Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The welfare cuts are going to coincide nicely with the assisted dying legislation. It'll mean less social care is required. Tanni Grey-Thompson in The Times.

Gl_nW2OW8AAg58g.jpeg


When they cut/refuse drug treatments because of affordability they'll generate even more candidates.


View: https://x.com/thelizcarr/status/1900607611549937733
 
Last edited:

HMS_Dave

Regular
The DWP refuse to release statistics relating to suicides among those waiting for their claims and those who are going through review processes and those who have been sanctioned. They claim this is because it is "not in the public interest". Which i find to be nonsense and in my opinion, means that it doesn't make for positive reading on the DWP's part. All we know for certain is that suicide rates have been steadily increasing per 100,000 people since about 2008. This could be related to the story and as someone who supports assisted dying in some situations, is a cause for concern, however, i believe that the benefits system causes deaths right now and is set up to be punitive and degrading and is one aspect that few really discuss, in part, probably down to the refusal of the DWP to release the statistics on suicides.

Whatever people's opinions of the welfare state, it's reforms and how it is used, it should not itself be a cause of death or leading contributor to death for anybody using it.

I think speeding up the claims, reviews and appeals will help, but fundamentally, the claims process is confusing, degrading and lengthy. People feel despair and worthlessness which can only exasperate negativity in their lives...
 

multitool

Guest
The welfare cuts are going to coincide nicely with the assisted dying legislation. It'll mean less social care is required. Tanni Grey-Thompson in The Times.

View attachment 7562

When they cut/refuse drug treatments because of affordability they'll generate even more candidates.


View: https://x.com/thelizcarr/status/1900607611549937733


Being disabled does not make one a candidate for assisted dying.

Having a terminal diagnosis and an expectancy of death within 6 months is one of the conditions.
 

multitool

Guest
I don't think it is. Consider the Bell case.

Expand please.

The Bell case involved a judicial review. It's not clear to me how the outcome would have been any different without the existence of NHS England.

The executive and the judiciary are seperate branches of the State.
 

monkers

Squire
Expand please.

The Bell case involved a judicial review. It's not clear to me how the outcome would have been any different without the existence of NHS England.

The executive and the judiciary are seperate branches of the State.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgement, saying it is not for the courts to decide clinical decisions. That now stands as a precedent. The Streeting plan is to gift ministers rather than parliament or the courts the competence to decide clinical procedures. You trust Streeting that much?
 

multitool

Guest
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgement, saying it is not for the courts to decide clinical decisions. That now stands as a precedent. The Streeting plan is to gift ministers rather than parliament or the courts the competence to decide clinical procedures. You trust Streeting that much?

That is not Streeting's plan at all.
 
Being disabled does not make one a candidate for assisted dying.

Having a terminal diagnosis and an expectancy of death within 6 months is one of the conditions.

These are the safeguards that have been voted down so far. They include ones (9, 48, 402, 11, 283) that would prevent circumventing of the 6 month/terminal diagnosis. Many disabilities are terminal if you don't take your meds. In Canada and the Netherlands they've expanded the criteria from terminal illness without changing the law.

GlYjbh9WkAEi3tx.png
 

monkers

Squire
That is not Streeting's plan at all.

Not overtly.

My concern is that ministers will have increased ability to exert influence and control clinical practices according to political ambitions and positions.

I don't have the benefit of N being here this weekend. In her absence I'll put the question to co-pilot - not that I have absolute faith in bots.

My concern is that following the disbandment of NHS England ministers will have greater influence and control over clinical protocols.

That’s a valid concern. Greater ministerial control could potentially lead to political priorities influencing clinical decisions, which might not always align with the best medical practices. Clinical governance frameworks, like those currently in place, aim to ensure that healthcare decisions are based on evidence and patient needs. However, changes to the NHS structure could shift this balance.
 
Top Bottom