Has Trump realised that Russia is in a weaker position to be pressured into a peace deal than Ukraine?
Putin's starting terms are so unreasonable to Ukraine (the ceding of more territory not won on the battlefield), and previous US and ongoing European support of Ukraine sufficiently strong, that there's no leverage for Trump to force them to take such a deal. Even if he suspends all aid - Ukraine can keep fighting without him.
In contrast, one thing I've found incredible is that sanctions have not been tightened over time. Europe banning Russian LNG and oil. The US banning any affiliates US-listed companies from working in Russia. And lots of other things I've not thought of.
Maybe Trump sees that weakness and will turn the screws? Complements well with his wishes to sell more oil and gas to Europe.
I'm not optimistic given his history with Putin. But it's a possibility.
Europe hasn't banned LNG. They're still buying vast amounts of it. Frankly, going after that is probably an easy way for Trump to slap both the EU and Russia around, up US gas exports, and to do so from something that might actually look like a moral high ground.
While that article is quite right, Russian LNG is a tiny fraction of Europe's gas supply.
While we’re on this subject, I’m relieved to see that we’re finally exiting what looks like being the worse sustained period of calm dull conditions combined with high winter demand for years.
It’s dead calm over almost the entirety of British Isles and the near continent and has been for days. Wind should start picking up by midnight and come tomorrow rush hour we’ll be nudging record wind generation. Quite a rapid turnaround.
EDIT: and will almost certainly smash the record on Friday.
I hope the wind turbine operators have used the recent quiet spell to carry out any required maintenance.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
Whilst plenty of people have accused @Cyclefree of making her argument in bad faith, nobody has attempted to refute the substance of her header.
From which I conclude that her argument is substantially correct.
Substantially, yes. Though I take issue with her stats on the accuracy of doctors' prediction of the life expectancy of the terminally ill.
I suspect doctors tend to err on the short side with regard to the life expectancy of the terminally ill so that their patients are able to access benefits and pensions that can only be paid to those estimated to have less than a certain time to live (six months, if memory serves correctly). This certainly seemed to be the case for a close family member of mine (not my father).
I imagine that, if estimating life expectancy for the purpose of assisted suicide, they my well tend to err more in the opposite direction!
I'm not averse to some assisted suicides. If, for example, some patriotic Russian officers want to provide Putin with a loaded pistol, I wouldn't object.
(I believe that was traditional, at least in the old German army. Was it elsewhere?)
I'm not averse to some assisted suicides. If, for example, some patriotic Russian officers want to provide him with a loaded pistol, I wouldn't object.
(I believe that was traditional, at least in the old German army. Was it elsewhere?)
Speer recounted that when he was arrested, the arresting officer ostentatiously pulled out his gun and placed it on the table before leaving the room for five minutes.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
Surely depends how near you are to the preset doomsday.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
It's more the manner of death that is the issue, I think. A horrible, long, drawn out illness, or in the manner Tyrion suggested to Shagga in Game of Thrones.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
I would hate to know the date. I like as many things as possible about life to be unknowable.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
It's more the manner of death that is the issue, I think. A horrible, long, drawn out illness, or in the manner Tyrion suggested to Shagga in Game of Thrones.
I want to go like Tommy Cooper: hit the deck while everyone's laughing.
Whilst plenty of people have accused @Cyclefree of making her argument in bad faith, nobody has attempted to refute the substance of her header.
From which I conclude that her argument is substantially correct.
The bill committee for the first time ever for a pmb has been given the ability to take evidence. That's a sign they are taking scrutiny seriously.
The committee is 12-9 in favour of bill + 2 govt ministers who are neutral but did actually vote in favour. It makes perfect sense for the ministers in question to be involved in scrutiny imo.
Perhaps the best thing at this point would be for govt to commit to introducing its own bill in this Parliament. Then there's less worry about running out of time. But it does feel like it should be a conscience issue tbh.
Whilst plenty of people have accused @Cyclefree of making her argument in bad faith, nobody has attempted to refute the substance of her header.
From which I conclude that her argument is substantially correct.
Substantially, yes. Though I take issue with her stats on the accuracy of doctors' prediction of the life expectancy of the terminally ill.
I suspect doctors tend to err on the short side with regard to the life expectancy of the terminally ill so that their patients are able to access benefits and pensions that can only be paid to those estimated to have less than a certain time to live (six months, if memory serves correctly). This certainly seemed to be the case for a close family member of mine (not my father).
I imagine that, if estimating life expectancy for the purpose of assisted suicide, they my well tend to err more in the opposite direction!
The evidence suggests (and this seems consistent with US papers, too) that overall they significantly overestimate life expectancy. But there's quite a range, so in some cases they underestimate.
The recent big UK survey unfortunately didn't discriminate between the outcomes for 6m and 1year prognoses, so there don't seem to be very good figures for the critical 6 month limit. (The data I suspect could be re-analysed to do that.)
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
It's more the manner of death that is the issue, I think. A horrible, long, drawn out illness, or in the manner Tyrion suggested to Shagga in Game of Thrones.
I want to go like Tommy Cooper: hit the deck while everyone's laughing.
Just like that.
So long as they're laughing before you hit the deck.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
I don't understand why POTUS has the right to remove someone else's security protection (in this case Bolton).
Look, the Supreme Court decided he has the right to overthrow the government. Having a former member of his government left wide open to assassination is trivial by comparison.
About a week ago I asked which of Trump’s initial EOs would generate the most hysteria, and the odd thing is that none of them have.
This opposition to him is completely demoralised rather than energised in the way it was in 2016.
There’s very little hysteria. However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary. Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
The FT's take on the Tesla stock price...
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
3 weeks before my father in law died he said "I've had enough".. and he had. The last thing he said when I asked him if he wanted a cup of tea was...."I'd love a cup of tea" in a v hoarse voice. 48 hrs later he died. He certainly enriched the Co-op as he drank unimaginable gallons of Co-op 99 tea
About a week ago I asked which of Trump’s initial EOs would generate the most hysteria, and the odd thing is that none of them have.
This opposition to him is completely demoralised rather than energised in the way it was in 2016.
There’s very little hysteria. However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary. Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
Finally you have the looming US debt problem…
Selling the Federal Reserve gold in order to buy Bitcoin does sound a perfect time for the crypto-whales to cash out before the pyramid collapses taking with it the savings of millions.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
My father's last comprehensible words were, "Please, just let me go."
My father's last words were, 'I'm fine.'
Which was entirely typical of him.
I hope mine will be i am going afk for a bit
My mother in law's was to my wife, "let me look at you one more time". She collapsed 24 hours later and never recovered consciousness. Its a bit weird, like she knew it was coming.
Reminds me of a weird but known phenomenon. Called “terminal lucidity”
Sometimes, people who have been gaga for years, and haven’t said 2 coherent words in all that time, can suddenly become completely lucid, and *say goodbye* - then die, hours later
Whilst plenty of people have accused @Cyclefree of making her argument in bad faith, nobody has attempted to refute the substance of her header.
From which I conclude that her argument is substantially correct.
Substantially, yes. Though I take issue with her stats on the accuracy of doctors' prediction of the life expectancy of the terminally ill.
I suspect doctors tend to err on the short side with regard to the life expectancy of the terminally ill so that their patients are able to access benefits and pensions that can only be paid to those estimated to have less than a certain time to live (six months, if memory serves correctly). This certainly seemed to be the case for a close family member of mine (not my father).
I imagine that, if estimating life expectancy for the purpose of assisted suicide, they my well tend to err more in the opposite direction!
The evidence suggests (and this seems consistent with US papers, too) that overall they significantly overestimate life expectancy. But there's quite a range, so in some cases they underestimate.
The recent big UK survey unfortunately didn't discriminate between the outcomes for 6m and 1year prognoses, so there don't seem to be very good figures for the critical 6 month limit. (The data I suspect could be re-analysed to do that.)
Yes, that would be interesting to know. In the case of my relative, she basically had to get a form signed by the doctor to say that she had less than six months to live in order to get her pension, and the doctor natually obliged. She actually lived for almost another year.
However, at an earlier stage of her illness, about 3 years before her death, the same doctor had said that she'd likely live another five years. This may well have been to give her more hope for the future, or maybe that was his actual estimate at the time.
I'm not averse to some assisted suicides. If, for example, some patriotic Russian officers want to provide him with a loaded pistol, I wouldn't object.
(I believe that was traditional, at least in the old German army. Was it elsewhere?)
Speer recounted that when he was arrested, the arresting officer ostentatiously pulled out his gun and placed it on the table before leaving the room for five minutes.
And that was a British soldier.
In the Raj it was done much the same: as per that documentary "Roger of the Raj" in the Ripping Yarns series.
About a week ago I asked which of Trump’s initial EOs would generate the most hysteria, and the odd thing is that none of them have.
This opposition to him is completely demoralised rather than energised in the way it was in 2016.
There’s very little hysteria. However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary. Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
Finally you have the looming US debt problem…
Finally ? There's a whole list of other stuff which could go pear shaped. Mass deportation, for a start (if he's serious about it).
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
The FT's take on the Tesla stock price...
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
Whilst plenty of people have accused @Cyclefree of making her argument in bad faith, nobody has attempted to refute the substance of her header.
From which I conclude that her argument is substantially correct.
Your post got lots of likes but I would challenge the substance of @Cyclefree's header. To be absolutely clear I don't accuse her of bad faith. She makes a point, which is sincere, clearly put and may actually be right.
It might be worth setting out my starting point, which is different from many posters here who support assisted dying but think it's not getting enough scrutiny. I have concerns about assisted dying but I also accept parliament has debated the bill and come to view on it and now it's time to make it work.
The points I challenge in the header:
1. That it is inappropriate for the measure to come via Private Members Bill. This is normal for an issue of conscience where the government allows a free vote 2. (implied) That the bill hasn't been adequately debated. The 40 pages are specific law, which will be enacted subject to amendments and final votes. MPs had a very intense debate at the end of last year on the actual text and proposed assisted end of life process, not just the principle, and accepted them. 3. That opponents in principle must be represented at the revision stage. There needs to be robust scrutiny but I don't believe you have proved the case that those providing the security are lacking 4. While you have called out process, maybe correctly, you haven't identified any deficiencies in the bill itself, where safeguards need to be tightened up and possibly won't be due to the process issues you have called out. Which is the key point, I think.
About a week ago I asked which of Trump’s initial EOs would generate the most hysteria, and the odd thing is that none of them have.
This opposition to him is completely demoralised rather than energised in the way it was in 2016.
There’s very little hysteria. However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary. Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
Finally you have the looming US debt problem…
Finally ? There's a whole list of other stuff which could go pear shaped. Mass deportation, for a start (if he's serious about it).
I think my main worry is that Trump's policies end up sending the US economy into a tailspin, but he manages to persuade his followers that it's actually the fault of the deep state who have sabotaged his presidency. This could then be used as a pretext for some sort of "popular" revolution that puts Trump in charge permanently.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
I'm surprised to read this.
We will end up with Logan’s Run being reality.
If I get Jenny Agutter, I can live with that.
Sister Jullienne? Not my taste, but each to their own.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
The FT's take on the Tesla stock price...
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
I don't understand why POTUS has the right to remove someone else's security protection (in this case Bolton).
It's a gangster state. Don't annoy the boss.
That's the message.
That's why he did it, but not the answer to the question, why does he have the power to do it?
Decent-chappery?
There's no reason to forbid a President doing that sort of thing. After all, nobody who could rise to the office of President of the United States could possibly be such a cockwomble as to remove someone's security protection out of no better reason than personal spite.
About a week ago I asked which of Trump’s initial EOs would generate the most hysteria, and the odd thing is that none of them have.
This opposition to him is completely demoralised rather than energised in the way it was in 2016.
There’s very little hysteria. However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary. Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
Finally you have the looming US debt problem…
Finally ? There's a whole list of other stuff which could go pear shaped. Mass deportation, for a start (if he's serious about it).
I think my main worry is that Trump's policies end up sending the US economy into a tailspin, but he manages to persuade his followers that it's actually the fault of the deep state who have sabotaged his presidency. This could then be used as a pretext for some sort of "popular" revolution that puts Trump in charge permanently.
He is pretty certain to go ahead with the tarrifs (is it Feb 1st?)
I have gone to about 25% cash with my equities portfolio.
I might be being a bit timid there, as the tarriffs will crash the markets, maybe it's time to go full bear.
About a week ago I asked which of Trump’s initial EOs would generate the most hysteria, and the odd thing is that none of them have.
This opposition to him is completely demoralised rather than energised in the way it was in 2016.
There’s very little hysteria. However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary. Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
Finally you have the looming US debt problem…
Selling the Federal Reserve gold in order to buy Bitcoin does sound a perfect time for the crypto-whales to cash out before the pyramid collapses taking with it the savings of millions.
No way is Trump gonna let the FR waste taxpayers dollars on buying BitCoin.
The other side to this scandal is having people suffer intolerably for weeks or months when they want a merciful and painless way out of their suffering. And no, palliative care is not the full answer.
It is a scandal that is all around us, in hospitals and hospices.
There needs to be a balance. The current situation is unbalanced and inhumane.
The Bill only applies to those with a terminal illness not those with a painful illness. The two are not the same. It is one of the many ways in which the Bill's proponents have been less than accurate about what the Bill actually says.
Also those doctors specialising in palliative care disagree with you.
The two may not be the same, but there's one heck of an overlap. My point is relevant to the terminally ill and still stands. There is an untold amount of unwanted suffering going on every day, as we speak.
If people are suffering, and there is little hope of recovery, let them die if they so choose. Do not make them suffer unnecessarily.
Are you against assisted dying in any form, or just the way it has been introduced?
In a perfect world, having some version of "thou shalt not kill but shall not strive officiously to keep alive" should in theory be possible and acceptable. But in practice as far as I can see everywhere AD has been introduced it has been a disaster - with abuse, the reality of the slippery slope and people being coerced into death for financial reasons. To think that won't happen here given what Kit Malthouse has said in Parliament (see https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1882087279512240493?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA) seems naive to me.
Given our laws I don't think it will be possible to limit it in the way its supporters claim. Nor will it be possible to prevent abuse. And that abuse will be of the vulnerable. It will be irreversible. So I think we need a much much better approach to this topic. I would like to see palliative care and social care addressed first.
This Bill is not well drafted, has safeguards which are poor, is being rushed through and has not followed proper wide consultation. I think it is a Trojan horse to permit what will become euthanasia. The way it is being handled seems to have a strong element of bad faith.
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well. We cannot treat the crossing of societal boundaries as only a matter for the individuals concerned and not also the rest of us. No man is an island etc.,. Mercy and judgment are IMO better than strict laws, even if the law could deal with this which I don't really think it can here. Or perhaps - this particular version of it I don't think does.
For those who do not have access to X, the Malthouse quote is this -
"We have to remember that the people we are talking about, the dying individuals who may want to make this choice at the end of their lives, are already receiving treatment in the National Health Service. They are already reliant on expensive care services, drugs, whatever it might be, as well as other social support mechanisms that will be costing the taxpayer.
“So while it is of course important that we see the overall impact assessment, we shouldn’t pretend that the status quo is cost-free. Because not only is it costly in monetary terms, it’s also costly in terms of humanity. We should not forget that what we’re attempting to do here is put a price on the quality of someone’s life, to put a price on the quality of mercy at the end of life, and I would urge members to reflect on that."
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
Sorry but that's just arrogance. Neither you nor I know what people in the future will think. And by the same logic why is it not okay to argue for sex with minors? After all, slavery, women's vote, gay rights were all considered wrong in the past. Isn't it about time we got past the age of consent taboo?
You're right. We don't know. I'm trying to take a helicopter view of cultural trends and pressures and forming a view of where it is leading. It's not a comfortable position to take, and I'm probably harming the cause, as people take an intake of breath. So I wouldn't say this at the Committee or to my MP. Bookmark this discussion and let's revisit it in twenty years time.
Occasionally cultural trends on these issues do go into reverse.
A prime example is eugenics, which was seen by many on both right and left as a way to improve the bloodstock of the nation. This led to abuses with compulsory sterilisation etc in a number of countries. We now consider this anathema and recognise the early focus on euthanasia for the institutionalised in mental asylums in Germany as the beginning of the Holocaust.
The only bit of eugenics that survives now is prenatal diagnosis and abortion, and it is questionable whether that has gone too far. For example there have been no babies with Downs syndrome born in Iceland in over a decade. Sally Phillips (who has a son with Downs) did an excellent programme on this some years back.
I'd say chattel slavery was a prime example of a trend going into reverse. It was normative in the early middle ages, gradually outlawed in the later medieval period, before Western Europeans enthusiastically resumed the practice in early modern times.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
The FT's take on the Tesla stock price...
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well.
Bit in bold
If you'll forgive me, but no. You do not own your relative and their life is their own. Coercing a relative to stay alive because of your interests is as bad as coercing a relative to die because of your interests. Some things are sacred.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
The FT's take on the Tesla stock price...
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
Tesla has been looking tarnished for quite a while anyway due to Musk's behaviour, but after this week if you buy a Tesla you are damn near saying you are okay with Nazism. I would think that that is not a good luck.
I can't imagine that there are many other companies that would be okay with the CEO giving Nazi salutes in public.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
My father's last comprehensible words were, "Please, just let me go."
My father's last words were, 'I'm fine.'
Which was entirely typical of him.
I hope mine will be i am going afk for a bit
My mother in law's was to my wife, "let me look at you one more time". She collapsed 24 hours later and never recovered consciousness. Its a bit weird, like she knew it was coming.
Reminds me of a weird but known phenomenon. Called “terminal lucidity”
Sometimes, people who have been gaga for years, and haven’t said 2 coherent words in all that time, can suddenly become completely lucid, and *say goodbye* - then die, hours later
Our dog used to be a Pets As Therapy (PAT) dog - visiting care home residents every week.
He was once taken in to the room of a resident who was extremely demented, totally dependent, and whom the family and staff could never get a coherent word out of - she hadn't spoken for years.
On seeing our dog she suddenly said "Buster! You've come back to see me! Where have been?" Totally out of the blue - the staff were gobsmacked. Presumably 'Buster' was a childhood pet.
They never got another word out of the old lady - she died week later.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
My father's last comprehensible words were, "Please, just let me go."
My father's last words were, 'I'm fine.'
Which was entirely typical of him.
I hope mine will be i am going afk for a bit
My mother in law's was to my wife, "let me look at you one more time". She collapsed 24 hours later and never recovered consciousness. Its a bit weird, like she knew it was coming.
Reminds me of a weird but known phenomenon. Called “terminal lucidity”
Sometimes, people who have been gaga for years, and haven’t said 2 coherent words in all that time, can suddenly become completely lucid, and *say goodbye* - then die, hours later
Our dog used to be a Pets As Therapy (PAT) dog - visiting care home residents every week.
He was once taken in to the room of a resident who was extremely demented, totally dependent, and whom the family and staff could never get a coherent word out of - she hadn't spoken for years.
On seeing our dog she suddenly said "Buster! You've come back to see me! Where have been?" Totally out of the blue - the staff were gobsmacked. Presumably 'Buster' was a childhood pet.
They never got another word out of the old lady - she died week later.
What does it signify? Fucked if I know.
It signifies most of us prefer our pets to our relatives.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
My father's last comprehensible words were, "Please, just let me go."
My father's last words were, 'I'm fine.'
Which was entirely typical of him.
I hope mine will be i am going afk for a bit
My mother in law's was to my wife, "let me look at you one more time". She collapsed 24 hours later and never recovered consciousness. Its a bit weird, like she knew it was coming.
Reminds me of a weird but known phenomenon. Called “terminal lucidity”
Sometimes, people who have been gaga for years, and haven’t said 2 coherent words in all that time, can suddenly become completely lucid, and *say goodbye* - then die, hours later
Our dog used to be a Pets As Therapy (PAT) dog - visiting care home residents every week.
He was once taken in to the room of a resident who was extremely demented, totally dependent, and whom the family and staff could never get a coherent word out of - she hadn't spoken for years.
On seeing our dog she suddenly said "Buster! You've come back to see me! Where have been?" Totally out of the blue - the staff were gobsmacked. Presumably 'Buster' was a childhood pet.
They never got another word out of the old lady - she died week later.
What does it signify? Fucked if I know.
It signifies most of us prefer our pets to our relatives.
Hah! very good point - I'd not thought of it that way.
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well.
Bit in bold
If you'll forgive me, but no. You do not own your relative and their life is their own. Coercing a relative to stay alive because of your interests is as bad as coercing a relative to die because of your interests. Some things are sacred.
Well, I would do the same.
Trying to argue someone out of wishing to take their own life is entirely legitimate.
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
or 3, Choose the date. I vote for 3.
3. is already an option surely - it's called suicide.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
My father's last comprehensible words were, "Please, just let me go."
My father's last words were, 'I'm fine.'
Which was entirely typical of him.
I hope mine will be i am going afk for a bit
My mother in law's was to my wife, "let me look at you one more time". She collapsed 24 hours later and never recovered consciousness. Its a bit weird, like she knew it was coming.
Reminds me of a weird but known phenomenon. Called “terminal lucidity”
Sometimes, people who have been gaga for years, and haven’t said 2 coherent words in all that time, can suddenly become completely lucid, and *say goodbye* - then die, hours later
My late Dad declined quickly due to kidney failure. He thought he was on holiday in Czechoslovakia after a couple of months. And when his grandkids visited he wanted to know where the other 4 young ones were? The ones in the photo by his bed taken several years earlier. We consoled ourselves with the fact he was none the wiser. One Monday Mum found him calling a couple of his surviving old mates from school. He told them he was dying, shared a few memories, had a good laugh and said goodbye. He was perfectly lucid. He didn't remember doing this an hour later, and within 36 hours was dead.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
The FT's take on the Tesla stock price...
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
Tesla has been looking tarnished for quite a while anyway due to Musk's behaviour, but after this week if you buy a Tesla you are damn near saying you are okay with Nazism. I would think that that is not a good luck.
I can't imagine that there are many other companies that would be okay with the CEO giving Nazi salutes in public.
The other side to this scandal is having people suffer intolerably for weeks or months when they want a merciful and painless way out of their suffering. And no, palliative care is not the full answer.
It is a scandal that is all around us, in hospitals and hospices.
There needs to be a balance. The current situation is unbalanced and inhumane.
The Bill only applies to those with a terminal illness not those with a painful illness. The two are not the same. It is one of the many ways in which the Bill's proponents have been less than accurate about what the Bill actually says.
Also those doctors specialising in palliative care disagree with you.
The two may not be the same, but there's one heck of an overlap. My point is relevant to the terminally ill and still stands. There is an untold amount of unwanted suffering going on every day, as we speak.
If people are suffering, and there is little hope of recovery, let them die if they so choose. Do not make them suffer unnecessarily.
Are you against assisted dying in any form, or just the way it has been introduced?
In a perfect world, having some version of "thou shalt not kill but shall not strive officiously to keep alive" should in theory be possible and acceptable. But in practice as far as I can see everywhere AD has been introduced it has been a disaster - with abuse, the reality of the slippery slope and people being coerced into death for financial reasons. To think that won't happen here given what Kit Malthouse has said in Parliament (see https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1882087279512240493?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA) seems naive to me.
Given our laws I don't think it will be possible to limit it in the way its supporters claim. Nor will it be possible to prevent abuse. And that abuse will be of the vulnerable. It will be irreversible. So I think we need a much much better approach to this topic. I would like to see palliative care and social care addressed first.
This Bill is not well drafted, has safeguards which are poor, is being rushed through and has not followed proper wide consultation. I think it is a Trojan horse to permit what will become euthanasia. The way it is being handled seems to have a strong element of bad faith.
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well. We cannot treat the crossing of societal boundaries as only a matter for the individuals concerned and not also the rest of us. No man is an island etc.,. Mercy and judgment are IMO better than strict laws, even if the law could deal with this which I don't really think it can here. Or perhaps - this particular version of it I don't think does.
For those who do not have access to X, the Malthouse quote is this -
"We have to remember that the people we are talking about, the dying individuals who may want to make this choice at the end of their lives, are already receiving treatment in the National Health Service. They are already reliant on expensive care services, drugs, whatever it might be, as well as other social support mechanisms that will be costing the taxpayer.
“So while it is of course important that we see the overall impact assessment, we shouldn’t pretend that the status quo is cost-free. Because not only is it costly in monetary terms, it’s also costly in terms of humanity. We should not forget that what we’re attempting to do here is put a price on the quality of someone’s life, to put a price on the quality of mercy at the end of life, and I would urge members to reflect on that."
That's an exceptionally subjective point of view that it has been a "disaster".
Seems quite the opposite to me, where its been introduced its become widely accepted and been able to be appreciated by those who want to undergo it.
Indeed far from countries rolling back because its been a "disaster", if anything Parliaments have viewed it as a success to be expanded upon.
Except you seem to perceive that as a "slippery slope".
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
A good header; I agree with those who are in favour in principle, but think this is a dismal way of advancing it into law.
On a side note ...What of the recent finding that doctors are very bad at assessing when even someone with a terminal illness is likely to die with the sort of accuracy demanded by this Bill? ..
Which study was that ? The ones I'm aware of show doctors perform reasonably well in estimating the life expectancy of the terminally ill, but tend to err on the upside.
"The analysis highlights weaknesses in doctors’ prognoses, raising concerns from leading palliative care clinicians.
The data have been extracted by Paddy Stone, emeritus professor of palliative and end of life care at UCL, from a systematic review he published in BMC Medicine in 2017.
The study looked at the accuracy of the “surprise question”, a tool used by medics in the NHS to identify people within the last year of life.
It collated over 25,000 clinicians’ responses to the question “Would you be surprised if this patient were to die in the next six to 12 months?”
Most doctors responded “Yes”, saying they would be surprised for their patient to die. This response was likely to be correct, as the patients are most often still alive at the end of this time period.
However, when doctors answered “No”, meaning they would be surprised if the patient lived beyond six or 12 months, the patient defied expectations and survived 54 per cent of the time.
‘What will the likely error rate be?’" Prof Katherine Sleeman, from King’s College London, said: “These findings are in line with my clinical experience, that estimating how long someone has left to live is notoriously difficult.
“If a person’s estimated prognosis will be key to determining whether they are eligible for assisted dying, MPs need to carefully consider how this estimate will be made, by whom, and what the likely error rate will be.”
Prof Stone said: “So, although overall the accuracy of the ‘surprise question’ is about 75 per cent, this is mostly driven by the fact that the question is good at identifying people who are going to live, but not so accurate at predicting who will die within a specified time frame.”"
Background Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The ‘Surprise Question’ (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality.
Methods Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.
Results A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6–80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7–86.3).
Conclusions There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted.
If I have understood this correctly, there is a 25% error rate. That seems pretty high to me. This is precisely the sort of evidence which should be part of a proper consultation.
The assumption that doctors get it right and that this is a sound basis for legislation needs to be tested rigorously.
It's always a more interesting debate when you can't automatically guess which side the poster will be on beforehand. For me it's about personal choice. Charlotte Raven died recently at 55 of Huntington's Chorea. She wrote
"As part of a living will, I can tick boxes on medical forms requesting that I’m not treated for infections or that if I choke (the way many HD sufferers finally go), there’ll be no intervention. When you can actively sign up for these sorts of horrible, sudden deaths, it does feel perverse that you can’t tick a box asking for a simple end, one decided on by you, your family and your medics."
I'm inclined to bow to her and others' wishes who know rather more than me.
A good header; I agree with those who are in favour in principle, but think this is a dismal way of advancing it into law.
On a side note ...What of the recent finding that doctors are very bad at assessing when even someone with a terminal illness is likely to die with the sort of accuracy demanded by this Bill? ..
Which study was that ? The ones I'm aware of show doctors perform reasonably well in estimating the life expectancy of the terminally ill, but tend to err on the upside.
"The analysis highlights weaknesses in doctors’ prognoses, raising concerns from leading palliative care clinicians.
The data have been extracted by Paddy Stone, emeritus professor of palliative and end of life care at UCL, from a systematic review he published in BMC Medicine in 2017.
The study looked at the accuracy of the “surprise question”, a tool used by medics in the NHS to identify people within the last year of life.
It collated over 25,000 clinicians’ responses to the question “Would you be surprised if this patient were to die in the next six to 12 months?”
Most doctors responded “Yes”, saying they would be surprised for their patient to die. This response was likely to be correct, as the patients are most often still alive at the end of this time period.
However, when doctors answered “No”, meaning they would be surprised if the patient lived beyond six or 12 months, the patient defied expectations and survived 54 per cent of the time.
‘What will the likely error rate be?’" Prof Katherine Sleeman, from King’s College London, said: “These findings are in line with my clinical experience, that estimating how long someone has left to live is notoriously difficult.
“If a person’s estimated prognosis will be key to determining whether they are eligible for assisted dying, MPs need to carefully consider how this estimate will be made, by whom, and what the likely error rate will be.”
Prof Stone said: “So, although overall the accuracy of the ‘surprise question’ is about 75 per cent, this is mostly driven by the fact that the question is good at identifying people who are going to live, but not so accurate at predicting who will die within a specified time frame.”"
Background Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The ‘Surprise Question’ (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality.
Methods Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.
Results A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6–80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7–86.3).
Conclusions There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted.
If I have understood this correctly, there is a 25% error rate. That seems pretty high to me. This is precisely the sort of evidence which should be part of a proper consultation.
The assumption that doctors get it right and that this is a sound basis for legislation needs to be tested rigorously.
Its not the basis for legislation though.
The basis for legislation is MPs voting in Parliament.
It is a threshold MPs are proposing within legislation, a threshold that has been used repeatedly previously. For example with access to benefits, work requirements, insurance and more it is a pre-existing established standard and threshold that is not meant to ever be taken as a literal cut-off but rather a well understood standard for a threshold judgment made by professionals as a reasonable approximation.
You're acting like Kay Burley in the pandemic trying to get ministers to define what a "substantial meal" is while ignoring the fact that has been a legal and industry standard terminology and judgment call for decades that is well used already in established law and case law.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
How is Trump doing that?
Tonight's FT front page.
If @rcs1000 is right then ending subsidies will just accelerate the adoption of cheap solar.
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well.
Bit in bold
If you'll forgive me, but no. You do not own your relative and their life is their own. Coercing a relative to stay alive because of your interests is as bad as coercing a relative to die because of your interests. Some things are sacred.
I would argue that either are actually philosophocqlly valid positions. Though I don't know what my view is.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
How is Trump doing that?
Tonight's FT front page.
If @rcs1000 is right then ending subsidies will just accelerate the adoption of cheap solar.
If you kill US subsidies of renewable energy industries that would simply put the already dominant Chinese solar panel industry in an even stronger position.
Trump is damaging the industries of the future in order to benefit his backers, who happen to own the industries of the past.
This seems to be a growing threat to what is our essential infrastructure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjv7qgpw28o The Royal Navy has been monitoring a Russian spy ship after it was spotted around UK waters earlier this week, the defence secretary has told MPs. John Healey said the vessel, Yantar, was used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK's critical underwater infrastructure. He said the incident was "another example of growing Russian aggression". Healey added: "I also wanted President [Vladimir] Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you're doing and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country." Russia describes Yantar as an oceanic research vessel and it is operated by the country's Ministry of Defence. Western nations have often tracked the ship operating in European waters and they suspect part of its mission has been to map undersea cables. They also believe Russia has been stepping up this activity since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine...
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
How is Trump doing that?
Tonight's FT front page.
If @rcs1000 is right then ending subsidies will just accelerate the adoption of cheap solar.
If you kill US subsidies of renewable energy industries that would simply put the already dominant Chinese solar panel industry in an even stronger position.
Trump is damaging the industries of the future in order to benefit his backers, who happen to own the industries of the past.
US-made solar panels exist. If demand for them goes up and they are protected by tariffs from Chinese imports, why would they not benefit from the increased demand?
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
I have a premonition of the future:
It's the year 2027, and Trump's great AI initiative has been a success. Trump steps up to the Oracle and asks "How do we make America Great Again?"
The AI Oracle recommends a major investment in renewable energy from wind to solar, and ceasing fossil fuel consumption as rapidly as possible.
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well.
Bit in bold
If you'll forgive me, but no. You do not own your relative and their life is their own. Coercing a relative to stay alive because of your interests is as bad as coercing a relative to die because of your interests. Some things are sacred.
Well, I would do the same.
Trying to argue someone out of wishing to take their own life is entirely legitimate.
"Arguing with somebody" is different to "preventing them thru legal force". The former treats the person as an equal. The latter as a possession.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
How is Trump doing that?
Tonight's FT front page.
If @rcs1000 is right then ending subsidies will just accelerate the adoption of cheap solar.
If you kill US subsidies of renewable energy industries that would simply put the already dominant Chinese solar panel industry in an even stronger position.
Trump is damaging the industries of the future in order to benefit his backers, who happen to own the industries of the past.
US-made solar panels exist. If demand for them goes up and they are protected by tariffs from Chinese imports, why would they not benefit from the increased demand?
Ah, so making America great again doesn't involve selling solar panels to any other country? America is going to cede the market of the other 95% of the human race to China is it?
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well.
Bit in bold
If you'll forgive me, but no. You do not own your relative and their life is their own. Coercing a relative to stay alive because of your interests is as bad as coercing a relative to die because of your interests. Some things are sacred.
Well, I would do the same.
Trying to argue someone out of wishing to take their own life is entirely legitimate.
Trying to argue someone while respecting their decision is absolutely legitimate, and the right thing to do in certain circumstances.
Trying to forbid someone from doing so of their own free will, freely made, in an informed manner is not.
What an opportunity China (and for that matter UK) has to push ahead of the US on green tech now that Trump is walking away from the future and undoing vast amounts of Biden's agenda.
Opportunity of the century for China. For the US to sabotage its own energy and automotive industries the way Trump is doing is a gift to China of almost absurd value.
How is Trump doing that?
Tonight's FT front page.
If @rcs1000 is right then ending subsidies will just accelerate the adoption of cheap solar.
If you kill US subsidies of renewable energy industries that would simply put the already dominant Chinese solar panel industry in an even stronger position.
Trump is damaging the industries of the future in order to benefit his backers, who happen to own the industries of the past.
US-made solar panels exist. If demand for them goes up and they are protected by tariffs from Chinese imports, why would they not benefit from the increased demand?
Ah, so making America great again doesn't involve selling solar panels to any other country? America is going to cede the market of the other 95% of the human race to China is it?
That's a very passive view you have of the rest of the world and it doesn't answer my question. Why would domestic US manufacturers not benefit?
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or - As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Whilst plenty of people have accused @Cyclefree of making her argument in bad faith, nobody has attempted to refute the substance of her header.
From which I conclude that her argument is substantially correct.
Your post got lots of likes but I would challenge the substance of @Cyclefree's header. To be absolutely clear I don't accuse her of bad faith. She makes a point, which is sincere, clearly put and may actually be right.
It might be worth setting out my starting point, which is different from many posters here who support assisted dying but think it's not getting enough scrutiny. I have concerns about assisted dying but I also accept parliament has debated the bill and come to view on it and now it's time to make it work.
The points I challenge in the header:
1. That it is inappropriate for the measure to come via Private Members Bill. This is normal for an issue of conscience where the government allows a free vote 2. (implied) That the bill hasn't been adequately debated. The 40 pages are specific law, which will be enacted subject to amendments and final votes. MPs had a very intense debate at the end of last year on the actual text and proposed assisted end of life process, not just the principle, and accepted them. 3. That opponents in principle must be represented at the revision stage. There needs to be robust scrutiny but I don't believe you have proved the case that those providing the security are lacking 4. While you have called out process, maybe correctly, you haven't identified any deficiencies in the bill itself, where safeguards need to be tightened up and possibly won't be due to the process issues you have called out. Which is the key point, I think.
Re point 4, if I did this, the header would be 3 times as long (at least) - let alone if I went into the detail on the other 3 points. I am separately writing on the various deficiencies in the current drafting, questions and legal issues arising. Once done I will put the link here and anyone interested can read and debate with me if so inclined.
It is a bit much TBH for people on here to complain about my headers being too long and not being sufficiently detailed enough. I try to raise issues in which I am interested, which raise issues of importance or on which I have (I hope) a valuable or different perspective from the ones usually aired on this ultra male forum. I also raise issues which do not get as much airing as they should (see the Online Safety Bill from 2021, the Uighurs, Iranian women, the SC review of the GRA, inquiries of all type, child abuse and so on). My headers are pretty wide-raging, frankly. This is my 276th header since March 2016 (yes, I keep a list!).
Above all, I write these to help out @TSE, OGH and @rcs1000 - who have allowed me the privilege of writing on this forum, for which I am very grateful.
I had a fascinating discussion with a journo friend tiday whi says he has personally verified some "interesting" new articles and videos that have started to emerge about Elon Musk'background. When I coined the name "Musk Von Braun" to describe him, after the Nazi-salute-or-not incident a couple of days back, I thought it was just a flight of fancy.
Astonishingly, Von Braun seems to have written a book in 1952 called "The Mars Project", which envisions a colony on Mars run by a benevolent dictator, and a society that mainly values and cherishes engineers. The colony is underground, and based on tunnelling and boring technology.
The enlightened dictator in the book is called The Elon. According to my friend, Erroll Musk already mentioned several years ago that as a child growing up he was fascinated by this book, and named his son after the central character. If true, this explains a lot.
This seems to be a growing threat to what is our essential infrastructure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjv7qgpw28o The Royal Navy has been monitoring a Russian spy ship after it was spotted around UK waters earlier this week, the defence secretary has told MPs. John Healey said the vessel, Yantar, was used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK's critical underwater infrastructure. He said the incident was "another example of growing Russian aggression". Healey added: "I also wanted President [Vladimir] Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you're doing and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country." Russia describes Yantar as an oceanic research vessel and it is operated by the country's Ministry of Defence. Western nations have often tracked the ship operating in European waters and they suspect part of its mission has been to map undersea cables. They also believe Russia has been stepping up this activity since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine...
We need to stop pissing about on this before it gets out of hand. Erdogan got it right with the Russian jets in 2015; we know what to do:
I had a fascinating discussion with a journo friend tiday whi says he has personally verified some "interesting" new articles and videos that have started to emerge about Elon Musk'background. When I coined the name "Musk Von Braun" to describe him, after the Nazi-salute-or-not incident a couple of days back, I thought it was just a flight of fancy.
Astonishingly, Von Braun seems to have written a book in 1952 called "The Mars Project", which envisions a colony on Mars run by a benevolent dictator, and a society that mainly values and cherishes engineers. The colony is underground, and based on tunnelling and boring technology.
The enlightened dictator in the book is called The Elon. According to my friend, Erroll Musk already mentioned several years ago that as a child growing up he was fascinated by this book, and named his son after the central character. If true, this explains a lot.
If Elon wants to piss off to Mars in order to lord it over fifteen bo saturated and half-starved male astronauts trapped in a tin hut clinging to the side of a large rock in the Tharsis plateau then, given he wants Trump to be King of America and end democracy, he can be my fucking guest.
Comments
14150 Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization
14166 Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
14171 Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
(honestly, we neglect the classics...
- Know the date and time of your death in advance. Say everyone’s would be set at the age of 82. Not a moment earlier or later. Or
- As currently, not know until it happens. So you could live to 110 or have a stroke tomorrow?
Sort of on topic
https://youtu.be/D7KCb-O20Fg?si=Wqu9QNSowxtbBY4A&t=138
I imagine that, if estimating life expectancy for the purpose of assisted suicide, they my well tend to err more in the opposite direction!
(I believe that was traditional, at least in the old German army. Was it elsewhere?)
And that was a British soldier.
Have been working - the paid variety. Will review the thread and respond to any key points. Owe a response to @Nigelb from earlier, I know.
Hope you've all been having fun anyway discussing whatever Off Topic topic you've alighted on. It's the PB way, after all!
Just like that.
The committee is 12-9 in favour of bill + 2 govt ministers who are neutral but did actually vote in favour. It makes perfect sense for the ministers in question to be involved in scrutiny imo.
Perhaps the best thing at this point would be for govt to commit to introducing its own bill in this Parliament. Then there's less worry about running out of time. But it does feel like it should be a conscience issue tbh.
But there's quite a range, so in some cases they underestimate.
The recent big UK survey unfortunately didn't discriminate between the outcomes for 6m and 1year prognoses, so there don't seem to be very good figures for the critical 6 month limit.
(The data I suspect could be re-analysed to do that.)
I’m not sure where I am on Assisted Dying - would what I would selfishly want be something I would want for others?
We all have different and often contrasting perspectives on death based on our personal experiences whether with family or friends.
At least we are talking about it and thinking about it. It would be morbid to obsess about mortality but it’s impossible to ignore.
However, I wouldn’t be so cocky.
There must be decent chance of a stock market collapse in the near future, given he is effectively stoking a tech and crypto bubble.
Moreover, his tariff policy is undeniably inflationary.
Currently there’s a collective Kool-Aid being that he somehow doesn’t mean it, or that tariffs will be averted somehow.
Finally you have the looming US debt problem…
That's the message.
"Maybe the share price is impervious to financial gravity. Maybe buyers won’t care about the “salute hoax”. If investors do start to worry that Musk could become more associated with white power than clean power, however, from $1.4tn it’s an awfully long way down."
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1881765907602784649
He certainly enriched the Co-op as he drank unimaginable gallons of Co-op 99 tea
May he rest in peace. He was a good man
Robert Reich
@RBReich
·
5m
16 of the 26 Day One executive orders signed by Trump were ripped straight from the pages of Project 2025.
SCOTUS ruled that President Trump is above the law.
It's a Divine Right thing.
Sometimes, people who have been gaga for years, and haven’t said 2 coherent words in all that time, can suddenly become completely lucid, and *say goodbye* - then die, hours later
However, at an earlier stage of her illness, about 3 years before her death, the same doctor had said that she'd likely live another five years. This may well have been to give her more hope for the future, or maybe that was his actual estimate at the time.
https://youtu.be/5xLJlfX-Iis?feature=shared
There's a whole list of other stuff which could go pear shaped.
Mass deportation, for a start (if he's serious about it).
It might be worth setting out my starting point, which is different from many posters here who support assisted dying but think it's not getting enough scrutiny. I have concerns about assisted dying but I also accept parliament has debated the bill and come to view on it and now it's time to make it work.
The points I challenge in the header:
1. That it is inappropriate for the measure to come via Private Members Bill. This is normal for an issue of conscience where the government allows a free vote
2. (implied) That the bill hasn't been adequately debated. The 40 pages are specific law, which will be enacted subject to amendments and final votes. MPs had a very intense debate at the end of last year on the actual text and proposed assisted end of life process, not just the principle, and accepted them.
3. That opponents in principle must be represented at the revision stage. There needs to be robust scrutiny but I don't believe you have proved the case that those providing the security are lacking
4. While you have called out process, maybe correctly, you haven't identified any deficiencies in the bill itself, where safeguards need to be tightened up and possibly won't be due to the process issues you have called out. Which is the key point, I think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service
Others like Bolton are effectively at the discretion of the current administration.
It's petty, and vindictive, but I think within the law
We are going to see sub-group after group across american society suddenly finding out that what he told people he would do he will now do.
Fools. All of them.
Although apparently some analysts think shares will hit $800.
There's a hell of a lot riding on Tesla being THE AI company and not just a car salesman.
There's no reason to forbid a President doing that sort of thing. After all, nobody who could rise to the office of President of the United States could possibly be such a cockwomble as to remove someone's security protection out of no better reason than personal spite.
Could they?
Who are these bozos being surprised by it?
I have gone to about 25% cash with my equities portfolio.
I might be being a bit timid there, as the tarriffs will crash the markets, maybe it's time to go full bear.
When they could be spent buying Trump Coin!!!
A great conman reels suckers in whilst telling the truth about their intentions.
We are witnessing a truly great conman- the sort who puts the art into con artist.
Given our laws I don't think it will be possible to limit it in the way its supporters claim. Nor will it be possible to prevent abuse. And that abuse will be of the vulnerable. It will be irreversible. So I think we need a much much better approach to this topic. I would like to see palliative care and social care addressed first.
This Bill is not well drafted, has safeguards which are poor, is being rushed through and has not followed proper wide consultation. I think it is a Trojan horse to permit what will become euthanasia. The way it is being handled seems to have a strong element of bad faith.
My personal view, FWIW, is that were someone I love dearly in a position where they begged me to help them die and if I did I would expect to have that investigated precisely in order to ensure that such a step was not taken lightly or for the wrong reasons. And that this is necessary because such a step does not just affect me - but others as well. We cannot treat the crossing of societal boundaries as only a matter for the individuals concerned and not also the rest of us. No man is an island etc.,. Mercy and judgment are IMO better than strict laws, even if the law could deal with this which I don't really think it can here. Or perhaps - this particular version of it I don't think does.
For those who do not have access to X, the Malthouse quote is this -
"We have to remember that the people we are talking about, the dying individuals who may want to make this choice at the end of their lives, are already receiving treatment in the National Health Service. They are already reliant on expensive care services, drugs, whatever it might be, as well as other social support mechanisms that will be costing the taxpayer.
“So while it is of course important that we see the overall impact assessment, we shouldn’t pretend that the status quo is cost-free. Because not only is it costly in monetary terms, it’s also costly in terms of humanity. We should not forget that what we’re attempting to do here is put a price on the quality of someone’s life, to put a price on the quality of mercy at the end of life, and I would urge members to reflect on that."
If you'll forgive me, but no. You do not own your relative and their life is their own. Coercing a relative to stay alive because of your interests is as bad as coercing a relative to die because of your interests. Some things are sacred.
I can't imagine that there are many other companies that would be okay with the CEO giving Nazi salutes in public.
He was once taken in to the room of a resident who was extremely demented, totally dependent, and whom the family and staff could never get a coherent word out of - she hadn't spoken for years.
On seeing our dog she suddenly said "Buster! You've come back to see me! Where have been?" Totally out of the blue - the staff were gobsmacked. Presumably 'Buster' was a childhood pet.
They never got another word out of the old lady - she died week later.
What does it signify? Fucked if I know.
Trying to argue someone out of wishing to take their own life is entirely legitimate.
And it's rightly discouraged for many reasons.
He thought he was on holiday in Czechoslovakia after a couple of months. And when his grandkids visited he wanted to know where the other 4 young ones were? The ones in the photo by his bed taken several years earlier. We consoled ourselves with the fact he was none the wiser.
One Monday Mum found him calling a couple of his surviving old mates from school.
He told them he was dying, shared a few memories, had a good laugh and said goodbye. He was perfectly lucid. He didn't remember doing this an hour later, and within 36 hours was dead.
Seems quite the opposite to me, where its been introduced its become widely accepted and been able to be appreciated by those who want to undergo it.
Indeed far from countries rolling back because its been a "disaster", if anything Parliaments have viewed it as a success to be expanded upon.
Except you seem to perceive that as a "slippery slope".
The assumption that doctors get it right and that this is a sound basis for legislation needs to be tested rigorously.
For me it's about personal choice.
Charlotte Raven died recently at 55 of Huntington's Chorea. She wrote
"As part of a living will, I can tick boxes on medical forms requesting that I’m not treated for infections or that if I choke (the way many HD sufferers finally go), there’ll be no intervention. When you can actively sign up for these sorts of horrible, sudden deaths, it does feel perverse that you can’t tick a box asking for a simple end, one decided on by you, your family and your medics."
I'm inclined to bow to her and others' wishes who know rather more than me.
The basis for legislation is MPs voting in Parliament.
It is a threshold MPs are proposing within legislation, a threshold that has been used repeatedly previously. For example with access to benefits, work requirements, insurance and more it is a pre-existing established standard and threshold that is not meant to ever be taken as a literal cut-off but rather a well understood standard for a threshold judgment made by professionals as a reasonable approximation.
You're acting like Kay Burley in the pandemic trying to get ministers to define what a "substantial meal" is while ignoring the fact that has been a legal and industry standard terminology and judgment call for decades that is well used already in established law and case law.
But Boris's JFDI has left quite an imprint.
Trump is damaging the industries of the future in order to benefit his backers, who happen to own the industries of the past.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjv7qgpw28o
The Royal Navy has been monitoring a Russian spy ship after it was spotted around UK waters earlier this week, the defence secretary has told MPs.
John Healey said the vessel, Yantar, was used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK's critical underwater infrastructure.
He said the incident was "another example of growing Russian aggression".
Healey added: "I also wanted President [Vladimir] Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you're doing and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country."
Russia describes Yantar as an oceanic research vessel and it is operated by the country's Ministry of Defence.
Western nations have often tracked the ship operating in European waters and they suspect part of its mission has been to map undersea cables.
They also believe Russia has been stepping up this activity since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine...
It's the year 2027, and Trump's great AI initiative has been a success. Trump steps up to the Oracle and asks "How do we make America Great Again?"
The AI Oracle recommends a major investment in renewable energy from wind to solar, and ceasing fossil fuel consumption as rapidly as possible.
Trump pulse the plug on the machine...
Trying to forbid someone from doing so of their own free will, freely made, in an informed manner is not.
Having supposedly worried too much about him last time, people are overcorrecting
Janan Ganesh"
https://www.ft.com/content/e11b77b4-eb8a-438c-ba74-39715781bf35
https://archive.is/Li4g6#selection-1711.0-1725.12
It is a bit much TBH for people on here to complain about my headers being too long and not being sufficiently detailed enough. I try to raise issues in which I am interested, which raise issues of importance or on which I have (I hope) a valuable or different perspective from the ones usually aired on this ultra male forum. I also raise issues which do not get as much airing as they should (see the Online Safety Bill from 2021, the Uighurs, Iranian women, the SC review of the GRA, inquiries of all type, child abuse and so on). My headers are pretty wide-raging, frankly. This is my 276th header since March 2016 (yes, I keep a list!).
Above all, I write these to help out @TSE, OGH and @rcs1000 - who have allowed me the privilege of writing on this forum, for which I am very grateful.
I had a fascinating discussion with a journo friend tiday whi says he has personally verified some "interesting" new articles and videos that have started to emerge about Elon Musk'background. When I coined the name "Musk Von Braun" to describe him, after the Nazi-salute-or-not incident a couple of days back, I thought it was just a flight of fancy.
Astonishingly, Von Braun seems to have written a book in 1952 called "The Mars Project", which envisions a colony on Mars run by a benevolent dictator, and a society that mainly values and cherishes engineers. The colony is underground, and based on tunnelling and boring technology.
The enlightened dictator in the book is called The Elon. According to my friend, Erroll Musk already mentioned several years ago that as a child growing up he was fascinated by this book, and named his son after the central character. If true, this explains a lot.
See also: https://bsky.app/profile/liebschutz.bsky.social/post/3lgeaf7bixs2f
https://youtu.be/d4vuLCjuad4?si=V_O7J5d4FyrwY1vX&t=74
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl7823ezqo