They Shoot Horses, don't they?

[motorbiking]

So we are clear, you think the bill allows the relative of the terminally ill to administer a lethal dose to the person. You might want to read sec 18

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0012/240012.pdf

And then apologise for being wrong.

 

[Odds]

So we are clear, you think the bill allows the relative of the terminally ill to administer a lethal dose to the person. You might want to read sec 18

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0012/240012.pdf

And then apologise for being wrong.

The Bill was proposed after stories of relatives adminstering a fatal does and being prosecuted. They'd done nothing more than end a loved one's suffering. You may get a doctor to do it for you, but under the cirumstances, it'd be a comfort to know some over zealous lawyer is waiting with a writ.

 

[motorbiking]

The Bill was proposed after stories of relatives adminstering a fatal does and being prosecuted. They'd done nothing more than end a loved one's suffering. You may get a doctor to do it for you, but under the cirumstances, it'd be a comfort to know some over zealous lawyer is waiting with a writ.

The bill does not protect a person in this situation.

 

[blup]

Have you read it?

I happen to think it is a good law...

Would you propose that I don't have the choice to think so?

It creates the very bureaucratic delays - in the name of safeguarding - that supporters think will ease suffering and hasten the ending of pain. Better a lasting power of attorney type law where people diagnosed can make the decision now, and take it when they think it appropriate, or delegate it to their attorney. But Britain being Britain I suspect it will become big business, the lawyers and the unscrupulous will profit.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It creates the very bureaucratic delays - in the name of safeguarding - that supporters think will ease suffering and hasten the ending of pain. Better a lasting power of attorney type law where people diagnosed can make the decision now, and take it when they think it appropriate, or delegate it to their attorney. But Britain being Britain I suspect it will become big business, the lawyers and the unscrupulous will profit.

So you don't disagree with assisted dying after all

 

[denso13]

Better a lasting power of attorney type law where people diagnosed can make the decision now, and take it when they think it appropriate, or delegate it to their attorney.

So you agree with the principle but not the process? Ok...

 

[ellal]

Yes.

How does a person with MND benefit? What do you think a family court judge with zero medical expertise brings to the party?

Muddying the waters of course...

But at least you have admitted you wouldn't allow me the choice...

And a judge would have written evidence from more than one source regarding an individual's situation...

What is your knowledge of such things?

Those with extreme views and who wish to prolong suffering come in different guises...

You are one of those!

 

[ellal]

Better a lasting power of attorney type law where people diagnosed can make the decision now, and take it when they think it appropriate, or delegate it to their attorney.

So in other words fully legalise what is known as a 'Living Will'...

Glad that you now endorse assisted dying

 

[motorbiking]

Muddying the waters of course...

But at least you have admitted you wouldn't allow me the choice...

And a judge would have written evidence from more than one source regarding an individual's situation...

What is your knowledge of such things?

Those with extreme views and who wish to prolong suffering come in different guises...

You are one of those!

Complete nonsense. Again, for the terminally hard of thinking.

I support assisted suicide for people with terminal illness. Suicide is legal anyway. Its not a big change.
I would like the definition of terminally ill to be extended to people with at least 12 months to live, because 6 months is too short to give anyone enough time to get the approval and have a meaningful choice.
I see no value in a high court family court judge sealing the order. He/she has no medical knowledge to question the two doctors. That is not to say where there are objections from close family it should not be put before a judge.

On a wider note, Family court judges spend too much time reviewing and sealing the work of other qualified lawyers and barristers, with zero additional value. You don't need a high court judge to form a binding contract and you don't need a high court judge to grant permission to get married. But should you want a divorce, it's a different story. 3 barristers and 2 lawyers advising a divorcing couple is not enough to in the eyes of the law, it has to be sealed by a family court judge who only has the information in front of him. pointless.

Assisted Suicide as currently drafted is more money for pots and pans lawyers. Not what anyone needs when faced with terminal illness

 

[ellal]

I see no value in a high court family court judge sealing the order. He/she has no medical knowledge to question the two doctors.

So you are now questioning a judge's ability to question medical evidence?

You show yet again your inability to understand the process!

That is not to say where there are objections from close family it should not be put before a judge.

And yet according to you a judge can then make a decision based on family thoughts?

You make no sense at all !

 

[motorbiking]

How exactly is a judge going to question the evidence? Do you think there will be a hearing?

its not me who doesn't understand the proposed process. Did you read it?

 

[blup]

So you don't disagree with assisted dying after all

It would be inhuman not to consider an appropriate way forward. But certainly not convinced that the bill will work or is fair. I don't see why the serious physically and mentally ill and those under 18 are excluded. It is immeasurably cruel to tell a suffering 17 year old that they cannot benefit from this law, on the basis - presumably - that they don't have an adults capacity to consent. Likewise a tetraplegic who does not feel they can go on. The state is saying "we retain a safeguarding approach for certain groups but not others". To me that makes the whole idea questionable, especially as palliative care and individual choice are available options. What wider message does this send to disabled people about the value of their lives, and the acceptability of suicide generally.

 

[blup]

So you agree with the principle but not the process? Ok...

I am uncomfortable with the idea that the private sector will see this an opportunity to exploit the vulnerable. Look at that bloke accused of milking care homes of powers of attorney. All the safeguards in place, money talks.

 

[blup]

So in other words fully legalise what is known as a 'Living Will'...

Glad that you now endorse assisted dying

If the principle is accepted, this bill tends to makes ****e of the whole idea.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It would be inhuman not to consider an appropriate way forward. But certainly not convinced that the bill will work or is fair. I don't see why the serious physically and mentally ill and those under 18 are excluded. It is immeasurably cruel to tell a suffering 17 year old that they cannot benefit from this law, on the basis - presumably - that they don't have an adults capacity to consent. Likewise a tetraplegic who does not feel they can go on. The state is saying "we retain a safeguarding approach for certain groups but not others". To me that makes the whole idea questionable, especially as palliative care and individual choice are available options. What wider message does this send to disabled people about the value of their lives, and the acceptability of suicide generally.

It says you have an option.

You don't have to take it. But if you want, you can.

Some will use it and be thankful. Some won't and it will make no difference