Perhaps as this proposed legislation now goes to be scrutinised at the committee stage, some greater thought and detail will be considered. So far, this private members bill has had very scant consideration, and the result last week was made, it would seem, on an emotional basis. To make it to the statute book, the law needs to be drafted in such a way as to defy confusion.
That process has yet to happen.
One has to wonder what has changed since the "do not resuscitate "pathway process that we have heard a lot about or perhaps the "care" given in a hospice which surely is the kindest way.
During the early days of covid, it was the norm to give morphine to elderly patients to ease their discomfort followed by midazolam to suppress breathing.
This latest proposed legislation seems to be just a way of easing consciences and making medical procedures acceptable.
Well said. The devil is in the detail and assisted suicide is also State sanctioned murder.
If our society can commercialise artificial conception, IVF, where eggs, wombs and sperm are sold around the world and babies are chosen like ice-cream flavours, denied the chance of ever knowing one or both biological parents, and potentially suffering mental and physical harm from the unnatural nature of their artificial conception, then what a treasure trove of fortune for some and convenience for others, would legal euthanasia be?
Was the general public calling for this? Was it in the Labour Party manifesto? How much research have the politicians done on the subject?
It is nobody's business but mine how I live and how I die - there should be no laws about my existence. Will they be passing laws making abortions compulsory for those with "too many" children? For the Greater Good. Or laws requiring emergency services to check whether the emergency involves worthy people or useless eaters? Or will they draw up a list of diseases that automatically involve offers of death alongside treatments?
As for people loathing politicians but doing exactly what they tell them to and expecting them to always "do something" for every given situation. Well, it's really depressing isn't it? During the Covid Madness I was amazed to see people rushing to obey every order Boris Johnson spouted whilst loudly declaming that the man was a useless buffoon who was only in it for himself. Same people still seem to believe that Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance were decent honourable men acting for the best interests of the nation. Let's see if the same people obediently roll up for their final jab when they get an expensive illness (wouldn't want to be a burden on the NHS would they?).
As for who was asking for it: nobody. Yet it managed to consumer our political debate for a while (before Greg Wallace, natch). That the assisted suicide bill had a paltry 5 hours' debate in the Commons is, I think, one of the most shocking aspects. One of the most complex philosophical questions possible trotted out within the comparative blink of an eye!
I think the Commons debated for much longer over the fox hunting bill, back in the day. And that ended up as a bill that fox hunters pretty much ignore anyway. And isn't Greg Wallace a tedious distraction? Pervy old bloke who, 30 years ago, would have been given a mouthful of dressing down from Kirsty Wark (a woman who had always appeared to be tough and capable but is apparently just a weak little flower).
There is a demand for this from the public. Around 80% want it.
It didn't need to be in the Labour Party manifesto because it was a private member's bill and MPs from all parties voted for it.
I agree that there should be no laws about how we live or die but, unfortunately, there are already. If my wife holds my hand when I choose to die she is liable to 14 years in prison. I think they should eliminate that rule — which is what this law does.
The law doesn't create any obligation to die for people who choose not to. All it does is allow people who are already dying of a terminal disease that will end their lives in six months to bring an end to their unbearable pain a little earlier.
This legislation would not exist in a country of people who place their faith in God. Remember thou shall not kill. In a pagan nation to which we have reverted after 1400 years, we agonise over the complexities of life, death and suffering as Satan laughs at our weakness. Some MPs claimed to follow the democratic wishes of a local straw poll, as if like Pilate, it absolved them of responsibility for their decision.
Don’t torture your minds. Remember Proverbs 3 v 5.
Yes I found the Reform MP's approach particularly galling. If that is his approach he need never think again: for each vote he can just open a Twitter poll and vote accordingly.
The infamous 'slippery slope' is there for all to see: compare the original Abortion Bill with the practice today, where IIRC in the USA there's now a 'debate' about 'terminating' a pregnancy up to just a week before birth. So yes, more and more people will be nudged into asking to be killed here in the UK as well. After all, hasn't Ms Leadbeater said that of course feeling to be a burden is a valid reason to ask for assisted killing? And aren't patients with their treatment needs a huge cost factor in the NHS?
(You wrote "the conker-sized brains occupying positions in local government across the land." - nah, far too generous! Pea-sized is the correct description.)
Once you start the ball rolling there'll be no end of reasons to off someone. I'm sure the clever minds with the task of legislating against such things will have it all under control, however...
Indeed. So the next time someone wants to jump off a bridge or on front of a train to end it, will the green light be given to shouting to them to get on with it? If not, then what is the difference to this accursed measure MPs have determined to slip through with minimal public debate on the matter. The further we move from Christianity the more we seem to lose our humanity and our sense of right and wrong.
I read a story recently about a man given an award for talking a chap out of hurling himself off a bridge. As you say, now he'd presumably be castigated for having done so: much better to get two NHS death doctors there to egg the chap on!
I think the means to a dignified death should be available to everyone who wants it. None of us chose to come into this chaotic shithole of a world. The very least society can do is respect our decision to leave, at whichever time and for whatever reason we so choose. I don't want the government involved. On the contrary, I want the government and religious busybodies to stay out of our business.
> Who would argue that, if suffering from a terminal illness, one’s plight should not be shortened? Who are we to insist that those in the midst of life’s final and tragic decline should not have the option to flick the switch and be the master of their own fate?
As for your fears of a slippery slope — the six months will become twelve, and the requirement for a terminal illness will soon allow depression or other mental illnesses. This has not happened in Oregon whose assisted dying law our law will be modelled on. Neither has your fear that you can shop for a doctor for one who will do the dirty deed.
Canada is a different matter and all kinds of unfortunate consequences have arisen there. Their law was imposed on them by the courts. But we have a different legal system that requires Parliament to pass a law. There should be no expectation that we will slide down the same slippery slope just as they haven't in Oregon, Australia or several other countries that have passed a more solid law.
As you say, if someone is desperate to end their life but they don't meet the requirements of this law (you must be dying of a terminal disease with less than six months to live), they can always commit suicide (as they can now). But to be approved for an early death, you will need the approval of two doctors and an independent committee to prevent abuse.
Those of us dying of a terminal disease could also commit suicide or pay £12,000 to have the job done in Switzerland but we can't be accompanied by our wife and family. Well, actually we can but they would be liable for fourteen years in prison for assisted suicide.
All I ask is to be allowed to hold my wife's hand when the time comes.
Perhaps as this proposed legislation now goes to be scrutinised at the committee stage, some greater thought and detail will be considered. So far, this private members bill has had very scant consideration, and the result last week was made, it would seem, on an emotional basis. To make it to the statute book, the law needs to be drafted in such a way as to defy confusion.
That process has yet to happen.
One has to wonder what has changed since the "do not resuscitate "pathway process that we have heard a lot about or perhaps the "care" given in a hospice which surely is the kindest way.
During the early days of covid, it was the norm to give morphine to elderly patients to ease their discomfort followed by midazolam to suppress breathing.
This latest proposed legislation seems to be just a way of easing consciences and making medical procedures acceptable.
Well said. The devil is in the detail and assisted suicide is also State sanctioned murder.
If our society can commercialise artificial conception, IVF, where eggs, wombs and sperm are sold around the world and babies are chosen like ice-cream flavours, denied the chance of ever knowing one or both biological parents, and potentially suffering mental and physical harm from the unnatural nature of their artificial conception, then what a treasure trove of fortune for some and convenience for others, would legal euthanasia be?
Was the general public calling for this? Was it in the Labour Party manifesto? How much research have the politicians done on the subject?
It is nobody's business but mine how I live and how I die - there should be no laws about my existence. Will they be passing laws making abortions compulsory for those with "too many" children? For the Greater Good. Or laws requiring emergency services to check whether the emergency involves worthy people or useless eaters? Or will they draw up a list of diseases that automatically involve offers of death alongside treatments?
As for people loathing politicians but doing exactly what they tell them to and expecting them to always "do something" for every given situation. Well, it's really depressing isn't it? During the Covid Madness I was amazed to see people rushing to obey every order Boris Johnson spouted whilst loudly declaming that the man was a useless buffoon who was only in it for himself. Same people still seem to believe that Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance were decent honourable men acting for the best interests of the nation. Let's see if the same people obediently roll up for their final jab when they get an expensive illness (wouldn't want to be a burden on the NHS would they?).
Stop giving them ideas!
As for who was asking for it: nobody. Yet it managed to consumer our political debate for a while (before Greg Wallace, natch). That the assisted suicide bill had a paltry 5 hours' debate in the Commons is, I think, one of the most shocking aspects. One of the most complex philosophical questions possible trotted out within the comparative blink of an eye!
I think the Commons debated for much longer over the fox hunting bill, back in the day. And that ended up as a bill that fox hunters pretty much ignore anyway. And isn't Greg Wallace a tedious distraction? Pervy old bloke who, 30 years ago, would have been given a mouthful of dressing down from Kirsty Wark (a woman who had always appeared to be tough and capable but is apparently just a weak little flower).
There is a demand for this from the public. Around 80% want it.
It didn't need to be in the Labour Party manifesto because it was a private member's bill and MPs from all parties voted for it.
I agree that there should be no laws about how we live or die but, unfortunately, there are already. If my wife holds my hand when I choose to die she is liable to 14 years in prison. I think they should eliminate that rule — which is what this law does.
The law doesn't create any obligation to die for people who choose not to. All it does is allow people who are already dying of a terminal disease that will end their lives in six months to bring an end to their unbearable pain a little earlier.
This legislation would not exist in a country of people who place their faith in God. Remember thou shall not kill. In a pagan nation to which we have reverted after 1400 years, we agonise over the complexities of life, death and suffering as Satan laughs at our weakness. Some MPs claimed to follow the democratic wishes of a local straw poll, as if like Pilate, it absolved them of responsibility for their decision.
Don’t torture your minds. Remember Proverbs 3 v 5.
Yes I found the Reform MP's approach particularly galling. If that is his approach he need never think again: for each vote he can just open a Twitter poll and vote accordingly.
The infamous 'slippery slope' is there for all to see: compare the original Abortion Bill with the practice today, where IIRC in the USA there's now a 'debate' about 'terminating' a pregnancy up to just a week before birth. So yes, more and more people will be nudged into asking to be killed here in the UK as well. After all, hasn't Ms Leadbeater said that of course feeling to be a burden is a valid reason to ask for assisted killing? And aren't patients with their treatment needs a huge cost factor in the NHS?
(You wrote "the conker-sized brains occupying positions in local government across the land." - nah, far too generous! Pea-sized is the correct description.)
Once you start the ball rolling there'll be no end of reasons to off someone. I'm sure the clever minds with the task of legislating against such things will have it all under control, however...
Indeed. So the next time someone wants to jump off a bridge or on front of a train to end it, will the green light be given to shouting to them to get on with it? If not, then what is the difference to this accursed measure MPs have determined to slip through with minimal public debate on the matter. The further we move from Christianity the more we seem to lose our humanity and our sense of right and wrong.
I read a story recently about a man given an award for talking a chap out of hurling himself off a bridge. As you say, now he'd presumably be castigated for having done so: much better to get two NHS death doctors there to egg the chap on!
I think the means to a dignified death should be available to everyone who wants it. None of us chose to come into this chaotic shithole of a world. The very least society can do is respect our decision to leave, at whichever time and for whatever reason we so choose. I don't want the government involved. On the contrary, I want the government and religious busybodies to stay out of our business.
I agree with this comment:
> Who would argue that, if suffering from a terminal illness, one’s plight should not be shortened? Who are we to insist that those in the midst of life’s final and tragic decline should not have the option to flick the switch and be the master of their own fate?
As for your fears of a slippery slope — the six months will become twelve, and the requirement for a terminal illness will soon allow depression or other mental illnesses. This has not happened in Oregon whose assisted dying law our law will be modelled on. Neither has your fear that you can shop for a doctor for one who will do the dirty deed.
Canada is a different matter and all kinds of unfortunate consequences have arisen there. Their law was imposed on them by the courts. But we have a different legal system that requires Parliament to pass a law. There should be no expectation that we will slide down the same slippery slope just as they haven't in Oregon, Australia or several other countries that have passed a more solid law.
As you say, if someone is desperate to end their life but they don't meet the requirements of this law (you must be dying of a terminal disease with less than six months to live), they can always commit suicide (as they can now). But to be approved for an early death, you will need the approval of two doctors and an independent committee to prevent abuse.
Those of us dying of a terminal disease could also commit suicide or pay £12,000 to have the job done in Switzerland but we can't be accompanied by our wife and family. Well, actually we can but they would be liable for fourteen years in prison for assisted suicide.
All I ask is to be allowed to hold my wife's hand when the time comes.
https://raggedclown.substack.com/p/a-good-death