UK Lawmakers Vote in Support of Assisted Dying (cnn.com) 127
British members of parliament have voted to legalize assisted dying, approving a contentious proposal that would make the United Kingdom one of a small handful of nations to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. From a report: Lawmakers in the House of Commons voted by 330 to 275 to support the bill, after an hours-long debate in the chamber and a years-long campaign by high-profile figures that drew on emotional first-hand testimony.
Britain is now set to join a small club of nations to have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. The bill must still clear the House of Lords and parliamentary committees, but Friday's vote marked the most important hurdle.
It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors, and then a High Court judge, would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states including Oregon, Washington and California.
Britain is now set to join a small club of nations to have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. The bill must still clear the House of Lords and parliamentary committees, but Friday's vote marked the most important hurdle.
It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors, and then a High Court judge, would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states including Oregon, Washington and California.
That's how it starts (Score:1, Insightful)
It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves
That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."
And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...
Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.
the death penalty is being removed in states! (Score:2)
the death penalty is being removed in states!
Re:That's how it starts (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly if you're Canadian (Score:2)
I'm actually genuinely surprised how low the suicide rate is in America given how poorly we treat people. It's probably going to get a lot worse in the coming years given what we know about trans people and suicide rates...
Re: Honestly if you're Canadian (Score:2)
given what we know about trans people and suicide rates...
"Know" is doing a lot of work here, considering how little the scientific community has chosen to know.... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
given what we know about trans people and suicide rates...
"Know" is doing a lot of work here, considering how little the scientific community has chosen to know.... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/1... [nytimes.com]
I watched a vid of a young lady giving testimony before congress. Interesting case. Sh started to go through precocious puberty. And was a bit confused. Hr parents took her to a doctor, and somehow sh was diagnosed as needing sexual reassignment.
The doctor told hr parents "Do you want a dead daughter or a live trans son?"n So thy put hr on puberty blockers, then hormones to make her develop in a masculine manner. Se developed skeletal problems, and ironically became suicidal. After graduating high schoo
Re: Honestly if you're Canadian (Score:2)
Ayup.
But I'd add the following: Free citizens are free to do whatever they want to themselves on their own dime, from changing their names to cutting out healthy parts of themselves to suit their aesthetic sensibilities; they do not get to require the rest of us to humor their delusions or subsidize them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ayup.
But I'd add the following: Free citizens are free to do whatever they want to themselves on their own dime, from changing their names to cutting out healthy parts of themselves to suit their aesthetic sensibilities; they do not get to require the rest of us to humor their delusions or subsidize them.
As well, it would be prudent to ascertain the cause of their desire to transition. Many talk about the suicide rate of trans people. Have they been adequately diagnosed with body dysphoria, or might there be a deeper issue? A person with strong issues that is convinced and encouraged that the fix is for Michael to become Michelle and fully transition including the hormones, implants, and surgery might really spiral if their fix doesn't make them happy, and they realize that is isn't something you return fr
Re: Honestly if you're Canadian (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't think we're anywhere near cracking that particular nut. We have nothing resembling a predictive theory of the mind that would be necessary to start reasoning about why some people just aren't right in the head or fundamentally uncomfortable in their own skins.
We're plodding around blindly, and we've stumbled on some things that sort-of work sometimes for some people. So we're left with what you can see with your own eyes:
There's always some small fraction of people out there who are un
Re: Honestly if you're Canadian (Score:2)
If you can't get past the nyt paywall yourself, post on a different forum.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies. Perhaps we should have the government dictate what we can do. That will solve the problem.
Sin (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the core beliefs of our evangelicals is that God is basically an asshole drill instructor and he punishes everyone if anyone fucks up.
The other thing you need to understand is sin against God comes in gradients. Like temperature. Imagine a sin thermometer. Measuring the level of sin and if it gets too high God smites everything. That's what these people believe.
Once you understand that their insistence on contro
Re: Sin (Score:2)
The wife is a physician who occasionally works with terminal patients. She informs me that there are practitioners out there who will try to apply heroic treatments to people already near the ends of their natural lives who are suffering because
a) The patients' families demand heroic attempts at treatment
b) Dead patients skew the averages unfavorably, whether in an actual metric that matters or purely along the axis of ego.
c) Can't charge billable hours on a dead guy. A technically still alive guy though...
Re: (Score:1)
Not everything is a theocratic conspiracy.
But sometimes it is. [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to look at it from the perspective of a American Christian extremist.
No thanks. We're British.
Fun fact, the reason you avoided the crazies (Score:2)
In the UK you've got the Church of England, which gets money from the government. That reduces the need for them to go out and make converts to shake down for money.
Here in the states we did away with national religion and that's all well and good but it meant that our preachers had to get... creative in order to keep the money flowing in. So they got increasingly radical and went after vulnerable folks who they could make empty their wallets.
Re: Sin (Score:2)
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling people, have been living under a rock for the past few decades, or are just fishing for Inigo Montoya quotations.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling who? Is what he said an unreasonable characterisation of the belief of evangelicals?
Re: Sin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have misunderstood. He is not saying that's what evangelicals do, he's saying that's what evangelicals believe about themselves.
No one's saying that belief doesn't require an astounding amount of cognitive dissonance, wilful ignorance and intentional misunderstanding. That belief in the OP's words is "fucking insane".
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Probably among the most evil people around.
Re: (Score:2)
They take "the poor will always be with you" (Matt 26:11 [biblegateway.com]) as an excuse not to try to solve poverty. I'm not making this up.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Well, another clear piece of evidence for "most evil people around". Anybody is free to inflict as much pain and suffering as they want on themselves, and on others that have given informed, competent consent. Without that consent, it becomes torture and rape. And that is what these people do. They torture and rape their fellow, very much non-consenting, human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
Implementation Details Matter a Lot (Score:3, Informative)
How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies.
This is not about control over your own body it is about giving someone else control over your body albeit with your permission. The problem with assisted dying is in the details of how you implement it. The way Canada has done it is frankly horrific. It started as being only available to people who had a reasonably foresable imminent death but that was deemed unconstitutional so now you can do it for almost any reason, including mental illness. Indeed, it has been reported that some cases were for purely
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Two doctors, and then a High Court judge have to decide before anyone in the UK will be allowed to kill themselves. It's hardly going to be a wave of dying.
Re: (Score:2)
How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies. Perhaps we should have the government dictate what we can do. That will solve the problem.
You've always had control over your body. What the assisted dying laws try to minimise is the control over other people's body. No law is going to stop someone from sticking their head in an oven. But there are laws stopping you from turning on the gas while someone else is in the oven.
The issue here is that people who are unable to end their lives themselves are sort of stuck in the middle. This is why I think a product like the Sarco Pod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is in theory a good idea. It remov
Re: (Score:3)
The UK draft law explicitly requires that the terminally ill person take an active step to end their life: pressing a button, for example. One of the details that will be worked through is what to do for patients who are physically incapacitated (eye blink tech, for example).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies. Perhaps we should have the government dictate what we can do. That will solve the problem.
Are you good with Teri Schaivoing your loved ones? One of the craziest things during th Katrina dbacle was Republicans had made plans to evacuate a living corpse while ignoring the living people dying in the N'awlins Superdome.
Re: (Score:1)
It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves
That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."
And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...
Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.
Where are you going with this? What in history, is over and over? I’m guessing this really isn’t of any major benefit to anyone except the one who is suffering and wanting an end to that suffering. They’re probably not going to “cheat” a single life insurance company out of their money anyway.
Only people that will lose out are those in the business of squeezing every last drop of financial blood from a dying stone who probably feel they are being “robbed” somehow
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Canada or China or Netherlands or Belgium where in Canada the government healthcare service coaches people who are young and have curable diseases into legalized murder because they are expensive.
Let me guess, you read that on Faux News?
Has it happened? Probably somewhere. Is it common, no it is ridiculous and there are checks to prevent it. Edge cases make bad law.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada, like the good little Nazi's keep track: In 2022, 13,241 people died by MAID in Canada, which was a 31.2% increase from 2021. This accounted for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada that year. More than 35% of those were not related to palliative or cancer care.
So fuck the other 65% then? That's not very democratic.
Most people here support MAID. There need to be controls in place to prevent abuse. If the controls don't work we will fix them rather than disregard and override the will of the majority. That is how it should work in a democracy.
Re:That's how it starts (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of dribbling idiocy. I watched both my parents die slow horrible painful deaths from dementia in their mid 90’s. Exactly what they both feared for years, and didnt want to happen, they both had DNRs but there was nothing further I could do. We treat dogs better. There is no slippery slope, no loosening at all, its just an excuse made by mainly religious people who want to control others choices, regardless of how torturous their deaths are.
Re:That's how it starts (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. The religious nuts essentially want people being tortured to death. Or having to kill themselves with a high risk of botching it. How people can get this evil and cruel is really beyond me. "We treat dogs better" nicely sums it up.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to invoke religion. The legal system itself has effectively enough problems with the concept. Where's the line between murder, first or second degree, and assisting suicide? In the case where people are "tortured to death" they are often in capable of making decisions themselves (as with the parents of the person you are replying to).
So what do you propose (leaving religion out of it)? Do we assign everyone a "get-away-with-murder-ability score" that starts at 100 when they are fully functio
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to invoke religion.
I think there is. Because when you drill down, you always find that prohibitions on (assisted or non-assisted) suicide always goes down to some misanthropist religious fanatics.
The solutions are actually pretty easy and there are countries where they are established and work well. It is however always the religious fanatics that try their best to make sure these approaches do not even get looked at.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal precepts we hold dear - such things like "morality" come from religion because that's how it goes. Religion teaches morality and how to lead a moral life. The Ten Commandments is an example of this and pre-dates the law.
Law codifies what were moral precepts into something more standardized that could be applied to wider situations and with less grey areas. Indeed the first laws were often
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the line between murder, first or second degree, and assisting suicide?
Consent.
In the case where people are "tortured to death" they are often in capable of making decisions themselves (as with the parents of the person you are replying to).
Thus the concept of consent in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that person is just a power-hungry sadist. With the repressed sexuality on the republican side, my guess would be there are many more of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. At some point, the value of continuing to be alive becomes negative. Pets the same as humans, although for humans it needs to be the decision of the human in question. I am perfectly fine with putting down my decisions for different situations beforehand and have somebody else professionally and with 4-eye principle and oversight make the determination should I not be capable anymore.
Re:That's how it starts (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no slippery slope
Given that your parents couldn't even make the decision to end their own life you've most definitely just blurred the line of murder. There's no need to bring anything related to religion into this debate. The debate is loaded with problems from a legal perspective alone. Do we start including a quality of life moderator to the laws relating to ending *someone else's* life? That's the whole point of the "assisted" bit here. No one can stop suicide, but the line between helping someone kill themselves and killing them yourself, especially when they are in a situation like you describe where they are unable to function themselves is incredibly grey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From a legal perspective there's no such thing as a "they wanted me to kill them" defence. Literally that's the point: Legally we haven't accounted for this situation.
Additionally there's a massive problem once a party ceases to be able to make decisions for themselves. We have precedent how mental problems mediate people's actions, but not the other way around, there's no precedent for allowing the murder (and I use that term deliberately as this is the planned action of taking someone's life) simply becau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They made their decision in advance, their wishes were very clear and not followed. There is no slippery slope. I've taken measures to ensure Im never in that situation by having the appropriate means on hand, so scumbags like you dont get to decide what I do with MY life.
Re: (Score:2)
That changes nothing about what I said. The reality is that legally it's still a massive blackhole of problems. Forget the idea of ending a life, we haven't even legally gotten around how to handle DNR orders. In some states DNRs only apply to hospitals. In some places of the world people have been sued and lost as a result of not providing first aid to someone they knew had a DNR. Now if you add mental incapacity to the equation you have a bigger problem. Add to that *time* and the problem legally gets eve
Re: (Score:2)
I forget how backwards the US is, assisted dying and DNR have been operating in some countries for years without the legal issues you mention. People are more likely to be sued for ignoring an DNR.
The price you pay for living in Retardistan I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. My dog had bacon and steak, and then went to sleep. Meanwhile, my grandmother was allowed to linger for years with dementia and intense pain.
How we treat people with incurable suffering is horrific, and all because we're so goddamned afraid of the process that each and every one of us will experience in one form or another.
Re: (Score:2)
My fish died stoned out of its tiny little fishy mind. Hopefully not a bad way to go.
Meanwhile my mother inlaw slips ever further into dementia and is essentially terrified of everything all the time, and hates her life while knowing (in lucid moments) that there is no getting better. The one thing she has been consistently clear about now for a while is wanting to die. She will not get her wish without a great deal more suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a terrible situation to be in, torture for them and the family. But its against the wishes of somebodies imaginary sky friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the law is so tightly drawn with safeguards that the PP's parents would not have been able to benefit. You have to have mental capacity at the six month point.
So in a way, I agree with the OP: it is inevitable that there will be pressure to ease some of the safeguards over time (and pushback, too). And there is a fair chance that those pressures will result in a new law with less onerous safeguards. BUT - a principle of UK law is that one Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. It would be uncon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sooo, you support torturing these people to death? Because that is essentially what you are advocating for.
Re: (Score:2)
It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves
That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."
And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...
Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.
Now define the point at which life support should be cut off.
With enough support, a brain dead person can be kept alive indefinitely. And "pulling the plug" is every bit as effective a way of assisted death as eating the applesauce.
Here's one for ya. A co worker suffered a stroke. His mind still worked well, but he was confined to bed, and could no longer swallow.
He didn't want to live essentially immobile and on a machine that fed him. Which of course th intubation meant he couldn't talk either. He
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."
And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...
Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.
Ahah! It's a slippery slope! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
MAID in Canada now accounts for 1% of all deaths (Score:1)
MAID in Canada now accounts for 4.1% of all deaths (Score:2)
How is it a slippery slope? I think it's much better to have MAID in Canada account for 4.1% (your stat is wrong) of all deaths if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.
The fact that MAID accounts for 4.1% of deaths means probably cancer and other terminal illness deaths are down by the same amount.
Re: (Score:3)
The latest report I could find from Canada was from 2022 [canada.ca].
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a slippery slope? I think it's much better to have MAID in Canada account for 4.1% (your stat is wrong) of all deaths if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.
Death is always inevitable for everybody.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, death is inevitable, but people should have the right to choose a dignified peaceful death over a drawn-out painful one, if death is imminent anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it a slippery slope? I think it's much better to have MAID in Canada account for 4.1% (your stat is wrong) of all deaths if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.
The fact that MAID accounts for 4.1% of deaths means probably cancer and other terminal illness deaths are down by the same amount.
Having recently watch my mother pass away - very slowly - from Alzheimer's, I very much hope I can one day soon do an advance directive to avoid that fate myself. While they debate whether the law should be amended to allow MAID for mental illness, which I can completely understand is contentious, I wait for the law to allow me to make my wishes known ahead of time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I watched my grandmother die from Alzheimers. It's a terrible disease.
My mother, thankfully, kept her mental faculties right up until the end, and she did not have a long, drawn-out terminal disease when the end finally came.
Right now, I cannot think of any circumstances that would make me want MAID. But I sure as hell want the option just in case.
Re:MAID in Canada now accounts for 4.1% of all dea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody's pressuring patients in Canada as a cost-cutting measure. That's bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
MAID not just for Terminal Conditions (Score:2)
if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.
But that is not what is happening. It was deemed unconstitutional to limit access to MAID to only those facing imminent death so now it is open to anyone for seemingly almost any medical condition including mental illness. Even non-medical, social conditions like homelessness [theguardian.com] have been accepted for MAID.
Having it available to people suffering painful terminal conditions would be one thing and something I'd potentially be in favour of but Canada's system is closer to state-assisted suicide which somethin
Re: (Score:2)
But that is not what is happening. It was deemed unconstitutional to limit access to MAID to only those facing imminent death so now it is open to anyone for seemingly almost any medical condition including mental illness
What do you mean, specifically by "almost any[..]including mental illness"?
The suffering caused by mental illness is every bit as real as physical illness.
Re: (Score:2)
The suffering caused by mental illness is every bit as real as physical illness.
Absolutely true but, if you think that MAID is an acceptable solution then why do we spend so much effort to prevent suicides of mentally ill individuals? The reason is that mental illness is generally non-fatal and treatable. There is usually hope that the afflicted individual can recover with the correct treatment. Plus, it affects our judgment calling into question whether the desire to die is really genuine. Lastly, because someone with mental illness is, in most cases, not physically limited they can
Re: (Score:2)
These evil fucks want people tortured to death.
Re: (Score:3)
In any system, you'll be able to find bad examples if you dig enough. I know someone who has a pretty serious disease that has periodic flare-ups, and during one of these, she asked about MAID. The doctor said she was not eligible because her disease can be controlled. This is a far more common response than the couple of examples you posted, but it doesn't make the news or engender outrage.
I also know someone who had bone cancer that had metastasized and was going to kill her within months. She opted
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Canada and have had experience with the MAID system with close friends and family.
"Slippery slope" is a common argument when nobody wants any changes whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
I only wasted enough time to read two of those links before I realized you were just absolutely full of shit with the rest of your post.
Those articles are families complaining that they disagreed with the deceased's decision to end their life. Its none of their fucking business. No one was forced to die. No one died against their will. They only died when they decided they wanted to die. Thats it.
It doesn't matter if you disagree with their reasoning, you do not get a say in their decision. Neither does the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Those articles are families complaining that they disagreed with the deceased's decision to end their life. Its none of their fucking business.
Ah, but the religious fanatics to not recognize the right to make your own decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have the Canadian system to prove it's a slippery slope where the law proposed will be modified once in.
I don't buy the "budget" stuff. Sure you might find some random bozo thinking that of their own accord but no Democratic country is going to push that.
The question is how do you deal with suicidal people and elderly people with a low quality of life, but no immediate terminal illness.
If they have a sustained sincere desire to end their lives perhaps we should respect that. Certainly, if that path is available there will be people who choose that path who wouldn't choose it otherwise. At the same time, some
Re: MAID in Canada now accounts for 1% of all deat (Score:2)
You know, people kill themselves with booze. People kill themselves with hard drugs. People kill themselves by eating their guns, not wearing their seat belts at the drag race, declining medical treatments.
What Ever.
That's between them and whatever God they believe in. If the modern-day Quakers weren't a magnet for Marxists, treehuggers, and other crazies, their philosophy of no intermediaries between Man and God might have had more penetration into the zeitgeist than it has.
Re: (Score:2)
The slippery slope is real.
Yeah. Slipped right past any benefit of lowering a suicide statistic driven by unending pain and suffering with that argument, didn’t you.
"Made those stats up in my head" (Score:2)
Hegh'bat! Qapla'! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
your a fucking retard
The irony of someone saying that while failing to capitalize the first letter of their sentence, not punctuating, and mistaking "your" for "you're" and not understanding the humorous intent of the response is just delicious.
From my wife (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Doctors often administer doses that they know are likely to be fatal. The justification is that the pain and suffering after so extreme that the "risk" is worth it, but in reality they know they are at least helping to speed up death.
I'd much rather choose to go without too much pain and all my mental facilities intact, long before it gets to that point. I can't imagine having that conversation with my wife, but I know she would understand. That's one of the reasons I married her.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with what you say, but I want to point out that additionally, there are many deaths for which we have at present no good palliative options. From the recent UK debate: "Lucy’s husband, Tom, was 47 a music teacher with a young son. He had bile duct cancer, which obstructed his bowel, resulting in an agonizing death. Tom vomited fecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the feces and died. He was vomiting so violently that he could not be sedated, and was conscious throug
Not happened (yet) (Score:5, Informative)
The UK has not voted to allow this. The very first hurdle of a start of the process to write a law that might eventually allow it has been passed.
This is newsworthy because this is a private members bill - it is not sponsored by the government but by a single MP who happened to come top of the ballot to put forward her own bill (and so gets more possible time for this to become law).
What MPs approved was (approximately, I'm no expert in this) to allow the bill to move forwards to committee stage - where the politicians get around to write the details of the bill, which then goes back to parliament for its "second reading". That's the point where people can propose amendments. There isn't yet a law to object to. The nos to this first vote were objecting to even *trying* to write a bill that might eventually become law.
After the amendments bit at the second reading, there's a third reading and it also has to pass the house of lords (I think it's HoL who might amend again and then third reading BICBW). Again, because this isn't government sponsored, if the HoL decides to kill it I think it's dead because a) it wasn't "manifesto" so the lords won't feel any duty to not object, b) the lords has a number of unelected religious oddballs who shouldn't be there but "it's the way it's always been done", c) to force it through against a lords objection requires more than one session of parliament and the proposer will have no special advantage to moving the bill forwards once the current session ends, and d) I can't see the government of the day being willing to invest political capital on this even though it appears very popular with the electorate.
It might become law, I hope it does become law, but it's a very, very, very long way from becoming law.
so is it time to introduce a bit coin backed by (Score:2)
Socialist healthcare systems running out of... (Score:2)
other peoples' money.
In a socialist health system, the patients have no competitor to turn to; they're stuck with what's offered by their government. Now, it's true that they may not FEEL "stuck" because their government-run education system will have propagandized them into thinking that government-run healthcare is best for them, but such programming does not change the fact that people in such systems usually are barred from any competitive system. All healthcare in such a system becomes a line item in t
Re: (Score:2)
False. We will allow the person to decide if enough is enough. Not the government, which is what you want, the power of big government to decide how we live and die.
Re:We will kill the sick & disabled. (Score:4, Informative)
False. We will allow the person to decide if enough is enough. Not the government, which is what you want, the power of big government to decide how we live and die.
You must be talking about a completely different country? This story is about the UK, the most busybody government-knows-best nannystate that exists in the developed world.
Let's review the recent case of Sudiksha Thirumalesh [wikipedia.org]
- past the age of majority (19 years old)
- wanted to go to Canada for experimental treatment
- parents also wanted that
- judge rules she cannot go, is not competent to make medical decisions (not because of any mental deficiency), and must die in palliative care instead (which she does)
- details also restricted by the court from being discussed publicly discussed until her passing (limiting ability to make public appeals for help)
Is that the "not the government" "let the person decide" approach we can look forward to? Oh. Yay.
At this point in the Netherlands only 60% of assisted suicides are made with patient consent. In one case, a 74 year old woman protested that she wanted to live [apnews.com]. The solution? Drug her coffee and proceed anyway, because she "wasn't competent" to rescind her previous decision. (The courts ultimately upheld this.)
In Canada patients are being recommended assisted suicide as an alternative when they are disabled, stuck on patient waiting lists, or too poor to receive treatment. In 2027 suicide will be extended to people with mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. This all barely 10 years after it was introduced only for terminally ill adults. It is now the second highest cause of death for young people 10-24 in Canada.
But I will bet in another 10 years the egregiousness of Canada will be far eclipsed by the UK. The ability to induce suicide is a tool, and once it is available, like any tool, it starts to be applied wherever the effect is deemed useful. A government can find many, many uses for it, especially a government so self-assured that it always knows best as the British one.
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada patients are being recommended assisted suicide as an alternative when they are disabled, stuck on patient waiting lists, or too poor to receive treatment.
Bullshit. Especially the last; given that medical care in Canada is free, nobody is "too poor" to receive treatment.
Free Medical Care in Canada (Score:2)
Re:We will kill the sick & disabled. (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny how you distort the facts, just so that you can prevent people from making their own decisions. Funny how, for example, the dutch story comes with "the first time a doctor has been charged since the Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2002.", but you do not mention that. Funny how the actual details in the "Sudiksha Thirumalesh" case are not clear. If she was ruled unfit to make her own medical decisions, have you considered that might actually have been the case? Obviously not. And have you considered that those "experimental treatments" basically never work out? Obviously not either. Courts do not make such decision easily. The judge will have known this decision would be placed under a microscope. Oh, and it is not even relevant to the decision at hand at all.
How repulsive.
Re: We will kill the sick & disabled. (Score:2)
In case of the Dutch woman: a doctor in NL is not employed by the government. There are strict regulations for assisted suicide and while this case things went wrong, the fact the doctor is prosecuted, is due to these regulations, by the government. A patientâ(TM)s consent is the starting point. And GPs are very thorough on the procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada patients are being recommended assisted suicide as an alternative when they are disabled, stuck on patient waiting lists, or too poor to receive treatment.
Don't know how you get that idea. I suggest you check your sources. I live there, i have had cancer twice, nobody has "recommended" anything of the sort.
And there is no question of being too poor, we have nationalised health care.
I am afraid that the rest of your post must be similarly misinformed.
In 2027 suicide will be extended to people with mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. This all barely 10 years after it was introduced only for terminally ill adults. It is now the second highest cause of death for young people 10-24 in Canada.
Like that. How ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
The final part in the wikipedia article details that this was a case of a single judge overreaching, not the government
"In July 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against Court of Protection's 2023 decision. The three judges ruled that the decision was "wrong and contrary to Court of Appeal authority". "
I can't see how a court even got involved? What was stopping the parents taking her on a flight to Canada?