Assisted Dying Proposal

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Alberta now looking at Canada's slide into allowing non terminally ill people access to assisted dying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d5d54glreo

'The legislation also garnered support from Mara Grunau, chief executive of the Canadian Mental Health Association's Alberta division, who said in a statement that "Recovery from mental illness and suicidality is possible, expected even".'

An indicator of how far they'd strayed for terminal illness.

The counter that not allowing mentally ill people to get themselves killed, as it infringes on their freedom of choice, not only baffles me, but makes me wonder at the motivations of those with that view.

 "additional barriers for individuals who are suffering and who wish to exercise choice".

Good. Apparently widening the scope of who is eligible over time never happens apparently...

[Holmes_and_Watson]

The Westminster assisted dying bill isn't going to get through. "in this parliament" leaving the door open for it, in the future. And for more painful debate and a possible I fortunate outcome, in my view, of it passing.

On the Scottish bill that also failed, the headline was that the MSP who raised it, wouldn't be pursuing it in the next parliament there. However, that could just mean that anyone else can start it up again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg97ze4jx9o

Opponents of the bill said the proposal "does not sufficiently guard against coercion or protect the most vulnerable people in our society".

The peers also argued that a backbencher's bill was the "wrong vehicle for a change of this scale and sensitivity" and expressed concern that supporters could try to "force" the bill through Parliament. 

The Scottish version got so far down the track based on a nod and a "fill in the details later" approach. Not uncommon for bills. But an approach I've never liked, and one that's terrifying for something like this.

Backers of the bill blame the 1200 amendments. I've heard politicians talk about other bills with similar numbers. They groaned at the memory of them. But said it's due to legislation having gaps when it gets to them.

I'm relieved this has gone, but it's not been defeated.

[Weston Super Saint]

Bill granted Royal Ascent in Jersey.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjk4zlkv42o

Quote

A law to allow terminally ill adults the right to choose to end their own lives in Jersey has been granted Royal Assent, meaning the island's government can bring it into force.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Bill granted Royal Ascent in Jersey.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjk4zlkv42o

 

"Our Industry Is Death!"

The title of an old Avengers episode, or the new slogan for the Jersey tourist board?

[Tamesaint]

So the bill gets defeated in the House of Commons. I respect the views of those who supported it and they have some good arguments.  but I am pleased that it failed. Euthanasia / state sponsored killing is a dangerous path to go down and any such bill clearly needs more safeguards than were contained in this bill. 

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

So the bill gets defeated in the House of Commons. I respect the views of those who supported it and they have some good arguments.  but I am pleased that it failed. Euthanasia / state sponsored killing is a dangerous path to go down and any such bill clearly needs more safeguards than were contained in this bill. 

 

Likewise, I'm very relieved it has failed. And that's with a huge amount of respect and empathy to a lot of individual cases.

For something of this magnitude, it was disappointing that for all of the concerns and previously suggested amendments, an identical bill was proposed simply as a procedural measure to prevent the Lords blocking it.

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Likewise, I'm very relieved it has failed. And that's with a huge amount of respect and empathy to a lot of individual cases.

For something of this magnitude, it was disappointing that for all of the concerns and previously suggested amendments, an identical bill was proposed simply as a procedural measure to prevent the Lords blocking it.

I was disappointed that the supporters of the Bill misrepresented the lords and their role in the delay as well as making many factual errors in a lot of their public statements. I've been following with interest and incredibly relieved this has been kicked into touch for a long time.

[trousers]

Disappointing, but respect the alternative viewpoint. 

[Lighthouse]

Very disappointing news. I appreciate that some people do have concerns about the robustness of the safeguards but the fact that some people are outright against it in principle is pretty sickening really. I can appreciate that it goes against some people’s religious beliefs but those individuals should’ve all abstained instead of voting against.

[hypochondriac]

24 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Very disappointing news. I appreciate that some people do have concerns about the robustness of the safeguards but the fact that some people are outright against it in principle is pretty sickening really. I can appreciate that it goes against some people’s religious beliefs but those individuals should’ve all abstained instead of voting against.

Many of the MPs who spoke today agree with the principle but had massive problems with this bill and particularly how they were attempting to ram it through. Do you have sympathy for that opinion?

[Lighthouse]

47 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Many of the MPs who spoke today agree with the principle but had massive problems with this bill and particularly how they were attempting to ram it through. Do you have sympathy for that opinion?

Yes.