Euthanasia need to be considered in UK?

[SpellowHouse]

Why on earth is there so much objection to it? I cannot understand it. Is it a case of people overthinking it?

The majority of the politicians opposing it didn't disagree with the bill in principle, they just felt that not all the details had been worked out and if passed, the bill would create more trouble than it was worth. They felt that the bill should solve the problems BEFORE it was passed!!

Very reasonable, actually, and I think the opposition was right. They have passed a half-baked bill.

 

[throwaway4372]

I bet a good chunk of those opposing it are in the pockets of big pharma. A huge portion of pharma sales goes to people in their later years. The longer people live, the more money big pharma makes.

 

[Priapus]

There are concerns - valid ones, IMO - about coercion or implied burden. But as far as I can see, this law will just mean there is a choice available to those that want it, and there will be many hoops to jump through before it's approved. Sadly people like @Vexr seem to think this is forced euthanasia for old people. I know for a fact if I get a terminal cancer diagnosis I'd be signing straight up - **** suffering like that, and watching my family see me suffer like that.

I'm quite far in the "for" camp, probably moreso than others. I'd actually just make all suicide legal and assisted. If you've decided you've had enough, that's your choice - go to a clinic, have a calm, humane death instead of having to jump off a building or lie in front of a train. None of us chose to be here, at least let people have a choice about when they leave.

I concur. I've joke with the wife many times, if I get to that stage "Take me out back".

End go the day, it's a personal choice. People should be allowed to make their own decisions to end their own life in a dignified manner and avoid suffering. Of course there needs to be adequate protection for those unable to make the decision. As for the argument about "20 something Canadians ending their life" - so what? It's their choice. As long as they are of sound mind and have been given help and support they need to perhaps see life from a different perspective - you do you, if you want out. Life should not be a prison.

 

[adidan]

My grandmother is in a care home and has dementia; why should I want her put down like a dog?

You can't, it's not your choice to make. That's a very uninformed thing to say.

Can't lie, this forum is a liberal hellhole 'current thing' 'sensible liberal folk' and general right POS.

So people don't agree with you so you toss it into the 'liberal hellhole' bag. Clearly you don't want to understand anything that contradicts your opinion.

As for the Bill, excellent. If I get a terminal diagnosis I'd want the choice. I don't want to be kept alive just so my nearest and dearest's last memories of me in agonising pain.

 

[tonys]

The majority of the politicians opposing it didn't disagree with the bill in principle, they just felt that not all the details had been worked out and if passed, the bill would create more trouble than it was worth. They felt that the bill should solve the problems BEFORE it was passed!!

Very reasonable, actually, and I think the opposition was right. They have passed a half-baked bill.

Do governments solve all the problems of legislation before they enact it? I don't see a problem with this as safeguards are there and as I said earlier on, reviews should be carried out at intervals. It all comes down to your own personal choice, if people want to keep you alive against your wishes isn't that going against your human rights?

 

[200sols]

I bet a good chunk of those opposing it are in the pockets of big pharma. A huge portion of pharma sales goes to people in their later years. The longer people live, the more money big pharma makes.

As well as vested interests like that there is also the religious crowd bringing their faith into it.

 

[413x]

I saw my partners mum pass from cancer.
Every day towards the end she would ask to die when she was lucid.
The pain medication was maxed out, she wasn't the same person.
It was cruelty. You'd be blasted if you kept a dog in thay condition.

Selfishly, I do not want to be forced through that. There's zero chance she would get better. She wants to go. Why on earth can we not let people go?

We love our animals, the most important gift we give is to end their suffering when it's needed.. As it's the right thing to do.


Most of the people against are religious from what I've seen. But I'm glad the vast majority of people want this. Too many of us have seen people die horribly.. Often of cancer. You wouldn't wish it on someone you hated. Yet our loved ones are forced to endure it. Insanity.

 

[tonys]

We have DNR forms in this country so what is the problem in just extending the options?

 

[Priapus]

You can't, it's not your choice to make. That's a very uninformed thing to say.

To be fair; they views come across as ignorant of the bill being proposed. No one can force you to end your life under this bill and you cannot put anyone "down like a dog"

Most of the people against are religious from what I've seen. But I'm glad the vast majority of people want this. Too many of us have seen people die horribly.. Often of cancer. You wouldn't wish it on someone you hated. Yet our loved ones are forced to endure it. Insanity.

I'm surprised it;s taken this long to get it through Commons; this is the third attempt.

 

[Hotwired]

I'm surprised it;s taken this long to get it through Commons; this is the third attempt.

Probably a good helping of stalling in bad faith under the guise of seeking perfection.

 

[Combat squirrel]

Thank god its passed, common sense prevails - amazed so many object to it - as mentioned above likely big pharma sadly objecting to it (that industry needs sorting out, no good ever comes from them)

Lets hope the House of Lords doesn't play silly games with it & when its put in action its straight forward without years of red tape and prolonged suffering.

I can imagine if it goes well, a great many people will choose this option, hopefully one day its extended to people of sound mind who are simply very old and have not much quality of life and wish to go out on their terms as well as terminally sick.

 

[Hagar]

Thank god its passed, common sense prevails - amazed so many object to it - as mentioned above likely big pharma sadly objecting to it (that industry needs sorting out, no good ever comes from them)

Lets hope the House of Lords doesn't play silly games with it & when its put in action its straight forward without years of red tape and prolonged suffering.

I can imagine if it goes well, a great many people will choose this option, hopefully one day its extended to people of sound mind who are simply very old and have not much quality of life and wish to go out on their terms as well as terminally sick.

We will have people in the lords who were in the commons in 1997 and 2015 who voted it down previously, not too many i hope. We also have a rabble of bishops who no doubt will be sceptical as well as the religious of all flavours now present. A few special interest persons who still believe that they will be marched to the gas chambers at the slightest pretext.

It will take a few iterations I suspect but it should pass due to general feeling within the population.

My take on this is its freedom for the individual to choose. The less we leave to the government to decide, the less they can **** it up.

 

[Priapus]

Thank god its passed, common sense prevails - amazed so many object to it - as mentioned above likely big pharma sadly objecting to it (that industry needs sorting out, no good ever comes from them)

Lets hope the House of Lords doesn't play silly games with it & when its put in action its straight forward without years of red tape and prolonged suffering.

I can imagine if it goes well, a great many people will choose this option, hopefully one day its extended to people of sound mind who are simply very old and have not much quality of life and wish to go out on their terms as well as terminally sick.

I believe it should be open to anyone; over 18 who is not terminal. I say 18, because before that there are too many emotions and immaturity to make such a decision about your life. On reconsideration, perhaps it needs to be 25 and over.

We shouldn't limit it to those just with incurable illness.

We will have people in the lords who were in the commons in 1997 and 2015 who voted it down previously, not too many i hope. We also have a rabble of bishops who no doubt will be sceptical as well as the religious of all flavours now present. A few special interest persons who still believe that they will be marched to the gas chambers at the slightest pretext.

It will take a few iterations I suspect but it should pass due to general feeling within the population.

My take on this is its freedom for the individual to choose. The less we leave to the government to decide, the less they can **** it up.

I don't think the House of Lords will block this; they don't normally block bills (Private members or Government) and it's rumored "very likely" to pass.

 

[Mr Jack]

*deleted*

 

[Priapus]

It passed the Lord's on first and second readings, it seems likely to pass the third too.

It did? I'm not full yup to speed of parliamentary processes; but doesn't a bill start off in the House of Commons first - who blocked it in 2015 - then go to the House of Lords for a legal sanity check?

Ignore, I read your post incorrectly

 

[Penfold101]

You’d think the religious would want to be dying as quickly as possible - why wouldn’t they want to get into heaven now instead of later?

 

[tamzzy]

We have DNR forms in this country so what is the problem in just extending the options?

DNAR = not intervening should death occur
Euthanasia= actively participating in bringing about death.

Yes the outcome is the same, but the method is a literal world apart.

 

[tonys]

DNAR = not intervening should death occur
Euthanasia= actively participating in bringing about death.

Yes the outcome is the same, but the method is a literal world apart.

I know they are worlds apart, I was just pointing out they are both the persons own choice.

 

[Mr Jack]

Ignore, I read your post incorrectly

Nah, you were right the first time, I was getting confused

 

[mmj_uk]

You’d think the religious would want to be dying as quickly as possible - why wouldn’t they want to get into heaven now instead of later?

"Thou shalt not kill". LOL

I bet a good chunk of those opposing it are in the pockets of big pharma. A huge portion of pharma sales goes to people in their later years. The longer people live, the more money big pharma makes.

Yeah but on the flip side you have the government who are constantly complaining about the welfare bill in which pensions is by far the biggest chunk, they also have to pay for the NHS prescriptions. Once people are comfortable with medically assisted suicide it's going to be a very slippery slope, anyone can see that.

Once it's been legalised it's only a matter of time before all of the inevitable court cases over eligibility get in full swing and bit by bit it will be watered down.