Opinions split as 20,000 people have their say on plans to legalise assisted dying in Scotland
September 22, 2024
Opinions split as 20,000 people have their say on plans to legalise assisted dying in Scotland
by Kagedeah
15 comments
Go for it tbh if people’s quality of life is so poor that this is what they feel there best choice is then it’s up to them
If the individual is wracked with pain (no medical remedy), has no quality of life, exists in a prolonged state of vegetation, then I would agree on the grounds of pure compassion
If this is passed, how long until pain from mental health issues are classed as the same and we start exterminating the mentally ill? This type of thing is happening in Canada already. An autistic woman in her 20s went to her GP and spoke about being lonely and depressed, they killed her. As someone who has a close family member who periodically becomes very clinically depressed and has tried to commit suicide multiple times I fear this would become an easier route that would remove any feelings of guilt that currently stops them from ending their life.
Since it’s an issue that’s so personal to people, and it differs from person to person, MP to MP, regardless of party affiliation — I wonder if it’s something worthwhile holding a referendum on?
Really tricky one this. Don’t know if I support or oppose it.
I support. Anything can be abused, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to have it available. There will be a lot more people who benefit from this than those who will abuse it.
When we have a pet who is sick and dying, we eutha use it out of mercy. We say this is the good thing to do, that it breaks our hearts to see them living their last days in pain. Why don’t humans get the same mercy?
As long as there’s a lot of safe guarding there’s no real issue, you can’t really say you’re against if for compassionate reasons when you’re wanting to keep someone suffering horrifically for no real reason.
As long as this is actually regulated properly, and only allowed in cases of terminal illness or life changing medical issues with no cure, I can only see it as a positive thing. Having seen several dear relatives in agony withering away from cancer over a prolonged period, two of which were absolutely ready to die for weeks and weeks, I cannot morally oppose people’s right to die.
We put down our pets to “spare them the suffering” but we can’t extend that same relief to the terminally ill who can consciously express their wishes. I can’t understand those who allow pets to die with dignity but wouldn’t extend that same courtesy to their families and friends.
While I totally understand worries people have for the disabled and neurodivergent, I really dislike “slippery slope” arguments. As far as I can tell, nobody is recommending we do Eugenics. It smacks of the same kind of small-c conservative arguments we always hear, e.g. gay marriage, “if you let men marry men, what next, children marrying ducks?”
I think the other thing we often forget is doctors and nurses often already do provide assisted suicide to the terminally ill, but it’s done on a wink wink nudge nudge basis.
This is coming from someone with lifelong depression. I disagree with the Canadian model, and think mental illness should be excluded from the list, at least until the science catches up and we more fully understand mental illness and its causes.
While I understand the reasons why people would want this, I feel that we are in an age where we can’t trust people not to abuse it.
If done correctly, people can avoid pain i can’t imagine. That’s good.
But if done badly, I can see nightmares scenarios where old people homes start becoming like animal shelters. Extremely dodgy cases where it’s unclear if an old person gave consent or not. I don’t see any politician not trying to profit from this either.
I feel like we should punt the issue to a generation that act in a more enlightened fashion than we do.
I didn’t know this was happening but I bet the American religious nuts knew all about it.
Seeing what my mum went through with Vascular Dementia and fighting cancer for the third time, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and if someone want to end it because they didn’t want to go through something like that I’m not going to judge you.
It’s a slippery slope. Like abortion in the US started out to be “safe, legal, and rare”. It turned in to abortion on demand for any reason.
Please don’t use the phrase “Assisted Dying”, please use **Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia.**
**Assisted suicide** means a Doctor will prescribe and provide you with life ending drugs that you take yourself and then the drugs kill you.
**Euthanasia** means you lift your arm up and the Doctor sticks you with a needle and injects you with drugs which then kill you.
**Very different legal, ethical, and moral differences between the two.**
The term “assisted dying” is *only* ever used by interest groups in favour of legalised end of life decisions, and hardly even seen in medical or legal use around end of life discussions.
“Assisted dying” feels like someone using PR friendly language spin to bias peoples opinions, but it doesn’t accurately reflect the implications between different methods that already have defined names. The devil is in the details when it comes to discussing how this type of policies could be implemented, muddying the names and definitions is already unhelpful.
What I don’t want in this discussion is emotional manipulation from either side of the extremes, and proper use of and precision of language helps avoid this.
Having watched 2 grandparents starve themselves to death in hospital/a home I think anyone against this bill is an unpleasant person. I would also like to thank every nurse/carer/doctor who make people as comfortable as they can be while doing this.
Obviously there are safeguarding issues that need worked around but that’s why we pay civil servants to write laws.
None of us consented to being born, and I don’t think that just by being born, that should mean that you have the obligation to remain alive until your natural death. Call me a radical, but I don’t agree with the notion of being born into indentured servitude.
Therefore, we must be entitled to the right to commit suicide. It doesn’t matter whether it is the NHS that provides access or not. But if the government isn’t getting involved in suicide by providing access to better suicide methods, then neither should they be allowed to continue actively making suicide any more fraught with risk or more painful than it inherently needs to be, by banning access to reliable and effective suicide methods.
This issue is treated as though it’s about whether we should have a positive right to be helped to die. Really, it is about whether the government should have the authority to force us to live.
15 comments
Go for it tbh if people’s quality of life is so poor that this is what they feel there best choice is then it’s up to them
If the individual is wracked with pain (no medical remedy), has no quality of life, exists in a prolonged state of vegetation, then I would agree on the grounds of pure compassion
If this is passed, how long until pain from mental health issues are classed as the same and we start exterminating the mentally ill? This type of thing is happening in Canada already. An autistic woman in her 20s went to her GP and spoke about being lonely and depressed, they killed her. As someone who has a close family member who periodically becomes very clinically depressed and has tried to commit suicide multiple times I fear this would become an easier route that would remove any feelings of guilt that currently stops them from ending their life.
Since it’s an issue that’s so personal to people, and it differs from person to person, MP to MP, regardless of party affiliation — I wonder if it’s something worthwhile holding a referendum on?
Really tricky one this. Don’t know if I support or oppose it.
I support. Anything can be abused, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to have it available. There will be a lot more people who benefit from this than those who will abuse it.
When we have a pet who is sick and dying, we eutha use it out of mercy. We say this is the good thing to do, that it breaks our hearts to see them living their last days in pain. Why don’t humans get the same mercy?
As long as there’s a lot of safe guarding there’s no real issue, you can’t really say you’re against if for compassionate reasons when you’re wanting to keep someone suffering horrifically for no real reason.
As long as this is actually regulated properly, and only allowed in cases of terminal illness or life changing medical issues with no cure, I can only see it as a positive thing. Having seen several dear relatives in agony withering away from cancer over a prolonged period, two of which were absolutely ready to die for weeks and weeks, I cannot morally oppose people’s right to die.
We put down our pets to “spare them the suffering” but we can’t extend that same relief to the terminally ill who can consciously express their wishes. I can’t understand those who allow pets to die with dignity but wouldn’t extend that same courtesy to their families and friends.
While I totally understand worries people have for the disabled and neurodivergent, I really dislike “slippery slope” arguments. As far as I can tell, nobody is recommending we do Eugenics. It smacks of the same kind of small-c conservative arguments we always hear, e.g. gay marriage, “if you let men marry men, what next, children marrying ducks?”
I think the other thing we often forget is doctors and nurses often already do provide assisted suicide to the terminally ill, but it’s done on a wink wink nudge nudge basis.
This is coming from someone with lifelong depression. I disagree with the Canadian model, and think mental illness should be excluded from the list, at least until the science catches up and we more fully understand mental illness and its causes.
While I understand the reasons why people would want this, I feel that we are in an age where we can’t trust people not to abuse it.
If done correctly, people can avoid pain i can’t imagine. That’s good.
But if done badly, I can see nightmares scenarios where old people homes start becoming like animal shelters. Extremely dodgy cases where it’s unclear if an old person gave consent or not. I don’t see any politician not trying to profit from this either.
I feel like we should punt the issue to a generation that act in a more enlightened fashion than we do.
I didn’t know this was happening but I bet the American religious nuts knew all about it.
Seeing what my mum went through with Vascular Dementia and fighting cancer for the third time, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and if someone want to end it because they didn’t want to go through something like that I’m not going to judge you.
It’s a slippery slope. Like abortion in the US started out to be “safe, legal, and rare”. It turned in to abortion on demand for any reason.
Please don’t use the phrase “Assisted Dying”, please use **Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia.**
**Assisted suicide** means a Doctor will prescribe and provide you with life ending drugs that you take yourself and then the drugs kill you.
**Euthanasia** means you lift your arm up and the Doctor sticks you with a needle and injects you with drugs which then kill you.
**Very different legal, ethical, and moral differences between the two.**
The term “assisted dying” is *only* ever used by interest groups in favour of legalised end of life decisions, and hardly even seen in medical or legal use around end of life discussions.
“Assisted dying” feels like someone using PR friendly language spin to bias peoples opinions, but it doesn’t accurately reflect the implications between different methods that already have defined names. The devil is in the details when it comes to discussing how this type of policies could be implemented, muddying the names and definitions is already unhelpful.
What I don’t want in this discussion is emotional manipulation from either side of the extremes, and proper use of and precision of language helps avoid this.
Having watched 2 grandparents starve themselves to death in hospital/a home I think anyone against this bill is an unpleasant person. I would also like to thank every nurse/carer/doctor who make people as comfortable as they can be while doing this.
Obviously there are safeguarding issues that need worked around but that’s why we pay civil servants to write laws.
None of us consented to being born, and I don’t think that just by being born, that should mean that you have the obligation to remain alive until your natural death. Call me a radical, but I don’t agree with the notion of being born into indentured servitude.
Therefore, we must be entitled to the right to commit suicide. It doesn’t matter whether it is the NHS that provides access or not. But if the government isn’t getting involved in suicide by providing access to better suicide methods, then neither should they be allowed to continue actively making suicide any more fraught with risk or more painful than it inherently needs to be, by banning access to reliable and effective suicide methods.
This issue is treated as though it’s about whether we should have a positive right to be helped to die. Really, it is about whether the government should have the authority to force us to live.