Lawmakers in Britain Narrowly Approve Bill To Legalize Assisted Dying (cnn.com) 72
Lawmakers in Britain have narrowly approved a bill to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill people, capping a fraught debate in Parliament and across the country that cut across political, religious and legal divides. From a report: MPs passed the bill by 314 votes to 291, in their final say on the question. The bill -- which has split lawmakers and sparked impassioned conversations with their constituents the breadth of Britain -- will now move to the House of Lords for its final rounds of scrutiny.
Friday's vote puts Britain firmly on track to join a small club of nations that have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors and a panel would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states, including Oregon, Washington and California.
Friday's vote puts Britain firmly on track to join a small club of nations that have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors and a panel would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states, including Oregon, Washington and California.
Needs sufficient oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
Checks (Score:2)
Re:Checks (Score:5, Informative)
Or alternatively, and stop me if you think this is crazy, whether someone you don't know chooses to die or not is none of your goddamned business, and if they are unable to carry it out in a way that causes as little suffering at all, and seek out professional medical assistance then again, providing they are of sound mind, it's none of your goddamned business.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
STOP
yes this is crazy. There can be tremendous social pressures on someone to make them feel they are a 'burden' etc even if they really want to go on living. That is before you start to worry about really self serving actors applying coercive pressure.
Then there is the matter that pain often manifests, depressed people frequently experience chronic pain that really is all in their head and with the right treatment can go on to live happy lives. What do you think the medical industry is going to do though
Re: (Score:2)
As for "social pressure", the way to fix it is to offer mental health treatment to people, not force them to keep living once all their will is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether someone is "curable" or not doesn't affect the GP's point. A friend of mine has ALS. He faced nonstop pressure from doctors to choose to kill himself. Believe it or not, just because you've been diagnosed with an incurable disease doesn't make you suddenly wish to not be alive. He kept pushing back (often withholding what he wanted to say, which is "If I was YOU, I'd want to die too."), and also fighting doctors on his treatment (for example, their resistance to cough machines, which have basicall
Re: Checks (Score:2)
compared to not being alive, there was just no choice
That is a value judgement that a person can only make for themselves and not f
Re:Checks (Score:4, Interesting)
Or alternatively, and stop me if you think this is crazy, whether someone you don't know chooses to die or not is none of your goddamned business,
I agree 100%.
and if they are unable to carry it out in a way that causes as little suffering at all, and seek out professional medical assistance then again, providing they are of sound mind, it's none of your goddamned business.
Nope. The second a medical professional is involved, society gets a say in what happens.
Here's a related example. In the US, the rules on involuntary committal to a mental institution were made much stricter, mostly by court case law. The courts had found that a lot of people were being involuntarily committed to metal institutions because their family members wanted power of attorney so they could take their money. In other words, siblings or children were having their relatives committed so they can get money. The courts found this wasn't isolated or rare, but widespread.
Now, extrapolate that mentality to assisted suicide. I'm not saying it should be banned, but it must be very tightly regulated and audited.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, I think they should make it more widely available. Sadly, the religious people have invented a stigma around it.
We have a right to live. The reverse should also be true. We should have the right to die with dignity and with minimal discomfort. If we have a right to live, we should be allowed to control how long that life lasts.
I'd go so far as to make this available to anyone over a certain age or in certain situations. We can hash that out but the various circumstances would be too long to lis
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't any of the governments business either. So stop the moralizing.
Doctors (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Doctors (Score:2)
It becomes the doctors business, who presumably dedicated a lot of his or her life to learning how to heal people. I don't think random civil servants should have a say in that process.
In NL it goes as follows: if two different and unrelated doctors are satisfied that you satisfy the criteria and qualify for euthanasia, you get it. And the courts have no say in that.
Imagine the brain cancer reaching your pain centre and not having euthanasia as an option. It happened to the wife of a friend. Fortunately we
Re:Checks (Score:4, Informative)
The law should be straightforward and clear. Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain. Approving it for any other case is manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.
Why reinvent the wheel with additional rules and complexities then? Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since the '40s and doesn't have any requirement for terminal illness nor chronic pain, nor even for any kind of "illness" actually.
The only requirements are basically that the suicide is voluntary and whoever assists it doesn't have "selfish motives" (read. financial gain or such). You cannot get it much simpler than that.
Re:Checks (Score:4, Insightful)
In a system where the state pays medical and pension costs, the state has an incentive to end the lives of anyone who is unlikely to produce more for the state than their cost of care.
Re: (Score:3)
In a system where the state pays medical and pension costs, the state has an incentive to end the lives of anyone who is unlikely to produce more for the state than their cost of care.
And so what? It's what the person that wants to access assisted suicide wants that matters, not what the state or even the medics want.
Assisted suicide is technically not even categorized as medical procedure in Switzerland. The procedure is not provided by the state: private non-profit organizations do that with the state only providing the legal framework.
Note that in case there is some confusion, we are discussing assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a whole different topic and it's not legal in Switzerland.
Re: (Score:1)
You sound like an American. Probably for the death penalty too. Also ok with death being the penalty for defying an order from the police or running away from the victim of a theft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a woman in Canada who was approved for MAID, and her reason was that she was poor and couldn't pay her rent.
And so what? If that's her reason for wanting to end her life, who do you think you are to tell her that it's not a good enough reason? The whole point of self-determination is to give a person the ability to decide for themselves, without having to defer to other people's opinion on the matter.
What you are arguing is that society should decide whether someone's reasons are good enough, but in the matter of one's own life we are dealing with quintessential subjectivity. No other opinion should matter.
The on
Re:Checks (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Checks (Score:2)
Indeed. He should have offered her the standard option of prostitution.
If society won't fix her problem and she find them unbearable, refusing euthanasia won't help her.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true then the state would be systematically killing off pensioners, not being extremely generous to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The types of people who are going to request assisted suicide are going to be the types of people who are already getting aid from the government or using more resources than average while being covered by insurance.
What's your reason for wanting to prolong suffering in other people?
Re: (Score:1)
Or anyone who dissents, in any way, to its objectives.
Re: (Score:2)
In a system where the state pays medical and pension costs, the state has an incentive to end the lives of anyone who is unlikely to produce more for the state than their cost of care.
No, it doesn't. The state answers to the voters, so it has an incentive to keep the voters voting for them. In any private system where you're relying on for-profit companies or private individuals with very limited funds, there is a much stronger financial incentive to bump off expensive people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that someone who is dying of terminal disease can meet the conditions. And part of that is the ability to drink the cocktail of drugs.
The requirement in Switzerland is that the action that triggers the death must be made by the person wishing to die. It does not require the person to drink: it's merely the most pragmatic method for those able to do so, but there are alternatives for those who cannot.
Not sure how old the BBC story is but I'm pretty sure nowadays a machine can be set up to inject the lethal cocktail with the patient being able to "trigger" the injection with a specific sequence of eye blinks.
I don't think there are solution
Re: (Score:1)
[quote]Seriously, you have to starve yourself to carry out your wish in the US.[/quote]
Well, not true.
I have a terminal illness. At the appropriate time, I plan to take myself out. I have already acquired the necessary equipment for my "tragic accident". It's just a matter of time before I put it to use.
Re: (Score:2)
-> I have a terminal illness. At the appropriate time, I plan to take myself out.
Damn, it's sad to read this. I wish you well. I suspect I'll end up with the same issue at some point, as pancreatic cancer is real common in my family. My sister died from in it almost 11 years ago in her late 50s, living less than six months after being diagnosed. Her passing was painful and ugly, and the saddest thing I've ever experienced. Near the end, she didn't know or understand what was happening, and we were holdin
Re: (Score:2)
Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain.
I think there are a few other cases where it makes sense. Here are two examples:
- An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia.
- A child with hydranencephaly, i.e., all of the higher functions of the brain are missing, but the child is otherwise healthy.
We show far more mercy to animals that cannot live reasonable lives. Actually, I'll toss out a third example: We had an elderly dog who was having epileptic seizures. For some time
Re: (Score:2)
Would fail the cognitive ability to decide test.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And as I said in another reply I have an elderly relative who requires care and is beyond making such a choice.
It's a horrible thing to contemplate that he may keep living for another few years physically as a 'burden' in a home and the associated guilt that yet secretly we're all perhaps hoping that 'the Lord' (from a religious background) would bring a swift end because one can no longer have a rational conversation with the man we once knew. And yet he still roams the corridors of a dementia
Re: Checks (Score:2)
There is no option for euthanasia of people with dementia in any of the countries that now have it. The main reason being that they're no longer in control of their mind. The secondary reason is that, once they're gone far enough, they no longer care too much about their old selves. And we don't give euthanasia to people because others echt that.
Re: (Score:1)
"An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia."
Would fail the cognitive ability to decide test.
Unless they have spell out ahead of time their wishes as to how that situation is handled.
Re: (Score:2)
- An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia.
- A child with hydranencephaly, i.e., all of the higher functions of the brain are missing, but the child is otherwise healthy.
Those cases would be more euthanasia than assisted suicide as the persons in question would lack the ability to decide for themselves.
Obviously, there do need to be controls. And there can and should be a lot of debate as to exactly where you draw the line. But refusing to end a life just because the person is not terminally ill? That is far to limited. If there is no hope, if life is not enjoyable and never will be, be kind and end it.
IMHO the only line that needs to be drawn is the person's will. As long as it's voluntary, I don't see a reason to put additional limitations to the access to assisted suicide. I don't think it's anyone's business to decide what some other person has to "endure" or find "tolerable".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of your business. If a person is capable of doing themselves in and wants to do so, you can not stop them from jumping off a high point. If somebody is of reasonably sound mind, they get to choose if unable to carry out their wishes on their own.
It becomes complicated when psychology calls self-harm "crazy" making the person's decision irrelevant but the person to decide if they are making a sane decision should be the expert who makes the educated guess. Chronic pain is as foolish a rule as saying abo
Re: (Score:2)
You think constant stress, anxiety, depression is a not a form of chronic pain?
My sis had a friend in her 20s who went through a year of medication, therapy, and whatnot before her request for suicide was granted. She was physically healthy but mentally in pain. You want to keep torturing people like her for the remainder of their life because of your selfish beliefs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law should be straightforward and clear. Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain. Approving it for any other case is manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.
Having watched my mother slowly waste away over a period of years from Alzheimer's, I certainly wish that on you and your family.
Re: (Score:1)
Disagree. The govt should kill anyone who asks for it.
Why should people live if they don't want to?
The govt is supposed to serve the people. What better service can there be than putting them out of their misery upon request?
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada the law wasn't supposed to allow MAID for people with only mental health conditions, but an inquiry determined that the system was approving it for practically anyone who asked.
Why discriminate against people with "only" mental health conditions?!
Mental health conditions are often one of the very worst things to live with. Why shouldn't those people be allowed to end their lives?!
How did society get to the point where we don't even own our own lives, and we need permission from government to end them?!
Re: Needs sufficient oversight (Score:1)
How did society get to the point where we don't even own our own lives, and we need permission from government to end them?!
Old British common law. Peasants owed labor to the lord of the manor. And upon dying, owed that lord a "death tax" as compensation for the loss of that labor.
Much of US law us based upon this common law. And, following our revolution, the elites started to realize how bad an idea an actual "free" population would be.
Re: (Score:2)
We had 'assisted dying' laws go through a few years ago here in Victoria. I believe you can get permission for things like early alzheimers etc but there are checks and balances about coercion from children seeking an inheritance etc.
Sensitive topic, I have an uncle in his 90s who is now in 24/7 care in a facility. My aunt could no longer look after him but he is no longer of sound mind, to use a euphemism, to have signed any paperwork even if the option had been available to him.
OTOH, my extended family li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the concern these days isn't some old notion of it being a "sin". It's concern over abuse.
I don't think that is true. Most of the opposition is based on religious belief. The concerns over abuse are real, but manageable.
These are difficult ethical issues, and there's no simple right/wrong answers.
Is there really a difference between the 'ethical issues" and religious ones? I think the larger issues are ones of free choice and to what extent human beings should have it or actually can have it. Does a person with dementia have the right to make a free choice based on their current mental state or should it be made based on the choices they made or would have made before the
Re: (Score:2)
Good! How is that a bad thing? It doesn't matter why someone else wants to end their life. If they are capable of making the choice then let them make the choice. No one else should have the right to interfere or tell them they can't decide when to live and when to die.
How about it's none of your business why som
Good, about time! (Score:4, Insightful)
The government, do not own my body, it should be my decision and mine alone on what happens. I fully appreciate that doctors may not want to be involved and they should never be compelled to assist if their conscience forbids it, but if there are doctors that are willing to assist, they should not be prevented from doing so by some arcane law.
It has been said many times before, we don't force animals to endure a painful and disturbing death, we show them compassion, and yet we force humans to suffer. If YOUR religious or ethical beliefs deny you the possibility, that is absolutely fine, then make sure your family are aware of your wishes, so that if you ask for it you can be denied. The rest of us should have the option.
It's a good start (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But the law is very limited. You have to be certified by two doctors as only having 6 months left to live.
This makes it, not completely useless, but still pretty useless. By the time you have at most 6 months left to live with Alzheimer's, you've already had just about all the suffering your own brain can dish out and are now an incontinent, drooling wreck, insensible to anyone you knew or loved and incapable of anything approaching happiness or contentment.
Re: secular eu does not value human life (Score:3)
Why should human life be valued? Wouldn't we all be a lot better off if everyone killed themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you associate a life worth living with religion, because that's my experience as well
Washington State ... (Score:2)
Die against family's wishes... (Score:2)
Assisted suicide is a dick move (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting doctors involved creates all kinds of perverse incentives and even ignoring that, is a dick move ... if you had the balls, you'd be dead, so you are forcing the decision on them.
Unless they're paraplegic, it should be people's own responsibility. We need legalised suicide aids, not assisted suicide. Time for suicide booths.
Re: (Score:2)
creates all kinds of perverse incentives
If you are experiencing a perverse incentive I think the best thing to do would be to hand in your fucking medical degree. Doctors are required to make life and death decisions all the time. It's part of the job. If you mentally can't handle that then choose a more appropriate career.
Re: (Score:2)
The perverse incentive is that government could be incentivised to further limit healthcare spending, because doctors can use maid and their position of authority and influence as a wartime triage method to cover up some of the consequences. The relatively clean death of some, to provide more effective healthcare for others.
"a terminal condition and less than six months" (Score:1)
Finally (Score:2)
They can assign this task to their dentists so they will finally have something to do.
US already has - no assistance required (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually thought it was higher than that. I checked and Google AI says it is 58%, other sites seem to round up to 60%.
Bureaucrats can't be involved (Score:2)
As seen in Canada, they will focus on money and not people' well being.
Former paralympian tells MPs veterans department offered her assisted death [www.cbc.ca] instead of the home wheelchair ramp she's been fighting five years for.
Late stage republic move (Score:2)
No worries about an invader killing your people, or a madman rounding up the sick and infirm in concentration camps to be disposed of. No, we'll just off ourselves and demand the government cover our expenses. In Canada one in every TWENTY deaths is medically "assisted". https://cbn.com/news/health/ca... [cbn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but how many of those people would have shortly died anyway, in pain and with no dignity?