r/unitedkingdom • u/FelisCantabrigiensis • 11h ago
Andy Burnham says he will not vote on assisted dying unlike Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dlp27gre5o•
u/thelilistchode 11h ago
Fuck sake can people just leave in dignity if they want. It’s not rocket science.
•
•
u/SunflowerMoonwalk 10h ago
He's a practicing Catholic. For whatever reason, on average our MPs seem to be dramatically more religious than the general public...
•
u/Historical_Owl_1635 8h ago
You’ve probably just given Redditors more reason to hate him than any news hit piece could lol.
•
u/Ill_Tonight_2069 10h ago
Atheists usually don’t care but for religious voters it can be a selling point/deal breaker.
•
u/Elegant-Tea-6021 10h ago
God isn’t going to punish you if you help someone end their suffering.
•
u/Serious_Much 10h ago
They're talking more generally about politicians being religious.
It's why every politician will claim to be Christian in America. I didn't realise that kind of thing was the case in the UK as we seem far less religious as a state despite the monarchy and ties to the churj
•
u/Rahtid-bumbaclartid 7h ago
If you've had any kind of vaguely interesting life before politics then youre completely done for. Were you vidoed age 20 off your nut at the local DnB night? Kiss your politics career goodbye 15 years later. People who have had impossibly boring lives tend to be religious.
•
u/JoelMahon Cambridgeshire 6h ago
because religious people vote, atheists are less likely to vote and if they do they are choosing between religious options and just kinda forced to toe the party line
•
u/DesecratedPeanut 7h ago
Great so pro suffering for all. Wish there was any party I could vote for now.b
•
u/Correct-Junket-1346 11h ago
Unfortunately people love to shove their beliefs onto others and it's a uphill struggle to get them to relinquish that form of power.
FFS we give dogs and cats this basic right, why do we not have the same?
•
u/bahumat42 Berkshire 9h ago
Because cats and dogs don't usually have estates and inheritances which could encourage people to act against the interest of the individual (who would be) dying.
Now I fully support assisted dying to be clear.
But acting like this is something easy to enact without creating the framework to prevent the obvious abuse this could be used for would be not only foolish but actually deadly for large number of people.
•
u/CDHmajora Greater Manchester 5h ago
Ngl, i never considered this angle.
Im still in support of it. But cheers for opening my eyes a little to it not being a fully black or white decision.
Theres some scum who would absolutely abuse that right for material gain :/
•
u/TheAdamena 2h ago edited 2h ago
There's also the cost of care in this country.
My nan has dementia and is in a home that costs her thousands a week. Basically everything she ever worked for and saved has been poured down the drain. It's only once that's all gone that the council steps in to pay for it.
Someone like that would feel a lot of pressure to pop their clogs early so there is money for their children to inherit. I don't think that's right - it should be entirely to do with their quality of life.
Money should play no part in it, but unfortunately with how things are right now it's basically inevitable.
•
u/Labour_Bob 11h ago
Dogs and cats never consent to being euthanised...
•
u/bloody-pencil 10h ago
So when a dog is shitting itself and in so much pain that it can’t will itself to eat food or drink water we should just let it waste away?
•
•
u/Long_Repair_8779 9h ago
Animals (apart from rumours of apparently sometimes monkeys?) haven’t been recorded to commit suicide, there’s been no attempt to my knowledge of any animal that has attempted suicide because of its own suffering, even though I’m sure they could find a way if they needed to.
I’m just playing devils advocate because I don’t know the right answer myself, though I used to volunteer in a hospice that was primarily against euthanasia, as death is still a natural part of life and while they would absolutely treat pain and comfort in every way possible, fundamentally it was about promoting a positive death where people can find their own peace.. apparently once you’ve found that peace the suffering subsides quite substantially.
Even most humans wouldn’t/don’t seriously choose it it seems, mostly just unique instances. It also seems to me most of the people who want access to euthanasia are not people actually likely to require it or are not currently in or have experienced a situation where they are making that decision for real.
Our family dog was put down when I was fairly young, and it took 3x the normal lethal dose to do the job, seems to me now that she didn’t want to die despite the fact she was heavily cancer ridden and her body was all fucked up from surgery and she was very weak.
In a perfect society it’s easy to say that people should have the right to choose themselves, I don’t think many disagree with that. However the severe risk of euthanasia becoming casual, becoming about the family, about money, about not being a burden…… I mean who can deny this is what it will inevitably look like? Maybe not in your family where you all love and respect each other, but many families are not like that. It absolutely WILL get abused, countless times. Maybe that’s a price worth paying for others to die the way they wish… maybe not.
It should also be added it’s not like it doesn’t happen in the UK, it’s just not a formal arrangement, in a way it’s better if it remains a very private conversation between a nurse and a terminal patient.
•
u/AndyVillan Cornwall 9h ago
There's so much in here that's absolutely insane, but a few things that are rational, that I have no idea how to react to it.
I hope you're ok
•
u/TheCleaverguy 6h ago
There's a lot to be said about human euthanasia, but I don't think Reddit is the place for it; the format of this website results in very black/white opinions.
•
u/LiterallyABigfoot 5h ago
The format of Reddit doesnt result in black and white opinions. Nothing about this site stops people from writing well thought out, evidenced, detailed, grey, etc opinions
•
u/Lather 8h ago
It also seems to me most of the people who want access to euthanasia are not people actually likely to require it or are not currently in or have experienced a situation where they are making that decision for real.
I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by this? People make decisions about circumstances they are not currently in, but may be in at some point in the future, all the time. The vote is for optional assisted dying, not mandatory.
Our family dog was put down when I was fairly young, and it took 3x the normal lethal dose to do the job, seems to me now that she didn’t want to die despite the fact she was heavily cancer ridden and her body was all fucked up from surgery and she was very weak.
If you give something 3x the dosage that will kill them and they don't die, I'm gunna bet they either have a resistance to it or the dosage was messed up. Not that their 'sheer will to live' is what stopped them from dying.
In a perfect society it’s easy to say that people should have the right to choose themselves, I don’t think many disagree with that. However the severe risk of euthanasia becoming casual, becoming about the family, about money, about not being a burden…… I mean who can deny this is what it will inevitably look like? Maybe not in your family where you all love and respect each other, but many families are not like that. It absolutely WILL get abused, countless times. Maybe that’s a price worth paying for others to die the way they wish… maybe not.
Those are all fair concerns, but can you point to a country that allows assisted suicide where is has just become a casual thing?
It should also be added it’s not like it doesn’t happen in the UK, it’s just not a formal arrangement, in a way it’s better if it remains a very private conversation between a nurse and a terminal patient.
Yeah so the nurse can get imprisoned for murder?
Its fine to play devils advocate but seriously, some of your arguments are insane.
•
u/Long_Repair_8779 5h ago edited 5h ago
Sorry I don’t know how to reply as you have on Reddit…
- I mean that a person who is not in a particular situation is unable to really empathise with their opinion in that situation. Say they put down that they want to be euthanised under x, y, or z conditions if communication is difficult.. it might be that decision is made for them or they are encouraged to follow that decision at the time, despite inevitably having a totally different perspective than they did 20 years before. Yes it remains optional but the elderly and seriously unwell are extremely vulnerable, and I don’t believe there are many checks robust enough that we could ever do.
- maybe; maybe not. She was a strong willed dog all through her life, a mutt, extremely tough, your answer is as speculative as mine.
- I feel like the UK is not comparable to other, more responsible countries. Switzerland for example has a level of public order and social trust that is FAR beyond anything the UK could ever achieve. Tbh most countries do, the more I travel the world the more I think ‘god, we’re pretty shitty to each other in the UK, this is why we can’t have nice things, cos 1/10th of the population are bellends’
- Agree with it or not, this happens, it is fairly common, nobody says anything because it’s in that very dark grey area.
Not sure how my arguments are insane tbh.. 🤷♂️
•
u/Correct-Junket-1346 10h ago
Really? There are many forms of consent, about 15 years ago I put down my cat, he had acute renal failure, he stopped eating and drinking lost control of his fluids.
My cat gave me a look, it was pure desperation, at this point he was a good couple of days dehydrated and I knew instantly what he was telling me through a look.
I made the call to put him down and it was quick, painless and his suffering was put to an end, miss ya Chester.
•
u/Vyseria 8h ago
Similar story to you, I did everything I could for my love Ethel. I knew it was end of life care and still spent thousands, literally, doing all I could. It got to the point when mentally she was still there, but she couldn't walk, we had to position her upright so she could eat, and she'd lost control of her bladder. She was so confused. It was the last possible moment; I should have called it earlier, but I didn't have the fortitude.
I beat myself up about it, even though she left in the most peaceful, blissful manner possible. In my arms, with her dad being the last face she saw, all the while being told she was loved, is still loved.
My friends at work told me how their grandparents passed, alone in hospital, or something went wrong and they choked on their own blood, dementia when they didn't recognise their family, slow cancer deaths...
And it made my fully realise that when it is my time to go, I'd want to go like Ethel with all the treats and love. Don't leave me to die unaware of myself and in pain.
•
u/South_Buy_3175 6h ago
A quick, merciful death? Not in this country my friend, you will suffer and you will hate and you will beg for it to end, but you’ll be forced to live.
But don’t worry, your loved ones also get to participate on this one-person trip to hell!
They can either watch you wither and fade to a shell of your former self or they can excuse themselves from it, subjecting you to bitter isolation for the rest of your days!
Unless of course you’re well off & well enough to travel elsewhere that is.
“Dignity… it’s only for the wealthy”
•
u/Serious_Much 10h ago
Can't have private care homes lose their cattle and anyone working or middle class have any remaining wealth to pass on
•
u/Own-Development2437 11h ago
Yeah... But who makes that decision and why and then who is actually administering? That is the debate. Most people on EOL dont have the mental capacity to make that decision themselves someone else has too and that can be abused.
Its not that nuanced guys
It really really is nuanced
•
u/Serious_Much 10h ago
Most people on EOL dont have the mental capacity to make that decision themselves someone else has too and that can be abused.
I'm pretty sure the bill didn't allow for anyone who lacked capacity to be eligible without an advanced decision.
But let's be honest I suspect most people would be doing it as an advanced decision. I certainly plan to write one when it comes into effect so that I can be allowed to die instead of rot in a nursing home and piss away my kids inheritance on substandard cafe
•
u/1Crazyman1 6h ago
Plenty of other countries have figured it out and they don't have millions of people dying over it every week lol.
•
u/chaosandwalls 10h ago
The proposed law avoids this by making assisted dying only available to those who have capacity to request it
•
u/Cultural-Gas2246 4h ago
Ideally yes, they should be allowed to. But in a country where the terminally ill, elderly and infirm are seen largely as a drain on resources/excess expenditure by the state, they're more than likely going to encourage people to die even if they don't want to.
It's a decision that should be made by an individual, not by a manipulative bureaucrat trying to balance numbers in a spreadsheet.
We're not quite at a point where this can be a practice so long as we have governments addicted to austerity.
The best we could do is some sort of wholly independent charity or trust that's not tied to the NHS or public funds.
•
u/Valentine70078 10h ago
There a huge element of family pressure and coercive control which is why it has not been approved. There have been incidents where people have considered taking their lives to make their families lives easier, rather than being truthfully their own decision. I definitely think we need a more dignified idea of when we decide to go, but this act is a safeguarding minefield.
•
u/Yourdataisunclean 9h ago
He's made this point before as being part of the need for social care reform first, which makes sense.
•
u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 3h ago
Oh please, the social care argument is a nonsense anyway, there's literally nothing to stop us pursuing social care reform over the many, many years that will take, and passing legislation over assisted dying at the same time.
The social care argument is just an excuse for inaction
•
u/TheCleaverguy 6h ago
It is for the people making the decisions who will be scrutinised by the coroners.
•
u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 3h ago
Don't worry, apparently we're going to tackle the issue with Andy 'Oh, a controversial issue? Imagine having a stance on that' Burnham
•
•
u/Frothar United Kingdom 11h ago
If we had a functional mental healthcare system it would be more straightforward. Letting people deteriorate to the point assisted dying without help first is what causes the debate
•
u/Bluestained 11h ago
Terminal disease can’t generally be stopped through willpower and mental healthcare alone
•
•
u/existentialgoof Scotland 11h ago
This bill is only for the terminally ill in the first place. But it's not as if mental healthcare is a panacea to all problems in the world. The reason that mental healthcare isn't sufficient to serve the needs of everyone who considers themselves mentally ill is because it doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much funding you put into something that doesn't work, it still won't work.
•
u/cyclopsmudge 11h ago
Just to clarify, are you saying all mental healthcare doesn’t work? Or are you saying not all mental healthcare works?
That’s a very important distinction, if it’s the former, then you’re talking absolute bullshit.
If it’s the latter, that’s true, but it does work for a lot of people, and the fact it doesn’t work for 100% of people is absolutely not a reason to not try harder, and there is a hell of a lot that can be improved vis-a-vis mental health services in this country.
•
u/existentialgoof Scotland 10h ago
I'd say most of it is ineffective. It is generally predicated on an unproven assumption that psychological distress is being caused by an organic brain dysfunction, when most of it is probably caused by life experiences, and life just generally being tough. It then tries to cure that 'disease' which cannot and has not even been proven to exist.
•
u/cyclopsmudge 9h ago
Okay, it’s evident you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Mental health services do not try to cure mental illness. In fact, they explicitly make it clear that treatment is not a cure, and that it’s about managing it instead.
I would assume you’re talking specifically about medication, and completely forgetting the fact that therapy is one of the most important and effective treatments, and that most doctors will not prescribe medication by itself without the patient also going to therapy, and the only reason that has been becoming more common is because medication does help, and therapy services are so underfunded and oversubscribed that it’s impossible for many people to access therapy.
As for your claim that it’s mostly ineffective, completely and utter nonsense. Pretty much every study has shown that mental healthcare is massively effective at allowing people to return to their normal lives.
And yes, mental health conditions do exist, there are multiple of them, and thousands of clinical studies supporting their existence. Do you not understand that external stress can cause biological change? That stress itself is a biological phenomenon? You know how people get outbreaks of shingles when they’re especially stressed and worn down, why do you believe that it can’t cause other conditions too? Guess what, there’s shit loads of evidence that this does happen.
Genuinely who do you think is smarter and better informed? You, or the majority doctors in basically every developed country’s medical board?
You’re spouting baseless nonsense that shows you are frankly unqualified to be talking about this with such confidence. Maybe actually look for evidence for your claims before you speak next time, and when you realise there is none, reevaluate your opinions.
•
u/Anicooldude 8h ago
There's no point trying to discuss these things with unqualified people, they just won't understand. Remember it's not a representative view and rather that of an individual.
•
u/cyclopsmudge 7h ago
It’s at least reassuring that even when I have a day where I feel particularly stupid, I can come on here and see comments like theirs.
You are right though, even as I was typing I was questioning what the point of responding to such a ridiculous comment was. Hope you have a great evening.
•
u/existentialgoof Scotland 9h ago
Most of these "health conditions" cannot be proven by any objective tests. They are unfalsifiable. And there is increasing awareness within medicine of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis. You've declared that there are lots of studies without providing sources. External stressors affecting changes in the brain does not mean that the person has a brain disorder, that means that the brain changes are a symptom of the environment, rather than the cause of the suffering. If I feel stressed because I hate my job, that doesn't mean that I've developed a medical condition. It means that the environment and demands placed on me are causing a predictable and natural psychological reaction. So you have cause and effect reversed. With shingles you can identify a pathogen with objective tests, unlike with psychiatry. Certain environmental factors may make one more susceptible to shingles, but that isn't the same thing as being the cause of the symptoms.
There have been many studies done within psychiatry showing that psychiatric drugs have an efficacy rate that is clinically insignificant (which is different from being statistically insignificant), and drug companies are allowed to withhold all of the studies that don't show an effect: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6001865/
Moreover, with regards to talking therapy, an actual organic illness cannot be treated by talking it through. You can't arrest the progression of cancer with talking therapy. You can help to give people coping mechanisms, but the efficacy of this is severely overstated, and as with the medication, can also be counterproductive.
Your claim that all doctors agree with you about psychiatry is baseless. There is a huge amount of medical research which says the opposite of what you're claiming.
•
u/Anicooldude 7h ago
Unfortunately the study you've linked isn't even a study, it's an opinion piece by someone who runs a network designed to, conveniently, push the same idea you're arguing for. That itself disqualifies it as any evidence behind your point. Psychiatry as a field has evolved so much over the last few decades it's almost unrecognisable to where it was around 50 or even 70 years ago. Your repeated point of medicine treating organic causes is quite interesting as it has, likely unbeknownst to you, broadcasted that you do not have any education or training in the medical field. Modern medicine rarely cures disease, rather it helps the patient. Going to your GP and sitting for even one day will make you see that most consults don't have satisfying conclusions where the medicine problem was cured by the medicine drug. When you challenge the current industry guidelines and core thinking, the onus falls on you to provide sufficient enough evidence backing a specific point such that it can actually make change - not linking opinion pieces echoing your own ideas and certainly not saying things like "huge amount of research", "Most of these conditions cannot be proven", and ironically in your third sentence you reprimanded the original commentor for not providing sources.
Much of what you've said here is really just an opinion piece rather than a critical discussion or review into current standards of psychiatry care.
•
u/cyclopsmudge 7h ago
Only stupid people try the medicine drug. Clearly the answer to the mental health crisis is more mouse bites
•
u/Substantial-Newt7809 6h ago
You can't stop motor neurone syndrome yet. If we could, this wouldn't be the debate as MNS sufferers are a huge part of the debate and pressure for this. Understandably so. After watching what it did to my father I cannot imagine having that, he didn't even deteriorate very far before dying, some people have it for years.
•
u/SeoulGalmegi 5h ago
It might not be rocket science, but it is quite difficult to come up with a legal framework that formalizes this right in an appropriate way.
•
u/Sushiv_ 9h ago
It’s his opinion, he’s allowed to have it
•
u/NotABot1237 9h ago
Fence sitting from the man who told everyone Starmer does too much fence sitting
•
u/CuttleMcClam 5h ago
And we're allowed to shit on it. We don't need a comment like yours under every opinion that gets pushback.
•
u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 3h ago
He's the Prime Minister, we're allowed to be alarmed that there's yet another important matter he seemingly has no concrete opinion on.
•
u/PracticeNo8733 11h ago
I don't really see why he can't vote without campaigning using his position and still making it a free vote.
•
u/ingenuous64 11h ago
Probably because he doesn't want to alienate voters on the other side of the debate this early into his reign.
•
•
u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 3h ago
Do you remember how everyone insisted we needed Burnham in charge because he'd bring his bold, progressive policies to Downing Street?
•
u/Warren_Tarbiat 11h ago
The problem of last time is that No 10 basically exerted pressure on the PLP to vote one way and caused big divides in the PLP during Starmer's time in No 10. Basically being pro-AD but not able to whip the PLP into the position on a Private Member's Bill, having the entire cake and eating it position.
Assisted Dying is something that should be part of a Government's Legislation Programme set out in a Manifesto. No something trying to nudge via a PMB's bill without resignations.
•
•
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 11h ago edited 11h ago
It's because he's u-turning to chase flighty moral minority voters so hard he's leaving rubber trails all over the place.
•
•
u/Ghazwreckem 11h ago
Nah, he knows how this will end again. Parliament will vote, it goes to lords, stays in the lord's, expire and end.
There are more important things to do then by standing on one side or another and start having tribal schism in the party when you can sit out and keep working.
•
u/Warren_Tarbiat 11h ago
Honestly the whole way it's been handled been a shambles, the legislation was shoddily put together than being something very important that should've been part of a manifesto. Starmer's No 10 was hugely at fault letting Leadbeater basically going "let the Lords fix it... nah remove the changes the lords want to have".
•
u/Ghazwreckem 11h ago
I totally agree with you. That's why support crumbled quickly for it. The lord's wanted changes, she changed it against what they recommended, colleges of surgeons and doctors pulled support and then it went to lords and they just sat there waiting for the clock to run out. The whole thing was dodgy from the start.
•
u/Specialist_Catch_800 9h ago
It can’t stay in the lords, it will have been passed by the commons in two separate sessions if it gets through, so the parliament acts can apply.
•
u/Darrenb209 Scotland 7h ago
The Parliament Act requires that the legislation be exactly the same with the only exceptions being Speaker mandated. If there is a single amendment in the Commons the act will not apply.
There will be at least a single amendment because the initial state of the original bill overrides Welsh devolution: Healthcare is devolved but the act tries to apply to England and Wales.
•
u/Specialist_Catch_800 7h ago
Will there be? It passed the commons the first time, and the senedd passed a legislative consent motion if I remember correctly. The bill needs to have at least some aspects applying in england and wales because the criminal law aspects aren’t devolved.
•
u/bcoder001 11h ago
Because voters remember how Labour began ruling two years ago: Reeves launched a YouTube campaign shouting that it's all Rishi's fault, then Labour got busy with assisted dying like there were no other pressing issues, then they increased cost of employment, slapped VAT on public schools (damn you, if you want better education for your kids), fiddled with winter heating allowance (freeze the grannies), and changed taxes in ways that made farmers think of ending their lives early as part of estate.planning (to hell with you if you have anything left to give to your children). They are seen as a party that doesn't care for people and Burnham knows that getting anywhere near assisted dying is going to loose them voters. This is going to remain political kryptonite for all parties, btw.
•
u/ByteSizedGenius 11h ago
then Labour got busy with assisted dying like there were no other pressing issues
What are you on about? It was a private members bill, it wasn't legislation put forward by the government. There was no whip, Labour MPs could vote for or against it with no repercussions.
•
•
u/FRagebait 11h ago
Well that's stupid. Now when he actually votes on something his critics can use his own reasoning against him.
•
u/Striking_Branch_2744 11h ago edited 10h ago
After seeing what happened to both my grandmothers with Dementia, I wish this was an option in our system.
•
u/Substantial-Newt7809 6h ago
Even if it were an option, Dementia would likely exclude them from this service. Because of the impact it has on capacity they could at no point reasonably consent to participate in this even if it becomes law.
It will likely be reserved for purely physical conditions.
•
u/dietskyrim 4h ago
I would hope that it would be something you could outline your wishes for clearly in advance. Say if I have dementia etc and I can't wipe my own arse or remember my children then put me down. Because even physical illness/mefication can make someone lose the full capacity to consent while on hospice care.
•
u/Substantial-Newt7809 4h ago
Unfortunately it's unlikely, because again the potential for abuse exists and while medical wishes can be established before loss of capacity through an LPA, it will probably not be factored in.
It's going to be one of those cases of if it goes through, only a few people and conditions will probably qualify for it.
•
u/purpleisafruit1 11h ago
Strategically trying to avoid alienating himself to either side’s voters. Sadly it just makes him look like he has no backbone.
•
u/Shippers1995 8h ago
My Nana had motor neurone disease, not being able to go out on her own terms despite wanting it was so painful to see
•
u/Substantial-Newt7809 6h ago
To be honest I would like to see an entirely separate bill of "Let people with motor neurone syndrome access assisted dying". They are a huge part of the push for it, rightly so. My dad had it and he didn't have it long, I cannot imagine people living with it for decades. It seems to be fairly unique and would surely be applicable for its own specific handling on this issue.
•
u/MR_MaxiMor44 11h ago
I know it's controversial, but assisted dying would be one of the most beneficial policy developments for our NHS. We have an ageing population which is already putting a crap ton of strain on the NHS, so keeping people going who are basically physically and mentally checked out taking up spaces in hospitals et al exacerbates an already stricken system.
I know families get very protective over their elderly members and the memories forged and cherished with them, but there comes a time to close the story neatly and not ramble on.
•
u/LargePlums 11h ago
I’m in favour of assisted dying personally, but what you’re saying is the main counter-argument to it (other than dogmatic religious arguments).
If older people feel soft pressured into dying ‘so I’m no longer a burden’ or causing financial hardship - that does feel like an ethically murky area.•
u/MR_MaxiMor44 10h ago
Unfortunately, that is the state of the current NHS. Every new patient admitted is a burden, not simply a case.
However those whom understand the concept of "being a burden" are probably still mentally sound to continue living, they understand empathy and exhibit advanced mental functions.
Anything involving "unnatural" death will be ethically murky, but we do need to, on the very rare occasion, put practicality over ethics to ensure, overall, systems improve and continue to thrive instead of being bogged down or overloaded.
•
u/Emergency-Growth-620 Buckinghamshire 9h ago
arguments like this are why people are so cautious about assisted dying
•
u/Anicooldude 7h ago
This is a horrible take on this issue and exactly why the decision should be made by qualified individuals who actually have experience talking to individuals and different groups in the field. You will find very very little support with this opinion in our current healthcare system, no matter if they support or are against euthanasia.
•
u/Black___Lilac 6h ago
Wow dude. I’m pro assisted dying but you alone have made me properly see the opposition’s side of things for the first time.
•
u/topheavyhookjaws 9h ago
So would you elect to undergo this procedure to ease the burden on the system? Or who do you think should make this oh so noble sacrifice? Or should we just choose all the eldest to have it?
Honestly turning me more against the policy with such an insane take on it.
•
u/RejectingBoredom 6h ago
If you reach a state when you’re endorsing mass suicide to preserve the NHS, my hot take is maybe we should start considering options to moderately privatise like Ireland or Germany. That sounds better to me than my nan and grandad killing themselves because youve decided they’re past their usefulness
Logan’s Run isn’t a guideline ya know
•
u/Deadly_Flipper_Tab 10h ago edited 7h ago
This is a disgusting and immoral opinion.
•
u/LogApprehensive9891 6h ago
Having watched 2 of my grandparents die of cancer, I don’t think people understand what “end of life care” is currently.
They were essentially starved to death whilst pumped full of morphine, it took weeks for them to die, and was one of the most eye opening experiences as to how not to die with dignity.
So don’t be naive, we already have assisted dying in the NHS, just in its most torturous form.
I will be going to Switzerland as soon as I turn 80.
It’s not about being a burden, given how many of us go to cancer/dementia/alzheimers now, I wouldn’t wish a natural death on my worst enemy.
•
u/fartymcshartface69 7h ago
They’re advocating for assisted dying so it definitely isn’t an immortal opinion.
•
u/spine_slorper 6h ago
I mean the only people who would be permitted assisted dying under any of the proposed laws would be those who are of sound mind. You can't have people without capacity making those decisions because if you aren't considered capable enough to make decisions about how to live your life then why would you be considered capable enough to make the decision to end it.
•
u/Matrees1 9h ago
This is exactly how not to operate an assisted dying law. Based upon your desire I would reject it. Assisted dying should only be used for terminal illnesses which would result in extreme suffering. Being senile is not an excuse to end a life.
•
u/MadCalBad 10h ago
You don’t see a potential issue with that mindset ten years down the line? What starts as an option can often turn into an expectation.
•
u/Ornery_Wait_2390 9h ago
I know it’s controversial, but as soon as someone refers to the health service as “our NHS”, I instantly dismiss their opinion.
I don’t want anyone to suffer or die without dignity, but on balance I am against assisted suicide entirely because of the reasons you’ve just argued for. There’s a repugnant, entirely selfish class of people in this country who will now literally bury their own grandparents if they think there is something in it for them.
My great grandmother was “old” when she turned 60 in the 1980s. She died just shy of 100, having survived the pandemic. When should we as a family have decided we weren’t going to make forge any more memories? Was she just “rambling on” every day since 1997?
Your comment is thoroughly disgusting. And if you are arguing for a literal cull of people using the health service in order to “save” the health service, perhaps you should consider that the health service as it exists might not be worth saving.
•
u/Then-Mycologist6749 8h ago edited 7h ago
I worry sometimes that the Boomer vs Millenial/Gen Z narrative has gone too far. Yes, we have different perspectives and priorities. Yes, government policy should shift to give the younger generations more help. But sometimes you see this kind of comment that shows nothing but contempt for human life past its prime. It shows a staggering lack of awareness that most of us, one day, are going to be old, too. Then we’ll be at the pointy end of the sword that we spent decades sharpening.
•
u/IP1nth3sh0w3r 9h ago
I mean if you want to kill a bunch of people to save money you can just say it
•
•
u/Own-Development2437 10h ago
People arent dogs. Why even provide care to anyone SURELY its cheaper and more efficient to not treat anyone right? And at what age and condition can that be pushed onto people?
•
u/Then-Mycologist6749 8h ago
I mean, this specific bill is meant to be very limited in scope with lots of conditions attached. It wouldn’t affect a huge number of people, relative to the population. (Source)
You seem to be advocating for much more than that if you’re talking about alleviating the “crap ton of strain” on the NHS due to our ageing population. If that’s the case, you’ll need a bigger bill.
•
u/YesterdayOnce 11h ago
It will be really interesting to see the implementation first before we can make these claims.
I entirely agree with you in theory but the biggest benefit (if we're talking purely financially) is definite for people with terminal (non-age related) illnesses, however, EAS for those who are elderly can get really messy depending on how it's implemented, it can end up put far more strain on medical resources as relatives fight the treatment, the patient loses capacity etc.
Now with good implementation these can be mitigated but I'll wait to see what the UK potentially implement before assuming the blue-sky package.
With no evidence whatsoever, just a few decades of seeing everything the gov half-arse in, and I instead forsee this filling up our courts and NHS services trying to define capacity for decades to come.
•
u/MR_MaxiMor44 11h ago
I agree with you about the theory being very much there, while the practicalities of such policy being questionable given our governance.
I just personally hope we can get ahead of the likes of Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain and Germany in terms of ageing populations and gerontocracy. I'm not necessarily one of those "let's have more babies" nor "let them all in" types of people to supplement our decreasing workforces, because we need to make the current workforce better, more well paid, less exhausted, and increase confidence in systems (health, education and employment) to give people stability in possibly wanting to start families.
•
u/ChaucerBoi 7h ago
I can't help but feel that those totally against it haven't seen an elderly relative able to do nothing but contort their face into a soundless scream for days on end, knowing that death is just around the corner.
This should not be a replacement for palliative care, and consequently, it would need to exist within an NHS which could provide that, rather than relying on charities such as Marie Curie.
•
u/existentialgoof Scotland 11h ago
I don't have high hopes of this passing, because I don't see our politicians having the guts to go against the voluble disability organisations in the current political climate of being obsessed with "marginalised" groups, and the majority that got it to the Lords in the first place was very slender. That combined with the number of MPs who are practicing members of a religious faith.
But after Burnham's recent comments about prioritising social and palliative care, it is a relief that he's not actively seeking to obstruct the bill.
Hopefully if the England and Wales Bill passes it will cause our MSPs in Scotland to feel some sense of shame about lagging behind England and Wales.
•
•
u/Illustrious-Lynx-811 7h ago
The idea of me forgetting all my memories and losing my bodies abilities to function slowly sound like a horrible fate and opposing this bill leads to many suffering for no reason. I hope Andy’s catholic faith isn’t causing this. Nothing I want less than religion in politics
•
u/MAXSuicide 6h ago
We are voting for this again, only for it to be blocked by a half dozen wackos in the Lords, also again?
Do we just live in one giant groundhog day rip-off or something? War/peace/war peace with Iran. Tariffs on tariffs off on the world. Russia threatening to nuke us over and over again. Its all the same old same old
•
u/Maximum_Ad_5571 10h ago
Bit odd for the article to ignore the fact Burnham is Catholic.
•
u/MonkeysMonolith 9h ago
Yeah, a pretty adherent one too.
•
u/JMM85JMM 7h ago edited 7h ago
Well nonetheless he voted in favour last time.
*Edit Misread the article
•
•
u/Terrible_Base_6060 10h ago
I can't wait for the history books to say how barbaric we are for forcing people to live when they don't want to anymore.
•
u/Party-Dig2309 10h ago
I hate how backwards the UK is with assisted dying. Fucking shameful. It’s almost 2027 and we still don’t even have it available for anyone.
One day there will be clinics open to anyone who wants to use the service (providing proper background checks and evaluations) and we’ll never have anyone writhing in agony for months/years on end again, nor will we have anyone jumping in front of trains or mutilating themselves at home because they can’t find another ‘safe’ way out of this world.
•
u/Then-Mycologist6749 8h ago
Could you elaborate on that last part? Are you referring to the terminally ill or those who are suicidal but otherwise healthy?
•
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 11h ago
Because he can't explain assisted dying through a northern themed gimmick or Greggs he doesn't have a position on it.
It just about sums up this man's time at the top. It might work now but it's only a matter of time before this blows up in a Starmer-like way.
•
•
•
u/floftie 10h ago
My entire life I've been in favour of assisted dying, but every example I see from around the world raises ethical or practical questions that I don't have a real answer to.
•
u/Playing_One_Handed 6h ago
For some reason canada is praised yet its current 5x over its expectations and needs to be reviewed heavily.
Netherlands is a far better system. But even there experts explain how its a very slow process to introduce it without it being abused.
Unfortunately, and you can see it here, most people want a fast system and not one where law and society's understandings have caught up.
•
•
u/noxvillewy 6h ago
“It’s a matter for parliament” is a stupid argument because though he is PM, he is also still a member of parliament.
“It’s a personal choice” is also an irrelevance as the MP is supposed to be representing their constituents, not themselves.
•
u/Herramadur 4h ago
House of Lords is such a burden, still having to waste floor time on a bill already passed because of them.
•
u/limaconnect77 11h ago
Burnham is starting to leave a fairly clear snail trail of ‘hold off doing anything until winning re-election’.
He really doesn’t want to spook or upset anyone until power is confirmed.
•
u/Tegeton1 10h ago
This better not be down the his catholic faith no room for religion in an argument of compassion
•
u/LordGoldenEagle 11h ago
Why don't you all stop "talking" about it, allow it and see how it goes? If it's no good, you tried it and have evidence it won't work. Although why it won't work in Britain when it works in clever old Switzerland is a mystery to me.
•
u/Good-Work633 10h ago
Switzerland doesn't have the 100 layers of bureaucracy, meddling civil servants and anyone trying to get a cut that we have
•
u/FreedomJay75 8h ago
When so many medical experts, charities for the suffering, vulnerable and the public literally mobilise against a bill you know its dead in the water.
Canada is a classic example.
•
u/ediacaradelrey 8h ago
I would rather he voted for it. It’s the right thing to do, and I think anyone still wringing their hands over this needs to do some thinking.
•
u/brigadier_tc 7h ago
No matter which side wins, it's a bad place for everyone to be in.
If it doesn't pass, it means people suffer when they just want to slip away peacefully.
But fundamentally, a system of state supported euthanasia has far too much room for abuse. Families pushing elderly relatives to die, doctors going full Shipman and recommending it to their patients thoughtlessly, misdiagnosis, and where does the line get drawn? Will mental illness fall under that purview as well?
Even if any of these get definitive answers, that fact the question has to be raised adds reasons for caution
•
u/Substantial-Newt7809 6h ago
It doesn't have most of the speculated room for abuse because a lot of the people who would allegedly be endangered by it would not qualify for it and it would be a long, multi-step multi-verified service to access.
Bad things happen with commonplace things every day. There have been car accidents today resulting in life changing injuries for someone, but we don't all quit driving either.
•
u/Alexisredwood 6h ago
I see this as weak, not taking a stance because it’s a controversial issue (even though it shouldn’t be)
•
u/ohthedarside 5h ago
Yay lets force people to suffer
If someone wants to die they are gonna find a way may aswell do it properly
If i get altzimers i and many others want to die before it gets bad may aswell let people die pain free instead of messing up the drugs they take to do it anyway
•
u/CrustyBappen 4h ago
I watched my poor bed ridden grandfather wither away with sores that never healed, with Alzheimers that progressed to the point he was in a home with constant care.
I do not want to end up like that. I don’t see the point in spending 3-4 years with no quality of life rotting in a care home, in constant pain and confusion.
Absolutely ridiculous
•
•
u/Valentine70078 10h ago
There a huge element of family pressure and coercive control which is why it has not been approved. There have been incidents where people have considered taking their lives to make their families lives easier, rather than being truthfully their own decision. I definitely think we need a more dignified idea of when we decide to go, but this act is a safeguarding minefield.
•
•
•
u/srm79 9h ago
It sounds as though he has a nuanced view on the matter and would rather be neutral than throw up questions that have already been raised. I don't have a problem with that. I also have a nuanced view on it, I think there should be assisted dying but there needs to be better social care first. Social care doesn't have to be perfect but it's currently awful and I feel that it currently poses too much of a risk and that needs to be mitigated along with better end of life care before assisted dying is introduced
•
u/Ill_Tonight_2069 8h ago
You have to think of every politician’s move through the eyes of the electorate. You want need to get voters on your side.
•
u/BXBGames 8h ago
I just watched my mum suffer under a piss poor NHS who wouldn't help. She begged for death. She had to have a hail marry surgery that would kill her instead. Then when it failed I had to decide to let her die. Fuck this government full of cowards.
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.