NewStats: 3,263,470 , 8,180,230 topics. Date: Friday, 06 June 2025 at 05:54 AM 324p1c

​James Cleverly, the former home secretary, asked: “If this is such a good thing to alleviate pain and suffering, a right that we should be proud to , why are we denying it to children?”


What was this man gibbering about? Not all forms of treatment are suitable for children no matter how good they are. I find him rather silly ,sorry to say

missjekyll:


It ed!!!!! 330 to 275.
I m telling you, it's jubilation in most oncology clinics today

"Most"? Curious why not all?

It's still very early days.

The bill will now face many more months of debate and scrutiny by MPs and peers, who could will choose to make significant amends and it requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament before it becomes law.

It's arguably more contentious than the Brexit bill and that endured innumerable amendments, legal arguments and several sackings/resignations before it eventually became law.

Step in the right direction nonetheless.

And oncology clinics may not necessarily jubilate, but may well get to give sad and weary acknowledgements of the easing of the suffering some patients undergo - anyone who's ever heard a cancer patient screaming in pain in between their regulated morphine doses would too.

missjekyll:


It ed!!!!! 330 to 275.
I m telling you, it's jubilation in most oncology clinics today

The bill has only ed a second recording, it hasn’t ed. I’m curious to know why you think people in oncology clinics are jubilating?

Jedisco, I would like to hear your professional take on this Assisted Dying bill.

Cyberknight:
Step in the right direction nonetheless.

And oncology clinics may not necessarily jubilate, but may well get to give sad and weary acknowledgements of the easing of the suffering some patients undergo - anyone who's ever heard a cancer patient screaming in pain in between their regulated morphine doses would too.

It's certainly a big step, whether it's the right step remains to be seen.

There are so many factors to consider on both sides. For example, what about the rights of people who suffer severe and interminable pain but their condition is not terminal. Under the current bill they would not qualify, but using the same argument of pain, shouldn't they also have the option to end their suffering? What also of the rights of people with an incurable genetic and/or degenerative condition that greatly impedes their quality of life, sadly some people have no quality of life whatsoever, yet their condition is not terminal. What is to stop a proposal being put forward in the near future advocating for their (or their loved one's/guardian's) right to end their suffering?

"Nobody believes that the scope will not broaden, and the logical endpoint – a grimly utilitarian approach that puts a value on human life – is the same."

I hope that this bill will be given very proper and in- depth deliberation in the coming months (or however long it takes) and hopefully very robust safe guards put in place to avoid abuse and undue broadening of the legal scope.

Zahra29:


It's certainly a big step, whether it's the right step remains to be seen.

There are so many factors to consider on both sides. For example, what about the rights of people who suffer severe and interminable pain but their condition is not terminal. Under the current bill they would not qualify, but using the same argument of pain, shouldn't they also have the option to end their suffering? What also of the rights of people with an incurable genetic and/or degenerative condition that greatly impedes their quality of life, sadly some people have no quality of life whatsoever, yet their condition is not terminal. What is to stop a proposal being put forward in the near future advocating for their (or their loved one's/guardian's) right to end their suffering?

"Nobody believes that the scope will not broaden, and the logical endpoint – a grimly utilitarian approach that puts a value on human life – is the same."

I hope that this bill will be given very proper and in- depth deliberation in the coming months (or however long it takes) and hopefully very robust safe guards put in place to avoid abuse and undue broadening of the legal scope.

The bill clearly states its for terminal conditions with 6 months left to live.
Anyone who doesn't meet the criteria will be looked after the pain/palliative physicians.

This definition also means having genetic or degenerative conditions does not automatically qualify you for physician assisted dying. You must be of sound mind and be able to ister the meds yourself in addition to being terminally ill.

Laws do have to be updated from time to time to accommodate advances in human knowledge. If any updates are needed in future, it will be an open debate again like we are having now.

I listened to the arguments today for and against...
But I already made up my mind. I have seen terminal cancer and it's not a pretty sight. When the strongest painkillers do not work...what do you do?

missjekyll:


The bill clearly states its for terminal conditions with 6 months left to live.
Anyone who doesn't meet the criteria will be looked after the pain/palliative physicians.

This definition also means having genetic or degenerative conditions does not automatically qualify you for physician assisted dying. You must be of sound mind and be able to ister the meds yourself in addition to being terminally ill.

Laws do have to be updated from time to time to accommodate advances in human knowledge. If any updates are needed in future, it will be an open debate again like we are having now.

I listened to the arguments today for and against...
But I already made up my mind. I have seen terminal cancer and it's not a pretty sight. [b]When the strongest painkillers do not work...what do you do[/b]?

And what about other unpretty, incurable health conditions which are not terminal but nevertheless come with unbearable pain and non existent quality of life and positive future for the patient?

There are many incurable conditions that involve acute levels of pain, suffering and degeneration for the patient, but they would not (yet) qualify under this bill for assistance to end their suffering.

Opponents of the bill fear that it is a slippery slope and it is only a matter of time before non-terminal, but equally unbearable, conditions are added to the legal scope of the law.

A one-day parliamentary debate is not sufficient to decide if this is the right step for the country. Such a consequential law requires much more detailed deliberation and input from relevant experts on both sides.

Zahra29:


And what about other unpretty, incurable health conditions which are not terminal but nevertheless come with unbearable pain and non existent quality of life and positive future for the patient?

There are many incurable conditions that involve acute levels of pain, suffering and degeneration for the patient, but they would not (yet) qualify under this bill for assistance to end their suffering.

Opponents of the bill fear that it is a slippery slope and it is only a matter of time before non-terminal, but equally unbearable, conditions are added to the legal scope of the law.

A one-day parliamentary debate is not sufficient to decide if this is the right step for the country. Such a consequential law requires much more detailed deliberation and input from relevant experts on both sides.

The bill has gone on to committee level where experts will work out the kinks before the next reading.

At the moment no-one is seeking to add people with non-terminal conditions to the bill.getting the bill through on competent,physically able people is hard enough. It's a bit of a strawman argument to postulate that in future people with nonterminal conditions could be added.

Shall we cross that bridge when we get to it?

NB: Dignitas does offer such services to people with non terminal conditions but that is beyond the scope of this discussion

Palliative Care isn't even funded properly, same as everything in the NHS, but they've skipped that and moved straight to death pathway.Fund palliative care well first so that dying people do so in dignity..

For now it's terminal people given 6 months to live but in reality , there are other conditions where the pain and suffering is so great but death is far.. What then happens?

What of the pain and suffering of people with dementia or the pain and suffering of those with conditions that leave them trapped in their bodies and depending on others for round the clock care?

How about people with mental health conditions resistant to all treatment eg treatment resistant depression,what of their own suffering? Is their own suffering less because they have longer than 6 months?

Who is the arbiter of suffering? Who is the person that chooses what suffering is greater than another when people are so different?

It's just a matter of time before court cases come and the law is adjusted again like Canada had to do.
I don't envy those that have to make these decisions.

Saccharine:
Palliative Care isn't even funded properly, same as everything in the NHS, but they've skipped that and moved straight to death pathway.Fund palliative care well first so that dying people do so in dignity..

No matter how well funded palliative care is (there is a postcode lottery), there will be people who do not respond well to the palliative care medicines. There would also be people who suffer side effects from palliative care medicines that are sometimes worse than the disease they have. This bill is about giving that niche group of terminally ill people a legal option.

missjekyll:


The bill has gone on to committee level where experts will work out the kinks before the next reading.

At the moment no-one is seeking to add people with non-terminal conditions to the bill.getting the bill through on competent,physically able people is hard enough. It's a bit of a strawman argument to postulate that in future people with nonterminal conditions could be added.

Shall we cross that bridge when we get to it?

NB: Dignitas does offer such services to people with non terminal conditions but that is beyond the scope of this discussion

Hardly a sensible approach when that bridge is a lot closer than you might think. In reality this is one of several arguments
against the legislation and unless it is addressed adequately, along with other safeguarding concerns, in subsequent readings, the narrow win could easily be overturned. (In practice, it would only take about 23 MPs to change their minds).

Zahra29:


Hardly a sensible approach when that bridge is a lot closer than you might think. In reality this is one of several arguments
against the legislation and unless it is addressed adequately, along with other safeguarding concerns, in subsequent readings, the narrow win could easily be overturned. (In practice, it would only take about 23 MPs to change their minds).

On what basis do you think the bridge is a lot closer? The differences between people who are terminally ill with <6 months to live and those who have very painful conditions in general has been clear from the beginning but the ers of the bill chose the specific places to set the conditions.

Every law and policy has cases that don't fit into it but don't quite do so, and thus aren't eligible for whatever it is. That has never been a valid argument not to implement a law.

Similarly, the fact that a law can be amended (following all the usual parliamentary and other approval processes) to broaden its scope is a poor argument against it. Otherwise, no law would because depending on how active your imagination is, you can think up various ways in which every single law can be extended abusively. That's why the slippery slope argument is a fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I'm not strongly for or against the law, but it appears to me that it's very well drafted with several strict conditions ranging from time delays to medical opinions (two independent ones) and even a high court decision on each specific case. It's never going to be an easy thing, in its current form. That is where the critique ought to be.

Saccharine:
Palliative Care isn't even funded properly, same as everything in the NHS, but they've skipped that and moved straight to death pathway.Fund palliative care well first so that dying people do so in dignity..

For now it's terminal people given 6 months to live but in reality , there are other conditions where the pain and suffering is so great but death is far.. What then happens?

What of the pain and suffering of people with dementia or the pain and suffering of those with conditions that leave them trapped in their bodies and depending on others for round the clock care?

How about people with mental health conditions resistant to all treatment eg treatment resistant depression,what of their own suffering? Is their own suffering less because they have longer than 6 months?

Who is the arbiter of suffering? Who is the person that chooses what suffering is greater than another when people are so different?

It's just a matter of time before court cases come and the law is adjusted again like Canada had to do.
I don't envy those that have to make these decisions.

You can’t fund the NHS when a large number of workable adult who should be contributing to NI are on sick benefit. Can you ?

Goodenoch:


On what basis do you think the bridge is a lot closer? The differences between people who are terminally ill with <6 months to live and those who have very painful conditions in general has been clear from the beginning but the ers of the bill chose the specific places to set the conditions.

Every law and policy has cases that don't fit into it but don't quite do so, and thus aren't eligible for whatever it is. That has never been a valid argument not to implement a law.

Similarly, the fact that a law can be amended (following all the usual parliamentary and other approval processes) to broaden its scope is a poor argument against it. Otherwise, no law would because depending on how active your imagination is, you can think up various ways in which every single law can be extended abusively. That's why the slippery slope argument is a fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I'm not strongly for or against the law, but it appears to me that it's very well drafted with several strict conditions ranging from time delays to medical opinions (two independent ones) and even a high court decision on each specific case. It's never going to be an easy thing, in its current form. That is where the critique ought to be.

There are valid arguments on both sides and it is an extremely difficult moral decision to make, reason why it was given a free vote.

However it is naive to believe that it is water tight in its current form. It might be well drafted on paper but it's still open to abuse, mistakes (mainly because the safeguards would be difficult to implement in their current form) and expansion, as is the case with many laws - except that the consequences in this case are extremely serious.

It only takes one successful discrimination-based challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights for the legislation to be widened/amended. This is a concern of several MPs.

There is also precedent for a widened scope in several countries:

The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg allow assisted dying in cases of an incurable condition or “unbearable suffering”. In the Netherlands, this allowed a 29-year-old woman with psychiatric conditions to opt for an assisted death earlier this year.

Canada, which legalised assisted dying in 2016, expanded its law after a court ruled in 2019 that restricting access to those who had a “reasonably foreseeable death” was unconstitutional.

It's therefore not fallacy to consider that the UK might in future seek to go further than this initial bill proposes, and it's not too soon to start discussing if/how to protect against this trajectory.

Besides the possibility of expansion of the legal scope, there are other issues that the current bill does not address.

lavida001:


You can’t fund the NHS when a large number of workable adult who should be contributing to NI are on sick benefit. Can you ?

Lol, this is your singular pain point with the UK.

Zahra29:


There are valid arguments on both sides and it is an extremely difficult moral decision to make, reason why it was given a free vote.

However it is naive to believe that it is water tight in its current form. It might be well drafted on paper but it's still open to abuse, mistakes (mainly because the safeguards would be difficult to implement in their current form) and expansion, as is the case with many laws - except that the consequences in this case are very high.

It only takes one successful discrimination-based challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights for the legislation to be widened/amended. This is a concern of several MPs.

There is also precedent for a widened scope in several countries:

The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg allow assisted dying in cases of an incurable condition or “unbearable suffering”. In the Netherlands, this allowed a 29-year-old woman with psychiatric conditions to opt for an assisted death earlier this year.

Canada, which legalised assisted dying in 2016, expanded its law after a court ruled in 2019 that restricting access to those who had a “reasonably foreseeable death” was unconstitutional.

It's therefore not fallacy to consider that the UK might in the future seek to go further than this initial bill proposes, and it's not too soon to start discussing if/how to protect against this trajectory.

Asides the possibility of expansion of the legal scope, there are other issues that the current bill does not address.

You haven't read the bills (both the Falconer one and the Leadbeater one that ed) or the reports around them.

Here's the report - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10123/CBP-10123.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the bills were written specifically to address the issues you've raised. There's no mention of suffering in the bill that ed, and it specifically excludes mental illness and disability. It doesn't follow that because Netherlands and wherever else allow a different set of criteria, then the UK will automatically do the same eventually. Countries have very different rules on various similarly sensitive issues.

On Canada, again if you read the bill or the report you'll see that the flaw of ambiguity in the Canadian law was addressed directly by specifying a timeline and also mandating the consideration of alternatives by the reviewing doctors. This follows the model in some US states that has never been successfully challenged (and mandatorily expanded) in court.

And before you say that the ECtHR is more likely to expand it to prevent discrimination, the court has actually recently indicated (Daniel Karsai) that it recognizes the difference between systems based on suffering and terminal illness.

It's not a fallacy to consider that the UK might seek to do whatever, but it's a fallacy to make it seem as if an expansion is a certain or even likely consequence. And nobody ever said people shouldn't seek to prevent such expansions. Just as some people will be campaigning to expand it, those opposed should also campaign. Afterall, 'this is the UK' - home of democracy.

Similarly, the argument that it's 'open to abuse' is just false. The possibility of abuse exists in every law and policy, but the safeguards in the bill are demonstrably quite solid.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no cause for concern with the bill or the practice.

There are areas I would like to see strenghtened - particularly about the right of clinicians to refuse to participate on the basis of their conscience. Ultimately though, it appears to me that most of the hand-wringing about the bill is by people who have objections based on their own morality (usually derived from religion) and are willing to deprive others of their agency to satisfy their own beliefs (Not saying this is you in particular).

Zahra29:


Lol, this is your singular pain point with the UK.

Lol, he/she/they does goes on about it. I think he/she/they have/has got the wrong end of the stick though, from my perspective it's something to view positively - the more people go off sick for whatever reason, the more business clamours for labour, and the more political leaders are prevented from some ridiculous performative "clampdown" on so-called migrants. Hopefully this endures till PM Farage comes in in 29. How's that, Zahra?

Goodenoch:


You haven't read the bills (both the Falconer one and the Leadbeater one that ed) or the reports around them.

Here's the report - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10123/CBP-10123.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the bills were written specifically to address the issues you've raised. There's no mention of suffering in the bill that ed, and it specifically excludes mental illness and disability. It doesn't follow that because Netherlands and wherever else allow a different set of criteria, then the UK will automatically do the same eventually. Countries have very different rules on various similarly sensitive issues.

On Canada, again if you read the bill or the report you'll see that the flaw of ambiguity in the Canadian law was addressed directly by specifying a timeline and also mandating the consideration of alternatives by the reviewing doctors. This follows the model in some US states that has never been successfully challenged (and mandatorily expanded) in court.

And before you say that the ECtHR is more likely to expand it to prevent discrimination, the court has actually recently indicated (Daniel Karsai) that it recognizes the difference between systems based on suffering and terminal illness.

It's not a fallacy to consider that the UK might seek to do whatever, but it's a fallacy to make it seem as if an expansion is a certain or even likely consequence. And nobody ever said people shouldn't seek to prevent such expansions. Just as some people will be campaigning to expand it, those opposed should also campaign. Afterall, 'this is the UK' - home of democracy.

Similarly, the argument that it's 'open to abuse' is just false. The possibility of abuse exists in every law and policy, but the safeguards in the bill are demonstrably quite solid.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no cause for concern with the bill or the practice.

There are areas I would like to see strenghtened - particularly about the right of clinicians to refuse to participate on the basis of their conscience. Ultimately though, it appears to me that most of the hand-wringing about the bill is by people who have objections based on their own morality (usually derived from religion) and are willing to deprive others of their agency to satisfy their own beliefs (Not saying this is you in particular).

Love it! Clap clap clap...I didn't think it would because the debate was quite emotionally charged with DNAR ,chronic pain and other things being brought in which had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. (That cleverly of a man )

I was pleasantly surprised yesterday. There are concerns about how this would work in practice and i do not envy the people on the committee.

I would suggest that anyone with misgivings keep an eye on the committee hearings to see if the public is allowed in and how you can raise your concern. Your views will help to fine tune this bill and make it ironclad. All in all,it was a good day ( except for that cleverly of a man)

Hello all, please I need help with the TV thing to watch all football matches. I came across it here long time ago. Thanks please help my life. Tired of discover+

Goodenoch:


You haven't read the bills (both the Falconer one and the Leadbeater one that ed) or the reports around them.

Here's the report - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10123/CBP-10123.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the bills were written specifically to address the issues you've raised.

These were not issues that "I" specifically raised, rather these are all concerns that have been cited by MPs (even by some who voted in of the bill) whose duty it is to scrutinise the bill in its current form and consider all possible outcomes, ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are put in place. I would imagine that they are much more informed than you and yet they have still raised what they consider to be serious concerns/gaps/questions.

You might not agree with their so called "hand wringing" concerns 🙄(which is a narrow minded view bdw as there are many who are not religious and still oppose the bill for various reasons ), nevertheless the narrow victory yesterday means that their concerns will have to be considered,discussed in depth and addressed in the bill which currently has many gaps. And the people wouldn't expect anything less, afterall by your own ission- 'this is the UK' - home of democracy"

Cyberknight:


Lol, he/she/they does goes on about it. I think he/she/they have/has got the wrong end of the stick though, from my perspective it's something to view positively - the more people go off sick for whatever reason, the more business clamours for labour, and the more political leaders are prevented from some ridiculous performative "clampdown" on so-called migrants. Hopefully this endures till PM Farage comes in in 29. How's that, Zahra?

I would respectfully disagree lol.

I am inclined to agree with Lavida as he appears to be thinking about what is good for the NHS and the UK as a whole.

PS - the clampdown is on immigration, not migrants (sleight of hand eh Monsieur?), and it is not ridiculous or performative - it is very much needed.

Zahra29:


These were not issues that "I" specifically raised, rather these are all concerns that have been cited by MPs (even by some who voted in of the bill) whose duty it is to scrutinise the bill in its current form and consider all possible outcomes, ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are put in place. I would imagine that they are much more informed than you and yet they have still raised what they consider to be serious concerns/gaps/questions.

You might not agree with their so called "hand wringing" concerns 🙄(which is a narrow minded view bdw as there are many who are not religious and still oppose the bill for various reasons ), nevertheless the narrow victory yesterday means that their concerns will have to be considered,discussed in depth and addressed in the bill which currently has many gaps. And the people wouldn't expect anything less, afterall by your own ission- 'this is the UK' - home of democracy"

I didn't say there are no people with other concerns outside of religious reasons. I even expressed mine.

I said how 'most' of the criticism appears to me based on much of the commentary I have seen.

Not sure how you inferred narrow-mindedness from that but mo ti gbọ́, mo ti gbà 🙌🏿.

Hkana:


In the spirit of ing
I ed my theory today
MCE 46/50
Hazard perception 64/75

Thank you to everyone who has shared their experiences.

ed my practical today with 1 minor. First attempt.

Zahra29:


Lol, this is your singular pain point with the UK.

The economy grows if more people contribute to NI and these moneys will be invested into NHS, fix London Roads, school meal etc. do u agree ?

Hi all, please I have a situation. My friend is due to make PSW application but she has money only for she and her husband. They have 2 kids here in the UK and for now they don't want to include them in the initial application due to lack of funds.
Please I need advise.

Saccharine:
Palliative Care isn't even funded properly, same as everything in the NHS, but they've skipped that and moved straight to death pathway.Fund palliative care well first so that dying people do so in dignity..

For now it's terminal people given 6 months to live but in reality , there are other conditions where the pain and suffering is so great but death is far.. What then happens?

What of the pain and suffering of people with dementia or the pain and suffering of those with conditions that leave them trapped in their bodies and depending on others for round the clock care?

How about people with mental health conditions resistant to all treatment eg treatment resistant depression,what of their own suffering? Is their own suffering less because they have longer than 6 months?

Who is the arbiter of suffering? Who is the person that chooses what suffering is greater than another when people are so different?

It's just a matter of time before court cases come and the law is adjusted again like Canada had to do.
I don't envy those that have to make these decisions.

At this rate, Hitler deserves an apology from all those who opposed Aktion T4. Hitler was simply taking the utilitarian approach.

Congrats bro!!!

Hkana:


ed my practical today with 1 minor. First attempt.

Goodenoch:


You haven't read the bills (both the Falconer one and the Leadbeater one that ed) or the reports around them.

Here's the report - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10123/CBP-10123.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the bills were written specifically to address the issues you've raised. There's no mention of suffering in the bill that ed, and it specifically excludes mental illness and disability. It doesn't follow that because Netherlands and wherever else allow a different set of criteria, then the UK will automatically do the same eventually. Countries have very different rules on various similarly sensitive issues.

On Canada, again if you read the bill or the report you'll see that the flaw of ambiguity in the Canadian law was addressed directly by specifying a timeline and also mandating the consideration of alternatives by the reviewing doctors. This follows the model in some US states that has never been successfully challenged (and mandatorily expanded) in court.

And before you say that the ECtHR is more likely to expand it to prevent discrimination, the court has actually recently indicated (Daniel Karsai) that it recognizes the difference between systems based on suffering and terminal illness.

It's not a fallacy to consider that the UK might seek to do whatever, but it's a fallacy to make it seem as if an expansion is a certain or even likely consequence. And nobody ever said people shouldn't seek to prevent such expansions. Just as some people will be campaigning to expand it, those opposed should also campaign. Afterall, 'this is the UK' - home of democracy.

Similarly, the argument that it's 'open to abuse' is just false. The possibility of abuse exists in every law and policy, but the safeguards in the bill are demonstrably quite solid.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no cause for concern with the bill or the practice.

There are areas I would like to see strenghtened - particularly about the right of clinicians to refuse to participate on the basis of their conscience. Ultimately though, it appears to me that most of the hand-wringing about the bill is by people who have objections based on their own morality (usually derived from religion) and are willing to deprive others of their agency to satisfy their own beliefs (Not saying this is you in particular).

Quick one, which category of doctors would be able to assess the patient and recommend assisted death?

Kingkom:
Hi all, please I have a situation. My friend is due to make PSW application but she has money only for she and her husband. They have 2 kids here in the UK and for now they don't want to include them in the initial application due to lack of funds.
Please I need advise.

Your friend...

ehizario2012:


At this rate, Hitler deserves an apology from all those who opposed Aktion T4. Hitler was simply taking the utilitarian approach.

Please Don't throw such comparisons around as they are highly offensive. I challenge you to detail the similarities between this bill and what Hitler did. And table it here.

62% of people assisted dying according to an opinium poll. You can see why your views are problematic.

NB: Wikipedia auschwitz I doubledare you. Do it tonight . then come back and tell me about action T4 or whatever.

Hi all,

Does anyone have a solution to a 'sweaty' toilet cistern ) condensation?

Thanks.