I’m very uncomfortable about this. How can just five hours possibly be enough time to consider such a complex issue as assisted dying? What do people think about this?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I'm in favour of the bill, but I think it needs to be thought through very seriously. The securities and safeguards surrounding this need to be watertight.
I don't think many people will be swayed by debate, it's quite a polarised opinion topic. There is probably no right, safe, answer, so a matter of conscience.
I agree it is a very complex subject and understand how 5 hours discussion may not feel sufficient. But from what I’ve read it looks to have strict guard rails and very limited to who qualifies so 5 hours on this would be enough. However if they ever expand the criteria then further debate is a must
It's the time for the debate not the consideration. Most people made their mind up years ago. As always a fair few will vote on what they have been offered in return for that vote. I would be happy with 5 mins. Human life mean nothing to most of these people anyway, as long as it's not theirs.
It seems that the Commons has little time, or worse, is incapable of scrutiny these days. Best left to the Lords where the experienced folks are I guess?
You should really have shown some discomfort about genocide too. Might have given you a clue as to how Labour might behave towards those who are vulnerable and nearing the end of their lives.
Sadly, Esther Rantzen is calling the shots on this. Lesser people like me (also living with a life limiting illness) don't get to have our voices heard.
Australia has assisted dying laws in every state and one territory. Not legal in the Northern Territory. If I remember right it was a long process in each place and long debates to have it done. Five hours on a debate such as this subject is short.
Regardless of your views on the idea, this bill is very badly written. It feels like labour just want to keep their promise to allow a bill on assisted dying, so won't allow enough discussion at this stage to kick it out. Even though they know it won't get through later stages and become law
The scary thing is that it might make it through anyway. Certainly this has happened with other bad legislation, especially where there is a clear majority.
I hope not. If it did get through it would cause chaos in the health service and the courts system. I hope there is still enough sense in Parliament to see that
I feel sorry for people who were promised a debate on assisted dying but have been presented with a flawed process in a badly written bill
Very uneasy too. Not really addressed the issue of coercive control or the definition of “ terminal”. Once the line is crossed, there is no going back. Too soon, too fast. Against…at this time.
Absolutely, and more too.
Second Reading in the Commons just stakes out some starting points; Committee and Report stages can be informed by real analysis - that's where time can be used well; and then the baton is passed to the Lords.
It's a PMB, it's a feature of the system, not a bug? Although I think Cameron granted Gov't time for the EU Referendum PMB in 2015/6? I'm not saying it's ideal, just that the Govt are I think going to derail it, see Streeting's intervention tonight, or get the Lords to do it
Streeting was being quite devious. Implying there was an oncost to assisted dying when all previous studies, and common sense, show a very modest saving. I think you are right. I’m going off this gov already.
In fairness, I think its been brought forward far too early in the term, and although I know why its happened, there are 00's of new MP's who are yet to find their feet and be able to consider it properly. Think it's really a year three proposal
I do feel off about this, mostly because we treat disabled and the long term sick people abysmally, especially those who are in need of benefits. Ensure people have a good life first, then look at what provisions those with a terminal illness need.
As a non-party, personal issue, those MPs who are undecided are prolly better off canvassing their constituents’ thoughts rather than listening to each other.
When the more pressing issue is our wildly variable and, in some instances, woeful standards of palliative care, I think it would be wise to park this vote until such shortcomings are adequately addressed. Perhaps Starmer agrees and is engineering a long-grass approach.
It’s ridiculous. Life & death should require a year of weekly debates and evidence presented for both sides of the debate. It’s the least we should do.
I was a huge advocate for assisted dying and even wrote my dissertation on it many moons ago however after seeing what’s happened elsewhere in the world and reading @drkathrynmannix.bsky.social books when my dad was dying I think it’s a very dangerous route to go down
They don't have 5 hours to consider it. Surely any conscientious MP will have put out feelers in their constituency to judge the mood already, or will have their mind made up completely. A debate won't change any minds, and will just rehash the same questions/question marks surely?
Starmer has already made it clear that he is only interested in hard working people. This translates to the fact he is not interested in economically unviable people. Given that, five hours is probably a good deal.
I'm just concerned that MP's are voted in on the promises they will fight for their constituents demons and not for their own. I'm a current carer and also nursed my mum through cancer until she passed traumatically. I just can't understand his attitude towards the needs of sick & disabled people.
This vote will be made on the beliefs and convictions of individual mps. But there are more mps from 'normal' backgrounds than ever before. So I am hoping this bill goes through. I'm sorry you had to go through that, I know my dad would've tried AD if he had the choice.
Thanks. I was grateful for hospice care mum got the last 2 weeks of her life. It allowed me to become her daughter again & not be her stressed traumatised carer. I'm disabled. I'd use AD rather than allow my sons to became exhausted traumatised carers rather than loving sons. Sorry about your dad.
I'm torn... On the one hand, yes I agree it seems not very much. But how many minds are actually made up there nowadays? Arguments are made online, constiuents tales told via email and decisions are made in private. How many MPs are actually persuadable?
I think that if we had some certainty that palliative care here is as good as it could be....then we could make a decision. Dying in hospital from a long term illness - well - you know if you are older and have had experience. There are some wonderful charitable hospices.
I don't have that experience. Sorry that you do. What I would say is that palliative care is what it is - we have to work with the knowledge of what we have.
The NHS is great, but is never going to be as good as it could be in the sense of what's truly possible.
I personally think that this question is one that leans much more heavily on morals of 'is it right to offer people this?' than 'is it better than palliative care options?' anyway. But that's just my way of seeing it.
That's fair. Doing all of that in a chamber of 650 people doesn't seem the best way though! In the name of efficiency and efficacy I think that there has to be a better way.
They don’t necessarily have to debate all those issues. I think if I were a MP, I simply would not vote for such measures unless I could see that adequate provision has been made to cover my concerns. If you bring the Bill, you ought to have addressed these issues. Not leave to others.
I 100% agree re what should have been done. But I suppose the job of parliamentarians is to scrutinise and raise these issues. If that 5 hour window is the only place it's poor.
Personally, with the right guiderails I support it, and abstention is a vote against. But it's personal!
In principle, I think there is a place for assisted dying. However, I think it’s such a seismic move and the consequences so potentially dire, I simply would not open the door to it, unless and until I could see it has been carefully formulated. Rather than “we will sort that out later”.
It's a "double edged sword" type topic for Starmer, he is going to be criticized in equal measure whether gives more time or less. I had hoped he would bitten the bullet and allowed a full day for the debate, so they could properly evaluate as many different scenarios both for and against the bill.
My husband & discussed assisted dying, years ago. But when he got terminal cancer from diagnosis to death was 6 months. We had no help. He died on the floor (UK).I was so broken I tried to resuscitate him. He was 48. A few years later. My sister ( in US)got a brain tumour.
I've come off Twitter today and look forward to reasoned and lively discussion on this platform.If it can be a respectful forum, then that will be a big improvement.Great to have you here,Peter.
I agree with assisted dying in principle - no one deserves to suffer... but jeez, its got to be VERY regulated! Example - a wealthy elderly lady needs care - she feels she may be a burden - her son in law thinks 'inheritance'.. starts pursuading his wife that it may be the best thing... etc etc. :(
I can’t remember what the debate was during the last government, but it was set down for well over a day. A subject like this, with a free vote, should surely have longer than 5 hours? How long a debate did the last Bill on this subject get I wonder?
Huge reservations, based on 25 years as a Clinical Nurse Specialist in palliative care, growing up with a disabled mother & observing how in places where it already exists the criteria have changed to include many more categories than in the original legislation. A rushed Bill is a bad Bill.
My late mother wrote an (unpublished) book way back in the mid 1980: about the NHS setting up ‘God Committees’ to decide which residents to euthanise in their care homes. The ones who had ran out of money were normally chosen
My concerns are about the pressure that people will feel to end their lives (even if it is imaginary), the pressure that others, family or professional may exert even unconsciously, & that quality of life & value of life become enmeshed somehow, with other people making judgements about both.
That was the basis of her story. The Committee would pressure families of the poor to euthanise. If it is regulated properly as it is here in Switzerland then it would work but it needs very strict oversight and regulation.
I haven’t read the bill but in principle, I support the concept. Having your dying 51yo father ask u 2 take his shotgun out & shoot him in his final weeks is not a thing I’d wish on any1 & not something as a 21yo I thought I’d ever face. We wud hav taken our cats 2 the vet WAY b4 it got 2 tht.
I think it needs a lot of time as the State is giving the power to end a citizen’s life early. This doesn’t mean I disagree with the idea just that the protections need to be rock solid. I hope all those in pain find peace
Incredibly difficult topic, but would hope our MPs would have done there homework and turn up informed to allow a focused debate on the key issues. Probably nieve but hope no grandstanding, far to important an issue to play politics with.
It isn't enough time, but there are successful models that work elsewhere?
Canada's assisted dying , while not perfect, works well for those who wish to choose it. It makes sense that we should be able to control our own lives once, even if is a choice about our death
Totally agree. There needs to be really detailed discussion of all relevant aspects, this is a really complex issue, upon which people's lives will literally depend. It must not be rushed.
Until palliative care is properly funded, there should be no place for assisted dying legislation.
In the current climate, AD looks like a convenient fast-track for hastening the departure of people who require "expensive" support and care.
These are my thoughts at present.
Personally, I think there is a world of difference between end of life care, which should be pain free and assisted dying. That is not to say that some people don’t want assisted dying.
See results of MAID in Canada. If there’s no obligation to fund decent palliative care why on earth are progressives supporting assisted dying? (AD is being advocated for largely by people who don’t need to worry about getting free palliative care and have plenty of £ to fund their own privately).
More than most legislation gets in it's programme motion these days. Worth remembering as well this a is a PMB, and every hour spent on this is is less time over the whole session available to other PMBs. Too little time is given to backbenchers as it is, without squeezing even more out.
I'm not convinced it is that complicated. Surely it should be my body my choice. I'd far sooner have a dignified end than trying to drive my mobility scooter off beachy head
I'm not sure anyone would be forming their opinion based on a debate in the HoC? Could probably skip straight to the vote. I think this applies to most issues these days
I’m against it personally but I’m not affected by it although might be in the future. I cant imagine how hard it is for some folk to live in constant pain for eg. However how can we be sure in the future people will not be forced into assisted dying
For me it's such an easy, obvious decision, I can't understand some people's reluctance. I would approve the law on #AssistedDying in a second. It's well overdue.
Without wanting to go too David Brent, the real debate isn’t in the commons. It’s up and down the land. People are making their feelings on it known to their MPs and MPs are discussing it already.
I've found this to be true. I contacted my MP, who hasn't decided how to vote. He responded quickly and, I think, openly. I have since had a follow-up email giving me a timetable for the process and assuring me that he will be present when it's debated. He's listening.
That's the problem I think. It should be more than a heart issue. It should be properly debated, researched with experts, seniors and disabled community as groups who will be most affected. We should also look at how it has been implemented in other countries. Historically, it's a slipperly slope.
I doubt the debate would change minds. This is one of those instances where people instantly decide how they would vote based on either morality or experience of watching a loved one suffer in their final months.
It's not a 'Yes' or 'No' decision now. Its a 'No' or 'lets look at it in more detail' decision.
Streeting's intervention suggests that the Government want to kill it now and can later say 'well, we tried...'
Not a very noble position.
Except that it's a free vote. And governmant advised mps not to publically discuss it so that the arguement should not be coerced either way before the debate. This suggests to me a purely conscience vote for the whole house. I believe this is a matter for human emotions but with political checks.
But isn't this exactly what Streeting is doing? Discussing in public to try to influence the outcome.
Genuine conscience votes should be secret but they don't do that, so everything is political.
More pertinent is the question of why Government has tge right to decide when I die. After all they cannot decide when or if I am born. It's my choice, my body.
As a carer I was all for this until a client of mine (now sadly deceased) made me think about the other side of the argument, ending someone’s life in a bid to release their inheritance. Five hours to ensure this can’t happen?
I'd love to see a sensible system in place for assisted dying, but I'm also seeing a good friend struggling right now with end-stage bowel cancer & she isn't getting anywhere near the right support to keep her physically/emotionally comfortable. The priority has to be to make palliative care better.
This is too complex for a decision in five hours! Literally life and death.This needs time, consideration, balanced arguments and a conclusion that is agreed and endorsed.This is paying end of life individuals a huge diservice (my personal opinion )
There are so many questions left unanswered or inadequately answered. For starters, how will the 6 months to live criteria survive challenge? Judges have been resistant to make law on assisted death, but they’ll be being asked how one ill person can do it, but not others.
I can only think that this is to kick the issue further down the road. For such an emotive subject, on all sides of the argument, that is a ridiculously short time
Maybe because it’s a private members bill, that’s probably not going to become law, that’s been given time in a very busy first session of a new government.
It’s being heard early because Starmer promised Esther Rantzen. If I understand it correctly.
Terminally ill and in great pain, my mother went into a hospice operating the Liverpool Pathway. 2-weeks later she died, peacefully and pain-free, not of cancer but of morphine, administered via a syringe driver. Her end was much preferable to the alternative. That pathway should be available now.
I doubt debating such an emotive topic will sway many hearts, most will already have taken a position or view based on faith, experience or compassion. It needs to be strict enough that only those who have the mental capacity to make their own life ending decision can do so. Thats the debate point.
It would have saved my dearly departed brother the agony, pain an trauma of becoming a skeleton due to the repeated chemo and radiotherapy treatments, then to palative care.
Something that many have to endure.
He would have welcomed assisted dying. He told me this.
Maybe 'faith' is the wrong word, possibly conscience or social upbringing or environmental development is what I was aiming for. We all have experiences that have marked our own personal developments and impact our thought processes.
I believe the #AssistedDying bill should be passed, with "ifs"
This is about where I am. I support AD because I think it's humane to give people agency over the end of their life. As a society we've debated this for many years and given all we've discussed here, I don't think a longer debate would produce a better or more reasoned result.
It’s like the abortion issue. Nobody forces you to have an abortion if your religion forbids it but you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others. With good safeguards only people who want to exit this life at their choice will do it. And it hasn’t been abused where is legal
I like the idea of AD but, I am extremely concerned about coercive control, sadly there are many many vulnerable people out there, toxic family relationships, drs who maybe biased one way or another. Its not a subject to be rushed at all.
They were talking about serious jail time for anyone who was caught coercing anyone into AD. This sort of thing happens already with vulnerable elders with wills and things, so I'm keen to see how this protection will work in practice.
Because I think he knows it's not going to pass.
The whole point of this bill is to test the waters, gauge opinions before a different bill is introduced further down the line.
And that bill will end up with more time.
5 hours is not enough time. There is so much work to do to improve palliative care too and don’t get me started on hospices having to rely on donations! Need a proper debate about all this.
This is just the initial debate before the bill starts a fairly long road into entering the legislative stage. Quite normal for a private members bill.
Why not make it a day? I'm not entirely sure on parlimentry protocol when it comes to these sorts of things but I do agree with you that five hours seems quite a small amount of time to debate this issue..
Really good way of doing it. It erases most of the possibility of you being put down without wanting to be... which is one of my fears. I do see that it's good to be able to let people get out of a painful existence, but it could be used to kill people who don't want it if not implemented well
In the U.K. you can execute a lasting power of attorney appointing attorneys to make health decisions for you but assisted suicide doesn’t count in that. I’ve done a living will instructing my sons how I wish to be treated if I have a stroke or similar
The slippery slope argument is always made but has been completely debunked by all the countries that legalised assisted dying. Are the UK more prone to slipping?
It would have to be managed very carefully. People with MND and other degenerative diseases may see this as a way to control how far they are prepared to go with what they have. It’s very complex situation.
Having the right, doesn't mean you have to avail yourself of it. But it is of enormous relief to know it'll be there to stop you having a monstruous death.
Yes, it's the danger of abuse that is the part of this that needs debate.
Personally I think it can be designed with sufficient safeguards but it's because of views like yours that it needs far more discussion than is being given here.
It hasn’t been abused in places where it exist so I don’t see why it would be abused here. We only need a robust system to ensure this is a personal choice with no external influence. I strongly support it. I don’t want to be a suffering vegetable
Dunno how we can get sufficient safeguards in place, bearing in mind the huge number nudged to suicide by 'welfare reform' & DWP decisions - see Deaths By Welfare.
I support the idea of assisting dying, but I agree that more Parliamentary debate needed. People need to know they have been heard. How on earth you will take them on board if you don't give them the time they deserve?
It needs *lots* of debate and discussion but would put money on hardly anyone, present or watching on tv, paying proper attention to 5 hours of MPs making speeches. Recognise it's the system we have, but it doesn't seem fit for purpose.
We need to have robust palliative care services, and a hospice service that's not reliant on charitable donations, before we can properly debate Assisted Dying. I'm also very, very concerned about unintended consequences of any legislation. 5 hours is definitely not enough.
There was a case in Ireland recently were someone was informed their assisted dying would be funded. Alas, the supports they need to live a comfortable life, arent funded. Quite a problem. No support when alive, but help when shifting towards death.
And this won't change any time soon, too many areas of our societies need cash injections for them all to receive them adequately. For me this forces the agreement of assisted dying, because people are suffering now. We can dream of perfect end of life care, but we live in reality.
It'll have a committee stage and third reading too, and go through it all again in the Lords.
Most private members bills fail because they run out of time (only 13 days of debate allocated to them all each year, all Fridays). So providing government time tends to be a tactic endorsement of a bill.
I am very concerned the safeguards are not robust enough. The MCA safeguards not always well implemented but can be rectified in CoP, no second chances here.
As a Dutch citizen. It is always someone’s own choice. You van put it in your last will. But it is the law now. Our former PM who was very much opposed to this in the 1980’s has just done this together with his wife. (Dries van Agt). So take the Dutch law and go!
I’m in two minds. I agree 5 hours is not long but then again, why is someone’s wish to end their life at the discretion of a judge. Surely a psychiatrist should be involved no?
My instinct is that assisted dying would be a good thing, but Dr Rachel Clarke. makes excellent points around the fact that palliative care needs to be much better to make it viable. It can't be a choice between a horrible time due to a lack of care and death. And must be kept away from capitalists.
If Starmer was serious about both the topic and the bill, then he would give them as long as they needed. Assisted dying is complex enough for starters, but then putting in place a law that is robust enough to prevent it from being abused or watered down in the future, will be even more so.
Real problem is people think the moral, spiritual and religious aspects are the complicated parts. The actual complicated part is the safeguards to put in place. Letting those who are suffering with no hope of relief die on their own terms with as much dignity & respect as possible is an easy yes.
Why don’t they let people sign up for it when they are fit and well and then if they get seriously ill you would know it’s what they always wanted, a bit like organ donation?
Sometimes when you're fit and well you don't really consider your own mortality. Decisions change based on conditions (and age). I agree with AD but do not agree with this.
The big argument against AD seems to be what if parents are pressured into it by their children for there money, that would solve that issue right away.
Comments
In Scotland, Liam McArther is leading the equivalent bill, being done at a much more measured pace.
https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-adults-scotland-bill
PS, you very kindly followed me in the other place. Any chance of doing so here? Cheeky I know but well if you don't ask ...
Nonetheless, I agree that it should be fully debated. I fear we may be dealing with yet another Government without too much respect for Parliament.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-strong-are-the-safeguards-in-the-assisted-dying-bill/
I feel sorry for people who were promised a debate on assisted dying but have been presented with a flawed process in a badly written bill
Second Reading in the Commons just stakes out some starting points; Committee and Report stages can be informed by real analysis - that's where time can be used well; and then the baton is passed to the Lords.
If I want to die I should be allowed to.
How many sex workers die because they can’t work safely?
You can drink yourself to death but not smoke cannabis.
Weird.
The NHS is great, but is never going to be as good as it could be in the sense of what's truly possible.
Personally, with the right guiderails I support it, and abstention is a vote against. But it's personal!
I simply don’t know how it might work.
He seems to have an old fashioned and cemented view on certain topics and would rather avoid the conversation in fear someone might have a point.
It’s a heartbreaking thing to think about but all I can say is if someone goes as far as Dignitas, then their pain must be unbearable and needs help.
Canada's assisted dying , while not perfect, works well for those who wish to choose it. It makes sense that we should be able to control our own lives once, even if is a choice about our death
In the current climate, AD looks like a convenient fast-track for hastening the departure of people who require "expensive" support and care.
These are my thoughts at present.
I agree, 5hrs is not enough to discuss the matter of assisted dying.
Weeks of debate wouldn't necessarily produce a higher quality decision.
People will just vote with their hearts.
The debates have happened, up and down the land, for decades.
We have decided.
As a people, we want this.
The time now is for action.
Make. It. Law.
Streeting's intervention suggests that the Government want to kill it now and can later say 'well, we tried...'
Not a very noble position.
Genuine conscience votes should be secret but they don't do that, so everything is political.
Compare it with Liam McArthurs bill in Holyrood ht @mcdivergence.bsky.social
It's a nonsense. A sham.
It's those that don't believe they can that need to be heard and responded to.
If the time is given to those with entrenched views it will be wasted.
Makes me wonder why it's being pushed through so quickly
It’s being heard early because Starmer promised Esther Rantzen. If I understand it correctly.
We've already been here before with abortion.
Not to grant the right to #AssistedDying amounts to condemning people to die in anguish and agony.
That's torture.
Something that many have to endure.
He would have welcomed assisted dying. He told me this.
I'm sorry the law had not been passed yet to avoid all that unnecessary suffering. For both of you.
I believe the #AssistedDying bill should be passed, with "ifs"
Who needs 5 hours of debate??? ...
The whole point of this bill is to test the waters, gauge opinions before a different bill is introduced further down the line.
And that bill will end up with more time.
This is what I hope anyway.
You nominate in the document the person(s) you authorise to take the decision for you in case you're incapacitated when the time comes.
All you can do is punish those who abuse the law.
You cannot "stop legislating for the good" for fear of future abusers.
And included #AssistedDying in the document, as #euthanasia is now legal in Spain.
Personally I think it can be designed with sufficient safeguards but it's because of views like yours that it needs far more discussion than is being given here.
The devil is in the detail, as they say.
Whilst I believe Keir is not particularly religious his family is and also a large chuck of his cabinet ministers.
I question their ability to be open minded on this.
Most private members bills fail because they run out of time (only 13 days of debate allocated to them all each year, all Fridays). So providing government time tends to be a tactic endorsement of a bill.
His insight would be very constructive...