THIS TREAD IS ABOUT THE ASSISTED DYING BILL.
I'm glad it's passed, I know any people will disagree, and I respect thier choice, as I can't take any pain killers except paracetamol, this bill gives me some comfort that when the end is in sight, I have some choices and hopefully won't have to depart before I'm ready.
I don't agree with it passing, the reason is it can be extended in the future potentially! but I think people should have a right to choose if they are in a lot of pain and the condition is not curable, now or in the future, like cancer or other illnesses. i think it should stay that way, only terminal illness, it shouldn't go beyond that and be extended into mental health! it would end up like Canada or the Netherlands! there are others.
I do not understand your reasoning here. Without the bill being passed there is no right to choose to die. The bill enables people in unbearable pain with a terminal illness to choose to have an assisted death. It also removes the threat of loved ones being prosecuted for murder, when they carry out the wishes of someone whose life is unbearable. Anyone considering this option would have to be judged to be capable of making an informed choice, which would rule out anyone with any mental impairment.
Medically assisted death for the terminally ill is not eugenics.
I do not understand your reasoning here. Without the bill being passed there is no right to choose to die. The bill enables people in unbearable pain with a terminal illness to choose to have an assisted death. It also removes the threat of loved ones being prosecuted for murder, when they carry out the wishes of someone whose life is unbearable. Anyone considering this option would have to be judged to be capable of making an informed choice, which would rule out anyone with any mental impairment.
Medically assisted death for the terminally ill is not eugenics.
Anyone considering this option would have to be judged to be capable of making an informed choice, which would rule out anyone with any mental impairment.
Therefore, a person suffering a mental illness would be invalidated from accessing assisted termination of life.
Our conversation has reminded me about this article, which I read last year.
After receiving legal approval in the Netherlands, this lady was euthanised due to her treatment-resistant psychiatric suffering. Her conditions included autism, chronic depression, anxiety, trauma and unspecified personality disorder.
Evidently, she was not found to lack capacity. The article also states that, in 2023, 138 assisted dying cases in the Netherlands involved psychiatric suffering.
Guardian - Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering
If a mental condition rendered them incapable of informed consent, then they would not have access.
I agree. The point I'd hoped to make in my earlier reply was that, in your previous comment, you seemed to have ruled out the possibility of there being a distinction between those who have a mental illness but don't lack capacity, and those who have a mental illness and do lack capacity.
In respect of the latter group, we agree. Although, as I mentioned, I imagine that there might still be some exceptions to that (eg living will, Lasting Power of Attorney).
A person must have agency, in order to make a decision to ask for assisted dying. If a mental condition rendered them incapable of informed consent, then they would not have access. Access to assisted dying would be through clinicians for everyone, presumably, anyone with an mental condition that rendered them incapable of informed consent would not get clinical agreement.
Whist I agree that it could be extended in the future, I don't think that automatically means more cohersion, I would see it extending to things like MND, where people can still be OK in thier minds, but their bodies are failing to a point where they effectively have no life. I wouldn't want to be in that position.
My biggest question is about mental impairment, what does that actually mean in practice? Would it mean that someone who had a history, say of depression, would automatically be excluded, even if they'd got better, or had their condition controlled? I think such things should be decided on a case by case basis, just because you have or have had a mental impairment shouldn't mean that you're denied an assisted death in your final weeks or months.
Yes you are correct about the mental illness in Canada, they have postponed it until a later date, but its already happened to some people with a co existing physical condition, they are even talking about children being able to access it in the future under safeguards! there's been quite a few cases in the Netherlands as well that are pretty disturbing. i hope it doesn't go in that direction in the UK, seems like it would be a downward spiral from there, that's why i was against it passing, purely for it being potentially extended, and that's more likely once they start passing those types of laws. i think assisted dying if you have a terminal illness that's incurable should be a right if your in unbearable pain with no hope of recovery or treatment, but its my take it shouldn't go beyond that.
In the UK a mental illness would be considered as rendering a person unable to make an informed decision.
It could do - but, under the Mental Capacity Act, the fact of having a mental illness does not necessarily or automatically mean that a person would lack the capacity to make an informed decision.
Also, a person might have previously granted someone a Lasting Power of Attorney (enabling someone else to make such decisions on their behalf) and/or have made a legally-binding advance decision / living will.
The mental illness clause in Canada is not in law yet. It may well not make it into the statute books as it has received a great deal of criticism in Canada.
In the UK a mental illness would be considered as rendering a person unable to make an informed decision. Therefore, a person suffering a mental illness would be invalidated from accessing assisted termination of life. Mental illness is not usually terminal, so this would be another impediment.
It could eventuality lead to changes in the not too distant future, that's why i disagree with it, i believe in its current form with strict controls people should have a right if they are terminally ill with limited time to live. but its a short step though from it being only physical illness that is terminal, to mental illnesses and autism, this happened in Canada for instance where it started the way it has here, it was then extended, that could easily happen in the UK as well. maybe i do word things in a confusing way sometimes, but without going too deep into the details, that was why i thought it shouldn't of passed, it being extended which is a possibility, i hope its not though.
