Today's discussion about the news

There's something a little ironic about complaining that they're putting words in peoples mouths then also explaining to them what they really mean.

The slippery slope and coersion arguments are fairly weak, and at worst require our law makers to balance relative harms.

The slippery slope already exists, and isn't particularly slippery. People can already decline treatment, or select treatment based on comfort Vs longevity. Machines can already be switched off.

As far as I am aware there is no concern about widespread pressure on Auntie Betty to decline another round of horrid chemo, because we want to sell her house.

• They must have a "clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life" and have reached this decision voluntarily, without coercion or pressure;

• They must have lived in England or Wales for 12 months and be registered with a GP;

• Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person meets the criteria and there must be at least seven days between the doctors making the assessments;

• If both doctors state the person is eligible, then they must apply to the High Court for approval of their request;

• If the High Court decides that the applicant meets the bill's requirements, then there is a 14-day reflection period (or 48 hours if death is imminent);

• After this, the person must make a second declaration, which would have to be signed and witnessed by one doctor and another person

It feels like with all the checks proposed there's a high probability that nature will take its course before anyone actually gets to use the proposed law. I've always been naturally cautious with the idea of euthensia but with these proposals there are so many checks and conditions that it is hard to see much benefit in coercion. I suppose that the main risk is that once the principle is in place the checks and balances will get eroded by subsequent amendments. I'm not convinced that the restrictions on abortion (whatever you think of the rights or wrongs) fully reflect what was intended when they were put in place (e.g. do the two medical practitioners really check what is best for the pregnant person or is it just a tick box based on them asking for one?).

Except it's cost more not to process them promptly. So standard cost-cutting that's more expensive than not trying to cost-cut. Standard, I guess.

I think 'long term, big plan' was superfluous, unfortunately this lot don't seem to be overly gifted in that respect

How are the high court going to have the capacity for this?

Parliament is not good on relative risks and benefits. The doctrine of something must be done trumps it every time.

The campaign for Martin's Law is a classic of the genre.

My concern was / is a generic one really. History tells us that old folk can be coerced into changing wills, and being otherwise vulnerable to being parted from their cash when it wasn't actually their preference. So the exploitation of assisted dying for financial gain is an obvious risk.

Further to that, history tells us that whatever safeguards are in place to prevent something "bad" happening, the safeguards are unlikely to be infallible.

I think the trickiest element of the consideration of risks vs benefits is that the risks would be borne by an entirely separate section of society (i.e. those at risk of coercion) from the section that would benefit (i.e. those genuinely wanting to end their suffering.)

It is not a completely different cross section. And a major difference between the situations you outline and the assisted dying proposals is the list of safeguards. It goes a long way beyond, for example, what is required in practice to act under a PoA.

Your concerns aren't without foundation. But how do you feel about horrible lingering deaths? My mum repeatedly expresses her fears of experiencing what my grandmother did, and I know I'd like the chance to decide for myself. Thought?

Maybe not a completely different cross section, but the vast majority of people put at risk from the new legislation won't be potential beneficiaries. (This is slightly circular, as to be a beneficiary of assisted dying, you'd genuinely want it to happen to you, and so can't really be coerced, as coercion results in an outcome you don't actually want.)

I'm actually pro helping folk on their way at a time of their own choosing, subject to the risk of folk being coerced into an early departure by those with ill-intent being acceptably low. I genuinely don't think I'm qualified to make that judgement. Not sure MPs are tbh, but that's a different issue.

A reasonably analogous situation for me is the death penalty. I'm in favour of it, so long as the risk of innocent folk being sent on their way is acceptably low. In practice, I'm against, simply because the rozzers have a long and inglorious history of fitting people up for crimes they didn't commit, so the risk assessment here is easy for me: far too high. There is scope for the victims of such actions to be compensated to some extent if they are only imprisoned, but obviously not if they've been subject to the death penalty.

Dementia, with a 6 month prognosis (which would be vascular dementia) would be excluded as far as I can see.

The requirement would be for an existing and settled wish. Someone without capacity cannot meet this criteria, and I may be wrong but it seems unlikely that a PoA could express that wish by proxy.

Okay, sorry. Wrong end of the stick.

It's another means by which those with nefarious intent could achieve their goals, so it surely has to increase the overall risk to vulnerable people. The questions are then surely i) the extent of the increase in risk; and ii) the relative pros and cons of this increase against the benefits.

Sorry but my question (ii) explicitly covers this point: "...the relative pros and cons of this increase [in risk from allowing assisted deaths] against the benefits."

But as I posted yesterday, the risks and benefits will likely be born and experienced respectively by different people. On a case-by-case level, the assessment is pretty clear cut. For a vulnerable person in good health, there is only risk. For someone terminally ill and in severe pain, there are only benefits.