Assisted Dying Bill passed by slim majority

[smallglassbottle]

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-starmer-assisted-dying-trump-israel-iran-labour-12593360

Agree and the UK using Australia as an example is akin to the Brexit bus.

Agree
have they stated what sort of drugs will be used because your last paragraph is really really worrying

People who agree with this should consider how the welfare reforms are shaping up. Living with ailing health has increasingly little dignity, is very expensive, is increasingly villainised both in public and political discourse..but wait, here comes the dying with dignity bill with a bit of progressive gloss to distract from a toxic backdrop with piss poor careless safeguards. Or in short, see Canada.

Apologies if I midunderstood but you said
‘ There isn’t enough money for fantastic medical and palliative care…..
‘ there isn’t a finite amount of money……
‘ Money is a finite resource and we have to make difficult decisions about where it’s spent.’

I didn’t read that to mean the difficult decision was to spend more on palliative care

if I misunderstood I apologise. So what do those comments mean ?

I was saying that the argument that we should, instead of allowing for assisted dying, provide it so that everyone can have gold standard palliative care does not hold water and is just wishful thinking. It is not a difficult decision - it is an impossible one.

The finances are not there and never will be - otherwise we would already have done it, when in reality we are a long way away from it as many stories on this forum will attest to.

That isn't true. It came in at different times in different states of Australia because healthcare is state based. It's been in effect in Victoria since 2019 because we went through the process with a family member (who ultimately decided not to use it).

The utter state of the electorate who think that a bill can be measured only by how desirable an outcome could be without any of the tools or care for how it could actually look in reality. More frightening still, are the number of MPs prepared to do the same.

Where is the critical thinking that people rate so highly which takes more knowledge and thought than with a shrug and an attitude of by any means necessary.

Hopefully the Lords can slow this bill down long enough for zealous enthusiasm to wane long enough for some much needed caution to kick in for another 23 MPs.

If you read the full article you will see some of the problems with siting Australia.
as an example

Again I was responding to a PP who said it has gone bad everywhere. And correcting your dates.

Agree
Money in palliative care has been reduced over time rather than increased, particularly with more people needing it now.
I don’t believe that should be a reason to support assisted dying though
I believe that’s a reason to sort out the budget reflecting the needs of today

2023 is the correct date when it came into use in all the states it is in now. 2019 is not the full story and such a small Cohort as to make the analogy flawed. As the article states

And that's my point, but no-one wants to see it or admit that it's true - there is no way of sorting out the budget so that we can have everything that we want as there simply isn't the money and resources.

We can all wish that it wasn't true, but we might as well start wishing for people to live forever, because that's about as likely to happen as everyone having the best palliative care.

Either we have some form of assisted dying, or we just have to admit that quite a lot of people are going to have to die in pain and misery and they just have to suck it up because we aren't giving them any choice about it.

Can someone explain the by proxy element.
As I understand it the 'ill' person must make two signed declarations - but if they are unable to sign that declaration someone can sign on their behalf?
How will that work in practice and what would be the safeguards here to prevent a family member simply signing a declaration to have you killed.

Dying in pain, as has been the case through the entire history of the human species, could continue long enough to put a bill through that demonstrates care and attention to the issues of political recklessness on a societal level and coercion at an individual level.

Or, in other words, what will happen to the assisted dying numbers if a political party gets in and pulls up the drawbridge on welfare spending to appeal to the bulk of taxpayers? What safeguards are there in the bill to ensure that death isn't the desirable outcome to poverty in sickness?

Maybe you have a lot of faith than I do in the 270ish forecasted and entirely unknown Reform MPs that we would see if voting intentions remain as they currently are or perhaps you think/ hope/ cross your fingers that they wouldn't/ couldn't water down notions of suffering as quickly as Leadbeater has marched this through parliament?

Interesting trio to wake up to today, genetic testing of newborns, assisted dying and legalise all abortions.

Discussion on the death penalty: it must never be brought back, one innocent person being killed outweighs any other arguments

Discussion on assisted death: people being killed who don't want to be? Meh, no human action works out well 100% of the time. shrugs

So
You are saying this is ‘partly’ a financial decision.

I, however, don’t believe something like this should ever be in any way based on finances.
I do believe if this was a more expensive route to dying the bill wouldn’t have been passed but MPs et all just don’t want to admit that.

Reality isn't really concerned with what we believe I'm afraid.

Tbh. It all feels like your username……so apt

No, guess you don't need to if you want the law to go through, and it has.

Bit chilling though, I've acknowledged your concerns, you don't acknowledge mine.

What can I say? The despair is more because so many people think that wishful thinking is what will solve all of our problems.

With that I agree.
We, as a country, need to take a long hard look at ourselves and take more personal responsibility for the state we are in.
Every person can make a positive contribution and should

Are the counless healthcare professionals who oppose this beecause the safeguards aren't adequate a "vocal minority", or are they the very people who are experienced enough in such matters to be listened to?

And what about "It'll have to be agreed by a court" which was so widely trumpeted when the proposal was first made but has since been quietly scrapped?

Funny how there's been no response from the "pros" to my mentioning this upthread, but no more than I'd expect