briantrumpet
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to disagree with any of these three consecutive posts on my Bluesky feed:
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Doesn't that apply irrespective of assisted dying. "I don't want you to be a burden" without any options could result in elderly not seeking assistance they need and ending up hypothetmic, dehydrated and malnourished whilst unable to get to ghe toilet,
But I suspect most of the "I don't want to be a burden" is from elderly without terminal prognosis. My suspicion is that the assisted dying is more of an option for those who don't want the pain or indignity of what they know is going to happen to they in the near future. But that's my suspicion, not backed-ip by fact nor analysis I can link to.
Ian
Seems to me Starmer is playing the game of politics. Strategising and positioning to outsmart his political opponents who are also playing political strategy. To them it's a game . They seem to have overlooked that their games impact the lives of real people in major ways. The vulnerable aged unable to get care so they can go to tje toilet or eat; the hard working migrant caring for elderly in the UK who now has no idea if her visa renewal will be rejected and she'll be thrown out. The migrant communities now feeling unwanted, unwelcome, etc.
Still Starmer enjoying playing his strategy games. No wonder so many of the electorate have had enough of politicians and would prefer "None of the above".
Ian
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Sure, but most people don't decide to die through self neglect because most terminally ill people (though you don't have to terminally ill for assisted dying in this bill) don't want to die, they want to live as long as they can without pain or distress. But if you put an assisted dying option in front of them it won't be long before some people do feel obliged to take it up.
BTW the option should be better palliative care so no one ends up dehydrated and hypothermic, not '... or we can kill you'.
icowden
Squire
The choice should be there for those that want an end to pain and suffering rather than being forced to live on thanks to the wonders of medicine we now have.
Currently I don't see it as an either or thing. We should have better palliative care as well as assisted dying with adequate safeguards.
But given how Government seems to putting political strategy games ahead of those needing care I can only see palliative care availability/quality declining over the next few years.
nb I thought the assisted dying bill proposed only applied to those with a terminal prognosis with less than 6 months life expectancy not
But as it's still changing I'm not following it's development in detail.
Ian
briantrumpet
Well-Known Member
The trouble is I'm getting to the point that I don't know if he believes in anything. Unlike Johnson, I don't think he's a habitual liar, or in it because or narcissism or belief in his superiority over everyone else, but I'd rather vote for someone with deep principles that inform their policies.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
I am intrigued by your insight into what "most" terminally ill people want. I would think the statement "dont want to die" is applicable to able bodied people too, but, some of us only want that if they can actually function. As one of my drinking pals rather indelicately put it "once I reach the stage where I cannot wipe my own arse, I want to be able to check-out". It is a view I happen to share. I am not in favour of forcing others to share my view, but, conversely, I am not willing to have other people view on the subject prevent me from making MY choices.
CXRAndy
Guru
The trouble with him mot believing in anything is that nobody has any idea what he'll fo next. Or rather his political opponents in his game will be determining what he does next as he responds to their move in the game. In effect he gas handed his agenda to those political opponents who do believe in things (or are consistent in theit game strategy).
Meanwhile for those needing help to ho to the toilet, the care sector currently has 131,000 unfilled vacancies and Starmer just made filling those a lot lot harder.
Ian
AuroraSaab
Shaman
I'm going by what nurses and doctors and palliative care specialists say. After initial depression, most patients with a good standard of palliative don't want to hasten their end.
When you or your pal get to that stage, if you had a good standard or care and some quality of life you might feel differently. By emphasising the personal autonomy aspect I think it's easy to overlook that this bill will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable.
There's certainly scope for an assisted dying protocol but this bill isn't it. Parliament spent longer discussing the fox hunting bill and every sensible ammendment or safeguard has been vetoed.
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
I'm not happy with them for that - it's their biggest failing IMO. Not sure exactly but seems like a lack of clear policy and management of the numbers were a large part of it. In any event, needs fixing.
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
It's a widespread issue, judging by the reactions of several other countries.
I agree that restrictions on sectors where there are clear shortages are not a good idea.
Aside from numbers, it's about fulfilling job needs and getting good quality people, rather than some randoms who become a burden.
C R
Veteran
Re the assisted dying bill, the story of Ramón Sampedro may be worth checking out. The movie Mar Adentro (The Sea Inside), tells his story. TL;DR, it is very complicated.
