Assisted Dying Bill

Kill me now?

  • Total voters
    41
Broomhelga said:
Of course nobody is arguing that but there will likely be instances where any safeguards put in place are not going to be strong enough. Do we really have the resources for the number of checks that would need to be in place to stop mistakes happening/people dying against their wishes?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘mistakes happening’ here and I’m not sure I can construct a hypothetical situation where this bill leads to someone dying who didn’t want to. The checks which are being proposed in the current bill are absolutely robust enough to prevent people dying against their will. Any assisted death would have to be approved by two doctors and a judge, which they simply wouldn’t do if there was the slightest suggestion of coercion or hesitancy. Given that they would administer the drug themselves, they would be able to change their mind until the very last moment. No one is going to force the needle into their arm if they falter. And any argument about resources entirely ignores that much more resources are required to force people to live in intolerable agony for an unknown period of time rather than giving them the choice of an easier death.
 
Last edited:
This is an absolute no brainer for me. As with almost every ‘progressive’ policy; I just feel like why not do it now when it almost certainly will happen in the future anyway.
 
Absolutely. The law lags so far behind public opinion here but then, it's hardly the only instance of this.
 
dmlaw said:
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘mistakes happening’ here and I’m not sure I can construct a hypothetical situation where this bill leads to someone dying who didn’t want to. The checks which are being proposed in the current bill are absolutely robust enough to prevent people dying against their will. Any assisted death would have to be approved by two doctors and a judge, which they simply wouldn’t do if there was the slightest suggestion of coercion or hesitancy. Given that they would administer the drug themselves, they would be able to change their mind until the very last moment. No one is going to force the needle into their arm if they falter. And any argument about resources entirely ignores that much more resources are required to force people to live in intolerable agony for an unknown period of time rather than giving them the choice of an easier death.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if a lot of thought has gone into this incredibly emotive and challenging subject.
 
Jocasta Clun said:
Heaven forbid that one should be seen as UNPROGRESSIVE or ANYTHING but as someone whose long-term disabled mother was pretty much DISPOSED OF by the NHS I'm kind of sympathetic to this viewpoint

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/28/assisted-dying-bill-vote-mps-disabled-people-liz-carr
Click to expand...

I'm very sympathetic to Carr's perspective but when it all boils down to "we can't trust doctors, nurses or lawyers" then we may as well just throw the whole system away.

Her article is a very impassioned argument against DNR orders, but doesn't engage with the bill at all which is explicitly about allowing terminally ill people to opt in to a less painful* death. They're two different conversations (albeit both very worthwhile conversations to have).

* Depending on how you feel about paperwork.
 
Yeah, given that this bill requires:
- a diagnosis of six months or less left to live
- informed, competent consent being given twice
- the individual to administer the final step themselves

Her arguments aren't especially relevant here. If you don't like assisted death (and her insisting on using the term assisted suicide is a tad :eyes:) , don't have one, but it isn't being imposed on anyone and therefore this isn't justification to prevent others from choosing to have one. Especially given the actual thrust of her article is a complaint about agency being taken away.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
inews.co.uk

MPs are being dishonest about why they oppose assisted dying

For many, religious belief plays a part - and MPs should make clear when that is the case
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk

In a surprise to no one, another journalist on LBC mentioned that Wes Streeting is likely to be one of these dishonest MPs :eyes:
Click to expand...

Both Streeting and Mahmood are dreadful for this (and dreadful in general tbh). People have a right to their own beliefs but when you're putting your own faith above actual real people, that's pretty shitty.
 
That jumped up little fascist Robert Jenrick couldn’t resist using he speech to complain about the ECHR.
 
Thank God. I was planning some very unkind comments regarding the ridiculous reasons put forward by some of the antis had the bill been voted down but now I can leave them be.
 
Obvious to say, but this would not have gone through in the last Parliament.



Even with no whip and barely any MPs the Tories are still terrible cunts.
 
Very relieved - I know there is a long way to go but this would likely have been dead for a generation otherwise.
 
Both the Isle of Wight MPs, one Labour, one Conservative, have voted against this bill 🤦🏻‍♀️
 
I've just realised Kim Leadbetter is Jo Cox sister. This has has certainly raised her profile.
 
Badenoch voted against. Sunak interestingly voted for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom