Between The Wheels

A proposed law to give terminally ill people in England and Wales the right to choose to end their life will be voted on by MPs on 29 November.

Although this is in the news predominantly because of the vote on Friday I don't think it's essentially a political issue, or not party political anyway and it has support and opposition right across the political spectrum - so I'm going to presume to post this here.

We have a law on this here. The right to decide, the freedom to choose is important to me.

We did have a case where a group of people actively advocated and sold drugs to end your life, and they were found guilty. It was not a noble or particularly well informed group that sold chemicals to end your life, supposedly in a peaceful manner. Not so much it turned out, nor was there a proper assessment which caused some young people struggling with mental illness to die. Sad.

In my view, no one has the right to decide for me though.

As far as it being politicized, that's very much a sign of the times and some regulation seems in order. As long as any religious argumentation is left out, I am fine with that.

I'd say yes, but it needs to be very heavily monitored and regulated.

One significant thing about this for me is that the opposition to it seems to a large degree to be on religious grounds. To be fair, it isn't being framed that way necessarily but the fact that dissent about it seems to have coalesced around religious authority figures is a bit of a red flag.

I mean - there are non-religious arguments on both sides but I'm never going to be swayed by an argument that's ultimately predicated on the existience of a sky fairy.

No.

If you want to do it do it yourself. The NHS are already willing to assist people die even if they don't want to, this will only encourage them.

Quote from: Nickslikk2112 on November 25, 2024, 10:47:09 AMNo.

If you want to do it do it yourself. The NHS are already willing to assist people die even if they don't want to, this will only encourage them.

Like, but without the DIY part.

Quote from: Slim on November 25, 2024, 09:03:30 AMOne significant thing about this for me is that the opposition to it seems to a large degree to be on religious grounds. To be fair, it isn't being framed that way necessarily but the fact that dissent about it seems to have coalesced around religious authority figures is a bit of a red flag.

I mean - there are non-religious arguments on both sides but I'm never going to be swayed by an argument that's ultimately predicated on the existience of a sky fairy.

Wrong thread for the debate I am aware, but topics such as this and every new, catastrophic news story that comes our way leads me towards my increasing belief that the symbolism within the Book Of Revelation being a certainty. I may not be the smartest visitor to this site but I'm definitely of sufficient intelligence to weigh up any evidence on offer with regards to the likelihood or otherwise of such possibilities. To me the likelihood is so strong now that it's harder to ignore than accept.

Quote from: captainkurtz on November 25, 2024, 08:57:30 AMI'd say yes, but it needs to be very heavily monitored and regulated.

How would you go about determining that there wasn't a Lucy Letby type on the decisions panel? That's of course based on the assumption that the jury was correct.

No, we have to have a health service which we can all safely assume will always do everything to preserve life. What happens if this becomes law and the consultant tells you that something is inoperable, incurable or some other unfathomable medical equation of facts which you don't understand? We have to be able to believe these people without question. They can't be driven by accountants dishing out instructions from some bookmaker's spreadsheet. When will the Hippocratic oath be withdrawn? At present I would think that doctors are drawn to the profession for the right reasons for the most part. That might change if power becomes a selling point.

Quote from: Slim on November 25, 2024, 09:03:30 AMOne significant thing about this for me is that the opposition to it seems to a large degree to be on religious grounds. To be fair, it isn't being framed that way necessarily but the fact that dissent about it seems to have coalesced around religious authority figures is a bit of a red flag.

I mean - there are non-religious arguments on both sides but I'm never going to be swayed by an argument that's ultimately predicated on the existience of a sky fairy.

Just to point out that the Chair of the campaign group Dignity In Dying makes much the same points and he's a Rabbi.

And there's plenty of support generally for the bill from the devoutly religious (whatever their motivation).

I'm only really a "yes" on balance, I can see valid justifications on both sides. I found something that Esther Rantzen said a few months ago quite affecting: she lost her husband, her mother and her dog over the space of a few months years ago, and the dog had the least painful and the most peaceful death.

Esther is being confronted by her own mortality of course.

I get the point about needing to trust the medical professionals to a point but there is a very clear stipulation in the bill that the person wishing to end their life must have the mental capacity to take that decision, and to have done so free from coercion. Besides, we already place life and death decisions in the hands of the medics.

While there could from time to time be a death arising from an error - let's say someone was misdiagnosed - well, fatal errors happen in other walks of life. Car drivers make mistakes that prove fatal to others. Electricians and civil engineers do. Politicians do, pharmacists do. You have to balance the risk of fatal accidents against the potential to ease suffering.

We're a strange lot us Brits. We are considering doctors being permitted legally to euthanise patients and yet when our police force make a split second decision to shoot a dangerous criminal we consider charging them with murder.

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 25, 2024, 12:36:53 PM

Quote from: captainkurtz on November 25, 2024, 08:57:30 AMI'd say yes, but it needs to be very heavily monitored and regulated.

How would you go about determining that there wasn't a Lucy Letby type on the decisions panel? That's of course based on the assumption that the jury was correct.

Well you can't...although im not sure someone in Letby or Shipman's position would have got their rocks off sitting on a panel making the decision..

Lucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

Ì do worry about the possible element of coercion or feeling you should go to stop being a burden,  but if you have 6 months left to live and those 6 months are set to be pretty miserable then why not?

In terms of the religious side, Sam Wells, vicar at St Martin in the Fields, was on thought for the day this morning and was very balanced and compassionate on the argument.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0k78vjg

Quote from: Slim on November 27, 2024, 02:42:41 PMLucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

I accept Lucy Letby is a poor example to suggest. Just a bit of tabloid behaviour on my part, but I do like part of one of the sentences you used, James, "A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career". For anyone. How could you ever sufficiently analyse the intellectual workings, mentality and conscience of those elected for such a position. Nick made the point earlier of if you want to do it, do it yourself which I understand even though I have personal beliefs which contradict suicide as an option. I just can't ever align myself with the possibility of humans given the authority to extinguish human life. We all know that this happens to a degree at the moment.

Morphine administration in increasing dosages is routinely used to reduce consciousness to minimum levels in an attempt to improve the comfort of the dying. It's horrible and a dreadful experience for patient and loved ones but it is measurable, controllable and as ethical as it is possible for it to be. If you gave that patient nitrogen instead of oxygen they would survive for a short period, then experience a state of euphoria and then die. But you are directly killing that person. Should anyone in our medical profession retire in a couple of decades from now with the fact they turned on that tap dozens or hundreds of times recorded on their notes? Macabre in the extreme. The stuff of Nazi governments and the like.

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 27, 2024, 03:49:09 PM

Quote from: Slim on November 27, 2024, 02:42:41 PMLucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

If you gave that patient nitrogen instead of oxygen they would survive for a short period, then experience a state of euphoria and then die. But you are directly killing that person. Should anyone in our medical profession retire in a couple of decades from now with the fact they turned on that tap dozens or hundreds of times recorded on their notes? Macabre in the extreme. The stuff of Nazi governments and the like.

I don't know if the Nazis had an ethically managed assisted dying programme intended to alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill at their own option, but if they did that could only be to their credit.

Not every terminally ill person can have a comfortable and peaceful death, even with attentive palliative care - or so I understand from a discussion on 5 Live involving a physician a few days ago.

As for a retired medical professional, looking back over his career with the knowledge that they had compassionately minimised the suffering of dozens, or hundreds of helpless people who might otherwise have suffered a painful or protracted death, in line with their own wishes - how could he or she not glow with pride and contentment in that knowledge?

Quote from: dom on November 27, 2024, 03:23:59 PMÌ do worry about the possible element of coercion or feeling you should go to stop being a burden,  but if you have 6 months left to live and those 6 months are set to be pretty miserable then why not?

In terms of the religious side, Sam Wells, vicar at St Martin in the Fields, was on thought for the day this morning and was very balanced and compassionate on the argument.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0k78vjg

'Thought For The Day' almost always consists of a three minute stream of pious platitudes and vapid deepities masquerading as insight and Sam Wells' address this morning was no exception.  He seemed determined not to show his hand on the matter and played hide-the-ball instead - it wasn't so much balanced as frustratingly equivocal.

I was expecting him to pronounce his opposition to the bill so was pleasantly surprised when he took a more balanced approach.

I thought the angle he took from the perspective of the person supporting the individual having to choose was an interesting one too

Quote from: Slim on November 27, 2024, 04:40:55 PM

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 27, 2024, 03:49:09 PM

Quote from: Slim on November 27, 2024, 02:42:41 PMLucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt, could have worked in any number of professions where she could have killed people. A committee overseeing assisted dying practice would be a poor choice of career for a psychopath in my view, because she wouldn't take those decisions alone and the victims generally want to kill themselves in the first place.

If you gave that patient nitrogen instead of oxygen they would survive for a short period, then experience a state of euphoria and then die. But you are directly killing that person. Should anyone in our medical profession retire in a couple of decades from now with the fact they turned on that tap dozens or hundreds of times recorded on their notes? Macabre in the extreme. The stuff of Nazi governments and the like.

I don't know if the Nazis had an ethically managed assisted dying programme intended to alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill at their own option, but if they did that could only be to their credit.

Not every terminally ill person can have a comfortable and peaceful death, even with attentive palliative care - or so I understand from a discussion on 5 Live involving a physician a few days ago.

As for a retired medical professional, looking back over his career with the knowledge that they had compassionately minimised the suffering of dozens, or hundreds of helpless people who might otherwise have suffered a painful or protracted death, in line with their own wishes - how could he or she not glow with pride and contentment in that knowledge?

I believe it was called Aktion T4. Granted there weren't any options available to the recipients but the results wouldn't be any different to the UK government's considerations. The society our generation was born into is collapsing at such a rate that the current proposals would quickly degenerate into something much more monstrous. Our population appears to me to be much more callous these days. If this becomes law we can't go back, therefore there's only one direction such activity will go in.
Also, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief. I get what you mean but I think you chose the incorrect words which is rather unexpected.

Quote from: Slim on November 27, 2024, 02:42:41 PMLucy Letby, even if she's guilty which I doubt,

If not Letby, who? Or what?

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 27, 2024, 08:21:20 PMI believe it was called Aktion T4. Granted there weren't any options available to the recipients but the results wouldn't be any different to the UK government's considerations. The society our generation was born into is collapsing at such a rate that the current proposals would quickly degenerate into something much more monstrous. Our population appears to me to be much more callous these days. If this becomes law we can't go back, therefore there's only one direction such activity will go in.

Also, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief. I get what you mean but I think you chose the incorrect words which is rather unexpected.

Well I had to look it up but Aktion T4 doesn't appear to have been the same thing at all. I think it's a lurid comparison that just doesn't apply here.

Quote from: Slim on November 27, 2024, 11:05:47 PM

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 27, 2024, 08:21:20 PMI believe it was called Aktion T4. Granted there weren't any options available to the recipients but the results wouldn't be any different to the UK government's considerations. The society our generation was born into is collapsing at such a rate that the current proposals would quickly degenerate into something much more monstrous. Our population appears to me to be much more callous these days. If this becomes law we can't go back, therefore there's only one direction such activity will go in.

Also, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief. I get what you mean but I think you chose the incorrect words which is rather unexpected.

Well I had to look it up but Aktion T4 doesn't appear to have been the same thing at all. I think it's a lurid comparison that just doesn't apply here.

I think it's two entirely different forms of government who may both go down in history as licensing the killing of human beings who are not criminals. We'll never agree on this.

Quote from: dom on November 27, 2024, 08:09:59 PMI was expecting him to pronounce his opposition to the bill so was pleasantly surprised when he took a more balanced approach.

I thought the angle he took from the perspective of the person supporting the individual having to choose was an interesting one too

It struck me as a bizarre and even callous angle, displaying more sympathy for those affected by another person's suffering, rather than sufferers themselves.

And of course, Wells can only see this and indeed everything else through a prism of his own personal introspective theism; that's being blinkered, not balanced.

Who knows how he personally sees things ? He is a representative of the church so his pronouncements have to reflect that

Quote from: dom on November 28, 2024, 11:33:12 AMWho knows how he personally sees things ? He is a representative of the church so his pronouncements have to reflect that

Well, the church is not a monolithic bloc, as, for example, internal, interminable, ever-raging arguments about the status of people who happen to be gay has demonstrated for years.

There are devout religious believers arguing against the AD bill on the basis of the "sanctity of life" - and other devout religious believers, often within the same sect, arguing for it for precisely the same reason.

Where a church member in the public sphere has views that don't converge with official church doctrine, what is that person meant to do?  Bear false witness?

Was just thinking as I make my way to bed at a ridiculous hour, that as perhaps two of us (maybe less) approach Advent, maybe we should remember that we are all friends on here. Belittling descriptions such as, sects, sky fairies and misplaced scriptural references such as bearing false witness may seem like a harmless poke in the ribs in support of the overwhelmingly growing world population of non believers, who think that the elimination of religion will stop war, famine and the inevitable totalitarian Chinese State Of Earth And Its Satellites. Be nice, cycle if you must, listen to Rush (old and new are both good). Put up the tree and try not to cry when suddenly the whole thing reminds you of what it really means to be human.

Late Edit: My favourite atheist, Christopher Hitchens when interviewed  drunkenly, told of the time he horrified Richard Dawkins, saying that if he had convinced the entire world that there was no God and only one believer remained, he wouldn't attempt to to convince him. Wonderful man. Probably the only real testament of pre deathbed faith ever broadcast by such intellect in a time before his cancer diagnosis. As I've always said and thought, if it's good enough for Boris and Chris, it's good enough for me.

We belittle your belief, not you. You may think it's good enough for you, but it's foolish and false. Rational people should never be inhibited from describing belief in gods in the terms it deserves; this misplaced reluctance to do so is part of the reason it persists.

Interesting discussion last night on LBC about the influence of religion in this and other issues. The question posed (paraphrasing) was: should MPs with a religious belief allow said belief to influence their decisions as legislators?

Simon Jenkins came on and he was quite angry about it; he found it "intolerable". Why should someone else's delusion be allowed to affect the freedoms of others? By all means if you're terminally ill feel free to suffer for as long as your sky fairy dictates; don't force suffering on others who don't share your fantasy.

My own view is that it's just unrealistic to expect MPs not to be guided by their faith; these ideas are just too deeply embedded in their heads. What's important though is that they should declare to their electors, as candidates, that they are likely to be led by a religion in their decision making. Then rational people can make an informed decision to do our very best to make sure these people are never allowed to get near any sort of legislative responsibility.

How is the word "sect" belittling?  It's a statement of simple fact.  As I said, Christianity is not a monolithic bloc; it has sects - just the 45,000 of them according to a quick internet search.  All, by the way, mutually exclusive - and therefore mutually blasphemous - by definition.

It seems a common characteristic of the religious that they think automatic deference should be given when discussing their beliefs; in other words, in the arena of discourse there should be a hierarchy of protection of ideas, with religious ones at the top. 

It's telling that almost all responses when religious ideas are attacked are not slam-dunk rebuttals in return, but only righteous indignation they're being attacked at all.

Back more on topic: I'm watching the HoC debate as I work from home.

I've got to say that although I consider Kim Leadbeater pretty much criminally negligent on the issue of the Batley school teacher, on this particular issue she's been an outstanding ambassador for the cause, with a superb opening speech.

I was also hugely impressed by the contribution of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, who spoke with magnificent eloquence in his allotted 8 minutes or so.

I do hope this bill gets passed.

I'm listening to the debate today

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 27, 2024, 08:21:20 PMAlso, with regards to doctors glowing with pride, I think if you spoke to your average vet they would agree that it is the worst part of their job and probably something they try to blot out as much as possible. Personally, I've never allowed an animal to suffer and any pets we have lost through euthanasia involved only feelings of dread and grief.

Well, there are ten doctors serving as MPs in the present parliament, five Labour MPs, five Tories. I've heard (I think) three of them speak in the debate today while listening in on 5 Live, all of them were supporting the motion.

Quote from: Slim on November 29, 2024, 11:57:21 AMInteresting discussion last night on LBC about the influence of religion in this and other issues. The question posed (paraphrasing) was: should MPs with a religious belief allow said belief to influence their decisions as legislators?

Simon Jenkins came on and he was quite angry about it; he found it "intolerable". Why should someone else's delusion be allowed to affect the freedoms of others? By all means if you're terminally ill feel free to suffer for as long as your sky fairy dictates; don't force suffering on others who don't share your fantasy.

My own view is that it's just unrealistic to expect MPs not to be guided by their faith; these ideas are just too deeply embedded in their heads. What's important though is that they should declare to their electors, as candidates, that they are likely to be led by a religion in their decision making. Then rational people can make an informed decision to do our very best to make sure these people are never allowed to get near any sort of legislative responsibility.

And what is most concerning is that governments of the western world are hell-bent on swelling their nations with those whose faith is the most "deeply embedded" of all. It seems blatantly obvious that the legislature will comprise more of these people as time passes.

Quote from: Slim on November 29, 2024, 11:57:21 AMInteresting discussion last night on LBC about the influence of religion in this and other issues. The question posed (paraphrasing) was: should MPs with a religious belief allow said belief to influence their decisions as legislators?

Simon Jenkins came on and he was quite angry about it; he found it "intolerable". Why should someone else's delusion be allowed to affect the freedoms of others? By all means if you're terminally ill feel free to suffer for as long as your sky fairy dictates; don't force suffering on others who don't share your fantasy.

My own view is that it's just unrealistic to expect MPs not to be guided by their faith; these ideas are just too deeply embedded in their heads. What's important though is that they should declare to their electors, as candidates, that they are likely to be led by a religion in their decision making. Then rational people can make an informed decision to do our very best to make sure these people are never allowed to get near any sort of legislative responsibility.

Good luck with that last sentence when they try to implement it in the west of Scotland. There really is an innocence about religion in England for the most part.

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 29, 2024, 02:22:43 PMGood luck with that last sentence when they try to implement it in the west of Scotland. There really is an innocence about religion in England for the most part.

The same applies for parts of Lancashire (for example) with a large number of Muslim constituents. But provided their representatives express their preference to be guided by superstition, at least their constituents can't say they didn't know what they were getting.

Anyway - the first reading of the bill has passed by 330 to 275 - a bigger margin than I expected, and that tells me that it will become law in England and Wales.

As for Scotland, a drive south of the border is a lot cheaper and less hassle than a plane ticket to Switzerland. Speaking of which I've just remembered that Jonners' dad made that journey to Dignitas; I'm sure he wouldn't mind me mentioning that here since he posted about it on TNMS. What a hassle to have to endure on top of getting all your other affairs in order.

This is really an incidental point, but I've just seen this on the BBC live coverage:

(https://i.ibb.co/KLDN6sc/davisfaragestarmer.png)

Wouldn't it be nice to think they could have a friendly chat?

Richard Tice strongly indicated he would vote in favour, which surprised me.

Anyway, I'm delighted the bill has passed; it's great to see enlightenment principles winning out.

Pleased to see this has been approved.

Pleased to see my MP (Kate Dearden, Lab) voted aye.

Morbid thought but I wonder how many of us will be impacted by this, directly or indirectly.

Religion still holds too much sway in Ireland for it to take a similar path. If it is seen to be successful in England it could be here in another decade.

I'm pleased by this result too. Still many hoops to go through before it ever happens though. We are following the Oregon way exactly, but concerning is that Canada has already expanded the original format and is looking to expand further.

Unbelievably I actually feel quite sorry for King Charles. As supreme head of the Church of England he will have to commit an act of complete hypocrisy by not using royal prerogative to appear to be displeased by this decision. It would only be a token gesture but would be a far too perilous action for him and his. Then I remember the Act of Settlement and I no longer feel much sympathy for the guy. In any case, how can a person who purports to be a follower of Christ completely ignore the word of his God. "Thou art Peter.........." No thanks, one of my ancestors was a tyrant who liked to murder innocent women to get his own way and he's provided me with a nice, powerful role in my own church. The whole thing's a total mess but so is the country. The UK is halfway down the toilet already. If Donald decides to save a few bucks we might be part of a fireworks show.

Simple solution - disestablish the CofE, at the very least.  That's another progressive societal move that's way, way overdue.

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 29, 2024, 08:14:41 PMSimple solution - disestablish the CofE, at the very least.  That's another progressive societal move that's way, way overdue.

I do genuinely spend considerable time trying to envision what might result from such suggestions. I can't help but think that the world would be worse.

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 29, 2024, 08:14:41 PMSimple solution - disestablish the CofE, at the very least. 

AND THEN RETURN TO ROME!!!!

THE COUNTRY WILL SMELL NICER, WE WANT POTPOURRI!!!!!

Quote from: Nickslikk2112 on November 29, 2024, 09:10:16 PM

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 29, 2024, 08:14:41 PMSimple solution - disestablish the CofE, at the very least. 

AND THEN RETURN TO ROME!!!!

THE COUNTRY WILL SMELL NICER, WE WANT POTPOURRI!!!!!

Isn't that French?

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 29, 2024, 07:56:06 PMUnbelievably I actually feel quite sorry for King Charles. As supreme head of the Church of England he will have to commit an act of complete hypocrisy by not using royal prerogative to appear to be displeased by this decision. It would only be a token gesture but would be a far too perilous action for him and his.

Not that I give a toss what he thinks, but I think he probably approves.

Quote from: Nickslikk2112 on November 29, 2024, 09:10:16 PM

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 29, 2024, 08:14:41 PMSimple solution - disestablish the CofE, at the very least. 

AND THEN RETURN TO ROME!!!!

THE COUNTRY WILL SMELL NICER, WE WANT POTPOURRI!!!!!
[/quote

Quote from: Nickslikk2112 on November 29, 2024, 09:10:16 PM

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 29, 2024, 08:14:41 PMSimple solution - disestablish the CofE, at the very least. 

AND THEN RETURN TO ROME!!!!

THE COUNTRY WILL SMELL NICER, WE WANT POTPOURRI!!!!!

Yes, thuribles being swung anywhere where smelly people gather. I love the smell of incense.

Quote from: Slim on November 29, 2024, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: The Picnic Wasp on November 29, 2024, 07:56:06 PMUnbelievably I actually feel quite sorry for King Charles. As supreme head of the Church of England he will have to commit an act of complete hypocrisy by not using royal prerogative to appear to be displeased by this decision. It would only be a token gesture but would be a far too perilous action for him and his.

Not that I give a toss what he thinks, but I think he probably approves.

His old fella probably would have. Young Chic probably listened more to his old mum. Just as well his Christmas Day broadcast is filmed whilst the leaves are still on the trees. Lets him off the hook nicely.

Another successful campaign run by the Daily Express   :)

Quote from: David L on November 30, 2024, 10:56:29 AMAnother successful campaign run by the Daily Express  :)

I hadn't know that they'd run a campaign, but I have to wonder how many MPs were persuaded to change their views by the Express, either directly or via Express-reading constituents? We may never know but it could well be fewer than one.

Quote from: Slim on November 30, 2024, 04:11:13 PM

Quote from: David L on November 30, 2024, 10:56:29 AMAnother successful campaign run by the Daily Express  :)

I hadn't know that they'd run a campaign, but I have to wonder how many MPs were persuaded to change their views by the Express, either directly or via Express-reading constituents? We may never know but it could well be fewer than one.

The Daily Express 'Give Us Our Last Rights' campaign was launched in February 2022. Whilst you may not associate the campaign with the outcome in parliament, there is little doubt in my mind that the continual front page coverage of the issue since that time has contributed to keeping the issue in the public eye. The numerous articles featuring those that had direct experience of loved ones suffering in their last years of life and those that had been forced to go abroad to end their lives would not have gone unnoticed by many constituents and those that represented them.
Probably not hugely influential but, given the time at which it was launched, likely to have had a significant contribution to the debate.

Pleased and relieved to see that the third reading has passed, seven months later.

I can see that there are certain difficult issues with the principle of assisted dying, and specific issues with the bill itself. But what I think many people overlook is that there are massive issues with the status quo.

This is a private member's bill that is about to become law and will bring about a profound social change, a real historic change. But it's not set in stone forever. Parliament still has the agency to repeal it, or to modify it at a later time.

I had a wry smile at that sketch only because of its assumption of low expectations.

How many people really have an inheritance at the forefront of their minds and motives when their closest relative may be in their final months?

Quote from: Matt2112 on September 14, 2025, 07:49:18 PMI had a wry smile at that sketch only because of its assumption of low expectations.

How many people really have an inheritance at the forefront of their minds and motives when their closest relative may be in their final months?

Not none .. although I remain in favour.

Quote from: Slim on September 14, 2025, 07:55:14 PM

Quote from: Matt2112 on September 14, 2025, 07:49:18 PMI had a wry smile at that sketch only because of its assumption of low expectations.

How many people really have an inheritance at the forefront of their minds and motives when their closest relative may be in their final months?

Not none .. although I remain in favour.

Yes, as do I quite strongly, and although there will rightly be safeguards in place which may be effective, I acknowledge they won't be and probably can't be infallible.