Assisted dying: MPs vote in favour | Andrew Marr | The New Statesman

[@NewStatesman]

Watch next: When will Britain feel the benefit of a Labour government? kzbin.info/www/bejne/ooimiXuDrNiUhsU

[@christopherbrowne736]

In the long run...when we’re all dead - JM Keynes.

[@mikedennington8856]

Here in Canada, been legal for a decade, the system needs to be re evaluated as there are pitfalls. Suspicion always follows the procedure whether the family is 'getting rid' of their oldies for their wealth and they are seen as a nuisance.

[@rp1692]

That's interesting to know because the pro-assisted-dying crowd would have us believe that none of the countries that have legalised it have seen any significant problems.

[@johnhatfield1070]

My wife isn’t suffering or even ill, I would however, like to nominate her for the scheme, if legislation permits.

[@digitaurus]

If you look further down, you will see she also commented and likewise nominated you. Curiously, she didn't seem too bothered about the legislation permission thing 🤔

[@danielrobertson8774]

The ones who are going to suffer are the old, without family. As in those today who are without children.

[@theolddog5129]

If there was ever a case for a national referendum on a fairly basic question of whether an individual should be able to decide when and how to achieve their permanent state of non-suffering and peace, this is it.

[@jamespires3383]

Marr is a credit to the nation

[@californiadreamin8423]

Really !!

[@jamespires3383]

​@@californiadreamin8423 Yes!!! He would've made a jolly good PM

[@californiadreamin8423]

@@jamespires3383 Well he’s not , and he never will be. Of course he’s turned over a new leaf since he left the BBC.

[@afgor1088]

Hes a moron, I'd wonder how he even managed to speak if what he said wasn't such nonsense

[@jamespires3383]

@afgor1088 Say that to the Englishman, Andrew Marr. Say it to his face.. likely you will be politely dismissed.. he is a statesman like chap

[@redpeony]

Compassion is a dark gauze? Wow, that's quite a piece of PR spin!

[@johnnycleary5369]

Always intelligent discussion, thank you, very much informative

[@depthsowned]

In a Lot of Families Granny is being Eyed Up for a nice Wooden Box Overcoat, complete waste of Wealth. You Watch it.

[@DocNick68]

I call bollocks on the safeguards point Mr Marr. Tanni Grey-Thomson tore the arse out of the bill on Peston in an interview of just a few minutes that was rather rushed and went across an ad break for some reason. She is opposed on principle but made a strong case that even if you're supportive in principle the bill is crap.

[@afgor1088]

All rhetoric and lies, no facts. You're frighteningly easy to fool

[@liamcassie4538]

This is among the most important bills before parliament of our times. Giving people the right to check out when life becomes impossible to live in a dignified manner is the most fundamental and basic of rights. I really hope this bill advances so it can be further scrutinised.

[@joshyman221]

You view it that way, I view it as the state being able end lives of the sick and elderly, instead of properly caring for them. I’ve already seen people saying how those who are depressed have the right to end their lives… how sick and awful. God loves all of us.

[@simoncox9689]

@@joshyman221 the state dont decided the people that suffer do..6 months to live and are in pain

[@Wintermute9366]

Give people the right to make their own choice.

[@theolddog5129]

Absolutely. I would like a system whereby individuals can register how they wish to end their life under certain conditions such as terminal illness, severe pain, certain medical conditions etc. I cannot see any reason why an individual should not be able to decide and make clear their wishes whilst of sound mind and physical state. I certainly would make my wishes perfectly clear so as not to become a burden on my family and even the NHS if I was not in the position to being able to contribute positively through living.

[@Schiltron]

"Most human beings are compassionate". The left-wing, liberal ("progressive"?) view of humanity is dangerously simple-minded. Nazi death camp guards were compassionate toward family members or their dogs but acted with extreme cruelty to the prisoners under their control. Human beings are complex and capable of both compassion and cruelty.

[@simoncox9689]

thats why he said most an not all

[@OXOjunkie]

I know a pain specialist. An anesthesiologist, who has a private pain management clinic. They're opposed to Assisted Dying, on the basis of pain, because they can provide modern services, that can alleviate pain in all circumstances. But, there are not enough of these specialists in the world. In the UK, people have voluntarily had limbs amputated, because the services couldn't resolve a pain issue. Whereas, my friend can resolve these problems with minor interventions. Botox, has a medical application for instances of chronic pain. But, you'd need a highly skilled specialist, to preform those interventions. There's a limit in the sophistication, of what's available to people in general. And it's dangerous to let unskilled people, play with things like fentanyl. Or even overworked and stressed doctors....

[@afgor1088]

Why should anyone care about your unverified anecdote from a single person? Grow up.

[@danielmiele233]

Your pain specialist wouldn't want to be out of business. That's how private healthcare works

[@Jon-hh3gz]

Not all problems are solved though, antagonists tend to have short half lifes and you're left with consequences particularly if they're damaging nerves while masking pain which in itself is very tiring and consumes a lot of ATP which you may be limited in fixing due to strict diets. Commonly you'll end up with competing effects that go against one another on top of preexisting health conditions that make things even harder.

[@simoncox9689]

it is not just pain its about people that have less then 6 months to live

[@pastyman001]

What is being proposed on assisted dying is patient led, only for people within 6 months of end of life and with the strongest built in protections in the world. Whatever problems people have, it is not for other people of any view or position to tell the dying and suffering that they must continue to suffer, sometimes unbearably, against their own wishes, even if for some perceived greater good.

[@californiadreamin8423]

Thoroughly agree, and clearly put.

[@GraemeHein]

No way in Hell will the Leftists judiciary keep within the current bounds. Will just be any 12 year old having a tantrum with their parents will use MAID. No person under 26 should be allowed to make a permanent decision. Hormones are crazy.

[@stephenlee5929]

But it is for others to consider whether, these are the strongest protections, whether you/they have 6 months to live, whether the action is patient led. Please note I am in favour, but the details seem important.

[@afgor1088]

​@@GraemeHeinthat's not how the law works... I pity you.

[@simoncox9689]

@@stephenlee5929 an thats why there be safe guards ..an ths has been covered many times of how it be done

[@fludblud]

I mean, its certainly an interesting way to deal with the housing crisis...

[@afgor1088]

There are more houses per person than there have ever been.

[@joe.c9308]

But having a faith does not make your view invalid, surely? Why are the moral values of secular people valid but moral values of religious people not? Don’t religious people get to be represented by MPs? But clearly you should be able to criticise the beliefs of people with faith. And public debate should be based on arguments and not just “God says so”

[@Wintermute9366]

historically religion has seen something noble in the enduring of suffering.

[@joshyman221]

@@Wintermute9366ah yes the great nations without religion: soviet russia, 1790s France, North Korea. These are the future! How much better we would be to reject God and let us decide what’s wrong and what’s right (sarcasm)

[@AH-te5gs]

It was pointed out yesterday on Question Time that the figures are quite skewed in that there are proportionally many more religious MPs in parliament than there are religious people in the country.

[@someonesomeone25]

I guess if someone is basing decisions on what their invisible friend says, on a discredited iron age book of myths, or allegiance to a foreign power, it would be problematic. I mean, what if based my votes as an MP on Zeus, the Odyssey, and my allegiance to Olympus?

[@joe.c9308]

@ But this is the genetic fallacy? The fact that you can explain why someone holds a belief does not make this belief invalid.

[@peterdollins3610]

Who wishes to undergo agonising pain for the rest of their life & not be able to get out of it, and who wishes to impose this on others?

[@jamespires3383]

14 year old girls

[@Eccles_History]

Population control.

[@stephengrice1678]

Death. Do not resuscitate. Deprive patients of food and water in hospital. What are they. People decide on death, not the person. This allows some decision to the person concerned.

[@simoncox9689]

thats untrue DNR does not result in people deny patients of food and water..what a dumbass thing to say

[@saarahturtle]

Either you cannot use religious views to justify political positions (whether Christian/Muslim/etc.) or it becomes acceptable to debate the validity of religious claims instead of seeing them as an unchangeable part of someone. IMO the latter is more logical but the former is more realistic; either way, we can't continue to not have either as a norm.

[@depthsowned]

Clever Argument, but i always look for the Snuck premises. In this case, seams to be that unless you can justify your position with a logically sound argument using a recognised standard forms of reasoning & pre-approved data you are henceforth disenfranchised from meaningful engagement in politics. Problems here is that most people have no training in logic, often no access to general data, many use feelings & emotions rather than cold logic and some are intuitive by nature. Thus this position look like an Appeal to Authority, no religion also means no unsubstantiated belief in moralistic standards. I take the opposite view that it is essential to allow all opinions on the basis of belief, but look at how they play out in a Modern context by way of clarification questions on scope , extent and technicalities.

[@christinelivesey9077]

Kim Leadbetter hasn't got a clue what she's about to release. Be careful what you wish for.

[@jeffh2166]

Hard agree it's embarrassing especially when seen through the lense of the horror stories from Canada's experiment with assisted dying

[@antonysteel8061]

Why not talk about the 44,000 terminally ill pensioners that Labour removed winter fuel payments from

[@christopherbrowne736]

It’s tragic that the Bill has passed. For me it is a question of faith, not so-called ‘evidence-based’. Evidence-based policy vs Principle-based policy. The problem with the former is that evidence and facts have a habit of being open to change and different interpretation. Policy never operates in a moral-climate vacuum either. If one allows a social, rather than a spiritual or legal, basis for these decisions of life or death, one admits to purely subjective and arbitrary foundations of rights and wrongs. One is on the ground the Nazis used at Nuremberg to justify their hideous actions. In Deuteronomy God says: “I set before you this day death and life: choose life”. The slippery slope argument also holds water. Since 1967 there have been millions of UK abortions, which have driven a bus through the intention behind the original legislation. De facto, we have abortion on parental demand. Some numbers ... 1.5 billion abortions since 1980, globally. 3,000 per day in the USA. (Their electorate have spoken on this issue quite firmly I believe). The only consolation is that this can derail some of Labour’s legislation, and cause his feeble government to collapse sooner rather than later.

[@jeffh2166]

Private member's bill and this one is not the way forward

[@stevenwilliamson6236]

You can't be patriotic and vote brexit, surely?

[@afgor1088]

Wrong.

[@hughcaskey9542]

Talked to a lot of pensioners re assisted dying to say they were horrified would be an understatement got the feeling they thought they weren’t wanted and the government was giving them an ultimatum why do MP”s stoop so low as to make an issue of something that has happened for hundreds of years you would think they had something better to do

[@saarahturtle]

AFAIK polling shows that the older you are the more likely you are to agree with assisted dying

[@simoncox9689]

untrue

[@aethellstan]

my body, my life, my choice.

[@christopherbrowne736]

1. Why is choice elevated to an ethical pinnacle? 2. My my my ... a sign of the me, myself and I generation. 3. Bodily autonomy ? Nuts. Your body is not your own. You’re not going to submit to anyone? To any external authority. You’ll go to a dark place when you die.

[@rp1692]

So the sale of human organs should also be legalised, and seat belts should be optional?

[@aethellstan]

@@rp1692 your comment is nonsensical those two things have nothing whatsoever to do with assisted dying.

[@rp1692]

@aethellstan I know they don't. My point is that individualist libertarian sloganeering ("my body, my life, my choice") is meaningless. There doesn't exist any general principle that you should have complete free choice with regard to your own body and life. If there did, we would be campaigning for the right to legally sell our organs.

[@aethellstan]

@@rp1692 it isn't meaningless. it simply means i should have control over what happens to me in context of this subject matter. the general principle is that we have self autonomy in various aspects of our life. this subject is currently outside of that but we are at the beginning of this changing for those that want it. if there are enough people that want to sell their organs then gather together, put it to parliament and get a vote. there isn't so there won't be.

[@tulyar57]

Good luck getting a lethal prescription signed off within six months. I've been waiting over two years for a basic dental check up. In other words, this is not a simple issue.

[@GraemeHein]

From Canada. You can get MAID same day while an oncology appointment is 6++ months. We're months away from allowing 12 year olds with depression to kill themselves using a doctor with no input from their parents.

[@AH-te5gs]

But it would be a start, a declaration of intent.

[@kjs3431]

Even Canada has figured this out. After all the years of political missteps in Britain, and most especially Brexit, I have come to the conclusion that English political thought is a little bit slow. I have come to the inevitable conclusion as a descendant of solid English stock that all the smarter people immigrated out over the centuries, and the only ones who stayed were the ones who were cushy and posh or poor and stupid. Little England.

[@macsmiffy2197]

Everything gets bitter and nasty because most people don’t know how to have a reasonable debate. Hurling insults and calling names is not debate.

[@digitaurus]

Fascinating discussion. Thank you. Overall, this feels like a reform whose time has come. One issue that concerns some of us which you didn't discuss, is the context in which this new measure would be implemented, namely the current chaotic state of the NHS in general and end-of-life care, in particular, in the UK. Assuming this bill is passed, I personally would hope for two things: (i) the government takes this as a call for the urgent repair of and refocus on end-of-life care in the UK; and (ii) the measures allowed for in the bill are only implemented once that repair and refocus is underway.

[@user-iz9co4qf6z]

This Labour government is inept and naive. Shame as I was so optimistic 6 months ago

[@tulyar57]

Is this worse than being inept and corrupt like the last lot?

[@stephenlee5929]

I'm guessing this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Feel free to correct me.

[@justindrew9702]

I’m kinda shocked this is the issue that it is in the UK. I feel like there was not much fanfare here in australia

[@musicmikemn]

Ergh, more Hannah. The journalist kicks off the topic by showing she doesn't even know the difference between assisted dying and assisted suicide. I hope The NS can do better than her soon.

[@pc50547]

I live in Canada and the law works. There are still some issues being resolved between the courts and government. I know people who made this choice. We have accepted medical intervention throughout our lives to the point the end gets murky. Medicine can do a lot but there comes a time when we need to ask, should they do it? Do we want to extend our lives? For some, they choose when they want to die. They bring their friends and family together one last time and, then die. They know the trajectory of their illness and, after much thought, make the choice. Others do not make this choice. That is the point … it is a choice. The issue, like abortion, is personal autonomy. A person, in this time in history, needs to be able to make their own choices about their health and their body. Like abortion, we do not want to force people who want to make these choices relying on back alley providers. Nor do we want to see people suffer because their families cannot let them go. The state, for many centuries, enforced a viewpoint that came from culture and religion. In some cases, this is good on issues like human dignity and freedom. However, the boundary between where the state has a role and where it does not … is fuzzy. Balancing individual freedom and public good is challenging. We may not like choices people make but we need to defend their right to make them. We cannot use a religious argument to prevent others from making choices because it establishes the precedent that they to could do the same for us. The notion that there is only one right belief led to things like the Spanish Inquisition. These are hard choices for politicians but politics and governing has always been a difficult job. We constantly need to tweak policy to see if it still makes sense. Canada also legalized marijuana. Many of those being charged were from poor or challenged communities and then being sent to jail gaining a criminal record. The wealthy rarely had the same fate. The country did not fall apart. I am not a fan of the stuff but I certainly do not think sending people to jail was ever appropriate. Assisted dying is similar … time to re-think and decide if a change is required. Governments do have to walk a tightrope … and we should thank our MPs for taking on the job. It is a hard one to get right.

[@ericsynchrona5495]

Politics? Look at the profits!

[@gio-oz8gf]

Seriously, what are you talking about? You chose the wrong standard one-liner. If you can't say anything sensible and pertinent to the issue, è meglio chiudere la bocca.

[@jonathangammond3019]

People of faith don't have God on their side. They just believe God is on their side, which is completely different. We went through the Enlightenment and people decided that faith should not be a trump card. Faith can, of course, contribute to the discussion in society and in Parliament.

[@someonesomeone25]

Why should faith contribute to discussion in Parliament?

[@GuntD-rz1xb]

Get religion out of politics.

[@celicaspr]

If the vast majority of the public are in favour of the bill, then perhaps the politicians should vote how their constituents would wish them to.

[@stephenlee5929]

I don't think that's what was said, or what is true. I think the majority are in favour of terminally ill people being able to choose to die. (though there is a sizeable minority that disagree at that level) I don't think the majority know how they want this to happen. How a terminally ill person is defined. How they (terminally ill people) should/can be protected. I doubt most people (both sides) know what is in the bill, I don't, I have an opinion but am not well informed, I hoped, this discussion may help, it did not.

[@californiadreamin8423]

Wise up people. If you’re lucky , when your end is approaching and normal doses of pain relief do not work, you will be slipped a morphine injection, and you’ll slip away. If you’re unlucky you’ll suffer worse than a dog, and wish you could call the vet.

[@stephenlee5929]

Maybe so, but not all dogs go happily to the vet.

[@californiadreamin8423]

@ Don’t twist my words.

[@Schiltron]

Amusing to see them skirt around the religion thing. If it was just a Christian thing I am sure they would more robust in their views on the matter. Got to be careful about the religion that must not be named though.

[@Schiltron]

Apologies!! I made the comment half-way through. Mea culpa.

[@RaysTrack]

A number of comments here applauding Andrew, which I agree with. Also I would like to commend the points by Hannah and Rachel; especially the section on not accepting those who claim their position on the issue is that of their god. When they can demonstrate that their god exists, it's views will be taken into consideration.

[@stevenwilliamson6236]

The chief rabbi has no moral syanding.

[@GuntD-rz1xb]

Careful, you’ll get called an antisemite.

[@alanjewell9550]

This feels to have blown up out of all proportion. It seems it's very specific to those terminally ill with no more than six months of life expected, suffering & want to let go. Lots of safeguards proposed, & still a lot to clarify before this could become law, & I guess second readings etc too. If we did what we do to each other to our pets, we'd be procecuted for cruelty

[@GraemeHein]

From Canada the reasonable situations drive a coach and horses through all rational limits. Much like sports betting theoretically it should be legal but in practice it's abhorrent. A far better approach is for oncologists to frequently have "accidental" morphine overdoses while assisted death is illegal.

[@afgor1088]

​Have you actually read the bill? I don't think so. Also what you sudgest is a sure way to see greater abuse. Learn to think.

[@alanjewell9550]

​​@@afgor1088I haven't suggested anything, I just support this bill as do around 2/3 of the general population. Maybe you'd like to elaborate on what you think rather than make vague & meaningless comments? I haven't read the bill but listened to lots of debate about it from the MPs that have.

[@afgor1088]

@@alanjewell9550 I obviously wasn't responding to you...

[@stevenwilliamson6236]

What does the dup think?