That Starmer fella...

I agree, one of those policies that seems like “yeah, people should be able to authorise their care as they see fit”, but implementation comes in a cynical, ableist society that already has wild medical precedents in place for disabled people.

it’s not even a strictly theoretical debate, Canada, who operates on a similar democratic plane and Overton window to us, has already rolled back their policy after fears were realised:

https://jacobin.com/2023/01/canada-medically-assisted-dying-poverty-disability-eugenics-euthanasia

this was when their wording was expanded to include those with mental health complications being able to self certify. People doing this from living depressing lives on little government assistance and a society that discriminated against them. combined with todays wording from our own government about people with adhd really cements those fears.

And yeah, Feelings of this “rushing it through because we think it’ll not be something we have to consider for a while if it fails” is very yes vote hubristic

that a mature society should be okay with

No reason for the Uk to be even talking about it then.

Is Canada more comparable to the UK than the other countries with Assisted Dying legislation in place?

I think it's no coincidence that many of those against assisted dying are deeply ideological / religious / paternalistic. But none of them have yet come up with a good reason why I should be prevented from ending my life at a time and place of my choosing, because of their beliefs.

Also worth bearing in mind that Canada has not in fact rolled back on its MAiD policy and that Jacobin link doesn't suggest anywhere that it has. Canada simply decided not to expand it further (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68120380).

There are good reasons, which is why it is a complex debate.

There are good reasons to vote against assisted dying but I don't think there's any good reason why the religious or ideological beliefs of person X should determine the legislative freedoms available to person Y, who does not share them.

To put a crude example, if you're anti-abortion because of your religion, I respect that, and you should be free to choose not to have an abortion - no-one should force you to have one. But that is a two way street. Your religious beliefs should not prevent others, who do not share your religion, from having an abortion, should they choose to do so.

This is a basic principle of a secular society.

There are plenty of good reasons that are not related to religious belief.

People should not be in a position to end their lives because they feel, or have been made to feel, that they are a burden to others.

Feels like we're talking at cross purposes a little.

Maybe. All I am saying is that there are strong and valid arguments on both sides of the current debate.

Yeah I guess I always think of it along the lines of "I'd want that option", rather than what if I didn't want it but people kept suggesting it to me! I can't imagine going to the hospital and the Dr giving you the same look the MOT tester gives you when your car fails again....

I'm pretty agnositic to the debate, but there are plenty of disability campaigners who are against assisted dying - which has nothing to do with their religious or ideological beliefs.

The state should be there to protect people, especially from itself. Which it currently fails to do, so why weaken the safeguards further.

Anyway, to frame the debate as simply relgious v secular erases the perspectives of those disability rights activists. Liz Carr is a great example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLLsAP7OkOg&ab_channel=BritishCouncilArts

Just re-reading this and is your point actually that MPs with religious beliefs shouldn’t make decisions based on their religious beliefs?

That itself is quite a complex debate!

I think pretty much all these arguments fall flat when you consider that it only applies to people who have been assessed to have only 6 months to live.

The "palliative care isn't good enough" argument, for example: palliative care isn't going to significantly change over a 6 month time frame, so if someone is thinking about their options and decides they would rather not be subjected to a shitty undignified system, how are we helping them by making them go through it against their wishes? There is no third option of magically improving palliative care, you either spend your last few months in the system we have today, or not.

Expanding it to people who have more than 6 months to live is where it gets a lot more complicated and where these arguments start to become important

Many of the basic laws and habits that we have stem from Christian religious requirements for historical reasons. They aren't based proper modern or mature conversation.

I think it's long overdue in modern society that we need to be able to give people the choice at end of life. To me the proposed safeguards are pretty solid, requiring several Drs, a Judge and a long cooling off period. The sky hasn't fallen in on countries that have assisted dying.

It's slightly different with a free vote but in general, yes. I vote for an MP based on the legislative agenda proposed by the party they're a member of. Their religion should not come into it.

I think Tim Fallon should be the model here. He was part of a school of faith which believed that gay sex was a sin; personally I think that's a contemptible belief. However he consistently voted in favour of gay rights because he recognised that what put him in power was his constituents, and they expected him to have their back, and enact the policy platform he was elected on. I think that's the right approach.

With a free vote, it's slightly different as MPs represent their constituents by using their own judgement, which will necessarily include their religious background. But I think it's uncontentious to think that judgements arrived at through evidence and experience are more likely to reflect reality than those arrived at through religious doctrine.

My real beef with this debate is the dishonesty. We have religious MPs who object to the bill due to their faith failing to be honest about that, and instead dressing up their concerns as purely technical or practical. If an MP cannot separate their faith from their judgement on this issue - and I understand why they couldn't - they should at the very least be honest about that. I don't think a single religious MP has been honest about that so far (in fact some have been quite aggressive about it when people suggest their religion may play a part in their objection) but by an enormous co-incidence they've all been against the bill on 'technical' grounds. What a shocker.

My inner cynic tells me that the rushed nature of this debate, ie a short time for discussion and public consultation, leads me to think that this is another Westminster stitch up. MPs will vote against the bill as a way of simply getting the issue out of the way. The focus on the paternalistic/religious beliefs of mps is causing stress. Westminster's job is to safely channel democracy onto secure turf.

A majority of people in the UK have been in favour of assisted dying since the 1980s. There have been seven attempts to get assisted dying legislation passed since 2010 alone. I don't think the 'rushed' argument holds up.

The rushed argument relates to the parliamentary process and timeline on a private members bill

There was an interview with a (Christian) opponent on TV last night saying (I'm paraphrasing) "Well what if someone with a terminal illness is at a weak point and not thinking straight and they agree to assisted dying, they can't then object after the fact"

Fuck. Me. 🤔🙄

It’s not a bad argument to be fair, depending on what the process is. Coercion could be a very real risk.

Does anybody know what the suggested process is? I’ve not been following it, so can’t say.

Yeah because the two months you miss out on could be wicked eh?

Terminally ill adults expected to die within six months will be entitled seek help to end their life, but only where two doctors verify they are eligible, and a high court judge has confirmed they're of sound mind, not being coerced, etc. No doctors will be forced to take part if they don't want to.

The proposed safeguards are more stringent than any others that I've seen for equivalent countries.

And the waiting list for all this will be 16 month.

Just wait till labour link it to a 100% IHT rate

.