- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,632
- Reaction score
- 2,680
- Country
Blup hasn’t suggested otherwise.
They Shoot Horses, don't they?
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assisted dying bill
Sponsored Links
He clearly has, and now you're starting a hokey-cokey to help him weasel out of it.
I fear MP's at the last moment will chicken out...
So here's an idea...
If we can have a referendum that some people claim was about 'taking back control', then why not have a referendum about taking back control of how you wish to end your life?
It is an individual's life we are talking about here.
Only unlike last time, all the details and safeguards would have to be set down beforehand and the electorate given every opportunity to study the options before voting not after.
Because otherwise you often don't get what you vote for when you don't have the facts laid out concisely and in full, rather than relying on words based on political advantages/lies.
650 MP's voting on their 'beliefs' about controlling whether the prospect of any number of 65 million people could die in pain and despair is wrong. People being able/not being able to get their last wish should be the ones having the say.
So here's an idea...
If we can have a referendum that some people claim was about 'taking back control', then why not have a referendum about taking back control of how you wish to end your life?
It is an individual's life we are talking about here.
Only unlike last time, all the details and safeguards would have to be set down beforehand and the electorate given every opportunity to study the options before voting not after.
Because otherwise you often don't get what you vote for when you don't have the facts laid out concisely and in full, rather than relying on words based on political advantages/lies.
650 MP's voting on their 'beliefs' about controlling whether the prospect of any number of 65 million people could die in pain and despair is wrong. People being able/not being able to get their last wish should be the ones having the say.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,632
- Reaction score
- 2,680
- Country
Nope. You are both confusing stating that the government is dictating when you can apply to die with an assistance (which they are) and mandatory dying which is nonsense.
The draft bill does dictate when a person is classified as terminally ill and it’s someone with 6 months to live.
Sponsored Links
There are weasels at work here, but in Westminster.
how is it preposterous?
you have made the basic error of saying I am wrong without explaining how or why?
not true
WRONG
it is not a "state solution"
it is a law designed to give people a choice to have a dignified death
I suggest you try to stop seeing the world through your "I hate Starmer" bias -its clouding your ability to think
it is designed to only allow people with a notified terminal illness to be allowed the right to choose
what safeguards would you put in place to ensure a person that is just sad this week cant make that choice?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,632
- Reaction score
- 2,680
- Country
I have some experience of the family court. 6 months is not enough time.
Currently they are taking 4 months to rubber stamp consent orders drafted by 3 barristers and checked by 4 lawyers.
I also know people who were given years to live who died in weeks.
A person diagnosed with a terminal illness shouldn’t need to wait until the estimated last 6 months of life before being able to apply. 9-12 months is more workable.
Currently they are taking 4 months to rubber stamp consent orders drafted by 3 barristers and checked by 4 lawyers.
I also know people who were given years to live who died in weeks.
A person diagnosed with a terminal illness shouldn’t need to wait until the estimated last 6 months of life before being able to apply. 9-12 months is more workable.
Like brexhit there are unthought through consequences of this bill. Does it create a new “human right”? How does it affect insurance, or IHT planning? Should someone exercising the right, be discriminated against because of it, for example non payout of an otherwise valid life policy that will pay off the mortgage? If only on practical grounds, MP’s should give this one an early bath.
Proper palliative care offers dignity, not a text from nhs england at 6 months
I dont hate Starmy but he is a check list politician who got very lucky. He seems good at detail and admin which is a plus after Borris etc. Being neutral on a moral issue is a back covering exercise.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,836
- Reaction score
- 2,357
- Country
I disagree on that as well, it is about not influencing others.
I'm not confusing anything, just commenting on bulp's statement and your lack of comprehension.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,668
- Reaction score
- 997
- Country
Same
The law criminalises attempted and assisted suicide, you will get life imprisonment under the bill for what is potentially an admin error. That all suggests morality is central to the change in law
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,836
- Reaction score
- 2,357
- Country
Irrelevant to whether the PM speaks out or not. I'm undecided on the proposals by the way.
Sponsored Links
