The assisted dying lobby isn’t being honest with you – disabled people are at risk from this bill | Lucy Webster

YIt was deceived by the campaign to die with help. Whoever is the proposed law has told you: People on the metaphorical deathbed, there is no hope on the horizon, desperate to spare themselves and their loved ones a painful death experience. No wonder – it is clear that these cases deserve sympathy and anxiety. These are the activists who want to talk about it; This is the narration that drives people to support their issue.

But what about the people who will include the law who do not want you to think about it? Supporters continue to say that the draft law is tightly drawn to exclude disabled persons, because it limits eligibility for those who have only six months to live. But this is a Prether’s mistake. The line between disability and disease – a line that adopts this bill – is not a sharp discrimination. It is blurry, always moving and depends on social factors much more than biological factors. This knowledge holds the simple narration on which the professional campaign depends.

Let’s take, for example, a person who suffers from a progressive neurological condition such as kinetic neurons. It is extremely difficult to obtain predictions for such conditions, and even when everything is above the plate, it is not uncommon for people to outperform the initial expected life to a large extent. This, it is important to get to know, does not perish them into years of misery. With appropriate care, including social care and appropriate pain, people can live a happy life with peripheral conditions. (Of course, one of the central issues is that many people do not receive such care.) But many people who live well with “peripheral” conditions have been excluded from discussion, because they do not fit with narration. Instead, we were told that being a final sick, literally, is a fate that is worse than death. The audience – and the deputies – needs to ask themselves whether they believe that the wheelchair user they see enjoy time with friends in their local café will be better.

Here, supporters of the draft law shout that help in death will be voluntary; The person who felt that he can enjoy life while he can choose people with final diseases simply lack of death. This, at best, is a very naive situation. Because the truth is, not everything is always above the painting. Society is not equal, and a lot of evidence that medical bias and neglect are systemic issues. The imagination world does not exceed that the doctor (with or without consulting with the patient; the law gives them an unusual force) that can provide an average life expectancy for help, or in reality, along the way to death with help. Talk about the amount of money and resources that helped death It can save NHSAlong with the bill A weak definition of coercionJust make this horrific scenario more likely. But supporters do not say anything about the fears that newly disabled people or the newly diagnosed people could be, who had no time to treat their shock or secure the assistance they need, at risk of actual or imagined pressure, because they do not fit with the narration as well.

Then there are people who you will never think they may be eligible. When the deputies voted last time on the bill, those who have concerns about protection and eligibility have repeatedly informed that the draft law can be strengthened at the committee stage, where a group of deputies examines the draft law amendments and schedule amendments. However, over and over again, the committee voted for anything that would tighten the standards in order to protect vulnerable people. While the supporters were busy informing the public that the draft law was safe and only for those who were not hope for recovery, their supporters in Parliament Refined amendments To exclude the homeless and prisoners-some of the most at risk of people-from its provisions. What a surprise that they are bypassing the speech of professional activists.

Perhaps the most traumatic, the committee too Voter This would have excluded anyone whose physical health is affected by a mental health condition to require a six-month diagnosis-and in other words, people with severe eating disorders may die. (The presence of severe anorexia, for example, is not enough to make someone unable to make decisions under the law of mental abilities, and therefore it will qualify to reach assistance with help.) It is clear that this is a terrible choice for the committee. Loss of appetite, even in the most destructive, is not necessarily a deadly disease (but one, let’s not forget, this does not affect young women). People improve. They go to live a full life. Nothing about the death of anorexia is inevitable. However, allowing people with suicide to suicide disorders, in depths of their despair, creates harmful incentives to obtain a disease. Are these people who want professionals to think about, or the people who talk about it when they press the deputies? no. But they are also important.

Of course, people who are the axis of the Pro campaign also deserves better than this designer and dangerous law. But if we want to discuss this accurately, and if we want to calculate frankly with the consequences of this huge change, we need at least to be completely transparent about who affects this bill. We need to ask ourselves about the reason why activists are not death with the help of this.