Assisted Dying

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Anyone that votes against it hasn't watched a family member suffer a prolonged, agonising and somewhat humiliating death. 

Fact.

Hmm, a bit black and white that.

There will be plenty that won't agree on religious grounds alone, and they may well have gone through such a traumatic time.

Maybe religion shouldn't come into politics, but whilst it's a free vote, and mps can vote according to their conscience, then such things will come into it.

[Dimron]

28 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Why should someone who has been told they have a year or two to live have to wait, maybe painfully, until they have mentally and physically decomposed before they hit the 6 month threshold? It seems daft.

But there's other issues to take into consideration so it's not black & white. I think I'm for assisted dying but I wouldn't like to be an MP on this vote.

A year or two is too long for this legislation, it's about helping nature at the very end.

I remember Wilko Johnson talking after his 12 month diagnosis... he said that after being told he was going to die he felt it was a weight off his shoulders and he walked down the street with a spring in his step and hearing all the birds chirruping and feeling very "alive".

It was similar with my old pal, we had some bloody good laughs in his limited time left but at the very end he had just had enough and told me he wished there was an off switch... we could have given him a much better send off at the very end

[Underpants]

6 minutes ago, Dimron said:

A year or two is too long for this legislation, it's about helping nature at the very end.

I remember Wilko Johnson talking after his 12 month diagnosis... he said that after being told he was going to die he felt it was a weight off his shoulders and he walked down the street with a spring in his step and hearing all the birds chirruping and feeling very "alive".

It was similar with my old pal, we had some bloody good laughs in his limited time left but at the very end he had just had enough and told me he wished there was an off switch... we could have given him a much better send off at the very end

I understand that. I'm on about the people at the extreme end of end-of-life. The ones who weep every night. Not the ones skipping down the street.

Edited November 28 by Underpants

[Dimron]

2 minutes ago, Underpants said:

I understand that. I'm on about the people at the extreme end of end-of-life. The ones who weep every night. Not the ones skipping down the street.

I'm on about the people at the extreme end of end-of-life

As I understand things. this is what the legislation is all about helping 

[Underpants]

8 minutes ago, Dimron said:

I'm on about the people at the extreme end of end-of-life

As I understand things. this is what the legislation is all about helping 

It is. But my question was why are folk with a couple of years left on the clock ignored? They may want to end it tomorrow while still on their feet. The end is coming so why wait? 

Edited November 28 by Underpants

[Zico]

26 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Hmm, a bit black and white that.

There will be plenty that won't agree on religious grounds alone, and they may well have gone through such a traumatic time.

Maybe religion shouldn't come into politics, but whilst it's a free vote, and mps can vote according to their conscience, then such things will come into it.

I think it's very wrong that someone's religious views should influence what someone who isn't religious can or can't do

It's like abortion being made illegal by strict Catholic men, they shouldn't be allowed to take decisions away from people because of their beliefs

[Winchester White]

4 minutes ago, Underpants said:

It is. But my question was why are folk with a couple of years left on the clock ignored? They may want to end it tomorrow while still on their feet. The end is coming so why wait? 

Well at the moment there is nothing so this is a start.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

I heard something on the wireless earlier which, if accurate, may raise an alarm bell or two. 

Supposedly, if the person concerned is in a home for example, and they are concerned about the costs and losses to their estate in their final months, then they can have that as part of their reasoning, and the relevant people can't stop the permission on those specific grounds.

Which does possibly leave the door open for some "pressure" to be applied.

Like I said, I don't know the ins and outs of it all, but there does seem to be some conern over where this may lead in the future.

If other countries' policy has become a widening wedge, should that mean we shouldn't do it?

Personally, in and of itself, I'd say no it doesn't: we ought to be able to learn from, and improve upon other nations' policies and experience.

So ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the legislation. 

 

[Duck Egg]

15 minutes ago, Underpants said:

The end is coming so why wait? 

That's true for all of us.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

5 minutes ago, Zico said:

I think it's very wrong that someone's religious views should influence what someone who isn't religious can or can't do

It's like abortion being made illegal by strict Catholic men, they shouldn't be allowed to take decisions away from people because of their beliefs

Yes, a very valid point.

As this isn't a whipped vote in any way, and is essentially apolicital, then that's how some will vote.

I suppose everyone's morals are shaped by beliefs, experiences, spirituality, and "gut feelings" and no doubt religion will play a part in shaping them.

The justice Secretary is voting against it- she says the "state" shouldn't offer death as a service, which I believe is a fudge on her behalf- but it is claimed that it is largely on religious grounds.

There will be a number of others that have a similar view.

Just been reading about Wes Streeting, who it turns out, is also quite a strongly religious chap. Whether that is also, partly, behind his reasoning, we don't know.

[Dimron]

1 minute ago, Duck Egg said:

That's true for all of us.

Live every day as a privilege and don't let the bastards grind you down.

I don't believe I'm afraid of actually dying... it's like sleeping and I rather enjoy that after a long shift... its's the way its going to happen that is the frightening unknown... and making sure your loved ones aren't left in the lurch

[Cheese]

14 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I heard something on the wireless earlier which, if accurate, may raise an alarm bell or two. 

Supposedly, if the person concerned is in a home for example, and they are concerned about the costs and losses to their estate in their final months, then they can have that as part of their reasoning, and the relevant people can't stop the permission on those specific grounds.

Which does possibly leave the door open for some "pressure" to be applied.

Like I said, I don't know the ins and outs of it all, but there does seem to be some conern over where this may lead in the future.

If other countries' policy has become a widening wedge, should that mean we shouldn't do it?

Personally, in and of itself, I'd say no it doesn't: we ought to be able to learn from, and improve upon other nations' policies and experience.

So ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the legislation. 

The Bill completely rules that out, so I'm guessing you were listening to a clueless gobshite on TalkRadio or LBC.

[Underpants]

28 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

Well at the moment there is nothing so this is a start.

Aye, I suppose. But like I said earlier it's a vote I wouldn't like to take. 

[gonzo]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

The Bill completely rules that out, so I'm guessing you were listening to a clueless gobshite on TalkRadio or LBC.

It does however include if your team draws against ten men on a Tuesday night.

 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

19 minutes ago, gonzo said:

It does however include if your team draws against ten men on a Tuesday night.

 

I believe there's a specific section of the bill that permits it as and when Arfield is named in the starting eleven

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I suppose everyone's morals are shaped by beliefs, experiences, spirituality, and "gut feelings" and no doubt religion will play a part in shaping them.

It's an interesting point

Our world views are inevitably shaped by belief, whether it be political, philosophical or religious

I suppose there's quite a bit of difference between "my religion prohibits this and that's that" and "my view has been shaped by the religious teachings on this matter and this is the argument put forward"

[gonzo]

There's a difference between values and beliefs too.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I heard something on the wireless earlier which, if accurate, may raise an alarm bell or two. 

Supposedly, if the person concerned is in a home for example, and they are concerned about the costs and losses to their estate in their final months, then they can have that as part of their reasoning, and the relevant people can't stop the permission on those specific grounds.

Which does possibly leave the door open for some "pressure" to be applied.

Assuming "in their final months" means in receipt of a terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less then, yes, that would be the case

It is solely a case of it being their settled wish, there's no requirement for it to be for a particular reason

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

5 minutes ago, gonzo said:

There's a difference between values and beliefs too.

There is but values are developed from our beliefs

[Cheese]

Just now, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There is but values are developed from our beliefs

Not necessarily. You can disagree with a Law, but still obey it to avoid punishment.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Not necessarily. You can disagree with a Law, but still obey it to avoid punishment.

That would be a case of a person compromising their values

[Cheese]

4 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

That would be a case of a person compromising their values

It would be compromising their beliefs, not their values. Beliefs aren't evidence-based. Values are. Someone might 'believe' it's perfectly safe for them to drive 60 in a 30, but the evidence says it isn't, so they stick to the speed limit in order to avoid prosecution as they value their freedom to drive a car.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

11 minutes ago, Cheese said:

It would be compromising their beliefs, not their values. Beliefs aren't evidence-based. Values are. Someone might 'believe' it's perfectly safe for them to drive 60 in a 30, but the evidence says it isn't, so they stick to the speed limit in order to avoid prosecution as they value their freedom to drive a car.

There's a difference between the values a person lives by and the things that they value

Someone might choose to obey the law even if they disagree with it as a value derived from their belief that society should be based on the rule of law

They might also choose to obey the speed limit because they value their freedom to drive their car, but in that instance it would be because they appreciate the benefits driving their car offers and don't want to lose those beneifts rather than because it is a rule they live by

[Cheese]

1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There's a difference between the values a person lives by and the things that they value

Someone might choose to obey the law even if they disagree with it as a value derived from their belief that society should be based on the rule of law

They might also choose to obey the speed limit because they value their freedom to drive their car, but in that instance it would be because they appreciate the benefits driving their car offers and don't want to lose those beneifts rather than because it is a rule they live by

Thanks for proving my point. 👍

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

2 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Thanks for proving my point. 👍

How?