hypochondriac

This is an analysis of the bill from someone who isn't a politician. Worth digesting even for those who support it.

Exactly. Weston Super Saint has already summed up the attitude there will be from some. If they've been given a 6 months to live diagnosis then what does it matter if granny gets it out of the way now? Might be worth reminding her of her choices again and she doesn't really want to hang around longer than she has to. Lighthouse would call this scenario farfetched but personally I think it's naive. This twitter thread paints an entirely realistic scenario: https://x.com/TradSkowronski/status/1853131894621106537?t=Eud2I7XNbSvlIdz5Goanxg&s=19

Worth remembering with the state of palliative care and the NHS in general that there's zero guarantees that some 'medical professionals' won't feel pressure to relieve the burden on hospitals by ending lives a bit earlier than they otherwise would have been. Think how much better the figures will look.

That would only be one reason I wouldn't support the bill. The other reasons are all over this thread.

Glad we can agree on that at least.

Even though I don't agree with the 6 months to live thing, can you guarantee to me that this will stay with a 6 months to live terminal diagnosis forever?

Worth pointing out that the words in the bill say medical professional and not doctor so even that safeguard-flawed as it is-is ambiguous to a concerning degree.

100% he wants to continue. Largely because his granddaughter is now old enough that she will remember him. Every moment is precious and they've made so many memories in the past year it's been amazing.

Of course eit matters as you said. That's leaving aside the fact that a 6 months to live diagnosis is often wrong. A friend of mine has a brain tumour and was told they would be fortunate to make Christmas last year and still going strong.

Not sure you've understood what he said. He was saying that coercive control is often not realised by the victim until years later. Clearly in these cases where abuse has happened they would be unable to come to this realisation because they would be dead. That was his point.

He's sanctimonious enough.

Here's another Tory MP desperate for headlines pointing out that the safeguards in place are not adequate:

Looks to me like there is potentially a minor uptick in poverty over a year or two directly caused by the global pandemic (though the figures I saw for extreme poverty said it was going down). The overall trend will be downward and at an accelerated rate following covid recovery and that will continue to be the case barring some catastrophic event like a giant war or global pandemic.

I am sure that was a difficult post to write and thank you for it. You absolutely did the right thing. One day you may be able to look back and appreciate the end that you had with her even if it's too painful to do so now. I have met you a number of years ago and you were very friendly and stories like this are harder when you can put a face to a name. I am sure your wife would be proud of you for carrying on.

Excellent post. I'm glad you could find some positivity during what must have been a difficult time.

Attention seeker gotta attention seek.

He reported on the contents of the Bill. I'd be interested to hear an opposing opinion that refuted what he says is and isn't in the bill and the obvious problems that presents if what he has said is accurate.

It's not a good enough control if it allows people to shop around to get the answer they want abd if it allows medical professionals-not just doctors- to bring it up unprompted. He's also right that a significant number of MPs are trying to get the process 'simplified', sped up and expanded under the guise of compassion. Legitimate concerns are not confined to Tory MPs with a slim majority as you well know.

As expected, the bill doesn't do anywhere near enough to provide necessary safeguards and is open to abuse: https://x.com/danny__kruger/status/1856131887212745194?t=hU6qDylUl92pCJhukhmyWQ&s=19

Good post but I wouldn't equate less people in extreme poverty with wealth. The measure I was using for extreme poverty hadn't changed since it was devised (I'd have to look up the exact amount) but it basically means they are able to survive without starving to death and have a somewhat sustainable future which is clearly an improvement on the alternative. Of course money doesn't buy happiness.

He's a new England international. With the premium paid for English talent we'd most likely pocket a fair bit more than we paid.

Not if they don't get promoted this year I wouldn't.

Fascinating how insular some people are and how unable they are to look outside of their own personal experiences when answering a question like this. Certain posters who claim to be of the left claim they have a lot more empathy for the experiences of others around the world yet questions like this suggest this to not be the case.

I don't disagree with a lot of that. I think it depends what metric you use for the statement. I'd say global health and poverty rates are a decent indicator but like you say, culturally in the UK and the West generally we are probably worse.

You'd have to be a fucking idiot to think that saying things are better than they have ever been on average means denying there are terrible things happening in the world all the time. Your point about the news just completely confirms my earlier point. Very low IQ individual. What period in history was better than now on average across the globe?