Eleanor Blatchley
:Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
:Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
James Snell
:PRISM: Who Cares?
Alex Ford
:Talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan Doesn't Betray the Dead - It Honours Them
Iain Anderson
:Banking Reform - Where Next?
The Commission on Assisted Dying; a panel of experts ranging from doctors to lawyers, and disability campaigners to parliamentarians, have today published their findings following a 12 month consultation period. We are pleased that they have concluded with recommendations for a framework which would allow safe assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.
Last month we saw news of an incredibly courageous terminally ill woman, Geraldine McCllelland, who was forced to travel abroad in order to have the death that she wanted. She called for cowardly politicians to engage - and given that the Commission has compiled an independent Report based on comprehensive evidence and safeguards, now would be an ideal opportunity for parliamentarians to start.
Dignity in Dying commissioned a poll a fortnight ago which found that a majority (61%) of the public would like parliament to debate the issue of Britons, like Geraldine, travelling abroad for help to die.
Just 12% of those asked were opposed to MPs and Peers debating this issue. Given the plethora of issues that people are concerned about, this polling shows just how concerned the public are about the status quo. Whenever the public are asked on the broader issue of whether they find the current situation acceptable; a situation which forces dying people who want help to end their suffering to travel abroad to for assistance to die, or attempt to end their lives behind closed doors - 80% say they would like to see the law change. (BSAS 2007 and 2010).
Opponents to a change in the law have criticised the Commission, and I have no doubt will continue to attack any efforts to find a solution to the unbearable suffering which continues daily in the absence of a compassionate assisted dying law, but they themselves do not suggest an alternative. Some of those who oppose change refused to give evidence to the Commission, but refusing to engage does not get us any closer to reducing the suffering of those who want more choice and control at the end of their lives.
We are confident that the evidence and safeguards in this report will reassure those with genuine concerns about the impact of an assisted dying law on society. An assisted dying law would better protect both those who do want more choice and control at the end of their lives, and crucially those who may be vulnerable and need to be safeguarded.
Follow Jo Cartwright on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dignityindying
Joseph Nowinski, Ph.D.: Tips for Talking to Children About Terminal Illness
BBC News - Assisted suicide: 'Strong case for legalisation'
Allow assisted suicide for those with less than a year to live ...
Regardless of current publicity, a debate about assisted dying is needed. To pretend that this does not merit discussion is a closed minded view which wilfully ignores the expressed wishes of people in genuine need, and pain.
Prognosis, and the question of 'when' somebody’s life will eventually end, can never be an easy assessment to make, particularly in the case of alzheimer's. However it is only through genuine discussion that any progress on how to help people can really be advanced.
Current institutions and policies already fall short in a number of wider areas with little practical advice on how 'do not resuscitate' orders work, as well as more fundamental issues to do with suitable care facilities and care plans for patients with terminal illness - particularly if they are elderly. These issues are also (if not equally) important to progress and should not be forgotten.
However, there is huge pressure from religious and other groups to stop government engaging with assisted dying alongside these other questions. We need to be aware of sensitivities, cultural and otherwise, but we can not use religion or historical precedent as a proxy for one of the most pressing, and real, moral conundrums of the modern age.
We can not pretend it is not at the front of peoples minds. We need to think this through.
So before we start on this new road, lets have not just a small committee (and who are they?) but a proper and open thoughtful debate on the principles, and the long term effect.
Its one thing to withdraw treatment and not seek to keep people officiously alive. Its quite another decision to actively kill them.
" Terminal illness" merely means " not curable" . It doesn't necessarily mean "no quality of life". Some people can have quality of life for years whilst terminally ill, even when they have less than a year to live. My mother, although limited in what she could do through 2 years of terminal cancer, was only unable to do function to get up and do things the day before she died
Anyone wants to contact me please do (short response)
ejcowper@live.co.uk
Given the measure of current political debate. I confidently expect such a challenge to existing paradigms, to result in a new law. Reintroduction of the death penalty for suicide.