Assisted Dying

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Don't explain, I've worked out how it would be a compromise of their belief but I'd assumed we were referring to circumstances where there is a belief and a corresponding value

I'm not sure it invalidates my point that values are derived from beliefs

Edited November 28 by Lt. Aldo Raine

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Mad

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Not sure what's mad about that.

This vote is being taken purely on the personal view of around 650 people, and not their electorate.

From a democratic point of view, this seems reasonable. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

10 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

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

Absolutely. 

Following the typical comment of the judgemental one, I downloaded goverment notes on the bill.

Hopefully, the screenshot I've attached is visible (text).

Looking at the methodology, it seems that the interviewee was right. The only "check" is that the person applying isn't being pressured. That individual could say they aren't, even if they are. They may also choose to give their relatives a bit more cash by virtue of ending/preventing any undue suffering. 

This is where the (maybe any) such legislation becomes a mine field: a legitimate, pressure free decision, or a decision not quite in keeping with what they'd really want.

Really difficult. 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

It's blurred unfortunately, but can be accessed via government Web site.

[CambridgeBWFC]

12 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

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.

The state also shouldn't prolong the misery and suffering of it inhabitants at huge costs. 

Lots of sound bytes of people  calling it a death service or state sanctioned murder, which are just wrong IMO, especially the last one. It is a choice for sick and suffering people to have some dignity in the way they die. But it will always be a divisive issue.

 

[bwfcfan5]

1 hour ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

The state also shouldn't prolong the misery and suffering of it inhabitants at huge costs. 

Lots of sound bytes of people  calling it a death service or state sanctioned murder, which are just wrong IMO, especially the last one. It is a choice for sick and suffering people to have some dignity in the way they die. But it will always be a divisive issue.

 

Pressure is always a concern. Doesn’t have to be malicious either. Someone may feel in themselves under pressure not to become a burden. I think the timescale and rules are a reasonable start but many people with 6 months left may be able to lead at that point almost fully normal lives. They may not feel too bad. But is there then an almost internal pressure to ‘deal with it’ before it gets to the high pain low quality of life stage?

 

Im in favour of the choice but I do see the issues. It’s a lot of pressure on a health and care system that is already struggling if not failing. 

[bwfcfan5]

It’s pretty clear this bill has absolutely no chance of passing. I wonder if Starmer will regret making this a free vote or indeed maybe in a couple of years time he will thank his lucky stars he did?

Edited November 29 by bwfcfan5

[Cheese]

17 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

It’s pretty clear this bill has absolutely no chance of passing. I wonder if Starmer will regret making this a free vote or indeed maybe in a couple of years time he will thank his lucky stars he did?

Why? It's not Labour policy, it's a Private Member's Bill.

Anyway, it's passed.

Edited November 29 by Cheese

[bwfcfan5]

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

Why? It's not Labour policy, it's a Private Member's Bill.

Anyway, it's passed.

Yep. Shows what I know. Thought this had a zero chance. Must be some who either changed their mind I think.

I know it’s not labour policy but it is starmers policy. Who knows where this ends up now. 

[Cheese]

Just now, bwfcfan5 said:

Yep. Shows what I know. Thought this had a zero chance. Must be some who either changed their mind I think.

I know it’s not labour policy but it is starmers policy. Who knows where this ends up now. 

It was always likely to pass. And it's not a Starmer policy either. It was introduced by Kim Leadbeater.

[Spider]

11 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Yep. Shows what I know. Thought this had a zero chance. Must be some who either changed their mind I think.

I know it’s not labour policy but it is starmers policy. Who knows where this ends up now. 

It’s not a Starmer policy. It was Jo Cox’s sister that brought the bill.

Its still not cut and dried and may well end up not happening anyway

[bwfcfan5]

3 minutes ago, Spider said:

It’s not a Starmer policy. It was Jo Cox’s sister that brought the bill.

Its still not cut and dried and may well end up not happening anyway

I know they introduced it as a private members bill but it was Starmer that wanted it introduced that way rather than through government - it was part of his pre election promise to Esther Rantzen. Leadbetter was ‘asked’ to introduce it. 

[Cheese]

Just now, bwfcfan5 said:

I know they introduced it as a private members bill but it was Starmer that wanted it introduced that way rather than through government - it was part of his pre election promise to Esther Rantzen. Leadbetter was ‘asked’ to introduce it. 

No she wasn't. You're talking out of your arse.

[Spider]

3 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I know they introduced it as a private members bill but it was Starmer that wanted it introduced that way rather than through government - it was part of his pre election promise to Esther Rantzen. Leadbetter was ‘asked’ to introduce it. 

Nope

[bwfcfan5]

28 minutes ago, Cheese said:

No she wasn't. You're talking out of your arse.

Asked about the issue during a visit to Liverpool, Sir Keir said: "I made a promise to Esther Rantzen before the election that we would provide time for a debate and vote, but that it will be a free vote, and obviously that opportunity has now arisen."

He added: "I'm very pleased... that I'm able to make good on that promise to Esther Rantzen."

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Pressure is always a concern. Doesn’t have to be malicious either. Someone may feel in themselves under pressure not to become a burden. I think the timescale and rules are a reasonable start but many people with 6 months left may be able to lead at that point almost fully normal lives. They may not feel too bad. But is there then an almost internal pressure to ‘deal with it’ before it gets to the high pain low quality of life stage?

 

Im in favour of the choice but I do see the issues. It’s a lot of pressure on a health and care system that is already struggling if not failing. 

It is. Especially those doctors who will not break the hippocratic oath.

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

It’s pretty clear this bill has absolutely no chance of passing. I wonder if Starmer will regret making this a free vote or indeed maybe in a couple of years time he will thank his lucky stars he did?

Whoops.

Even the numbers declaring either way beforehand indicated a pass.

 

[bwfcfan5]

18 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is. Especially those doctors who will not break the hippocratic oath.

Whoops.

Even the numbers declaring either way beforehand indicated a pass.

 

I’d seen a breakdown with no ahead on declarations but the debate to me sounded like it was edging to a no. I know a few who expected it to be narrowly defeated.

I think it’s a good thing it’s not shut down but there is a lot of work to do on this I feel. Long way to go yet. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I’d seen a breakdown with no ahead on declarations but the debate to me sounded like it was edging to a no. I know a few who expected it to be narrowly defeated.

I think it’s a good thing it’s not shut down but there is a lot of work to do on this I feel. Long way to go yet. 

Yep.

Could easily be 2 years before it becomes law, and it may not pass the third reading, nor the Lords. Plenty of religious chaps in there.

Then it's backwards and forwards until it does.

[royal white]

Imagine being in unimaginable pain, imagine having to use all your savings just to exist, imagine wanting a way out but being told that you can’t because of people in suits. It’s bollocks. Surely it’s down to the person and a medical expert. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

29 minutes ago, royal white said:

Imagine being in unimaginable pain, imagine having to use all your savings just to exist, imagine wanting a way out but being told that you can’t because of people in suits. It’s bollocks. Surely it’s down to the person and a medical expert. 

It appears to be just that.

So long as you're within the criteria, you can apply. 

The fact that you can save money for those close to you isn't a factor for the doctors/judges to say no- at least from what I can see/understand. 

The concern expressed is that it is inevitable that someone with a terrible quality of life, and possibly in pain, then takes the government to court siting discrimination as they may have more than 6 months to live and don't qualify. 

Once a judge upholds the case, then the precedent is set.

Of itself, that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable, but you can see how quickly this legislation could be stretched.

Very tricky one, and something that will need to be heavily scrutinised when it comes back.

 

[Underpants]

19 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Mad

 

PR nonsense and a rod for his own back.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

11 minutes ago, Underpants said:

PR nonsense and a rod for his own back.

Why?

Passing on the views of those he represents, it'll never catch on.

[Cheese]

3 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Asked about the issue during a visit to Liverpool, Sir Keir said: "I made a promise to Esther Rantzen before the election that we would provide time for a debate and vote, but that it will be a free vote, and obviously that opportunity has now arisen."

He added: "I'm very pleased... that I'm able to make good on that promise to Esther Rantzen."

From the exact same article:

Backbench MPs do not normally get time in Parliament for their bills to be debated, but the Spen Valley MP's proposal will be allotted space after she came first in a ballot.

[Spider]

Are they including gout?

Asking for a friend.