• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Assisted dying bill.

beak

Member
Location
croydon
Country
Ukraine
A free un- whipped vote is due.Several notable Tories are against the bill,the ostrich head in sand approach that make the tories unvotable.I suppose some tory supporters will not like it as the terminally ill are"economically Inactive".
 
A free un- whipped vote is due.Several notable Tories are against the bill,the ostrich head in sand approach that make the tories unvotable.I suppose some tory supporters will not like it as the terminally ill are"economically Inactive".
Why do you have to make this about party politics.?

It is an emotive topic and MPs from all parties have differing opinions hence the free vote. Significant leaders in the Labour party are against the bill.

For the record I am in favour but I certainly understand why some MPs will vote against it.
 
Why do you have to make this about party politics.?

It is an emotive topic and MPs from all parties have differing opinions hence the free vote. Significant leaders in the Labour party are against the bill.

For the record I am in favour but I certainly understand why some MPs will vote against it.
Totally onside with you. Too many on here want to reduce debate to the lowest common denominator. For the record, after much thought, I am in favour of it - with the right safeguards.
 
Why do you have to make this about party politics.?

It is an emotive topic and MPs from all parties have differing opinions hence the free vote. Significant leaders in the Labour party are against the bill.

For the record I am in favour but I certainly understand why some MPs will vote against it.
It is being voted for in Parliament and many well known politicians have spoken out to the media about how they will vote,Truss,Boris and May are against the bill.
 
A free un- whipped vote is due.Several notable Tories are against the bill,the ostrich head in sand approach that make the tories unvotable.I suppose some tory supporters will not like it as the terminally ill are"economically Inactive".
And they vote Tory.
 
Why do you have to make this about party politics.?

It is an emotive topic and MPs from all parties have differing opinions hence the free vote. Significant leaders in the Labour party are against the bill.

For the record I am in favour but I certainly understand why some MPs will vote against it.
OK, jokes aside. I can raise a strong argument for each side and either argument would convince me.

I do not understand anyone who considers this an easy decision (and I discount the religious who vote on religious grounds as they have not fully considered the complex issues with their own minds). A vote would have to have been arrived at after a lot of soul searching and thought.

Incidentally, we could have another disconnect between the people and those who represent them as the public appear to be wholly supportive, whereas Parliament is very finely balanced.
 
It's such an emotive subject that it is surely beyond mere party politics. Whilst accepting the sanctity of life argument it seems out of kilter that a vet can make a decision based on the prognosis and likely quality of life of an animal but a doctor can't.
 
It's such an emotive subject that it is surely beyond mere party politics. Whilst accepting the sanctity of life argument it seems out of kilter that a vet can make a decision based on the prognosis and likely quality of life of an animal but a doctor can't.
Indeed, when an animal is put out of misery, it is termed "doing the humane thing".
I think those with close experience of such matters, will likely vote in favour.
It's all about the safeguarding, with Letby still fresh in people's minds, or even Shipman.
 
How is it going to get thru the Lords they are mostly about to croak it anyway.

With the additional safefuard of the High Court plus the doctors, which I notice several of the other countries or regions do not have, plus it is self-administered I think that tips the balance for me.

Enlightened legislation has not been a feature of our system.

There isn't any record of mis-use that I know of.

And it beats VAR, alhough death, of course, is not always clear and obvious.

😎
 
I think the fears are that this is a slippery slope as I've seen this several times in my life, they introduce something, tell you that it's nothing radical and then later on use the changed situation to push further.

On this very issue this happened in Canada, which now has a quite disgraceful situation on 'assisted dying'.

So while what is suggested seems sensible I don't trust them as the saying about giving an inch is true....it's never respected.
 
It does open the door not just to the final boat out of the shire, but to insurance companies coining it in with small print.
Suicide in most premiums counts after a year and a day of policy. Some people could get very ill very quickly with unimaginable pain and body use loss.
How would this play out if they were insured for less than a year and a day.
Totally not political but a little concerning I haven’t heard this mentioned anywhere.
Most of us have life insurance so wait for the rise in premiums letter if this gets the go ahead. FTR I’m with yes but must be carefully considered on a case by case basis.
 
It's what it will lead to is my main problem. Once it gets in they will add to it and add to it. So that a 17 year old with a mental illness can have assisted dying.

Just create a new virus that kills off the elderly earlier and transfer them all into care homes so they go quicker....oh wait that already happened.
 
I have two close buddies with active cancer. Right now neither are terminal but it is likely that one of them will be before much longer. We talk about it together and it is clear that he does not want his final days to be painful or without dignity. He knows his mind and his body and has let us, his friends and family, know what he wants to happen eventually. That is one of the reasons I am in favour.
 
I think the fears are that this is a slippery slope as I've seen this several times in my life, they introduce something, tell you that it's nothing radical and then later on use the changed situation to push further.

So while what is suggested seems sensible I don't trust them as the saying about giving an inch is true....it's never respected.
...exactly what happened in Ireland with abortion. It was promised to be very selective, only happening in very difficult circumstances.
And today, getting an abortion is easier than buying alcohol. Pretty much any excuse will do....."oh, the baby would be born in the wrong month for getting into Primary school. Lets abort it and try again in another 5 months time"
 
Last edited:
The slippery slope argument is that patients will be pressurised by some in the medical community into taking this option.

Whereas today the medical community pressurise patients into accepting a lingering and often painful death, just so they can say we did our best for the patient..

On balance I know which option I would prefer.
 
i bet that 'assisted dying' would predominantly hit the poor. No toffs, politicians , or Royalty for the chop. It reminds me of Lefty Education Ministers who send their own kids to private schools.
 
i bet that 'assisted dying' would predominantly hit the poor. No toffs, politicians , or Royalty for the chop. It reminds me of Lefty Education Ministers who send their own kids to private schools.
Yep, no judgement on where anyone falls on this subject but for myself.....I don't trust the feckers.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top