It doesn’t, but it will create expectations of others not within the remit of bill. Narrowly drawn laws can massively change wider attitudes
They Shoot Horses, don't they?
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assisted dying bill
Sponsored Links
Priorities?
How about the billions wasted on corrupt PPE contracts?
And the millions that will now be spent on a worthless inquiry that we all know ends up with a 'lessons will be learned' result?
Personally I reckon a tiny fraction of that spent on saving a person's dignity in death is money well spent!
And it would also save the NHS even more in ongoing care that an individual doesn't want...
Without a trip to another country...
Do the Maths!
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,811
- Reaction score
- 2,694
- Country
You make a very good argument against the bill.
Better for everyone if granny just goes now, rather than drains our inheritance with expensive care.
Sponsored Links
I think you need to spend more time in hospitals if you think that
The pressure to speed up dying happens now.
Have a look at the Liverpool pathway
So it’s not an argument against the bill
It's about decriminalising the act of taking a terminally ill persons life without legal protection from prosecution. Yes, you can give drugs to someone who begs for an end to unendurable agony, but in that case the person who administers the lethal does is open to prosecution. People with religious convictions would consider suicide a sin in any case, and couldn't consider taking such a drastic step in similar circumstances.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- 2,367
- Country
Or end someone's life, against their will. It needs proper oversight, not ad hoc decisions on the hoof.
But who watches the watchers?
The first case of a false declaration of an administrative error and all will be thrown into a media frenzy of "i told you so-ing" by opponents of the policy. Would you trust a government department to oversee such delicate matters? So many clinical errors at hospitals over recent years have corroded trust in the Health Service, so any oversight would have to be watertight.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- 2,367
- Country
No system is ever perfect but I think doctors will do what is required of them, the vast majority anyway. There will always be the doom mongers, such is life (no pun intended).
You have lost the plot...
This is about a person's right to a dignified death...
I was merely pointing out the stupidity of those who wish to add the financial aspect to the issue...
Comprende?
Religion can be taken out of the argument...
There is no proof and never has been proof of an imaginary friend...
There is however undeniable proof of human beings dying in agony because zealots of whatever persuasion are happy to see fellow human beings suffer against their will...
Which is why the religious angle is a crock of bovine excrement!
It’s a fair point, it certainly is something to think about
I suppose the NHS are treating the terminally ill anyway.
Is there a big diff between morphine being administered with a syringe driver and a single lethal injection of some chemical?
I don’t see it being a burden on the NHS, provided the protocol is set up correctly.
I suppose there might be a complication with where it’s done….it can’t exactly be done on a ward, it would need a private room.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,811
- Reaction score
- 2,694
- Country
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,811
- Reaction score
- 2,694
- Country
Other than the separate ward, 2 doctors interview, need to check the paperwork and find a professional willing to prescribe the drugs.
The bill does note allow administration of the drug by anyone other than the person wishing to die. Though mechanical assistance is allowed.
Sponsored Links
