Lawmakers in Britain Narrowly Approve Bill To Legalize Assisted Dying (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0178118315
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/06/20/1354239/lawmakers-in-britain-narrowly-approve-bill-to-legalize-assisted-dying
- Source link: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/20/uk/uk-assisted-dying-commons-vote-gbr-intl
> MPs passed the bill by 314 votes to 291, in their final say on the question. The bill -- which has split lawmakers and sparked impassioned conversations with their constituents the breadth of Britain -- will now move to the House of Lords for its final rounds of scrutiny.
>
> Friday's vote puts Britain firmly on track to join a small club of nations that have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors and a panel would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states, including Oregon, Washington and California.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/20/uk/uk-assisted-dying-commons-vote-gbr-intl
Good, about time! (Score:2)
I don't know if I would have the courage to ask for my life to be ended when the time comes, but I want the option.
The government, do not own my body, it should be my decision and mine alone on what happens. I fully appreciate that doctors may not want to be involved and they should never be compelled to assist if their conscience forbids it, but if there are doctors that are willing to assist, they should not be prevented from doing so by some arcane law.
It has been said many times before, we don't forc
It's a good start (Score:1)
But the law is very limited. You have to be certified by two doctors as only having 6 months left to live. You then have to start to start a bureaucratic battle with the government to get their permission and that of a 'panel of experts' which knowing our government will takes months. You have then have to wait another month to make sure you don't change your mind. And then and only then will you be prescribed the medication which you have to be physcially capable of administering yourself. There will be ma
Re: (Score:1)
Bureaucracy in general is hardest on the people least able to cope with it. Whether it's welfare applications, requesting intervention, or for example trying to start a business the poorest people are least able to even start the right paperwork and also the least able to fill out the reams of red tape, or know how to fill it out. A properly designed system would be finding those people and helping them instead of presenting a faceless bureaucracy and if you can't afford a solicitor, tough.
Washington State ... (Score:2)
... offers two options: Drug addiction. Or trying to outrun the local police for a minor traffic infraction.
Die against family's wishes... (Score:1)
I'm Canadian - Assisted Dying is has become 4th most likely cause of death in this country and about to become the 3rd most likely cause for all ages. It has reduced health care burden, and death is a quick way out when the social health care can't keep up with our again population. Thorny for recent cases where children are finding ways to die against the wishes of their parents, or siblings. There are real legal cases of this. For example [1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... [www.cbc.ca] Overall, it's disgusting. My sis
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-maid-father-daughter-court-injunction-judicial-review-1.7140782
Assisted suicide is a dick move (Score:2)
Getting doctors involved creates all kinds of perverse incentives and even ignoring that, is a dick move ... if you had the balls, you'd be dead, so you are forcing the decision on them.
Unless they're paraplegic, it should be people's own responsibility. We need legalised suicide aids, not assisted suicide. Time for suicide booths.
"a terminal condition and less than six months" (Score:1)
I suspect the "and" may become a bone of contention.
Needs sufficient oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
In Canada the law wasn't supposed to allow MAID for people with only mental health conditions, but an inquiry determined that the system was approving it for practically anyone who asked. It needs to have proper oversight that the rules are clear and are being followed to maintain public trust.
Checks (Score:2, Insightful)
The law should be straightforward and clear. Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain. Approving it for any other case is manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.
Re:Checks (Score:4)
Or alternatively, and stop me if you think this is crazy, whether someone you don't know chooses to die or not is none of your goddamned business, and if they are unable to carry it out in a way that causes as little suffering at all, and seek out professional medical assistance then again, providing they are of sound mind, it's none of your goddamned business.
Re: (Score:2)
STOP
yes this is crazy. There can be tremendous social pressures on someone to make them feel they are a 'burden' etc even if they really want to go on living. That is before you start to worry about really self serving actors applying coercive pressure.
Then there is the matter that pain often manifests, depressed people frequently experience chronic pain that really is all in their head and with the right treatment can go on to live happy lives. What do you think the medical industry is going to do though
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like these things are always curable. They simply aren't. Many mental health issues are a prison for the person suffering from them. The meds that "help" also make you into a different person.
As for "social pressure", the way to fix it is to offer mental health treatment to people, not force them to keep living once all their will is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
> Or alternatively, and stop me if you think this is crazy, whether someone you don't know chooses to die or not is none of your goddamned business,
I agree 100%.
> and if they are unable to carry it out in a way that causes as little suffering at all, and seek out professional medical assistance then again, providing they are of sound mind, it's none of your goddamned business.
Nope. The second a medical professional is involved, society gets a say in what happens.
Here's a related example. In the US, the rules on involuntary committal to a mental institution were made much stricter, mostly by court case law. The courts had found that a lot of people were being involuntarily committed to metal institutions because their family members wanted power of attorney so they could take their money. In other words, siblings or children were having their relatives committed so t
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, I think they should make it more widely available. Sadly, the religious people have invented a stigma around it.
We have a right to live. The reverse should also be true. We should have the right to die with dignity and with minimal discomfort. If we have a right to live, we should be allowed to control how long that life lasts.
I'd go so far as to make this available to anyone over a certain age or in certain situations. We can hash that out but the various circumstances would be too long to lis
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't any of the governments business either. So stop the moralizing.
Re: (Score:3)
> The law should be straightforward and clear. Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain. Approving it for any other case is manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.
Why reinvent the wheel with additional rules and complexities then? Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since the '40s and doesn't have any requirement for terminal illness nor chronic pain, nor even for any kind of "illness" actually.
The only requirements are basically that the suicide is voluntary and whoever assists it doesn't have "selfish motives" (read. financial gain or such). You cannot get it much simpler than that.
Re: (Score:3)
In a system where the state pays medical and pension costs, the state has an incentive to end the lives of anyone who is unlikely to produce more for the state than their cost of care.
Re: (Score:2)
> In a system where the state pays medical and pension costs, the state has an incentive to end the lives of anyone who is unlikely to produce more for the state than their cost of care.
And so what? It's what the person that wants to access assisted suicide wants that matters, not what the state or even the medics want.
Assisted suicide is technically not even categorized as medical procedure in Switzerland. The procedure is not provided by the state: private non-profit organizations do that with the state only providing the legal framework.
Note that in case there is some confusion, we are discussing assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a whole different topic and it's not legal in Switzerland.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like an American. Probably for the death penalty too. Also ok with death being the penalty for defying an order from the police or running away from the victim of a theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and this is the main problem that needs oversight. Most people are OK with MAID if a person is in pain and won't get better, and is lucid enough to understand the decision they're making. But you're correct that a system that has an incentive to offer it to a person who isn't paying into the system and is just a cost... that's an ethical problem. There was a woman in Canada who was approved for MAID, and her reason was that she was poor and couldn't pay her rent. There's just too many cases like th
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true then the state would be systematically killing off pensioners, not being extremely generous to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The types of people who are going to request assisted suicide are going to be the types of people who are already getting aid from the government or using more resources than average while being covered by insurance.
What's your reason for wanting to prolong suffering in other people?
Re: (Score:2)
> Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain.
I think there are a few other cases where it makes sense. Here are two examples:
- An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia.
- A child with hydranencephaly, i.e., all of the higher functions of the brain are missing, but the child is otherwise healthy.
We show far more mercy to animals that cannot live reasonable lives. Actually, I'll toss out a third example: We had an elderly dog who was having epileptic seizures. For some time
Re: (Score:2)
"An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia."
Would fail the cognitive ability to decide test.
Re: (Score:2)
> - An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia.
> - A child with hydranencephaly, i.e., all of the higher functions of the brain are missing, but the child is otherwise healthy.
Those cases would be more euthanasia than assisted suicide as the persons in question would lack the ability to decide for themselves.
> Obviously, there do need to be controls. And there can and should be a lot of debate as to exactly where you draw the line. But refusing to end a life just because the person is not terminally ill? That is far to limited. If there is no hope, if life is not enjoyable and never will be, be kind and end it.
IMHO the only line that needs to be drawn is the person's will. As long as it's voluntary, I don't see a reason to put additional limitations to the access to assisted suicide. I don't think it's anyone's business to decide what some other person has to "endure" or find "tolerable".
Re: (Score:2)
None of your business. If a person is capable of doing themselves in and wants to do so, you can not stop them from jumping off a high point. If somebody is of reasonably sound mind, they get to choose if unable to carry out their wishes on their own.
It becomes complicated when psychology calls self-harm "crazy" making the person's decision irrelevant but the person to decide if they are making a sane decision should be the expert who makes the educated guess. Chronic pain is as foolish a rule as saying abo
Re: (Score:2)
You think constant stress, anxiety, depression is a not a form of chronic pain?
My sis had a friend in her 20s who went through a year of medication, therapy, and whatnot before her request for suicide was granted. She was physically healthy but mentally in pain. You want to keep torturing people like her for the remainder of their life because of your selfish beliefs?
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about go screw yourself and you don't get to decide whether people live or die? How about we leave that up to the person whose life is on the line. Holy crap, the arrogance of some people.
Re: (Score:2)
> The law should be straightforward and clear. Assisted death should only be for terminal cases with chronic pain. Approving it for any other case is manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.
Having watched my mother slowly waste away over a period of years from Alzheimer's, I certainly wish that on you and your family.
Re: (Score:2)
> In Canada the law wasn't supposed to allow MAID for people with only mental health conditions, but an inquiry determined that the system was approving it for practically anyone who asked.
Why discriminate against people with "only" mental health conditions?!
Mental health conditions are often one of the very worst things to live with. Why shouldn't those people be allowed to end their lives?!
How did society get to the point where we don't even own our own lives , and we need permission from government to end them?!
Re: Needs sufficient oversight (Score:2)
> How did society get to the point where we don't even own our own lives, and we need permission from government to end them?!
Old British common law. Peasants owed labor to the lord of the manor. And upon dying, owed that lord a "death tax" as compensation for the loss of that labor.
Much of US law us based upon this common law. And, following our revolution, the elites started to realize how bad an idea an actual "free" population would be.
Re: (Score:2)
We had 'assisted dying' laws go through a few years ago here in Victoria. I believe you can get permission for things like early alzheimers etc but there are checks and balances about coercion from children seeking an inheritance etc.
Sensitive topic, I have an uncle in his 90s who is now in 24/7 care in a facility. My aunt could no longer look after him but he is no longer of sound mind, to use a euphemism, to have signed any paperwork even if the option had been available to him.
OTOH, my extended family li
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the concern these days isn't some old notion of it being a "sin". It's concern over abuse. That is, are there children in the picture that are trying to convince an elderly person to get MAID? Or is the system incentivized to offer MAID to people who are no longer paying into the system? In one case in Canada, a woman who was getting therapy for depression because she couldn't pay rent was *offered* MAID as a solution to her problems. I think this crosses an ethical line. There's a difference
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada the law wasn't supposed to allow MAID for people with only mental health conditions, but an inquiry determined that the system was approving it for practically anyone who asked.
Good! How is that a bad thing? It doesn't matter why someone else wants to end their life. If they are capable of making the choice then let them make the choice. No one else should have the right to interfere or tell them they can't decide when to live and when to die.
How about it's none of your business why som