Euthanasia need to be considered in UK?

[Drangueos]

I think you should be able to do whatever you want with your life, as long as it doesn't affect other lives in any way.
I know this is complicated, as ending your own life can affect a lot of people, mentally, physically, financially and more.

 

[Tykey]

It won't get through the House of (unelected) Lords :

Assisted dying bill will not now become law, say both sides

The House of Lords are continuing to debate the proposals but there is not enough time to complete all the stages in the current parliamentary session.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Assisted dying bill will not now become law, say both sides"​

So despite a large majority of us, me, many of you, wanting assisted dying to be an option for ourselves should we be suffering and terminally ill (and not force it on anyone else of course), the "Lords" know better than to give us mere plebs what we want. Sad. I'm getting to the point now of being completely ambivalent to all politics, politicians.


With the mentions of Canada debating whether to broaden its criteria on assisted dying, there are provinces in Canada that are going against this :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d5d54glreo
"Alberta seeks to set limits on use of medically assisted dying"


Edit to add : that news article about the Spanish rape victim, it's so sad. I have mixed feelings on whether she should have been allowed to end her life to be honest and I know I might get some flak for that. I can't even imagine the suffering she has had to endure. I will say this : I have been through periods in my life suffering from a serious mental health condition and during which if I could have ended my life painlessly and easily, I would have, but those circumstances never arose. Years later my life is very good, I'm so lucky. I'm glad I never had the chance to end my life. I'm not sure I agree with assisted dying when there is a chance of recovery is what I am trying to say i.e. for mental health conditions, etc.

 

[tonys]

It won't get through the House of (unelected) Lords :

Assisted dying bill will not now become law, say both sides

The House of Lords are continuing to debate the proposals but there is not enough time to complete all the stages in the current parliamentary session.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Assisted dying bill will not now become law, say both sides"​

So despite a large majority of us, me, many of you, wanting assisted dying to be an option for ourselves should we be suffering and terminally ill (and not force it on anyone else of course), the "Lords" know better than to give us mere plebs what we want. Sad. I'm getting to the point now of being completely ambivalent to all politics, politicians.


With the mentions of Canada debating whether to broaden its criteria on assisted dying, there are provinces in Canada that are going against this :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d5d54glreo
"Alberta seeks to set limits on use of medically assisted dying"


Edit to add : that news article about the Spanish rape victim, it's so sad. I have mixed feelings on whether she should have been allowed to end her life to be honest and I know I might get some flak for that. I can't even imagine the suffering she has had to endure. I will say this : I have been through periods in my life suffering from a serious mental health condition and during which if I could have ended my life painlessly and easily, I would have, but those circumstances never arose. Years later my life is very good, I'm so lucky. I'm glad I never had the chance to end my life. I'm not sure I agree with assisted dying when there is a chance of recovery is what I am trying to say i.e. for mental health conditions, etc.

I certainly won't give you any flak for your opinion on what is a very complex and personal decision. My view is that girls story was truly sad but I think an individual should have the option after all it is their life, no one knows what they are going through. So long as it considered, discussed and not rushed with family, medical and legal representatives. Her family didn't want her to go ahead with it and put her through even more suffering.
I would rather have a comfortable death when I choose and not to suffer a prolonged death just to suit my family, medical and legal people.

 

[Uther]

Edit to add : that news article about the Spanish rape victim, it's so sad. I have mixed feelings on whether she should have been allowed to end her life to be honest and I know I might get some flak for that. I can't even imagine the suffering she has had to endure. I will say this : I have been through periods in my life suffering from a serious mental health condition and during which if I could have ended my life painlessly and easily, I would have, but those circumstances never arose. Years later my life is very good, I'm so lucky. I'm glad I never had the chance to end my life. I'm not sure I agree with assisted dying when there is a chance of recovery is what I am trying to say i.e. for mental health conditions, etc.

She was in never ending physical pain though from her injuries after throwing herself off a building. At least she could make the choice to end it rather being forced to endure it for the rest of her life.

 

[Tykey]

As expected :

The assisted dying bill has failed - but the debate isn't over

In June 2025 MPs backed the legislation but now it has run out of time to become law.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, something democratically passed in Parliament, something the large majority of the public are in favour of, gets stopped by the unelected house of lords. Apparently 7 of them tabled literally 100's of last minute amendments, they didn't want to debate it, they just wanted it stopped.

So whataboutism'ists and religious zealots won the day and many people will continue to suffer agonising undignified deaths they'd rather choose not to have.

The opposition claimed legalising assisted dying risked the culling of the elderly and disabled. The world and the way it works has many risks. Should we stop making cars because people might get run over? Should we stop building swimming pools because people might drown? Etc etc. Of course not. A world should not operate on fear. It is societies job to mitigate risks as much as possible so as not to be hindered by fear.

 

[Mr Badger]

As expected :

The assisted dying bill has failed - but the debate isn't over

In June 2025 MPs backed the legislation but now it has run out of time to become law.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, something democratically passed in Parliament, something the large majority of the public are in favour of, gets stopped by the unelected house of lords. Apparently 7 of them tabled literally 100's of last minute amendments, they didn't want to debate it, they just wanted it stopped.

So whataboutism'ists and religious zealots won the day and many people will continue to suffer agonising undignified deaths they'd rather choose not to have.

The opposition claimed legalising assisted dying risked the culling of the elderly and disabled. The world and the way it works has many risks. Should we stop making cars because people might get run over? Should we stop building swimming pools because people might drown? Etc etc.Of course not. A world should not operate on fear. It is societies job to mitigate risks as much as possible so as not to be hindered by fear.

Sadly it seems some people are incapable of showing empathy for those suffering in the worst of situations. Instead their personal beliefs etc. are evidently more important.

 

[Maple Leaf]

Apparently 7 of them tabled literally 100's of last minute amendments, they didn't want to debate it, they just wanted it stopped.

In total 1,200 amendments to the bill were proposed for debate in the House of Lords. They are experts at filibustering.

So whataboutism'ists and religious zealots won the day and many people will continue to suffer agonising undignified deaths they'd rather choose not to have.

Putting innocent people through unnecessary suffering is unethical to most non-religious people. It would actually be illegal to do that to a domesticated animal, but weirdly letting a person suffer a slow agonising lingering death is seen as fine to many religious people (God's plan etc). But, in reality, you don't get any reward for bravely bearing the pain and suffering until you die naturally. You just get a coffin or an urn. It seems like a waste of time, effort, resources and a pointless loss of personal dignity and utility.

I suppose you have to be religious, or a sadist, to see anything positive in suffering. Apparently, Mother Teresa also allowed suffering rather than alleviating it, believing it brought her patients closer to Jesus. Some independent reports (and some of her former volunteers) stated that it was her policy that terminally ill patients were given only aspirin/paracetamol, or no pain relief at all, for severe pain in her hospice so as not to interfere with God's plan for them.

The opposition claimed legalising assisted dying risked the culling of the elderly and disabled.

Safeguards on who can use it can remove that risk. If it can only be authorised for someone with a terminal illness and less than 6 months to live then that cuts down the scope for abuse immediately.

There's a simple solution to the problem of coercion by relatives etc too. Just mandate that anyone wanting to use the assisted dying route must, (if not already terminally ill when the law was changed), have a "living will" in place. If someone says clearly in writing years ahead of time (when they are healthy and independent) that under certain circumstances they prefer to die rather than be kept alive (when they are in the last 6 months of their lives) then that must be considered powerful evidence of their true wishes.