Best Of

A moving and worrying take on assisted dying: https://conservativehome.com/2024/11/20/sarah-mcculloch-we-already-know-how-the-nhs-will-mishandle-assisted-dying-trust-me-i-work-for-it/

The current situation is that there is assisted dying for people with money, but not for the poor.

I'm not sure that's morally justifiable.

Don’t worry. After this government is finished with us no one is going to have any money

As I have written about, when my mother was dying in hospital, a nurse openly wanted her dead. Because she was terminally ill.

There’s a reason why people who’ve studied the history of ethics don’t want the same people treating patients and “assisting” suicides.

Even silly comedies like Scrubs touched upon people in hospitals becoming callously desensitised to older, ill people taking up time and attention rather than just dying.

Yes, it is one of a number of reasons that I am not keen on the Euthanasia* Bill.

I have seen it too many times, and sometimes in myself. It's not just being glad that someone's suffering is over, but also often relief that you won't be called to see them again. There is relief for staff too when someone dies. The journey from bereavement counselling to Ash Cash is a short one.

* let's call it what it is rather than use the term "Assisted Dying"

A brutal but honest reflection there, well done.

I'm opposed for a number of reasons, but what it could do to people in the medical field is an aspect of it.

Keeping the right balance between empathy and objectivity is the hardest bit to being a Doctor. Over empathise with patients and you risk losing objectivity in their treatment, don't empathise enough and you risk becoming callously and arrogant. You need a certain mental detachment in order to drill a hole in someone's skull, or stick a needle in their heart, you can't be thinking of what will happen to their dependents if you slip. I have seen people fail both ways and recognised warning signs in myself.

To take it back to silly comedies*, I remember a scene from Scrubs again on that topic, with a senior doctor talking to a younger one about why they make dark jokes sometimes and are detached, looking at a surgeon explaining to a family that something went wrong and the patient died, that he will say he's sorry, and then he would be going back to work. 'Do you think anyone else in that room is going back to work today?'.

*I get most of my life lessons from TV shows and movies.

I don't watch hospital shows as a general rule. It must be even worse for the police. I need to escape work not watch it for entertainment.

I think the moral danger is more obvious in Medicine, but I see it in other walks of life too, particularly where an individual can act in ways that impact on others. I think @DavidL manages well with his prosecutions of sex offenders. Living in that sewer corrodes ones ideas of how men and women should interact. It's hard to retain a moral compass in such work, but someone has to do it.

It's also why cops become callous. The notion that everyone else is on the make and can't be trusted seeps into how they act. Politicians risk it too, and journalists. Financiers start to believe that everyone has their price.

It's why people need time to psychologically decompress and spend time with people in completely different walks of life. We all live in bubbles to a greater or lesser degree, and that isn't always a bad thing, but some bubbles can become toxic very quickly. I've seen too many go over to the Dark Side.

Try Waterloo Road!!

A moving and worrying take on assisted dying: https://conservativehome.com/2024/11/20/sarah-mcculloch-we-already-know-how-the-nhs-will-mishandle-assisted-dying-trust-me-i-work-for-it/

The current situation is that there is assisted dying for people with money, but not for the poor.

I'm not sure that's morally justifiable.

Don’t worry. After this government is finished with us no one is going to have any money

As I have written about, when my mother was dying in hospital, a nurse openly wanted her dead. Because she was terminally ill.

There’s a reason why people who’ve studied the history of ethics don’t want the same people treating patients and “assisting” suicides.

Even silly comedies like Scrubs touched upon people in hospitals becoming callously desensitised to older, ill people taking up time and attention rather than just dying.

Yes, it is one of a number of reasons that I am not keen on the Euthanasia* Bill.

I have seen it too many times, and sometimes in myself. It's not just being glad that someone's suffering is over, but also often relief that you won't be called to see them again. There is relief for staff too when someone dies. The journey from bereavement counselling to Ash Cash is a short one.

* let's call it what it is rather than use the term "Assisted Dying"

A brutal but honest reflection there, well done.

I'm opposed for a number of reasons, but what it could do to people in the medical field is an aspect of it.

Keeping the right balance between empathy and objectivity is the hardest bit to being a Doctor. Over empathise with patients and you risk losing objectivity in their treatment, don't empathise enough and you risk becoming callously and arrogant. You need a certain mental detachment in order to drill a hole in someone's skull, or stick a needle in their heart, you can't be thinking of what will happen to their dependents if you slip. I have seen people fail both ways and recognised warning signs in myself.

To take it back to silly comedies*, I remember a scene from Scrubs again on that topic, with a senior doctor talking to a younger one about why they make dark jokes sometimes and are detached, looking at a surgeon explaining to a family that something went wrong and the patient died, that he will say he's sorry, and then he would be going back to work. 'Do you think anyone else in that room is going back to work today?'.

*I get most of my life lessons from TV shows and movies.

I don't watch hospital shows as a general rule. It must be even worse for the police. I need to escape work not watch it for entertainment.

I think the moral danger is more obvious in Medicine, but I see it in other walks of life too, particularly where an individual can act in ways that impact on others. I think @DavidL manages well with his prosecutions of sex offenders. Living in that sewer corrodes ones ideas of how men and women should interact. It's hard to retain a moral compass in such work, but someone has to do it.

It's also why cops become callous. The notion that everyone else is on the make and can't be trusted seeps into how they act. Politicians risk it too, and journalists. Financiers start to believe that everyone has their price.

It's why people need time to psychologically decompress and spend time with people in completely different walks of life. We all live in bubbles to a greater or lesser degree, and that isn't always a bad thing, but some bubbles can become toxic very quickly. I've seen too many go over to the Dark Side.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the shadow Lord Chancellor.




Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick

The Reeves guide to conning the public:

1. Fake your CV
2. Tell working people you won’t raise their taxes
3. Squeeze them to the pips and give their money to your union paymasters

You can’t trust a word she says👇

https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1859298630512889988

Where's the lie?

Yep. Seems fair to me

Bruising, but that's politics

Also Reeves IS a ridiculously incompent wanker who lied on her CV and is barely qualified to be a backbench MP let alone Chancellor of the Exchequer. That's simply the case. Is Jenrick meant to pretend this isn't true?

It's also a matter of public record now because her LinkedIn page doesn't match the CV she gave to the Labour selection panel. She lied on her CV to get selected, there's now no disputing it so Jenrick is well within his rights to say that and force Labour into a response.

Yes, Jenrick is well within his rights. However, as for forcing Labour into a response, I'm not sure that Labour will give a flying fuck what a dodgy Tory MP tweets.

Lying did for Boris.

She holds one of the great offices of state.

As did Boris.

It's fraud. She lied on her CV and said she was an economist at a major UK bank, it turns out she was in charge of a customer complaints team. She cultivated this image that she was a serious economist and had real private sector experience which landed her the position of chancellor, it's completely undeserved.

Come off it. I don’t think Starmer appointed her based on her LinkedIn profile or her CV!

She looks a prat for doing this, but it’s hardly a resigning matter. I think it was a bad Budget but she’ll get her SR. When that falls over, and it will, I expect she’ll go in the following reshuffle.

So you don't think that her bigging herself up as an economist for a major private sector UK bank helped her get the shadow chancellor gig when Labour were at their lowest ebb after the 2019 election? It's a view.

No. And nor would you if you were applying logic and rationality rather than partisan hate.

You don’t get appointed Shadow CX because of what you did for a few years before you were an MP. To suggest you do is just silly.

I yield to no one in my criticism of this Government, but based on facts rather than froth.

You do when that job was supposedly being an economist at a major bank and the job in question is being the chief economist of the country. It can't be because of any innate talent because she's fucking useless.

She isn’t chief economist of the country though? You have no idea what the Chancellor does do you?

Given his job, I have a vague sense that @MaxPB is acquainted with the daily role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

He works in Financial services doesn’t he? A tiny part of the portfolio which barely bothers CX. It’s like saying a footballer understands the role of Minister of Sport.

Fund management for a while but then I moved into startup funding and consulting. As you say I'm not sure it's that relevant other than understanding the basis of why her policies are shite. I still don't understand how she's managed to borrow £150bn extra and produce less growth than before, it implies the rest of her budget measures have hugely negative multipliers which makes her a bad chancellor.

We have no idea how much growth there is going to be (if any) over the next few years

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the shadow Lord Chancellor.




Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick

The Reeves guide to conning the public:

1. Fake your CV
2. Tell working people you won’t raise their taxes
3. Squeeze them to the pips and give their money to your union paymasters

You can’t trust a word she says👇

https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1859298630512889988

Where's the lie?

Yep. Seems fair to me

Bruising, but that's politics

Also Reeves IS a ridiculously incompent wanker who lied on her CV and is barely qualified to be a backbench MP let alone Chancellor of the Exchequer. That's simply the case. Is Jenrick meant to pretend this isn't true?

It's also a matter of public record now because her LinkedIn page doesn't match the CV she gave to the Labour selection panel. She lied on her CV to get selected, there's now no disputing it so Jenrick is well within his rights to say that and force Labour into a response.

Yes, Jenrick is well within his rights. However, as for forcing Labour into a response, I'm not sure that Labour will give a flying fuck what a dodgy Tory MP tweets.

Lying did for Boris.

She holds one of the great offices of state.

As did Boris.

It's fraud. She lied on her CV and said she was an economist at a major UK bank, it turns out she was in charge of a customer complaints team. She cultivated this image that she was a serious economist and had real private sector experience which landed her the position of chancellor, it's completely undeserved.

Come off it. I don’t think Starmer appointed her based on her LinkedIn profile or her CV!

She looks a prat for doing this, but it’s hardly a resigning matter. I think it was a bad Budget but she’ll get her SR. When that falls over, and it will, I expect she’ll go in the following reshuffle.

So you don't think that her bigging herself up as an economist for a major private sector UK bank helped her get the shadow chancellor gig when Labour were at their lowest ebb after the 2019 election? It's a view.

No. And nor would you if you were applying logic and rationality rather than partisan hate.

You don’t get appointed Shadow CX because of what you did for a few years before you were an MP. To suggest you do is just silly.

I yield to no one in my criticism of this Government, but based on facts rather than froth.

You do when that job was supposedly being an economist at a major bank and the job in question is being the chief economist of the country. It can't be because of any innate talent because she's fucking useless.

She isn’t chief economist of the country though? You have no idea what the Chancellor does do you?

Given his job, I have a vague sense that @MaxPB is acquainted with the daily role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

He works in Financial services doesn’t he? A tiny part of the portfolio which barely bothers CX. It’s like saying a footballer understands the role of Minister of Sport.

Fund management for a while but then I moved into startup funding and consulting. As you say I'm not sure it's that relevant other than understanding the basis of why her policies are shite. I still don't understand how she's managed to borrow £150bn extra and produce less growth than before, it implies the rest of her budget measures have hugely negative multipliers which makes her a bad chancellor.

It's remarkably simple to those of us who've spent rather too much of our lives with economic models:

- you take some rather overly-optimistic forecasts from the previous administration and make them a bit over-pessimistic so you're getting the bad news out of the way in one go
- then you introduce a bunch of supply side measures like increasing the minimum wage that will cripple the labour market
- then you change the mood music to talk down the economy, saying your predecessors left you a terrible legacy
- and you come to office at a time when everybody is talking about a global trade war
- and you increase precisely those taxes in the budget most likely to reduce economic growth

Given her staggering incompetence, I'm surprised we're projecting any growth at all. She is to the economy what Miliband is to our energy industry or Lammy to our global influence.

Why did so many people want to shut down any discussion of the possibility that the virus may have come from a Wuhan lab? I still don't get it.

1. A bunch of Americans slyly funded the Wuhan coronavirus research: Fauci, Collins, the NIH

2. This was arguably against US law brought in by Obama, which forbade "gain of function" virology, precisely because it is so dangerous (Fauci is actually on record on video saying this GOF research is "risky, but worth it")

3. They knew from the start Covid probably came from the lab ("it is so friggin likely") and they panicked

4. They were terrified they'd get lynched for killing 25 million people

5. They "genuinely" feared that being honest would jeopardise co-operation, on many fronts, with China

6. A lot of them rely on Chinese funding and goodwill, see point 5

7. They "genuinely" feared that being honest would reduce the public trust of science, and science journals etc

8. Naked cowardice

Add it all up, and you have LOTS of people, in the USA and China (and also the UK, Holland, etc) with mighty motivations to deny the obvious, and to overtly lie in this cause (eg the Lancet Letter, now utterly discredited)

A moving and worrying take on assisted dying: https://conservativehome.com/2024/11/20/sarah-mcculloch-we-already-know-how-the-nhs-will-mishandle-assisted-dying-trust-me-i-work-for-it/

The current situation is that there is assisted dying for people with money, but not for the poor.

I'm not sure that's morally justifiable.

Don’t worry. After this government is finished with us no one is going to have any money

As I have written about, when my mother was dying in hospital, a nurse openly wanted her dead. Because she was terminally ill.

There’s a reason why people who’ve studied the history of ethics don’t want the same people treating patients and “assisting” suicides.

Even silly comedies like Scrubs touched upon people in hospitals becoming callously desensitised to older, ill people taking up time and attention rather than just dying.

Yes, it is one of a number of reasons that I am not keen on the Euthanasia* Bill.

I have seen it too many times, and sometimes in myself. It's not just being glad that someone's suffering is over, but also often relief that you won't be called to see them again. There is relief for staff too when someone dies. The journey from bereavement counselling to Ash Cash is a short one.

* let's call it what it is rather than use the term "Assisted Dying"

A brutal but honest reflection there, well done.

I'm opposed for a number of reasons, but what it could do to people in the medical field is an aspect of it.

Keeping the right balance between empathy and objectivity is the hardest bit to being a Doctor. Over empathise with patients and you risk losing objectivity in their treatment, don't empathise enough and you risk becoming callously and arrogant. You need a certain mental detachment in order to drill a hole in someone's skull, or stick a needle in their heart, you can't be thinking of what will happen to their dependents if you slip. I have seen people fail both ways and recognised warning signs in myself.