|
|
Post by Eggybread on Nov 29, 2024 10:59:52 GMT
Very difficult topic with no obvious right and wrong.It seems to be down to personal beliefs which could be religious ones or just personal preference.In which case people are not going to change their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 29, 2024 11:05:03 GMT
It really comes down to a case of will you be prosecuted for assisting someone's death. The deceased can hardly be prosecuted There have been numerous cases where people have assisted death but CPS have declined to prosecute, although its illegal I know its an ambiguity but I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Personally if confronted with a prognosis of inevitable death preceeded by extreme pain, if in a position to do so, I'd take steps to prematurely intervene, or if incapacitated be comfortable on relying on someone to assist. As far as I'm concerned the State has no business in legislating on one of life's two inevitabilities. Isn't a significant part of this new law, if it goes ahead, to remove that ambiguity about what happens if you help someone to die? In other words, to have it all above board and transparent and to remove the risk and worry that a dying person inevitably feels for their loved one who may face prosecution if they help them. That, in itself, will be a massive comfort to the terminally ill. I'd rather that than a reliance on the CPS to decide someone's fate. Moreover, that CPS doesn't prosecute in many cases is a tacit acceptance of how it works already, even without the additional checks and balances that this law will impose. Laws are there to be broken Part of the reason the Death Penalty was removed is because the system can get it wrong I only skimmed the thread before posting, it's just my opinion I can see why others may have a different one and I can also see my opinion is hypocritical. I just feel that if introduced and it becomes the norm it inevitably will lead to abuse for which there is no turning back. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 29, 2024 12:31:51 GMT
If all parlimentary debates were like this, full to the rafters, polite, everyone giving their viewpoint etc then our parliment and our country would be better off for it
|
|
|
|
Post by 36dd on Nov 29, 2024 13:04:31 GMT
I had to witness my Mum suffer with Terminal Cancer, it started with severe back pain then eventually Mum, was needing home care to be washed dressed, come down stairs in a lift etc
A couple of visits to the local hospice in Stafford so that her partner could get some respite. Then a few months later Mum is rushed to hospital where they said she had suspected Sepsis.
After the Dr’s and staff gave her intravenous medication (struggling to find a vein), Mum came round and was admitted to a care home where she deteriorated losing weight, and her skin being ripped off because of being bedridden. We all said at that time that a dog wouldn’t get treated this way.
Her local GP had given the authorisation for a syringe driver which for some reason the care home, didn’t want to administer? Following a discussion with myself, the home and hospice, Mum’s morphine was increased and she passed away (with family), a week later.
To experience seeing someone go through that is frightening and I hope I don’t have the same suffering that my own kids have to see me go through the ordeal , therefore I am all for assisted dying.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 29, 2024 14:40:09 GMT
1st stage done
this allows for scrutiny and detail to be added to the bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 29, 2024 14:51:51 GMT
So you would exclude a group you disagree with from the debate, democracy in action! Once you go down that route which would be the next group to be excluded? This is a one way street to a dictatorship. Religion cannot trump logic. It's not the middle ages. I said nothing pro or anti religion. I commented on the wish to exclude a group, any group, from the democratic debate which I see as the first step towards tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 29, 2024 14:54:23 GMT
Let's bring back the death penalty now and make room in our prisons to keep criminals off our street
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 29, 2024 14:54:42 GMT
If all parlimentary debates were like this, full to the rafters, polite, everyone giving their viewpoint etc then our parliment and our country would be better off for it Which is why everything should have a free vote. The less MPs vote along partisan party lines, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 29, 2024 14:56:12 GMT
Religion cannot trump logic. It's not the middle ages. I said nothing pro or anti religion. I commented on the wish to exclude a group, any group, from the democratic debate which I see as the first step towards tyranny. its not excluding debate from religious groups its about not allowing the religious groups from imposing a belief on a law no problem with the church engaing in the debate but the law cannot be made along religious grounds |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 29, 2024 14:56:26 GMT
The slippery slope has started
|
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 29, 2024 15:03:23 GMT
So you would exclude a group you disagree with from the debate, democracy in action! Once you go down that route which would be the next group to be excluded? This is a one way street to a dictatorship. I didn't say that. I said religious grounds should be excluded. In other words, any argument at any time about any subject, including the one in this thread, that relies heavily on "what God wants" or what's written in a special book or what a collection of people choose to believe in without much, if any, tangible evidence should be excluded from any rational decision-making. I'm perfectly happy for any religious person or group to say what they like, but as soon as they come out with anything approaching the above, it would be better if those utterances were not taken seriously as part of law-making or any other consequential impact on society. Sadly, that probably won't be the case and far too much credence (and credibility) will, once again, be given to those kind of views. History has demonstrated many times over that a theocratic approach to law-making and governance in general is a very, very bad idea. So you are happy for people to say what they like as long as a group you object to don't say why they think what they think. Presumably you would be unhappy if anyone put such a restriction on your ability to express your views, I certainly would be on your behalf. I agree history has many examples of dreadful theocratic based regimes but Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Maoist China, the Khmer Rougue etc etc demonstrate it is not restricted to theocratic regimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 29, 2024 15:06:27 GMT
I said nothing pro or anti religion. I commented on the wish to exclude a group, any group, from the democratic debate which I see as the first step towards tyranny. its not excluding debate from religious groups its about not allowing the religious groups from imposing a belief on a law no problem with the church engaing in the debate but the law cannot be made along religious grounds All debate and law making is influenced by belief be it religious or secular if the majority opt for one view it is called democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 29, 2024 16:01:08 GMT
It really surprised me, I thought it could go either way and the vote would be incredibly close, but it was a 55 majority in favour!
The really odd thing to me is that this is probably the biggest social change we have seen in decades and not once was it mentioned in the build up to the election!
I appreciate the reason why that it was a private members bill, but change on this scale, should it have been led by the Government of the day?
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 29, 2024 16:07:22 GMT
It really surprised me, I thought it could go either way and the vote would be incredibly close, but it was a 55 majority in favour! The really odd thing to me is that this is probably the biggest social change we have seen in decades and not once was it mentioned in the build up to the election! I appreciate the reason why that it was a private members bill, but change on this scale, should it have been led by the Government of the day? it was in the tory manifesto tbh this bill still needs massive scrutiny but at least the will of parliment is to get one through |
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 29, 2024 16:28:43 GMT
It really surprised me, I thought it could go either way and the vote would be incredibly close, but it was a 55 majority in favour! The really odd thing to me is that this is probably the biggest social change we have seen in decades and not once was it mentioned in the build up to the election! I appreciate the reason why that it was a private members bill, but change on this scale, should it have been led by the Government of the day? All parties have significant elements who are strongly pro and anti the change so this was never going to be a government led bill. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 29, 2024 16:29:21 GMT
It really surprised me, I thought it could go either way and the vote would be incredibly close, but it was a 55 majority in favour! The really odd thing to me is that this is probably the biggest social change we have seen in decades and not once was it mentioned in the build up to the election! I appreciate the reason why that it was a private members bill, but change on this scale, should it have been led by the Government of the day? tbh this bill still needs massive scrutiny but at least the will of parliment is to get one through That's even stranger then. If it was in the manifesto of the party that got wiped out but not the one that won by a country mile! Don't get me wrong, I am broadly in favour, but it seems like it has really come in left side! I think it is the biggest single thing that will happen this parliament, or may happen at least. |
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Nov 29, 2024 17:04:45 GMT
Stoke South - Alison Gardner (Lab) NO
Stoke Central - Garth Snell (lab) AYE.
Stoke North - David Williams (lab) NO
New -U- Lyme - Adam Jogee (lab) NO
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 29, 2024 18:50:17 GMT
Religion cannot trump logic. It's not the middle ages. I said nothing pro or anti religion. I commented on the wish to exclude a group, any group, from the democratic debate which I see as the first step towards tyranny. I'm not saying exclude them from a having their opinion but it should never outweigh a scientific one. The religious viewpoint should have as much influence than a nobody like me. |
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Nov 29, 2024 19:32:52 GMT
I said nothing pro or anti religion. I commented on the wish to exclude a group, any group, from the democratic debate which I see as the first step towards tyranny. I'm not saying exclude them from a having their opinion but it should never outweigh a scientific one. The religious viewpoint should have as much influence than a nobody like me. But the original post very specifically said they should be excluded from the debate, if you accept everyone should be able to qually take part in the debate great. However if their viewpoint wins majority support you have to accept it in a democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 29, 2024 21:25:00 GMT
I didn't say that. I said religious grounds should be excluded. In other words, any argument at any time about any subject, including the one in this thread, that relies heavily on "what God wants" or what's written in a special book or what a collection of people choose to believe in without much, if any, tangible evidence should be excluded from any rational decision-making. I'm perfectly happy for any religious person or group to say what they like, but as soon as they come out with anything approaching the above, it would be better if those utterances were not taken seriously as part of law-making or any other consequential impact on society. Sadly, that probably won't be the case and far too much credence (and credibility) will, once again, be given to those kind of views. History has demonstrated many times over that a theocratic approach to law-making and governance in general is a very, very bad idea. So you are happy for people to say what they like as long as a group you object to don't say why they think what they think. Presumably you would be unhappy if anyone put such a restriction on your ability to express your views, I certainly would be on your behalf. I agree history has many examples of dreadful theocratic based regimes but Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Maoist China, the Khmer Rougue etc etc demonstrate it is not restricted to theocratic regimes. I didn't say any of that either! You really are making up stuff on my behalf to take issue with. I don't think religious doctrine should be the basis for law-making. Simple as that. It's been a notably dreadful basis for law-making and governance throughout history and continues to be awful in many theocracies around the world today. Notably in the middle east, currently. Any legislative approach based on superstition, which is what religion fundamentally is, is almost inevitably going to forsake logic and reason and fall back eventually on "what God says is right, in his special book, as interpreted by me, one of his special humans on Earth". Not a good idea. Anyway, it seems that reason has triumphed for the time being. I imagine the Lords spiritual in the HoL will now do their best to throw a spanner in the workings of democracy so you've got some hope yet 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 29, 2024 22:10:24 GMT
I see nigh on 80% of the Conservative parliamentary party voted against the bill.
Were they worried about too many of their voters being killed off? 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2024 22:57:33 GMT
Yeah, they should make it a national vote. I don't agree with it, there are too many flaws and you can guarantee it will lead to people dying unnecessarily. If they did in Sweden it would lead to a 85% for result (and 15% against), since only 15% believe in some kind of God and 85% are atheists. Highest number in the world actually. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2024 22:59:50 GMT
Let's bring back the death penalty now and make room in our prisons to keep criminals off our street Yepp. And begin with the ones putting old and/or sick people to sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 29, 2024 23:02:12 GMT
Let's bring back the death penalty now and make room in our prisons to keep criminals off our street Yepp. And begin with the ones putting old and/or sick people to sleep. I’d be surprised if the Death Penalty debate ever made it to parliament in my lifetime. My opinion is it should be brought back immediately |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2024 23:11:08 GMT
It really surprised me, I thought it could go either way and the vote would be incredibly close, but it was a 55 majority in favour! The really odd thing to me is that this is probably the biggest social change we have seen in decades and not once was it mentioned in the build up to the election! I appreciate the reason why that it was a private members bill, but change on this scale, should it have been led by the Government of the day? Don't you exaggerate the difference with the new law now? Tell me, how does it work in England? Are people really dying for months in hospitals in England? I can only speak about Sweden and it's very simple really. When people get sick enough, dying that is, they are put in a special clinic or part of the hospital. And when they're not given water they'll die in 2-3 days. So this kind of law wouldn't change much up here, unless you're counting hours. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 29, 2024 23:22:48 GMT
It really surprised me, I thought it could go either way and the vote would be incredibly close, but it was a 55 majority in favour! The really odd thing to me is that this is probably the biggest social change we have seen in decades and not once was it mentioned in the build up to the election! I appreciate the reason why that it was a private members bill, but change on this scale, should it have been led by the Government of the day? Don't you exaggerate the difference with the new law now? Tell me, how does it work in England? Are people really dying for months in hospitals in England? I can only speak about Sweden and it's very simple really. When people get sick enough, dying that is, they are put in a special clinic or part of the hospital. And when they're not given water they'll die in 2-3 days. So this kind of law wouldn't change much up here, unless you're counting hours. I think what you describe in Sweden is similar to what we have in the UK now. If someone moves from a hospital to a hospice then typically they no longer have a 'drip' giving them water and nutrients. As the pain rises they are given stronger and stronger doses of morphine which means they fall in to a deep sleep. The effect of the deep sleep is they can no longer drink and eventually death comes through organ failure. That's what I have seen up close. The new law will allow a drug assisted suicide. Death on demand if you like. It's horrible grisly stuff either way. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2024 23:51:53 GMT
That's what I have seen up close. The new law will allow a drug assisted suicide. Death on demand if you like. It's horrible grisly stuff either way. Me too. Both my parents. To me it's very easy. I'm absolutely certain that death and the final suffering is the final test and if you don't go through that - you may not go to hell - but you will have to live again and again in the material world as a punishment, until you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 29, 2024 23:54:08 GMT
That's what I have seen up close. The new law will allow a drug assisted suicide. Death on demand if you like. It's horrible grisly stuff either way. Me too. Both my parents. To me it's very easy. I'm absolutely certain that death and the final suffering is the final test and if you don't go through that - you may not go to hell - but you will have to live again and again in the material world as a punishment, until you do. Both my parents too. |
|
