Should have asked the question in the house of lords. They look dead in there anyway.
The virtually identical bill was debated in the Lords in the last parliament. It got majority support there and only failed to proceed because of lack of time.
I'm disappointed, and quite surprised, by the scale of the defeat in the Commons yesterday; it's a blow to those of us who support the idea of choice.
A law identical to that proposed has been in operation for seventeen years in the state of Oregon, without any indication of a "slippery slope" and the figures are interesting: in 1998, 24 prescriptions were issued and 16 were used, in 2013, 122 prescriptions issued, 71 used. This in a population of just less than 4 million.
It's interesting to note that over the eighteen years, the percentage of those using the prescription compared with the number issued is just 64%. It's the knowledge that one is able to exit if and when one chooses, which is important, and that's exactly the position I'm in; the knowledge that I have what I need in the fridge gives me the freedom to live without fear. I may never use what I have, as is the case with many in Oregon.
It's important that having help to end one's life isn't confused with euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone, often a doctor, administers a fatal drug. In all the legislation proposed here, and in effect in the American states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana (and probably soon in California), the person must take the drug unaided. Here's an interesting website:
http://itsnotassistedsuicide.org/I'll just finish with a quote from one of my favourite works, the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.
" While the rose blows beside the river brink
With old Khayyam the ruby vintage drink
And when the angel with his darker draught
Draws up to thee--take that and do not shrink."
