I'm all for assisted dying...but your comment rings true. In a country that can't offer easy access to doctors and dentists, I'm not sure we are anywhere near ready to even debate this.
All my life, my greatest fear about dying has been having to linger in a state of painful terminal illness, or total physical dependence, or a vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, and not being able to say "Enough". Now I'm old, it's an even bigger fear. I've seen people in those situations, who just wanted to die but were forced to linger on suffering. We don't let our pets suffer when they are terminally ill, it's time to give humans the choice.
My father admonished me for dreading my mother's death she was seriously ill As always his perspective was reasoned, and I have come to learn Reason is humane, that it is the best way to handle grief. 'Would you have your mother live for her sake or your own? Her quality of life would be such that she would have no joy, no liberty, no autonomy, not be able to go to the theatre, not able to go to concerts, not enjoy a fine day, just live so you can postpone the inevitable grief. life is more than living, it is the joy of being alive. As I watch English Society sink into synthetic acrimony, derelict of the standards and the qualities that used to be the criteria of the United Kingdom, if not of the English lower Middleclass consumed with hatred for what they voted for, I come to the realisation I do not want a part in the society that they agitate for, because it is rubbish, uncultured, acrid, a pastiche of Christianity, a travesty of Democracy. Ignorant Armies clashing by night. because a section of the society is so precariously related to reality, has so slender a grasp of its own country ,such a tenuus grasp of its own Geography than the onl thing it tenacious about are its lends and Myths A yesterday without even the substance of what we had. I have had time however to appraise my Life in the perspectives that this acrimonious ghost of Neve Never land that we did have from 1955 to 1980circa the golden age, before it was slowly emaciated by new realities. Britain in those years was a burgeoning Society, the theatre, the concerts, the book shops, the Universities were thrusting and ardent. New plays, new horizons, optimism and membership of the EU promised that we had come to term with the loss an Empire to which we were not entitled , and we were becoming seriously international in cultural Terms. They were exciting times with a BBC at the core of its vitality, European in sight. I can date the decline. Margaret Thatcher, and Rupert Murdoch It hung on for while whilst that generation of Tories and Socialists and Liberals that had fought for this lived but slowly the acrimony the absurdity of our politicians manifested themselves in a reaction against the very success of that Golden Age. Now I live in Europe vicariously, now I experience the Golden age vicariously by NAXOS and U tube and DVDs but the ebullience of the society outside my capsule has been destroyed by ignorance, stupidity, and a feckless society that does not even a sense of humour about itself. What dies in a life extended beyond its vitality is Irony., Reason, Perspective, Veracity, Integrity so instead of an A.J.P Taylor lecturing, Instead of Bronowski on the Brains' Trust we have their Pastiche, A David Starkey ranting with all the pretensions of some one speaking the Truth but actually spewing obsessive Bile . There was a broadcast of Indira Ghandi's funeral conducted with brilliance by Sue Lawley. It was a tour de force of broadcasting and visual Journalism but what we have now is a Julia Hartley Brewer burying journalism in her pastiche of veracity. The Social Media, is anti-social, it is divisive, it is poisonous i its consequences and it is destroying Democracy of any integrity. In the recent election I heard nothing from these people that resembled Politics in either content or style. He was right was Dad. Why detain some one when their prospects of Joy do not exist.
I agree with that. But don't think for one second the state is getting involved because it cares about people. The state has already decided who they want to live and who they want to die and they are using this debate to get there. Canada has assisted dying and you should look into how that is being used and abused to pressure poor and old people into accepting """assisted dying""".
For someone terminally ill and in pain it should obviously be an option. I have a parent with dementia who is virtually blind has very limited mobility. She is existing not living. If she had capacity she would expect me to take her to Switzerland
She doesn't have capacity so she can't consent. So what makes you the arbiter of life here, and how do you not see any problems with that? And I'm not talking about this person specifically but generally.
@@adam7802clearly never spent time with a person who has dementia and not seen how they always need care and how scared they are and frightened when they don’t know where they are or who you are. Or when they soil themselves. And on and on. It’s no way to watch your parents or anyone frankly.
@@danh5637 I have 2 family members with dementia, though one is far worse than the other. I am not directly caring for them but I know how horrible and upsetting it is. But what are you implying? That this is reason enough for you to decide? Nobody in our family has had this thought cross their minds at least that I know of. We just want them to be cared for as best as they can, which in itself is difficult sadly...
@@adam7802 yes but that’s selfish. Someone with advanced Alzheimer’s doesn’t know where they are. Who they’re surrounded by. Are in a constant state of terror and sometimes can be aggressive. I think it’s very selfish to keep them in a state of suffering due to some false morality that they must be kept alive in spite of the pain you are causing them. Not to mention the fact they will require around the clock care. Often by more than one person. Which results in many abandoning their careers to take care of them often for a decade or so. And so yes if they’re in such a situation it’s the kinder thing to put them to sleep. We treat animals better when they’re in such pain. And we should have the humanity to put someone in such a state to sleep also. I actually think it’s monstrous behaviour to keep someone alive who’s in pain, terror and suffering. Beastly in fact.
The deciding factor should not be 'terminal illness', but 'unbearable suffering'. If I had 6 months to live, but am pain free and in otherwise good health, why would I want to end it? If I was in crippling agony that could not be relieved by medical treatment but might live another 10 or 20 years, why should I be forced to endure it? I speak as someone who has actually worked in a hospital and seen the reality of this hypothetical debate. Danny should stop nanny stating by imposing his views on other - let people decide for ourselves
And wintermute is crippling pain always only solved by assisted dying? How do we know that pain ends with death? What is death? Lots of assumptions made and ppl are pushing for enthusiastic laws
It is VERY dangerous and frankly very frightening that the brakes are to be taken off and the state would have the power over life and death..Mr Kruger is right over the transfer of power and the practical aspects involved.
As with everything else. It's in the wording ASSISTED. And hospitals will all of a sudden decide for you if you need to be ASSISTED in dying and it will just be a strange coincidence that it's mostly old people and the poor that need the most ASSISTANCE 😊
They wont decide for you its completely up to the patient the hospital just helps if you decide you want it. If it is mostly elderly people I imagine that would be because elderly people will have more terminal illnesses than others. I doubt it would be mostly poor people unless its just theres more poor people than rich people
@@turokforever007 Not only is "feel low" terribly reductive towards people facing serious mental illness and disorders, they've pushed the decision to allow it or not for mental illness all the way to 2027 so you're wrong anyways.
Perfectly healthy people should also have that choice? Unless you answer yes then you know it’s not completely all about choice it’s about which is the best way to support others
@@NathanSaor1798 Perfectly healthy people already have choice. This bill would enable people who are dying in great pain & with no dignity to end their suffering at home at a time of their choosing with their family beside them.
Will the sick and senile have a choice? Will the medics have a choice if it goes against their principles? You can already hear the relatives saying it in droves "it's for the best"...... Sure - best for who, I wonder? Anyone with young kids today, had better be nice to them every day from now on - the temptation will be too strong, for too many.
@@cgo225 The freedom to choose will only apply to those who are sound of mind. Medics will have a choice as they do over abortion. No medical professional is forced to abort a child. 200,000 healthy babies are aborted in the UK each year. These babies have their whole lives ahead of them, but abortion is legal. I cannot understand why those who are dying in great pain after a long life should be forced by others to endure their suffering. The experience in countries which already permit assisted dying is that family members do all in their power to dissuade their loved ones from departing this world.
Its a personal choice if i get dementia altzheimers or any condition that means i can't stay my own home i want out peacefully in a dignified manner o one has the right to decide for me
Then why put the onus on another person to take your life for you instead of doing it yourself before you become too incapacitated. That option is available today, to anyone who wants it - always has been.
@@bwilliamson3887 Seriously? yes it is just about you, no one else's business, and for someone with dementia/Alzheimer's it is an unbearable condition for those around you to see you suffer, and then not recognise you etc etc I have just lost my mum at 94, and up to 86 she was still riding a bike, never been on any medication, full of life, very funny, so open minded, fantastic inspirational people both my parents were! My Gran lived to nearly 102, no painful end, died in her sleep, simply from old age, and that is the best most wonderful way to go! Last November my wonderful Mum got diagnosed with a squamous cell carcinoma on her tongue, terminal because of her age, and i watched my wonderful Mum go from 91/2 stone, which she had been all her life, down to about 41/2 stone in the space of 5 months, could not eat, barely drink, and then her mind starting going from the toxins goin to her brain, and lack of nutrition! My partner and i had her move in with us in the last month of her life, and it was miserable, awful, and heartbreaking to deal with, and if i could have ended this suffering for her 2 months earlier lets say, i would have done in a heartbeat!! You or anyone else do not have the right to tell other people they have got to suffer and live an miserable existence to the very end!! How dare you, if you want to suffer in agony and misery when it comes to it, if you do get ill, then so be it, carry on, but do not expect others to, it is seriously f.....d up
Why should a bunch of MPs interfere even more in my life and a peaceful ending. It’s my life, not theirs, it should be my decision. I don’t have kids, grandchildren or vested interested relatives.
The dreadful state of palliative care in this country, how is assisted dying going to work? I have very personal experience of some one close to me who went through so called end of life care, she died in agony
The British Medical Association won't touch the subject but politicians are going to legislate it!?!?!? If you have a terminal illness you qualify for LCWRA - but only if you've been given less than 12 months to live 🤦. I guess it's this payment they are trying to reduce. All the money in the world for Ukraine and Israel though.
They wouldn't be forcing people to die, they would always have to obtain the patient's written consent or their next of kin's consent, so how can it be evil?
this guy is a melt if the person wants to die its there choice not yours with your political blue tie on why not let people decide on whats best for them overall.
It would've been nice if politicians considered the personal choice/bodily sovereignty factor during the lockdown and useless toxic syringe era, don't you think?
Well, exactly - and that's a great point. Of course they don't care about individual choice: they have decided the elderly are a burden on the state and they want them dead. I'm not even joking. The medical establishments in Britain and Ireland are already sneakily euthanising the elderly without their, or their families', consent.
Its worse than a war - they want them dead. Unfortunately I'm not even joking. This government regards anyone who is not "producing" as a burden on the state and unworthy of life. They have plenty of money for pensioners' fuel allowance (look at how much they sent to Ukraine), they just don't want to spend it on pensioners.
What happened to 'Do not Kill'. The foundations of our Country and morals. How far we have come. It's very sad. As a health professional I've seen many relatives of patients con them out of their houses etc. Usually the rich. I dread to think about the pressures those patients will have.
Your telling me that someone wants to pass a bill that will let my grandma join her husband in heaven. My poor grandmother who never recoverd from the loss of my grandfather. My grandmother who cannot even go to the toilet witnout help ... Who spends most of her days allone and isolated. All those times she cried to me about not wanting to live anymore and how she just wants to die. There are people seriously trying to tell me that it is better she suffer for the last of her days or un-alive herself than it is for her to pass on peacefully with assistance .... Because somehow god wants old people to live on pain?
@GiraffeCrab I would not have left my granny in that position I would have brought her into my home loved and cared for her and made her last days as happy as I could. NO matter what it took.
@@ThePixey1000 congratulations on being privileged enough to be able to do that. Now stop being selfish and self absorbed and understand that not everyone can do that. Just because you're privileged does not mean everyone is.
@@GiraffeCrab my African grandmother was not rich by any means. She spent her last days surrounded by her children and grand kids back in Congo, to where she had wanted to return before dying. Her sole privilege was to have a large family around her that cared. That is priceless. But I will give you that the West is not too fond of large families...
@sarahm.7081 you what?!? The American side to my family (as told by my grandmother before she died) the count was over 80 grand children, great grand kids, nieces nephews and cousins. You are correct to a point. The British tend to abandon their elderly. Also if you have nothing left but a slow torturous death due to terminal cancer or something your tellinge that it's better for them to put their family through seeing them turn into a living corpse than it is to gracefully exit the stage on their own terms with their dignity intact? Peach your morals all you want they are no better or worse then here. Just from different perspectives ... Or are you one of those evil Christians that despise everyone that does not fall into your religious denomination?
Lets face it life is cheap these days, nobody values anyone just things... The populations too big thin out the valueless is the way we seem to be going... The irony is we work almost to death before we get to retire with ill health... Life has become a joke in 2024
Imo they'll never bring in assisted dying in the UK because it would put too many people out of work; MacMillan nurses, carer's, healthcare professionals. Saying that though, it would free up lots of beds in hospitals, reduce waiting times and they might even give Harold Shipman a posthumous pardon!!
You should be able to get peaceful assistance if you want to end things. Obviousky counselling beforehand but if it’s a voluntary free will choice then yes it should be available. If an animal is suffering we put it out its misery. It’s a sad indictment when we treat animals better than we do people.
I do not want the uk to be like Canada they started with just terminal people now homeless or poor people are been offered it and they are now considering allowing kids and even babies i honestly find it terrifying
The root of this issue, isn't about unbearable pain, it's about bumping off old people, and people who take from the resources of the national purse, whist contributing nothing to the economy.
Your God doesn't care for sanctity of life either if he was willing to create so many diseases, disorders and suffering onto people who did nothing to deserve them. Very all-loving!
A Christian country wouldn't have womens rights or equal marriage. Thank god we don't live in a Christian country anymore. We don't want to be a proper Christian country like Uganda, Poland or Russia where human rights mean nothing
For all of us, this is the most dangerous step in the history of our nation. When this train pulls out of the station, we're all on the slippery slope, that will be never ending. Warning, this law is frightening in an Orwellian context.
Where does that end? You don't not do something because it's been abused by a minority of individuals somewhere else. If someone abuses it that should be dealt with independently. You have to look at where it goes wrong or could go wrong and make different legislations, not just take it off the table.
Yes, suffering is SUBJECTIVE. So I'm not having this guy determine my level of suffering is or isn't enough for me to decide when I want to go. I don't want to wait for withdrawing treatment to take effect. Let me do what I want with my life.
Because, sadly there are too many people spreading misinformation and just as many believing it rather than taking (huge) time to back check independent sources & books.
There are no adequate safeguards once othe basic principle that innocent human life should be protected has been breached. Abortion was introduced with very strict safeguards, and in response to a desperate situation: almost at once we had abortion on any grounds. Moreover, once you have asked someone to assist your dying you have handed over your autonomyand choice to them. For they have to decide whether or no to accede to your request.
Abortion law restrictions were loosened at the behest of the public over many years as people became more enlightened on women's rights and choices about their own bodies. There was nothing morally wrong or questionable about that legal change and it has happened in the vast majority of societies. To compare it with assisted suicide is a false equivalency fallacy.
No, it was the request of those the government wanted to listen to. You are right though, not the same as assisted dying. The one doing the dying in abortion won't even be consulted. @PythonesqueSpam
@PythonesqueSpam some journalists did research soon after 1967,and produced a book ' babies for burning' which exposed the lies and deceit of the abortion industry which sprang up as soon as the law was changed. There are two bodies in every abortion.
@@skadiwarrior2053 Seriously? An embryo/foetus has the potential for life, being is an unrealised dependent collection of tissue no different than an egg or sperm. The point at which it becomes a viable human being is encapsulated in the law dictating when an abortion is allowed. So within these bounds, abortion does not kill anyone. To suggest otherwise, is an appeal to emotion fallacy.
@@PythonesqueSpam scientific illiteracy. When the sperm and egg join the new genetic coding is all there for a new human being. (Some mediaeval alchemists spent years trying to grow sperm into a baby; it never worked.) Sperm and ova have only half the genetic code each.
On a 2021 YG poll, 73% of those polled supported some form of doctor-assisted death for those with terminal illnesses. It seems you are in the minority.
This is an issue that deserves debate but a private members bill is the worst possible way to start the debate. It needs to be de-politicised and we need a way of discussing the medical legal social religious and ethical aspects. Frankly our media is so poor quality and off it's head I doubt that a calm and considered debate is possible. I'm loath to spend £100m on another public enquiry, but how about a Royal Commission or a citizens assembly ?
Alot of people, including Mr Kruger, seem to be misrepresenting a big part of this (either on purpose or just from misunderstanding). They keep saying "You're giving someone else the power to decide if you live or die" when that's not it at all. The doctors role is to determine if you fit the criteria which would allow you to make the choice of whether to end your life or not. I think of it like a passport. Having a passport doesn't mean you HAVE to go to another country, but it gives you the choice to do so if that's what you want. Here the doctors are effectively saying "You're of sound mind, you're terminally ill and you have 6 months or less (roughly) to live. You qualify for assisted dying" and then it's up to the person themselves whether or not they take that step
If abortion is permitted, there's not much of an argument to be had for NOT allowing people to access euthanasia. Personally, I think it should be permitted. Sadly, life is neither enjoyable or fulfilling for a lot people, and many simply don't want to be here. I see no reason why they should not have access to a peaceful, dignified way out if they decide that they wish to go.
1939 "Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to himself or others can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.” facilis descensus Averni We KNOW where this led: how ate the proposals in Parliament now materially different?
Defined by Canadian Government:- Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first. Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
If the criteria are so specific, why have people been 'offered' MAID for being homeless, for requesting an adaptation to their home, who could have recovered had they been given treatment? Why have doctors published a paper saying how much money they have saved using MAID?
Right, I don't get this.Within families after they get a diagnosis and expected life expectancy, they have a conversation about what the person wants to happen. And things such as DNR is exactly the same thing. There is still pressure form doctors for it, so doctors already have that responsibility so what is wrong with the bill, it's just cruel to objectify to it.
If any future health problems deteriorate and I feel that i can't go on, I may choose to make some hard choices as those choices are MINE to make no else's least of all some bullshit government or religious leader. MY LIFE MY CHOICE. LET YOUR LAST CHOICE BE YOURS!!.
All that is wanted is a choice...I do not think I'm a modern world it is much to ask.ii suspect the people that wish to take my choice away..has never been ill.it has nothing to do with end of life care..just allow choice.
She talks about “watertight safeguards” which we hear everywhere and then when it goes wrong it’s “lessons will be learnt “ but they never are. Assisted Dying is just a euphemism, just because it’s legalised doesn’t suddenly make it acceptable. No title or qualifications a politician or Doctor has gives them the superiority to make this ok. Proper palliative care is needed but of course too expensive
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 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 ofthe 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'? Iy'? 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.
"An expert committee reviewing euthanasia deaths in Canada’s most populous province has identified several cases in which patients asked to be killed in part for social reasons such as isolation and fears of homelessness, raising concerns over approvals for vulnerable people in the country’s assisted dying system. Ontario’s chief coroner issued several reports on Wednesday - after an Associated Press investigation based in part on data provided in one of the documents - reviewing the euthanasia deaths of people who were not terminally ill. The expert committee’s reports are based on an analysis of anonymized cases, chosen for their implications for future euthanasia requests. Canada’s legal criteria require a medical reason for euthanasia - a fatal diagnosis or unmanageable pain - but the committee’s reports show cases in which people were euthanized based on other factors including an “unmet social need”." -The Guardian
My son grandfather not he has ,$;1,000,000. And my ex Russian boyfriend and David girlfriend and Iran ex David boss took the money by what construction in Indonesia hallo. 2016 we suposed received money . And disepier and now criminal is never been caught.😅😅😅
Dead simple answer. Make it like organ donation. Opt in or out. Funny, there's a lot of people saying it's 'meddling' ora 'slippery slope'. To what exactly?
Pretty sure assisted dying has been happening in uk for years when my gran was receiving end of life care the nurse came and gave my gran medication that she said would close down her organs is that not assistsd dying? Or am i getting it confused with something else? This was 13 years ago
Seriously? this is up to the individual, no one else's business, and for someone with dementia/Alzheimer's it is an unbearable condition for those around you to see you suffer, and then not recognise you etc etc I have just lost my mum at 94, and up to 86 she was still riding a bike, never been on any medication, full of life, very funny, so open minded, fantastic inspirational people both my parents were! My Gran lived to nearly 102, no painful end, died in her sleep, simply from old age, and that is the best most wonderful way to go! Last November my wonderful Mum got diagnosed with a squamous cell carcinoma on her tongue, terminal because of her age, and i watched my wonderful Mum go from 91/2 stone, which she had been all her life, down to about 41/2 stone in the space of 5 months, could not eat, barely drink, and then her mind starting going from the toxins goin to her brain, and lack of nutrition! My partner and i had her move in with us in the last month of her life, and it was miserable, awful, and heartbreaking to deal with, and if i could have ended this suffering for her 2 months earlier lets say, i would have done in a heartbeat!! No one else should have the right to tell other people they have got to suffer and live a miserable existence to the very end!! If you want to suffer in agony and misery when it comes to it, if you do get ill, then so be it, carry on, but do not expect others to, it is seriously f.....d up!!!
We've had Medically Assisted Death in Canada for several years now, and it seems to be working well. An acquaintance with terminal pancreatic cancer recently used MADE to end his life, surrounded by family and friends. It was fine, and I haven't heard or read of any abuses.
Look up Christine Gauthier's- a veteran offered euthanasia because she requested a ramp be fitted in her home. Trudeau is a WEF puppet who wants the old, sick, disabled and poor DEAD.
I think the reason why they want to make it a very narrow criteria ie only in the case of terminal illness is for the sake of the inevitable heavy burden it places on the medical professionals.
I have Parkinsons, love life despite that, but I am sure that people like me will be HELPED to make up their minds. I pray daily to have no more Social Workerrsin my life now. How wouldi cope alone with a box ticker HELPING me. All this business about G Ps is hyperthetical, I can't get an appointment now to make living easier, but I bet I'll see them double quick if I say to the receptionist Can I have an appointment to arrange my death. All this is just because Esther wants to die on her own terms..take it as it comes, its worked since Life began...i don't want to die happily ever after, thank you.
The idea that one life is more important than another is inherent in this conversation. That assumes that we know best who's life is valuable and who's isn't. The hypocrisy is they're against capital punishment for the lowest forms of human life, who actively destroy lives, but they're pro-swicide and pro-mwrder. The truth is you don't have a right to decide who's life matters and who's doesn't. You can't see any meaning in the pain, so you despise it. You despise what you can't understand, and if you can't understand it you can't make a choice. The most vulnerable are abandoned and the heart of society dies.
@@django3422 Not yet, but this would be a step in that direction. Do you really trust the State to make this decision for people? If so you are very naive, chap. Look at how successive governments have treated the sick and disabled.
Part of the issue is God, if there is a God and if the bible is correct then to assist someone who is not part of God future is to condemn them to eternity away from God. While they are still alive they can still decide for them selves.
should legalise , but there must be safeguards.. perhaps rigorous assessment on things like.. potential to improve, pain and discomfort, etc... otherwise we'll get all sort of unsavory things happening.. and it must be in the hands of patient and relatives... not doctors who decide.. yes, obviously! They should only be able to decide whether to remove the legal block following a rigorous assessment.
This is labours doing . My reason is ,As time goes by under labour the old may get depressed because of social devision in some communities (mass immigration) ,also lack of heating (labour restrictions). THIS may set a mental decay (as poor judgement ) essentially in the old and then they could wonder if it's worth living . All these issues are on labours watch .
@@django3422 decline in or loss of strength, health, intellect, etc . They may not think straight to make good judgement to live or die .NOW RESEARCH YOUR SELF .
@@i_C-Sense Research what? Switzerland has had legal euthanasia for a long time, its absolutely fine and hasn't lead to all these nightmare scenarios that, like you, people are fearmongering about.
@@django3422 well we aren't in Switzerland . If people make the effort to go there then that's a different reason . I see our elderly getting in difficult times with labour and I certainly don't want to be helping them getting them into a grave .
When the NHS has recovered and social care has matched those of those countries you are talking about, Then maybe that conversations can be head. This is being lobbied now as a way to reduce the stresses on social care and its not fooling anyone.
@@django3422 exactly how depends on how they implement. I've already said broadly how troll 😴 or perhaps since you seem to think you know so much, you can tell me how this thing that has not been defined is foolproof?
@@adam7802 Burden of proof is on you since you made the claim and you just admitted that you don't actually know. Dunno how you've concluded what I think I know, since I've basically just asked two simple questions.
Absolutely...I hate that my choice is in the hands of some dubious people.think we lived in medieval times.I want to chose what to do with my own body.
It should also be available for those suffering long term social isolation and long term mental illness. I'm done with this narcissist/psychopath controlled world.
You can’t say the thumbnail quote as the interviewer. That’s like writing in a guy to look like the monopoly man and having the main character point out that he looks like the monopoly man.
For all you 'do gooders' going on about murder, god, and mental health.... This is not a suicide pact for depressed people, I want the right to end my life if I am terminally ill. My mum was tortured for 2 years and cried and begged me everyday to help her die. When you have lived through this and understand that palliative care isn't always the answer and doesn't work for everyone, then you'll understand the daily mental torment and extreme guilt of the family left behind that couldn't help their dying loved one in their hour of need. People trying to stop assisted dying are selfish, self-righteous individuals that have no experience of extreme suffering.
Absolutely. I went through the same thing with a family member, it was horrific for everyone concerned. People should have the right to die with dignity.
The concerns are nothing to do with this, it is with the potential for abuse or misuse of this... No matter how upset you are about this you can't deny these matters need to be tread very carefully.
I am constantly surprised that people that advocate Capitol Punishment resist the right to die. Surely the society that believes itself entitled to take life, in war and for crime cannot claim the sanctity of life as an argument against assisted dying. But there. Society cannot be relied upon to be consistent or even coherent when it is not educated to hve perspective, when it is not informed enough to have reasoned opinions but resorts to attitudes and posture informed by indignation and spontaneous prejudice. I only know that in France were were educated how to think rather than what to think ,and since the what is bombarded current controversies, and intended to exploit grievances of party advantage the idea of such a society having perspective, or ethics is asking to much. Society does not like to be burdened with such things as facts ,especially when incited to have prejudices passed off as thought. The more I watch society in operation I begin to sympathise with Peel. When policies are adumbrated to win votes rather than to sole problems we have universal suffrage, and universal suffering. Thought is inconvenient, though is unpatriotic, though is treachery. That is the thrust of the right wing because it knows that society at large is not society at all, it is a rabble.
Can't look after the living nevermind the dieing
love your comments
Well Said
I'm all for assisted dying...but your comment rings true.
In a country that can't offer easy access to doctors and dentists, I'm not sure we are anywhere near ready to even debate this.
All my life, my greatest fear about dying has been having to linger in a state of painful terminal illness, or total physical dependence, or a vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, and not being able to say "Enough". Now I'm old, it's an even bigger fear. I've seen people in those situations, who just wanted to die but were forced to linger on suffering. We don't let our pets suffer when they are terminally ill, it's time to give humans the choice.
Why waste your life on such rubbish?
My father admonished me for dreading my mother's death she was seriously ill As always his perspective was reasoned, and I have come to learn Reason is humane, that it is the best way to handle grief.
'Would you have your mother live for her sake or your own? Her quality of life would be such that she would have no joy, no liberty, no autonomy, not be able to go to the theatre, not able to go to concerts, not enjoy a fine day, just live so you can postpone the inevitable grief. life is more than living, it is the joy of being alive.
As I watch English Society sink into synthetic acrimony, derelict of the standards and the qualities that used to be the criteria of the United Kingdom, if not of the English lower Middleclass consumed with hatred for what they voted for, I come to the realisation I do not want a part in the society that they agitate for, because it is rubbish, uncultured, acrid, a pastiche of Christianity, a travesty of Democracy. Ignorant Armies clashing by night. because a section of the society is so precariously related to reality, has so slender a grasp of its own country ,such a tenuus grasp of its own Geography than the onl thing it tenacious about are its lends and Myths A yesterday without even the substance of what we had. I have had time however to appraise my Life in the perspectives that this acrimonious ghost of Neve Never land that we did have from 1955 to 1980circa the golden age, before it was slowly emaciated by new realities. Britain in those years was a burgeoning Society, the theatre, the concerts, the book shops, the Universities were thrusting and ardent. New plays, new horizons, optimism and membership of the EU promised that we had come to term with the loss an Empire to which we were not entitled , and we were becoming seriously international in cultural Terms. They were exciting times with a BBC at the core of its vitality, European in sight. I can date the decline. Margaret Thatcher, and Rupert Murdoch It hung on for while whilst that generation of Tories and Socialists and Liberals that had fought for this lived but slowly the acrimony the absurdity of our politicians manifested themselves in a reaction against the very success of that Golden Age. Now I live in Europe vicariously, now I experience the Golden age vicariously by NAXOS and U tube and DVDs but the ebullience of the society outside my capsule has been destroyed by ignorance, stupidity, and a feckless society that does not even a sense of humour about itself. What dies in a life extended beyond its vitality is Irony., Reason, Perspective, Veracity, Integrity so instead of an A.J.P Taylor lecturing, Instead of Bronowski on the Brains' Trust we have their Pastiche, A David Starkey ranting with all the pretensions of some one speaking the Truth but actually spewing obsessive Bile . There was a broadcast of Indira Ghandi's funeral conducted with brilliance by Sue Lawley. It was a tour de force of broadcasting and visual Journalism but what we have now is a Julia Hartley Brewer burying journalism in her pastiche of veracity. The Social Media, is anti-social, it is divisive, it is poisonous i its consequences and it is destroying Democracy of any integrity. In the recent election I heard nothing from these people that resembled Politics in either content or style. He was right was Dad. Why detain some one when their prospects of Joy do not exist.
I agree with that. But don't think for one second the state is getting involved because it cares about people. The state has already decided who they want to live and who they want to die and they are using this debate to get there. Canada has assisted dying and you should look into how that is being used and abused to pressure poor and old people into accepting """assisted dying""".
You are afraid of a scenario that doesn't exist.
@@jackspring7709Yeah but the supporters of Assisted Dying, don't see that. They are only focused on one type of a plethora of different scenarios.
Have Labour not already started with the winter payments
Yeah, great start.
They thought it will ease the pain.
The Tories started it with oapssnd covid in care homes.
Free Palestine 🇵🇸
It’s a step in the right direction!
For someone terminally ill and in pain it should obviously be an option.
I have a parent with dementia who is virtually blind has very limited mobility. She is existing not living. If she had capacity she would expect me to take her to Switzerland
She doesn't have capacity so she can't consent. So what makes you the arbiter of life here, and how do you not see any problems with that? And I'm not talking about this person specifically but generally.
Totally agree, it's my life my choice
@@adam7802clearly never spent time with a person who has dementia and not seen how they always need care and how scared they are and frightened when they don’t know where they are or who you are. Or when they soil themselves. And on and on. It’s no way to watch your parents or anyone frankly.
@@danh5637 I have 2 family members with dementia, though one is far worse than the other. I am not directly caring for them but I know how horrible and upsetting it is.
But what are you implying? That this is reason enough for you to decide? Nobody in our family has had this thought cross their minds at least that I know of. We just want them to be cared for as best as they can, which in itself is difficult sadly...
@@adam7802 yes but that’s selfish. Someone with advanced Alzheimer’s doesn’t know where they are. Who they’re surrounded by. Are in a constant state of terror and sometimes can be aggressive. I think it’s very selfish to keep them in a state of suffering due to some false morality that they must be kept alive in spite of the pain you are causing them. Not to mention the fact they will require around the clock care. Often by more than one person. Which results in many abandoning their careers to take care of them often for a decade or so. And so yes if they’re in such a situation it’s the kinder thing to put them to sleep. We treat animals better when they’re in such pain. And we should have the humanity to put someone in such a state to sleep also. I actually think it’s monstrous behaviour to keep someone alive who’s in pain, terror and suffering. Beastly in fact.
The deciding factor should not be 'terminal illness', but 'unbearable suffering'. If I had 6 months to live, but am pain free and in otherwise good health, why would I want to end it? If I was in crippling agony that could not be relieved by medical treatment but might live another 10 or 20 years, why should I be forced to endure it? I speak as someone who has actually worked in a hospital and seen the reality of this hypothetical debate. Danny should stop nanny stating by imposing his views on other - let people decide for ourselves
And wintermute is crippling pain always only solved by assisted dying? How do we know that pain ends with death? What is death? Lots of assumptions made and ppl are pushing for enthusiastic laws
Let the MPs try it first just to make sure it works. So the old are the new enimy not like putin or xi .
It is VERY dangerous and frankly very frightening that the brakes are to be taken off and the state would have the power over life and death..Mr Kruger is right over the transfer of power and the practical aspects involved.
As with everything else. It's in the wording ASSISTED. And hospitals will all of a sudden decide for you if you need to be ASSISTED in dying and it will just be a strange coincidence that it's mostly old people and the poor that need the most ASSISTANCE 😊
In Canada if you feel low they help you to end it
They wont decide for you its completely up to the patient the hospital just helps if you decide you want it. If it is mostly elderly people I imagine that would be because elderly people will have more terminal illnesses than others. I doubt it would be mostly poor people unless its just theres more poor people than rich people
@@turokforever007didnt they push that back due to backlash? But anyway glad here its just for the terminally ill
@@turokforever007 Not only is "feel low" terribly reductive towards people facing serious mental illness and disorders, they've pushed the decision to allow it or not for mental illness all the way to 2027 so you're wrong anyways.
@@gothicgolem2947EVERYBODY is terminally ill 😂😂
It’s not a left/right issue.
A bent issue.
A Law passed is only as good as the hand you leave it in to be applied. And I trust no one these days.
It's a matter of human rights. The right for a person to choose what to do with their own body.
it's a God/Satan issue.
Follow your chosen leader, folks.
Wake up and rejoice!
One side believes in choice & the other wants to deny choice.
Perfectly healthy people should also have that choice? Unless you answer yes then you know it’s not completely all about choice it’s about which is the best way to support others
@@NathanSaor1798 Perfectly healthy people already have choice. This bill would enable people who are dying in great pain & with no dignity to end their suffering at home at a time of their choosing with their family beside them.
Will the sick and senile have a choice? Will the medics have a choice if it goes against their principles?
You can already hear the relatives saying it in droves "it's for the best"...... Sure - best for who, I wonder?
Anyone with young kids today, had better be nice to them every day from now on - the temptation will be too strong, for too many.
@@cgo225 The freedom to choose will only apply to those who are sound of mind. Medics will have a choice as they do over abortion. No medical professional is forced to abort a child. 200,000 healthy babies are aborted in the UK each year. These babies have their whole lives ahead of them, but abortion is legal. I cannot understand why those who are dying in great pain after a long life should be forced by others to endure their suffering. The experience in countries which already permit assisted dying is that family members do all in their power to dissuade their loved ones from departing this world.
@@alanmockford8516 It's called morphine and medication cannabis reduce pain.
The devil has but a short time...
There is no such thing.
Did the tooth fairy help Satan and the Easter bunny?
and God's Triumph is already written in Eternity through our Lord Jesus Christ. 😊❤
@@matthewstokes1608 you sure they didn’t just make up the Jesus story to keep the peasants in line?
@danh5637 I know they didn't ... the very opposite - as we are all now seeing!
Its a personal choice if i get dementia altzheimers or any condition that means i can't stay my own home i want out peacefully in a dignified manner o one has the right to decide for me
Then why put the onus on another person to take your life for you instead of doing it yourself before you become too incapacitated. That option is available today, to anyone who wants it - always has been.
@lindacoventry5220 You wouldn't know any different if yiu had it. It's not just about you.
@@bwilliamson3887 Seriously? yes it is just about you, no one else's business, and for someone with dementia/Alzheimer's it is an unbearable condition for those around you to see you suffer, and then not recognise you etc etc
I have just lost my mum at 94, and up to 86 she was still riding a bike, never been on any medication, full of life, very funny, so open minded, fantastic inspirational people both my parents were! My Gran lived to nearly 102, no painful end, died in her sleep, simply from old age, and that is the best most wonderful way to go!
Last November my wonderful Mum got diagnosed with a squamous cell carcinoma on her tongue, terminal because of her age, and i watched my wonderful Mum go from 91/2 stone, which she had been all her life, down to about 41/2 stone in the space of 5 months, could not eat, barely drink, and then her mind starting going from the toxins goin to her brain, and lack of nutrition!
My partner and i had her move in with us in the last month of her life, and it was miserable, awful, and heartbreaking to deal with, and if i could have ended this suffering for her 2 months earlier lets say, i would have done in a heartbeat!!
You or anyone else do not have the right to tell other people they have got to suffer and live an miserable existence to the very end!!
How dare you, if you want to suffer in agony and misery when it comes to it, if you do get ill, then so be it, carry on, but do not expect others to, it is seriously f.....d up
@@bwilliamson3887it absolutely _should_ be about the person. If that person wants that, they should have the bodily autonomy to do so as a right.
Why should a bunch of MPs interfere even more in my life and a peaceful ending. It’s my life, not theirs, it should be my decision. I don’t have kids, grandchildren or vested interested relatives.
The dreadful state of palliative care in this country, how is assisted dying going to work? I have very personal experience of some one close to me who went through so called end of life care, she died in agony
Its a great way to reduce the pension deficit and nhs costs. Very calculated and very evil.
The British Medical Association won't touch the subject but politicians are going to legislate it!?!?!?
If you have a terminal illness you qualify for LCWRA - but only if you've been given less than 12 months to live 🤦. I guess it's this payment they are trying to reduce.
All the money in the world for Ukraine and Israel though.
They wouldn't be forcing people to die, they would always have to obtain the patient's written consent or their next of kin's consent, so how can it be evil?
It turns my stomach! Noooo! satan is running amok 😮
@@PeterPete coercion happens eventually.
@@PeterPete Look at Canada, They are talking people into it
this guy is a melt if the person wants to die its there choice not yours with your political blue tie on why not let people decide on whats best for them overall.
Totally agree
It would've been nice if politicians considered the personal choice/bodily sovereignty factor during the lockdown and useless toxic syringe era, don't you think?
Yep and you were not forced to take the vaccine
They will be bringing out a new compulsory jab in 2025, that should clear a few wards...
Well, exactly - and that's a great point. Of course they don't care about individual choice: they have decided the elderly are a burden on the state and they want them dead. I'm not even joking. The medical establishments in Britain and Ireland are already sneakily euthanising the elderly without their, or their families', consent.
"Just because we dont have any GCSEs does not mean we are more stupid."
If you don't want to freeze in your own home, we can now offer an alternative. Then if you can't ...
Danny clearly won this- let's hope this labour government doesn't continue their war on pensioners
Its worse than a war - they want them dead. Unfortunately I'm not even joking. This government regards anyone who is not "producing" as a burden on the state and unworthy of life. They have plenty of money for pensioners' fuel allowance (look at how much they sent to Ukraine), they just don't want to spend it on pensioners.
No, Danny was pretty dishonest or misunderstood in his arguments, and so is the strawman you created for yourself there
Does scrapping the winter fuel allowance amount to 'assisted dying'?
Maybe they should all assist each other live on tv….
What happened to 'Do not Kill'. The foundations of our Country and morals. How far we have come. It's very sad.
As a health professional I've seen many relatives of patients con them out of their houses etc. Usually the rich. I dread to think about the pressures those patients will have.
Your telling me that someone wants to pass a bill that will let my grandma join her husband in heaven.
My poor grandmother who never recoverd from the loss of my grandfather.
My grandmother who cannot even go to the toilet witnout help ...
Who spends most of her days allone and isolated. All those times she cried to me about not wanting to live anymore and how she just wants to die.
There are people seriously trying to tell me that it is better she suffer for the last of her days or un-alive herself than it is for her to pass on peacefully with assistance .... Because somehow god wants old people to live on pain?
@GiraffeCrab I would not have left my granny in that position I would have brought her into my home loved and cared for her and made her last days as happy as I could. NO matter what it took.
@@ThePixey1000 congratulations on being privileged enough to be able to do that.
Now stop being selfish and self absorbed and understand that not everyone can do that.
Just because you're privileged does not mean everyone is.
@@GiraffeCrab my African grandmother was not rich by any means. She spent her last days surrounded by her children and grand kids back in Congo, to where she had wanted to return before dying. Her sole privilege was to have a large family around her that cared. That is priceless. But I will give you that the West is not too fond of large families...
@sarahm.7081 you what?!? The American side to my family (as told by my grandmother before she died) the count was over 80 grand children, great grand kids, nieces nephews and cousins.
You are correct to a point. The British tend to abandon their elderly.
Also if you have nothing left but a slow torturous death due to terminal cancer or something your tellinge that it's better for them to put their family through seeing them turn into a living corpse than it is to gracefully exit the stage on their own terms with their dignity intact?
Peach your morals all you want they are no better or worse then here. Just from different perspectives ... Or are you one of those evil Christians that despise everyone that does not fall into your religious denomination?
This is just a ploy from Labour to.reduce the benefits amd pension bill. Labour I see you.
This subject has been under discussion and up for debate long before Labour got into power so you can't put it on them.
@bridgetdoman1386 Oh come on, Labour are the ones trying to push it through.
@@bwilliamson3887 then don't do it and stop whining
@@bereal6590 Triggered. It's not all about you lefty.
@bridgetdoman1386 Labour want to kill old people.
It's a wicked proposal.
I know right? Super cool.
Yes.. I think we should take a look at Canada
Its not. If someone is terminally ill they should have the right to decide for themselves
Nonsense. We have it in Canada, and it's gone very well.
@@deborah-hq7xe What about Canada?
Lets face it life is cheap these days, nobody values anyone just things... The populations too big thin out the valueless is the way we seem to be going... The irony is we work almost to death before we get to retire with ill health... Life has become a joke in 2024
Imo they'll never bring in assisted dying in the UK because it would put too many people out of work; MacMillan nurses, carer's, healthcare professionals. Saying that though, it would free up lots of beds in hospitals, reduce waiting times and they might even give Harold Shipman a posthumous pardon!!
In all honesty they are already sneakily euthanising the elderly in Britain and Ireland without their, or their families', consent.
Slippery slope!
slope to where?
@@stirlingmoss4621next people with cf end up being granted it etc.
@@andybray9791It wouldn't be that hard to regulate.
Follow the money…
Nobody as the right to say no on this subject nobody. It’s up to the individual.
You should be able to get peaceful assistance if you want to end things. Obviousky counselling beforehand but if it’s a voluntary free will choice then yes it should be available. If an animal is suffering we put it out its misery. It’s a sad indictment when we treat animals better than we do people.
Unless there are discussions with people that are living the reality of their plight , these
politicians and experts are just farting in the wind .
Totally agree.
I do not want the uk to be like Canada they started with just terminal people now homeless or poor people are been offered it and they are now considering allowing kids and even babies i honestly find it terrifying
Slippery slope .. conservatives say no.. liberals say yes..like they say yes to everything!!.❤️🙏🇬🇧
@SpookyNaybor every thing I said was true you are just ignorant
Absolute rubbish.
Given the right circumstances, anyone can become a strong and avid supporter of assisted dying
this is the worst idea please no
so who will need assisting? what is the criteria?
The root of this issue, isn't about unbearable pain, it's about bumping off old people, and people who take from the resources of the national purse, whist contributing nothing to the economy.
This is a christian country and to propose anything of the sort. Goes against the sanctity of life, which is truly shameful.
Free Palestine 🇵🇸
Your God doesn't care for sanctity of life either if he was willing to create so many diseases, disorders and suffering onto people who did nothing to deserve them. Very all-loving!
It's a secular country, not a Christian country. Deal with it.
Trying to f0.rce your religious views on others is shameful.
A Christian country wouldn't have womens rights or equal marriage. Thank god we don't live in a Christian country anymore. We don't want to be a proper Christian country like Uganda, Poland or Russia where human rights mean nothing
For all of us, this is the most dangerous step in the history of our nation. When this train pulls out of the station, we're all on the slippery slope, that will be never ending. Warning, this law is frightening in an Orwellian context.
Do not assist dying because as other countries have found out murder has increased. Our NHS is a shambles now so this is madness 😢
Wdym by murder. The nhs being in a bad space doesnt make this madness imo
Where does that end? You don't not do something because it's been abused by a minority of individuals somewhere else.
If someone abuses it that should be dealt with independently.
You have to look at where it goes wrong or could go wrong and make different legislations, not just take it off the table.
Yes, suffering is SUBJECTIVE. So I'm not having this guy determine my level of suffering is or isn't enough for me to decide when I want to go. I don't want to wait for withdrawing treatment to take effect. Let me do what I want with my life.
Because, sadly there are too many people spreading misinformation and just as many believing it rather than taking (huge) time to back check independent sources & books.
The first thing that should be established is the religious beliefs of the individuals opposed to assisted dying.
There are no adequate safeguards once othe basic principle that innocent human life should be protected has been breached. Abortion was introduced with very strict safeguards, and in response to a desperate situation: almost at once we had abortion on any grounds. Moreover, once you have asked someone to assist your dying you have handed over your autonomyand choice to them. For they have to decide whether or no to accede to your request.
Abortion law restrictions were loosened at the behest of the public over many years as people became more enlightened on women's rights and choices about their own bodies. There was nothing morally wrong or questionable about that legal change and it has happened in the vast majority of societies. To compare it with assisted suicide is a false equivalency fallacy.
No, it was the request of those the government wanted to listen to. You are right though, not the same as assisted dying. The one doing the dying in abortion won't even be consulted. @PythonesqueSpam
@PythonesqueSpam some journalists did research soon after 1967,and produced a book ' babies for burning' which exposed the lies and deceit of the abortion industry which sprang up as soon as the law was changed. There are two bodies in every abortion.
@@skadiwarrior2053 Seriously? An embryo/foetus has the potential for life, being is an unrealised dependent collection of tissue no different than an egg or sperm. The point at which it becomes a viable human being is encapsulated in the law dictating when an abortion is allowed. So within these bounds, abortion does not kill anyone. To suggest otherwise, is an appeal to emotion fallacy.
@@PythonesqueSpam scientific illiteracy. When the sperm and egg join the new genetic coding is all there for a new human being. (Some mediaeval alchemists spent years trying to grow sperm into a baby; it never worked.) Sperm and ova have only half the genetic code each.
This should never happen. The system would be so open for abuse and you know lots of people would abuse it for their own game.
We are not gods
It's been legal in Switzerland for a long time and they don't suffer the abuses you claim.
Withdrawing treatment is not necessarily euthanasia
Have a look at the end of life plan. They stop food and water
Yes it is. Wait till they do it to you, or someone close to you, and see how you feel about it.
Which is lawful, this is a different issue.
We do not want this law , do not meddle.
On a 2021 YG poll, 73% of those polled supported some form of doctor-assisted death for those with terminal illnesses. It seems you are in the minority.
The majority want this law so who are the 'we'? Further, meddling with what?
This is an issue that deserves debate but a private members bill is the worst possible way to start the debate. It needs to be de-politicised and we need a way of discussing the medical legal social religious and ethical aspects. Frankly our media is so poor quality and off it's head I doubt that a calm and considered debate is possible. I'm loath to spend £100m on another public enquiry, but how about a Royal Commission or a citizens assembly ?
Alot of people, including Mr Kruger, seem to be misrepresenting a big part of this (either on purpose or just from misunderstanding). They keep saying "You're giving someone else the power to decide if you live or die" when that's not it at all. The doctors role is to determine if you fit the criteria which would allow you to make the choice of whether to end your life or not.
I think of it like a passport. Having a passport doesn't mean you HAVE to go to another country, but it gives you the choice to do so if that's what you want. Here the doctors are effectively saying "You're of sound mind, you're terminally ill and you have 6 months or less (roughly) to live. You qualify for assisted dying" and then it's up to the person themselves whether or not they take that step
No no one has the right
Why are questionning it? Labour mps have taken away the benefits of old people, there you go, assisted dying. Duh
The government could save a lot of money,
What a pathetic nation Britain has become.
If abortion is permitted, there's not much of an argument to be had for NOT allowing people to access euthanasia. Personally, I think it should be permitted. Sadly, life is neither enjoyable or fulfilling for a lot people, and many simply don't want to be here. I see no reason why they should not have access to a peaceful, dignified way out if they decide that they wish to go.
1939 "Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to himself or others can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.” facilis descensus Averni We KNOW where this led: how ate the proposals in Parliament now materially different?
Defined by Canadian Government:- Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
If the criteria are so specific, why have people been 'offered' MAID for being homeless, for requesting an adaptation to their home, who could have recovered had they been given treatment? Why have doctors published a paper saying how much money they have saved using MAID?
It's ok if they don't get us with the clot shots, cutting winter fuel payments they will try with this!
Attempted eugenics in through the back door, using the 'assisted dying' issue to get there.
Right, I don't get this.Within families after they get a diagnosis and expected life expectancy, they have a conversation about what the person wants to happen. And things such as DNR is exactly the same thing. There is still pressure form doctors for it, so doctors already have that responsibility so what is wrong with the bill, it's just cruel to objectify to it.
If any future health problems deteriorate and I feel that i can't go on, I may choose to make some hard choices as those choices are MINE to make no else's least of all some bullshit government or religious leader. MY LIFE MY CHOICE. LET YOUR LAST CHOICE BE YOURS!!.
All that is wanted is a choice...I do not think I'm a modern world it is much to ask.ii suspect the people that wish to take my choice away..has never been ill.it has nothing to do with end of life care..just allow choice.
She talks about “watertight safeguards” which we hear everywhere and then when it goes wrong it’s “lessons will be learnt “ but they never are. Assisted Dying is just a euphemism, just because it’s legalised doesn’t suddenly make it acceptable. No title or qualifications a politician or Doctor has gives them the superiority to make this ok. Proper palliative care is needed but of course too expensive
Acceptable to who?
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 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 ofthe 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'? Iy'? 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.
"An expert committee reviewing euthanasia deaths in Canada’s most populous province has identified several cases in which patients asked to be killed in part for social reasons such as isolation and fears of homelessness, raising concerns over approvals for vulnerable people in the country’s assisted dying system.
Ontario’s chief coroner issued several reports on Wednesday - after an Associated Press investigation based in part on data provided in one of the documents - reviewing the euthanasia deaths of people who were not terminally ill. The expert committee’s reports are based on an analysis of anonymized cases, chosen for their implications for future euthanasia requests.
Canada’s legal criteria require a medical reason for euthanasia - a fatal diagnosis or unmanageable pain - but the committee’s reports show cases in which people were euthanized based on other factors including an “unmet social need”."
-The Guardian
What age is this being allowed from? We are saying children have a right to transition. Same age for assisted dying?
No-one has said that, what planet are you on?
Over 18
My son grandfather not he has ,$;1,000,000. And my ex Russian boyfriend and David girlfriend and Iran ex David boss took the money by what construction in Indonesia hallo. 2016 we suposed received money . And disepier and now criminal is never been caught.😅😅😅
What the f are you talking about bruh 😂
What a great guy
When you have a govt policy killing older people, can they have a right to live?
we need to allow assisted dying for everyone, not just the elderly
I agree with assisted dying. 100%. Blair Cooper starmer kinnock Cameron may .i could add to the list but i would be here a very long time.
Dead simple answer. Make it like organ donation. Opt in or out.
Funny, there's a lot of people saying it's 'meddling' ora 'slippery slope'. To what exactly?
Why does anybody care what Danny Kruger thinks?
Some people care. He is a MP and has views he wants to share.
@@fredampemba8414 He is a deeply odd outlier representing socially conservative views that are becoming extinct
Pretty sure assisted dying has been happening in uk for years when my gran was receiving end of life care the nurse came and gave my gran medication that she said would close down her organs is that not assistsd dying? Or am i getting it confused with something else? This was 13 years ago
Euthanasia can be misused. This needs a serious debate.
Really , why not go a head and exchange the so called god with psychologists
Seriously? this is up to the individual, no one else's business, and for someone with dementia/Alzheimer's it is an unbearable condition for those around you to see you suffer, and then not recognise you etc etc
I have just lost my mum at 94, and up to 86 she was still riding a bike, never been on any medication, full of life, very funny, so open minded, fantastic inspirational people both my parents were! My Gran lived to nearly 102, no painful end, died in her sleep, simply from old age, and that is the best most wonderful way to go!
Last November my wonderful Mum got diagnosed with a squamous cell carcinoma on her tongue, terminal because of her age, and i watched my wonderful Mum go from 91/2 stone, which she had been all her life, down to about 41/2 stone in the space of 5 months, could not eat, barely drink, and then her mind starting going from the toxins goin to her brain, and lack of nutrition!
My partner and i had her move in with us in the last month of her life, and it was miserable, awful, and heartbreaking to deal with, and if i could have ended this suffering for her 2 months earlier lets say, i would have done in a heartbeat!!
No one else should have the right to tell other people they have got to suffer and live a miserable existence to the very end!!
If you want to suffer in agony and misery when it comes to it, if you do get ill, then so be it, carry on, but do not expect others to, it is seriously f.....d up!!!
Danny Kruger spoke clearly and it was helpful to listen to him.
I'll take "phrases no-one has ever said before" please.
We've had Medically Assisted Death in Canada for several years now, and it seems to be working well. An acquaintance with terminal pancreatic cancer recently used MADE to end his life, surrounded by family and friends. It was fine, and I haven't heard or read of any abuses.
@@TyrSkyFatherOfTheGods inform yourself better
@@jemgeach4066Doesn't sound like you have.
Look up Christine Gauthier's- a veteran offered euthanasia because she requested a ramp be fitted in her home. Trudeau is a WEF puppet who wants the old, sick, disabled and poor DEAD.
About time .we are owned a government .
I think the reason why they want to make it a very narrow criteria ie only in the case of terminal illness is for the sake of the inevitable heavy burden it places on the medical professionals.
I have Parkinsons, love life despite that, but I am sure that people like me will be HELPED to make up their minds. I pray daily to have no more Social Workerrsin my life now. How wouldi cope alone with a box ticker HELPING me. All this business about G Ps is hyperthetical, I can't get an appointment now to make living easier, but I bet I'll see them double quick if I say to the receptionist Can I have an appointment to arrange my death. All this is just because Esther wants to die on her own terms..take it as it comes, its worked since Life began...i don't want to die happily ever after, thank you.
Lazy doctors who work 10 hours a week and make 150,000 a year. Overworked my eye!
@@Jen-lg4hp I was not talking about overworking. To take another human being’s life is an enormous burden.
The idea that one life is more important than another is inherent in this conversation. That assumes that we know best who's life is valuable and who's isn't. The hypocrisy is they're against capital punishment for the lowest forms of human life, who actively destroy lives, but they're pro-swicide and pro-mwrder. The truth is you don't have a right to decide who's life matters and who's doesn't. You can't see any meaning in the pain, so you despise it. You despise what you can't understand, and if you can't understand it you can't make a choice. The most vulnerable are abandoned and the heart of society dies.
It's the person in pain who gets to make the choice, which negates what you've said.
What’s “the meaning” in their pain??
Wtf we are all going to die one day so allow us to die our way wtf is wrong with that geez everyone 🤔🤔
It won't be 'voluntary' for long. Ever seen the movie 'Logan's Run'?
@@Jen-lg4hpIts a film, chap. Its not real.
@@django3422 Not yet, but this would be a step in that direction. Do you really trust the State to make this decision for people? If so you are very naive, chap. Look at how successive governments have treated the sick and disabled.
@@richardbradbury3658 If you're a paranoid loon, sure.
@@django3422 Seen the movie 'Contagion'? Hollywood is known to predictive programme its audiences.
Part of the issue is God, if there is a God and if the bible is correct then to assist someone who is not part of God future is to condemn them to eternity away from God. While they are still alive they can still decide for them selves.
Stop playing God...
The united Kingdom votes against the word of God
Dan Kruger MP is ridiculous and illogical
should legalise , but there must be safeguards.. perhaps rigorous assessment on things like.. potential to improve, pain and discomfort, etc... otherwise we'll get all sort of unsavory things happening.. and it must be in the hands of patient and relatives... not doctors who decide.. yes, obviously! They should only be able to decide whether to remove the legal block following a rigorous assessment.
This is labours doing . My reason is ,As time goes by under labour the old may get depressed because of social devision in some communities (mass immigration) ,also lack of heating (labour restrictions). THIS may set a mental decay (as poor judgement ) essentially in the old and then they could wonder if it's worth living . All these issues are on labours watch .
Mental decay doesn't mean what you think it means. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
@@django3422 decline in or loss of strength, health, intellect, etc . They may not think straight to make good judgement to live or die .NOW RESEARCH YOUR SELF .
@@i_C-Sense Research what? Switzerland has had legal euthanasia for a long time, its absolutely fine and hasn't lead to all these nightmare scenarios that, like you, people are fearmongering about.
@@django3422 well we aren't in Switzerland . If people make the effort to go there then that's a different reason . I see our elderly getting in difficult times with labour and I certainly don't want to be helping them getting them into a grave .
@@i_C-Sense Everything you just said is nonsense, rounded off with an ad hominem.
When the NHS has recovered and social care has matched those of those countries you are talking about, Then maybe that conversations can be head. This is being lobbied now as a way to reduce the stresses on social care and its not fooling anyone.
This issue should go to a national referendum.its not for politicians to decide.
🤔
Referendum needed on Matters of concern
This is logic vs emotions. Theres obviously so many ways this can to wrong or potentially be abused.
Such as?
@@django3422 Manipulation, foul play, corruption? Don't be naive.
@@adam7802 You haven't said how.
@@django3422 exactly how depends on how they implement. I've already said broadly how troll 😴 or perhaps since you seem to think you know so much, you can tell me how this thing that has not been defined is foolproof?
@@adam7802 Burden of proof is on you since you made the claim and you just admitted that you don't actually know.
Dunno how you've concluded what I think I know, since I've basically just asked two simple questions.
Why are politicians making this decision, put it to the people. Have a referendum.
Absolutely...I hate that my choice is in the hands of some dubious people.think we lived in medieval times.I want to chose what to do with my own body.
It’s a free vote.
It should also be available for those suffering long term social isolation and long term mental illness. I'm done with this narcissist/psychopath controlled world.
I genuinely feel you. But I told myself then they win. And I cannot have that. I will not.
You can’t say the thumbnail quote as the interviewer. That’s like writing in a guy to look like the monopoly man and having the main character point out that he looks like the monopoly man.
... what?
The UN said we should not assist Israel.
goverment jut want ppl 2 suffer
For all you 'do gooders' going on about murder, god, and mental health.... This is not a suicide pact for depressed people, I want the right to end my life if I am terminally ill. My mum was tortured for 2 years and cried and begged me everyday to help her die. When you have lived through this and understand that palliative care isn't always the answer and doesn't work for everyone, then you'll understand the daily mental torment and extreme guilt of the family left behind that couldn't help their dying loved one in their hour of need. People trying to stop assisted dying are selfish, self-righteous individuals that have no experience of extreme suffering.
Absolutely. I went through the same thing with a family member, it was horrific for everyone concerned. People should have the right to die with dignity.
The concerns are nothing to do with this, it is with the potential for abuse or misuse of this... No matter how upset you are about this you can't deny these matters need to be tread very carefully.
@@adam7802 Everything has the potential for abuse. That’s a non argument.
@@TheAArmstrong right, sure it is. That's why they are voting on it, because there is absolutely no reason to be concerned whatsoever.
@@adam7802 I think that’s more on the ethical side of it as a whole
I am constantly surprised that people that advocate Capitol Punishment resist the right to die. Surely the society that believes itself entitled to take life, in war and for crime cannot claim the sanctity of life as an argument against assisted dying. But there. Society cannot be relied upon to be consistent or even coherent when it is not educated to hve perspective, when it is not informed enough to have reasoned opinions but resorts to attitudes and posture informed by indignation and spontaneous prejudice. I only know that in France were were educated how to think rather than what to think ,and since the what is bombarded current controversies, and intended to exploit grievances of party advantage the idea of such a society having perspective, or ethics is asking to much. Society does not like to be burdened with such things as facts ,especially when incited to have prejudices passed off as thought. The more I watch society in operation I begin to sympathise with Peel. When policies are adumbrated to win votes rather than to sole problems we have universal suffrage, and universal suffering. Thought is inconvenient, though is unpatriotic, though is treachery. That is the thrust of the right wing because it knows that society at large is not society at all, it is a rabble.