely killed him. She was there to reduce his pain, not commit euthanasia. It's not fair to expect the nurse to give your friend a lethal dose, just because you don't like seeing him in pain.

Death is painful. No more pain, means they are dead.

It does depend on where you live, but then again people only seem to donate in some areas when they need one. I've been donating and volunteering since I was child for my local hospices. As you never know when family or yourself will need it.

Lots of hospices have wonderful cafes or charity shops or organise other events to raise funds. Please consider supporting yours.

Tbh your comments have come across as you expecting everyone else to do everything and nothing about what you can do to make any of the situations you have complained about better.

I'm bored of people always me me me, when they know full well what they can do to help. They'd rather just complain.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

But when assisted dying is on the table, what guarantees are there that safeguard that level of palliative care?

And also, I have a chronic condition where I am suffering a lot every day, but my condition isn't technically terminal. Why am I allowed to suffer without care? What happens to all of the people like me when assisted dying comes in? If the choice is between suffering endlessly for years and years without treatment or relief, dying seems a good option. If we had adequate care, it wouldn't be.

There is a huge gap into which an awful lot of disabled people fall, where there is 0 state support, and the second assisted dying is introduced, a lot of people will choose it because it's their only option. We need to do better.

[-]

Exposition_Fairy@reddit

I feel like these are two separate issues.

The fact that assisted suicide seems like a better option than the care offered by the system for chronic non-terminal illness is not a problem with assisted suicide, it's a problem with the system.

But do I think everyone else should be denied the right to a pain-free death because making it available could also make it seem like a better option to non terminally-ill people? No. I think that would be quite selfish.

At the same time, the system must change to provide better support to anyone who is chronically ill, terminally or otherwise.

I think what makes this quite difficult to implement in practice is that suffering is not felt universally. What is suffering to one may be the norm to another. So how do you know where to draw the line? What is an 'acceptable' level of suffering to receive care and/or assisted suicide?

I think the bottom line for me is that people should be allowed to die on their own terms if they decide their life is not worth continuing.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

Yeah, so we need to fix the disability support, healthcare and palliative care systems before bringing in assisted dying. If we bring in assisted dying under the current state of things, it will be rife for abuse and serve as an excuse to not better fund care and health services.

I support people dying on their own terms, but do not trust this government or our institutions to implement the proper safeguards, and have first hand experience that our treatment of the sick and disabled in this country is woefully inadequate. Let's fix those FIRST before giving the state and doctors the power to end lives.

[-]

Exposition_Fairy@reddit

I hear you, but do you feel the level of change that needs to happen to the NHS and social support systems is feasible under the current government within the next 20, 30, or even 50 years?

I personally don't have a lot of faith in the system changing in that time, maybe even beyond, short of a revolution taking place.

You're absolutely right in that in an ideal world, those things should change first. But the reality is that they probably won't, while making assisted suicide available will help a lot of people who are suffering at the moment and will never see the system change during the last painful years of their existence.

This type of legislation is a slippery slope, I agree, and yes, it can be abused. At the same time, not legalizing assisted suicide does not mean that the support systems will get better in any way. That's more so why I think these issues don't correlate.

If anything, doesn't it mean it could be easier to push for better social support systems if people are actually considering suicide as an alternative? I struggle to imagine a government that would encourage people to kill themselves instead of offering social support. I don't think it would remain in power for very long

[-]

someguyhaunter@reddit

I support assisted dying, but a question not relating to my opinion on it and purely hypothetical... If you could look into the future and see that better care would never come to be (for whatever corrupt reason), would you still be against assisted dying?

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

It’s nowhere near as good as it should be, very few people have access to hospice care and the district nursing teams that administer a lot of the end of life meds are stretched incredibly thin.

[-]

Tammer_Stern@reddit

I think the gap is where someone is effectively dying from dementia in a care home. Their quality of life is very low and the care home resources are inevitably stretched and taken up by more animated residents.

[-]

TheKnightsTippler@reddit

My nan died last year and her palliative care was awful.

[-]

bored2death97@reddit

I don't know where you're getting information from about Canada, but the criteria for euthanasia is pretty stringent and is not being pushed as an alternate to care.

[-]

Jlloyd83@reddit

I’m surprised how quickly we’ve gone from ‘we must protect the vulnerable at all costs’ during Covid to ‘assisted dying is a good thing actually’ in such a short space of time. Anyone who thinks it’s going to be restricted to the terminally ill after in their final weeks is being hopelessly naive, especially given how assisted dying has been implemented in Canada.

[-]

mingy@reddit

Because, as has been the case in Canada, if your society doesn't have good options for palliative care or financial support for the disabled, a lot of vulnerable people will be encouraged to opt for medically assisted death.

The stories you are reading about Canada are largely fiction. They are either people pushing a narrative (i.e. give me a cheap apartment, etc), or narcissists looking for publicity. These people would not qualify for MAID.

[-]

Swotboy2000@reddit

I hear this a lot, but the current proposal is to allow assisted dying for those with a 6 month or fewer prognosis. So those with early stage cancer wouldn’t be eligible, the disabled would be eligible, the healthy elderly wouldn’t be eligible etc.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

I hope that, if it goes through, the correct safeguards are put in place, and that those people can find relief. I just really worry about the expansion of such a system once it goes through, given where we are now regarding disability.

[-]

anotherMrLizard@reddit

Ideally we should offfer high quality care for those who need it and assisted dying for those who want it, so that people with life-changing health conditions actually have a meaningful choice and are not made to feel like they're being forced into ending their own lives.

Unfortunately the likelihood of this happening anytime soon seems increasingly remote.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

Yeah this is what I was trying to say. If you don't have good options for living, you're coercing people to die.

I think a lot of people on here think that freewill exceeds everything else, when in actual fact a person's environment and the experience of pain can radically influence someone's decision making. Let's address those, and then talk about medically assisted dying.

[-]

anotherMrLizard@reddit

Agreed. There's definitely a productive discussion to be had about assited dying, but at the moment it feels like it's just a distraction from the more relevant discussion about the terrible state of our health and social care systems (as well as our equally terrible societal attitudes toward the elderly and disabled).

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

It might be a distraction to the average person, it's not to the ones suffering. They want that choice, no one should take it away from them

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

No one is taking away a choice that isn't even there yet. We need to have a frank discussion about having that choice on the table when there are so many people in this country suffering and dying unnecessarily due to failings in the health and social care system. The suffering of sick and disabled people due to the inadequecies of our current system are the scandal we should focus on above all else. Instead they're ignored.

Let's prevent preventable deaths before enabling assisted death.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

How much do you think someone terminal with less than 6 months to live will have their life improved in those 6 months lol?

It will get worse, and worse and worse. Its disgusting you want someone who is dead in 6 months to suffer through that indignity

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

How many sick and disabled people are you ok being coerced into dying against their will so that terminally ill patients get to opt out sooner?

I want terminally ill people to have the choice to die with dignity, but I am telling you bluntly, there is 0 way to do that currently without throwing disabled people under the bus. It's disgusting how little you care for the lives of people already abused by our inadequate health care system, and think the only people suffering are the terminally ill.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

I do have a disability but again, that means nothing unless my disability is leaving me with less than 6 months to live.

I would wholeheartedly agree with you if it was just an assisted dying for people that wanted it. That is not what this is. This is for dying people.

I live in constant pain like a quarter of the population, again this isnt for us.

Its ONLY for people with less than 6 months to live.. why should they suffer

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

So what about all those who have had enough of their suffering? Just continue to suffer in agony because some people dont agree with them being allowed to end their life.

Its bullshit. Freewill to determine when you die DOES exceed everything else. It is the ultimate choice that is in your hands. No one elses. When it's in someone elses hands, then I'd agree that assisted suicide is wrong.

Like yourself, peoples will to live is fucking strong. If someone wants to end it, that is their choice, no one elses.

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

I can tell you from inside the disability system in the UK, there is absolutely no way to safeguard that the choice is "in your hands." Doctors, families, bureaucrats will rampantly abuse the system regardless of the wishes of patients. How many vulnerable people are you ok with dying against their will, so that some people in a privileged position to choose can opt out of living?

It's bullshit to suggest that individuals in a position to be choosing death are somehow immune from coercive forces.

My will to live isn't fucking strong, I just want basic healthcare not a lethal injection. Fix the healthcare system, then let's talk about euthanasia after.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

Do you have less than 6 months to live? It's not for you. It has nothing to do with you, but I would fight for you to have that right instead of your last months rotting away in a hospice

[-]

jiggjuggj0gg@reddit

I agree with you completely and I think people who haven’t been disabled will never ‘get it’.

Everyone likes to think they care about the disabled, but ‘disabled’ doesn’t just mean in a wheelchair. Plenty of disabled people look absolutely fine; some have illnesses that are still not understood and there are no treatments or accommodations for.

We’ve had decades of governments bashing disabled people as lying scroungers too lazy to work, so the ’well, you look fine and you can walk’ disabled people get lumped into this category. They’re just ‘not trying hard enough’ or work shy and a burden on society. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of doctors who believe this about all kinds of completely genuine, measurable illnesses.

So these disabled people get the option of a) being forced into work they can’t do healthily and inevitably get fired for not performing well or being absent too often, or b) jump through endless hoops to try and access the pittance that is disability benefits and live a miserable life where everyone is constantly watching them to make sure they’re not having any quality of life, because that should be earned through working.

When you’re inherently and openly despised by society for something out of your control, of course people will look for a way out. Suicide rates amongst disabled people are already high.

I absolutely think people with terminal illnesses or living in intolerable pain should have the right to die. I just simply do not trust governments to not use this to encourage the ‘scroungers’ to off themselves so they don’t have to support them.

It always comes down to the basic idea that the only point of a strong economy is to improve the lives of people in the society. But that has got completely lost somewhere along the way.

[-]

TsavoTsavo@reddit

UK Law will be for people with terminal illness only

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

This hasn't been the case in Canada, not sure what you're speaking to here.

[-]

Specialist_Bunch5311@reddit

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html

Amongst others.

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

Yes, a procedural error. It's sparked revision in the processes. This isn't someone dying that should not have.

[-]

Specialist_Bunch5311@reddit

No, just someone being told they're disabled so maybe consider us killing you yeah?

I'm not great with doctors getting to offer people straight up death to people who are disabled. Especially in this economy, with this level of disdain for people who have to lean on the state for care.

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

Jesus, it's not some malicious coercion happening.

Brill! Let's quote things and not give a source. That'll affirm the validity of my claims! Forget peer reviews, methodologies, sponsors of surveys, or anything else that matters. Let's just put things between quotation marks to assert authority.

[-]

Specialist_Bunch5311@reddit

Oh fuck off lmao. I didnt realise I was putting together my dissertation. Here you go anyway!

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2022/annual-report-2022.pdf

Page 31.

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

You think providing the source of something you randomly quoted is equivalent to arranging your dissertation? Moreover, that quote is not from the document. The data is. Did you ChatGPT that and then find a source? Or did you take some sensationalized journalist not understanding how to report data?

Anyways, this doesn't suggest what you think it is. It's a self-report from individuals who feel like their condition is a burden. This isn't necessarily about coercion or externally applied pressure. Furthermore, the report doesn't offer any qualitative context to that category of "Perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers" to even suggest what you're implying.

If you were to submit this as evidence in a submission for a publication, this would be highlighted for misrepresentation of data.

[-]

Specialist_Bunch5311@reddit

Im going to humour you because I'm bored at work, but that quip about my dissertation was comic over exaggeration.

The original quote is from The Guardian, the data is from a government report.

I dont really know what you think I'm implying. All I'm pointing out both with the quote and the data is that there is an not insignificant amount of people who think that part of the reason they want MaID is because they are "a burden...".

You and I are welcome to read into that what we will. Personally I think its indicative that people are at least somewhat accessing MAiD because of societal pressure or guilt.

I found an article about MAiD, I quoted what I considered to be an interesting point about how many people who use it seem to think theyre a burden on either friends, family or caregivers. You asked where the data was from and I sent you a link. Again, I'm not here putting together an academic paper. I'm arguing with some random person on Reddit.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

There have been some deeply worrying cases in Canada

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

Procedural errors that haven't resulted in anything problematic beyond revision of such processes.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

Nope, really serious really alarming cases of vulnerable being coerced

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

Nope, that's quite the narrative rewrite.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

You think I'm rewriting the case of Rosina Kamis, who had an assisted death but left a note stating that she would have been able to bear the suffering caused by her conditions if she'd had the right support?

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

Are we talking about that case now? This is news to me; not really good faith, is that? I wasn't referring to that case.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

That is just one example of the kind of case that deeply concerns many people with regards to introducing assisted dying. You think we should ignore those cases like you choose to? Pretend that they don't happen and that Canada has a perfect system and nobody is ever failed?

[-]

LakesRed@reddit

This.

It's certainly not taboo, it's being talked about a lot, but it's a debate because there are so many situations where someone would opt to end their life for the wrong reasons, for example because they've been made to feel a burden.

[-]

AgileCondition7650@reddit

If you are against medically assisted dying, no one forces you to do it. But decent people are pro-choice. It's our duty to give this option to people who really need it.

[-]

Individual-Meeting@reddit

I'm with you, I used to be all for it but for various reasons now I just think the risk of people feeling pressured or being actually coerced into it is just too great.

[-]

presentindicative@reddit

I agree with every single word of this and it mirrors my own experience exactly (except that I’ve had M.E for over 20 years). If you are disabled and need support the state just sees you as a problem and would rather you didn’t exist. If we legalise assisted dying it will only be a matter of time before the criteria are expanded to include all kinds of other cases beyond the terminally ill. It will interact with an NHS that is chronically short of cash and a state that sees anyone who wants something from it as a problem to create a situation that is truly horrific. But the concerns of the disabled, as usual, will be overlooked.

[-]

pokepokepins@reddit

Yes! I've always thought that it's strange how it's a taboo topic in many developed countries. We've progressed quite a lot in the area of LGBT+ and body size acceptance but it seems like topics about death are still not talked about sufficiently.

[-]

Ant_and_Ferris@reddit

It's not

[-]

negras@reddit

It's taboo because it goes again medical ethics and the idea that medical professionals are there to save lives not to end life.There is also the idea that this is a slippery slope in that how do you stop this being abused either by professionals or family members who for example in the case of an adult who has no capacity.

[-]

CptChristophe@reddit

Freedom of choice! You should be able to do anything you want as long as you’re not hurting anyone else.

[-]

Mysterytoyou@reddit

After watching my mum and other family members die from cancer, then I think everyone should have the choice to end their lives in their own way. It’s not everyone’s way but if I knew that I was dying and had no chance of a cure coming along, then I’d prefer to go out like that than to have my family see me suffering as that is an image I can never unsee, my mums last few weeks.

[-]

Available-Evening491@reddit

Probably religion.

[-]

BlokeyBlokeBloke@reddit

Because it involves death. Death is a taboo subject in most cultures.

[-]

Additional-Gap-2308@reddit

My late Father was begging to die for years.

It was fucking tragic.

These assholes debating the "ethics" of assisted dying etc are virtue signalling assholes causing others to be in pain day after day.

[-]

Trivius@reddit

I think we should examine the Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) protocols in Australia and use something similar.

The prerequisites for this include a Psych assessment and the opinions of two independent VAD certified doctors. It's a lengthy process but definitely positive for a lot of people.

[-]

starlinguk@reddit

That means that people with dementia won't be eligible. Isn't there a possibility to write up a document saying if something like Alzheimer's happens you want to have a way out? I have two of those from my parents (the Netherlands).

[-]

CyanizzlusMagnus@reddit

People with dementia don't have the faculties to make a decision like this, they shouldn't be eligible if they've deteriorated too far

[-]

starlinguk@reddit

Which is why people should be able to make this decision beforehand.

[-]

vj_c@reddit

You're right, they don't - but plenty of people have advanced directives about when to withdraw medical care ("living wills") - I'd like to be able to write one so I don't have to suffer through dementia whilst I'm still thinking clearly.

[-]

mr-no-life@reddit

As someone with a deep history of dementia on both sides of my family, this notion terrifies me. After seeing energetic loved ones reduced to dribbling breathing corpses in a chair who think their own wife or husband is a burglar trying to attack them, I sure as hell want to be put down before I get to that stage. Forcing dementia patients to live out the condition until they have died many times already is horrifically cruel to them, and incredibly traumatic to their families.

[-]

Magic_mousie@reddit

The problem is, that's exactly when they should be eligible. My Nan bit a nurse who was trying to help her. She alternates between confused to the point of terror and just absent anhedonia. All control of bodily functions has gone, from eating to toilet business.

And she's not even the worst off in the home.

Please, for the love of all the gods, kill me if I end up like them.

Best thing is, once her house money runs out she'll have to go in a home that's even shitter than this one. We don't have £4k a month.

[-]

sobrique@reddit

Honestly I think a whole load of cognitive impairments should disqualify you.

That's part of why I'm uneasy about the whole concept.

Someone who's depressed and wants to end their own life ... may not be in the right mental state to safely make that decision any more.

And I just don't know how you solve that, because anyone who's 'coming up to end of life' probably is depressed to some extent, just as a consequence of the circumstances, and it'll never be easy to tell the difference.

[-]

BigGarry1978@reddit

There is literally no way advanced directives for assisted dying will ever be implemented

[-]

Scratch_Careful@reddit

Netherlands drugged a dementia patients coffee and killed her while her family held her down while she resisted but because she signed a consent form 6 months before the doctors who did were acquitted of murdering her.

No means no when it comes to sex but not for euthanasia apparently.

[-]

ImABrickwallAMA@reddit

I’m all for assisted dying, but I guess the implication with dementia and alzheimers is that even if you are of sound mind, and you sign a waiver stating that you want to go through the process if you have alzheimers or dementia, at what point are you considered too far gone and at what point can your next of kin make that decision?

[-]

Trivius@reddit

So I don't think VAD protocol includes advanced directives, sadly, but it would definitely be positive step for the UK to have something that allows for it

[-]

SolitaryHero@reddit

This is why I’m not so worried about the slippery slope stuff. On the whole the NHS is pretty good (at least in my personal and professional experience) with making sure procedural stuff is water tight when it comes to issues this serious. Sometimes painfully so, but this is a situation where lengthy bureaucracy will be absolutely crucial.

Pinch of salt obviously with the state of the service at present!

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

Do you think we have loads of spare psychiatrists and psychologists knocking about doing nothing?

[-]

Trivius@reddit

These patients would be getting assessed anyway if they're expressing suicidal ideation, telling staff they want to die etc. So they wouldn't be using resources that they aren't or wouldn't be already.

Allowing assisted dying would overall lessen the resources needed by a lot of those who are stuck in slowly deteriorating.

Also, it would be psychaitrists for assessing, not psychologists in this case.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

These patients would be getting assessed anyway

I'm guessing you've not had much to do with mental health services recently

[-]

Trivius@reddit

I work as a ward nurse in Oncology and previously in renal and I can tell you that people that tell staff they want to die are definitely getting assessed

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

Ah you specifically meant cancer patients, yeah fair enough, they do, mostly.

[-]

Trivius@reddit

I didn't specifically mean just cancer patients. At a ward level, patients in my experience get seen by psychology if they're expressing ideation or potential for self harm.

I'm not sure if you have much professional experience in healthcare and I can understand that you would feel the pressure, especially in mental healthcare because there are long waits for many patients, especially at an outpatient and community level.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

I'm a specialist nurse. The inpatient experience is not representative, most people receiving NHS care are outpatients and the mental health support available is very sadly woefully lacking in many many cases.

[-]

Trivius@reddit

That we can agree on, but I did mention that I was focusing on inpatients.

VAD in Australia for the initiation and assessment portion is done as part of an inpatient visit.

At any rate, I still think that there is a valid argument to allowing for euthanasia for patients.

[-]

UnusualSomewhere84@reddit

There are definitely valid arguments. Philosophically I’m not opposed, but in the reality we currently have to live in it’s just too dangerous.

[-]

Trivius@reddit

I didn't specifically mean just cancer patients. At a ward level, patients in my experience get seen by psychology if they're expressing ideation or potential for self harm.

I'm not sure if you have much professional experience in healthcare and I can understand that you would feel the pressure, especially in mental healthcare because there are long waits for many patients, especially at an outpatient and community level.

[-]

LazyCap8092@reddit

He sounds fed up but has all his faculties as you put it, so he shouldbe put down by a doctor? Listen to yourself

[-]

Pedantichrist@reddit

Firstly it is not taboo, we are openly discussing it.

There are however nuances worthy of discussion before a blanket shift in policy.

In general, it is widely agreed that assisted dying is a good thing in principle, but there is a fair concern regarding some outcomes of legalisation, none of which are really about whether assisted giving itself is a good thing.

Firstly there is a fear of abuse. Want your inheritance soon? Grandma has dementia and is costing you money and time, well she does not have capacity, and you have power of attorney, so let’s knock up a TEP form fast and then bump her off, before the care home mills her dry.

Secondly there is the chance of heart argument. My mother asked to be euthanised when she had meningitis almost 40 years ago, and is still going strong. The pain was unbearable then, she had other major health issues, and it made sense to her at that time. This is an extreme example which can be legislated around, but it is not a clear line to be drawn in a huge murky area.

For most cases it is fairly clear, but any legislation absolutely has to avoid scope for mistakes and abuse. It is very easy, as someone who works with end of life patients, to see how bumping them off could become the norm in homes if we were not careful.

[-]

kittikat__@reddit

Just watched my Dad slowly pass away. The first time they told him he can’t be helped, he asked for euthanasia.

I spent almost 12 hours with him yesterday, he couldn’t talk anymore and he was struggling with breathing a lot. The nurses said he couldn’t feel the pain at all anymore but I’m not convinced.

I wish he could have gone on his own terms. He didn’t want to go through all that suffering….. and I didn’t want to see him go through it. 🖤

[-]

AgreeableNature484@reddit

Imagine letting the Eugenics brigade loose with assisted dying. Fingers crossed for any disabled people in that type of society.

[-]

hiveechochamber@reddit

I'm sorry about your grandad.

I think the majority of people are for euthanasia in terminally ill cases but are worried if it's legal it could be abused. For example, people struggling with mental health, homelessness, being elderly- if those were allowed or even encouraged to be killed and painted as a good thing to do. Look at the ethical concerns euthanasia has brought to Canada.

I am for it for the terminally ill but I can see it becoming a slippery slope.

[-]

Mischeese@reddit

Because most people have never encountered a long slow death. The closest most people get to it, is having a pet put to sleep.

I’m 52 and all my Grandparents died in the early 1980s. They all dropped dead of a heart attack in their late 60s/ early 70s- thanks to smoking mostly. And that was really common.

There does seem to have been an uptick in discussion about it in the last few years as the population ages and people are living longer. A long slow death from dementia or multiple cancers is now more common and families are having to spend a huge amount of money keeping loved ones cared for.

I know I would far rather go out like my Labrador did, rather than die a long painful death. So I do hope it’s a thing by the time I reach old age.

[-]

Tao626@reddit

I remember my grandad dying of cancer. The last two weeks, he was just unconscious in a hospital bed doing nothing but letting out cries of pain.

And that's """just""" two weeks. There's people who are suffering through similar for months or years, not to mention those who are conscious for the duration with absolute zero quality of life just for the sake of being alive.

How anybody can see somebody like that who isn't coming back and think "yea, this is fine, let's wait it out" blows my mind.

But we better be against it or the government will be coercing people into having a final sleep because they've got an achy toe.

[-]

NibblyPig@reddit

It's just about where you draw the line, because it's not the government coercing people directly, it'll be people that want to end their life much earlier than is necessary to save on bills and make sure they can pass more money on or simply not turn into a burden.

[-]

mr-no-life@reddit

I think an elderly individual not wanting to be a burden is a perfectly legitimate reason for them to end their own life. Even if we have nothing, the one thing almost all of us have control of in our life is our own existence, and I pity those of us that want to end it yet can’t because of their own fragility. If I was fed up of life I’m perfectly capable of jumping off a motorway bridge. Your bedbound grandma is not.

[-]

NaniFarRoad@reddit

There is palliative care to avoid terminal suffering like your granddad did - there is a lot that can be done to avoid agonising pain of late stage cancer and similar.

[-]

BillingsDave@reddit

So I think the issue is (and I don't agree with this argument but I can see how someone would make it)

Government is responsible for healthcare costs.
Government healthcare officials would functionally control access to euthanasia.
Government has a financial interest in killing people who become expensive.

I'm not advocating this would be an actual issue. I am (funnily enough) very pro-choice when it comes to Euthanasia.

However, there's definitely a perverse incentive one might perceive. Where I live, it's a defense to a homicide charge, and generally the offense isn't prosecuted.

And you can get into "iffy" situations where euthanasia is offered to say, people with depression or in financial hardship while disabled (a la Canada) - I believe euthanasia is reasonable, but it's not a good treatment for depression.

Issue is, medicine has got really good at preserving life, but not that good at preserving quality of life or the brain.

I definitely do agree that there are circumstances where you'd not let an animal keep suffering where we do with humans, I just think it's a difficult line to draw absent someone signing advanced care directives while their brains work (and sadly they generally don't get around to same)

[-]

Serberou5@reddit

My wife has just lost her mother and the same day her brother swooped into her flat and stole all the jewellery and the bank card. He went through ever nook and cranny and even said 'lets find the money' while rubbing his hands together. It's been less than a week now my wife has been frozen out and all her possessions are on Facebook. The point is that I'm sure that callus bastard would quite happily pressure her to end it all because 'her COPD was too much' so he could get the money.

[-]

Kurai_Kiba@reddit

Death is a bit of a cultural taboo. We tend to just not talk about it because well, it’s a sad subject. We would prefer to not think about it as it reminds us we are going to die one day, everyone we love is going to die one day, some of those we have loved have already died and now this conversation is bringing up those memories.

But like others have said there is a once in generation debate coming up. Those that align against tend to be the religious because the bit they wont tell you out loud so much is because they beleive its against gods plans for people to chose the time of their own death. When you say it out loud you hear how silly that actually sounds.

So they will obfuscate with some semi coherent and relevant points. Usually it’s a “oh we dont mind the terminal ill doing this” but give it a few years and people who would be a burden on the system will be getting encouraged to suicide themselves so they don’t spend the family inheritance on care home bills and such.

[-]

The4kChickenButt@reddit

We have an ageing population combined with over half our government rely on said population to keep them in power, and that same goverment have a lot of sway with press that then post stories about how awful it is to push a bias narrative and then we end up with a taboo subject.

[-]

Ok-Search4274@reddit

Canadian experience with MAID is that once approved it becomes popular. 13K+ assisted deaths in 2023 out of 330K total deaths.

[-]

plantsaint@reddit

My concern is that it will be used to replace social care. As a disabled person waiting for social care, it is taking a while and I know I am lucky to get it.

[-]

EyeSignificant7388@reddit

Yawn so fake

[-]

Leather_Let_2415@reddit

People say that bad families will bump off their relatives or convince them they are a burden so they get more inheritance.

I don't see an argument for not letting terminally ill people do it personally. Who am I to say you have to suffer?

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

Unfortunately pressing the button yourself doesn’t prevent it from being not actually your own desire — that’s how abuse and coercive control works.

[-]

Leather_Let_2415@reddit

I just don't see how I wouldn't want that right if I get dementia or something when im older.

[-]

mbrowne@reddit

The problem with that is that dementia should probably remove the option, as a legal decision cannot be made.

My father, who had Parkinson's Disease, and developed dementia from that, had always said he wanted to be allowed to die when he "couldn't wipe my own arse". The problem is that by that stage, he also couldn't take the decision.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

But he already made that decision? He made that decision before he got to that stage, yet unfortunately he still was left to get to that stage

[-]

Signal-Spend-6548@reddit

Because he is still him. He didn't stop being him. You cannot read his demented mind. He could have changed his feelings on it. Hell, the dementia might even be blunting the pain or embarrassment of having someone wipe his ass.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

Well you obviously havent dealt first hand with dementia.. like do you not hear your point? The mans mind is so far gone he wont even mind constantly shitting himself.

My point being someone with dementia will make end of life plans. They HAVE to. If they have decided once they dont recognise their kids, or when to go to the toilet, when to eat they should have the CHOICE to end their suffering.

Just answer this question, if a loved one of yours had 2 months to live and was in extreme agony and wanted to end their pain. You dont think they should have that option? Nope, sorry, tough it.

[-]

Aubergine_Man1987@reddit

And what if he then says no just before he's put to sleep? Do you ignore him as he is mentally compromised and therefore can't make a decision, or stop the procedure and ignore his preexisting wish to die if he had dementia? Consent should be required at all stages, and unfortunately people with advanced dementia cannot consent

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

Well going by tgisblaw the man is dead in less than 6 months, you want to keep an advanced dementia sufferer around to spend their last months in fear anger and pain lol?

To try be reasonable with a pro lifer... id presume, since dementia is a disease that takes a while to dissolve your brain, that people would make an end of life care plan.

If they didnt make one knowing what was coming, sure, let the family keep that "person" around.

No one on this planet would choose to go through advanced dementia given the chance to end their life before it destroys who they are.

And again... WHAT RIGHT DOES ANYONE HAVE TO TELL ANYONE WHEN THEY CAN END THEIR LIFE.

[-]

mbrowne@reddit

The problem with that is that a person has to be able to say "no" at any stage. You can always change your mind.

[-]

Leather_Let_2415@reddit

Let's say I create my own test that if I fail, the dementia is so bad I would want to die?

I need to fail it three times in a row lets say? There are easily better ways of doing it than making them go through every stage.

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

I wasn’t commenting on that.

[-]

Leather_Let_2415@reddit

Ok

[-]

Signal-Spend-6548@reddit

I am very supportive of social safety nets. The problem is that if state assisted euthanasia is an option, those who do NOT opt for it become a "drain on the system". We create a literal financial incentive within the state for people to choose death.

Why not just decriminalize suicide and make it illegal for life insurance to refuse payout for it?

[-]

SeparateEmu3159@reddit

I don't see an argument for not letting terminally ill people do it personally. Who am I to say you have to suffer?

This is the one that gets me the most. I've also seen with two grandparents what happens when people are dying of old age and their bodies just start failing them. One had regular strokes and showed no signs of consciousness apart from the occasional spell of rapid breathing and grunt, the other was incredibly weak, unable to eat properly which led to horrible pneumonia, and barely responsive to the world around her.

In both cases everyone agreed it was just a matter of time. The staff withdrew fluids, withdrew food, and just came in occasionally to move them a bit. And just waited for them to die. How is this not considered euthanasia? It's just as conscious a decision, and why is that somehow better than giving them something to drift off and go peacefully? No, we'll just let their body slowly shut down because it has no resources left to sustain itself.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Thing is, I have a disability that means I can't work. A lot of my life is spent in pain, but thanks to the support of my family and wife, I also have lots of good days/weeks/months and joy in my life. I absolutely feel that life is worth living and I wouldn't not choose assisted dying.

However, if like many disabled people in this country, I relied on benefits, if I relied solely on NHS care, I would not only be in a far worse condition health-wise, but I wouldn't be able to afford the things that make my life livable (somehwhere warm to live, a vehicle, special foods and cooking equipment).

That's the issue. The system is fucked for disabled people and many feel suicidal. We need to work on that and offer more support for living. Instead, I fear the 'support' offered to end the misery would be assisted dying, whereas better healthcare alone would make life livable for many.

[-]

Swotboy2000@reddit

It’s not assisted suicide that’s up for debate though. It’s assisted dying for those with a prognosis of 6 months or fewer to live, to spare them the indignity of a slow painful death if they so choose. What’s wrong with that?

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

There's nothing wrong with it at all, but if somebody wished to live for those few extra months, the healthcare/social support is simply not in place to make them comfortable. It worries me that people would feel pressured into choosing to die, purely because our system is so fucked. Basically, exactly what I said, but in a short-term sense.

Also, this thread is discussing assisted dying in longer-term scenarios as well, I was responding to that.

[-]

Swotboy2000@reddit

No, this thread started with

I don’t see an argument for not letting terminally ill people do it personally. Who am I to say you have to suffer?

I’m curious, have you ever cared for someone who had no hope of pulling through? My grandfather wasted away at home after a c. duff infection, going through intense pain. My father-in-law couldn’t die at home because he was on aggressive chemo for a cancer we knew was unbeatable.

There may be a small minority that feel pressured and for those we need some guardrails to prevent it, but for the vast majority we have the opportunity to provide them dignity in death.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Yes I have, that's why I'm so pro-assisted dying. I also saw how hands-off the NHS were during the whole process and that scares me for those who are terminal, but still want to make the most of it before they have no QOL.

Thanks for telling me your experiences, but I never said I was against it. People should be able to do whatever they want with their own life, of course, but I'm afraid it would be considered 'the only answer'. I'm worried it would silence public discussion about funding more robust palliative care (as an alternative for those that would prefer it over assisted dying).

[-]

jordsta95@reddit

I always feel like this argument is quite flakey.

Maybe I'm underestimating just how evil people in this world truly are, but there surely can't be that many monsters in the world that would manage to force someone to kill themselves, someone who is family, just for some money.

And should these few bastards deserve to be the ones which dictate how thousands of other people get to spend their final days?

[-]

Ok-Sail-9021@reddit

Partially due to the way it has been used as a eugenicist tool to dispose of disabled people in Canada. Horrendous

[-]

charlouwriter@reddit

Because it will mean that disabled people who don't want to die are pressured to do so. This is already happening in countries like Canada. Supporting assisted dying is incompatible with disability rights. Plenty of disabled people have written about this - have a search.

[-]

2xw@reddit

You're claiming that your right to not feel social pressure trumps my right to choose whether I live or die. Can you justify this?

[-]

Double-Cricket-7067@reddit

this 100%

[-]

behind_you88@reddit

> Because it will mean that disabled people who don't want to die are pressured to do so. This is already happening in countries like Canada. Supporting assisted dying is incompatible with disability rights. Plenty of things will come up if you Google search about this

If you read the articles you've googled instead of just the headlines, you'd see that it isn't happening at all.

A hospital in Canada made an error in their process, so asked if someone wanted Euthanasia in and the person said no. They were then obviously not euthanized.

[-]

NaniFarRoad@reddit

"Here's £400 to live on for a month, or euthanasia - sorry, that's all we can offer you."

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

This is not happening in Canada.

[-]

172116@reddit

I think you should read The Atlantic's article on it.

I'd also point out that the Canadian veterans affairs agency sacked a case worker for inappropriately attempting to talk clients into assisted dying - one person claims that in their case it was in response to them asking for a wheelchair ramp to their front door. Given the state of disability assessments in this country, I'm not sure I fancy us risking it.

[-]

Competitive_Alps_514@reddit

Except it doesn't mean that at all, but that claim does demonstrate the OP#s point brilliantly as to the problem here.

[-]

St3ampunkSam@reddit

Except it is happening in places with assisted dying so yes it does

[-]

Competitive_Alps_514@reddit

No it isn't, at best there are some scare stories and they mostly originate out of Canada. Opponents don't rail against Switzerland or Aus.

[-]

St3ampunkSam@reddit

Which is why there is debate, it can work but the systems need to be in place to protect the vulnerable. These system will only be put in place if people voice concerns that this could happen. These systems will not be put in place if everyone assumes that this won't happen (what you are doing)

[-]

Competitive_Alps_514@reddit

Hang on, you started with stating it as a fact that disabled people would be pressured and now you've changed position and somehow want to make out that I'm making an assumption.

[-]

St3ampunkSam@reddit

No that's was the original comment which was not mine and I don't really agree with. I'm for assisted dying in same caaes, but I'm also concerned it will be used to kill undesirable and to make unemployment figures look better (by killing the unemployed and homeless)

[-]

Competitive_Alps_514@reddit

That isn't concern, it's a bit nuts frankly.

[-]

St3ampunkSam@reddit

Well is it though, the government has said it wants to remove disablity benifits, and push disabled people who are currently signed off from work into work. The Tories also wanted to criminalise homelessness and in America States can now arrest homeless people for being homeless. This is all while the social state in is being reduced and wealth inequality is growing leading to more and more people being in quite bad poverty. At what point does it become the only option that doctors can give, either be miserable poor and unwell or be dead.

You can call it extremist but that's an ad hominem argument, and Ad hominem arguments should always be ignore. I am welcome to hear logical reasons why it won't happen and I don't think it will be how it starts, but it is logically plasable and that concerns me.

[-]

Competitive_Alps_514@reddit

Firstly it hasn't and secondly you are now conflating multiple issues together.

The only mention of ad hom arguments is you. Again you demonstrate the issue with this topic. Opponents more often that not don't argue on facts, they fabricate conspiracies and invent extreme 'what-ifs' to appeal to emotion rather than state a reasoned argument. Faux "concern" is the same attempt to be emotionally maniuplative

[-]

BigGarry1978@reddit

But this proposed bill wouldn’t included disabled individuals? You’d have to be terminally ill with less than 6 months left to live

[-]

SnakeDoc01@reddit

Whilst I broadly agree with what you’re saying. I do however think it’s down to the individual as to what they want to do with their lives. I would 100% prefer to not be here if I had a debilitating illness and I wasn’t the person I used to be. Removing myself before becoming a burden on family, friends and an already underfunded system of care is what I would choose.

I think if it ever does come into place, which I hope it does, then it would have quite stringent guidelines and policies in place so that people aren’t getting bumped off Willy nilly.

[-]

charlouwriter@reddit

"I would 100% prefer to not be here if I had a debilitating illness and I wasn’t the person I used to be. Removing myself before becoming a burden on family, friends and an already underfunded system of care is what I would choose."

That's internalised ableism - not judging you, as we all have some internalised ableism from growing up in an ableist society. But take it from someone who's lived with debilitating illness since they were 13 - life can still be worth living if you're disabled. But only if disabled people have proper support in terms of healthcare, benefits and a support network. Being a disability ally not only improves the lives of disabled people, but also means that if you ever become disabled, you might not be suicidal.

[-]

this_is_theone@reddit

If life is still worth living for someone disabled then they just wouldn't choose to end it no? I'm struggling to see the issue tbh

[-]

jiggjuggj0gg@reddit

I think a lot of people who haven’t experienced disability don’t understand that most disabilities don’t have to be debilitating.

I have an illness that means I get flare ups and my immune system is compromised. I could absolutely work if we didn’t live in an insane culture where if you have three instances of absence in a year you get fired, or if we weren’t all being sent back to the office to consume as many germs as humanly possible.

Luckily I have savings but I have no idea what I’m going to do when they run out because the NHS can’t/won’t do anything, and I would be deemed fit to work. But I cannot get a job that can properly accommodate illnesses like these (believe me, I’ve tried).

It’s also horrible seeing the relief that people have when they find out I don’t work, but don’t get disability benefits. For some reason if you have enough savings or have a family to support you it’s a-okay, but if you dare use any state money specifically for this purpose then you’re a lazy scrounger.

The way disabled people are treated in this country and the general attitude towards them is disgusting. I absolutely believe we should have a right to die if we are terminally ill or in significant pain or really, really want to; but the only reason I would want to in my situation is because of the stigma and exhausting stress of any kind of state support.

I can absolutely envision a kind of “if you can’t be bothered to get off your bum and work, and you’re actually ill, why haven’t you killed yourself yet?” line of inquiry towards disabled people.

[-]

SnakeDoc01@reddit

I’m talking about a disease or illness which either reduces my mental capacity to the point I am no longer the person I was or, something which slowly reduces my abilities over time with the ultimate prognosis is no chance of survival. Then I’d rather go out on my terms as myself before it got too bad. I possibly didn’t make myself quite clear in my original comment. It’s not about internalised ableism, it’s about it being my choice.

I’ve had a very full life and I’ve achieved everything I’ve ever wanted to do. So I don’t feel as though I’d be missing out on many things apart from family. Im already at peace with death, so if it ever got to the point where the end had to be moved up ahead of schedule, then I would be quite ok with that.

[-]

TsavoTsavo@reddit

The UK law is only for people with terminal diseases exactly to stop this sort of thing

[-]

Ok_Journalist_2289@reddit

Because alive people pay taxes.

Dead people don't.

[-]

Grouchy-Way171@reddit

When it comes to elderly folks in poor health, there’s actually a lot of support for euthanasia out there. But the ethical debates really kick in when we start looking at other factors, like mental health versus physical health. Are we, as a society, okay with allowing people who are deeply depressed to safely choose to end their lives? If we are, why should this only apply to the elderly? People in their 30s can be just as devastated by depression. Are we going to force them to suffer until they get older, or do we extend the same mercy to them. (There’s a documentary about a young woman in her 20s from the Netherlands who made this choice, and it got a ton of attention.)

And what about people who are mentally healthy but have physical limitations from an accident or something they were born with? For many, living life in a wheelchair isn’t something they want to face, while others adapt and even thrive. Is that enough of a reason to ask a doctor to help them end their lives?

Then we have those who feel like they’re a burden to their families. How easy is it to manipulate someone into asking to end their own life? We don’t really have any studies on this, so it’s hard to know how often it happens. Are we okay with these decisions happening every so often?

And let’s think about other illnesses. Imagine your grandma, 70 years old, just diagnosed with dementia, wanting to make sure she can pass away peacefully before the disease takes away her ability to recognize her kids. But for any medical procedure to go ahead, she needs to give informed consent, and that’s tough to get from someone in the later stages of dementia. If she can’t express her wishes clearly, what do we do? People change their minds, right?

These are the kinds of tricky issues where conversations tend to get stuck. There are a lot of layers to this whole process. Personally, I believe in giving people the option to end their lives with dignity and on their own terms.

[-]

Left_Satisfaction_94@reddit

Yeah, I think Esther Rantzen is trying to push the debate into the open recently, she is part of the assisted dying clinic and are apparently getting MPs to reassess laws around it at the moment think this is still ongoing though haven't heard much more than that recently.

[-]

Most-Hamster-4454@reddit

The only groups the subject of euthanasia upsets are religious idiots

[-]

orangepeelqueen@reddit

We always talk about quality of life and that letting our pets go sooner is the kinder option, and even say sometimes the cost of treatment is too much and not to try. But we do our absolute best to keep people alive at every cost, even when they are in the most horrendous condition and past the ability to even advocate for themselves, to the point of traumatizing their family as well. It's insane.

[-]

palmwinedr1nkard@reddit

It isn't a taboo subject really. It's been a fairly major topic of discussion for years.

[-]

anchoredwunderlust@reddit

Well quite a lot of disabled people are very vocal about it being pushed forward at a time where so much help with mental and physical help is being cut back for disabled sick and mentally ill because many feel that they’ll be pushed into dying due to being considered a burden after having benefits and pip cancelled and services cut back.

This is already a problem in the countries which have implemented it namely canada

[-]

Sugarpuff_Karma@reddit

Who says it's taboo? It's a very current debate topic. Did you mean why isn't it legal? Because it's a very complex matter that will require legislature changes and pubic votes to say the least.

[-]

not_the_1_who_knows@reddit

I heard a comment not so long ago on the radio where they said something like having the right to die can easily turn into having a duty to die. This made me stop and think that it needs to be thoroughly thought out first.

[-]

royalblue1982@reddit

My nan said a few times that her immobility, lack of sight and pain makes her think if she really wants to carry on.

Then she had a big health scare and was suddenly desperate to pursue every possible avenue of care. She very much didn't want to die.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

Which is why people should have the choice. The will to live is strong, if you have decided you are done, you are done.

[-]

My_sloth_life@reddit

Isn’t that the point there though, this person’s Nan thought she was done, but then when it came to it, she really wasn’t. What if she had said that she wanted to die, but later changed her mind? Possible at a point she wasn’t fit to retract it herself?

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

I think the pro lifers here are missing the point. This law is for people that are dead in 6 months. You can not change your mind about that. What you should be able to do is die in dignity at a time and place of your choosing. I cant fathom why anyone is against what people do with their own life.

And in your point, lets pretend the law applies to that persons nan... so shes been given a prognosis of less than 6 months to live, which means she has a terminal disease that is quickly eating away at her. It's got the point this woman can no longer even think for herself. You think at that point that nan, or anyone, is going to change their mind and decide to ride out their last couple of months?

[-]

My_sloth_life@reddit

Yes I think some might. Death is the ultimate emotional call, the majority of us try to stay alive for as long as they can and most of us would find taking a suicidal step very hard.

It’s easy for us to sit here and think logically about what the likelihood is of someone making a life choice like that but when the time comes plenty of people will act emotionally and not rationally.

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

I think people against it should talk to people with less than 6 months to live. I've talked to many in my old job, it's clear what decision a lot of people want to make at that stage. Extremely clear.

But regardless of what someone wants to do, the choice should be there. I understand peoples worries but it truly is insane people dont want other people, who are dying, to have that choice to not suffer. Its disgusting

[-]

Sad-Yoghurt5196@reddit

Because it's a slippery slope. Personally I'm in favour of it as someone who is disabled, and probably will want the services of Dignitas before I naturally expire.

But I can see the argument against it, given the way the government and corporations in the UK treat citizens. There's already a system where elderly people get shunted to homes that deliver anything from poor to awful quality of life, and the systems in place to make sure abuses don't happen, fail on a regular basis. If those people could be shunted into a coffin rather than a home, by legal means, then that's likely where we'd end up. A system open to abuse, or even just a system where malpractice is frequent, and consequences are low. Never attribute malice to that which can be attributed to incompetence, and all that.

The UK is just not the place for it IMHO, our systems are too broken and poorly maintained, and there's too much corporate interest in any new systems set up here, for me to have any faith in it not being abused. However, a charity or body that funded private trips to Switzerland for those who can legally provide consent, to hasten end of life for terminal conditions, I would support. My dad lasted more than six years after being diagnosed with MSA, and it was painful for him to fade away like that, wasting away to nothing before his body finally gave up. Thankfully we had the support of Dorothy Hospice nurses, who were amazing, and really helped in the final few weeks, but he was a proud man, and his dignity suffered, which in turn hurt his spirit and changed him into something other than the man he was.

[-]

Kingofthespinner@reddit

Because we still pander to the weird god people.

[-]

ApprehensiveCarpet2@reddit

Because the last time it was on agenda we fought the Germans in WW2.

[-]

RaspberryJammm@reddit

Some disability rights groups are against it.

I have a disabling chronic illness and there's people in countries where assisted dying is legal who can get approved for assisted dying on health grounds but not approved for disability benefits!

I personally think people should be given more security with housing, social care and disability benefits before we can have assisted dying as people will choose it as a result of systematic/institutional failures.and austerity.

[-]

ILoveBuckets@reddit

I hope they change the Law as the day I can't wipe my own Arse then that's it for me.

[-]

KingOfTheHoard@reddit

It's nothing particular about the UK. It's like universal healthcare, gun control, and gay marriage. It's one of those things where every country in the world acts like it's divisive and momentous until it's done, and then nobody sane wants to go back. In the future things we take for granted as moral now will change one country at a time until every country in the world will look back on us as if we were barbarians.

[-]

stuaxe@reddit

The law of unintended consequences.

If it becomes socially acceptable to do a thing, and that things has benefits for other people (your family's time, finances and/or emotions)... it becomes very easy for that thing to become a new social norm.

If you get diagnosed with a horrible progressive disease, you may think you want to end your life to simply protect your dignity and reduce your suffering... but when you realise it has all these side benefits for your loved ones, you may feel compelled to make that choice 'for their sake'... This may seem perfectly fine (it's their choice so what's the deal?)... but suppose people start taking their own lives en masse at earlier and earlier stages of a disease... suddenly their exists a social pressure to conform... and eventually a person's loved ones may view them as selfish for 'clinging on to life' rather than doing what 'Greg's husband did' when he was diagnosed.

It might seem unfathomable since we live in a country where people are generally cared for right till the end... and in most people's minds, euthanasia is just about easing the suffering of people right on their death bed's. But trust me, social norms change... and people

[-]

queen-bathsheba@reddit

I don't know the answer, but am glad that at last we will have assisted dying, if the bill passes in parliament

That might start to break the taboo. I'd love to see a survey of how much 80+ year olds enjoy life, I think they don't but euthanasia still too taboo.

[-]

Smart-Hippo-8522@reddit

Lots of people feel it’s wrong.

[-]

Hot_Landscape_7375@reddit

Because it's a complex moral issue

[-]

Imreallyadonut@reddit

Because enough of the country take religion seriously enough that we have to take the opinions of people who believe in fairy stories onboard when making laws.

[-]

Randomperson3029@reddit

I don't really get it. We allow for the family to decide to turn off life support if there is no hope of survival without the machine but if a person is sick where they will have a long drawn out maybe painfully death we don't.

These are both very similar imo

[-]

That-Opportunity-940@reddit

Why are you in such a hurry to kill your relative?

[-]

knighty1981@reddit

your grandad doesen't want to die, he's mobile enough that if he really wanted to die he could end it

[-]

suspiciouslights@reddit

Everything is taboo in the UK

[-]

SingerFirm1090@reddit

Because the current unofficial system works well, without the intervention of the law.

If someone is in hospital and near to death, the medics make them comfortable, by supplying enough morphine to kill them, with the full knowledge of the family and patient if they are still aware of their situation. No one get charged with anything.

The law will cause some families to 'encourage' Granny to 'do the right thing' to get their grubby mitts on her house and savings.

My personal fear is to be euthanised and as I'm drifting off, watching the TV, it will be announced tha cure has been discovered for whatever I have.

[-]

CoffeeIgnoramus@reddit

Reddit hates nuanced answers, but I think you have a lot of different issues at hand.

You have pros:

Dignity
No pain
Prolonging the inevitable with not quality of life
And many other reasons...

You have cons:

Someone perfectly capable of recovery ending their lives (I'm thinking about depression)
People using it to kill people under the cover of euthanasia for many reasons
Misdiagnosis / not correctly categorised as someone who should be able to end their life.
And many other reasons...

Personally I'm pro euthanasia with well thought out laws and barriers to avoid as many mistakes as possible. But Someone suffering to the very last knowing there is nothing but laying in bed waiting months or years to die isn't right. But I can't say I don't see the other side. We've seen what people do in this country even without this in, imagine if they could cover it up with this excuse.

[-]

Glad-Feature-2117@reddit

I completely agree. Aged 18, in medical school interviews, I argued very much in favour. Now, with over 20 years as a doctor under my belt, I'm reluctantly against, as I don't think any safeguards can be robust enough, particularly given the mission creep which has happened in countries which have legalised it. Plus, I wouldn't want to have to sign forms to agree it/prescribe the medication myself, so I wouldn't want to oblige my colleagues to do so.

[-]

SurlyRed@reddit

I tend to associate opponents of euthanasia with religion yet you've made no mention of this.

In your opinion, is there a large proportion of opponents who are not religious?

[-]

eXa12@reddit

quite frankly, i hear the "but its all religious opposition" line used to silenced disabled people's concerns way more than i hear any actual religious objections

[-]

SurlyRed@reddit

I note I haven't received a straight answer to my question.

[-]

eXa12@reddit

no, religious opposition is not a large proportion of UK based opponents of UK Gov euthanasia proposals

your question was entirely in line with the now well established propaganda line claiming that there is, as a way to dismiss disabled people's concerns about the implementation and why it's being pushed so firmly when the failing social support structures (that are already driving disabled suicides up) are subject to proposals that are intended to make them worse

[-]

Mosyk@reddit

I imagine because religious groups are not very prominent in UK politics. It's always been an ethical debate rather than a religious one.. most people in the UK are not religious at all.

[-]

CoffeeIgnoramus@reddit

I think there is a religious one too.

[-]

LakesRed@reddit

Nuance, on Reddit? Not just taking one hard-line side and downvoting everyone who shows any hint of sympathy for the other? Get outta here!

[-]

CoffeeIgnoramus@reddit

Being a redditor is a confusing existence.

With the same response on different days, you can be a god amongst mere redditors on one day and the next you're the dumbest low-life alive.

[-]

PurpleEsskay@reddit

The thing is though the cons can mostly be addressed with strict rules around the whole process. E.g No, you can't be euthanised for depression.

It should also be impossible for the whole 'family guilt tripping' thing to happen as well. It's really not a simple case of someone saying they want to go, and a doc agreeing. There's multiple steps of review by multiple independant people, groups, etc.

The first step should be eligibility criteria. If you arent terminally ill, in severe pain/suffering etc, that immediately is a no. If you arent independantly judged by at least 3 separate professionals with no affiliation to eachother that you are of sound mind and capable of making that decision, you also arent elegible.

In addition to that you could enforce at least multiple requests. Require anyone wanting to do this to formerly request it twice, at two different periods (e.g require a 4-6 week waiting period), and require it be video'd, with a professional there to discuss it both times, and build up a report of the reasoning, and no family may be present for any of this.

As part of the request, the family is not allowed to be involved in the decision making process. If it turns out that grandma betty is being coereced, a doctor will first explain to her that she can tell the doctor thats the case and it is not put down as the reason, instead they tell the family that there was not a unanimous consensus, or that they don't meet the mental capacity requirement.

Add in oversight boards, bans on any form of family intervention, etc and you've got a pretty damn robus system.

[-]

Scratch_Careful@reddit

The thing is though the cons can mostly be addressed with strict rules around the whole process. E.g No, you can't be euthanised for depression.

Literally every country those strict rules have been expanded and the scope for acceptance has been widened.

We arent blazing a trail here, we have seen what has happened in other countries and scope creep has happened in every single one to the literal applause of these pro euthanasia activists.

[-]

starlinguk@reddit

It shouldn't just be about "they're going to die soon anyway". Someone who will live, but has decades of an awful life ahead of them, should also be able to opt out of life. And I don't just mean people with physical pain. If they have severe mental problems that are making their life hell, and it has been proven there's nothing that can be done about it, it should be possible too. And I know it's possible in certain countries that allow assisted dying.

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

Mental health is tricky. But 20-30% of people with depression don't make a full recovery and some don't recover at all. And the services available are sticking plasters. I agree on your other points but chronic depression is a life sentence and not easily treated.

[-]

anecdotalgalaxies@reddit

Having watched my mum pass away recently, I can only assume that anyone who opposes assisted dying is completely blinded by religion or has never seen anyone die slowly.

[-]

ApolloLoon@reddit

I find it completely baffling that the same people who want to ban smoking because saving lives is far more important than personal liberty are now coming out in favour of letting the NHS put people down like dogs.

[-]

Extra_Mycologist3385@reddit

Because the way healthcare has been run into the ground in the last decade, there are probably some fears that people will literally have to 'choose' it. Healthcare professionals who don't care about people with chronic illnesses. Autistic people being treated like they can't make decisions about their own bodies. The dehumanization of trans people and eradication of access to medical treatment.

Some people genuinely may never have a high quality of life. But so many people don't, but could if only medical professionals cared/were well funded

[-]

Miserable-Sir-8520@reddit

The same reasons that they UK doesn't adopt any other progressive policies from around Europe.

You wouldn't let a dog die the same way we let old people wither away. It's an absurd, cruel situation

[-]

OkViolinist8221@reddit

Not euthanasia that's taboo - it's suicide that is, and euthanasia is difficult to differentiate from suicide.

In many cultures suicide carries shame and people don't like too talk about shame. That's why it's taboo.

It's usually cultural rather than religious though, I think - not sure which actual religions comment on this.

[-]

mebutnew@reddit

I don't think that it's taboo, but it is a complex, emotive discussion

[-]

lunch1box@reddit

Go to belgium

[-]

bee__bumble@reddit

Liz Carr did a documentary called ‘better off dead?’ that was really interesting

[-]

Capital-Quit-3396@reddit

I can see it being exploited for malicious purposes.

[-]

WorldlyEmployment@reddit

It literally breaks the vow that doctors make before entering into medical practice

[-]

Dan_85@reddit

It'll be legalised within 30 years, tops. Because if it isn't, the government is gonna have a hell of an expense on it's hands when people who don't own property, have no savings and no pension start to reach the point where they need incredibly expensive end of life care.

[-]

Heypisshands@reddit

Because most brits are miserable, i blame the negative moaning journalists. Suicides are far too many. Why encourage more of them to off themselves.

[-]

Apprehensive-Math499@reddit

It isn't so much taboo as a complete minefield.

Ultimately following things like the Liverpool care pathway scandal, people who don't even want things like morphine drivers have been emboldened.

A legitimate fear exists that people will be put on the euthanasia list without their consent or consent of family if the patient can't make the call. However it must be noted the biggest controversy with this was due to financial incentives for putting people on pathways to death. This included not providing water to people who were dying even if concious. I am not sure how often this sort of nonsense occured and I doubt many people are, only that it existed in policies and procedures.

I think 'no hope' situations, or personally if my memory ever began to fail, the option for assisted suicide should exist. However there is always the boogie man of past attempts to contend with. Surely they won't put incentives on for setting people towards death this time...right?

[-]

Additional_Egg_6685@reddit

I don’t think it is. I think with the correct protections in place it would have near unanimous support.

[-]

andyatkinson97@reddit

It's like legalising weed and other drugs. For some reason neither of the main parties will come out in favour even though it's quite popular

[-]

AssistanceLong5292@reddit

I expect there is a lot of lobbying from the "retirement home/carer" industry. This not only includes developers of these buildings but the whole industry to keep them alive. This kind of verges on conspiratorial, but imagine the industry that would collapse if keeping dementia patients alive was not an issue. IT's a huge industry!

[-]

LeGarconRouge@reddit

I think partly due to the fear that someone who doesn’t have capacity to make such a grave decision may be coerced or unduly influenced into it.

[-]

ice_wood@reddit

It is NOT Taboo. - The Uk parliament is always 25 years behind ACTUAL society

[-]

ChemicalOwn6806@reddit

Before the Suicide Act 1961, it was a crime to die by suicide and anyone who attempted and survived could be prosecuted and imprisoned, while the families of those who died could also potentially be prosecuted

Before that, the act of suicide was considered as Felo de se and a person found guilty of it, though dead, would ordinarily see penalties including forfeiture of property to the monarch and a shameful burial. Beginning in the seventeenth century precedent and coroners' custom gradually deemed suicide temporary insanity court pronounced conviction and penalty to heirs were gradually phased out.

So we still have a few people who still think that suicide is a crime against man and God and people worried that people will be forced to be euthanised as they are a burden to their families

[-]

Mr-_-Steve@reddit

Personally i think because the possibility of abusing the power to do so.

For every valid cut and dry case of anything there is a morally grey, murky and/or fraudulent case.

Unfortunately in your circumstance its terrible to be there, its heart breaking where there is nothing that can be done.

I'd say with an experienced argument for being against it was my mum, Cancer of bowels, liver and eventually blood. given 2 years but lived 8+, Went through final stages of treatment but ended in a Hospice managing pain before she passed away. She cried and suffered and begged for end of life but she did a 180, came out and lived another 12 months at home before she was back in for the final time. she got another 12 months to see another grandchild into the world, met my (now) wife, her 5 kids and 5 grandchildren all met her, she attended my brothers wedding. all could have been missed if we just ended her life.
I know its a one in a million story but it happened and I'm glad for it.

The not so nice stories though, imagine all these people who will fight for their vulnerable families to be "put down" people as a collective are messed up so at times you need a blanket law to protect the few, even if it means some will suffer. No system is against corruption or mistakes so its best to just say no then allow room for what if's

[-]

Thick_Confusion@reddit

It's not taboo to me. I'll talk about it until the cows come home but I'm resolutely opposed. As a disabled person who has been disabled by chronic illness for three decades plus (since i was 19) with end stage liver disease and heart disease, plus mental illness, I feel like I've got a dog in the fight since my quality of life is very low and I feel a lot of stress over "being a burden" on my family. I also absolutely do not trust the NHS or the government with my life, so I definitely don't trust them with my death.

In my opinion, there'll be even less incentive for the state/NHS to provide adequate care, support and medication for elderly, disabled and terminally ill people once they can signpost us to death instead.

Putting humans down is cost effective to a state which is why the nazis loved doing it (yeah, I know, I know, but it's true).

We need to do much better with End of Life care, elder care and care for the disabled, but it will be so much cheaper to tell us to suck it up and suffer or be good and think of the poor NHS/our poor family and take the death pill like a good boy or girl.

[-]

TheSecretIsMarmite@reddit

It's being debated in parliament but given the way debate can be twisted and how issues can become contentious on the internet and populist rhetoric can take hold so easily in the press and on social media, I can envisage some slippery slope concerns.

Disabled people are rightly concerned that they might be encouraged to undertake euthanasia when they have no desire to end their lives, and that parents of disabled children might be pressured to halt treatment or therapies for their child(ren) using medical assistance in dying instead. I saw someone on Reddit a few months ago saying that they have disabilities and as they live in Canada they have been offered MAID several times, but not offered drugs or treatment that would help them in their daily life even when requested - that MAID was suggested instead. Given the state of the health service at the moment, how pushed social workers and health care professionals are, I am concerned that a UK MAID although tentatively offered at first may become an implied route instead of offering expensive and time intensive therapies and drugs.

Essentially something like this needs to be done very carefully and with a lot of safeguards in place to avoid laziness in care or abuse. I am largely not opposed, but am concerned that it would be misused and abused and could open the doors for another Shipman.

[-]

a-racecar-driver@reddit

I honestly don’t know anyone that thinks euthanasia is a bad thing. Everyone I’ve ever asked the question has said it should be available under some guidelines so as to prevent just anyone doing it. Can’t believe people even oppose it honestly, how selfish can you be to block someone from wilfully dying when they’re suffering and in pain and have very little quality of life anyway?

[-]

Chickenofthewoods95@reddit

You’d rather have less time too spend with him ?

[-]

claireauriga@reddit

Many of us feel like this:

Assisted dying, in various forms, should ideally be available to those who need it, out of commission and care for human quality of life.
However, it has potential for horrible abuse. If it goes wrong, it's murder. So we have to have a very high bar for making sure we get it right.
The main questions we need to answer before we can safely implement assisted dying lie in two key areas: how do you avoid coercion (explicit or implicit, e.g. an elderly person feeling like a burden to family), and how do we handle advance directives when someone loses their capacity to consent, such as in dementia.
Until these risks can be resolved, which is a very difficult thing, it is safest not to allow many forms of assisted dying.
Healthcare providers giving palliative care which eases suffering but may hasten death (such as high morphine doses at end of life) is appropriate healthcare.

[-]

My_sloth_life@reddit

The problem for me is in your 3rd point. Any system that is built, is open to be misused/abused/circumvented etc, I don’t just mean euthanasia but basically all systems. For most systems created it’s known that someone somewhere has managed to use it for wrong or nefarious purposes.

I simply don’t believe there are any safeguards that exist that would ensure that nobody would ever die when they did not want to.

[-]

I-like-IT-Things@reddit

It's not a taboo debate.

There are questions that come up such as who gets to decide someone should be subject to it.

Take your example, what if you say he should be, but he says he shouldn't be?

What if someone does not have the mental capacity to decline when someone else makes that decision for them?

What if someone forges some sort of signature/approval for someone else and the recipient thinks they're going in for routine surgery?

[-]

No-Intern-6017@reddit

Because it always expands and eventually you end up with people being pressured to kill themselves by healthcare professionals.

Also, it has a tendency towards essentially acting as eugenics.

[-]

My_sloth_life@reddit

I wonder how doctors and nurses would feel if they are asked to end the lives of patients rather than save them?

People assume they’d be fine with it I think, and I am sure some would, but if it becomes a right then there may be strong expectations for your doctors to do it and I can imagine quite a few would not want to kill a patient, even if they are willing to die.

[-]

Logical-Brief-420@reddit

All serious debate has become taboo in the UK because we can’t discuss things sensibly anymore, and people are so closed minded they aren’t up-to changing their minds or viewpoints on anything at all, particularly something serious.

Thus you just end up with two people with opposing viewpoints shouting and disagreeing with each other, normally nastily, and very very rarely any agreement.

[-]

Hooch_69_@reddit

How would you answer your own question. Why are you not discussing it with your Grandad?

[-]

ShowmasterQMTHH@reddit

Religion, and the sneaking suspicion that unscrupulous kids will get parents or elderly euthanized against their wishes.

Also the social fear that its the start of acceptance of limiting care and resources for those deemed unsaveable.

Just for reference, i was shopping the other day and saw a woman pushing her son, who was in his 30s ina wheel chair, he was in a very distressed and semi aware state, choking intermittently on his own saliva, she had a nurse/aide with her. I really felt for her and thought, i'd hate to be in a situation where is was that child, a burden on my mother in her 50s, but a the same time having as a parent to decide if my child should be allowed to continue in that state, or pass.

We just don't want to face the choices, and fear the state or others making them for us.

[-]

NaniFarRoad@reddit

Have you worked with people in this condition? Just because you find it shocking they're screaming and drooling in public, doesn't mean they aren't having a good quality of life - I've seen experienced carers/teaching staff work with people like this, and have been able to maintain conversations with them I (in my ignorance) would not think were possible.

[-]

ShowmasterQMTHH@reddit

No i haven't and i know everyone is a different case, he actually wasn't screaming, just moaning and getting caught up, the nurse and mother were just immune to it i imagine as thats their normal.

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

Assisted dying probably wouldn’t change this. Chances are, that son isn’t able to understand or make the choice himself. People making the choice for others is exactly what the population are afraid of.

Assisted dying is for people who are dying, not people who are disabled.

[-]

ShowmasterQMTHH@reddit

Yep, but for some people its the start of something in their minds.

Lets say we pass a law that allows for dignified assisted dying.

In some countries that allow it, its also allowed for those that feel suicidal. Those people are them allowed to book their dying day.

Lets say a parent wants to challenge their suicidal childs right to die. How do you legislate for that.

Push it a little further, an elderly person who develops alzheimers and wishes to die. What is the decision point there, as alzheimers is not always detectable for a few years. What if a child wishes to allow their parent to continue on but there is an order form the parent, the child says they weren't in their right mind to decide.

Lots of the fears are around who makes decisions, and do we get to to the point where the state can withdraw care form someone they deem to be unsaveable.

[-]

Optimal_Builder_5724@reddit

Because when it's cheaper to coax you into death than treat you social medicine will always pick your death to save money.

[-]

Ronaldo_McDonaldo81@reddit

I think it’s important to get the number of ill people in society down so that it leaves more resources for the rest of us. Euthanasia should be enthusiastically encouraged.

[-]

ukbot-nicolabot@reddit

A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question

[-]

JlouM@reddit

Humanists UK have a lot on their website about this if you want to have a look at some of the steps taken to get to where we are now.

[-]

ckayd@reddit

Harrold Shipman end of.

[-]

Full_Maybe6668@reddit

I sat for a week while I watched my father finally succumb to dementia.

Its a fate you wouldnt let a dog go through, but we let it happen to absolve us of difficult decisions

[-]

Mittens@reddit

Trouble if you say you like the youth in asia

[-]

CaptainMikul@reddit

Euthanasia is one of the few things most Brits agree on. Polls show between 65% and 75% support for there being some form of assisted dying in the UK. When's the last time you could get 3/4 of the public to agree on anything political.

The barrier is the politicians and the meddling of religious institutions who try and force their morals on us.

I've never met anyone, except the incredibly religious, who were against it. Sure people disagree on exactly how and what for, but the general concept has overwhelming support.

[-]

jlsearle89@reddit

When my grandad developed vascular dementia having already been a bed bound paraplegic for the best part of 30 years I was very much of the same opinion, that if he was a pet we would have put him down because he has no quality of life.

I’ve always been pro euthanasia.

Recently I’m starting to second guess this as I see governments “cracking down” on the disabled, which seems like a crazy thing to say, but there’s plenty of ways they’re making people’s lives worse and I’m not sure how much I trust gov present or future to have such a tool at their disposal for those who are deemed “economically inactive” when it would pretty much be impossible in the society we live in.

[-]

sexy-egg-1991@reddit

Bevause it's ability to get abused is great. Especially when mental health is involved.

[-]

Unusual-Art2288@reddit

So is that a reason to end somelife just because someoe cant walk well and has accidents. That could apply tp people of any age. Maybe he also depressed.

[-]

coupl4nd@reddit

I'll go after you.

[-]

ezaquarii_com@reddit

With the state of NHS being what it is, there will be strong temptation to use it to fix KPIs.

I can imagine why people are scared of this topic - it would attract deranged opportunists and we're not sure how to keep them in check.

I don't think many will argue on behalf of suffering enforcement.

[-]

LiamsBiggestFan@reddit

I don’t think it’s as taboo as people think.

[-]

greengo07@reddit

Same in the states. I am 67 and have nothing to live for and poor health. IF I get to the point I can't move or get outta bed or worse, get trapped in my body and can't move at all or talk, I want to die. why is that so horrible? I already endure a fair amount of pain because they won't give me pain meds. Life sucks and that seems to be what "they" want.

[-]

StrayDogPhotography@reddit

Harold Shipman.

[-]

nickytheginger@reddit

There are so many reason why its. considered 'taboo' even though people are constantly debating it.

There's the basic point that people don't want their loved ones to die. This in itself is not a bad thing, but they will actively ignore the pain and suffering others are feeling in order to keep that person in their lives. There is also the worry that even with safeguards and rules in place to govern a the system, you may still find out that a loved one has been permitted to die who shouldn't.

There is the problem with people who think they are right no matter what. It doesn't matter what other people need, they don't agree with it and therefore it's not something worth discussing or doing. They think that what they would want for themselves is what everyone else wants or should want, refusing to listen to what people are actually saying.

And, the one that I see the most, is the fear of this being used to get rid of 'undesirables'. Though it is highly unlikely that in most places it would be incredibly difficult for someone to 'accidently' end up in a euthanasia clinic people would still be worried. Scared that The old and infirm would vanish. The mentally ill and long term sick. The fear that one day a person with power over you might decide its too much effort keeping you alive and maybe it would be 'kinder' to forge a few signatures or make a mistake on some paperwork and suddenly your or a loved one is gone.

[-]

Mr_Reaper__@reddit

The problem is medical personnel are required to sign the hipocratic oath. Which basically says they'll do everything they can to prevent a person dying, so allowing doctors to perform euthanasia on humans goes against everything they're taught. The oath is intended to stop people from deciding someone is too much effort to take care of so they get rid of them. Doctors saying "room 13 will need a 12 hour surgery but I really can't be arsed so we're just going to let them go instead." Or a patients family says "we really don't have time to go round to grandma's everyday to help her out and getting carers in is too expensive so I think nows the time to let her go." Neither of these are acceptable reasons to end a life, but if we give doctors that option there's a risk they'll use them unethically. So there's a blanket ban on allowing euthanasia for humans. There's also a religious aspect to it as well, sanctity of life and all that kind of thing. People are now realising that would be a benefit to it in many cases so it is being discussed but its difficult to draw the line between when it is and isn't acceptable.

[-]

Rap-oleon_Bonaparte@reddit

It's not. It's literally being debated as a law. It's one of those political debate subjects that been very common my whole life and longer.

If you are asking why it isn't yet law... It's one of those things that the vast majority favour or dont care about, but are legally complex due to high risks of making mistakes and a small minority are rabidly against. Especially the latter things tend to stay illegal much longer than they should (ie cannabis, gay marriage etc) it's just a bug of democracy.

[-]

concretepigeon@reddit

It’s also not a UK peculiarity. Almost no country has legalised it and most that have only did so recently.

[-]

Cum-Farts-Of-A-Clown@reddit

Oregon has been doing it for 26 years. So they have 25 years worth of data. Same implementation as proposed under the UK law (6 months left to live prognosis, Doctor prescribes lethal drugs and the patient administers them themselves.) https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/index.aspx You can see the latest 2023 report on there - or here - as PDF - I think I remember reading that if you applied the same rate conversion to UK figures you would expect to see about 4,000 - 5,000 patients accessing it under matched circumstances.

It's findings are summed up:

"Inadequate Pain Control" as a reason for chosing euthanasia is way down the list at number 6 out of 7 for reasons people opt for it. (page 14)
The majority of people accessing euthanasia are from poorer socio economic means. "The percentage of patients with private insurance increased slightly from 2022 (from 20% to 22%), while patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance saw a slight decrease (from 80% to 78%)."
We are still not very accurate at diagnosing how long people really have left (with the 6 month left to live requirement) as 5% of those prescribes lethal prescriptions had not yet taken their lethal dose or died naturally, and outlived that 5 month forecast.
One Doctor is prescribing at a rate of almost 1 lethal prescription per fortnight, raising concerns over patient hisotry and case knowledge requirements of the patient prior to prescribing.
We are still not very good at killing people (in line with respect to dingity of the patient). 9 cases where people woke up after their fatal dose (they didn't repeat euthanasia and went on to die a natural death). Time from ingestion until death ranged from three minutes to 137 hours.

In every country where it has been legalised the number of people accessing it has always increased. No country has been able to maintain a stable euthanasia rate. Netherlands almost had it back in the first 5 years, since then though it has exploded and it now accounts for every 1 in 20 deaths in the Netherlands.

Those are issues which need addressed. All that said though - When you look at the Oregon report for the types of illness people accessing it have, it's almost majority incurable cancers.

[-]

concretepigeon@reddit

As far as I’m aware Oregon and Switzerland were the only places that had it until a few years ago, aren’t they? And most of the developed world hasn’t yet legalised it. So the UK is not exceptional in that it’s only starting to legislate for it now.

[-]

Cum-Farts-Of-A-Clown@reddit

Oregon and Switzerland

Yeah I'm pretty sure you're right. Belgium too since 2002. Switzerland is a little less comparative as their precondition requirements do allow for specialist doctors to assess and approve dimentia patients, whilst the law on the table for UK debate will in practice totally preclude that. The proposed UK law wont address the cases we typically see appearing at the UK Supreme Court, i.e. those with locked-in syndromes and illnesses (those people will have to live with their condition for X-number of years until they qualify for the 6 months left to live requirement) so we'll still see the same legal challenges. Switzlerland has taken a different approach with their constitutional implementation of the law by introducing it as a "Right to Die" - which if applied under our constitution in a similar way would hugely expand the range of conditions and those who could access it.

So the UK is not exceptional in that it’s only starting to legislate for it now

No, we have been beaten by New Zealand, who have recently implemented an end of life act under the same terms as the UK proposed law. Their statistics will be interesting to see over the next 5 years as New Zealand is top 3 in the world for excellent palliative care so there is no 'Suffer or Suicide' argument to be made, and we want to see how that affects future palliative care in New Zealand. We've seen that palliative care investment has dramatically collapsed in Belgium since 2012, so that's what we'll be keeping an eye on in New Zealand.

[-]

HintOfMalice@reddit

Last time I saw my grandmother, my uncle drove me and my brother home and we all agreed that if she were a family pet, she would be put down.

She had been dementia ridden for months, rarely recognised her own family members and when she did she couldn't tell you anything about us. She even asked me if she knew her own husband. She was in congestive heart failure, had COPD and emphysema and an oxygen saturation level of 70% while being on permanent oxygen. For those that dont know, its supposed to be virtually 100% just with autonomous breathing. And then in the last few days, she had just been permanently in a morphine induced stupor, her hands were going black and nurses came and went regularly to give her more drugs and to change her nappy.

For such a fiercely independant woman, she would have hated to see herself like that. We all hated to see her like that.

My mum phoned to tell me she had passed away mere minutes after we said we would have put her to sleep. We hadn't even made it home yet.

[-]

chronically-iconic@reddit

It's definitely in discussion politically, but publicly people are weird about it. It's because we don't talk enough about death as a society, and we are taught this egotistical idea that we have to survive through suffering because death is seen as the worst thing that could happen to someone.

Once we have had our fill in life, and things become unmanageable, it's a melancholy but beautiful thing to be able to say goodbye gracefully, and on our own time.

[-]

Relevant_Impact_6349@reddit

Because killing people is generally frowned upon in civil society

[-]

Cheese_Dinosaur@reddit

My aunt; who was the most vivacious, gorgeous, immaculate woman I have ever known got dementia at 50. As she went downhill to the point where she didn’t even know who she was, it was horrific to see. She had to wear a helmet and screamed all the time she wasn’t sedated. She had no control over her bodily functions and couldn’t be left alone and ended up in care. She couldn’t eat or drink either. She died a couple of months ago age 62, which is no age at all. It was awful. 😢

My cat, age 15, was put to sleep a few weeks ago after he had a stroke and was left with minor brain damage from it. The vet said it ‘wasn’t fair’ to leave him like it. I agreed. He was eating and drinking but was emaciated and kept walking round in circles and would fall over sideways.

Just saying…

[-]

jam_scot@reddit

This debate resurfaces every few years, the public are generally on side, the politicians are wishy washy over it, scared of making big, controversial decisions as per.

[-]

macrowe777@reddit

It's not.

That's being said, depression in vets is horrendous, and it's not because they can't save every fluffy animal - it's because of how easily people are making the decision to put down their pets that vets wouldn't put down themselves.

[-]

Diligent_Phase_3778@reddit

It isn’t, I think a lot of people are fairly open minded about it. Our media is incredibly concentrated in terms of ownership though so the imagine of Britain is projected internationally in an incredible skewed way.

This country also has a really weird relationship with religion, like the average Brit isn’t going to church or whatever but when moral questions pop up, suddenly everyone needs to be reminded how they took communion in church when they were 7 and they need to get involved in the debate.

[-]

ExoticBattle7453@reddit

Because of the Christians.

Pretty much every silly, non-sensical thing in the UK comes down to their cohort screeching away at the Government,

[-]

fireship4@reddit

Why is it the responsibility of the euthanasia for killing someone else? Surely it's between that patient and the doctor?

[-]

Jughead_91@reddit

I think a lot of people ask this question, and while it seems like it should be a no brainer to allow people to die with dignity, there is concern over the state being allowed to make decisions like this - it’s the fear of there being scenarios in which the government can decide who lives or dies in a hospital state. Basically, it’s absolutely sick that we don’t have a better way of allowed people in pain to die. In a system where we trust the people in charge, it makes complete sense. But I think people are afraid of it creating loopholes in which they or their loved ones can be terminated against their wishes.

[-]

crankyteacher1964@reddit

I don't think this is a taboo debate, but it certainly is a divisive one which touches on faith, ethics, morality, undue influence... I personally advocate for the right to die, but I don't want others necessarily to make that decision for me.

It's not an easy situation to live with, and we all sympathise with what you and your family are going through. As others have stated, it is being debated in Parliament, but I can understand that this is a huge step for our MPs to take. I don't envy them. I can see death threats being made by extremists on this issue.

[-]

acabxox@reddit

I’m so sorry you’re going through this. I experienced the same this year with my grandmother.

Some advice: do you have a hospice team involved? They’re don’t just provide care for immediate, imminent death. They provide care for people who are experiencing extreme pain and who will pass soon. Some people receive hospice care, and then leave it for a year or two, then go back.

Having them administrate morphine and talk to my bed bound grandmother was a lifesaver. It stopped her pain, and stopped her from asking me to take her life for her.

Maybe they won’t get involved as your grandfather isn’t bed bound, not actively dying, or not with a terminal illness. but they can provide excellent advice for suffering family members and are very sensitive and kind people. I owe them so much. They visited my grandmother at home & ensured she was comfortable. When they couldn’t come out they got the community nurses to visit him.

In any case, his mental health is suffering & he needs an urgent assessment from community nurses/carers/a GP/hospice team to get him any extra care he needs. Such as: A stairlift, a walker, carers coming in 4x a day to administer medication and have a chat so he’s not as lonely.

I know it’s horrific, and dealing with an underfunded NHS is frustrating. The admin involved is laborious and caring for him is time consuming. But it’s clear you are also suffering mentally from watching him, and could do with the extra help. I expect you have a few of the above things sorted already. At the least, a wheelchair he could use and good pain medication would be good. Carers coming in to fix his meals & help him wash would take the load off you.

I’m sure you’re doing a fantastic job considering the horrendous circumstances. Sending you and him lots of love.

I have always been pro self choice euthanasia, and my experience this year just solidified my position even more.

[-]

Lazy_Industry_6309@reddit

It's too open for abuse.

[-]

ahiiya@reddit

The state should not intervene in our lives. If euthanasia is made legal, it means the state has mandated that publicly or privately employed medical practitioners can kill a patient. You call it “helping to end their suffering”, I call it helping to kill someone. Why should the state have the power to do this? If a person does not want to live and wants their suffering to end through suicide, it is something they can do on their own, without the state facilitating it. There is nothing stopping your grandfather from taking enough pills to cause death or ending his life in another way. He does not need the state to help him.

The less others are involved in our lives and our decisions, the freer we are.

[-]

ahiiya@reddit

The state should not intervene in our lives. If euthanasia is made legal, it means the state has mandated that publicly or privately employed medical practitioners can kill a patient. You call it “helping to end their suffering”; I call it helping to kill someone. Why should the state have the power to do this? If a person does not want to live and wants their suffering to end through suicide, it is something they can do on their own, without the state facilitating it. There is nothing stopping your grandfather from taking enough pills to cause death or ending his life in another way. He does not need the state to help him.

The less others are involved in our lives and our decisions and our way of executing those decisions, the freer we are.

[-]

PhantomLamb@reddit

It's not

[-]

OTcake@reddit

Death, disability and family/medical abuse is taboo. Whoever wants to get into the detail of euthanasia will likely get massive backlash from every side of the political spectrum for that reason. I wouldn't say Euthanasia is taboo independent of the above.

People prefer euphemisms like passed on or at peace. We talk about good ways to die, when there aren't good ways to die... only better. We conflate a "peaceful or good" death for the person with the experience for their family. People with brain cancers often die blissfully unaware, but their families watch the person to love fade away long before they actually die and the last weeks are awful and how do we let the people we love go.

We also tend to think of euthanasia as a terminal person with agency and capacity wanting to die. There so many blurred lines and many people want to die after something life changing and pull through. A large study on People with locked-in syndrome is telling as most people would rather have died during the incident immediately after, but a couple years later, barely any wanted to pursue euthanasia.

Conversely I would want to die if I entered into a prolonged disorder of consciousness, but at that point I can't consent to die. I also can't make a truly informed decision about whether I would want to live on prior because I don't know the ins and outs of what my new life would look like.

Establishing the moral lines between certain things is demanding - There is withdrawing treatment. We routinely give people with dementia who are bed bound statins, metformin etc., but who should make the decision to stop giving that person treatment to extend their lives - speeding up the rate at which people die (assisted dying) - Providing someone with the means to end their lives (assisted suicide) - people can get hold of substances to do this without medical input, and for people who aren't end of life how do we know they won't get better and their opinion change. - Actively administering life ending medication (euthanasia), this could put a healthcare professional at risk but you'd need to allow for this for people who are too disabled to take medication etc. Themselves. - Enabling family to be with someone as they die - is this good for families to witness and how do we ensure this doesn't enable pressuring from family members.

Most people probably agree that if a person in immense pain, has good capacity, and definitively going to die in 2 weeks, that that person should be supported to die as well as possible even if that is "premature". It's the detail which is difficult.

[-]

carbonvectorstore@reddit

It's not? We are freely discussing it.

Some people not agreeing with us doesn't make it taboo.

[-]

MeGlugsBigJugs@reddit

Being Christian is much more common in the upper class, which is the main group in power

[-]

Pogeos@reddit

There's literal debate going on about euthanasia right now. What is a taboo is a discussion which puts any sort of cost to human life which I honestly don't get. There's always a price and not wanting to discuss it wouldn't make it go away, would simply continue making the world less fair.

[-]

MeaninglessGoat@reddit

Too many Christian’s in power!

[-]

Peskycat42@reddit

Commenters about the current bill should be aware that it is only for those diagnosed with a terminal illness AND less than 6 months life expectancy. It would certainly be a help to reduce end of life suffering for a number of diseases, but I would hope that there would be further iterations to help people with more than 6 months of suffering ahead. (Assuming this one becomes law - it is only on its second reading in HOL, based on previous bills it will not make it through House of Commons readings).

[-]

Onechampionshipshill@reddit

Serious question:

Why doesn't your grandad kill himself? If he wants to die and he's not comatose or paralysed then it's not hard. If you are so pro euthanasia you could even lend him a hand, give him some tips.

Just seems strange to me that people who want to die don't just do it? Seems like perhaps deep down inside them they don't really want to do it.

Seems unfair to outsource your death on somebody else. So I do wonder what is the obsession with people who are pro euthanasia not being willing to do it themselves. I must be missing something.

[-]

BastardsCryinInnit@reddit

It's not really taboo - I think there are genuine concerns people will be taken advantage of by ghoulish family members.

And take a look at the state of some people in this country.

It would happen.

Figure out how to prevent that to the best of our ability, then crack on!

[-]

AkihabaraWasteland@reddit

It's not. It's openly debated in major newspapers.

[-]

nothingbutadam@reddit

I honestly believe, if euthanasia was completely open to all without any questions or checks, vast portions of the population would go for it

I'm not saying it ever would be. I just mean lots of people are living awful lives and i think they would "check out" if it was easy and painless. I think that scenario scares the powers that be, regardless of whether it would never be allowed to get that far

[-]

AshleyZorah@reddit

The problem is finding a way to allow it without the government using it as a way to exterminate vulnerable minorities

[-]

HoneyBadger0706@reddit

After watching my dad die, luckily it was only a few weeks, I'm completely 100% for Euthanasia. Like I said to the doctors..if it was my dog laying there in agony dying then I'd put her down. Why do we have to watch our most precious loved ones die like this. Its fucking cruel and I don't understand why our country is like this.

[-]

Common_Chester@reddit

Hospitals are against it because they'll make lots more money slowly bleeding your estate dry. That's why they let poor people die quickly, and rich people parish as slowly as possible.

[-]

Stage_Party@reddit

Had a discussion in the office about this not long ago, I work in the NHS and one of the doctors was about.

Basically it's about safeguarding. There's almost no way to guarantee that the patient isn't being coerced into euthanasia. The doctor had an example of someone who went through 2-3 rounds of psychology with different doctors and it was never picked up that they had been coerced into it.

I think the UK is so scared of one or two people slipping through the cracks that they are just letting everyone else suffer for it.

In my old workplace (also NHS), we had this lady coming in for regular appointments for the 6 years I was there, she would only speak to me to organise her appointment and she would always tell me how much pain she was in and how she's just praying to die because she's so fed up of life. She was absolutely riddled with cancer, in god knows how much pain and just suffering so badly. She couldn't sleep, could barely get around, can't do much for herself.

[-]

Shadysunhat@reddit

Dealing with this with my mum now. Late stage Lewy Body dementia and terminal breast cancer. She wails every day that she wants to die but feel like we’re being pushed by NHS to do chemo etc. It’s rough

[-]

eggard_stark@reddit

Maybe follow the news before posting stuff like this? It’s not taboo and there are ongoing debates

[-]

manmanania@reddit

Because it'd be legalising murder.

[-]

BigGarry1978@reddit

?

[-]

Huge-Celebration5192@reddit

What is the line? How do we decide on the line?

We have to study what happens in other countries, it is such a complex issue.

I agree it is a taboo debate as pro people don’t want to debate it.

[-]

BuncleCar@reddit

One of the fears is that elderly relatives could be pressured intentionally or even unintentionally into dying. After all some elderly people have money or are expensive or even a nuisance to look after.

[-]

Izwe@reddit

This is a solved issue though.

[-]

quzox_@reddit

What's the solution?

[-]

BigGarry1978@reddit

The fact that this bill is specifically for individuals who are terminally ill and have 6 months left to live surely safeguards against people “killing granny for inheritance”

[-]

jasonbirder@reddit

Because its impossible to put in enough safeguards to stop venal relations "guilt-tripping" elderly/infirm relatives into choosing it as they think they're a burden...spending money on care that could go into their inheritance.

There's no way to eliminate it 100% so you're balancing "right to die" against those people essentially "murdered"

[-]

BigGarry1978@reddit

Surely the safeguard that an individual should be terminally ill such as in the proposed bill would negate “guilt tripping” older indviduals

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

It's only for people with 6 months left to live, have you been around someone with a few months to live that's in agony and wants to pass?

Peoples right to die is the ultimate right. No body should take that away

[-]

PurpleEsskay@reddit

if only several other countries who have already dealt with this had figured out the answer to the most common and expected question around this...

I swear some people think its as simple as saying "Doc, I want to die" followed by "Ok Mrs Smith, no problem, night night".

[-]

jasonbirder@reddit

Yes, because asking about consent immediately eliminates any problems./s

Its impossible to prevent it 100%, no metter how many safeguards you put in place - so as I say you're balancing a problem (people offed by their family for $$$s) against a benefit (dignified death to many in pain or with long term conditions)

Those Countries where it is legal decided the latter is worth the former.

[-]

PurpleEsskay@reddit

You're massively simplifying it with "Asking consent". Theres SIGNIFICANTLY more to it than just having a chat over a cup of tea.

You're of course always going to get someone try to abuse the system, which is why you do as much as possible to stop that, an absolute shitload of red tape and severe punshment if anyone is found to be trying to bump granny off.

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Hmmm I wonder if one of those countries has found it wasn't as simple to control as you are trying to present. I believe Canada's history of dealing with MAiD has something to say on this.

[-]

Ok_Narwhal_9200@reddit

Because if the british learned that there was a legal way to escape the british life, the entire island would be depopulated within a year.

[-]

gwydiondavid@reddit

Animals are treated better than humans when it comes to end of life care when the suffering becomes too much

[-]

Bennjoon@reddit

I think it’s because of the benefits system DWP assessors are already out there asking mentally ill people “if you are so miserable why aren’t you dead” imagine if there was actually a way to k word yourself after hearing that.

[-]

crakinshot@reddit

It's because we have had the discussion before in the form of Eugenics. See eugenics society. There is a real fear of bad actors abusing well intentioned law in the future, and so it's easier to shut it down.

[-]

Dennyisthepisslord@reddit

I am atheist/agnostic and for me my personal belief is I would want the choice. I would want it for family who are in agony too.

That said I can see the risks with it and would hate for anyone to feel pressured to "get out of the way"

I started at a very "all for it" pov bit I can absolutely see it has to be very carefully treated and protected

[-]

MerlinBracken@reddit

I suppose it's the fear that eventually anyone disabled, old or ill would be 'expected' or 'pressured' into being euthanased, and that the way to avoid that, is to go nowhere near euthanasia.

Somehow though, we ought to be able to manage a sufficient set of safeguards that euthanasia is possible in certain, very limited, circumstances. Didn't we?

Or does it just open the door to future changes of policy that decides we can't afford disability benefits and that therefore.......

[-]

PM-me-your-cuppa-tea@reddit

Because no one wants to talk about killing granny. Even though, like you know the alternative is far worse.

I don’t think it’s super taboo though abd if it doesn’t pass into law this year it will soon.

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

We probably shouldn’t be talking about killing granny!

[-]

Ok-Attitude728@reddit

Nope, unless yano, granny has a few months to live, is in extreme pain and wants to pass now while she still has the ability to choose..

Its granny's choice, not yours

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

We did. Well Gramps. He wanted to die, I am used to pet euthanasia. Digitas was definitely discussed. He went on hunger strike so when to get medical services involved definitely discussed. Not sure being in hospital being force fed good on anyone. I don't have an issue with discussing killing Granny/Gramps as long as they are in the room and aware it is an option not a necessity.

And honestly we had those talks with medical staff. Meds to balance one condition worsen another so it's how do you want him to die - longer-run kidney failure or sudden heart failure? How aggressive do you want us to treat - DNR or ICU? Eventually we with medical team did let him die by withdrawing meds. He might have survived another month but it was in no one's interest, most importantly his, to keep him medicated and alive. My mother had a similar choice - she stopped cancer meds, she died and with the side-effects, that was a consideration.

[-]

ToughCapital5647@reddit

We shouldn't go as far as Canada has.

[-]

MaxLevelYutyrannus@reddit

Because we know that while it's a legitimate topic for discussion, our government will weaponise it the way Canada has. It's happening now and will be legal here soon.

[-]

Dynacide@reddit

What's wrong with the youths in Asia?

[-]

alanaisalive@reddit

I used to be in favour of it until I saw Canada implementing it. They've gotten to the point of actively suggesting suicide to people with depression or chronic illness. After seeing how much the government didn't care if disabled people lived or died throughout the pandemic, I don't trust the government to implement it in a responsible manner. The UK government has already been singled out by the UN for its poor treatment of disabled people, and now they want to legalise just straight up killing us.

[-]

Ambitious_Rent_3282@reddit

I’m not so much against an individual choosing to self -administer but draw the line at a medical professional administering the lethal injection. It could get to the point where the elderly and vulnerable will no longer trust their doctors and avoid going to hospital

[-]

CyberGTI@reddit

I remember this being a topic in RS back in school

[-]

Ambitious_Rent_3282@reddit

The risks of it becoming imposed even on those who still want to live. It would be a convenient way to save money for the NHS and free up hospital beds. A way to remove undesirables such as the homeless and gypsies. The bankrupt government wouldn’t have time to pay out so much state pension. Families would be relieved from inconvenient caretaking responsibilities and would be assured of an inheritance.

It seems too much that it could be abused

[-]

Midniteman86@reddit

This guy has the best opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_uJHdOtdc

[-]

RetaliatoryLawyer@reddit

I wrote a paper about this in law school, and the answer is quite simple when summed up to a massive degree.

Answer: historical religion, fear of progression, and political legacy.

The last one being no-one wants to be known as the MP/party of death.

I wrote this about 6 years ago, so the last one has clearly changed since it's going to be discussed in HoC.

[-]

Big-Finding2976@reddit

If someone has all their faculties and isn't physically incapable, they can choose to kill themselves without asking a family member to do it and leaving them living with feelings of guilt.

Pets can't buy pills and kill themselves, so we have to help them.

Humans who are physically and mentally incapable are more complicated, because there's a risk that people will kill them when they don't want to die, for selfish reasons (which includes the State killing them to save having to pay for their care).

[-]

Silver-Appointment77@reddit

I agree. Euthanasia should be brought in for terminal patients so theyre not dying in agony like my Mam and dad and my husbands Mam.

Is horrible seeing them waste away before your eyes, and taking all of their dignity with it. Just leaving them shells of themselves, just wanting to die and get rid of the pain,.

But instead theyre kept alive with pain killers and anti sickness drugs, or chemo, which sends your whole body into shock. Horrible.

Like you say animals are allowed to be able to be put out of their misery, why cant humans?

[-]

TinyZoro@reddit

I would say for the same reason capital punishment is. You only have to get it wrong once for it to feel a terrible system and in reality you will get it wrong many times.

We do have euthanasia. Anyone who knows anything about end of life treatment knows that morphine is steadily increased until it rather than the condition tips people over. What we don’t have is a way to do that if you’re not actually about to die.

[-]

Lidl_Security_Guard@reddit

found the dutchie

[-]

WasThatInappropriate@reddit

Because the UK is a not a secular state, and the state religion has seats in the Lords. Religious opinions therefore carry too much weight in decisions.

[-]

Marwingg@reddit

The neo-liberal state will soon terminate those causing them to spend too much money under the guise of freedom of choice. A quick, easy way to avoid improving health services.

[-]

Numerous-Manager-202@reddit

Its not taboo its just very complicated and contentious.

[-]

Competitive_Pen7192@reddit

It needs to be discussed properly but euthanasia is the ultimate slippery slope.

I don't trust any government to keep it ethical.

Sure there are situations where it's called for but when it's on a national scale you will get people being offered it when it isn't appropriate due to lack of resources or their families encouraging someone that they are a burden.

Not everyone has true free will and the power to choose from that comfortable position. Someone disenfranchised could easily be persuaded to do the right thing as so to speak.

[-]

retyfraser@reddit

The government has decided that they'd kill you

[-]

Bully2533@reddit

Which government is this, and who are they going to kill?

[-]

retyfraser@reddit

UK government. They've decided that I can die only after I pay my mortgage, which I will never finish.

So I can't die before that

[-]

AdamHunter91@reddit

From the pov of an older family member, she believes it is an extremely gray area. The candidates for euthanasia will get broader and broader. One day she fears it will include people with fixable psychological issues, then the elderly will choose to end their lives so as not to be a burden to society or their families. This could create a domino effect of peer pressure for other older people to do it or guilt for having not ended their lives.

[-]

steve1968cheesden@reddit

So where do you draw the line

[-]

Squiggles87@reddit

I'm sorry you're going through a shit time.

This subject isn't a taboo. You haven't followed the public perception, or the political progress of this topic particularly closely.

[-]

Imaginary-Fan-1253@reddit

I would like to die, 37 male

[-]

Painterzzz@reddit

The concern is the slippery slope problem. Which we've already seen come into effect, when the debate was first initiated the question was 'should terminally ill people have access to euthanasia', but just one week later another Labour MP was asking 'Should we extent access to euthanasia to the seriously depressed and mentally ill?'

The other concern is about granting our government the power to kill citizens. Imagine if you will a hard right Reform government in 10 years time, struggling to pay for any social welfare at all. People are hungry and cold, pensioners are freezing to death in their homes. As a result, a huge bunch of people are very depressed and see little reason to carry on in their suffering.

Reform chuckle and say oh well, look, we have a way out for you all so you can stop being burdens on your families and on the State, step this way for the Euthanasia chamber worthless expensive non-working citizens!

And finally there is the concern of bad actors. Imagine how many more people Shipman could have killed.

[-]

mrev@reddit

Having watched a close family member go through a terrible, lingering death, I'm not necessarily opposed to assisted dying. But it's a massive step that requires a great deal more thought than, "I wouldn't let my dog suffer like this so why am I letting my dad suffer like this?" Life and death aren't just warm fuzzies. There are serious consequences.

The main problem isn't religion, as others have suggested. The main problem is that you are putting the power of life and death in the hands of government, of family members who might want the inheritance earlier, of healthcare bureaucracy.

One, but not the only reason, I'm against the death penalty is because I don't trust the government or the justice system to get it right. At least if you spend 20 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit then you can win an appeal. You've still lost an enormous chunk of your normal life but you're not dead at the hands of the state.

Once something like this is allowed in law, then a line has been crossed, People can assist in the death of another person and it is not illegal. Sure, murder and manslaughter would still exist but you're introducing a grey area. That's not a reason to dismiss assisted dying but does mean we should have a proper debate about safeguards, scenarios where it's appropriate, and so on. It's not about authoritarianism or religion but about preventing vulnerable people getting bumped off because they feel like they're in the way, for example.

Look to the Netherlands and Canada for stories of how assisted death can be offered in situations you might not expect right now (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws).

[-]

charmingchangeling@reddit

Great answer.

[-]

surfinbear1990@reddit

I've got a few pals from the Philippines and Hong Kong. I don't see what's taboo about them at all. It's just Tommy Robinson and his gang spreading lies about foreigners

[-]

pikantnasuka@reddit

I'm not sure. In personal conversations the vast majority of people seem to believe it is cruel to preserve life when someone is in terrible pain without hope of relief... but when it comes to actual debate we get a lot of 'but what if...'

My mum made me promise a long time ago not to let her go like my nana did. God knows how I will manage to keep that promise if we don't update the law to allow more compassion.

[-]

bartread@reddit

You could book her in to a clinic abroad. Only thing is you probably need to be a bit careful about how you do it so you don't implicate yourself in an "unlawful death".

[-]

thecheesycheeselover@reddit

Idk, I used to be completely pro assisted dying, until I watched the recent documentary talking about it from the POV of disabled people. Now I see that it’s so horrifically complicated.

I do think that it should be accessible, but it seems impossible to figure out a way to make it legal without possibly making things worse for very vulnerable people.

[-]

Dengar1980@reddit

I watched my mum and dad doe very slowly. My mum took 4 years of being bed bound, in a home costing £5000 a month where they kept her alive with drugs. No quality of life at all and she just wanted to go. It was a relief when she passed 3 months ago. I'd have happily helped her to end it, it's what she wanted

[-]

Draigwyrdd@reddit

Polls show that most people are broadly in support of euthanasia in principle. The 'controversy', such as it is, seems to be more a thing with MPs and the 'political class'.

Obviously there are some people who are very against it for different reasons, but most of the public supports it in principle.

[-]

Cum-Farts-Of-A-Clown@reddit

There is no majority support for it within the British Medical Association members. The largest survey of its kind was conducted to ask members their opinions on assisted suicide.

Those most opposed to it were those working in terminal cancers and diseases.

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/end-of-life/physician-assisted-dying/physician-assisted-dying-survey

[-]

Draigwyrdd@reddit

There's no majority against it either. The opinions of the BMA members are split, but even then more seem to support it than oppose.

At least from looking at the survey data.

[-]

28374woolijay@reddit

People are broadly in support provided there are sufficient safeguards. Most of those against are simply questioning whether the safeguards can ever be sufficient, especially given the nature of the NHS. It’s a case of balancing the needs of those in pain and wanting a quick end vs those who are the most vulnerable to explicit or implicit pressure from others to get it over with.

[-]

Competitive_Alps_514@reddit

Although it is difficult to tell as lots of the "concern" is a FUD strategy from objectors.

[-]

Draigwyrdd@reddit

Well, yes, that's why I said 'in principle'. It's also, I expect, the reason why MPs are so hesitant about it - is 'their fault' if the safeguards turn out to be insufficient.

[-]

BadRevolutionary9669@reddit

I think everyone should have the right to die with dignity. It isn't an impulsive decision if there are strict guidelines in place. I'm glad it is being seriously discussed in parliament.

[-]

Slavir_Nabru@reddit

There are discussions, but nobody is proposing to go far enough IMO.

The ONLY restrictions, should be a check against coercion, and a short cooling off period. No proving that recovery is impossible, no phycological tests, if someone wants to die they should have that option.

[-]

d3gu@reddit

I don't think it's a taboo subject in the UK. I watched my mother drown to death when her lungs filled up with edema fluid. She had terminal cancer; we all knew she wasn't going to last the week, so why did she have to suffer those last few days? It was so horrible. She was distressed, the people around her were distressed. It was so undignified. Better to have her press a button or have an injection with us all around her, holding her hand. It's not like she was going to make a miraculous recovery, and none of us should have gone through those last days.

[-]

TextileGiant@reddit

I studied this at school. The main problems are: a lot of older people feel like burdens and may feel expected to say "I want to die" if euthanasia was commonplace. They may feel pressured into it, or like they aren't worthy of care, even if they don't want to die. There is also the issue of actively forcing or coersing someone and claiming it was concentual. Slippery slope type problem. But it should be legal

[-]

ChrisAus123@reddit

It goes against religious teachings, the hypocratic oath and human morales in general to kill someone. Although it would be the best option in many cases, still actually doing it seems morally merky to many. I agree people should be able to determine their own time but would have to be carefully regulated to prevent abuses. Like old people being pressured by family or doctors. I'm pretty sure they are reopening the discussion though. Being in the uk I always heard you'd need to travel to Switzerland with a decent bit of money to get it done.

[-]

Evening-Web-3038@reddit

I don't think it is taboo but rather just a tricky issue to discuss.

In your example the worry, and most of the time it will be unfounded (but the times when it isn't are the devastating ones), is that your grandad doesn't actually want to commit suicide but feels pressured by family/friends.

Plus, there's something iffy about comparing your grandad to a pet ngl. It is actually kinda making my point in a way; could some people start viewing sick friends/family more as animals than actual human beings?

I have little reason to doubt that your grandad wants suicide but if the government sanction it and get it wrong then that's really bad for society in general imo.

[-]

ISO_3103_@reddit

I used to be heavily pro euthanasia but honestly, after reading up I'm less so. Same as you OP I watched my grandfather suffer in hospital with late dementia and alzheimers. I know if he had his mind, he would have wanted an end, but for some groups allowing state-sponsored death will lead to mistakes or abuse. The difference is we're actively taking a life and much like the death penalty, it needs strict safeguards.

The law needs to be good enough to protect the vulnerable and cast iron in the instances where it is allowed. The numbers coming out of Canada are honestly quite frightening and makes me wonder at what point euthanasia becomes an excuse not to give good care.

[-]

IndustrialPet@reddit

I have always, always, been pro-euthanasia in principle. Always. But the absolute horror stories coming out of Canada - where it's happening at a way higher frequency than expected - and with the fact that they're discussing allowing it for mental health conditions, are both very alarming to me.

I also fundamentally do not trust a government that is content to continue dismantling our healthcare provision, and erode what paltry threads of a social safety net we have left, to decide the terms.

[-]

Gauntlets28@reddit

There's quite a bit of concern about how euthanasia could be used by abusers to get people out of the way, I think. I have a relative who's currently waiting to go to court because they exploited my grandmother in various ways, facilitated in part by the already extremely lax rules surrounding power of attorney in this country.

We have suspicion that they were trying to essentially "kill" my grandmother in various ways - a number of scary prank calls that used information that could only have come from a member of the family, etc. I can easily imagine them coercing her into euthanasia if it was legal in this country.

[-]

TheBoldB@reddit

Euthanasia sounds like a positive thing on an emotional level, but as someone who has seen and experienced the reality of death many times over, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a dignified death. The availability of the option to end life early puts a huge pressure on both the one suffering and the loved ones. The patient feels like a burden on people and sees their early death as a way of sparing loved ones from difficulty. Loved ones can end up making emotional decisions to help someone end their life, which often comes with a lot of unforseen regret. Then there is the risk of changing one's mind after it's too late.

Deciding not to artificially sustain life is one thing, but actively ending a life is quite another. Euthanasia opens the door to a total abuse of human rights, as it's never more than a few steps away from "death for convenience" or death "for the greater good". It simply isn't our choice to make.

[-]

Kasha2000UK@reddit

One issue from my perspective is that disabled and chronically ill people are concerned that this becomes an easy get-out from government providing appropriate support and NHS providing appropriate care.

Many disabled people already feel pressured to turn down medical intervention to prolong their lives, as their lives are seen as less-than, adding euthanasia to the mix has potential to make it even harder for some disabled people to continue to live. I'm pro-euthanasia but have seen how disabled folk can be treat in medicine so have concerns - outside religious reasons, I think concern of disability rights groups is one of the bigger oppositions.

[-]

Brutal-Gentleman@reddit

I quite like the euthanasia, kpop, anime.. They have lots to offer other youths with their culture

[-]

Eisenmaus@reddit

Because it involves life and death.

It also could be misused very easily by state and individuals alike.

It could be a brilliant thing but could also be horrific.

[-]

homelaberator@reddit

The only issue I have with it, is I don't think it should be voluntary.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

So you think the decision should be made by somebody else?

[-]

homelaberator@reddit

It's only fair. We're the ones who have to live with it.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Surely the individual with the illness is the one that has to live with it.

How would the assisted dying system work if you could design it? Unwell/disabled people would be put out en masse? Or families/friends would forcefully take them down to the clinic?

[-]

homelaberator@reddit

Not if they're dead, though.

It's the people who are alive that deal with the consequences of the person being dead. The dead person is dead.

[-]

BigHairyStallion_69@reddit

Okay, so for you, how would the assisted dying system ideally work? Family members would force their relatives to be put down?

[-]

Choice_Pangolin366@reddit

A relative went to Switzerland to peacefully die. Not sure If this is still a thing.

[-]

ImpossibleLoss1148@reddit

Harold Shipman has a lot to do with the shutting down of the UK debates. A lot more was done in the past, quietly, that's been totally shut down now.

[-]

2Old4ThisG@reddit

It's difficult as the people who get to debate it with any consequence likely have decent money, decent education, therefore a good standard of living and I believe, can't fathom what it must be like to choose not existing as a better option than existing.

I know that you can hear views from people like yourself and grandad (I wish him and you the best, I'm sorry it doesn't make a difference) but until you live it you don't understand.

I think the cult of self that is fed into in our current culture means that the thought of ending ones self is the biggest crime (ego wise) and that why it's so taboo. We all think we can live forever... until even the filters wear off and the mirror becomes your enemy. Lol.

I don't buy an epidemic of people being killed against their wishes, I don't buy misuse of the system. I think there is definitely a place we can create that can ease the passing of people who choose death instead of life.

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

Suicide used to be a hanging offense as it was seen as stealing from God - you survived, you hung. You committed suicide. Your family lost their lands as forfeit to the state. Opposition to it is pretty deeply ingrained. And this is why coroners are loath to put on death certificates- death by misadventure is common.

And yes, I could see epidemic. I have just spent looking after a dying father and now another relative with dementia. Carer burn out is real. First case would have been easy - he wanted to die and was vocal about it. Dementia all so much harder but if person is aggressive, then can see family tossing in towel to save themselves. Dementia care in a home is £80k a year and if self-funding, then not actually open to people as need the funds upfront so need to sell house and houses don't sell well if someone dying there on home visits.

[-]

LiveCelebration5237@reddit

It’s your life you should be able to choose to end it in a non messy way , or yiu can go and pound some meds and slit ya wrists and let that ruin someone’s day who has to deal with it . I feel like if euthanasia was legal you’d see a long old list of people who’ve had enough . I know the comment was abit macabre but just what I reckon

[-]

zbornakingthestone@reddit

Because there's a lasting bit of nonsense about how we must suffer for Christ or something, and we can't possibly allow people to choose to die with dignity. Not helped by fearmongers like that woman from Silent Witness insisting countless people must be made to suffer in agony and indignity because she's worried that someone may suggest she might be better off dead at some point and we can't possibly have that. Having seen far too many people close to me suffering - I can only hope people like her have long, drawn-out, agonising deaths with no relief.

[-]

SlaveToNoTrend@reddit

I think culturally throughout centuries it's taboo because it was believed you would not be let in to heaven, valhalla etc.

[-]

Psittacula2@reddit

I would strongly the primary obstruction has been The State itself:

* Monopoly on the threat and use of violent force is State driven (for better or worse)

* Monopoly on End of Life is also decreed by State and not until recently an open topic (for better or worse)

In both cases, take a massive complex dumb system of rules, regulations, laws that form a processing machine. That is what dictates these questions above, this complex apparatus is inhuman but is the so called body of knowledge dictating the ground rules for the above.

Why it is coming to a head finally is because the prolonged morbidity of elderly is becoming so blatantly obvious and questionable probably more due to social media discussion and exchange of information than anything the mainstream media has conducted.

Yes absolutely there is a taboo religious and moral component underpinning the above monstrous bureaucratic systems eg “sanctity of life”, what constitutes “human rights” and the problem of unintended consequences of assisted dying becoming lawful.

What maybe should be discussed also: Is current society set up right where people slog their guts out over working for the economy living in worse health than they should setting themselves up for higher morbidity in their pension years?

Probably that entire vision of society needs to change also with more emphasis on health and well-being and balanced life style than on the economy driving so much of life?

[-]

sharksharkandcarrot@reddit

Still more mentioned in the EU THAN ASIA

[-]

Playful-Marketing320@reddit

Social care in this country is abysmal. I’m not against euthanasia but I wish they’d put more focus on fixing mental health services, the NHS, and care for the elderly first so that people who could live longer aren’t just left with one alternative

[-]

simpleton394@reddit

you mean besides it being IMMORAL?
"doctors" may judge people who are "adults with incapacity" (we're talking about people with profound disabilities and therefore care needs, who are incapable of speaking or making decisions independently and with no family to decide for.) as "suitable candidates" for this.

[-]

sparkly_wolf@reddit

I'm a care worker, it's kinda taboo for me because would you want me caring for your relatives if I was loudly proclaiming how people should be put out their misery? Every unexpected death I'd be looked at with suspicion.

It's such an incredibly complex and nuanced subject. In theory I believe people should have the right to decide to end their life on their terms rather than go through a long, painful, undignified dying process.

In practice though, I see so many ways it could and would be abused. I've had clients crying and begging me to help put a pillow over their face because they don't want to live like this any more. The biggest reason they give me is feeling lonely and not wanting to die alone because family don't visit as often as they want. I've had more than one family refuse to consider a care home (desperately wanted by the client, so not to be alone) because "they'll take to house and that's my inheritance"

My Father always said he would hate living with dementia and would rather be put down. He was often angry and stressed, not a happy man. Until he got Alzheimers and gradually became a happy, cheerful person. It's unusual and we were lucky but I can confidently state he was happier in his final years than the decades before. If he could have made an advance decision we could have been put in a position of having to support him to die before his time in the happiest period of his life.

I've known many people who managed to hang on for one last christmas/family wedding/new grandchild etc then quietly die within days. Can you imagine the pain of your Mother making an active decision to die now you're married? Because some people absolutely would.

I can already see the adverts in the vein of direct cremations.....you don't want to be a burden to your family.....isn't it better to arrange things on your terms....save your children the stress of caring for you as you die. People absolutely will be influenced and that's worrying.

[-]

MadMuffinMan117@reddit

Because we have seen what happens when government run health services can offer euthanasia in Canada. In the governments hands euthanasia is pushed on people over expensive treatments and nobody trusts the NHS not to do the same and tell people suffering is a part of being old, get over it or die.

[-]

Weird_Influence1964@reddit

One word “Church”! They are often at the root of these problem’s! Time that the church was banned

[-]

Dracubla@reddit

It's not taboo. I'm for it but I wonder why the government might be, especially with over 14 years of attacks on disabled people and the upcoming pension collapse. I'd love to believe they're finally caring enough about people suffering in pain with no quality of life, but I'm jaded enough to think it's actually to reduce NHS backlogs, disability benefits, and laying the groundwork for my generation to opt out of struggling in our twilight years when there's no state pension, and we're all made disabled by working past where our bodies are supposed to stop.

[-]

ClassicWorld4805@reddit

I wouldn't say it's taboo, it was a classic debate at school in PSHE lessons and English, alongside school uniforms.

[-]

ShineAtom@reddit

There is going to be a parliamentary debate on assisted dying with the private members bill likely to be formally introduced this Wednesday 16/10/2024 in the House of Commons. The actual debate and votes may take place later in the year. Starmer has said it will be a free vote. It is, I believe, limited to tthose who have a terminal within 6 months diagnosis so will not help those who, for example, have Parkinsons or similar conditions.

There have been numerous attmpts to get assisted dying legalised over the past few years. The issues of coercion and control, of pressure both from outside sources and from personal guilt are what usually scuppers the bill passing.

[-]

_WindSandStars_@reddit

As other have noted in this thread, it's not a taboo debate - lots of voices are now discussing this. The debate has probably had relatively little urgency over recent years due to a whole litany of other problems facing the country, and the fact the modern UK has rarely been first out the gate on thorny social reforms (e.g. see our appalling judicial system, retrograde drug laws etc).

[-]

PangolinOk6793@reddit

Religious people hate it because they think you die when god decides, but strangely have no problem with life support and medicine extending life beyond reasonable means.

Hyper capitalists hate it because it would severely damage income for the care home sector. Unless they pivot and charge a fortune to use euthanasia clinics.

Certain political parties would hate it as it would literally be killing off their voter base.

But amongst the majority of the population I don’t believe it’s taboo at all. If a loved one made a clear advanced decision to end their life if an illness would make their life cruelly unbearable I think most people would think it’s the most humane thing to do.

[-]

Dramatic-Growth1335@reddit

But him some smack

[-]

Sarrymino@reddit

Tbh babies are also in this predicament, they do anything without assistance either and they would willingly crawl to their deaths (if they can even crawl) without knowing.

But we have decided it’s okay to kill babies.

So maybe you’re right actually.

Perhaps it’s also okay to kill the old folk.

[-]

fleapuppy@reddit

Who’s killing babies?

[-]

whoopsIdiditagain19@reddit

I would not put anything past the current government, frankly. It feels like we're heading towards a real life Logan's Run.

[-]

Ben_JM@reddit

As others have said, it’s going to be debated and may shortly come into law.

The reason it is currently controversial though is because of the current strains on the NHS and other services. There’s a concern that someone who could receive a better quality of life if those services weren’t stretched will choose to end their life or relieve the burden of their care from family/friends.

I personally believe people should have the right to die peacefully if they so choose but I can see the counter argument of people choosing to die because of a failure of state.

[-]

RayGLA@reddit

Religion. If you kill someone - you go to hell, if you kill yourself - you go to hell.

[-]

MondoPentacost@reddit

I think the debate itself is more around how in the UK so much of services for those in need/ill/dialled go through the state and the use of these measures to remove people they consider to be burdens by the state is a concern.

[-]

not_microwave_safe@reddit

I agree it should be legalised, but here’s the primary argument against it:

Let’s say you have a history of mental health disorders. Nothing that would have you in an institution, but would require medication. You’ve just been diagnosed with a progressive disease, say cancer, but it isn’t at the terminal stage, you’ll be right as rain if you follow a treatment plan. Your family situation is one where you think you’re loved, but your parents/spouse don’t really give a shit, other family members actively hate you (nothing you’ve done, just lies being spread to them about you). Remember, you don’t know they hate you, and as luck would have it, your parents/spouse have just taken out a life insurance policy out on you. This means they benefit from your death. You’ve just had your first dose of chemo, which I can tell you from secondhand experience, S U C K S. You cba to do anything, you don’t wanna get out of bed or even eat/drink, you’re asleep. They walk up to the doctor and tell them ‘Voodoopulse wishes to undergo euthanasia. I’m sure you can understand their mental problems would lead to them thinking this through.’ Well, one could argue it would be a relief on resources, better to give cancer treatment to someone who actually wants to live, right? Given your current state after chemo, you aren’t in any position to argue, so, with your parent/spouse being your PoA, they sign off on you ending your life. You don’t wake up from that sleep. At no point did you say to them you wanted to end your life, but your mental health and your family’s feelings about you all worked against you.

[-]

Fixuplookshark@reddit

I saw a point about it on Twitter which have me pause.

Many people would say the death penalty would be acceptable for beyond the doubt crimes that are horrific. In a perfect case that would be fair.

This is true for euthanasia where if there was absolutely no pressure to euthanize and the system worked perfectly it would be ideal.

But the system doesn't work perfectly. Countries where it is in place are showing people being pressured into euthanasia for fear of being a burden kn their family and there is a growing creep of the concept. The Netherlands has started euthanasia for mental health issues which in my opinion is far beyond the pale.

Something to consider that it's not just a straightforward my body, my choice.

[-]

Fixuplookshark@reddit

I saw a point about it on Twitter which have me pause.

Many people would say the death penalty would be acceptable for beyond the doubt crimes that are horrific. In a perfect case that would be fair.

This is true for euthanasia where if there was absolutely no pressure to euthanize and the system worked perfectly it would be ideal.

But the system doesn't work perfectly. Countries where it is in place are showing people being pressured into euthanasia for fear of being a burden kn their family and there is a growing creep of the concept. The Netherlands has started euthanasia for mental health issues which in my opinion is far beyond the pale.

Something to consider that it's not just a straightforward my body, my choice.

[-]

TheSilkyBat@reddit

I don't know why it is such a taboo, but I think it's disgusting how we're ostensibly forcing people to stay alive and suffer. I've had conversations about this with my family. Once it is clear my brain is turning into mush, just let me go.

Let people bow out gracefully and on their own terms!

[-]

Pepsi_E@reddit

I think it's disgusting how we're ostensibly forcing people to stay alive and suffer

I agree. I have seen too many people suffering with terminal cancer, Huntingdons, MS, etc, to the point where I just think if it was a cat or a dog, we'd have it put down. I do believe we should allow people to make these decisions themselves.

[-]

AndAnotherThingHere@reddit

It's not taboo, but religious lobbies fight against it every time it comes up for debate.

[-]

firemeup18@reddit

I just put my beautiful dog down because he could barely walk. Broke my heart. If I got like that, I would want someone to put me out of my misery. I appreciate that there are some nefarious people out there who just want the $$ that Grandpa has. The laws need to keep up.

[-]

JReg99@reddit

Can't speak to any intellectual debate over it, but the only online argument I've seen is that the government are going to start encouraging people to use it when they have other options, as a form of "population control".

They didn't see the difference between "terminal with >6months to live, and consenting" and "healthy and guilty of wrongthink"

[-]

Ok_Entrepreneur_739@reddit

Ignoring the wacky “population control” weirdos, there is a real problem with the increasing scope of assisted dying. Every country it’s introduced to has seen the scope of who is allowed to die increase and increase. If you are terminal with 6 months to live, a better system would be better funded palliative care and actual funded (not charitable) hospices.

[-]

theoht_@reddit

i think the main counter argument is religion.

i for one believe that this should have been legalised years ago.

[-]

TEFAlpha9@reddit

But what is that to do wid da youth in asia

[-]

CthulhusSon@reddit

Call it what it actually is, State Sponsored Murder!

[-]

Quinlov@reddit

Everything is taboo in this country most people here are very average to critical thought, self reflection and empathy

[-]

SwooshSwooshJedi@reddit

It's not taboo it's discussed all the time and is being debated in Parliament. Problem is that the state refuses to pay for disabled care to an adequate degree so there are fears some people will feel euthanasia is their only option - as has been observed in Canada.

[-]

Entire_Elk_2814@reddit

I think we’re more or less past the religious objections but there are a few things to consider.

Assisted dying puts pressure on medical professionals who might have a personal aversion to performing the assistance. In a rather dystopian future, assisted dying could be beneficial to health services and could be actively encouraged. At what point in one’s life would one consent to assisted dying. You might sign a document requesting it if X happens to you in the future but what if you change your mind. If you don’t legally have the mental capacity to decide yourself but you truly don’t want to die, what happens then?

To be clear, I would choose assisted dying for myself under certain circumstances but legislating for it is quite a challenge.

[-]

confused_bobber@reddit

Cuz religion.

[-]

Valten78@reddit

When even the Daily Express is supporting legalising assisted dying, then you know the tipping point it about to be reached if it hasn't already been.

So no, I don't think it's a taboo and will likely be legalised in the next few years.

[-]

Ancient_Context_3538@reddit

Being debated in parliament at the moment.

The main problem is religion and it seems to be cat o holics who are lobbying against the move towards euthanasia.

My thoughts on this everybody has a choice over their life. Not some sky guy.

[-]

No-Channel-1840@reddit

I had this for 2 years with Covid. My nan couldn't count to 10, and I never got to see her. It got to the point where my family and I would almost hope she would die which is something i never thought id feel

[-]

GayWolfey@reddit

Almost guaranteed if it comes in within 10 years some twat of a chancellor will stand up and tell us they can’t afford something because disabled people continue to be a drain on our society.

You can see it a mile away.

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

"Almost guaranteed if it comes in within 10 years some twat of a chancellor will stand up and tell us they can’t afford something because disabled people continue to be a drain on our society."

Did you mean to write what you've written. Because that reads as they'd say they couldn't afford to enable people to end their own life because those people are continue to be a drain on society? (Did you also mean to say disabled people?)

Because that makes zero sense. If they were viewing those people as a drain they'd balance the lessening of the costs against enabling their suicide.

[-]

GayWolfey@reddit

No terminally ill I meant. My bad. I was watching the better off dead documentary so brain fart

[-]

rosechells@reddit

It's currently being debated in Parliament.

As a hospice nurse, I welcome it in the respect that it allows someone a dignified passing. We can make them as comfortable as we can, and reduce the pain, but it's not a pleasant experience for the patient or their relatives.

I also welcome the government funding hospices and hospice care (which also provides hospice at home). It shouldn't be down to the charity of the public to fund hospices.

[-]

Airbiscotti@reddit

Perhaps your grandad needs better palliation of symptoms to improve his life rather than being put down?

[-]

Farewell-Farewell@reddit

I don't think euthanasia is a taboo subject in the UK. It is, however, a difficult ethical issue though.

[-]

morebob12@reddit

I don’t think it’s taboo. Most of the public are for it, the government have just been very slow to bring it into law.

[-]

FlyOnDreamWings@reddit

Because laws have to be written on black and white and euthanasia of a person is a very murky grey zone.

Does the person have to be fully aware and in their right mind? What if they are depressed about their situation? How much pain or indignity to they have to be in before euthanasia is allowed? If they need to be physically helped by a person is that person now to be treated as a murderer by law. How do you make sure there is no pressure on the person to make the decision to end their life. So many more questions. And once the laws are in place how do you make sure they aren't abused. How do you make sure the laws are enforced.

A blanket 'no' is much easier legally speaking.

[-]

DrH1983@reddit

People don't like to think about death in general so it's not something easy to talk about.

Personally I would support euthanasia. Fundamentally I think people have the right to a peaceful, relatively painless death when they no longer wish to continue. Suicide doesn't allow this as many methods can be painful and traumatic.

There do need to be checks and balances to ensure people are not being coerced etc - and there is a decent argument about how robust these checks could be, and could they be implemented fairly.

If there was a much better social support infrastructure available maybe people would feel less inclined to end their lives but frankly a well managed social support infrastructure FOR ALL seems less likely than a well managed assisted-dying system

[-]

RattyHandwriting@reddit

I think death as a whole needs to be talked about more and acknowledged as a part of life, rather than something scary we should all shy away from.

I support assisted dying, as long as there are sufficient protections in place to ensure that the elderly and disabled are not pressured into it, either by their families or by the state. In cases of dementia for example, it’s going to be really difficult unless the person living with dementia made their wishes incredibly clear before they were diagnosed.

[-]

debsterUK@reddit

I'm sorry about your Grandad, it's horrible to see someone you love suffer.

I've always seen the issue as that it's potentially open to abuse. For example, what if relatives wanted a person to die faster because they want to get their hands on an inheritance? That isn't an issue with a family pet. I think maybe that's why as a species we're reluctant to allow this.

Me personally, I have been in so much pain the past that I wanted to die. Luckily I recovered. Had I known there was no chance of recovery I wouldn't have wanted to carry on like that.

[-]

ByEthanFox@reddit

I would say that there's a bit of a dichotomy.

As individuals, many people in the UK would like to legalise euthanasia, especially in specific situations, like where a person of cognitive faculties makes an informed decision to end their own life. Part of the reasoning for this is that the ability to end one's own life is a freedom that all able-bodied people have; like, as of right now, I have the means to end my life in numerous ways - but conditions like paralysis take this freedom away from people. Legalising euthanasia restores that freedom, as grim as that may seem.

This, above, is ultimately how I feel about the topic.

But also... There's a competing issue.

Classism and a form of social utilitarianism are strong forces in British culture. We have a strong tendency, as a society, to judge people by what they do for work and value them based upon criteria that, in capitalism terms, make sense, but in certain practical terms don't - compare, for example, the pay of nurses vs. that of footballers.

These cultural forces collude to make some people seem "worthless" cultural terms, which is an awful thing. I think there's the worry that there's tremendous pressure on people who are, say, paralysed, to accept euthanasia to avoid being "a drain", like a net negative to society's balance sheet, and that suggests an uncomfortable truth - that perhaps we consider those people as less than human, even a smidge.

[-]

Crafty_Check@reddit

Religion mostly.

To end your own life willingly is a sin, as it’s a gift from god apparently.

Frankly I’d rather take solace in my loved ones NOT suffering through their final days, than a threat from some beardy bastard in the sky 🤷

[-]

timeforknowledge@reddit

I've found people in the UK always think of the worst case scenario no matter how remotely rare it is.

Euthanasia - oh what if the person wasn't of sound mind or what if they were tricked into it.

It doesn't matter what it is they will come up with some random impossible scenario and declare it a reason to not go ahead with xyz.

[-]

Missing-Caffeine@reddit

People don't want to deal with death and the guilt they may have of "letting someone go". It could be the remaining of the "catholic guilt" - but I must say that a wake in the UK was waaaay more positive than a wake in a country like Italy. Here it feels like a celebration of life (maybe because it happens plenty of days after the death itself, so people are more in peace with that happened) whereas in Italy is literally the goodbye and everyone crying (as this usually is the day after the death).

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Considering England hasn't been catholic for over 400 years that is one hell of a cultural remnant. More likely it's a basic Christian attitude.

[-]

dopamiend86@reddit

In northern Ireland it tends to be the next day, buried in 3.

[-]

InviteAromatic6124@reddit

It's not taboo per se, it's mainly the religious nutjobs who are against it.

I went to a Catholic school and the teachings that are against euthanasia are ridiculous eg "only God has the power to decide who lives and who dies, not us" and "suffering is good because Jesus suffered when he was crucified and it helps to strengthen our faith because we understand what he went through". I shit you not, that last one is real!

[-]

PiemasterUK@reddit

It's not a taboo debate, I hear it debated all the time.

[-]

LuinAelin@reddit

It's not necessarily taboo..

Just a difficult subject to talk about in terms of morality. Like who should get to choose. What if the patient is past the point where they can't give informed consent. Who would perform the euthanasia. And what kind of support do we give people whose job is killing people.

[-]

SickPuppy01@reddit

It's not and two thirds of the UK population is in favour of it. For most people it is not something they have to think or talk about until it touches their lives. So it just generally goes undiscussed, rather than being swept under the carpet or avoided.

As others have mentioned it is about to be discussed in parliament and hopefully things will move on.

[-]

Inevitable-Plan-7604@reddit

It's not really taboo it comes up in national discourse every couple of years like clockwork

[-]

bluebellwould@reddit

MPs rejected a bill on assisted dying in 2015. A labour MP is putting a bill forward at the moment I think. Whenever I've spoken to people it's not taboo. But there is a guy with terminal cancer at our local and I must admit I wouldn't bring it up in general conversation with him. But close friends and family? I talk about it

[-]

Nydiwen17@reddit

It's a controversial debate in most places, even where it's been allowed.

Firstly, its a system that could be abused with dire consequences. For every person or family acting in good faith for someone towards the end of their life, you have the potential for bad actors. For example, families encouraging it to gain access to inheritance, or older people feeling pressured into it because they feel like a burden on their family/caregivers. The risk vs reward isn't tolerable for a lot of people.

Secondly, it comes down to how the Government would define who's eligible, and how to avoid people being pressured into a decision or being offering euthanasia as a solution inappropriately rather than as a last resort. In general the faith and confidence in Government is low and most people would say that both the NHS and our social care system aren't performing well. Would everyone trust that the system had been set up and operates well?

[-]

dopamiend86@reddit

I think it's to be debated in commons soon

[-]

spanksmitten@reddit

Is it a taboo debate? Just more so it's not been legalised here, I presume not considered a priority by gov to legalise/sort.

I guess theres possible ethical risks although I'm not sure how much of a concern they actually are. Maybe in the future it will be available here.

[-]

philman132@reddit

I presume not considered a priority by gov to legalise

There is literally a debate tabled for later this month to introduce a law to legalise it in the UK.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Please help keep AskUK welcoming!

Top-level comments to the OP must contain genuine efforts to answer the question. No jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.