And remember, this is exactly what Hamas hoped for on 7 October: to drive Israel so mad with grief and rage that it would lash out in ways that would destroy its international legitimacy. Netanyahu gave them exactly what they wanted. Hamas set the trap – and he walked right into it.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?
Should not kill the innocent is the point
Pretty sure an awful lot of German, Japanese and Italian soldiers and civilians would count as innocent.
Guilty of being German, Japanese or Italian.
ETA: WW2 is not a great example, as the death penalty was certainly extant in the UK at that time. More recent wars post-death penalty would be a somewhat better example. Extra-judicial killings abroad outside of active conflict, more so.
Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
Many more LibDems than Tories voted for the bill. Only 7 LibDems against compared with 70+Tories against.
Well no surprise they are LIBERALs. Pleased to see most Tories actually acted as conservatives this time though with a majority of Tory MPs voting against assisted dying
I would have voted yes but with proper debate and consideration to the issues raised today
I would just add an arbitrary 6 month date is not something that can always be determined by the medics
If you want certainty in that sort of thing, then you will never get it. And there will never be a law.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.
(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.
If you visited a different church every Sunday it would take you nearly 20 years to visit 1,000 churches. It's a monumental task to judge the merits of 000's of church buildings.
There's a chap called Cameron Newham - who also wrote a textbook about the Bash C Shell ("Learning the bash Shell: Unix Shell Programming", O Reilly) - who has been perambulating around England since the late 1990s photographing all the rural Church of England churches,
He was the first person I have known personally (via the Net) to have a full set of Pevsner, and to have used them so thoroughly.
As of 2021: At the present time I am over 80% towards completing the first objective, having visited and photographed 9000 of the roughly 11,500 rural churches. The second objective, creating the database, has already been started and will follow on in a natural progression once the remaining fieldwork has been carried out. ... As I approach the final few years of work I have already given thought to the construction and publication of the archive. An app already exists (as of now only on the Google Play Store) called Parish Churches. This has 50,000 images (one tenth of the current archive which now stands at 509,000 images) and covers only a small area around Cambridgshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire.
My other app, Keyholder, is aimed more at the casual church visitor and has proved to be very popular. It's available on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. The app is crowd sourced, allowing users to make comments, take pictures and rate churches. It also has significant input from my project as well as web links, pictures, and most importantly access information for 80% of the churches in both England and Wales. https://www.nationalchurchestrust.org/explore/story/cb-newham
It's illiberal to deny people the legal right to end their own lives with help. It's the same as denying women to legal right to have an abortion with help. David Steel 1967 Abortion Act.
It's not a surprise that most LibDem MPs supported the bill. I'm surprised at those who didn't including Ed Davey, though Tim Farron being anti didn't surprise me.
Tim Farron once again struggling with the contradictions between liberalism and firmly held religious belief.
Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
Many more LibDems than Tories voted for the bill. Only 7 LibDems against compared with 70+Tories against.
Well no surprise they are LIBERALs. Pleased to see most Tories actually acted as conservatives this time though with a majority of Tory MPs voting against assisted dying
I would have voted yes but with proper debate and consideration to the issues raised today
I would just add an arbitrary 6 month date is not something that can always be determined by the medics
If you want certainty in that sort of thing, then you will never get it. And there will never be a law.
It's illiberal to deny people the legal right to end their own lives with help. It's the same as denying women to legal right to have an abortion with help. David Steel 1967 Abortion Act.
It's not a surprise that most LibDem MPs supported the bill. I'm surprised at those who didn't including Ed Davey, though Tim Farron being anti didn't surprise me.
Tim Farron once again struggling with the contradictions between liberalism and firmly held religious belief.
Is he actually a Liberal? Or just enjoys a snack at Gail's?
It's illiberal to deny people the legal right to end their own lives with help. It's the same as denying women to legal right to have an abortion with help. David Steel 1967 Abortion Act.
It's not a surprise that most LibDem MPs supported the bill. I'm surprised at those who didn't including Ed Davey, though Tim Farron being anti didn't surprise me.
Tim Farron once again struggling with the contradictions between liberalism and firmly held religious belief.
Tim Farron is a true Christian and my respect for him has greatly increased in holding to his principles despite the vast majority of his party voting for
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Mistakes analogous to miscarriages of justice are inevtiable.
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
Farage voted against and he is party leader but Reform split down the middle on the issue more than even Labour were.
It looks like most DUP MPs and the Alliance and TUV and UUP MP and most Independent MPs joined most Tory MPs in voting against too and of course I remain a Tory
It's illiberal to deny people the legal right to end their own lives with help. It's the same as denying women to legal right to have an abortion with help. David Steel 1967 Abortion Act.
It's not a surprise that most LibDem MPs supported the bill. I'm surprised at those who didn't including Ed Davey, though Tim Farron being anti didn't surprise me.
Tim Farron once again struggling with the contradictions between liberalism and firmly held religious belief.
Tim Farron is a true Christian and my respect for him has greatly increased in holding to his principles despite the vast majority of his party voting for
Rather reinforces my point!
(I don't doubt he's voted with his conscience - and spoke eloquently on the matter - and I've no criticism of anyone for their vote on this issue.)
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
I've been hearing a lot that palliative is only partially funded currently. What are people meaning by this? My recently died mother had excellent palliative, albeit for only a short time.
I think it's that a lot of hospices are charity run. The Highland Hospice, a truly fantastic place, certainly is.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.
(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.
If you visited a different church every Sunday it would take you nearly 20 years to visit 1,000 churches. It's a monumental task to judge the merits of 000's of church buildings.
There's a chap called Cameron Newham - who also wrote a textbook about the Bash C Shell ("Learning the bash Shell: Unix Shell Programming", O Reilly) - who has been perambulating around England since the late 1990s photographing all the rural Church of England churches,
He was the first person I have known personally (via the Net) to have a full set of Pevsner, and to have used them so thoroughly.
As of 2021: At the present time I am over 80% towards completing the first objective, having visited and photographed 9000 of the roughly 11,500 rural churches. The second objective, creating the database, has already been started and will follow on in a natural progression once the remaining fieldwork has been carried out. ... As I approach the final few years of work I have already given thought to the construction and publication of the archive. An app already exists (as of now only on the Google Play Store) called Parish Churches. This has 50,000 images (one tenth of the current archive which now stands at 509,000 images) and covers only a small area around Cambridgshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire.
My other app, Keyholder, is aimed more at the casual church visitor and has proved to be very popular. It's available on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. The app is crowd sourced, allowing users to make comments, take pictures and rate churches. It also has significant input from my project as well as web links, pictures, and most importantly access information for 80% of the churches in both England and Wales. https://www.nationalchurchestrust.org/explore/story/cb-newham
Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
What part of the phrase “free vote” don’t you understand?
It was a vote that was a good way of sniffing out who are libertarians and who are conservatives in the Tories and in Labour who are socialists and who are 'progressives' to a large degree
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
I've been hearing a lot that palliative is only partially funded currently. What are people meaning by this? My recently died mother had excellent palliative, albeit for only a short time.
I think it's that a lot of hospices are charity run. The Highland Hospice, a truly fantastic place, certainly is.
Some* of the direct medical care is funded. All the add-ons tend to be charitable. At least, that's the situation in children's hospices, albeit that they're quite different with much longer involvement and before the end-of-life phase.
*depends who is delivering it and whether it's stuff covered by the NHS and how you define 'medical' care
ETA: There are no state hospices as far as I know. They're all charities that get some payments for some things.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
What part of the phrase “free vote” don’t you understand?
It was a vote that was a good way of sniffing out who are libertarians and who are conservatives in the Tories and in Labour who are socialists and who are 'progressives' to a large degree
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
I've been hearing a lot that palliative is only partially funded currently. What are people meaning by this? My recently died mother had excellent palliative, albeit for only a short time.
I think it's that a lot of hospices are charity run. The Highland Hospice, a truly fantastic place, certainly is.
Correct.
As you travel around, one telltale is that there are a lot of Hospice charity shops - for example. It's maybe comparable to the RNLI - an effectively national service that many find surprising that it exists on the basis it does.
It's a movement that grew up from Dame Cecily Saunders who founded a hospice in Sydenham in 1967.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
As I understand it [and I am open to be corrected] the patient themselves administers the fatal dose which raises the question in some instances how
And remember, this is exactly what Hamas hoped for on 7 October: to drive Israel so mad with grief and rage that it would lash out in ways that would destroy its international legitimacy. Netanyahu gave them exactly what they wanted. Hamas set the trap – and he walked right into it.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
As I understand it [and I am open to be corrected] the patient themselves administers the fatal dose which raises the question in some instances how
This is the part of the Bill that addresses that:
(6) In respect of an approved substance which is provided to the person under subsection (2), the coordinating doctor may— (a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person, (b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and (c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.
(7) But the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.
(8) Subsection (6) does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.
So a doctor can assist a person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. Presumably a family member can also help but not actually administer.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
I've been hearing a lot that palliative is only partially funded currently. What are people meaning by this? My recently died mother had excellent palliative, albeit for only a short time.
I think it's that a lot of hospices are charity run. The Highland Hospice, a truly fantastic place, certainly is.
Some* of the direct medical care is funded. All the add-ons tend to be charitable. At least, that's the situation in children's hospices, albeit that they're quite different with much longer involvement and before the end-of-life phase.
*depends who is delivering it and whether it's stuff covered by the NHS and how you define 'medical' care
ETA: There are no state hospices as far as I know. They're all charities that get some payments for some things.
There are palliative care teams and specialists within the NHS though - and Farron is right that there should be more of that and better funding. I support assisted dying, but we should do everything we can to make dying as pain and trauma-free as possible for those who do not wish to or cannot take that route.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.
(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.
If you visited a different church every Sunday it would take you nearly 20 years to visit 1,000 churches. It's a monumental task to judge the merits of 000's of church buildings.
There's a chap called Cameron Newham - who also wrote a textbook about the Bash C Shell ("Learning the bash Shell: Unix Shell Programming", O Reilly) - who has been perambulating around England since the late 1990s photographing all the rural Church of England churches,
He was the first person I have known personally (via the Net) to have a full set of Pevsner, and to have used them so thoroughly.
As of 2021: At the present time I am over 80% towards completing the first objective, having visited and photographed 9000 of the roughly 11,500 rural churches. The second objective, creating the database, has already been started and will follow on in a natural progression once the remaining fieldwork has been carried out. ... As I approach the final few years of work I have already given thought to the construction and publication of the archive. An app already exists (as of now only on the Google Play Store) called Parish Churches. This has 50,000 images (one tenth of the current archive which now stands at 509,000 images) and covers only a small area around Cambridgshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire.
My other app, Keyholder, is aimed more at the casual church visitor and has proved to be very popular. It's available on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. The app is crowd sourced, allowing users to make comments, take pictures and rate churches. It also has significant input from my project as well as web links, pictures, and most importantly access information for 80% of the churches in both England and Wales. https://www.nationalchurchestrust.org/explore/story/cb-newham
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
If you look at the example of any country where it's been legalised, it never ends with cases like that.
Two developments in the resignation of Louse Haigh. I understand that the "full facts" about Louise Haigh's past conviction were "not known" by the PM until reports broke last night. This is strongly disputed by friends of Haigh.
I also understand that the 2014 conviction was not declared by Haigh in her transparency disclosures when she became Transport secretary on July 5.
This is why the Deputy PM’s official spokesman told reporters that she quit "following further information” , and added that "ministers are required appointed to office to provide their permanent secretary with a full declaration in writing of their private interests which could give rise to a conflict, actual or perceived".
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
As I understand it [and I am open to be corrected] the patient themselves administers the fatal dose which raises the question in some instances how
This is the part of the Bill that addresses that:
(6) In respect of an approved substance which is provided to the person under subsection (2), the coordinating doctor may— (a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person, (b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and (c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.
(7) But the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.
(8) Subsection (6) does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.
So a doctor can assist a person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. Presumably a family member can also help but not actually administer.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
If you look at the example of any country where it's been legalised, it never ends with cases like that.
Yes, countries that legalised or retained the death penalty kill far more than psychopathic murderers, including innocent people.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Mistakes analogous to miscarriages of justice are inevtiable.
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
So they won't complain. So who will?
Wow. So if they're dead, and they can't complain about being dead, then there's no problem in your view?
Haven't you just legalised murder with that argument?
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Mistakes analogous to miscarriages of justice are inevtiable.
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
So they won't complain. So who will?
Wow. So if they're dead, and they can't complain about being dead, then there's no problem in your view?
Haven't you just legalised murder with that argument?
No. I've made a true statement and asked a question.
And remember, this is exactly what Hamas hoped for on 7 October: to drive Israel so mad with grief and rage that it would lash out in ways that would destroy its international legitimacy. Netanyahu gave them exactly what they wanted. Hamas set the trap – and he walked right into it.
Iran seems to be the biggest loser in the whole thing and if what is going on currently in Syria continues then it’s influence will be further diminished. The west would sooner see Iran neutered than Israel.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Mistakes analogous to miscarriages of justice are inevtiable.
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
So they won't complain. So who will?
Wow. So if they're dead, and they can't complain about being dead, then there's no problem in your view?
Haven't you just legalised murder with that argument?
No. I've made a true statement and asked a question.
But that's the scenario that's most chilling. Someone could be offed and how would you know?
Thank goodness we have the government, the NHS and the courts to look after us with assisted dying. With this triumvirate in charge, surely nothing can go wrong, it's not as if there are examples of previous malevolence and incompetence.
Away from this, that other reassuring triumvirate of Iran, Russia and Syria and set to lose Aleppo within days, maybe even hours. Weaponry, men and land all swept away. The governments forces and their proxies are running like rats, while prisoners are being freed. Who knows where all this will end.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and undecided on euthanasia, but killing a psychopathic murderer is unrecognisably different from ending the life of someone in unbearable pain with their consent.
If you look at the example of any country where it's been legalised, it never ends with cases like that.
Yes, countries that legalised or retained the death penalty kill far more than psychopathic murderers, including innocent people.
And that argument used to carry some weight before we decided to accept the risk of mistakes being made in the administration of euthanasia.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
I've been hearing a lot that palliative is only partially funded currently. What are people meaning by this? My recently died mother had excellent palliative, albeit for only a short time.
I think it's that a lot of hospices are charity run. The Highland Hospice, a truly fantastic place, certainly is.
Some* of the direct medical care is funded. All the add-ons tend to be charitable. At least, that's the situation in children's hospices, albeit that they're quite different with much longer involvement and before the end-of-life phase.
*depends who is delivering it and whether it's stuff covered by the NHS and how you define 'medical' care
ETA: There are no state hospices as far as I know. They're all charities that get some payments for some things.
There are palliative care teams and specialists within the NHS though - and Farron is right that there should be more of that and better funding. I support assisted dying, but we should do everything we can to make dying as pain and trauma-free as possible for those who do not wish to or cannot take that route.
Speaking from personal experience, my father in law who was in the end stages of his life and with dementia, at the point he didn’t know any of us, was clearly failing and very distressed when we called the doctor who injected pain relief expecting to relieve the pain as he passed
6 hours later he was still in agony and the doctor was amazed commenting that his veins were so collapsed the pain relief couldn't have entered his system, so he administered a further stronger dose
It did take effect and he passed away peacefully a few hours later with us all round his bed holding his hands
Of course under this bill he would not have been able to self administer the dose, nor would we give it him, so then the doctor would no doubt be needed in those circumstances
I do think it is a subject where personal experiences have an influence on whether you support assisted dying or not
Personally my wife and I would have left it entirely to the doctors judgement
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Mistakes analogous to miscarriages of justice are inevtiable.
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
So they won't complain. So who will?
Wow. So if they're dead, and they can't complain about being dead, then there's no problem in your view?
Haven't you just legalised murder with that argument?
No. I've made a true statement and asked a question.
But that's the scenario that's most chilling. Someone could be offed and how would you know?
The person 'offed': 1) wanted to die, 2) was very ill (if not, it might have turned out, within six month ill) and 3) the family did not coerce (judge confirmed).
In the absence of having the ability or means to do it themselves why shouldn't he/she be assisted?
Interesting Sky highlighted how Badenoch, Rayner, Streeting and Davey voted against
It really is an issue that cuts right across party lines, nothwistanding HYUFD's attempts to assign political orientations according to the way the MPs voted. I find it a difficult issue myself, and am very unsure which way I'd have voted, but it does make me proud that we have a system in which it could be properly and respectfully debated. Well done to our MPs, and I don't often say that!
Thanks to Charlie Stark for providing a few numbers. But there are many more I would like to see. Examples: Is the Canadian government cutting costs as the result of the increase in assisted suicide? If so, how much?
How common are the extreme cases, in which a person wishes to commit suicide but is unable to do so on their own? One percent? Ten percent? More? Or even less than one percent?
An old quip by Isaac Asimov reminds me of why I am not persuaded that American doctors are necessarily the best moral guides. He explained the high support for abortion among American Jews by saying that Jews do not think anyone is "fully human" until they have graduated from medical school.
Thanks to Charlie Stark for providing a few numbers. But there are many more I would like to see. Examples: Is the Canadian government cutting costs as the result of the increase in assisted suicide? If so, how much?
How common are the extreme cases, in which a person wishes to commit suicide but is unable to do so on their own? One percent? Ten percent? More? Or even less than one percent?
Yes, would be interesting to see. I don't have that though, sorry.
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I can't deal with all of them, but some I can and they are:
@Nigelb: I'm sorry my para "THE ROLE OF THE STATE" did not communicate my intent: it started off badly, then had a double negative, and attaempts to change it before it was published only made it worse. I'll rewrite it later today @Malmesbury. Your point about how the rich are treated differently. I understand your point but better enforcement doesn't work: Michael Gove was never arrested nor punished for his cocaine use, and the use of drugs and prostitutes by politicians is known and unpunished. If a law is easily bypassed by the rich, is it a good idea? @Topping: the risks outweigh the benefits. Possibly true. @Topping: you said you suspected we would see Parliament at its best. I think we did, but "best" does not equal "good enough". People gave examples and used sentimentality: they did so in a reasonable and impressive manner, but that's not the best way or arguing. I think it was Diane Abbott who argued from first principles "the State should not kill", and I thought that was better. But I think we can all say that most MPs tried hard. @theProle. thank you for your arguments with citations from the Bible. I note your "But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable." I'm not sure that's enough but it's a good start, thank you @algarkirk, @AugustusCarp2, @kinabalu: many people answered one question, but few attempted to answer most, which included you. This was not required but I was informed by your responses and thank you.
This is the latest in a series of articles by me. They fall into three broad camps: the Measurement Series, about how we measure political concepts, the Ideas series, about current political concepts, and the Chronicle of a Bet Foretold series, about the logistics of betting wrt specific election. Some were lost after the reorganisation, but those that are recoverable include the following (the numbers are the number of comments)
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/22/benjamin-netanyahu-icc-israel
I think these are all ex Lab MPs (or at least most of them).
Interesting that almost all this group voted the same way.
John McDonnell was the only one in favour.
ETA: WW2 is not a great example, as the death penalty was certainly extant in the UK at that time. More recent wars post-death penalty would be a somewhat better example. Extra-judicial killings abroad outside of active conflict, more so.
You heard it here first.
He was the first person I have known personally (via the Net) to have a full set of Pevsner, and to have used them so thoroughly.
As of 2021:
At the present time I am over 80% towards completing the first objective, having visited and photographed 9000 of the roughly 11,500 rural churches. The second objective, creating the database, has already been started and will follow on in a natural progression once the remaining fieldwork has been carried out.
...
As I approach the final few years of work I have already given thought to the construction and publication of the archive. An app already exists (as of now only on the Google Play Store) called Parish Churches. This has 50,000 images (one tenth of the current archive which now stands at 509,000 images) and covers only a small area around Cambridgshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire.
My other app, Keyholder, is aimed more at the casual church visitor and has proved to be very popular. It's available on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. The app is crowd sourced, allowing users to make comments, take pictures and rate churches. It also has significant input from my project as well as web links, pictures, and most importantly access information for 80% of the churches in both England and Wales.
https://www.nationalchurchestrust.org/explore/story/cb-newham
I'd not have him on the front bench but as somebody genuinely left wing who I really think has moved in his career, he provides a useful perspective.
After all, he was one of the few during the Corbyn years who saw how important opposing Russia was.
If he'd been leader in 2017, Labour would have won IMHO.
Then it will be one of the MPs born in the late 80s to the late 90s after that IMHO.
It looks like most DUP MPs and the Alliance and TUV and UUP MP and most Independent MPs joined most Tory MPs in voting against too and of course I remain a Tory
(I don't doubt he's voted with his conscience - and spoke eloquently on the matter - and I've no criticism of anyone for their vote on this issue.)
*depends who is delivering it and whether it's stuff covered by the NHS and how you define 'medical' care
ETA: There are no state hospices as far as I know. They're all charities that get some payments for some things.
As you travel around, one telltale is that there are a lot of Hospice charity shops - for example. It's maybe comparable to the RNLI - an effectively national service that many find surprising that it exists on the basis it does.
It's a movement that grew up from Dame Cecily Saunders who founded a hospice in Sydenham in 1967.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicely_Saunders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Christopher's_Hospice
There were a number of now established field-adjacent institutions that started around then - also Samaritans.
There are also a large number of charitable Old People's Homes.
(6) In respect of an approved substance which is provided to the person under
subsection (2), the coordinating doctor may—
(a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person,
(b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to
self-administer the substance, and
(c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.
(7) But the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act
of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been
provided.
(8) Subsection (6) does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an
approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that
person’s death.
So a doctor can assist a person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.
Presumably a family member can also help but not actually administer.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cbnewham.keyholder&pli=1
Tice
Lowe
Anderson
Against:
Farage
McMurdock
Christopher Hope📝
@christopherhope
NEW
Two developments in the resignation of Louse Haigh.
I understand that the "full facts" about Louise Haigh's past conviction were "not known" by the PM until reports broke last night. This is strongly disputed by friends of Haigh.
I also understand that the 2014 conviction was not declared by Haigh in her transparency disclosures when she became Transport secretary on July 5.
This is why the Deputy PM’s official spokesman told reporters that she quit "following further information” , and added that "ministers are required appointed to office to provide their permanent secretary with a full declaration in writing of their private interests which could give rise to a conflict, actual or perceived".
More at
@GBNEWS
shortly.
Haven't you just legalised murder with that argument?
https://x.com/wntrintel/status/1862514092424273935?s=61
Away from this, that other reassuring triumvirate of Iran, Russia and Syria and set to lose Aleppo within days, maybe even hours. Weaponry, men and land all swept away. The governments forces and their proxies are running like rats, while prisoners are being freed. Who knows where all this will end.
6 hours later he was still in agony and the doctor was amazed commenting that his veins were so collapsed the pain relief couldn't have entered his system, so he administered a further stronger dose
It did take effect and he passed away peacefully a few hours later with us all round his bed holding his hands
Of course under this bill he would not have been able to self administer the dose, nor would we give it him, so then the doctor would no doubt be needed in those circumstances
I do think it is a subject where personal experiences have an influence on whether you support assisted dying or not
Personally my wife and I would have left it entirely to the doctors judgement
In the absence of having the ability or means to do it themselves why shouldn't he/she be assisted?
NEW THREAD
Judging by the fuck up the US authorities are making of avian flu crossover into cows and pigs we may soon very sadly find out.
How common are the extreme cases, in which a person wishes to commit suicide but is unable to do so on their own? One percent? Ten percent? More? Or even less than one percent?
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I can't deal with all of them, but some I can and they are:
@Nigelb: I'm sorry my para "THE ROLE OF THE STATE" did not communicate my intent: it started off badly, then had a double negative, and attaempts to change it before it was published only made it worse. I'll rewrite it later today
@Malmesbury. Your point about how the rich are treated differently. I understand your point but better enforcement doesn't work: Michael Gove was never arrested nor punished for his cocaine use, and the use of drugs and prostitutes by politicians is known and unpunished. If a law is easily bypassed by the rich, is it a good idea?
@Topping: the risks outweigh the benefits. Possibly true.
@Topping: you said you suspected we would see Parliament at its best. I think we did, but "best" does not equal "good enough". People gave examples and used sentimentality: they did so in a reasonable and impressive manner, but that's not the best way or arguing. I think it was Diane Abbott who argued from first principles "the State should not kill", and I thought that was better. But I think we can all say that most MPs tried hard.
@theProle. thank you for your arguments with citations from the Bible. I note your "But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable." I'm not sure that's enough but it's a good start, thank you
@algarkirk, @AugustusCarp2, @kinabalu: many people answered one question, but few attempted to answer most, which included you. This was not required but I was informed by your responses and thank you.
As ever, thank you all for your reponses
Chronicle of a Bet Foretold
CBF1_EUDEPARTURE https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/24/viewcode-on-the-chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold/ 539
CBF2_ALTERNATES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/22/chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold-part-2/ 490
CBF3_FINLAND https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/21/finland/ 383
CBF4_THINGRUEL https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/07/02/chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold-thin-gruel/ 726
The Ideas series
IDE1_UKRAINE https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/ 555
IDE2_INTERMARIUM https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/ 372
IDE3_CEREMONIES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/ 811
IDE4_TRANSHUMANISM https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/07/transhumanism/ 501
IDE5_HISTORY https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/ 359
IDE5_SOLARPUNK https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/05/12/solarpunk/ 271
IDE6_BLOB https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/09/28/the-blob/ 346
IDE7_HELL https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/29/hell/ 559
The Measurement series
MEA1_CLASSIFICATION https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/07/classification/ 369
MEA2_ELITES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/13/elites/ 511
MEA3_PARTIES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/06/05/parties/ 2078
Other
REV1_BADBOYS https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/15/the-bad-boys-of-brexit-a-review/ 500
REV2_NATIONALPOPULISM https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/10/06/national-populism-the-revolt-against-liberal-democracy-a-review/ 264