Assisted suicide — MPs asked to state acceptable coercion deaths

Anyone who opposes DNRs should be forced to perform chest compressions on an 88-year-old woman who looks like their grandmother. That's the kind of trauma that lasts a lifetime.

I think that argument could solve all of society's problems. Death ends all suffering. One less mouth to feed. One less traumatised person for the public services to spend resources on.

I am very strong on the stance that suicide is NOT selfish, and what is actually selfish is making someone continue living, no, not even living, just surviving, in complete agony because they don't want to be sad they're gone. It's fucking sadistic to force someone to keep suffering.

Saying the GG have chosen the inhumane option & have never been nasty before is strong words - it's true that she's chosen to demonstrate why the cruelty was unnecessary rather than the impact on those affected. But that in itself is an important and frequently misrepresented subject.

Canada is very much an outlier. Other countries have evolved over time, but considering we can’t pass even the tightest of bills, it’s unlikely that the slippery slope argument would apply here.

I'm not familiar enough with either case but I know there are places it's been introduced for only the 'terminally ill' that it's then extended. Canada is a good example.

yeah. i used to think "medically assisted suicide" was a reasonable thing. Then I saw (thanks to social media existing!) Canadian doctors offering disabled people death instead of treatment which made me re-think my opinion.

I guess we disagree fundamentally on this, because choosing not to continue a life which you have zero chance of enjoying seems perfectly rational to me, however much it might be a choice I hope I never have to make.

She co-sponsored 19 amendments at report stage but our heroine Kim Leadbeater decided to ignore them!

She sponsored 19 amendments at committee stage. Leadbeater chose to ignore them.

Yes, which is made plain and clear in this case. It can be opposed, but I oppose it but I won’t tell you why is pathetic.

If you or the MP are getting death threats then report them to the police. But those who send such threats are extremists, and not the majority of those supportive of assisted dying.

(It is - of course! - also absolutely fine to oppose entirely on moral grounds about the sanctity of life, whether guided by religious or other beliefs. But in those instances be aware it’s a value judgement and it will come up against value judgements around autonomy)

But surely if we wouldn't approve for any one of those things, we're saying there's a level of combined disability where we think it's reasonable to be suicidal? As a (very) disabled person myself that seems very concerning. It's implicitly agreeing that some lives aren't worth living

And that would extend to anyone is long term suicidal? I don't feel comfortable with that. And it seems a fair distance from a dignified death from someone terminally ill

Yeah on the substance of assisted dying, I do think it's a very difficult issue with no right answers and huge risks either way. But I've found opponents of assisted dying to be unusually lacking in any empathy for those on the other side

Firstly, any MP must state precisely whether their objection to assisted dying is moral - they would not support it in any capacity - or whether there are “holes in the bill”. There will be holes in any legislation - it is impossible completely rule out any abuse and coercion. /2

I mean, she can’t change her mind now, sure. But my point being that Matt’s objection is based around the idea that maybe she would have and i’m saying what if she hadn’t, and spent decades miserable and in pain?

She very much can not change her mind! Anyhow, she wouldn't have been able to do this in the UK under the proposed legislation because she didn't have <6 months left to live

It was a pithy response to the OP who'd decided to call Antonia 'utterly appalling' and an 'extremist'.

Which is a perfectly legitimate principle. But you said “maybe you're cool with this?” and shared the screenshot, as if this case were an example of an egregious misuse of euthanasia laws

Fair, but I’m just saying it’s quite unintentionally misleading given the entire case is “irreversible paraplegic with chronic pain, brain damage and a plethora of mental health conditions who very much wants to die”, why wouldn’t I be ok with her being allowed to end her life peacefully?

Absolut. Och om man vet att personen är i livets slutskede finns det inte heller problematik med stark smärtlindring. Men jag kan tänka mig att vissa i den situationen kan komma fram till att man hellre avslutar så fort som möjligt.