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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
