9 Comments
User's avatar
Amanda Mayes's avatar

This is such a difficult topic and my own thoughts are very aligned to yours Ruth. I find it sad that the politics are stopping there being any development in this area. Making anyone suffer a long, painful and undignified death is so cruel. I would absolutely want that choice to say enough.

Good luck to Kim Leadbetter next time around. I’m going to find where my local MP stands on this……..

Ruth Sturkey's avatar

It really is a hard one Amanda but it does seem crazy in a time of so much personal choice this one is denied. Good shout to see where your local MP stands on it. I will do the sam,..

Ruth Sturkey's avatar

Just checked - my local MP, Diane Abbot voted against, in a nuanced way, fearing the vulnerble do not have enough safeguards in the way the bill is/was currently proposed. Interesting to see how this moves forward…

Helena Wardle's avatar

We debated this one at Sylvans. That really opened up my eyes to the legal complexity of this but I agree, it’s a choice people should have.

Ruth Sturkey's avatar

Wish I’d not missed that one Helena. I’m sure it’s legally hard to get this right , and so are many legal matters. It’s certainly not an easy one…

David Henry's avatar

I am of the general view that people should have fewer opinions on stuff that are outside their area of competence, and this one is way outside of mine.

That being said - my instinctive thought is that in a truly liberal society we should give people the choice when to shuffle off into the middle distance. But the former lawyer in me recognises that legislation has to be water tight, which is infinitely easier said than done in this case. We all might instinctively agree on when assisted dying should be allowed, but legislating this properly is another kettle of fish altogether. It is such a difficult question.

Ruth Sturkey's avatar

It certainly is a tricky one isn’t it Dave. I get the legislation point too. Yet I still feel this shouldn’t be beyond the realms of possible….

Chris Law's avatar

My mum will be 90 this year. She and I were both disappointed at the result, although it is good to hear that not all hope is lost. She is still kicking arse on every front and I dearly hope neither of us have to wrestle with the realities this involves. But I know that many patients and loved ones do not get that privilege, and I find it actively distressing thinking of the many thousands of people in this country alone who feel their sovereign autonomy, including as it does (in my view) the right to exit stage left at a time that is right for them, is being violated for reasons that really don’t seem to move the scale when weighed against that autonomy.

I agree that something like this, properly safeguarded, should exist in an advanced society. And in a society such as ours, as well -!

I find the hippocratic tension odd, really. At what point does forcing someone (who at some earlier point - in compos mentis - expressed a wish for a gentle end when the time comes) to ‘live’ on, or rather continue to exist, in a desperate and desperately unhappy state become the “harm” the Oath concerns itself with anyway? In this way I don’t personally find there to be a conflict between the H.O. and assisted dying, but I realise I will be in the minority of a minority there.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts as ever Ruth.

Ruth Sturkey's avatar

Thanks for taking the time to comment so thoughtfully Chris. It seems like we are aligned :-) So good to hear your mum is still arse kicking! Long may that continue.