[UK politics] Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

Daemonhammer wrote:
Im not actually going at anything or anyone here, its just something I found today that further fortifies my point that I made yesterday about religious groups opposing euthanasia.

Spoiler:

Yeah this position always baffles me. We should embrace human suffering because it makes people believe in Jesus? I don't think it works that way. Though it would explain why the Christian Right gives so little feels about the suffering and plight of the urban poor. I mean, if they weren't suffering who knows what they might do. They might be well off productive members of society and worship satan!

**Humble Guardsman**

LordofHats wrote:
Though it would explain why the Christian Right gives so little feels about the suffering and plight of the urban poor. I mean, if they weren't suffering who knows what they might do. They might be well off productive members of society and worship satan!

I think that's going a bit far, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Many charities for the poor and disadvantaged, even secular ones, are founded and operated by people of faith.

So tone it down, mate.

**LordofHats**

I'm not talking about Christians. I'm talking about the Christian Right (And to be absolutely clear, I'm reference the movements politics, such as opposition to Social Security, Medicaid, and most forms of Welfare). There is a difference

**ColonelFazackerley**

Daemonhammer wrote:
Im not actually going at anything or anyone here, its just something I found today that further fortifies my point that I made yesterday about religious groups opposing euthanasia.

Spoiler:

Do you have a source for that? I suspect you may be recycling someone's trolling.

**Steve steveson**

Frazzled wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
Many people want to end their lives for many reasons, some physical, some mental. Where DO you draw the line? That is the worry that disability groups have. We have also moved on from the days when people with disabilities are left to die of exposure.

Why? What business is it of yours? if these are consenting adults its their fething rights not yours.

This is not about what is my business or not, but people feeling compelled to end their lives because the feel a burden to others or feel trapped through disability. They need support, not a society that tells them "Here, this is a way that you will no longer had to be a burden to your family". The whole argument is nothing to do with personal choices people make, but how society supports them. How about discussing the issue like an adult rather than slinging insults and trying to shut down someone you don't agree with? This is not a black and white issue, otherwise it would not even be a question.

**Humble Guardsman**

Fair enough, though your link states it's a US term.

Steve steveson wrote:
They need support, not a society that tells them "Here, this is a way that you will no longer had to be a burden to your family".

Isn't "not wanting to be a burden" is a genuine reason? I do not think it's so strange that a person would prefer their loved ones to live on without having their life revolve around their disabilities.

**Daemonhammer**

ColonelFazackerley wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
Im not actually going at anything or anyone here, its just something I found today that further fortifies my point that I made yesterday about religious groups opposing euthanasia.

Spoiler:

Do you have a source for that? I suspect you may be recycling someone's trolling.

I suppose thats Poe's law at work. You cant tell far right (and far left for that matter) ramblings from sarcasm.

I dont have a source, its something a friend shared on facebook to point out the ridiculousness of a certain far right group in America.
Though the concept of martyrdom is a pretty big thing in Christianity, there is the whole thing that "suffering will bring one closer to god". Mother Theresa was really into that.

Also Nietzsche wrote about this kind of mentality in his works.

**ColonelFazackerley**

The debate in parliament is now. It can be viewed live.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/407109df-d9e7-4bc7-832a-6312cba22c5d

Unfortunately the majority of speakers seem to have the opposite opinion to me.

**Daemonhammer**

ColonelFazackerley wrote:
The debate in parliament is now. It can be viewed live.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/407109df-d9e7-4bc7-832a-6312cba22c5d

Unfortunately the majority of speakers seem to have the opposite opinion to me.

Well thats a disappointment. The Tories are against it, arent they?

**Baragash**

Daemonhammer wrote:
ColonelFazackerley wrote:
The debate in parliament is now. It can be viewed live.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/407109df-d9e7-4bc7-832a-6312cba22c5d

Unfortunately the majority of speakers seem to have the opposite opinion to me.

Well thats a disappointment. The Tories are against it, arent they?

The pro-suffering party are pro-suffering, who knew?

**Daemonhammer**

Baragash wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
ColonelFazackerley wrote:
The debate in parliament is now. It can be viewed live.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/407109df-d9e7-4bc7-832a-6312cba22c5d

Unfortunately the majority of speakers seem to have the opposite opinion to me.

Well thats a disappointment. The Tories are against it, arent they?

The pro-suffering party are pro-suffering, who knew?

I see what you did there

**ColonelFazackerley**

The Hansard record of the start of the debate is up

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/

(I guess this URL will change by tomorrow)

Marris is embattled from the beginning. Those opposing have little substance. For example they cite opposition of disability groups, which is irrelevant, as the bill is about terminal illness.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
a few spoke in favour

Paul Flynn:

After experience of the Act, it went from that narrow majority to an overwhelming majority, and so it has remained since 1997.

We need to listen to our constituents. I want to read a letter sent to me by a constituent who asked me to read it to the House. I am going to find it difficult to read, but it is an example of the result of our lack of boldness in bringing in a Bill such as the one in Oregon. This gentleman writes:

“I have had to watch my dear wife, very old, very much in pain, very weak and desperately wanting peace, but she continued to suffer because I couldn’t do the one thing she really wanted. I was helpless to assist her to die. Her words were, ‘I don’t want to leave you my love, but I’m very tired and I want to go now. I know you understand. Please help me to die.’ Every day of her life she said prayers for other people, but when she pleaded, ‘Please God, take me now’; for once in that long life, she prayed for herself, but there was no one to answer.

Such a simple humanitarian act is just not permitted, so I watched my dear wife starve herself to death for three weeks—the only way she could help herself to die. I watched a lovely lady struggle without food until she grew so weak that she was unable to lift her arms, to even squeeze my fingers. She had strangers to change her, but she grew to the state where the shame and the humiliation were no longer an embarrassment. But she remembered the humiliation of those last weeks.

I held her close in the days when I could no longer understand her mumbled words. I could only reply, hoping she would hear when I said, ‘I love you darling. I understand.’ I hope she knew that I was there with her. I held her when her eyes no longer opened, when she could no longer see. I knew she could hear my words when a tear dropped from the corner of her eye. I held her until she had no touch, no sight, possibly no hearing, but I still said, ‘I know darling, I love you. I understand.’ I watched her beautiful face become a skeleton. I held her when this poor love finally died. I hope she knew that I was there, but I doubt it. And now for the rest of my life, I will remember the poor wracked body and the once so beautiful face, which became a hollow mask.”

11.50 am

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voted down.

The House having divided: Ayes 118, Noes 330.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I have deep sympathy for those who are truly suffering from terminal illness

but on the other hand, the possibility of another Harold Shipman appearing on the scene is too awful to contemplate.

**ColonelFazackerley**

I think this is the permanent URL of the transcript of the bill's debate

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150911/debtext/150911-0001.htm#column_656

**welshhoppo**

Daemonhammer wrote:
Im not actually going at anything or anyone here, its just something I found today that further fortifies my point that I made yesterday about religious groups opposing euthanasia.

Spoiler:

Really?

I mean really?

Like really?

Seriously?

When I get old and start to slowly die, I'd like to go in flames as opposed to freezing over.

**A Town Called Malus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have deep sympathy for those who are truly suffering from terminal illness

but on the other hand, the possibility of another Harold Shipman appearing on the scene is too awful to contemplate.

I reckon that having legal euthanasia and the stringent checks and failsafes that will be required to prevent abuse of the system will actually decrease the possibility of a repeat of Shipman.

Lets face it, there's not going to be any chance that once a euthanasia bill is passed that euthanasia will be authorised without the agreement of a wide range of different specialists, such as psychiatrists to ascertain whether the person is in a fit mental state to make the decision, the doctor in charge of their case going on record as saying they are terminal etc.

Lots of different people required to sign off on it means less chance one psychopathic member of staff can forge it all themselves.

**Relapse**

I'm sure it's been discussed a bit, but what about people that can be talked into signing documents they don't want to?
I think about cases I know about where capable elderly people were brow beaten into signing papers that turn their savings, property, businesses, etc. over to relatives.
Just a look at people who turn their life savings over to preachers on t.v. shows that there is no shortage of vulnerable people out there.

**ColonelFazackerley**

They would have to have a terminal illness. Not just be old or disabled. 2 independent doctors and a witness (who is not a family member) would all have to not notice the coercion. Evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is permitted is that this is rare.