It's not just pot luck though.
It is possible to see political trends quite a long way ahead. Talk of leaving the EU was going on for years before there was a vote. The type of rhetoric that politicians were using was identifiable for years.
If we look at this thread and political trends and MN generally, we see a huge contempt for people living in certain circumstances as being to blame and it not being the state's responsibility to provide adequate health and support services. We all know how hard it is to get a CAHMS support for example - and that's children. It is even worse as an adult. These should be basic human rights.
Instead we are seeing a desire to remove human rights protections and to leave the ECHR. This would leave some very vulnerable people at risk.
It's not whatabboutery to discuss this. It's due diligence and standard process when law making. It's good practice to explore unintended consequences, possible 'misuse' of the law from it's intended purposes and long term possibilities of how the law might evolve in the future. This is the building blocks of all good law.
What we have seen in numerous areas in recent years is a blind spot by middle class well meaning people as to the practical implications of how society works for them compared to people living in more difficult circumstances. The gap and awareness has grown over the last twenty to thirty years as economic disparity has grown. There is this issue with there essentially being 'two Britains' which is well recognised by social observers and political strategist. The phrase 'the left behind' is one that's widely used and understood.
This has been deliberately manipulated for political gain too.
It would be not just incredibly foolish to ignore this but willfully negligent because government should have a duty of care to all citizens. If it's just saying well, the rights and protections of this group is an inconvenient barrier to allowing access to death for more privileged citizens who do have choices it's not good. The fact there are examples of emotional weaponisation of this dynamic to say we WANT this and it would be cruel not to versus the absolute RIGHT to life of all is worrying. One is a desire, the other is a need.
The problem remains that choices that those with stable lives and economic situations are an essence a luxury in the UK. They shouldn't be, but that's the reality. There are plenty of people for whom the concept of choice isn't relevant. It's about day to day survival.
I am not remotely surprised by some of the concerns in Canada. It's reflective of this pattern and it's economic profile. It's a much better indication of what is likely to happen here compared to other places where the gap between rich and poor is smaller and the state safety net is more robust.
For anyone who really isn't paying attention, I'll remind you that Reform polled incredibly well in Thursdays election. Don't be naive in thinking that people care about everyone in society.
Polling also shows poor attitudes to older people and the disabled.
We have a demographic timebomb gradually unfolding with concerns about how we can possibly provide adequate care and the pension budget is HALF of all benefits paid in the UK. That doesn't cover healthcare or social care either. The burden on working individuals at a time when AI is likely to reduce the number of jobs available is something that will drive attitudes.
I have to say I find it harder to believe that assisted dying will remain for those with terminal illness than it will soon face calls for expansion because the 'system is working'. And of course power lies with those in higher social classes. Theres plenty of form for not collecting data in order to argue that something is working in spite of concerns of conflict of interest and reports of harms by authority. That's how pretty much every scandal ends up originating. With concerns dismissed despite ample reason and suggestions that there is likely to be or is a problem.
I don't appreciate being told that ordinary standard debate of ideas that are going to be presented in the house of commons is somehow whatabboutery.
That's dishonest and manipulative.
And that in itself should be a red flag. Attempts to shut down public debate usually happen precisely because there is a real problem that people are trying to hide or play down. It's about an unwillingness to address valid concerns which are grounded in real life issues. One that they can't provide adequate safeguards for.
Don't get me wrong, I really do believe that it would be good for have assisted dying under very very limited circumstances. However I just do not believe that it would be workable in practice and I do think it would be far too open to abuse which would result in the deaths of a huge number of people for very different and avoidable circumstances which are totally unethical. That's too much of a cost to enable it. I think the UK is particularly vulnerable to these abuses because of the patterns and historic nature of our political discourse which is a sad thing to admit.
We are not learning from previous scandals and that's my ultimate problem. Instead we are seeking to double down insisting it couldn't happen here...
The arrogance of it is incredibly depressing.