Is it the moral question or an ethical dilemma, from your pov?
They Shoot Horses, don't they?
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assisted dying bill
Sponsored Links
He is the boss
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,841
- Reaction score
- 2,357
- Country
And that's why he doesn't want to influence others.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,841
- Reaction score
- 2,357
- Country
Hard to split the two, just the thought of ending life "early". Genuinely not sure either way.
Sponsored Links
It's a free vote so can't give his own views. Seems some Labour people have - it's still a free vote. Cross party as well.
Those are the details I was talking about...
If there is a determined wish to lay these down in law, then it could happen...
Most life insurance policies already pay out on suicide after a gap (normally 1 year) between taking out the policy and the suicide...
So what would be the difference with assisted dying?
Similarly with IHT, how many terminally ill people know they are going to become that way 7 years in advance?
The people should be allowed to decide on this, not a bunch of self serving politicians!
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,686
- Reaction score
- 999
- Country
We elect MPs for these very multi angled decisions.
We've seen before what happens when the electorate has a referendum without enough knowledge to make those decisions
Hopefully our MP's have consulted and put in a lot of thought before they vote, it's a free vote after all
My local MP has made her voting intentions clear, whether I agree or not. I wonder how many of those in full support or against it have challenged their own MP for their reasonings and voting intentions.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,642
- Reaction score
- 2,682
- Country
Post up his comment that you think supports your position and that of carman. I think you are misunderstanding the statement that the state decides when you may legally end your life with assistance. The bill clearly states this.
Blub is not stating that the state is dictating when you must die, only when you may legally choose assisted dying.
I'm suggesting "6 months to live", isn't a great deal of time to get the paperwork filed and approved with the family court.
I know what you mean, but in a clear cut case where all concerned agree it's surely humane to allow them to do so without leaving people open to legal penalties. I think it's one of those moments where there's a change in perceptions and it becomes less of a religious objection than a philosophical acceptance that nobody lives forever.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,642
- Reaction score
- 2,682
- Country
I was previously in favour of it. But I don't like what they have drafted. I see no reason for a Family court Judge to have any involvement.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,841
- Reaction score
- 2,357
- Country
Yes, perhaps that time has come. I'd have no strong objections if it went through, just haven't quite sorted it in my own mind yet.
And they invariably vote with their own interests at heart...
A free vote isn't really a free vote when those higher up the greasy pole signal the way for the lower down ones to increase their prospects
The knowledge (ie the facts) have to be given to them beforehand...
Are you claiming that MP's are fully clued up before trooping into their voting area?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,686
- Reaction score
- 999
- Country
Not all
This is a free voteA free vote isn't really a free vote when those higher up the greasy pole signal the way for the lower down ones to increase their prospects
Who gives it ?
More so than a lot of voters, yes
The corrected term is assisted suicide.
And if the "victim" cannot carry out any of the deed by themselves?
Sponsored Links
