Assisted Dying Bill Rejected by Parliament

I am hugely disappointed that the assisted dying bill that went through Parliament today was rejected by MPs by a margin of 330-118.

The bill would have allowed terminally-ill patients, with fewer than six months to live, the choice to end their lives in this country, rather than enduring a prolonged ordeal or having to go abroad to die.

I think this shows two things:

1) Parliament is hugely out-of-touch. Just over four-fifths of the public supported this bill, but it seems to matter very little to some self-serving MPs.

2) The dogma of religion still has a grim stranglehold over our society.

Thoughts?

Fully agree up until the dogma part. I think MPs are just scared of allowing something even slightly controversial.

I think some MPs voted based on the convictions of their religious faith; certainly some of the most prominent and vocal MPs during the debate, who were against the bill, were of a religious disposition (for example, Fiona Bruce and Caroline Spelman).

Equally, Justin Welby was most vocal in his opposition to the bill. He, along with his counterparts in the faiths of Judaism, Islam and Sikhism, wrote a letter to every MP urging them to vote against the bill.

A facet, sure, I'd fully believe that.

Very very very difficult one.

Genuinely don't know which way I would have voted.

Problem is - who determines 6 months? I think you'll find the vast majority of doctors would agree that it is hard to predict this with any level of accuracy.

I believe the bill says that a doctor must 'reasonably expect' the terminally ill patient to die within six months.

I agree that it would be very difficult to accurately gauge the six-month time frame, though.

Not sure you can really push this as a purely religious thing when so many medical groups were opposed too.

I've got a family friend who is in palliative care. I will ask her her thoughts next time I see her, should be interesting.

I agree with your second point wholeheartedly and dislike the idea that personal religious views of individual MPs affects others in any way. I disagree with the first point though - just because public opinion (arguably) would support assisted dying, doesn't mean the public are best placed, knowledgeable enough or have weighed all the options properly in such a way that they're right and Parliament is wrong.

Personally, I think there should be some form of assistance to those who want to end it all but I can see putting in on the Statutes is fraught with possible problems. Parliament doesn't exist solely to follow public opinion I'm afraid and they're elected to make the decisions. Tough if we don't like it.

Sad thing is that people who can afford it are entitled to go to Switzerland with no comeback...and yet over here you'll be looking at hard time..

Who's to say people aren't knocking off Granny now with a few aspirin

I certainly won't hesitate to go the Digitas route should a loved one be in agony..

Agree with Duty...shame.

Indeed, but strong public opinion, with pretty much overwhelming backing, on what is probably a more emotive issue than many discussed, should see these views represented more fervently. Considering how detached most of these MPs are to the culture most normal Brits live in, they have a huge amount of power to represent us, and something like this is where they need to be relaying our feelings, rather than sticking to facts and figures.

Duty281 wrote:I believe the bill says that a doctor must 'reasonably expect' the terminally ill patient to die within six months.

I agree that it would be very difficult to accurately gauge the six-month time frame, though.

Doctors make diagnosis like this all the time..

Can you guys put forth legal and ethical issues to arise from this particular bill? SFW,Rick, Tophat, Crimey i'm looking at you. We get a lot of basic information and a lot of whining and finger pointing - I'd rather have all cards in front of me before picking one way or another. I'm not on the wind up - I'm genuinely interested in the problems that can arise from this and whether mp's voted to keep pandoras box closed or as duty claimed imposed religious values.

Wait, Crimey is a smart person?

No - he writes alot.

ShahenshahG wrote:Can you guys put forth legal and ethical issues to arise from this particular bill? SFW,Rick, Tophat, Crimey i'm looking at you. We get a lot of basic information and a lot of whining and finger pointing - I'd rather have all cards in front of me before picking one way or another.  I'm not on the wind up - I'm genuinely interested in the problems that can arise from this and whether mp's voted to keep pandoras box closed or as duty claimed imposed religious values.

I've always felt like i'm pro euthanasia but if it came to voting I don't think I could say yes, too ramifications and whilst the MP's should be representing the majority view of the public they vote more with their heads than their hearts like you or I.

Most MP'S do what they are told...

Bunch of sheep