assisted sucide AGENDA?
 

who is pushing this all the time?

its hitting parliament now

God help the sick weak vulnerable and elderly if assisted suicide is legalised across the uk

even in a country where tens of thousands die from neglect in british hospitals and care homes and nursing homes ....we already have the post code lottery where people in poorer parts die on waiting lists

all we hear from the small minority who want to kill themselves ....anyone who wants to kill themselves has my sympathy, but we already have record suicide rates in the uk (especially amongst men)

theres 1000s of abuses already, nil by mouth without consultation allowing people to starve to death

heaven forbid what happens when we open the floodgates to killing people in hospitals.....will it be abused? all the best

who is pushing this agenda? THE RICH......BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO PAY FOR THE PENSIONS OF THE EVER AGING POOR MASSES!

It's usually those dying, the PM has ruled this out so hopefully that's the last we'll hear for a while.

Ah just goes to show you can't trust word from his gob the commons are voting on it now...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-politics-live

The motion was defeated

Thank God. Im sick of hearing about this bizarre death wish narrative
Weve never even heard the counter argument about the obsene abuses it could open up
how would you like to be in a vulnerable state with the thought someone somewhere may be assisting your death
with the nhs as vulnerable and skint as it now is, the danger is greater than ever and the buck souldnt stop anywhere...even if it did its too late for the poor bugger who has been bumped off or assisted to his grave
hospitals are for saving lives not bumping people off

But surely if someone, usually very ill, is done with life, sees no point in living and wants to die but are incapable of doing it themselves should be assisted, I'm not hppy with today's ruling. It will be costing the NHS a fortune when people are content with their life and are now wanitng it to be over for the better

I wish this bill was passed to be completely honest, I don't understand why someone should be made to suffer when they don't need to.

Phew :)

people are already allowed to die with nil by mouth and turning off machines....if you take it this step further to give people cyanide to kill themselves you open up one hell of a hornets nest....theres already masses of abuse and neglect this would make it ten times worse

I would happily see us allow assisted suicide HOWEVER, only in cases where the person wishing it has a permanent, uncurable, and very painful condition. I'd also want a number of doctors (say at least 5?) to sign off on the fact that the person has such a condition.

Allowing people to kill themselves just because they're old, "done with life", finding things difficult is obviously not OK.

However, forcing someone to live in serious pain - sometimes agony - and in fact sometimes artificially keeping people alive in such a state... is simply inhumane. I'm talking about cases where you have elderly people whose limbs are literally rotting off of their bodies, and whose insides are so messed up that they are vomitting their own feces on a daily basis, and people in this state are kept alive sometimes for years.

So whilst I can appreciate that it's something that is unfortunately open to abuse if not handled properly - there is absolutely nothing (at all) morally "right" in keeping someone alive when they are in so much pain that they want to die, if it's known that theres no other way for that pain to end.

what about the thousands more who would have suffered or died as a result of the bill being passed?

You know this how??

not mystic mock losing their job :worry:

youre worrying about a tiny minority to put the massive massive majority at risk
the person who is dying can have his treatment stopped, take pain killers and nile by mouth and do not rescuscitate is already enacted on thousands of people allowed to die...one can take poison to die but cant be assisted in taking it....the current situation is far enough.

how what? how will there be abuses and neglect? are you kidding me? 25,000 people die each year in british hospitals from undiagnoes clots alone...thousands die of neglect, in fact thousands have actually died of thirst? people are dying from decisions to DO NOT RESCUSITATE when they haven't even spoken to the family or the individual....there are infinite abuses and cover ups already in the nhs

corbyns thoughts
How would you/did you vote on the following issues:


Assisted suicide? I don’t believe we should be talking about assisted dying until our social care and health care systems have been improved sufficiently with focus on the sick and elderly, especially since we are living in an age where longevity is on the rise and so many more elderly people are in need of health care.

Only when we have made enough effort in that direction can the luxury of such a choice be looked at properly.

I mean he can have his view and I respect him a lot, but I'm slightly more left-wing in this aspect I guess :shrug:

left wing? this is life and death its way more important than petty party politi:nono:cians and slogans

I completely agree with assisted suicide after watching loved ones suffer terminal and incredibly debilitating diseases. If I heard right on the news (and I've not read anything about it) the discussions today were regarding allowing people with terminal illnesses who have been given less than 6 months to live, the right to end their lives the way they wish, painlessly and whilst they are able to die in dignity rather than morphine induced States, trapped in their own bodies or writhing in pain. I am completely at ease with that as long as it is the patients, and only the patients choice, not a doctor or family members. Luckily for her, my mum didn't suffer for long, having been given up to 12 months to live with her cancer, she sadly (but mercifully for her I guess) passed after just 4 weeks but she said that she didn't want to be in pain or suffer and would have liked the option if it indeed existed in this country.

True but what constitutes assistance? The person in question might be physically able to take an overdose or poison to kill themselves, but not physically able to actually obtain these items. What constitutes "assisting"? Does obtaining the means for them to kill themselves and then just leaving it somewhere they they can get to it count as "assisting"? I'd say it's very murky territory, at the very least.

There is that, I suppose... in an ideal world where the availability of care and medical services to keep people comfortable is optimal then you'd get a much better idea of who does and doesn't genuinely want to end it. How many would, at the moment, choose to end it simply because the care or treatment they need to make life liveable just isn't being made available to them...

I'm disappointed this failed to get through Parliament. If they couldn't get it through with the person involved having to be able to ask for it themselves, and the support of two doctors and a High Court judge... then I think they'll never get it through. You should be able to end your own life, I think it's everyone's right... and if you're physically unable you should have the right to ask someone else to help you. Sadly, people wishing release from an agonising death will have to travel to Switzerland or somewhere rather than being able to die in their own home. It's a shame.

If someone is terminal and has 6 months or less to live and is in pain then I see no problem.
My question is who would be allowed to assist them, not easy for loved ones to do, I should imagine that some guilt feelings would follow even though you carried out their wishes.

..I was thinking about that earlier and obviously travelling elsewhere/Switzerland takes funding...so to me it's like saying that the right to end suffering will not be available to anyone who can't fund it...so a very elitist thing then, the right to end pain...

'The bill contains only vague qualifying criteria for assistance with taking your own life, such as having “a settled wish” or being free from undue pressure. But there is no provision within the bill about how robust decisions are to be made in such matters. It doesn’t make provision for any audit of deaths or for a regulatory body to monitor compliance. In short, the proposals are unsafe and unworkable.

Those closest to dying people, professionals in palliative medicine and others involved in end-of-life care, are among the strongest opponents of this legislation. They have firsthand experience every day of the vulnerability of dying people, and they have no wish to become involved in intentional killing. They know that giving everyone fair access to excellent end-of-life care can make all the difference to our experience of death.'

Excellent points from Tanni Grey-Thompson.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ng-bill-reject

I feel the same, Ammz. Not everyone will be able to fund it if it's what they wish. And assisted suicide has got to be better than feeling the desperation of this woman:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...lf-jean-davies

Davies publishing a book, Choice in Dying, in 1997 and spent much of her life campaigning for a change in the law to let doctors administer lethal medication to patients who wanted to die. She explained that she did not have a terminal illness but suffered from a range of medical conditions including chronic back pain and had suffered increasingly frequent fainting episodes.'

'Davies died on 1 October, five weeks after she stopped eating and a fortnight after she decided to stop drinking water.'

This lady had effectively decided in 1997 that if she was going to end her life on her terms, as she didn't die before her 86th year she then took it upon herself to end her own life in a very distressing way for her and her family, I cannot see any positives in this whatsoever.

Had the vote had a different outcome this lady wouldn't have been eligible in any case her symptoms are all simply age related degeneration, have we to 'bump off' all our old dears?

...the thing is, it's not illegal, only illegal in this country so some are going to other countries and that won't stop but it's making that choice only available 'for the rich' type thing..only someone who can afford it can have that choice..which to me also feels like..well not on our back door, because that would be too controversial and messy..so off you go somewhere else and then we don't have to think about it.. which is not very compassionate at all...