Assisted dying debate: Lord Moore vs Lord Falconer

[@YesYes-xb6he]

My wife had cancer, last year she was moved into palliative care with an expectation that she would have 12-24 months+. 2 weeks later she was in a car accident with an injury that had no impact on her cancer care yet from the moment she entered A+E the Drs were pressing for DNR to be put on her records. It felt like being surrounded by hardsell timeshare holiday sales men on commission for each DNR they got signed up. At 4am I left my fit and alert wife in A+E to go home, let out the dogs and get some sleep myself, when i returned at 9AM she was comatosed through "painkillers" which had been given to her literally 30 minutes after I'd left (when she hadn't been in pain) but also after she'd changed her mind from being adamant she should be revived, to choosing to be DNR. She died three days later. This wasn't her choice, this wasn't her wishes, this was murder by the NHS and the medical establishment because they felt they knew best and damn the patients wishes. To make this even easier by legislation to allow assisted dying fills me with dread.

[@susansmith1444]

So sorry for your loss and the manner of your wife’s passing 😢

[@stirlingmoss9637]

Did you make a formal complaint?

[@alanross1106]

@@YesYes-xb6he I am so sorry for your loss and horrified by your wife’s treatment. You could take them to court , if you have the fight in you, but don’t let it take over your life, to the detriment of your own mental health. Take care.

[@johnsmith1474]

I would surmise you have a colored view of the events, in any case my condolences.

[@iancampbell2444]

And this is exactly what Falkner & Co cannot accept actually happens, honest as his views are. They have a technocratic view of how they imagine the world works. They do not have the human understanding to know or understand the difference of what actually happens. Something like this happened too to someone we knew well, a neighbour and friend and assistant to my wife's elderly mother. She was going to die (mid-60's repeat of breast cancer etc) but had a couple of months taken away from her and her devoted but ineloquent husband, by limit of his education not his personality. He was abused by the hospice and threatened with police action when he tried to object and enquire as to why the treatment administered was different from what the hospital who sent here there told them to expect. The thin end of the wedge argument is precisely the point that the pro-lobby cannot grasp.

[@markdolan8866]

As a carer for a disabled person, I worry that we could reach a point where actors on behalf of the state would start applying pressure on disabled persons and their carers. There would certainly be a financial incentive for the state to do this.

[@M896]

Such concerns seem to override the enforced misery of those who are terminally ill. People should be able to register their wishes on this topic while they are fit and well. Personally I think when the quality phase of life is over people should be able to give up with dignity.

[@gg-sr9lq]

This is what has started happening in Canada, and the Netherlands. Soldier with ptsd where offered euthanasia in Canada, and a young woman who suffered with depression, no terminal disease, recently ended her life via euthanasia in the Netherlands. It’s sick, and it’s eugenics.

[@bigbarry8343]

@@M896 I suspect that the private providers woud eat into this 'incentive'. They calculate the 'savings' and set prices to include 'gainshare'.

[@beammeup8458]

Agree 100 %. Trouble is that British people cannot be trusted not to lust after their inheritance ? This is the first country where I have become aware of such attitudes..... Did empire teach them to behave like this ?

[@markdolan8866]

@@beammeup8458 Wow!

[@menshevik1012]

Seems strange that this issue comes to a head as the country hits bankruptcy. Compassion, or just relieving the financial burden of long term hospice care?

[@gabriellaoakley2465]

Not once does Charles Moore interrupt Lord Falconer to tell him he is wrong. Nor does he but in to defend himself. On the other hand, Lord Falconer seems to justify himself again and again, to shut down Lord Moore and accuse him of being in error. If only the general public and MP’s were informed by people like Lord Moore who speak with sound common sense and an in-depth understanding of the issue and who debate with good manners.

[@fraserct533]

Lots of light & pretty much no heat generated by a model debate on one of the most difficult topics possible. 👏🎩 Hats off to Lords Falconer & Moore for a thoughtful exploration & for a model of civil & respectful debate - expanding understanding for everyone. 🎩👏

[@stirlingmoss9637]

What! Are you incapable of having a conversation without resorting to hysteria and violence?

[@fraserct533]

@@stirlingmoss9637 Good to hear a calm, informative weighing of the pros & cons of a difficult subject. Rather than the sensationalised partisan argument - generating more heat than light - that is all to common. Don't you agree?

[@michaelwhite8031]

It's totally wrong and will escalate as in Canada.

[@thomashobbs1498]

It is totally wrong *in your opinion* and *you worry that* it will escalate as in Canada

[@grahameallan2687]

Every country that has introduced this type of legislation has different and "slacker" legislation now to when it was first introduced.​@@thomashobbs1498

[@mb3503-o4e]

Charles Moore has a massive intellect

[@SarahWalker-Smith]

How can it be an overreach of the state if it gives more freedom to the individual? Prosecutions are currently small but the number of people who die having endured great pain and suffering is huge . We need to right the balance in favour of choice and kindness.

[@M896]

Pets can receive mercy, humans are expected to suffer without end.

[@gg-sr9lq]

Prosecutions for this should end, it should be decriminalised, not legalised. For one simple reason, doctors should focus on saving lives, they shouldn’t be advocating and pushing for patients to kill themselves… we’ve already seen in Canada and the Netherlands, that this extends far beyond terminal illness…

[@theskinnersofgodfreyclose4347]

Because it's impossible in practice to prevent the perceived right to die blurring into a duty to die, all to save costs, preserve inheritance, and to protect loved ones from the grief of seeing you decline. And the right to die places an intolerable burden on disabled people, who get dragged into a permanent state of qualification for an assisted death when it inevitably expands to "unbearable suffering" because the campaign never ends and there are many who want to use the argument for the terminally ill as a Trojan horse for deeper change (like in Canada, which is a shitshow now on this issue).

[@williammaginn3149]

@@gg-sr9lq Can you indicate where the research is on this please?

[@williammaginn3149]

For those who are against this, can you tell me when acceptable palliative care. by which I mean, care that can remove most of not all of the pain, will be available..months, years? If my times are right, and it would appear to be years atm, are you ok with people suffering unbelievable agony until the die.

[@everythingisupsidedown9593]

The road to HELL is paved with good intentions

[@Frohicky1]

More worryingly, the road to Heaven is tiled with avoidable suffering.

[@stirlingmoss9637]

No such place.

[@GodsOwnPrototype]

Lord Sumption called it correctly: whatever the moral argument for any individual case the threshold for the legal & societal change can never be met. So people should stand with courage by their convictions & pay the cost for doing so or trust that a jury of their peers will judge the individual case with the mercy it merits.

[@Frohicky1]

I found the lawyerly responses to Sumption amazing. How can a person endure 14 or more years of education and think that the law and justice are the same thing. Only lawyers could pay so much to be so wrong.

[@just_another32]

where did he say this? cheers

[@maureenelsden1927]

Lord Falconer has got his foot in the door just calling it a terminal illness bill. Didn't Lord Steele do the same in the cause of abortion bill..

[@duames]

The Canadian model scares the crap out of me

[@teknical100]

The opposite of this is state sanctioned torture for people who face a terrible end.

[@lorrainemaddams4996]

Yes

[@Frohicky1]

Ah, looking aside is so much easier than saying it's a positive action. A real software failure in most humans

[@georginakosanovic3989]

It's so nice to hear an erudite and polite conversation between opponents.

[@lorrainemaddams4996]

20:43 at the moment the law prevents people from helping others out of agony. I watched my mother dye over many days with well meaning carers telling me how peaceful she looked and all I could see was pain and pleading in her eyes. We had had discussions over the years about her wishes yet I was unable to spied her inevitable death. Palliative care meant withdrawing food and water and giving hefty doses of morphine. She was starved, thirsty ( she could no longer swallow) and she was semi conscious. I am told this regime is quite normal for the end days of palliative care. Would I do this to my pet? Would we allow vets to create a slow death for our animals? Seems to me the law should step aside and let us all choose by writing living wills when we are alive and well expressing how we would like to be treated when we are in physical or mental pain because of an incurable illness . We will all experience at least one incurable illness. We are now allowed to say ‘do not resuscitate’ but not allowed to say ‘if I cannot look after myself, if I can no longer eat, drink, walk etc if I am obviously not going to get better - please put me to sleep as quickly and humanely as possible. As humans we have become more humane towards animals in the law but not to ourselves.

[@billyb23]

@@lorrainemaddams4996 How brave to write this. I was moved by your words and very well said/written they were to.

[@M896]

My mother is going through this currently, if the option were available we would have ended her suffering months ago. But no, the opinions of people she has never met means she must go out of this world in agony and a drug addict. Day after day laying in bed in agony and fear. People with opposing view to assisted suicide often have simply not seen the alternative close up, it is something to be feared.

[@lorrainemaddams4996]

I am so sorry for you and your mother. Somethings in our society are difficult to believe until one experiences them personally.

[@janeawdry8182]

The question becomes: if someone has been told they are terminally ill, that their condition will deteriorate to the point & that they will become totally dependent on others for their every human function, & they will have zero quality of life, why would they wait until that eventuality? Why not just do it now, while they can, instead of roping in another person to administer the fatal blow? If it were me, I’d do it myself while I was still physically capable, rather than inflict such an awful task on someone dear to me..

[@M896]

I share that sentiment but easier said than done.

[@unowen-nh9ov]

After a stroke @ 90 my Grandmother stopped eating & drinking, there was no DNR, her facility allowed her to die (it took days). My Mom had a Living Will (medical power of attorney) she didn't need because she was killed by the liver failure her doctors transfused her with the hepatitis in her tainted blood supply (same as Dad 30 years earlier, heart failure @ 32 also during treatment for kidney failure, like his father b4 him). My siblings both drank themselves to death, her from ketoacidosis (liver failure) & him from ABI drunk driving without a seatbelt. Someone else drove himself into an intersection, there are LOTS of ways of getting around the "law".

[@pobishop235]

Falconer is obfuscating. Standard tactic of progressives to argue that nothing is really being done here, and that in any event we all agree about the straw man example he uses to push the argument.

[@ldevon2318]

Why, in this age, are we so insistent on everything amoral thriving. This constant pushing and inviting in chaos. It’s so frustrating to watch our society regress. News flash: You can’t choose to be born. You can’t choose when or how to die (unless you commit suicide… yes, commit!). You can’t choose to live forever. We’re obsessed with controlling every single aspect of our lives. I can’t help but think we’re doing this ‘life’ wrong.

[@googoo554]

Agree with Lord Charles Moore who is spot on in opposing this Bill, very intelligent and awesome gentleman. Why are we not focusing on promoting and extending life by providing good quality, nutritious food, fresh air and natural meds? Then monitor how many people improve. There must be a public referendum. What stops this being abused, exploited and expanded in the future? This must not be passed. Shocking.

[@ldevon2318]

Well done Lord Moore!

[@outoforbit00]

Lord Falconer please be careful what you wish for, please think about the bigger picture.

[@ceh5526]

SpectatorTV at its best - thank you

[@therighthonsirdoug]

What an excellent debate on this very controversial issues. We need much more of this, rather than have labour rush this bill through parliament, carried by newly elected intellectual pygmies who largely haven't thought it through properly. This debate hasn't changed my personal view, I'm against assisted suicide, but I've heard no other of such quality.

[@M896]

You should be able to choose a terrible end if you wish it so but why should your view impact my wish to opt out?

[@outoforbit00]

The Labour front bench is filled with very shallow people.

[@suzannelipscombe589]

I so agree with you...​@@M896

[@14caz68]

Killing granny bill 😡 Despatching her for her house and bank balance before she’s pushed off into an expensive care home. Thin end of the wedge. It’s immoral.

[@Frohicky1]

I find it astonishing that people I have never met have decided I am their property, their toy, a plaything to slightly improve their emotions on occasion.

[@lorrainemaddams4996]

Thank you

[@Peter-ov6xh]

Thank God for the steadfastness of the Roman Catholic Church in times like these.

[@Frohicky1]

It's good to see them borrowing those paedophile protecting energies for other topics.

[@M896]

An irrelevant institution

[@jemgeach4066]

Honest doctors would admit that a six month prognosis of death is pretty valueless..

[@gosiachaaban2484]

Fully agree with Lord Moore.

[@nickdawson9270]

“Subject to safeguards” is conveniently vague. As evidenced by Canada safeguards vary from time to time. The underlying problem is the absence of adequate provision of palliative care and a broken health service that produces the worst outcomes compared with any other developed nation. Euthanasia used to be the province of vets and Nazis. Soon to be the policy of the UK government to ease the cost of health care in old age. Labour promised change ..... here it comes!

[@M896]

The population of old people is set to double, this is not going to end well. Also I'm witnessing palliative care up close now, I'd take an early exit every time.

[@theant9821]

torture was also a nazi practice but thats already legaly enforced in our country on the termianlly ill

[@nickdawson9270]

Two points. Firstly the UK pop is now growing faster than in the last 50 years and that’s not due to an influx of pensioners. Secondly, you reinforce my concern that palliative care is neglected in the UK, as is care for cancer and heart conditions. The govt needs euthanasia to protect the exchequer and the NHS

[@Nicole-Faith]

Lord Moore is very wise.

[@jesusisking2472]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 🏛️ Lord Falconer argues for legalizing assisted dying, claiming the current law is unenforceable and needs to be updated to reflect compassionate choices for terminally ill patients. ⚖️ The discussion highlights the moral implications of the state’s role in assisting or prosecuting individuals who help others in dying, particularly regarding the lack of clear legal guidelines. 💔 Concerns raise about potential overreach toward vulnerable populations, with both sides acknowledging the importance of safeguarding measures in any proposed changes. 🕊️ Lord Moore emphasizes the distinction between assisted dying and suicide, arguing that the language used misrepresents the supportive care that exists for terminally ill patients. 📊 Public opinion is examined, with some polls suggesting a higher favorability for assisted dying when it’s contrasted with the availability of palliative care. 🚨 Arguments against assisted dying include fear of a slippery slope where criteria for eligibility could widen beyond terminal illness, leading to unintended consequences. 🌍 Comparative references to jurisdictions like Oregon and the Netherlands illustrate the complexities and challenges faced when transitioning from terminal illness assistance to broader definitions of suffering. 🤝 Both speakers acknowledge the psychological impact of suicide on loved ones and the delicate balance society must maintain around the issue, especially in terminal illness contexts. 🤝 The discussion revolves around the ethical implications of assisted dying for terminally ill patients and the roles of medical professionals in such decisions. ⚖️ There is a conflict between a doctor's duty to preserve life and the moral considerations of compassionate acts, like assisting a patient in dying. 🌍 The debate raises concerns about societal values and the potential normalization of assisted dying, affecting views on the worth of lives, especially for the disabled and elderly. 💡 Proponents argue that allowing choice in dying can coexist with improving palliative care and does not inherently lead to exploitation or a slippery slope. 🚑 Safeguards, including independent evaluations by multiple medical professionals, are emphasized to prevent misuse of assisted dying provisions. 🕊️ Critics worry that introducing assisted dying could undermine the imperative to protect life, leading to societal pressures and moral dilemmas regarding life’s value. 🧠 Mental and emotional states of terminally ill patients are considered, with acknowledgment that patients may not always express their true desires due to suffering or distress. 📊 Studies from jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal show a lack of evidence for increased exploitation or negative societal impacts, countering slippery slope arguments. ⚖️ The debate centers around the moral implications of assisted dying and its potential effects on society. 🧬 Concerns were raised about the misuse of genetic manipulation and a perceived desire to control life circumstances. 🚫 The idea that the proposed bill could lead to eugenics was labeled as inflammatory and unfounded. 👩‍⚖️ There is skepticism regarding the role of judges in deciding life-and-death matters, questioning their infallibility. 📜 Arguments for the bill emphasize a compassionate approach for terminally ill individuals, separating it from risks of harm. ⚖️ Opponents argue that legal changes could create pressures on vulnerable populations and disrupt societal taboos. 🎭 There is a belief that the law can distinguish between compassionate actions and harmful behaviors effectively. 💔 The conversation highlights a clash between compassion for suffering individuals and the dangers of normalizing assisted dying. Made with HARPA AI

[@jorge2757]

Grazie grazie grazie ❤❤❤

[@stirlingmoss9637]

These nit picking windbags are the same people who willingly sent fit young servicemen to fight and die in illegal wars. Sickening.

[@bigbarry8343]

two wrongs are not right

[@t5kcannon1]

An interesting and stimulating discussion. Thank you.

[@susancollins3015]

all I can say is we treat dogs better. Having seen both my parents and brother suffer unnecessarily makes me want to see this law passed even if you can end someone's suffering by no more than maybe a few days or weeks. Palliative care in this country is pro-longing suffering and the law right now means anyone with a terminal prognosis has to be rich enough and able to get themselves to Dignitas. To me Lord Moore sounds like a man who has never been up close to people who are suffering and close to death. If Lord Moore doesn't know what happens in Palliative care he should get himself down to a care home, they deal with it all the time. How can he EVEN make this argument and not know??

[@SamOwen55]

The patronising tone and condecesnion of Falconer and people like him are the only reason you need to think this bill is going to be a disaster. These are ideological people.

[@michaelwhite8031]

If the law doesn't prosecute at the moment, as it is, dont give it credence.

[@johnmartin4650]

Well said ,the man with the red tie……thank you

[@jemgeach4066]

How typical to sneer mention the Catholic Church!

[@miraforeman7567]

I agree with assisted dying only if it’s outside government control.

[@stirlingmoss9637]

What does that even mean?

[@theant9821]

@@stirlingmoss9637 study the english language and read it again.

[@miraforeman7567]

@@stirlingmoss9637 I meant something similar to Switzerland. Definitely not by NHS

[@jemgeach4066]

Some untruths, contradictions and misunderstandings about assisted dying. 1) Assisted dying is NOT about treatment cessation. That is already legal and often licit. That is, a patient may already refuse treatment, even if death is a foreseeable consequence. 2) doctors cannot with any certainty predict how long someone may live. Doctors who see death as a treatment are not good advocates for their patients and may even see them as a source for "donated" organs. (as has happened in Belgium) 3) providing certain, painless, and speedy death is not altogether easy: each 'assisted death' is experimental, since people react very differently to toxins. Moreover the drugs often used (phenobarbital mostly) seem to produce distressing effects before death. Fluid build up in the lungs has been detected in autopsies of those executed by lethal injection.And ancilliary drugs may prevent victims demonstrating their agony. A system that requires a dying man to be deprived of water when he asks for it is manifestly flawed. 4) As soon as you ask someone else to help with your demise, you are no longer autonomous: for you have submitted yourself to the judgement of another, who may or may not agree that you should die. It is their judgement which will determine whether you live or not, not yours. And sometimes they may impose death when you no longer desire it, as has happened in Holland. 5) Intentional killing of the innocent (i.e. the not harming) must be outlawed if civilisation of any kind is to survive. Only if ALL innocent lives are protected equally under the law can anyone feel safe 6) We KNOW from all the places which have introduced assisted dying laws that any safeguards or limits are swiftly eroded once the absolute prohibition on killing is removed. For the limits are wholly arbitrary: if with a six month prognosis of death, why not with a year's? Why should suffering children be excluded from this 'mercy'? 3:08 If death is a reason for killing, why not suffering? If physical suffering, why not mental anguish? Moreover, 'normal' suicide increases in such jurisdictions. 7) Once killing is seen as a solution, research to mitigate suffering will dwindle away. It was doctors who refused to perform craniotomies who improved perinatal care so that this barbarity ( cutting off the baby's head in obstructed deliveries) ceased to be acceptable. If we want cures for cancer, ALS, MS etc. then killing the patient must not be seen as acceptable. The Hippocratic school divorced medicine from magic in part by explicitly rejecting the idea that doctors should assist patients to die.' I will not prescribe any deadly poison, nor will I advocate this course of action'. CORRUPTIO OPTIMI PESSIMA EST. The assault on medical ethics has been relentless these last 70 years, and a profession which has embraced abortion is not to be trusted with other permission to kill. For dress it up how you may, providing someone with a deadly drug so that they may kill themselves is colluding in their death. It is abandonment, not compassion. "The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel " : all too often those who collude with the suicidal want to be relieved of their own agony since they are not willing to suffer with those suffering. THE TENDER MERCIES OF THE WICKED ARE CRUEL FOOLISH PITY RUINS THE CITY HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW.

[@suzannelipscombe589]

There are people who agree and those that dont..those that do i think should have the option and those that dont , then they can choose not to. It really annoys me that those , particularly MPs when the vote happens , who have their own opinions as though their opinions are more important than everyone else! I think every single persons point of veiw and choice absolutely should be respected. We are never all going to agree with this , lets respect each other and ensure that the law is passed.

[@andrewstevenson4736]

Very good debate - although Lord Falconer says that Oregon has stuck to its original remit to allow terminally ill to end their lives, is it not also true that Canada originally started with this remit but this was challenged in 2019 and courts ruled it was unconstitutional to restrict assisted dying to only terminally ill people thus opening up the option to chronically ill people/chronic mental health problems etc, ?

[@SagarPatel-oz3lb]

Unfortunately I think the gentleman with the red tie, towards the end, inflamed the argument when eugenics was brought up. This is a very contextualised bill and is morally indefensible to extrapolate this bill to something as hideous as eugenics I.e. a much wider audience. It doesn't open the flood gates to other circumstances when the probability of such exaggerated events naturally occuring are highly unlikely. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that assisted suicide for the purpose of societal cleansing is a immoral. But it is morally acceptable to aid those with a terminal illness for the very fact that they are towards the end of their lives and not the other way.

[@danielrobertson8774]

If someone is failing to cope with their job, then they should not be in that role. The decision needs to be made by Dr's and Juries, not Civil Servants or an outsourced charity. Look at the madness in other areas, which can be corrected. Death cannot be corrected hence why there is no death sentence.

[@jemgeach4066]

Look harder at Oregon: " normal " suicide is more common there. And some of the victims take a long time to die, and one person came round. You may not want to be dependent, but this is because in modern Western society we have an illusion of independence.

[@bambosvoutourides3720]

Falconer doesn't seem to comprehend that changing the meaning of suicide, whether assisted or not, changes our relation, and the shape that our compassion takes, to those who are suicidal. The point about assisted suicide is to be compassionate to those who are deemed close to death but who are desperate to end it early with 'dignity'. But if your compassion takes that shape why have an arbitrary cut off point and why only people who are close to death when logically it is those with a long time to live with similar circumstances who should be at the front of the queue. Falconer thinks his bill will be the end of the matter, but he cannot know that.

[@ClaireDewhurst-h5n]

We simply need to government support the hospice sector it needs more funding

[@M896]

That won't remotely address this issue

[@Delamirie]

Falconer’s argument is SO weak. “We don’t currently prosecute when ‘compassion’ is demonstrated so helping someone commit suicide should be legal”. So incredibly stupid it manages to incorporate two fallacies into one sentence: the is-ought fallacy and the resurrection of Bentham’s “gunman writ large” view of the law (which, to any lawyer who actually understands the law, was hung drawn and quartered by HLA Hart in his Concept of Law many decades ago now). The best argument AGAINST any legal proposal is “Lord Falconer supports it” - just look at his record: Constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act, Iraq … the list is nearly endless

[@joeobyrne9348]

As pleasant a debate as it was, and I do at least commend Lord Charlie for accepting the concerns of those of us who dont agree with this (though his apparent disdain for religious reasoning was very poor form), his arguments were all based on supposition that plenty would disagree with and I would argue is demonstrably naieve. Lord Charles got to that point gently, but i would have like to have seen more pressure applied on this point as he didnt answer satisfactorily. He rather dodged the issue. The safeguards sound strong in theory, but in practice they simply wont guard anything. According to the same side, the NHS is stretched beyond capacity. How exactly are those doctors going to have time to treat patients and make a thoroughly soul searching decision on if someone ought to be allowed to kill themselves. It simply wont happen. Judges will accept in the main all documents from medical staff. The best you will get is the occasional independent doctor who on principle opposes it, but theres a good chance he'll be shouted down in one way or another. Its a nice idea in theory to alleviate suffering, but the reality is that life is terrible and painful. We cannot change that no matter how much we will this into existence. What this bill would do for definite is put pressure on the mentally weak for wont of a better word. And here is where my biggest contention with Lord Charlie comes in and I wish Lord Charles had pushed back on. How exactly would we know if someone had regretted being assisted to die? How would we know that someone didnt actually want to die without explicit documentation? Moreover, is it not a far bigger tragedy for someone to be killed who actually didn't want it than 10 be denied slightly earlier deaths? As a final point, and really the most salient point to anyone undecided. Lord Charlie is the thin end of the wedge. His proposals are in most areas noble in intention and accepting of some of the risks we raise. It attempts to mitigate but relies on perfection when we know none of us are. But he is the most mild proponent I've heard. The vast majority want far more radical bills than this with fewer and weaker safeguards. It will be a disaster should this bill pass. A silent one, but a disaster nonetheless.

[@linmorell1813]

I found the comment about it being a situation where one is out of control of the situation correct. We want to stop our own suffering as we can't accept someone else's suffering.

[@M896]

Maybe you haven't witnessed someone else's suffering close up for months

[@maureenelsden1927]

Falconer looks as if he could do with a devotion to the Cross and some fasting.

[@maureenelsden1927]

Physical suffering is nothing in comparison with other suffering - both of my parents brushed it aside. I think it is really evil to make so much out of snuffing people to avoid physical pain.

[@M896]

I think it's evil to insist on people suffering at the end of their life

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@M896 I think palliative care wants investigating for malpractice as something that borders on assisted suicide proper. And so to hell.

[@M896]

@@maureenelsden1927 I hope the day comes when you get to experience what you are all too willing for others to suffer. You'll change your tune then for sure, selfish

[@crzxr]

'Lord Charlie Falconer and Lord Charles Moore' - Don't they both sit in the House of Lords? If so, this is quite the wrong form of reference. Perhaps the presenter thinks that Lord Randolph Churchill sat in the House of Lords...? What a dreadfully ignorant human being!

[@maureenelsden1927]

HELL BENT SHEER EVIL!

[@leebrown6702]

In the Tory leadership ballot I voted for Jenrick because of his arguments, but could never have voted for Badenoch due to her support for assisted killing alone.

[@barbaralucas2375]

I agree with Lord Moore’s side of this debate against Lord Falconer who comes over as self obsessed.

[@katiemiaana]

Such a blatantly middle class bill. Only suitable for people with really long life expectancies but for poorer people with much lower life expectancies this will be pushed as an option to save costs.

[@thomashobbs1498]

A really sensitive and emotive topic which requires dignity from both sides. Some of these comments fail to meet this criteria.

[@stephfoxwell4620]

Esther Rantzen's new TV show. That's Death.

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

I appreciate this debate. I have paid too little attention to the terminal vs. non-terminal point, it seems that one of these subverts the State's monopoly on violence, while the other does not. I have become somewhat better-educated on this topic lately, the above-mentioned is a key point of debate, here in the US as well. I am some kind of 'subspecies' of Libertarian myself, (as everyone is 'supposed' to be, in a free, functional society,) however, taking 'non-terminal' lives seems to surpass, even the wide legal parameters of a free liberal society. Almost all other considerations discussed, in contrast, would seem to be cultural, as opposed to legal in nature. Many of these strike me as legitimate concerns. Yet I maintain that responsibility for the maintenance of culture, formally lies with citizens and private community groups, as opposed to the apparatus of government. The health of civil society, should not be understood to directly involve governance, except in extreme, or emergency situations which require practical exception, and which have precedence in the historical declaration of martial law. Across all other instances, legal and governing establishments in the West (when most functional) are intended to establish wide limiting parameters, basic security, enable free market competition, and (with generally-few caveats) are otherwise intended to simply allow citizens to derive/preserve their own social systems, culture, families, livelihoods and support structures.

[@viewer3091]

Charlie Falconer is not looking too well !

[@everythingisupsidedown9593]

Only God chooses the day. Go against God and see what happens.

[@M896]

I'd happily take my chances

[@diggingshovelle9669]

Death is the annihilation of life and no relief from suffering because you are not there when dead. Likewise death adds to suffering through the active killing of the body so Lord Falconer`s argument somewhat off centre.

[@M896]

What utter drivel

[@maureenelsden1927]

Totally contrary to the will of God. Assisted suicide people have no fear of God.

[@M896]

@@maureenelsden1927 If honouring your God means a miserable death then you're welcome to make that choice. I have no God so that is not a factor for me.

[@M896]

@@maureenelsden1927 If it were not for the movies I'd not understand anything that you just said...

[@M896]

@@maureenelsden1927 not the sharpest knife in the drawer...

[@thomasshone2488]

When you've got to the state assisted suicide part of the argument, I think you can justifiably say the state has gone too far.