Hacker News Clone new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | github repologin
UK lawmakers vote in support of assisted dying (www.cnn.com)
57 points by mikhael 2 hours ago | hide | past | web | 64 comments | favorite





I was on the fence until a family member was diagnosed with inoperable glioblastoma. I would encourage anyone in opposition, or in doubt, to read about late stages of GBM, and imagine their mother or child going through that end, which is 100% certainly for everyone who got unlucky. There is no cure, and no known cause.

This is not murder, it’s mercy - just imagine being in a soul crushing place of having to end the suffering and life of your parent or child, then being told it’s not possible.


My mother died that way, after a fairly long and cautious consultation process, but through medical assistance. She had a cluster of health problems, and also suffered from mental problems caused by recurring memories caused by dementia. The other prognosis would have been: suffering in a hospice until her body would give up. Now she could die in peace, surrounded by her family. We didn't really know the extent of her suffering, but after the first injection, a strong sedative, she spoke her final words: "I have no pain. I have no pain."

It's really good that it's possible.


This is called the "I don't care until it happens to me" mindset.

Yeah I’m glad they care now to support this but what might help folks more is explaining what reflecting on this has helped with other opinions you may or may not have these days!

I believe ultimately we will head towards a situation where anyone can request it at any time for any reason. Gating with health conditions is just to ease the transition.

That said, the great problem in countries with tax funded social and health services is the government have a distinct interest in persuading certain people to jump, and this is a serious moral hazard as some of the Canadian experience has demonstrated.

Today though the UK has the opposite problem, which is an enormous private residential “care” system keeping huge numbers of unwilling near vegetables wired up until they eventually die, transferring as much of the family money to the “carers” as possible. They have an awful lot to lose from this too, so I expect the fight to be a lot nastier from here on.


> I believe ultimately we will head towards a situation where anyone can request it at any time for any reason.

Not a chance. This will always be gated by medical evaluation for suitability.

Suicidal ideation occurs transiently in many conditions or life circumstances. Giving these people tools to follow through with their impulses "at any time for any reason" would be disastrous.


> Today though the UK has the opposite problem, which is an enormous private residential “care” system keeping huge numbers of unwilling near vegetables wired up until they eventually die, transferring as much of the family money to the “carers” as possible.

Same as the US.

Nobody below the Fussellian upper-middle class in the US has savings—just accounts that temporarily hold money for the hospitals and elder care & hospice facilities.


It’s a potentially lucrative business: https://youtu.be/EbmQxZkSswI?si=G5-eaqTBhKYzns65

>"That said, the great problem in countries with tax funded social and health services is the government have a distinct interest in persuading certain people to jump"

Well, government may have a "distinct interest..." for reasons that are far away from being health related. I think that any hint of encouragement must be severely punished.


Fight? Who is fighting in this instance?

It is not yet law, and will almost certainly be amended. There were real doubts on it clearing this stage in the process, but now the various stakeholders, such as those benefitting from the status quo, will be pushing on the relevant committees much harder.

> as some of the Canadian experience has demonstrated

I live in Canada, and I keep hearing this kind of stuff brought up by Americans.

What, exactly, is "the Canadian experience"?

It would be best if your sources are not American media outlets intended for American audiences they are looking to manipulate.



> That prompted MacAulay to order an internal investigation, which has now uncovered a total of four cases where veterans were allegedly offered MAID — all apparently by the same caseworker.

Rogue employees suggesting bad treatment doesn't seem too much a cause for concern so long as they're caught before it goes further.

After all, people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman exist prior to this ruling.



I feel like that's hardly a solid rebuttal. The "Handling of specific cases" has 10 cases, a few of which I would struggle to tie to assisted dying.

During the year with the most event (2022), 5 events occured for over 13 000 patients that chose assisted dying. That's 1 for every 2600 person and these events are basically just people suggesting MAiD improperly.


My Mum died slowly from lung cancer over almost three years. It spread to basically every organ in her body, she was taking so much chemo they eventually said they had to stop or the chemo would kill her before the cancer would. The intense pain, humiliation and knowing it was a certain death sentence hung over her every single minute of every single day.

My family would have given anything to have been allowed access to assisted suicide by the end.

And I guarantee you would too.

Anyone that says otherwise simply hasn't lived it.


Yeah dying sucks. Too many people have this delusion that their death will happen peacefully in their sleep. There is no guarantee whatsoever. Good chance it will be awful. If needed, I want to have the option for myself to get over with it swiftly.

I saw both my grandmothers waste away waste away with Alzheimer's, and one of the worst parts was seeing the effect on my grandfather's. One of them spent a decade mostly sitting in a chair next to his wife who no longer spoke or recognized anyone...

It requires extreme naivete to believe that this will not rapidly shift from doctor assisted suicide to mandatory removal of medical benefits except "end of life care". The medical-insurance complex in the US cannot wait for this to happen.

I believe a patient currently & their family members are required to state what kind of care a person should have if things go wrong before a surgery.

Why could the law not just continue this by adding an additional option that states when you would want assisted suicide? I would think lawmakers could specify that insurance or doctors are not allowed to make this decision or let it effect their services.


What makes Canada so different from other countries where this didn't happen?

It's just another insanity-driving information warfare topic.

Yes, let's imagine all the horrible things that could happen because the government suddenly allowed something that happened anyway - people committed suicide in end of life situations all the time - and let's base it off this one country where the law wasn't written well enough or enforcement is lax or whatever.

Let's use that as an example of why this should be banned always, forever, in all situations, because the X abuse of this in country Y shows it should never be done.

I have family who's dying with dementia. If I ever get into that situation, which I hope I don't, I hope people end it with my permission.


in single-payer government funded healthcare systems (Canada UK), medically assisted suicide is ENORMOUS cost savings.

imagine paying taxes all your life and hoping to get a good care in later stage of your life, and government just MAIDs you instead of providing care

The current UK/CA social contract seems to be: you work for 45+ years and pay taxes, but when you get old and sick and need medical care, we will just MAID you and instead give away all your taxes to welfare recipients


I think it's going to be pretty optional. You can ask for it. They can't just MAID you.

In the US there will be share-holder lawsuits against insurance companies that do not enforce this strictly enough. It's just a return to a time when only the wealthy could receive medical care - this time it's just being marketed better.

The government can't do that to you. You do realise that, right?

The government does not have to - like I said this is just a marketing campaign. What is to stop the introduction of "lower cost" insurance tiers if you opt in to a "limited care" plan that would allow you to be terminated instead of treated if the treatment cost is above a threshold value? What happens when people are convinced that seeking care = being selfish, or when the elderly are seen entirely as burdens on society even if they are not sick but using social welfare programs? If you think this is crazy talk I honestly don't believe you are aware of the evils well-intentioned people are capable of committing.

They tell explicitly that https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3947481

Why do you think they can't do it? The government can always just say, "We aren't treating your diseases anymore. We will put you out of your misery whenever you like however."

In a democracy, you vote for the other guy.

Do you live in a democracy?

This poll showed widespread support for MAID in the UK.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opin...

Every single constituency supports law change: Three-quarters of respondents (75%) said that they would support making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying in the UK, with just 14% against

Support for changing the law consistently high regardless of voters’ political affiliation

Two-thirds (66%) of respondents with faith support law change, including 69% of Christians


Yes most people are against war too yet you don't see people voting their way out of that now do you?

If assisted dying is on the table, it won't be long before prescribed dying is too. I am not as hopeful as you that normal political processes will prevent that, but one can dream.


If I am in horrendous and incurable pain, I hope I have the option to calmly and painlessly end my own life without having to worry about my loved ones going to prison for it.

First reading, there are lots of stage before the bill is passed.

It look like Parliament, via private members bill working at its best.

Lots of debate, lots of people listening to the debate and then voting.


I watched the debate as it was happening on Sky News and it seemed to be one the most respectful debates in a long time when it comes to a divisive issue (cough cough Brexit).

This was the second reading fyi.

For some terminal patients, there are types of pain that no amount of morphine or money can fix.

I'm thankful to know that when its my time to go, I'll have the choice to skip enduring several days of torture should I wish.


Many opponents to the bill have been very cagey about their reasons for opposing it, and eventually admit it's for nebulous "religious reasons".

Personally I'd like the right to die with dignity if I were unfortunate enough to find myself facing horrible, imminent, certain death.

I'm glad it passed and I hope it makes it into law.


I dislike these proposals because they always eventually encourage the erosion of help for people who very much want to live. I don't think the end of life is very dignified, but I don't trust the government to ever decide to spend money helping people in pain reduce their pain, instead of shrugging and saying, "Well, you can choose to die" We're seeing this in Canada and it was utterly predictable

Does the Bible say you shouldn't end your life if you're dying of something incurable and terribly painful?

Regardless of what a bible says it is indeed the view of many religious people.

They probably change their mind pretty quick if they witness a loved one go through endless pain for no reason. Some of them, I'd think. Others, I'm sure, would tell them how much wonderful the gates of heaven will look when they get there.

In Canada they have proposed assisted dying for young people suffering from depression. What better way to harvest organs and save money than by making unproductive young people want to die?

If this was seriously restricted to people facing severe debilitating injuries or pain I might be more in favor. But you know it won't stop there.


Out of curiosity why do people need permission or help from their government for this? Is it related to life insurance? Or is it that in some cases people can not get to the hardware store for a painters face mask, the corresponding hose with the 40mm NATO connector, some duct tape and a tank of nitrogen? Or is it a business thing meaning someone is trying to corner the market on those crazy expensive suicide pods?

> Or is it that in some cases people can not get to the hardware store for a painters face mask, the corresponding hose with the 40mm NATO connector, some duct tape and a tank of nitrogen?

Certainly part of it. Some people by the time they have no other hope are physically incapable of doing that.

Some people would rather not DIY such a consequential thing the same way they rather not brew their own antibiotics or do their own dentistry. Obviously in this case the “worst” which might happen is that they don’t die but suffer even more pain and indignities.

It is also the legal risk for those who remain. Every time someoen DIYs their end as you write it there is a police investigation. (As there should be, to make sure that there were no trickery around the death.) Depending on how things go your loved ones might get arrested and thrown into prison (if the system believes they killed you, or even if something they did or accused of doing is deemed to have “assisted” you). Similarly they might not be able to inherit after you if they were deemed to have assisted in your suicide. And that can be some small thing, like your partner driving you to the hardware store, or paying for the purchase, or helping you tighten a NATO connector. Now they lost you, they might have lost their home and they might be looking down the barrel of a risky legal case with years of prison as a possibility. That is not something anybody would wish on their loved ones.


All of that makes sense. I guess if I were in that situation I would make a video explaining what I was going to do, then another one showing me setting it all up, send that to my attorney and local law enforcement chief since they are slow to read emails and then park myself outside the mortuary with a letter and copy of the video pinned to my clothes and a final video of me doing the deed to remove any ambiguity. Oh, and a receipt for all the gear.

I don't want to die. However, I can imagine many scenarios that are worse than death. In many of them I am too incapacitated to arrange my own painless suicide. Allowing third parties to help in these circumstances, with appropriate controls to ensure this freedom isn't abused, seems to me the least bad option.

I think this is to do with the ‘assisted’ component. I.e. When people need help from others to die.

If the law didn’t cover this, then people who provided assistance would be open to criminal prosecution.


That makes sense. If that is the case it creates yet another question for me. If someone sends for a driver to go shop and pick up the aforementioned items are they culpable?

> If someone sends for a driver to go shop and pick up the aforementioned items are they culpable?

That greatly depends on the jurisdiction. In general though the issue here is that you don't want to die by shooting yourself, but you want to die by taking a pill. And the issue really is that nobody is going to sell this stuff to you unless they know they cannot be charged for it.

Assisted suicide is legal in Austria for a few years and the main thing that it has changed is the availability of humane ways of dying.


progress should mean learning from the successes of other countries, not the disasters

Why Assisted Dying is only being pushed and promoted in White Christian countries?

It is not allowed in Muslim countries and is explicitly banned in Israel.

Orthodox Christian is not allowing MAID as well


It's also legal in Colombia.

It's easier to go down a slope than go up it. It's a tragedy.

Most doctors, all disability organisations and charities, all hospices and elderly care organisations opposed this. A visit to the doctor should never even have the possibility of a conversation such as "have you considered dying? I can help". This was decided by people who are not old, not disabled, not vulnerable.

Additionally, we have a case now where the national health service will in one section prevent ill people considering suicide and help them out of it but will in another section help those who are considering suicide and encourage them into it! It fundamentally changes the nature of what a health service is.

The Samartians number is 116 123

The Samaritan's motto is "every life lost to suicide is a tragedy"


Can you cite your sources?

https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/12/e64

This paper suggests the vast majority of disability rights organisations in great britain are not publicly opposed to assisted dying.

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/end-of-life...

This survey of doctors presents data that does not correspond with your claim that most doctors oppose assisted dying.


https://www.hospiceuk.org/assisted-dying

Hospice UK, a sector-support body, is publicly neutral. (which aligns with most hospices i can find public statements from)


I live in Canada. I know people who chose MAiD (our euthanasia process) way because of certain conditions (e.g. one in 80s, with incurable cancer, constant pain). There is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing someone suffer, endlessly, begging to go, but having no avenue to go peacefully.

I saw my grandmother go through the most intense amount of pains for about a decade in early 2000s (at about ~70) while she lived with us. We did everything we could. Seeing my mom cry endlessly throughout years rewired my brain to the point where I will always support assisted suicide.

I really don't care if it's "immoral", "slippery slope", "against the natural way of life" and so on. If, at any point in the future, my parents are suffering and decide they want to go out with their own way, I want them to have the choice. And I want that choice to be available for me as well, if it ever comes to that.


Cite sources for your assertions, they appear to be false.

The Samaritans. I remember a story about that in the bible, explains your conservative Christian views

It's a charity.

Its name derives from the biblical Parable of the Good Samaritan, although the organisation itself is not religious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans_(charity)

Samaritans is a registered charity aimed at providing emotional support to anyone in emotional distress, struggling to cope or at risk of suicide throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, often through its telephone helpline.


The quote and viewpoint you are expressing is based in conservative Christianity regardless

What would a non-conservative Christian viewpoint on this subject be?

I don’t care about Christianity in general because I reject it, partly for this reason

I’m confused. Are you saying a suicide hotline is a distinctly conservative Christian thing? That’s sort of nonsensical.

No I’m obviously saying that saying every early end of life is a tragedy is a Christian conservative thing

Conservative Christianity does not have a monopoly on the sanctity of life.

Okay well I condemn any organisation that does as evil since I have Love and Compassion



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: