Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I've read Kim Leadbeater's bill. You can read the full text here :

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774

I think it deals more than adequately with the most frequently cited objection to the enabling of choice at the end of life, that by doing so, it may become easier for unscrupulous relatives to exert pressure on a relative with a terminal illness to go sooner in order to relieve their families of a perceived "burden". Relatives found guilty of such coercion would receive a prison sentence of 14 years under the provisions of the bill. The requirement for the assent of two independent GPs/Consultants as well as a High Court judge, coupled with a 14 day "cooling off period", means that taking a decision about your own end will be properly onerous, but simpler, clearer, and more compassionate.

For me, it's a simple question of humanity. We all face death, but a humane, or at any rate aspirationally humane, society surely has a duty to ensure that where an individual's end entails all but intolerable suffering, a realistic means of removing that suffering from the equation is made available in law by that society.

I think Kim Leadbeater deserves immense praise for bringing this bill to parliament, and the meticulous way in which she has drafted the bill. Jo Cox's sister is proving a more than worthy successor to her. I sincerely hope that it will be enacted.

Similar safeguards have been brought in everywhere assisted dying has been legalised in the western world. All the pearl clutching was never justified, just the reactionary instinct when faced with anything icky.

Dear Tahir

I'm writing to ask you to support Kim Leadbeater MP's Bill on choice at life's end in the House of Commons on Friday 29 November. Kim's Bill will bring us closer to a more compassionate law to help terminally ill people in the UK.

This bill would provide compassionate choice for those that need it, and improve protections and safeguarding for everyone. Three quarters of British people support a change in the law, and there is majority support in every parliamentary constituency, across all age groups, genders, socio-economic statuses, and voting intentions.

Please attend the Second Reading of Kim's Bill on choice at the end of life on Friday 29 November, and vote in support of the Bill.

Dear Abernathy,

Thank you for contacting me about Assisted Dying and for the important points that you have made.

Assisted dying is a complex and emotive issue and I know there are strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides of the debate. My personal belief is that everyone has the right to choose how to end their life. Providing appropriate safeguards are in place, I would support a change in the law to enable terminally ill adults to receive, at their request, medically supervised assistance to end their own lives.

However, assisted dying should not be an alternative to high-quality palliative and end of life care. It must certainly not be considered as a response to disabilities or poverty. People deserve dignity in dying, and each person nearing the end of their life should feel reassured and safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care.

Successive governments have taken the view that any change in the law would be a matter of conscience for MPs and should not be a whipped vote. Under this approach, a change in the law would be enacted via a Private Members’ Bill; that is a Bill introduced by a backbench MP, rather than by Ministers. I agree that, given this is an issue of conscience, it should be for individual Members of Parliament, rather than the Government, to bring forward a proposal to change the law. The new Government has ensured that parliamentary time is provided to allow Kim Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill to be debated further, so that Members of both Houses can put their views on record.

As your elected representative in Parliament, I will monitor the debate on this Bill closely and keep in mind your views.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this sensitive issue.

Yours sincerely,

Tahir Ali MP,
Member of Parliament for Birmingham Hall Green & Moseley.

Sadly social media has dumbed down a debate (helped by some who shout loudest without thinking).

I do think quality of life is a big thing and I often look at these people who are effectively kept alive by incubator and haven’t moved in about 5 years and I wonder.

That kind of continued life should only be for a short time. I would personally abstain but I’ve got serious concerns that the use of “palliative care” as a stopper isn’t helping the debate.

The "Assisted dying is no replacement for universal high quality pallative care" brigade.

They won't give you universal high quality pallative care.
They win't listen to anybody who desires an assisted death.

Let us hope the sainted Esther Rantzen and her friends make a good counter-example.

mattomac wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 11:38 pm Sadly social media has dumbed down a debate (helped by some who shout loudest without thinking).

Lee Anderson has been asking peoples opinions on this debate which so you could say is a maturer than usual approach. Or rather doesn't know how to conduct himself in a complex debate, no idea how to position himself or if there's a woke left uniform view is for him to oppose.

From what I've heard from the debate, it's been conducted seriously as important non partisan issues usually are in parliament.
We should have more free votes on social issues if it fills the media cycle up with more considered opinions on subjects that matter. Instead of made up culture war outrage wiffle.

I'm not Liz Kendall's biggest fan, but pleased that she's said she'll vote in favour.

My worry is that a bunch of cowards are going to vote it down. I say cowards because very few of them are going to call for prosecuting the next person who takes their terminally ill partner to Dignitas. I fear we're going to get a lot of "ooh, not had enough time". This subject has been debated for yonks. Nothing stopping you "reading around the subject", as one of my teachers used to say.

It's striking how wary right wing publications such as the Mail and Torygraph (and some of their columnists) are regarding assisted dying, and I can't help but think why.

Perhaps I'm being cynical and mean-spirited of their motives (I'm sorry, I can never really credit that lot of acting out of any sort of genuine altruism or concern for their fellow human beings), but is it because they fear that should they become old and infirm one day, they themselves might be "bumped off" out of convenience - as they might secretly want to do to an elderly or sick relative who'd become a burden to them.

It might be thinking the worst of reactionaries - but outlets like the Mail are so constantly acting in bad faith, and are so unprincipled in everything that they do - I can't cut them any moral slack.

It's possible this is the reason. It's noticeable that the Mail and the Torygraph mindset has little time for intrinsic human worth. The people should serve the economy not vice-versa; fuck off with your four day week, the workers need to buck their ideas up and get digging ore out of the mines eighteen hours a day; lefties can't really care about minority groups, it's all virtue signalling.

They also constantly bitched about how much stuff like the furlough scheme was such a burden (It's not as if a government might have a moral duty to help society out when the shit hits the fan.) Remember, during lockdown, that there was more than one columnist who came close to admitting part of the reason they wanted kids back at school sooner rather than later, was that their offspring being at home all the time, was doing their heads in - rather than for pupil welfare or for their education.

Perhaps I'm overanalysing here. It could just be that those of a conservative disposition are just more icky about death and illness (as Andy McD said previously in this thread). Studies have shown that those on the right are more affected by disgust than on the left.

Hear hear @ Admirable Crichton. I was slightly disappointed in Tahir Ali’s very non-commital reply to my email, but at least he replied this time.

Yet the likes of the Mail and Express have been championing Esther Rantzen’s campaign to bring it in; although I can make a guess at why

Admirable Chrichton wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 2:20 pm …but is it because they fear that should they become old and infirm one day, they themselves might be "bumped off" out of convenience - as they might secretly want to do to an elderly or sick relative who'd become a burden to them

I think this is precisely it for many of them, and it’s full-on Trump-like projection. They fear being sent off to Dignitas at the fist sign of a cough because their dear son/daughter, who was raised in the loving, caring environment of a boarding school so as not to disrupt mummy and daddy’s social life, wants to get their inheritance and is fed up waiting for Mother Nature. And they fear this because it is *exactly* what they would do, as they are equally cold and distant.

Paradoxically, the same people are usually very concerned about inheritance tax - because the only thing they want less than their children having their wealth instead of them is for the state to have it and give it to plebs.