• Replies 45 replies
  • Subscribers 37 subscribers
  • Views 1871 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

The bill has passed, now onto the HoL

TheCatWoman

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.

Parents

  • 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. 

  • in reply to Изгнан

    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.

  • in reply to Martin

    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.

Reply
  • in reply to Martin

    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.

Children
No Data