[The Weeping Angel]

An objective look at this bill would be to look at the pros and cons. Instead crabcakes has just dismissed any objections as people as being uncomfortable about death or they're religious types and you can't trust them can you?

[Crabcakes]

Except you haven't been objective. You're supporting this bill wholeheartedly which you're of course entitled to do. Any complaints about the bill are dismissed out of hand and of course the people doing them are uncomfortable with death or religious types like catholics. So no you haven't been objective about this.

I meant about the article, really - I deliberately left out mentioning the medical doctor whose argument is just “I don’t agree, we should do this” and just said the other points were quite interesting given the previous articles about the Canadian system. Whereas she seemed thoroughly subjective, and so would be quite a poor ‘spokesperson’ for the anti-euthanasia argument. As I say though, you’re perfectly welcome to draw attention to her being in the article as well - but I would suspect it’d have more of a Streisand effect than anything else.

All that said, you can be objective and have an opinion - even a strong one. I am just yet to be swayed otherwise. I dismiss things because I remain unconvinced of the merits of any anti-arguments, as they’re either technicalities, fearmongering, whataboutery or dogma. That’s why I specifically mention people with a strong religious bent in particular (such as the lady in the BBC article) as they should have next to no influence on any decision given they have zero objectivity. They can’t possibly approach the matter logically if they fear eternal punishment for supporting it and/or believe in an afterlife that must be earned and a life that must be lived until their deity decides time is up.

I’d be equally furious at anyone denying someone any other medical treatment based on dogma, for example. So it’s not just death but the extension of life as well.

[Crabcakes]

PS on a more practical front, I posted in February about proposed changes to the bill I would happily support, so I demonstrably don’t just dismiss things out of hand.

[The Weeping Angel]

Fair enough.

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... from-court

Woman who killed her terminally ill father walks free from court
Judge passes suspended sentence on Lisa Davenport, who smothered Barrie Davenport in 2022 in ‘an act of mercy’

If MPs fail to legalize assisted dying after this, they'll look ridiculous. I'm expecting most of the opponents to remain very quiet about this case and sentence, which I actually find worse than a right to life hardliner saying she should have been sent down for a proper stretch.

[Youngian]

Juries have been refusing to convict mercy killers for over two decades and the problem was plonked on DPP Starmer's desk as the government and parliament were too timid to confront the dilemna (under Gordon Brown IIRC). A suspended sentence for pleading guilty for manslaughter was probably an outcome of Keir's guideline changes. There's an argument for facing an investigation and due process but no sentence given as it acts as a safety valve against malovent intentions.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It seems very odd that anyone can be happy with this situation. Legalized assisted dying is unthinkable because in some case it might get vulnerable people killed. But letting off someone who by their own admission kills a vulnerable person, that's passed over in embarrassed silence?