Jesus

I hope not .. there are some proper nasty people out there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If this bill eventually becomes law then in my view it will be a very bad day for both Parliament and Country.

The more I've heard today has only hardened my view against it.
(This bill how it is anyhow.)

I think Danny Kruger MP made the best contribution to the debate.

Yes and once is too many times.

I saw a documentary once about this woman, not sure which country it was, but she was 22 years old and had severe depression. According to her country's laws, she could book in a room to die. Just like a hotel. But this was Hotel Death.

She only had three days left remaining until the deadly day but she suddenly realised death means it. No more her. :(

She realised life was worth living and she cancelled her day of death. Three years on, she's happy and has a boyfriend.

This UK Right to Die bill will be a sliding scale to death. All the death options availbable to this young woman, might be soon available in the UK.

It was Not The UK


Nothing to do with UK Laws

Get on Track will you , please

Yes that was really powerful from Kruger.

The thing is we know that humans are incredibly fallible. There's been so many scandals caused by a combination of human error, incompetence, neglect and malice. Knowing that, why should be trust them with dictating when someone should die? There's so many things we can't properly guard against: coercion, false diagnosis, corruption, changes of heart, an expansion of the measure etc.

It's really fascinating to see the split of parliamentarians in this.

Against the bill: Farage, Corbyn, Diane Abbott, David Lammy, Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey and many others

For it: Starmer, Sunak, Reeves, Jeremy Hunt, the majority of Reform MPs and many others

If parliament is that divided on this issue across parliamentary lines then how can a governing party implement it in good faith

That is UK law 2034

Unfortunately if it gets through the Commons and then eventually the House of Lords.
Then it becomes law.

Your first paragraph is dead right and I don't believe it's possible to put in ALL the safeguards that would be needed.

There's DNR issue too that's become an issue now.
I couldn't have supported this today.
I believe it will sadly take us on a very slippery slope indeed.

Surely this opens up the death penalty debate now?

It's official. The MPs have voted in favour of state sponsored murder.

I dont know if I'm not understanding this....I thought this bill is based on the individual choosing to end their own life, not doctors making that decision? If a person is of sound mind and suffering from a terminal illness and makes their own choice as to when to die....what safeguarding is needed? It's an informed choice by an adult about their own treatment and death. There is nothing that I have seen that could be construed as state sponsored murder....or that is could be capitalised by unscrupulous family members. Or have I missed something?

Many moons ago I was told I had less than 6 months to live.
There was an op that could save me but it was just under 50% success rate, so, we decided death was better than the pain I was in but the op would give me a chance.
2 kids under 6 so I had to chance it.
I am not religious, but I suppose I have some spiritual belief, but more than anything else you have to think of those you will leave behind and make it easier for them.:shrug:

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/l...7f110ae90.jpeg


https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/l...9ce3a1ede.jpeg

The Online Only Paper

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/l...b60abc2b3.jpeg

…that’s the thing, isn’t it…with any surgery or procedure etc, the medical team have to inform us of ‘the worst case scenario’…because obviously it’s a possibility and we have to be aware of all risks…and then your mind thinks, oh my Lord…that’s what’s going to happen…but although it can do, it rarely does…obviously so glad that it didn’t for you…:hug:…but yeah, these things do leave the vein of, don’t stress etc…just be…

No it does not

Wavering supporters of assisted dying bill ‘are not certain to vote it into law’…


A wavering group of MPs who backed parliament’s historic vote in favour of assisted dying may yet oppose its passage into law without further reassurances, the bill’s supporters are being warned, amid concerns that significant hurdles still remain.

MPs voted in favour of a change with a 55-vote majority on Friday, after a momentous five-hour debate over allowing assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales with less than six months to live.

However, Kim Leadbeater, the MP behind the legislation, is being urged to shore up support by immediately asking all those who backed her bill about their remaining concerns. The Observer has spoken to Tory and Labour MPs who backed the bill, but are reserving judgment before the final vote next year.

David Davis, the Tory former Brexit secretary, is among the group. He told the Observer that a proactive approach from the leading advocates of the bill could ensure any remaining doubts were overcome. “This does not have an overwhelming majority,” he said. “The second reading of the [1967] abortion bill went through by 223 to 29. I think a fair number of MPs voted on the premise I was making – that this is a bill which can be properly modified to make it right. We also had about 30 abstentions.

Related: MPs across divide call for better palliative care after assisted dying vote

“If 30 MPs changed their mind, it would go the other way. So if I were advising Kim Leadbeater, I would write to every single person who voted for the bill and say, ‘What are your concerns?’ Address it head-on.”

Concerns among waverers are focused on the safeguards around Leadbeater’s terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, as well as the risks of coercion. Others want doctors who approve the necessary medication to have a special licence. Under the terms of the proposed law, two doctors and a high court judge have to sign off any request for assisted dying. Additionally, Davis and others are suggesting further attempts to make it harder to extend the scope of the bill in the future.

An ally of Leadbeater said that the next phase of the bill, which will see it discussed and scrutinised by a cross-party group of MPs, would ensure all concerns were addressed. “All MPs will have the opportunity to feed in their views on how the bill can be improved,” they said.

“Kim will be listening hard to what they say and is very aware of the need for the committee to reflect opinion across the House and to take MPs with her over the next weeks and months. So those MPs who said in the debate that the bill wouldn’t be subject to real scrutiny and significant amendments will be proved wrong.”

Some Labour MPs also have political concerns about the bill. They said it risked being a significant distraction to Keir Starmer as he attempts to show his government is making a tangible difference to people’s lives. “This is going to take up a huge amount of time,” said a Labour MP who voted against the bill. “I find that a bit frustrating.”

Figures from across the Commons are now demanding that the bill be given as much time as it needs on the floor of the house next year. They pointed to the extensive time given to the 1967 Abortion Act originally proposed by the Liberal MP David Steel.

Meanwhile, Whitehall is beginning the work of drawing up impact assessments covering the proposals. There are concerns in government about the impact on the NHS. Health secretary Wes Streeting, who opposes the bill, has said it will have “resource implications” for the health service. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is also fiercely opposed.

Parliamentary sources said that the bill was likely to be studied by a committee of MPs from January until March, appearing in the Commons in late April at the earliest. Unusually, the committee will take oral and written evidence. MPs also want more time in the subsequent Commons debates on the issue.

Support in the House of Commons reflects the views of the public, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer. Almost two-thirds (64%) support making it legal for someone to seek “assisted dying” in the UK, with 19% opposed. Cross-party support is high, with 60% or more of voters from all five of the largest parties supporting new legislation.

The poll found that the best argument for a change in the law, according to the public, was that it might “offer dignity and relief for terminally ill people at the end of their life”. Some 57% saw this as the strongest argument, while 37% thought it was “offering people the right to choose how they die”. The biggest concern was that “vulnerable people might feel pressured to choose assisted dying”, with 40% identifying this as the strongest argument against.

…the more I think about this, the less confidence I have in both a failing NHS system and a failing justice system to be such a huge part of these decisions…we are sadly living in a world and reality of ‘financial decisions’ above anything else, I feel…the whole thing feels just another step of an emotionally distancing society…

Exactly my feelings on this conscience tugging issue Ammi.

I am not convinced in any shape or form that this bill can eradicate any potential errors or coercion.
I go further, I don't think in the present climate economically in the Country, plus as you say, the NHS which needs many years to be made better again, plus the justice system too.
It's clear both NHS needs and also going through the justice system takes a fair bit of time
So how do they fast track all of this when the expectancy of life is only 6 months.

Plus too, IF it can all be fast tracked, then how is that giving the fullest due consideration as to time of both thinking about having assisted dying, actually then asking for it.
Plus then all the assessments being thoroughly, I stress THOROUGHLY done in full.
Then the medical sources approval plus having a Judge, with no knowledge of the person, really able to do a proper judgement on ending that individuals life.
IN less than 6 MONTHS.

However, no one can be with a person 24 hours a day, and hear every conversation with professionals, family, neighbours, friends or other patients.
So how can we be sure coercion can be totally ruled out.

There's people in care homes for instance, who get abused, however it's learned by accident usually not from them.
A thought just planted, could be something any terminal person may take on board.
Thinking they are worthless.

I could go on with so much I see wrong on this bill.
I hope those who voted against it and Danny Kruger MP, in my view is the leading light as to his views on this.
I hope they will demand extremely massive changes to this bill but I hope enough will vote it down in the future.
One person forced into this, would be one person too many.
I can really see families or others, accusing Doctors of unlawfully ending a person's life.

It's a very slippery road, this bill makes it even more slippery.
It CANNOT in my view be trusted and the really necessary safeguards not able to be put in place either.
There's good reasoning why this issue was voted down only 9+ years ago.
It couldn't be trusted then to be perfectly safeguarded and in my view, it cannot be now either.


Frankly Kim Leadbeater annoys me more, the way she presents it too.

In absolute theory, the ability for terminally ill people (no recovery possibility) who are in severe pain and cannot be made comfortable to say "enough is enough" and let their life end is a good thing.

However for one that is very rarely necessary because in that case, what you need rather than assisted suicide, is simply the right to say "no further treatment beyond pain management" - in general the human body knows when to die, the issue when people end up with very prolonged suffering is generally because of being kept alive by modern medicine, and simply stopping life-prolonging treatment will result in death. People can already say no to further treatment.

And for another... well, the unfortunate reality of stretched health services under pressure and the social reality of families means that the system will 110% definitely be abused if it becomes a possibility. People don't want to "burden" their families, people don't want to be "a burden on the state". More sinisterly - people put a huge amount of stock and trust in what they're being told by their doctors, so yes it's an "individual choice" but the probability of that choice being heavily influenced is huge. The pressure on services is currently immense. If it becomes a possibility in law, it will be misused in a certain percentage of cases.

Exactly this Ammi it will become a numbers game like everything else. In an ideal, empathic, benevolent world the idea of offering peaceful death to those with truly no hope sounds like a wonderful thing... but the UK in 2024 is not that world.

…Esther Rantzen’s daughter has said that Dignitas is no longer an option for her mother…sadly, her condition has deteriorated very quickly and travelling wouldn’t be possible…