On the one hand, people should be able to determine everything for themselves. Ending suffering is a noble idea.
On the other, this is wide open for abuse by the state, families, medical professionals, and those who simply need counseling. It is also needlessly wasteful, encouraging people who don’t realize their contributions to those around them just removing themselves should be avoided.
There have been a few examples in Canada where this has been poorly applied, most notably as a suggestion that a medal wining Paralympian commit suicide when she merely complained that her stair lift installation was taking too long.
Thank you Patrick. I tried to be balanced without being wishy washy. I had a bit about the libertarian in me wishing that everyone had a free choice, but I cut it for length. Ultimately, like every one of our every day transactions, the government is inserting itself in the middle, to the detriment of all parties.
Fair point - can see both sides here. But we are free to end our own lives already, we can refuse treatment, we can ask for more and stronger painkillers, all we can't do is ask someone to kill us. It is a powerful safeguard and a line we have never crossed before, once we do, we are on the other side, where the slopes are long and slippery.
You hope. Your faith in the State, the Courts, greedy families and human nature is touching, but history suggests that these cannot be trusted.
If my wife's Great Aunt was still alive her son and wife would be rubbing their hands with glee that they'd be able to get rid of her quicker so they could get their hands on her property.
No one would catch them. No one would be punished. The state will not step in to demand justice for sexually abused teenage girls, why would it step in to seek retrospective justice for an old woman who is already dead?
How would the police gain any evidence? I am genuinely sitting here racking my brains on what possible evidence there could be for coercion, as long as it was simply verbal. The police would shrug and move on. No one is going to prison for this, and certainly not for 14 years.
I am concerned that this will become normalised, and a certain type of person will be nudged into doing their duty.
Some years ago I nursed my mother through terminal cancer. It was awful of course. She had great palliative care, hardly any pain.
She constantly apologised for being a burden on me. Didn't want to make a fuss.
But she didn't. We had lovely times towards the end. Spontaneous little memories would arise. We, her family, treasure them. You couldn't schedule them or timetable them.
I hate the thought of someone thinking they're a burden in their last days and feeling like they should take themselves out. I would hate for someone who is alone to feel like that. Terminally ill, no longer independent, full of emotion and navigating a strange new journey, it would be hard to allow yourself to take as much time as you want if everyone around you expects the cleaner more streaml8ned option.
You are so right Forest. It’s great that you have those memories.
Of course some people really do suffer. And for them some accommodation should be made. Unhelpfully I can’t suggest what that accommodation should be.
But this legislation clearly opens the door to state assisted suicide becoming the norm. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but certainly down the line. I found the increase in take up in Canada genuinely shocking, and very depressing. I really worry that we are being encouraged to see old people as an inconvenience. And worse,for them to see themselves in those terms.
My mother was terminally ill and the medical staff were very matter-of-fact about what could happen if we chose.
It's a myth that assisted dying is not already happening all around the country in care home - it is, and nobody raises an eyebrow.
There are old and ill people who have no relatives to push back on these decisions. Acceptance of this bill will lead directly to the Liverpool Pathway, but on steroids.
"No government can be trusted. Especially this one". This statement, in my humble opinion, just about sums up any contact the Great Unwashed has with any State apparatus.
Any government which condemns 4,000 pensioners to hypothermia and death - their figures, not mine - and then sets about legalising "assisted" killing deserves to be regarded with some suspicion at the very least and utter distaste at worst. The sixth commandment is the shortest, and the most difficult to argue with; "Thou shalt not kill".
Starmer and his ghoulish acolytes have taken their thirty pieces of silver and are doing the bidding of people who, in a saner universe, would not be regarded even as human. Good luck with that in the long term Keir.
Apart from all that I am now off to the decanter for an early sharpener. If Mrs. Starmer's little boy tried to take even that little sin from me - THEN murders may be committed :-)
Agreed no-one. I simply cannot abide Starmer and his government. A mix of haughty incompetence and disdainful entitlement. It’s like being ruled over by Marie Antoinette.
I expect we grew up with the idea that Government was there for the good of the people, flawed though it may be, and there was a sort of compact between rulers and ruled to co-operate for the good of society. What happens when that compact is ruptured? If society is no longer held together by consent and co-operation, then things can unravel quite quickly.
Fair point RC - but if it is eventually passed into law it will be with the approval of the sitting government, surely? And the private member looked altogether far too pleased with herself than I found entirely comfortable.
I think one of the reasons they went with the private members bill is so it could avoid the length of debate demanded by a government bill. I’m no expert. But I believe it was left like this, rather than adopted by the Labour government so it could at once rush it through the Commons without proper scrutiny, and also to provide distance its from its consequences. ‘Not our fault Gov! It was a ‘grassroots’ demand.’
A typical leftist tactic C.F . The ridiculous elite sponsored, organised and promoted ‘grassroots‘ ‘People’s Vote’.
One MP even trying to insist it is called "assisted dying" while banning the word "suicide" in case that reminded the listener what this is really all about. The attempt to restrict even the words spoken is a big red flag that this is something I could not support.
Yes, driven by a woman who, sadly, has terminal illness herself after a decent lifespan, Esther Rantzen. I wondered just how the celebrity status was so much a driver. As for the Private Member - she was just, as I read it, "next on the list" to put a bill forward, and seems to have plucked this issue out of a bingo hat.
I think there are elements in parliament/Labour for whom this has been a big issue or pet cause for a long while. I expect Starmer tying it to Esther Rantzen-who has obvs been lobbying for it-is just another example of Starmer’s misreading of the electorate .
He/our boss class thinks associating a controversial policy with a celebrity will make it an easier sell to the public because we all worship celebrities.
It wasn't her particular issue. As I read, she was persuaded to make it so. I may of course be wrong but she also didn't seem that convincing making the case.
The next Member on the Private Members' Bill list is always subjected to immense lobbying. Some already have a particular issue they want aired, others just succumb to pressure.
It had tacit support from Government. If Government didn't want it, it wouldn't happen so the Bill was pushing at an open door, without the scrutiny that would be expected from a Government bill.
I know what the Church says. I agree with you that the last agency I want in charge of deciding my life or death is any sort governmental one, but I am still willing to pull the lever on some folks here since the thought of them still taking another breathe whilst their victims families sobs is abhorrent to me. Call me conflicted.
As for assisted dying, my opinion, which I realize counts for less than zero since I'm a distant observer, is I think it should remain illegal, but that mercy should be shown at the trial to those who aid once each case is heard. Yes, that means a prolonged battle, and likely a public one, but isn't that what we would want if our life was on the line? Those who wish to assist should believe the act of mercy to be worth risking their own futures. The only way to prevent abuse is to hear each case, and all the facts. Three people get to decide what amounts to a capital punishment case? Yikes.
That’s such an interesting take AMP. Maybe a sort of court system similar to the.(obviously very flawed) family court system that we have here, would be a way forward. And each case looked at as you say in public.
Very good summation of where we are, if unusually generous to the other side of the debate. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. Does that mean that 'good intentions' let you off from facing the predictable consequences of your own judgement?
Thanks Martin. I do believe that most people on this issue, even if I don’t agree with them, are motivated by good intentions. A personal experience around the issue would be a highly motivating factor, one way or another.
Obviously though, I share your concerns. I don’t believe passing this law has made us a ‘better’ society. Canada is certainly not reaping any benefits. And I don’t see why we should be different. Especially since our governments both seem motivated by the same spiteful, anti human agenda.
You are very generous, and very decent. I agree we are moved by the heart rending hard cases, they really are heart rending. They are though rare and could be managed better. We should know better where excessive compassion takes us. You are right that even if we agreed the principle that assisted suicide is acceptable in some circumstances, there are never going to be good enough safeguards, and there’s no simple boundary between the good and bad cases - it may be better to err on the side of caution (and cynicism at the political machinations).
I think safeguards might work, in theory, but only in a serious ethical framework where we all understood the limits and the risks. One of the problems we face is the lack of trust and the lack of a shared culture, where we can work from some principles we all share and allow some exceptions, We could say now, that assisted suicide should be safe, legal and rare. Then in 10 years anyone who says that will be the extremist.
I wonder if it will come into force in time for all the farmers who want to pass on their farms to their children without losing the farm to inheritance tax? Next May I think..
Sorry that’s tasteless but there have already been suicides…
Well it’s a genuine worry isn’t it Tom? This government, which in opposition, went out of its way to demand we shutter society supposedly to protect the old and vulnerable, now seems to have declared war on the old and vulnerable. And not in a metaphorical sense, but in a real actual sense.
The farmers you mention are another case. The left always bang on about mental health and ‘safeguarding’, yet are dumping a slurry lorry of stress on the head of already struggling, elderly farmers. It’s almost like they say one thing, and do another.🧐
You are right about almost everything. No government can be trusted, stuff would go wrong for sure, and the ads are distasteful and should not be allowed. That it s until you reach a point in life when you know you must end it. Not everyone is lucky enough to die in their sleep or from a quick and painless accident. Many would chose a dignified end to avoid years of suffering for themselves and the loved ones. It may feel like it will never happen or is far in the future, but then s-t happens, and there is no way out because assisted suicide is a crime, and your loved ones who want to help would go to jail. It is a horrible dilemma. I think only Swiss found a reasonable and graceful way to do it.
You're entirely right, Mr LSO. In fact you've hit the nail on the head. The issue isn't assisted dying (which, being an advocate of choice and control over ones life I support) but is a wider problem with the relationship of citizen to state.
It - as an entity - is so corrupt, so incompetent, so destructive, self serving, arrogant and petty that it simply cannot be trusted with anything anymore. They're like toddlers breaking all the plates because they like the noise, supported and endorsed by an unncaring, belligerent, grossly overpaid child minder who ostensibly works for us but has become so domineering she's taken over the household.
(And apologies for the she, but I've not yet met a male nanny).
Thank you again. I wish I were as eloquent as you are!
Very well said.. The thing about this Bill for me is that it has, "if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong" written all over it.
Exactly Julia. It’s a scandal waiting to happen. One which, during Covid, has already happened.
I am conflicted over this.
On the one hand, people should be able to determine everything for themselves. Ending suffering is a noble idea.
On the other, this is wide open for abuse by the state, families, medical professionals, and those who simply need counseling. It is also needlessly wasteful, encouraging people who don’t realize their contributions to those around them just removing themselves should be avoided.
There have been a few examples in Canada where this has been poorly applied, most notably as a suggestion that a medal wining Paralympian commit suicide when she merely complained that her stair lift installation was taking too long.
Appreciate your article
Thank you Patrick. I tried to be balanced without being wishy washy. I had a bit about the libertarian in me wishing that everyone had a free choice, but I cut it for length. Ultimately, like every one of our every day transactions, the government is inserting itself in the middle, to the detriment of all parties.
Fair point - can see both sides here. But we are free to end our own lives already, we can refuse treatment, we can ask for more and stronger painkillers, all we can't do is ask someone to kill us. It is a powerful safeguard and a line we have never crossed before, once we do, we are on the other side, where the slopes are long and slippery.
In this country, assisted dying will be restricted to people who are already dying and it will be their choice. Coercion will not be allowed.
You hope. Your faith in the State, the Courts, greedy families and human nature is touching, but history suggests that these cannot be trusted.
If my wife's Great Aunt was still alive her son and wife would be rubbing their hands with glee that they'd be able to get rid of her quicker so they could get their hands on her property.
I imagine there’s an awful lot of hand rubbing going on right now Ian. As well as cruises being booked and conservatories being planned. 😬
Your wife's cousins would get the house a couple of months earlier at the risk of 14 years in prison. I expect they would wait.
No one would catch them. No one would be punished. The state will not step in to demand justice for sexually abused teenage girls, why would it step in to seek retrospective justice for an old woman who is already dead?
How would the police gain any evidence? I am genuinely sitting here racking my brains on what possible evidence there could be for coercion, as long as it was simply verbal. The police would shrug and move on. No one is going to prison for this, and certainly not for 14 years.
“I’m sorry kids but Granny is gonna die in a couple of months.”
“If we can get her to kill herself, will we get her house quicker?”
That is supposedly what the interviews with the two doctors are for.
"My grandson said he wants me to die so he can get my house a couple of months early."
"Hello, is that the police?"
You are indeed a Clown if you think people would be that unsubtle.
Assuming they believed the prognosis given by her doctors?
I can only stand back with amazement that you really think this is how things will work out in the UK. Unless that was sarcasm?
I think that's the law that will be passed. That's how it works in other countries that have passed a similar law.
Why do you think it will be different?
I just don’t think it will be anyone’s priority Ragged. No one will care. All sorts of abuses will occur.
You think putting a clause in the bill "No coercion will be allowed" would stop said coercion?
I am concerned that this will become normalised, and a certain type of person will be nudged into doing their duty.
Some years ago I nursed my mother through terminal cancer. It was awful of course. She had great palliative care, hardly any pain.
She constantly apologised for being a burden on me. Didn't want to make a fuss.
But she didn't. We had lovely times towards the end. Spontaneous little memories would arise. We, her family, treasure them. You couldn't schedule them or timetable them.
I hate the thought of someone thinking they're a burden in their last days and feeling like they should take themselves out. I would hate for someone who is alone to feel like that. Terminally ill, no longer independent, full of emotion and navigating a strange new journey, it would be hard to allow yourself to take as much time as you want if everyone around you expects the cleaner more streaml8ned option.
You are so right Forest. It’s great that you have those memories.
Of course some people really do suffer. And for them some accommodation should be made. Unhelpfully I can’t suggest what that accommodation should be.
But this legislation clearly opens the door to state assisted suicide becoming the norm. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but certainly down the line. I found the increase in take up in Canada genuinely shocking, and very depressing. I really worry that we are being encouraged to see old people as an inconvenience. And worse,for them to see themselves in those terms.
Thanks so much for your comment.
Yes, to see themselves in those terms. I think that's what I'm afraid of.
Thank you LSO, I really enjoy your stack, while not always agreeing, I appreciate the thoughtful respectful vibe you work so hard to cultivate here.
Thank you Forest. That means a lot.
Totally agree.
My mother was terminally ill and the medical staff were very matter-of-fact about what could happen if we chose.
It's a myth that assisted dying is not already happening all around the country in care home - it is, and nobody raises an eyebrow.
There are old and ill people who have no relatives to push back on these decisions. Acceptance of this bill will lead directly to the Liverpool Pathway, but on steroids.
Agreed JM. And the safeguards we were promised, have inevitably proven just as illusionary as we feared.
"No government can be trusted. Especially this one". This statement, in my humble opinion, just about sums up any contact the Great Unwashed has with any State apparatus.
Any government which condemns 4,000 pensioners to hypothermia and death - their figures, not mine - and then sets about legalising "assisted" killing deserves to be regarded with some suspicion at the very least and utter distaste at worst. The sixth commandment is the shortest, and the most difficult to argue with; "Thou shalt not kill".
Starmer and his ghoulish acolytes have taken their thirty pieces of silver and are doing the bidding of people who, in a saner universe, would not be regarded even as human. Good luck with that in the long term Keir.
Apart from all that I am now off to the decanter for an early sharpener. If Mrs. Starmer's little boy tried to take even that little sin from me - THEN murders may be committed :-)
Agreed no-one. I simply cannot abide Starmer and his government. A mix of haughty incompetence and disdainful entitlement. It’s like being ruled over by Marie Antoinette.
I think she was prettier and had a sense of humour
I expect we grew up with the idea that Government was there for the good of the people, flawed though it may be, and there was a sort of compact between rulers and ruled to co-operate for the good of society. What happens when that compact is ruptured? If society is no longer held together by consent and co-operation, then things can unravel quite quickly.
My understanding is that this was a private member's bill and was not introduced by the Labour government.
Fair point RC - but if it is eventually passed into law it will be with the approval of the sitting government, surely? And the private member looked altogether far too pleased with herself than I found entirely comfortable.
I think one of the reasons they went with the private members bill is so it could avoid the length of debate demanded by a government bill. I’m no expert. But I believe it was left like this, rather than adopted by the Labour government so it could at once rush it through the Commons without proper scrutiny, and also to provide distance its from its consequences. ‘Not our fault Gov! It was a ‘grassroots’ demand.’
A typical leftist tactic C.F . The ridiculous elite sponsored, organised and promoted ‘grassroots‘ ‘People’s Vote’.
One MP even trying to insist it is called "assisted dying" while banning the word "suicide" in case that reminded the listener what this is really all about. The attempt to restrict even the words spoken is a big red flag that this is something I could not support.
Absolutely Iris. Huge red flag for me too.
I'm not an expert but I believe Parliament has the final say. The government will have to figure out how to implement it though.
Yes, driven by a woman who, sadly, has terminal illness herself after a decent lifespan, Esther Rantzen. I wondered just how the celebrity status was so much a driver. As for the Private Member - she was just, as I read it, "next on the list" to put a bill forward, and seems to have plucked this issue out of a bingo hat.
I think there are elements in parliament/Labour for whom this has been a big issue or pet cause for a long while. I expect Starmer tying it to Esther Rantzen-who has obvs been lobbying for it-is just another example of Starmer’s misreading of the electorate .
He/our boss class thinks associating a controversial policy with a celebrity will make it an easier sell to the public because we all worship celebrities.
Yeah. How’s that working out for you Kamala?
Why do you think she plucked it out of a bingo hat, Giulia?
It wasn't her particular issue. As I read, she was persuaded to make it so. I may of course be wrong but she also didn't seem that convincing making the case.
The next Member on the Private Members' Bill list is always subjected to immense lobbying. Some already have a particular issue they want aired, others just succumb to pressure.
Do you agree with Guilia that she plucked this issue out of a bingo hat? Or do you think she chose it because she cared about the issue?
She might have been persuaded to make it her issue.
I have never previously heard of her so have no idea of any pet issues she may support.
It had tacit support from Government. If Government didn't want it, it wouldn't happen so the Bill was pushing at an open door, without the scrutiny that would be expected from a Government bill.
Agreed Martin. It served Starmer to introduce it this way. Otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.
Another fine article. It's not accidental that all the people in "assisted dying" ads are white.
Oh Jesus. The Blitz. 🙄
Great article. I would suggest that it is in effect "state approved murder" or could, as you eloquently point out, soon become that.
Love the line about Lammy 🤣
Great piece!
High praise indeed. Not sure though if this can be turned into a cheerful song.
Ha ha. He’ll give it a try!
Thanks Dominic!
I know what the Church says. I agree with you that the last agency I want in charge of deciding my life or death is any sort governmental one, but I am still willing to pull the lever on some folks here since the thought of them still taking another breathe whilst their victims families sobs is abhorrent to me. Call me conflicted.
As for assisted dying, my opinion, which I realize counts for less than zero since I'm a distant observer, is I think it should remain illegal, but that mercy should be shown at the trial to those who aid once each case is heard. Yes, that means a prolonged battle, and likely a public one, but isn't that what we would want if our life was on the line? Those who wish to assist should believe the act of mercy to be worth risking their own futures. The only way to prevent abuse is to hear each case, and all the facts. Three people get to decide what amounts to a capital punishment case? Yikes.
That’s such an interesting take AMP. Maybe a sort of court system similar to the.(obviously very flawed) family court system that we have here, would be a way forward. And each case looked at as you say in public.
Thanks AMP. That’s such an interesting idea.
Very good summation of where we are, if unusually generous to the other side of the debate. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. Does that mean that 'good intentions' let you off from facing the predictable consequences of your own judgement?
Thanks Martin. I do believe that most people on this issue, even if I don’t agree with them, are motivated by good intentions. A personal experience around the issue would be a highly motivating factor, one way or another.
Obviously though, I share your concerns. I don’t believe passing this law has made us a ‘better’ society. Canada is certainly not reaping any benefits. And I don’t see why we should be different. Especially since our governments both seem motivated by the same spiteful, anti human agenda.
You are very generous, and very decent. I agree we are moved by the heart rending hard cases, they really are heart rending. They are though rare and could be managed better. We should know better where excessive compassion takes us. You are right that even if we agreed the principle that assisted suicide is acceptable in some circumstances, there are never going to be good enough safeguards, and there’s no simple boundary between the good and bad cases - it may be better to err on the side of caution (and cynicism at the political machinations).
Agreed. And as you say Martin, our compassion is weaponised against us at every turn. I feel that well is beginning to run dry.
I would also err very much on the side of caution on this. Unless a system with decent safeguards were proposed. And this is definitely not that.
I think safeguards might work, in theory, but only in a serious ethical framework where we all understood the limits and the risks. One of the problems we face is the lack of trust and the lack of a shared culture, where we can work from some principles we all share and allow some exceptions, We could say now, that assisted suicide should be safe, legal and rare. Then in 10 years anyone who says that will be the extremist.
I expect the bill avoids the words "slippery slope". Which is what it undoubtedly is.
Gran is a huge pain, we need her bungalow, she must die. Is this the government saying this, to get the inheritance tax that’s due on the bungalow.
Ha ha. Yes Tony. I think Tony Blair called it ‘joined up government!’
In order to protect ourselves we must announce we have changed the terms of our wills but not disclose who is/are the new beneficiary/ies
I wonder if it will come into force in time for all the farmers who want to pass on their farms to their children without losing the farm to inheritance tax? Next May I think..
Sorry that’s tasteless but there have already been suicides…
Well it’s a genuine worry isn’t it Tom? This government, which in opposition, went out of its way to demand we shutter society supposedly to protect the old and vulnerable, now seems to have declared war on the old and vulnerable. And not in a metaphorical sense, but in a real actual sense.
The farmers you mention are another case. The left always bang on about mental health and ‘safeguarding’, yet are dumping a slurry lorry of stress on the head of already struggling, elderly farmers. It’s almost like they say one thing, and do another.🧐
Brilliant article.
Thank you R
My pleasure.
You are right about almost everything. No government can be trusted, stuff would go wrong for sure, and the ads are distasteful and should not be allowed. That it s until you reach a point in life when you know you must end it. Not everyone is lucky enough to die in their sleep or from a quick and painless accident. Many would chose a dignified end to avoid years of suffering for themselves and the loved ones. It may feel like it will never happen or is far in the future, but then s-t happens, and there is no way out because assisted suicide is a crime, and your loved ones who want to help would go to jail. It is a horrible dilemma. I think only Swiss found a reasonable and graceful way to do it.
Agreed Just. There needs to be a sensible, proportionate, compassionate and carefully considered solution. The Assisted Dying Bill is clearly not it.
I missed this one- it slipped into my junk box. Pity ...
You're entirely right, Mr LSO. In fact you've hit the nail on the head. The issue isn't assisted dying (which, being an advocate of choice and control over ones life I support) but is a wider problem with the relationship of citizen to state.
It - as an entity - is so corrupt, so incompetent, so destructive, self serving, arrogant and petty that it simply cannot be trusted with anything anymore. They're like toddlers breaking all the plates because they like the noise, supported and endorsed by an unncaring, belligerent, grossly overpaid child minder who ostensibly works for us but has become so domineering she's taken over the household.
(And apologies for the she, but I've not yet met a male nanny).
Thank you again. I wish I were as eloquent as you are!
Thanks Wibbling. A perfect analogy. Very much the opposite to ‘the adults are back in the room.’ 👍