Assisted dying bill

I would not recommend that documentary. I love Liz, but that documentary set out with one purpose alone. It is in no way balanced.

I agree with that but I don't think the intention was to be balanced, or that all documentaries have to 'both sides' every issue. I think it's okay for people from marginalised groups to set out their own personal experiences and perspectives into a world where that perspective hasn't been heard.


I do agree that someone who's terminal and in huge pain with days to live should have access to help making a decision to die on their own terms. But the fact perfectly physically healthy young autistic people are dying from euthanasia because systemic ableism against autistic people is making their life miserable, that's awful, because that's a failing of society that needs to be addressed. Creating a system where euthanasia is a valid way of dealing with autistic people removes responsibility on society to change society to accommodate and understand autism. The onus should be on society to not be so awful to autistic people that they feel euthanasia is the only choice. With understanding that society assigns value to people according to their capitalistic value, and disabled and autistic people often aren't considered full and valued human beings.

In a practical sense we can put whatever safeguards in place (eg, excluding mental illnesses or neurodivergent conditions) but any laws passed will always be vulnerable to legal challenges.

And talking of specialising, what about the industry that will emerge to help us deal with this? Somewhat tasteless to mention, I apologise but I can imagine the settings and accessories etc.. 

I’m sitting with my Mum in her care home right now. If the state she is in is my future then I want to right to die rather than this. If I’m diagnosed with vascular dementia I’m not gonna leave it too late to take my own life.

Of course the provisions of the published bill wouldn’t help you in those circumstances, or someone assessed to have 12 months to live rather than 6, so you might judge it discriminatory on that basis. There are plenty of lawyers who will assert exactly that and mount challenges, probably via ECHR, to expand the scope.

And since when does being an expert in the criminal justice system make someone an expert at deciding an individual can die? Even if these judges are willing to take on that role, and let’s face it it’s a role that could mess with your head in a big way, I’m not sure it’s right.

Without know much at all, I imagine an area of law that might crop up would be disputes between siblings - who may have had entirely contrasting relationships with the parent - and 'influence' through to manipulation and coercion. Power of attorney, etc. In other words, an almighty he-said-she-said, which we see often enough with contested wills.

Can't imagine the emotional intensity of these situations.

The 'patient' MUST have expressed the wish (in writing) to have their life terminated whilst they were compos mentis - so that would exclude some coma and all birth defect patients.

Indeed.

But we do have judges who are specialists in this sort of law.

I don't believe they have stated which division would handle such cases

This is why I wish this had been a government bill with a decent timetable.

This sort of technical detail needs to be properly factored in.

If Starmer had the gumption to take over the bill, give it the time and attention it needs then we might see this important change come about for those who wish to make use of it.

As I said before, this has been proposed many times in the past. I know not everyone agrees with it but the right to a death with minimum suffering should be one open to people.

Suicide is not a viable or reliable option. But an assisted death is.

I want that right. Just in case. I don't want to have to stockpile pills or research how to slice the right vein.

Dignity at the end of life is important.