Assisted Dying, Yes or No?

[AuroraSaab]

My understanding is that she is not against assisted dying in principle and viewed the committee stage as an opportunity to fix the shortcomings in the legislation.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ew-assisted-dying-bill-is-not-fit-for-purpose

 

[Bazzer]

Do you have any evidence from Naz Shah that she supports assisted dying? There is nothing that I can see in the article you linked to in which she says this. Neither can I readily see any other source referencing her support.
Her actions at second reading in voting no, would also appear contrary to this view. My searches of Hansard show she doesn't appear to have contributed to the second reading debate and MP's like her with 10 years in the House, would know the detail of Bills is dealt with at committee stage.

 

[classic33]

Okay, so given it's a delicate subject I know a dangerously little about... Your personal concern is finding yourself in a situation you would not wish to persist, but unable legally for your wishes in that case to be respected in advance, but unable to express them should it occur l?

That and the implications for those who may have done nothing to help me stay alive(I hesitate to say living.).
Why should they face possible prosecution for something I decided years ago, and in all probability before even being seen by them? It certainly isn't a "get out of jail card" as some have called. But I've tried to cover everyone that may be involved.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This bit. She supports 'a safe law that would help people'. Just because someone voted against this particular bill in its form at the second reading, doesn't mean they are against assisted dying altogether. I suppose the next vote will indicate if other MP's feel the same and the 'For' vote is reduced.

 

[First Aspect]

That and the implications for those who may have done nothing to help me stay alive(I hesitate to say living.).
Why should they face possible prosecution for something I decided years ago, and in all probability before even being seen by them? It certainly isn't a "get out of jail card" as some have called. But I've tried to cover everyone that may be involved.

I'm afraid it's going to be Switzerland, under cover of night. The proposed legislation is a first step, but wont cover things like locked in syndrome, pvs etc.

I'm wholly in favour of expanding the options using a mechanism similar to DNRs, but society will need time to adjust to the concept that people are not being routinely murdered by the law covering terminal illness. Will take a while, I think.

 

[Bazzer]

View attachment 8321
This bit. She supports 'a safe law that would help people'. Just because someone voted against this particular bill in its form at the second reading, doesn't mean they are against assisted dying altogether. I suppose the next vote will indicate if other MP's feel the same and the 'For' vote is reduced.

Pedantic, but I am looking for something she has said or written, not a journalist's interpretation of her view.
It would also be interesting to see her voting patterns as the committee undertook its work.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The journalist, Barnes, is an award winning Newsnight journalist, so I'd be surprised if she was inclined to be misrepresenting Shah's views. If you want to be pedantic there's this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/assisted-dying-kim-leadbeater-naz-shah-b2723896.html

This idea that anybody who is concerned about the details in what is a complex piece of legislation on an important subject must actually be secretly against any form of assisted dying, or is acting out of some hidden agenda, rather than being concerned about safeguards is a bit odd. I'm not sure it would be a complaint raised about scrutiny in other legislation.

 

[First Aspect]

The journalist, Barnes, is an award winning Newsnight journalist, so I'd be surprised if she was inclined to be misrepresenting Shah's views. If you want to be pedantic there's this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/assisted-dying-kim-leadbeater-naz-shah-b2723896.html

View attachment 8324

This idea that anybody who is concerned about the details in what is a complex piece of legislation on an important subject must actually be secretly against any form of assisted dying, or is acting out of some hidden agenda, rather than being concerned about safeguards is a bit odd. I'm not sure it would be a complaint raised about scrutiny in other legislation.

This is true. However if your concerns are such that it becomes impossible to implement assisted dying from a practical perspective, this does mean you are actually against it.

Its a bit like saying you don't mind immigration in principle, providing no one comes here.

 

[Psamathe]

Anecdotal but I suspect maybe affects a reasonable %age, my Mum was in great pain (not a terminal condition) that meds couldn't adequately control and she was scared about the future and had decided she would go to Switzerland at some point. She asked me if I'd take her when it was time and after reflection said I couldn't, not because I disagreed with her decision, just it would cause emotions I expected I couldn't cope with. And she continued to fret then asked my brother and after consideration he said he would and you could see the positive impact on her state of mind. She wasn't ready but now had options when she needed them. Just having the option made a massive improvement to her life.

Just having the option should it prove necessary can be a massive relief to some facing such issues.

(She never did as other issues took over).

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

Do you have any evidence from Naz Shah that she supports assisted dying? There is nothing that I can see in the article you linked to in which she says this. Neither can I readily see any other source referencing her support.
Her actions at second reading in voting no, would also appear contrary to this view. My searches of Hansard show she doesn't appear to have contributed to the second reading debate and MP's like her with 10 years in the House, would know the detail of Bills is dealt with at committee stage.

This is true. However if your concerns are such that it becomes impossible to implement assisted dying from a practical perspective, this does mean you are actually against it.

Its a bit like saying you don't mind immigration in principle, providing no one comes here.

2nd reading is more a vote on whether MPs should spend time improvcing the Bill in Committee rather than actually agreeing/disagreeing. So voting "No" to 2nd reading is more of a "can't be improved to anywhere near where I might vote for it".

Ian

 

[Bazzer]

This idea that anybody who is concerned about the details in what is a complex piece of legislation on an important subject must actually be secretly against any form of assisted dying, or is acting out of some hidden agenda, rather than being concerned about safeguards is a bit odd. I'm not sure it would be a complaint raised about scrutiny in other legislation.

You are making an assumption about my thoughts.
Other than you both being opponents of the proposed legislation, at least in its current form, I was trying to get my head around why you have referenced Ms Shah at least twice in this thread, but none of the others who disagree with the legislation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

She was initially mentioned re anorexia and what would count as terminal illness as her ammendment referenced that. Other references flowed from that. HTH.

 

[Bazzer]

So, do you agree with all or just some of the concerns, she mentioned in the article? Or indeed, do you have others?

 

[First Aspect]

She was initially mentioned re anorexia and what would count as terminal illness as her ammendment referenced that. Other references flowed from that. HTH.

Yeah but if she's wrong about that and against the bill on the basis of an incorrect understanding, it rather buggers up the process and creates a lot of irrelevant noise doesn't it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So, do you agree with all or just some of the concerns, she mentioned in the article? Or indeed, do you have others?

I think the ones about coercion and illnesses that become terminal just if you don't eat or drink need to be considered carefully - a view shared by domestic violence groups and eating disorder groups.

Of the ammendments which were voted down which ones do you consider unreasonable and think were right to be dismissed?