Assisted dying

[multitool]

But here we are - we all have the government that Multitool deserves, and (surprise, surprise) it's amenable to the suggestion that there are groups of citizens who are better off dead. Goalposts to be set by people who have been entirely relaxed about, and provided material support for, their allies who have been spending well over a year slaughtering and maiming toddlers for being Arab and in the way of their designs. What could possibly go wrong?

Except, as you well know, the bill has been driven in its entirety by campaigns led by the people wanting assisted dying for themselves, rather than being imposed upon them. Added to which, the proposal is that patients have to have a terminal diagnosis, be expected to die within six months, be deemed to be free of coercion, and have two seperate assessments a week apart from different doctors. Added to which, the means of death is self-administered.

So, whilst I see the potential for error within the context of a crumbling NHS, and I question whether the desire for this is a reflection of a failure of palliative care, it is clearly not the instigation of a policy of eugenics.

I get that your MO is post ever-increasingly hyperbolic nonsense, making tenuous links to your other populist talking points all rising to a crescendo in anticipation of applause from the assembled headless chicken fanbois*, but have you considered that you might just be a female Nigel Farage?

(* only CR in this case, but times are hard)

 

[Ian H]

... have you considered that you might just be a female Nigel Farage?

@theclaud I think you've pulled!

 

[Rusty Nails]

That is patently untrue though. In Holland and Canada what was legislated as a law for the consenting terminally ill has in fact 'slippery sloped' to other conditions, all without additional legislation. They simply expand what 'terminal' means from those with a terminal physical illness to those with a mental health issue or eg anorexia. Let's face it, many treatable diseases are terminal if you don't treat them, eg diabetes, so you can bring a lot things under the legislation that it was never intended to cover.

"Canada introduced assisted dying in 2016 for adults with a terminal illness. In 2021, it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled.

On 17 March 2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...awyer-who-tried-to-take-his-own-life-13260546

You are arguing against a point that I was not trying to make. My post was about Presta’s interpretation of an interview.

I believe that there will be attempts at “creep” and that the legislation needs to be absolutely watertight before being passed…if this is at all possible.

My own, very personal view, is that ending one’s own life when under incurable, extreme suffering, and not just when death is some arbitrarily timescale away, is possibly the most basic of human rights.

Of course that comes with problems for society…but that’s life.

 

[Psamathe]

...
How was it out of context, the conversation was about creep widening the scope of those who will be eligible for assisted dying, and Leadbeater said on R4 that there can't be any creep like that because the law can't be changed.

The vote was the first step toward changing the law, which proves that laws can be changed, contrary to what Leadbeater was saying on the radio.

Of course laws can be changed, it's about who can change the laws. In the UK Parliament makes laws so changes would need to go back to Parliament to be debated, considered, ammended, etc.

That is patently untrue though. In Holland and Canada what was legislated as a law for the consenting terminally ill has in fact 'slippery sloped' to other conditions, all without additional legislation. They simply expand what 'terminal' means from those with a terminal physical illness to those with a mental health issue or eg anorexia. Let's face it, many treatable diseases are terminal if you don't treat them, eg diabetes, so you can bring a lot things under the legislation that it was never intended to cover.

"Canada introduced assisted dying in 2016 for adults with a terminal illness. In 2021, it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled.

On 17 March 2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...awyer-who-tried-to-take-his-own-life-13260546

That other countries' laws have had loopholes does not mean it is not possible to introduce a law without those loopholes. We have the benefit that we can see loopholes in laws from other countries and include safeguards in our own laws.

Ian

 

[theclaud]

as you well know, the bill has been driven in its entirety by campaigns led by the people wanting assisted dying for themselves, rather than being imposed upon them.

Yes, and a significant part of the opposition comes from disabled people who don't want to be offed when Rachel Reeves decides they are too expensive.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, and a significant part of the opposition comes from disabled people who don't want to be offed when Rachel Reeves decides they are too expensive.

View attachment 6992

Everyone knows its their nearest and dearest they fear the most who want them offed to stop them wasting their inheritance on care and nursing homes.

 

[Ian H]

Yes, and a significant part of the opposition comes from disabled people who don't want to be offed when Rachel Reeves decides they are too expensive.

View attachment 6992

Indeed. I agree with the principle but have serious doubts about the implementation.

 

[multitool]

Yes, and a significant part of the opposition comes from disabled people who don't want to be offed when Rachel Reeves decides they are too expensive.

View attachment 6992

OK Nigel.

Nice meme though. Shame you have to twist the story to fit it.

 

[multitool]

Indeed. I agree with the principle but have serious doubts about the implementation.

See the post above. It won't be Reeves deciding who goes.

It'll be your children.

 

[Ian H]

See the post above. It won't be Reeves deciding who goes.

It'll be your children.

It could be either, depending on the implementation.

 

[multitool]

It could be either, depending on the implementation.

Not depending on the implementation, no. Depending on the wording of the law.

 

[Psamathe]

That party leaders are strongly maintaining the "free vote" and not adopting it as a party issue gives MPs the freedom to raise concerns and what they might see as loopholes. When things are party issues then MPs raising loopholes are by implication pointing out failings by their leader or Ministers who didn't spot the problem.

eg Starmer wants new law to allow xyz then any MP pointing out unseen consequences or loopholes is pointing out failings in Starmer's plans so said MP more likely to stay quiet and help their career progression.

Ian

 

[multitool]

Went for a pint with a 75 year old friend last night. He'd had a rather upsetting diagnosis a couple of days ago. He's delighted with the prospect of changing the law on assisted dying.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Of course laws can be changed, it's about who can change the laws. In the UK Parliament makes laws so changes would need to go back to Parliament to be debated, considered, ammended, etc.

In this instance it may well be the case that the whole process is set out in Primary Legislation which, at least in principle, means changes require further Primary Legislation. Whether it is susceptible to 'Henry the 8th' type amendment without new law is something I do not know.

Government bill these days make often a few sweeping provisions and enable the on the ground detail to be added later. This stuff is then set out in Regulations in the form of Statutory Instruments the Parliamentary oversight of which is, to put it mildly, flaky.

Working with people claiming Universal Credit I have the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 on my screen ar all times. I rarely need to go back to the Welfare Reform Act to check anything. The 2013 Regs are themselves peppered with amendments making very significant changes which had nil or very little

 

[All uphill]

Working with people claiming Universal Credit I have the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 on my screen ar all times. I rarely need to go back to the Welfare Reform Act to check anything. The 2013 Regs are themselves peppered with amendments making very significant changes which had nil or very little

and then @Bromptonaut reached their best before date and was removed before finishing the sentence. All for the best!