Only in a system with socialised health care you change the relationship between doctor and patient for everyone. The state would now have a role in ending your life, the medics looking after us all will now have the option to help us kill ourselves whereas before their role was to do no harm, this is monstrous and it effects the health care system for everyone.
Her initial argument seems pretty flawed. Just because there are people not receiving sufficient care while alive doesn't mean people with terminal illnesses, living with pain every day, shouldn't have the choice to end their life. She says that we should address the lack of sufficient care FIRST but we can address both of these things at the same time, its not a choice of one or the other. Section 15, "signing by proxy" is a much better argument against this bill, although having read the bill it seems pretty reasonable to my eyes, albeit not being an expert on the topic. There are provisions in place for assessing the mental capacity for the person wishing to die, so they would already be assessed as mentally capable and aware of what their decision means. There are provisions for who can and can not be a proxy. For example if you stand to make any material gains, financial or otherwise, you are disqualified from being a proxy. The declaration has to be signed in the presence of the person dying, the person dying obviously has to declare they are okay for the proxy to sign in their place, they cannot sign a second declaration if they were witness to the first, etc. Personally I would be in favor of this bill unless I hear an expert legal opinion on how this bill could be mis-used.
@Fortune-z1i "By definition a terminally ill person may be so poorly as to be unable to self administer the drugs that kills them." That's a very vague definition, or you don't understand what a "definition" actually is... as a terminal illness is any illness that cannot be cured by current, conventional treatment, and will also result is death as a result of the effects of said illness.
@@Fortune-z1i That is covered in the bill under section 18 "In respect of an approved substance which is provided to the person under subsection (2), the coordinating doctor may- (a) (b) (c) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person, prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance" So a person not able to administer to substance themselves will have a medical device able to administer it under their control.
I understand some people are apprehensive, those peoples feelings should not and must not trump the thousands of people who have to endure pain, suffering and misery and their friends and family who have to watch the ongoing suffering. A vote against is a vote against freedom and choice.
No, it’s a vote for vulnerable, mentally unwell people being pushed unnecessarily towards an early death by a National Health that is not fit for purpose.
I'm severely disabled, with several physical, mental and neurological conditions. I switch between crutches, walking sticks and custom ortho specialist knee braces. I have to use the help of an assistance dog or carer to go places. Yet I oppose the bill. We're not against assisted death, we're against this specific bill, because there is a lack of safe guarding and a huge opportunity to take advantage of disabled people with this bill. They speak for us because you guys don't listen to disabled voices.
@Jell0Just That is just a lie, the safeguards are extraordinarily strong. It's also about choice, feel free to choose not to, but if I got something like ALS I'd want that option. It's a chance to go out peacefully on your own terms instead of suffering horribly.
This wasn't very convincing tbh. "We won't give people the freedom to choose their own death because we want to give people freedom in life(????)". A really poor argument. What about the terminally ill people who can't take pain medication? Would she be as passionate repeating that argument to someone writhing in pain for another 6 months?
@@janebaker966 WTF are you babbling about?! Not only does your reponse seem to have no relation to anything the OP said, but it also becomes increasingly incoherent towards the end.
My main concern is how to survive all of these financial and political crisis, especially in light of the US political power scuffle. The government has really called things more difficult for its citizens, and we can't sit back and bear all the consequences of the bad governance.
I had a lot of financial crisis then, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in life until $75,000 biweekly began rolling in and my Life went from A homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer.
I thank Evelyn Susanne Scarlett who has always been there to help me with detailed analysis and recommendations that I would not have had access to otherwise.
After raising 325k from trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the states and also paid for my son's (Tony) surgery, Glory be to God. Shalom
MP's against the bill are clearly doing so on religious grounds but do not have the guts to say it . They make any other excuse instead. If they want to die in pain so be it . These people to do not have the right to deny me my choice. Yet they think they do. We who believe in a civilized society must call out these people for what they are
In some cases this is true, but it’s not universally true. Jeremy Corbyn voted against the Bill and he’s an atheist. Whereas Lord Carey, who was literally the Archbishop of Canterbury (and a ‘conservative’ one at that) supports the Bill.
Facts: atheist voted against it. Most people voted on basic principles of life to their natural end, some voted on their moral conscience. Be patient your time will come as all of us over billions of years. The creator has put time on everything to live and die science cannot oppose it. There is no arguments or debate about it
@@musasesay4439 Admittedly some MPs voting against were not religious . However the pious ones like yourself prove my point . You want the rest of society to live by your indoctrination and brainwashed ideology. You are ignavic. Meaning you lack your own moral strength to determine your own time of death . I do not.
@@musasesay4439Fact: there is no creator, only in your delusional mind. People shouldn't have to suffer because of your delusional beleifs in imaginary sky psyco. Grow up or don't grow up. But this discussion should be left to sensible rational adults and not religous nuts like you. Science possesses many proven facts. Religion has never proven a thing. Otherwise it would be based on fact and not irrational faith. Learn the difference. But rational people don't give a fuck what you nuts think.
I am concerned to be fair about the possibility that someone who wouldn’t have gone for euthanasia ordinarily if the NHS delivered the good care it should, but end up deciding to do assisted dying because of their terrible care. If this law passes, it really should be restricted and barriers to access should be very high.
I agree with this. I do think good care and this bill can be passed but I am concerned about the proxy element. I was put on a medication and I wanted to end my life but I had the ability to see a great doctor who put me on an additional tablet to smooth over those feelings. The tablet was called Ivabradine and it is horrendous but I need it for my heart. The tablet which helped was Lyrica which I need for my epilepsy. I am very open about this and I feel I have an insight into this.
@@Believe-you-me- No. It is an excellent comparison. If the animal could say "please let me die with dignity" then animal euthanasia would be exactly the same as human animal euthanasia
@@Believe-you-me-but humans can. And they are asking, pleading begging. As a med student I frequent so many incidences where people are just looking for a way out; they’re all given therapy and mental assessments which comes back clear. “What good is life when all the rest is gone” it’s always the religious nut-heads that have the nerve to deny suffering people their peace and tell them to endure the pain until their systems eventually give up. Livestock is treated more humanely than the terminally ill.
I'm glad I don't have a vote on this as these MPs do. For as much as I have thought about it, and with a degree of familial experience, I still can't come down on one side. I find arguments on both sides compelling.
This MP made a good point. Resourcing the aims of the bill would deplete resources up until the time of enactment of the bill, previously set aside to give some patients a chance of continuing life.
It’s great when the moribund hand-wringers, who would have destroyed the printing presses of yore, and constantly stand in the way of progress and prevent the solving of the challenges we face - even when those in the minority will benefit - are defeated. The challenge now is for the government to govern, and produce a watertight system that can be applied to those unfortunate to be in such a position as requiring the need for assisted dying.
The experiences she shared are awful and shouldn't happen in this day and age. They do seem to me, however, to be completely irrelevant to the bill that is being debated.
The connection is that if you have people in situations like the ones she described, they are far more likely to consider the terminal option, when if they were in the privileged position of having the correct pain management, they would be less likely to consider that option. So if this bill passes it will create another inequality, where people who don't live in the "right area" (in the post-code lottery of NHS provision) or who aren't the "right race" (in the racial inequality that is seen in the stories shared) are pushed (or at least nudged) towards an unnecessary choice whilst those who are privileged enough to get a good quality of care do not need to consider the terminal option for far longer... This bill will make the inequality worse. So her argument is that we need to address the inequality first, before passing laws that would make a terrible situation worse... I hope this helps, and that it is clear and not too rambling. Regards, D
No, safeguards. As in, is this person of sound mind to make the decision? Are they making it of their own free will? How sure are we that this person only has 6 months to live?
What annoys me is these religious people deciding this for me , I'm not bloody religious and they should not be allowed to judge this through religion. I hate people who are religious who try to control others through it.
and you don't think you are being religiously dogmatic about your own lack of religiousness??? control others? is that something you think ONLY religious people do? and not people like you who are "not religious" at all???
@@tonydecastro6340Hes talking about choice not control. If the bill is in place people will have the choice. Religious nuts can chose pain. Athiests can chose to get out soon. Without the bill in place no one has a choice.
It’s up to you. If you want to die with dignity, to get out of chronic pain, I have seen this when Freind’s and family can’t even wipe their backside, and still have to endure the indignity for months when they wanted to go. Now there is a choice. TBH if I knew my time was up I would not want to be a burden to my family. My choice.
My great grandpa killed himself after receiving a cancer diagnosis so that my great grandma could still have money. I live in the US and this could be a reality in the UK as you privatize the NHS
I found what she said to be very moving and understanding of those who are vulnerable in our society. I've both experienced and witnessed health inequality. I've seen patients ignored and left to die because of laziness and poor work ethics on hospital wards, long waiting times for treatment because of wasteful disorganisation. If patients received timely and high quality treatment to manage their pain and treat their conditions effectively, whether terminal or not, they may feel that they want to live instead. Pain and suffering can be caused by poor health and social care. I can and have advocated for myself which has got me somewhere at least. Many cannot. That is why I simply cannot support this bill either.
Let people be free from prosecution in assisted suicide but keep it away from government intervention and the NHS, who really knows where this would lead to in the future, especially when the government are constantly trying to save money.
Disgraceful. Making people who wish to die suffer for weeks and months has never been acceptable. Murder remains illegal in the UK. I am in Canada and our MAID works brilliantly.
It's pathetic to listen to everyone complimenting each other for the civilised conduct of a very tedious, repetitive debate. Get on with it so that we don't have to save up to go to Switzerland.
It's pathetic hearing people like you bleating on and on and on about how you shouldn't have to suffer. Good, off you pop. However, what is being debated here is the potential for vulnerable groups including elderly; who could be coerced into unnecessarily dying by relatives or healthcare professionals basically for financial purposes. So imagine this Judith, your elderly mum is taking too long to die, you would rather she dies so you don't have to bother with her as well as have her money in order to take yourself off to Switzerland to avoid dying when your time comes. This may sound like a reasonable scenario to you and others of your ilk but it is not reasonable or ethical in anyway to those of us who understand the sanctity of life.
@@LisaTh-3-d What a weird and bizarre approach to your argument - it sounds like you aren't coming from a perspective of being worried about abuse, but an ideological perspective to preservation of life regardless of the views of the individual themselves. Yes, its so important to have appropriate safeguards and challenge any potential societal expectation. Why are you making up offensive hypotheticals about people just because they disagree?
@LisaTh-3-d Thanks but if your comment was removed it's nowt to do with me, these things are auto moderated, so please refrain from the mindless paranoia :)
@@zoranblackie5921 Thanks for clarifying zoranblackie, perhaps you can now clarify this for me, do you feel better for putting on your teacher face and telling me to 'refrain from the mindless paranoia'? Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about, now pop off and troll someone else eh?
@LisaTh-3-d Well I've been working in end of life care for 20 years so what do I know, seems you like to make sweeping statements and conspiratorial claims, so yeah I can be patronising to people when they're childish around serious issues
This bill is about choice for those that want it. A terminal disease is a death sentence. The only thing to do is take morphne up to the legal level every four hours, and hope you don't feel any pain. Unfortunately many do. I'd rather have a choice about when to end MY suffering, than go for days, weeks or even months full of opiates and eventually to nil by mouth. as my body shuts down through lack of water and nutrients. For those that are religious or who oppose this, fine you do you. No one would want to stop you from carrying out YOUR wishes. For the rest of us that have seen death and watched loved ones suffer. We simply ask for the choice to end our lives in a pain free, dignifed way, rather than to suffer for an extra few weeks that could be torturous to both ourselves and our relatives and friends.
if the logic by some is 'this is going to be exploited by x' then no one should make any kind of decision about anything political or otherwise on the off-chance that something bad may possibly happen to someone as a result.
A heartfelt and impassioned speech from a credible and valid life experience, but unfortunately a total, total non-sequitor. "Let's not make things better until things are better."
I’m really happy this has gone thru after seeing my father in law wither away thru cancer but it’s too late for him. Mostly religious zealots oppose this.
I'm sure that your father in law would've wanted to stay a little longer than be thrown in the bin like something past it's sell by date. The sanctity of life is sacred and must be respected and protected, unless you want go down the slippery slope and live in a world of "Life unworthy of life" and history shows us what happens next.
@@Tigerman303 Facts: atheist voted against it. Most people voted on basic principles of life to their natural end, some voted on their moral conscience. Be patient your time will come as all of us over billions of years. The creator has put time on everything to live and die science cannot oppose it. There is no arguments or debate about it
@@musasesay4439You're posting the same regurgitated shit in the comments. But although some athiests might be against it, its mostly religous dip shits that don't want assisted dying based on their indoctrinated delusions. Fact.
Rather than postponing and postponing trying to dot all the i's and cross all the t's which will ultimately take many years trying to create a single bill which covers and treats everybody fairly in every possible scenario, I hope an interim bill can be created for those most in need, for those who are in pain daily, with no chance of surviving to live another day in the way they'd like to. Because for example if somebody has terminal cancer where in the eyes of their doctor every day they have remaining will knowingly trend towards being a worse and worse day, then rather than being prescribed palliative care to reduce symptoms they should have the option to be able to be given the mercy of calling time in a more dignified way. Household pets currently have more rights than their legal owners in this respect and this has to change. And just like when a pet is taken to the vet and the vet recommends the pet should be put down, when a person goes to a doctor the doctor should ultimately be the gatekeeper for letting each person know such an option has become available for them should they choose to use it. Gatekeeping things in this way really minimises the possibility of abuse or coercion forcing people to end things prematurely.
She is completely right about how assisted dying will be exploited. Corporations see the majority as workers & consumers and if we cannot work then we are bled until we cannot live
What about Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland? Why do you only mention one country? Why not others that seem to have no wish whatsoever to rescind assisted dying?
@@PaulaW-wq1khLegislation could easily cover this. A homeless man in Canada applying isn't an argument. We can easily learn from the flaws of other countries. If its for terminally ill people not wanting to endure their last days in agony then it can only be good thing. Its really not hard to grasp.
I was surprised so many Labour MPs voted against the bill. However, I suspect it isn't a coincidence that the majority of those who did happen are religious.
Assisted dying is a sensible concept in principle, offering dignity and autonomy in situations where modern medicine can prolong suffering rather than improve quality of life. However, it raises ethical concerns, particularly for vulnerable groups like those in care homes, who might feel pressured due to financial or emotional burdens on their families or healthcare systems. While I would support further legislative readings on this issue, it is essential to clarify how the law would safeguard against coercion, ensure voluntary consent, and establish strict oversight to prevent abuse. This doesn’t change the need for reform in palliative care which is causing suffering and distress to many terminally ill people
What is wrong with someone in a care home wanting to die so they’re not a financial burden on their family? People aren’t in those places to get better, they’re there to die, why does it have to be dragged out as long as possible?
@ I completely understand the perspective that prolonging life in a care home, especially when there’s no hope of recovery, can feel unnecessary and even cruel. However, the concern with assisted dying in these case isn’t about denying someone’s wish to avoid suffering it’s about ensuring their decision is free from undue influence. If someone in a care home feels pressured to choose death because they believe they’re a financial burden, is that truly a free and autonomous choice? Safeguards are essential to ensure decisions are made without external pressures, so people don’t feel obligated to end their lives for others’ benefit. This balance between respecting personal freedom and protecting vulnerable individuals is what makes this issue complex. I’m not saying I’m against it I think we should have strict safeguards to prevent abuse
Sickle cell anaemia is not a terminal illness and therefore (one would hope) a sufferer would not be a candidate for assisted suicide. I think this should only be available for terminally ill people, not those with mental health or otherwise non fatal illnesses. We should make palliative care more accessible and yes treat people with disabilities and rare diseases such as sickle cell anaemia better within the healthcare system. Lastly, it should never be suggested by a doctor that assisted suicide is an option, and if there is a whiff of impropriety by family or those set to benefit from a patients death there should be severe penalties for everyone involved
Any MP that supports this bill is evading the truths in this moving and very caring speech The duties and obligations to society are expected to emanate from those paid to protect it.Where is the voice of unpaid carers?After privatising care in the community it's a serious reality that coercion could be widely practiced because they're breaking down from lack of support,unless they can pay or lose their house sometimes a decision made by relatives anxious to get financial gain,imagine this opportunity for someone on their knees and in debt Crimes waiting to happen.There are no safeguards against wrong prognoses,diagnoses and crime.What price life.The next question will be,how much cost alive and how much dead?This is very misguided,its not who we are in Britain and it will rapidly evolve into euthanasia We should be proud of this MP and of Wes Streeting whose reasons for opposing were truthful and intelligent This is rushed through by an MP who has no idea of the Pandoras box she's opening or she doesn't care and wants her name to go down in history ,if she was authentic she would not rush this through she wouldn't inflict her own morals on others who want to have a good nhs and care,who want to see unpaid carers given support and not have their lives ruined It only takes 2 Drs to say his or her anorexia, Bi polar,M.E or depression is terminal and we lose our precious teenagers easily. As Robin William's said,death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem As an unpaid carer who has experienced a loved one pleading to die daily in depression and now stable enough to enjoy life to the full and spend precious time with family I am disgusted with this bill and think it's lazy and a shortcut to reduce the cost of social care,such as it is. Disabled people already treated heinously by all 3 austerity parties are wise to be terrified of what else can be done to them
Forcing people to live in constant pain, suffering, misery has to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment, no? Her pro life stance means, "Your body my choice."
Time line of events: Mysterious virus released 2019 Mysterious vaccines administered 2021 Mysterious amount of people dying 2021-current day 2024 - assisted dying bill
At last , a way out for terminally ill people, who want to die with dignity, when the pain gets too much there is now an alternative. Hopefully no planned trips to end your life in another country.
Should still be a choice. Governments deciding on personal wishes of one's own self is dangerous ground indeed. We will never have the freedom in life, especially with those very same governments being in charge.
A bedouin traveller was in the desert with his Camel. A sandstorm is soon upon them. The Bedouin quickly puts up his tent and will be protected. As the storm whips up, the camel knocks on the tent and asks. Can I please put my ears in the tent that they may be protected. The sand is making it very uncomfortable!! Without hesitation the Bedouin with a big heart allows him to put his ears in the tent. No sooner had the camel received this protection when he asked if he could put his eyes in the tent that his eyes may be protected. Without a thought the Bedouin agrees. The camel just a short time later is now asking for his nose to be protected and possibly his shoulders. After requesting for more and more protection the camel is now fully in the tent. The Bedouin traveller is now out in the sandstorm with no protection. He gave up his rights to shelter when he was tempted by the camel so many times that he gave up all rights to his tent and protection. If we think for one minute we are protecting our rights you are being deceived. Stop and think carefully before you open the flap of your tent. Where is this leading. These are evil practices and we need to think carefully about what we are agreeing to. It may appear perfectly reasonable but the devil wears many disguises. He lulls people away, pacifies them into a false sense of security. Do not fall into this trap that you will NEVER get out of. 🙏
Without being over critical of those campaigning for assisted dying, I feel the need to point out my view of how this law will impact the poorest and most vulnerable most, and they will not have the personal power to resist pressures. Those driving this campaign, are middle class or upper class, relatively wealthy, and have been the most empowered people in our society. These campaigners are rich enough, and intelligent enough, to access assisted death for themselves or those they wish to help. Instead, the campaigners could fight for better end of life hospice care. It feels like a class issue again to me, the poorest and most vulnerable will be influenced into accepting their own demise, once the law makes it a much more acceptable choice. Regarding, checks and balances provided by our legal system, that is a joke. The UK and our police service rarely investigate crimes and the legal system is already suffering a backlog. Health and safety in the UK is a joke as we saw how the tenants of Grenfell were treated, and the devastation that occurred because tenants complaints were ignored. Imagine if an old person dies and assistance was given ? The new law would probably allow such a death to go without investigation. Be realistic, crimes will go unpunished and unchecked.
The old person will chose to die. If the old person doesn't chose then thats murder. Why are people continually trying to confliate the two? This is not a class perspective at all. Its about not spending your last days in a miserable existence. In many cases no amount of care will make that existence any less miserable.
Under the present Suicide Act 1961 section 2.4, a person can only be prosecuted for assisted suicide with the express approval of the DPP. Between 2009 and 2023, they declined to do so for 87% of cases, and a further 11% were not convicted of it at trial. The "crime" goes largely unpunished anyway.
POWERFUL POWERFUL POWERFUL speech, I know so many will disagree with her but I concur with her message. I do send massive compassion to those who vehemently disagree with her statement. This is not an easy bill.
It’s alright until you become disabled and your doctor and family want you gone. It’s happening in Canada as we speak!! There’s disabled people that get asked by their doctors if they are ready to consider euthanasia every opportunity 😮over 400 cases in Ontario this last year were carried out that were not according to the guidelines!
The family doesn’t have the ability to sign the paperwork. It would require the sick person to agree when they are in a sane mind. A doctor who would agree. There are safe guards in place except if your doctor is Harold Shipment, you are after their estate and coerced the patient into signing it. Seeing people in pain is very hard and emotional. If the patient was a pet, would you let them go or keep them in pain? If there are safe guards in place, we should let them decide how they want to rest peacefully.
It’s come very soon after the withdrawal of universal winter fuel and this in itself . Advocates stress the humane aspect. However, If a terminally ill person is in extreme pain and as such unable to administer the self dosage that kills it makes this policy appear very dubious indeed. How long before choice is another word for pressure because this government places less emphasis on a pain free death via palliative care when such an alternative is there.
Only Psychopaths would be so uncaring to support such a policy... The problem is not the self killing itself but rather what causes it... If you allow and even aupport such practices you will only make society weaker and more prone to collapse... A feedback loop will spiral into your extinction
*you have NO RIGHT to food, good and safe shelter, fair pay, privacy, clean air, clean water, protest, good and fast healthcare and so on* but you MIGHT, have the right to 'dye...' doesn't this seem a little warped to anyone else?
Yes, it is entirely warped to allow someone who is slowly but surely becoming a prisoner in their own body and having parts of what make them who they are chipped away each day decide that they would rather pass on with dignity and grace. Very much warped.
As we never gave ourselves life to begin with it's understandable to not be able to take it away with help or by yourself. It's murder no matter how it's dressed up. You will face a reckoning
Missed the point here didn't you lad. The point is the NHS is absolutely decimated by 14 years of mismanagement and acting like legalising assisted dying will solve it seems like a slippery slope to privatising the NHS and denying anyone whos poor or ethnic minority basic rights to healthcare. Also research what fascism actually is before you spew it out your gob for anything you disagree with.
It isnt' freedom if youre within a system that punishes you for being disabled. These debates are always so fucking stupid because they treat laws as though they dont exist within an actual context.
I understand the perspective that personal freedom, especially at the end of life, is important and deeply personal. However, I think it’s also worth considering that societal laws are designed not just to protect individual freedom but also to ensure that vulnerable people aren’t exploited or coerced. This isn’t necessarily a matter of ‘fascism’ but rather about finding a balance between individual autonomy and safeguards. Would you agree that some protections, like ensuring choices are fully informed and voluntary, are necessary to avoid potential abuses? I honestly think it’s important to debate these things rather than labelling one side fascist
@@TheoneandonlyArgmost people aren’t having those nuanced discussions though, especially from what I’ve seen on the no side. I’ve yet to see someone who says they are voting no have a point at which they feel the legal standards could be high enough that they’d be comfortable with the bill standing. The bill already prevents people who could benefit from the person seeking the end of their life from acting as proxies.
Facts: atheist voted against it. Most people voted on basic principles of life to their natural end, some voted on their moral conscience. Be patient your time will come as all of us over billions of years. The creator has put time on everything to live and die science cannot oppose it. There is no arguments or debate about it
4:12
Thats HER CHOICE
Its about CHOICE
She is acting so privelaged by telling the suffering "you are being forced to live because of my trauma"
Only in a system with socialised health care you change the relationship between doctor and patient for everyone. The state would now have a role in ending your life, the medics looking after us all will now have the option to help us kill ourselves whereas before their role was to do no harm, this is monstrous and it effects the health care system for everyone.
Her initial argument seems pretty flawed. Just because there are people not receiving sufficient care while alive doesn't mean people with terminal illnesses, living with pain every day, shouldn't have the choice to end their life. She says that we should address the lack of sufficient care FIRST but we can address both of these things at the same time, its not a choice of one or the other.
Section 15, "signing by proxy" is a much better argument against this bill, although having read the bill it seems pretty reasonable to my eyes, albeit not being an expert on the topic. There are provisions in place for assessing the mental capacity for the person wishing to die, so they would already be assessed as mentally capable and aware of what their decision means. There are provisions for who can and can not be a proxy. For example if you stand to make any material gains, financial or otherwise, you are disqualified from being a proxy. The declaration has to be signed in the presence of the person dying, the person dying obviously has to declare they are okay for the proxy to sign in their place, they cannot sign a second declaration if they were witness to the first, etc. Personally I would be in favor of this bill unless I hear an expert legal opinion on how this bill could be mis-used.
By definition a terminally ill person may be so poorly as to be unable to self adminster the drugs that kills them. What happens then?
@@Fortune-z1ipalliative care drugs invite disease & infection..what’s the difference of more or less pain..easy choice to me..🤔
@Fortune-z1i "By definition a terminally ill person may be so poorly as to be unable to self administer the drugs that kills them." That's a very vague definition, or you don't understand what a "definition" actually is... as a terminal illness is any illness that cannot be cured by current, conventional treatment, and will also result is death as a result of the effects of said illness.
@@Fortune-z1i That is covered in the bill under section 18 "In respect of an approved substance which is provided to the person under subsection (2), the coordinating doctor may- (a) (b) (c) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person, prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance" So a person not able to administer to substance themselves will have a medical device able to administer it under their control.
These people act all high and mighty but wouldn't do the basics to prevent regular suicide
I understand some people are apprehensive, those peoples feelings should not and must not trump the thousands of people who have to endure pain, suffering and misery and their friends and family who have to watch the ongoing suffering. A vote against is a vote against freedom and choice.
It's always from a privileged point of view
your freedom and choice perhaps? not the ill person?
No, it’s a vote for vulnerable, mentally unwell people being pushed unnecessarily towards an early death by a National Health that is not fit for purpose.
I'm severely disabled, with several physical, mental and neurological conditions. I switch between crutches, walking sticks and custom ortho specialist knee braces. I have to use the help of an assistance dog or carer to go places. Yet I oppose the bill. We're not against assisted death, we're against this specific bill, because there is a lack of safe guarding and a huge opportunity to take advantage of disabled people with this bill. They speak for us because you guys don't listen to disabled voices.
@Jell0Just
That is just a lie, the safeguards are extraordinarily strong. It's also about choice, feel free to choose not to, but if I got something like ALS I'd want that option.
It's a chance to go out peacefully on your own terms instead of suffering horribly.
This wasn't very convincing tbh. "We won't give people the freedom to choose their own death because we want to give people freedom in life(????)". A really poor argument. What about the terminally ill people who can't take pain medication? Would she be as passionate repeating that argument to someone writhing in pain for another 6 months?
That's selfish. YOU feel distress. YOU feel disturbed . YOU want the nasty upset taken away Matron,boo hoo.
Anyone else able to understand what Jane is trying to say? lol
Nope, incoherent Facebook mum ramblings
@@BarerRudeROC Nope. It's absolute incoherent gibberish. I don't think she actually understands anything you said.
@@janebaker966 WTF are you babbling about?! Not only does your reponse seem to have no relation to anything the OP said, but it also becomes increasingly incoherent towards the end.
My main concern is how to survive all of these financial and political crisis, especially in light of the US political power scuffle. The government has really called things more difficult for its citizens, and we can't sit back and bear all the consequences of the bad governance.
I had a lot of financial crisis then, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in life until $75,000 biweekly began rolling in and my Life went from A homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer.
Wow that's huge, how do you earn that much? I'm 37 years old and I've been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
I thank Evelyn Susanne Scarlett who has always been there to help me with detailed analysis and recommendations that I would not have had access to otherwise.
This is exactly what i have been searching for, she has captured my heart. She just got a new client
After raising 325k from trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the states and also paid for my son's (Tony) surgery, Glory be to God. Shalom
I have the right to life, why not the right to my own death?
Iff someone is disabled in a society and system that makes it difficult for them to live, then all you'r e doing is enabling sanctioned murder.
@@alphasword5541 No they are not, this only applies to people who have an illness that is terminal.
I couldn't agree with you more it is my life I can do what I want with it
@@Simple_Slmonthat’s how it starts! Just look into Canada and how it really works. 🤮.
@@timwoodger7896slippery slope fallacy
MP's against the bill are clearly doing so on religious grounds but do not have the guts to say it . They make any other excuse instead. If they want to die in pain so be it . These people to do not have the right to deny me my choice. Yet they think they do. We who believe in a civilized society must call out these people for what they are
In some cases this is true, but it’s not universally true. Jeremy Corbyn voted against the Bill and he’s an atheist. Whereas Lord Carey, who was literally the Archbishop of Canterbury (and a ‘conservative’ one at that) supports the Bill.
Facts: atheist voted against it. Most people voted on basic principles of life to their natural end, some voted on their moral conscience. Be patient your time will come as all of us over billions of years. The creator has put time on everything to live and die science cannot oppose it. There is no arguments or debate about it
@@christopherflux6254Corbyn just likes going against the grain
@@musasesay4439 Admittedly some MPs voting against were not religious . However the pious ones like yourself prove my point . You want the rest of society to live by your indoctrination and brainwashed ideology. You are ignavic. Meaning you lack your own moral strength to determine your own time of death . I do not.
@@musasesay4439Fact: there is no creator, only in your delusional mind.
People shouldn't have to suffer because of your delusional beleifs in imaginary sky psyco.
Grow up or don't grow up. But this discussion should be left to sensible rational adults and not religous nuts like you.
Science possesses many proven facts. Religion has never proven a thing. Otherwise it would be based on fact and not irrational faith. Learn the difference.
But rational people don't give a fuck what you nuts think.
I am concerned to be fair about the possibility that someone who wouldn’t have gone for euthanasia ordinarily if the NHS delivered the good care it should, but end up deciding to do assisted dying because of their terrible care. If this law passes, it really should be restricted and barriers to access should be very high.
I agree with this. I do think good care and this bill can be passed but I am concerned about the proxy element. I was put on a medication and I wanted to end my life but I had the ability to see a great doctor who put me on an additional tablet to smooth over those feelings. The tablet was called Ivabradine and it is horrendous but I need it for my heart. The tablet which helped was Lyrica which I need for my epilepsy. I am very open about this and I feel I have an insight into this.
We end the suffering of animals because it's humane. So where's our humanity when it comes to people's suffering?
We also do it without the animals wishes known. Its a terrible comparison.
@@Believe-you-me- No. It is an excellent comparison. If the animal could say "please let me die with dignity" then animal euthanasia would be exactly the same as human animal euthanasia
@ But the animal can’t.
@@Believe-you-me-but humans can. And they are asking, pleading begging. As a med student I frequent so many incidences where people are just looking for a way out; they’re all given therapy and mental assessments which comes back clear. “What good is life when all the rest is gone”
it’s always the religious nut-heads that have the nerve to deny suffering people their peace and tell them to endure the pain until their systems eventually give up. Livestock is treated more humanely than the terminally ill.
@ Exactly humans can (and should be asked well before the time comes). But animals CANNOT. It is forced on them by us.
Like abortions, my body, my choice.
Up to a point. You cant have yearly abortion for instance.
@@Believe-you-me-please do explain why people should not have the right to choose for themselves
@@Osindileyo re read what i wrote.
The baby has a “My” too!
@@samuelarthur887 seeing as it is a fetus and not a baby no it doesn't so bore off
I'm glad I don't have a vote on this as these MPs do. For as much as I have thought about it, and with a degree of familial experience, I still can't come down on one side. I find arguments on both sides compelling.
This MP made a good point. Resourcing the aims of the bill would deplete resources up until the time of enactment of the bill, previously set aside to give some patients a chance of continuing life.
It’s great when the moribund hand-wringers, who would have destroyed the printing presses of yore, and constantly stand in the way of progress and prevent the solving of the challenges we face - even when those in the minority will benefit - are defeated. The challenge now is for the government to govern, and produce a watertight system that can be applied to those unfortunate to be in such a position as requiring the need for assisted dying.
The experiences she shared are awful and shouldn't happen in this day and age.
They do seem to me, however, to be completely irrelevant to the bill that is being debated.
The connection is that if you have people in situations like the ones she described, they are far more likely to consider the terminal option, when if they were in the privileged position of having the correct pain management, they would be less likely to consider that option.
So if this bill passes it will create another inequality, where people who don't live in the "right area" (in the post-code lottery of NHS provision) or who aren't the "right race" (in the racial inequality that is seen in the stories shared) are pushed (or at least nudged) towards an unnecessary choice whilst those who are privileged enough to get a good quality of care do not need to consider the terminal option for far longer...
This bill will make the inequality worse. So her argument is that we need to address the inequality first, before passing laws that would make a terrible situation worse...
I hope this helps, and that it is clear and not too rambling.
Regards,
D
330 in favour - 270 against, now let's make sure those safeguards are really there
Safeguards? You mean barriers to having the right to choose what happens to your body?
No, safeguards. As in, is this person of sound mind to make the decision? Are they making it of their own free will? How sure are we that this person only has 6 months to live?
@@dw-yl3ln That’s a very good point.
What annoys me is these religious people deciding this for me , I'm not bloody religious and they should not be allowed to judge this through religion. I hate people who are religious who try to control others through it.
and you don't think you are being religiously dogmatic about your own lack of religiousness??? control others? is that something you think ONLY religious people do? and not people like you who are "not religious" at all???
@@tonydecastro6340Hes talking about choice not control.
If the bill is in place people will have the choice. Religious nuts can chose pain. Athiests can chose to get out soon.
Without the bill in place no one has a choice.
It’s up to you. If you want to die with dignity, to get out of chronic pain, I have seen this when Freind’s and family can’t even wipe their backside, and still have to endure the indignity for months when they wanted to go.
Now there is a choice. TBH if I knew my time was up I would not want to be a burden to my family. My choice.
My great grandpa killed himself after receiving a cancer diagnosis so that my great grandma could still have money. I live in the US and this could be a reality in the UK as you privatize the NHS
the UK will NOT privatize the NHS. they are not as mercenary as you when it comes to medical and health care.
@@tonydecastro6340Give it time!
I found what she said to be very moving and understanding of those who are vulnerable in our society. I've both experienced and witnessed health inequality. I've seen patients ignored and left to die because of laziness and poor work ethics on hospital wards, long waiting times for treatment because of wasteful disorganisation. If patients received timely and high quality treatment to manage their pain and treat their conditions effectively, whether terminal or not, they may feel that they want to live instead. Pain and suffering can be caused by poor health and social care. I can and have advocated for myself which has got me somewhere at least. Many cannot. That is why I simply cannot support this bill either.
Let people be free from prosecution in assisted suicide but keep it away from government intervention and the NHS, who really knows where this would lead to in the future, especially when the government are constantly trying to save money.
Disgraceful. Making people who wish to die suffer for weeks and months has never been acceptable. Murder remains illegal in the UK. I am in Canada and our MAID works brilliantly.
It's pathetic to listen to everyone complimenting each other for the civilised conduct of a very tedious, repetitive debate. Get on with it so that we don't have to save up to go to Switzerland.
It's pathetic hearing people like you bleating on and on and on about how you shouldn't have to suffer. Good, off you pop. However, what is being debated here is the potential for vulnerable groups including elderly; who could be coerced into unnecessarily dying by relatives or healthcare professionals basically for financial purposes.
So imagine this Judith, your elderly mum is taking too long to die, you would rather she dies so you don't have to bother with her as well as have her money in order to take yourself off to Switzerland to avoid dying when your time comes. This may sound like a reasonable scenario to you and others of your ilk but it is not reasonable or ethical in anyway to those of us who understand the sanctity of life.
@@LisaTh-3-d What a weird and bizarre approach to your argument - it sounds like you aren't coming from a perspective of being worried about abuse, but an ideological perspective to preservation of life regardless of the views of the individual themselves. Yes, its so important to have appropriate safeguards and challenge any potential societal expectation. Why are you making up offensive hypotheticals about people just because they disagree?
@LisaTh-3-d Thanks but if your comment was removed it's nowt to do with me, these things are auto moderated, so please refrain from the mindless paranoia :)
@@zoranblackie5921 Thanks for clarifying zoranblackie, perhaps you can now clarify this for me, do you feel better for putting on your teacher face and telling me to 'refrain from the mindless paranoia'? Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about, now pop off and troll someone else eh?
@LisaTh-3-d Well I've been working in end of life care for 20 years so what do I know, seems you like to make sweeping statements and conspiratorial claims, so yeah I can be patronising to people when they're childish around serious issues
This bill is about choice for those that want it. A terminal disease is a death sentence. The only thing to do is take morphne up to the legal level every four hours, and hope you don't feel any pain. Unfortunately many do. I'd rather have a choice about when to end MY suffering, than go for days, weeks or even months full of opiates and eventually to nil by mouth. as my body shuts down through lack of water and nutrients.
For those that are religious or who oppose this, fine you do you. No one would want to stop you from carrying out YOUR wishes. For the rest of us that have seen death and watched loved ones suffer. We simply ask for the choice to end our lives in a pain free, dignifed way, rather than to suffer for an extra few weeks that could be torturous to both ourselves and our relatives and friends.
@silvafox7719 very well written/expressed.
@SuperSagittaria Thank you.
Denying somebody the right to die is as bad or worse than denying the right to an abortion.
if the logic by some is 'this is going to be exploited by x' then no one should make any kind of decision about anything political or otherwise on the off-chance that something bad may possibly happen to someone as a result.
A heartfelt and impassioned speech from a credible and valid life experience, but unfortunately a total, total non-sequitor.
"Let's not make things better until things are better."
I’m really happy this has gone thru after seeing my father in law wither away thru cancer but it’s too late for him. Mostly religious zealots oppose this.
I'm sure that your father in law would've wanted to stay a little longer than be thrown in the bin like something past it's sell by date. The sanctity of life is sacred and must be respected and protected, unless you want go down the slippery slope and live in a world of "Life unworthy of life" and history shows us what happens next.
If anyone is a zealot, it's you.
@@Tigerman303 Facts: atheist voted against it. Most people voted on basic principles of life to their natural end, some voted on their moral conscience. Be patient your time will come as all of us over billions of years. The creator has put time on everything to live and die science cannot oppose it. There is no arguments or debate about it
@@musasesay4439You're posting the same regurgitated shit in the comments.
But although some athiests might be against it, its mostly religous dip shits that don't want assisted dying based on their indoctrinated delusions. Fact.
@@musasesay4439 The creator 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I wonder how many people who are pro life are pro this bill.
Rather than postponing and postponing trying to dot all the i's and cross all the t's which will ultimately take many years trying to create a single bill which covers and treats everybody fairly in every possible scenario, I hope an interim bill can be created for those most in need, for those who are in pain daily, with no chance of surviving to live another day in the way they'd like to. Because for example if somebody has terminal cancer where in the eyes of their doctor every day they have remaining will knowingly trend towards being a worse and worse day, then rather than being prescribed palliative care to reduce symptoms they should have the option to be able to be given the mercy of calling time in a more dignified way.
Household pets currently have more rights than their legal owners in this respect and this has to change. And just like when a pet is taken to the vet and the vet recommends the pet should be put down, when a person goes to a doctor the doctor should ultimately be the gatekeeper for letting each person know such an option has become available for them should they choose to use it. Gatekeeping things in this way really minimises the possibility of abuse or coercion forcing people to end things prematurely.
She is completely right about how assisted dying will be exploited. Corporations see the majority as workers & consumers and if we cannot work then we are bled until we cannot live
Look into Canada, a homeless Man has applied for it 😢
What about Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland? Why do you only mention one country? Why not others that seem to have no wish whatsoever to rescind assisted dying?
@@intergalactickoala665 States that have it need to regulate it and prevent it from being exploited by corporations (much like healthcare)
@Jamezontoast America is, in every conceivable way relating to health services, f**ked.
@@PaulaW-wq1khLegislation could easily cover this. A homeless man in Canada applying isn't an argument. We can easily learn from the flaws of other countries.
If its for terminally ill people not wanting to endure their last days in agony then it can only be good thing.
Its really not hard to grasp.
Nobody gets to choose how I life or I die. I will go at a time of my choosing. Nobody with any reason they can give should be able to deny me this.
wow what a powerful speach
Freedom to choose to die is ‘freedom in life’. I understand her compassionate words but I feel she’s contradicting herself.
I thought that this was a very good speech.
I was surprised so many Labour MPs voted against the bill. However, I suspect it isn't a coincidence that the majority of those who did happen are religious.
So no we are going to be playing GOD.
Assisted dying is a sensible concept in principle, offering dignity and autonomy in situations where modern medicine can prolong suffering rather than improve quality of life. However, it raises ethical concerns, particularly for vulnerable groups like those in care homes, who might feel pressured due to financial or emotional burdens on their families or healthcare systems. While I would support further legislative readings on this issue, it is essential to clarify how the law would safeguard against coercion, ensure voluntary consent, and establish strict oversight to prevent abuse. This doesn’t change the need for reform in palliative care which is causing suffering and distress to many terminally ill people
What is wrong with someone in a care home wanting to die so they’re not a financial burden on their family?
People aren’t in those places to get better, they’re there to die, why does it have to be dragged out as long as possible?
@ I completely understand the perspective that prolonging life in a care home, especially when there’s no hope of recovery, can feel unnecessary and even cruel. However, the concern with assisted dying in these case isn’t about denying someone’s wish to avoid suffering it’s about ensuring their decision is free from undue influence. If someone in a care home feels pressured to choose death because they believe they’re a financial burden, is that truly a free and autonomous choice? Safeguards are essential to ensure decisions are made without external pressures, so people don’t feel obligated to end their lives for others’ benefit. This balance between respecting personal freedom and protecting vulnerable individuals is what makes this issue complex. I’m not saying I’m against it I think we should have strict safeguards to prevent abuse
Sickle cell anaemia is not a terminal illness and therefore (one would hope) a sufferer would not be a candidate for assisted suicide. I think this should only be available for terminally ill people, not those with mental health or otherwise non fatal illnesses. We should make palliative care more accessible and yes treat people with disabilities and rare diseases such as sickle cell anaemia better within the healthcare system. Lastly, it should never be suggested by a doctor that assisted suicide is an option, and if there is a whiff of impropriety by family or those set to benefit from a patients death there should be severe penalties for everyone involved
Any MP that supports this bill is evading the truths in this moving and very caring speech The duties and obligations to society are expected to emanate from those paid to protect it.Where is the voice of unpaid carers?After privatising care in the community it's a serious reality that coercion could be widely practiced because they're breaking down from lack of support,unless they can pay or lose their house sometimes a decision made by relatives anxious to get financial gain,imagine this opportunity for someone on their knees and in debt Crimes waiting to happen.There are no safeguards against wrong prognoses,diagnoses and crime.What price life.The next question will be,how much cost alive and how much dead?This is very misguided,its not who we are in Britain and it will rapidly evolve into euthanasia We should be proud of this MP and of Wes Streeting whose reasons for opposing were truthful and intelligent
This is rushed through by an MP who has no idea of the Pandoras box she's opening or she doesn't care and wants her name to go down in history ,if she was authentic she would not rush this through she wouldn't inflict her own morals on others who want to have a good nhs and care,who want to see unpaid carers given support and not have their lives ruined
It only takes 2 Drs to say his or her anorexia, Bi polar,M.E or depression is terminal and we lose our precious teenagers easily.
As Robin William's said,death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem
As an unpaid carer who has experienced a loved one pleading to die daily in depression and now stable enough to enjoy life to the full and spend precious time with family I am disgusted with this bill and think it's lazy and a shortcut to reduce the cost of social care,such as it is.
Disabled people already treated heinously by all 3 austerity parties are wise to be terrified of what else can be done to them
I find your arguments totally unconvincing
Forcing people to live in constant pain, suffering, misery has to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment, no? Her pro life stance means, "Your body my choice."
Time line of events:
Mysterious virus released 2019
Mysterious vaccines administered 2021
Mysterious amount of people dying 2021-current day
2024 - assisted dying bill
At last , a way out for terminally ill people, who want to die with dignity, when the pain gets too much there is now an alternative. Hopefully no planned trips to end your life in another country.
Why did Corbyn vote against this bill?
Her argument is flawed
Women telling us what we can do with our bodies 😳
⚖️
Should still be a choice. Governments deciding on personal wishes of one's own self is dangerous ground indeed. We will never have the freedom in life, especially with those very same governments being in charge.
A bedouin traveller was in the desert with his Camel. A sandstorm is soon upon them. The Bedouin quickly puts up his tent and will be protected. As the storm whips up, the camel knocks on the tent and asks. Can I please put my ears in the tent that they may be protected.
The sand is making it very uncomfortable!!
Without hesitation the Bedouin with a big heart allows him to put his ears in the tent. No sooner had the camel received this protection when he asked if he could put his eyes in the tent that his eyes may be protected. Without a thought the Bedouin agrees. The camel just a short time later is now asking for his nose to be protected and possibly his shoulders. After requesting for more and more protection the camel is now fully in the tent. The Bedouin traveller is now out in the sandstorm with no protection. He gave up his rights to shelter when he was tempted by the camel so many times that he gave up all rights to his tent and protection. If we think for one minute we are protecting our rights you are being deceived. Stop and think carefully before you open the flap of your tent. Where is this leading. These are evil practices and we need to think carefully about what we are agreeing to. It may appear perfectly reasonable but the devil wears many disguises. He lulls people away, pacifies them into a false sense of security. Do not fall into this trap that you will NEVER get out of. 🙏
Without being over critical of those campaigning for assisted dying, I feel the need to point out my view of how this law will impact the poorest and most vulnerable most, and they will not have the personal power to resist pressures.
Those driving this campaign, are middle class or upper class, relatively wealthy, and have been the most empowered people in our society.
These campaigners are rich enough, and intelligent enough, to access assisted death for themselves or those they wish to help.
Instead, the campaigners could fight for better end of life hospice care.
It feels like a class issue again to me, the poorest and most vulnerable will be influenced into accepting their own demise, once the law makes it a much more acceptable choice. Regarding, checks and balances provided by our legal system, that is a joke. The UK and our police service rarely investigate crimes and the legal system is already suffering a backlog. Health and safety in the UK is a joke as we saw how the tenants of Grenfell were treated, and the devastation that occurred because tenants complaints were ignored.
Imagine if an old person dies and assistance was given ? The new law would probably allow such a death to go without investigation. Be realistic, crimes will go unpunished and unchecked.
It creates a conveyor belt of insufficient healthcare to assisted dying for the most vulnerable
That's a good take, I've never seen from this perspective before.
BS.
The old person will chose to die. If the old person doesn't chose then thats murder. Why are people continually trying to confliate the two?
This is not a class perspective at all. Its about not spending your last days in a miserable existence. In many cases no amount of care will make that existence any less miserable.
Under the present Suicide Act 1961 section 2.4, a person can only be prosecuted for assisted suicide with the express approval of the DPP. Between 2009 and 2023, they declined to do so for 87% of cases, and a further 11% were not convicted of it at trial. The "crime" goes largely unpunished anyway.
wow...
POWERFUL POWERFUL POWERFUL speech, I know so many will disagree with her but I concur with her message. I do send massive compassion to those who vehemently disagree with her statement. This is not an easy bill.
All votes should be by conscious not by party whip
It’s alright until you become disabled and your doctor and family want you gone.
It’s happening in Canada as we speak!! There’s disabled people that get asked by their doctors if they are ready to consider euthanasia every opportunity 😮over 400 cases in Ontario this last year were carried out that were not according to the guidelines!
READ THE FUCKING BILL
So adjust it..🤔
If it makes money they will pass the bill.
It was a free vote by all mps.
so Politics joe y'all against people dying with dignity??
She is probably religious but too embarrassed to admit it
While capitlism exists, AD will be used as a means of 'decreasing the surplus population' via all kinds of cohersive forces.
perhaps she has no considered ones right to choose how to live and how to die
Legalise weed has to be next
The family doesn’t have the ability to sign the paperwork. It would require the sick person to agree when they are in a sane mind. A doctor who would agree. There are safe guards in place except if your doctor is Harold Shipment, you are after their estate and coerced the patient into signing it. Seeing people in pain is very hard and emotional. If the patient was a pet, would you let them go or keep them in pain? If there are safe guards in place, we should let them decide how they want to rest peacefully.
I 100% agree with her
It’s come very soon after the withdrawal of universal winter fuel and this in itself . Advocates stress the humane aspect. However, If a terminally ill person is in extreme pain and as such unable to administer the self dosage that kills it makes this policy appear very dubious indeed. How long before choice is another word for pressure because this government places less emphasis on a pain free death via palliative care when such an alternative is there.
Slippery slope fallacy.
The title of this video needs an apostrophe, guys.
Only Psychopaths would be so uncaring to support such a policy... The problem is not the self killing itself but rather what causes it... If you allow and even aupport such practices you will only make society weaker and more prone to collapse... A feedback loop will spiral into your extinction
Yt censorship must stop.
Does the UK want a Canada situation with MAID?
No, but that's also not what is being proposed - far from it
oooh MPs sat down..cos the communities affected r Tories?????
Mps on all sides had a free vote. Many voted for and against this is democracy in action
👀
*you have NO RIGHT to food, good and safe shelter, fair pay, privacy, clean air, clean water, protest, good and fast healthcare and so on* but you MIGHT, have the right to 'dye...'
doesn't this seem a little warped to anyone else?
Yes, it is entirely warped to allow someone who is slowly but surely becoming a prisoner in their own body and having parts of what make them who they are chipped away each day decide that they would rather pass on with dignity and grace. Very much warped.
@@intergalactickoala665 didn't say I was against AD now did I?
do you even reading comprehension?
@@satyasyasatyasya5746 Didn't say you were against AD.
Do YOU even have reading comprehension?
@@intergalactickoala665 nope. quote me, where did I say I was against it?
@@satyasyasatyasya5746 Oh my. I think you're confused. I never said you were against it, little one. Read my original message again.
1930's Germany
This will be so bad. I don't not trust any govmt to act with true compassion. It's not what it is but what it would be used for. Thx tim
It was a free vote by mps on all sides. Many from all the parties voted for it. You argument is flawed
As we never gave ourselves life to begin with it's understandable to not be able to take it away with help or by yourself. It's murder no matter how it's dressed up. You will face a reckoning
Oh god tears in my eyes 🥺 what a powerful speech
Anyone arguing against the freedom to end your own life is a fascist.
Missed the point here didn't you lad. The point is the NHS is absolutely decimated by 14 years of mismanagement and acting like legalising assisted dying will solve it seems like a slippery slope to privatising the NHS and denying anyone whos poor or ethnic minority basic rights to healthcare. Also research what fascism actually is before you spew it out your gob for anything you disagree with.
It isnt' freedom if youre within a system that punishes you for being disabled. These debates are always so fucking stupid because they treat laws as though they dont exist within an actual context.
I understand the perspective that personal freedom, especially at the end of life, is important and deeply personal. However, I think it’s also worth considering that societal laws are designed not just to protect individual freedom but also to ensure that vulnerable people aren’t exploited or coerced.
This isn’t necessarily a matter of ‘fascism’ but rather about finding a balance between individual autonomy and safeguards. Would you agree that some protections, like ensuring choices are fully informed and voluntary, are necessary to avoid potential abuses? I honestly think it’s important to debate these things rather than labelling one side fascist
Or more of a visionary than yourself, perhaps?
@@TheoneandonlyArgmost people aren’t having those nuanced discussions though, especially from what I’ve seen on the no side. I’ve yet to see someone who says they are voting no have a point at which they feel the legal standards could be high enough that they’d be comfortable with the bill standing. The bill already prevents people who could benefit from the person seeking the end of their life from acting as proxies.
what errant nonsense.
Facts: atheist voted against it. Most people voted on basic principles of life to their natural end, some voted on their moral conscience. Be patient your time will come as all of us over billions of years. The creator has put time on everything to live and die science cannot oppose it. There is no arguments or debate about it
Keep those who are suffering in pain and misery so we can keep making money off them. New aged Compassionate Labour.
I really hope they vote against this bill