Some progress, finally.
Edit: for the benefit of the tinfoil hat wearers, assisted dying is not the same as euthanasia.
As an American, it is truly appalling to see MAGA Republicans on social media try to dig their nose into UK politics now. Many British were in favor of this bill, and MAGA Republicans are now calling the country satanic. I applaud the bill and hope it helps those who need it.
Helping other people is a really difficult concept for the Make America Gilead Again cultists. I’m glad there’s still some of you with your heads on the right way.
Meanwhile women are bleeding to death and dying slow and painful deaths from sepsis because of maga laws, butt dying with dignity without suffering is satanic
Wow, unexpected. Finally some boldness to be humane about end-of-life situations.
I just hope it comes with sensible checks and balances.
The proposed law is only available to people with a terminal illness judged to have 6 months or less to live, needs to be signed off on by two doctors and a judge, and the patient needs to take the drugs themselves. If anything it’s potentially too restrictive, but a step in the right direction.
It usually does. The entire idea is to avoid suffering, not to add to it
The main concern is turning into Canada
Explain?
Canada has gone too far in terms of who is eligible for assisted suicide in many people’s opinions. For example people who are mentally ill are able to request assisted suicide from the state.
I mean mental illness can cause plenty of suffering so I don’t see why it should be excluded. As long as that person can give fully informed consent the same as other conditions.
So why do we have suicide hotlines, then?
Suicide is not assisted, leaves a mess for those that discover a corpse, EMT’s and others to clean up. Someone’s suffering might end when they jump in front of a train but the train driver’s suffering only just begins at that point.
Suicide is often an unmanaged, chaotic process which causes trauma. It also often fails whilst leaving those that attempt it in bad physical shape. A law like this reduces the necessity of discussing, normalizing or enabling suicide because there is a safe and properly counseled path out of a no-win situation for those that truly need it. A policy on containment when there are probably household cleaners that could do the job effectively with a small amount of chemistry knowledge is absolutely insane - and if someone truly is in that much pain, they’ll find a way. Families and loved ones also have time to work through grief and loss rather than getting the wind knocked out of them when they hear the news.
The fact that we’ve hit a point where we can even have a discussion about this is probably something that should be celebrated, rather than being so totalitarian and controlling that we effectively force people to live even when they’re in enormous pain.
So the problem with suicide isn’t people taking their own life, but the mess they leave behind? How heartless is this attitude?
There was a case like that somewhere in Europe earlier this year. I think it was in the Netherlands, but it was a young woman who had numerous mental health issues that were causing her real suffering and she would probably have done the deed herself at some point.
It was only about the second time it had been approved, and required a lot of time and numerous doctors to sign off on their being nothing they could do to help her professionally.
It made me feel quite uncomfortable, but then thinking about it logically she met all of the criteria, the only real question was about confirming she knew what she was doing.
Well that seems like a bad idea
Person,: “I’m suffering paranoid delusions that the state is out to get me and want to end my life!”
The state: “well, we’ll be happy to help…”
Yeah it’s the so-called slippery slope argument people are making that countries which have legalised assisted dying so far have tended towards making increasingly more people eligible over time.
Conflicted on that tbh. Slippery slope is one of the classic logical fallacies but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t happen.
Except this is nothing like the procedure Canada has in place.
People seeking this out need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, it needs to be approved by two doctors and a judge, I believe it has to be brought up by the patient, etc.
It will be eventually, if we’re not careful. The capitalists are gradually trying to normalise it.
So the slippery slope fallacy, got it.
“If we allow terminally ill the choice to die painlessly and with dignity, we’re actually welcoming doctors telling anybody with any ailment to kill themselves” is a wild take.
You can apply the same fallacy to practically any law. It’s absurd.
“They’ve introduced an age of consent?? This is a slippery slope! Soon the government will prevent all reproduction!1”
“They’ve introduced a 70MPH national speed limit?? This is a slippery slope! Soon you’ll only be able to travel at 5mph! More 15 minute city dystopia!!”
One of the biggest arguments against women getting the right to vote was that it would be a slippery slope that would lead to society becoming matriarchal and men becoming subservient to women.
It’s a silly fallacy.
It’s not a fallacy. It literally happened in Canada.
It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.
And again, this is nothing like the protocols Canada has.
You need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, of sound mind, have the go-ahead from two unaffiliated doctors, and it needs to be reviewed and signed off by a judge.
You’re advocating for real, horrific, suffering to continue because hypothetically the law could be changed in future in a way that could be bad.
I’ve worked in care homes full of people who barely sleep, and spend their entire days in agony that you and I cannot even conceive of. They begged to die. They begged us to covertly kill them. But our job was to forcefully keep them alive against their will, prolonging their suffering for as long as we possibly could. No attention given to their comfort or quality of life, just ensuring they are kept alive as long as possible. That’s what we had targets for. Seriously harrowing stuff.
If you had seen that, day in day out, I doubt you’d have this “we need to make them suffer, because hypothetically in X years we could be like Canada, where some doctors made a recommendation they really shouldn’t have.”
Regardless, it’s pointless talking about. Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace and most importantly, by MPs.
It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.
Circular reasoning fallacy
I’ve worked in care homes
Anecdotal fallacy
Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace
Ad populum fallacy
and most importantly, by MPs.
Appeal to authority fallacy
It’s not possible for that to happen in the UK without a further bill in Parliament. I believe in Canada the law has changed as a result of decisions by the courts.
This is an amazing change. I’ve seen way too many people suffering in a way that before my previous job, I couldn’t have even begun to imagine. People in agony begging to die but being forced to live.
People that would get a few hours of interrupted sleep a day, and then spend 20 hours of the day awake living in excruciating pain, begging us to covertly put them out of their misery.
Setting the moral discussion aside. I think Starmer will be worried that this will define his first term and absorb his ministers’ bandwidth as it is being implemented. He would have wanted to focus on the economy and his plans for “rebuilding” but that will get less oxygen in the media now.
Wait, you can get assisted death after losing an emotional debate? Or can the winner also partake?
Welcomed but let’s see how this progresses over the next two years before it becomes law.
Good. Less brits.
Way too many people happy about the burguese state having power to kill people
burguese
LMFAO 😂😂😂
The muddle class.
Way too many people relieved that they might have the possibility to end their own life to avoid suffering.
Way too many people with illusions about a burguese state being preocupied with the well being of the masses
Explain how this law allows the state to initiate the process?
They can’t, they’re only here to troll. Ignore it.
bourgeois, the spelling is bourgeois.
In english
I had to look that up, it’s the Spanish spelling? I didn’t realise. It’s commonly misspelled by native speakers.
This is giving the people more power over having the ability to gracefully end their own lives rather than the state saying people should continue to live in pain and suffering.
Nothing new, they always had. This isn’t about that anyway
Well, that’s one way to reduce, to quote Sir Starmer, “the benefits bill blighting our society”.
If you think offering people with less than 6 months to live a way to die painlessly and with dignity is actually a conspiracy to mass-murder everybody on benefits, then you are a fucking lunatic.
You can take issue with the bill without spinning some conspiracy theory about Starmer wanting to bring about a second Holocaust.
Thats incredibly crass and you should be ashamed of yourself
The truth is often crass.
The restrictions are pretty reasonable. The obvious “risk” of abuse is that this is a slippery slope and both the rules get relaxed and the safeguards lose their funding and attention over time, but the chance of that happening increases over time, there’s no way in hell they’ll be making a dent in the benefits bill for the next few years.
So I don’t think your suggested link between this and the current governments goal of reducing benefits is the truth, or even particularly credible.
Maybe there will be problems in 20 years, it’s certainly a reasonable fear and I don’t blame anyone who argued against it to avoid that risk, but I can’t seriously believe that anyone thinks the government is going to use this to start killing off benefit claimants in job lots.
Tldr: your ”truth” is a pretty dumb take
Progress? It’ll progress until they use this as a way to shorten the NHS waiting list. “Would you like to suffer for three years or die instead”. Or better yet, “We can’t give you that, but we can euthanise you”
Brain dead take.
It’s literally canada
You are being downvoted for telling the truth. People who think the state will use this to “help” those in need have no idea how politics work
In Canada it turned into a cost cutting measure. There are several instances of people being euthanised as they had no other option. Like someone with EDS being refused treatment in America, or an ex-serviceman being refused a wheelchair ramp and offered euthanasia instead.
UK gov cuts food for children in school, cuts energy for elderly people, engage in war with a nuclear armed country. But when they start euthanasing the population its because they are concerned with the well being of people.
It’s the cheaper thing to do, lol. Soon they’ll stop offering palliative care as part of “budget cuts” (Kier needs a new suit) and this’ll be their excuse
The issue isn’t assisted dying, the issue is capitalists trying to destroy our healthcare system.
My grandma got an euthanasia. She took ten years to express her will and when her backpain took all her quality of life, she ended it. It was a moment of grace and with the perspective I wouldn’t have wanted her to die any other way. She was 87, lived standing, stayed openminded and present until the end, died in dignity.
You look like an innocent person so i will explain the issue to you in good faith. Every bad thing that a gov has to do, they start by doing it in the name of the “good thing to do”. So first they ban homophobic books, they euthanise the ones in need, they censor people who talk offensive things, etc. But this opens the door to ban books, to euthanise people, to censor what you say. The first step is always “in the name of the good”. But politics is not a single moment, it keeps going on. Once the door is open, more or less anyone can go. Can you imagine when they start euthanising felons, for example? Do you think that if the prison wants to kill a felon, the felon will be able to argue that its actually a death sentence and they are not suffering & domt want to die? Just wait and you will see how this goes. And since its Kid Starver thars your PM now, i dont think this process will take long
I’m not an innocent person and I have done unspeakable things. But sure, I’m in good faith mate :)
The issue is the same with genetic therapy vs eugenism. Wanting a child to be born without disease isn’t the same as a policy to eliminate genes.
I fully understand your defiance toward the state of course, we must be very careful not to I understand your concern, now let’s be honest. If the state wants to kill you, it does, it doesn’t embarrass itself with legality. And what’s the alternative? Leaving people on respirators for years?
Kinda like abortion, or drugs, you cannot really outlaw consensual acts that happens between the doctor and the patient imho. Legalizing weed opens the door for mandatory weed, yes, but how realistic is that.
