[kreuzberger]

I add my thoughts and condolences to those of others during these testing times, Mister Jay. I know those competing forces of blessed relief and bottomless loss as the new day dawn's. Testing times, indeed.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It wouldn't happen for 2-4 years. In the meantime, it's your job to prepare for it. If you're not prepared to do that, you need to resign. Actually, do that anyway.

You can't win with this stuff. If it saves money, it's bad and if costs money it's also bad.

[Abernathy]

Precisely. The NHS might have no cash to fund assisted deaths right now, but as I understand it there is a four year lead time built into the legislation that will certainly not mean funding being immediately taken away from other parts of the service . The effect of the legislation on overall NHS funding is something that it is Streeting's responsibility as Health Secretary to accommodate .

I think you're right to suggest that if Streeting feels so strongly that he cannot do so, it is incumbent on him to resign his post.

Otherwise, he is simply making mischief in the face of the will of parliament.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't think there's a 4 year period in the legislation, but that's the estimate of how long it will take. Something that the "improve palliative care first" people strangely didn't mention.

He pissed Starmer off before with his excess opining on assisted death. Wouldn't bet against his arse heading out of the door if he carries on like this.

[Abernathy]

I don't think there's a 4 year period in the legislation, but that's the estimate of how long it will take. Something that the "improve palliative care first" people strangely didn't mention.

My mistake, apologies. But it does seem to be the case that it will be at least four years before the first legally assisted death can go ahead.

He pissed Starmer off before with his excess opining on assisted death. Wouldn't bet against his arse heading out of the door if he carries on like this.

And I'd not object to that if it happens.

In the meantime, a short bill (or just an explicit instruction) to protect those who assist and accompany their terminally ill loved ones to Dignitas from prosecution might be a useful measure in the context of the Leadbeater bill's passage onto the statute book.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Starmer as DPP stopped those prosecutions. Not just of loved ones, but also of a doctor who accompanied 5 different people to Dignitas.

I'd like to hear from Tom Tugendhat and some of the others if they want this doctor prosecuted. Say what you like about Jacob Rees Mogg, but he'd probably say clearly that he did.

[Tubby Isaacs]

From The Guardian's version of the Streeting story.

The impact assessment produced by the government on the bill suggested that panels set up to approve procedures would cost about £2,000 a day, adding up to between £900,000 and £3.6m over a 10-year period. The total cost of running the panels – and employing a dedicated commissioner – would be between £10.9m and £13.6m a year.

However, the assessment estimated that the bill would ultimately cut end-of-life care costs by millions, with a central estimate that 2,183 people would use the service by its 10th year.

This leaves out the positive value in people seeing their loved ones avoid agonizing, prolonged deaths. Hard to put a monetary value on that, but there would likely be one.

[lambswool]

By one of the coincidences that make our world such an interesting place my mum finally slipped away a few hours after the vote. Anyone who voted against it should have had to spend the last few months visiting her. She was thankfully peaceful over the past few days but before that we had months of mental torture for her and a lot of angst for those of us who saw her fading.

I’ve only just seen this, David. My sincere condolences to you and your family.

[Watchman]

By one of the coincidences that make our world such an interesting place my mum finally slipped away a few hours after the vote. Anyone who voted against it should have had to spend the last few months visiting her. She was thankfully peaceful over the past few days but before that we had months of mental torture for her and a lot of angst for those of us who saw her fading.

Sincere condolences, from me and mine to you and yours

[Tubby Isaacs]

I was thinking about these coercion arguments. They've come from quite a wide political cross section. Yet you could say the same about abortion. I've never heard anyone on the left use that argument. Even the (diminishing) group of Roman Catholic leftists like Rebecca Long-Bailey tend to have fairly nuanced positions on abortion. The point that tripped her up in the leadership wasn't any fundamental opposition to abortion, but that she didn't support abortion in the case of severe disability after 24 weeks.

[davidjay]

Apologies for the belated post but thank you to everyone for your condolences and also for allowing me the platform to articulate my feelings. Writing it down has made my thoughts so much clearer and enabled me to feel a lot better.

[Abernathy]

You are most welcome, David.

[The Weeping Angel]

I was thinking about these coercion arguments. They've come from quite a wide political cross section. Yet you could say the same about abortion. I've never heard anyone on the left use that argument. Even the (diminishing) group of Roman Catholic leftists like Rebecca Long-Bailey tend to have fairly nuanced positions on abortion. The point that tripped her up in the leadership wasn't any fundamental opposition to abortion, but that she didn't support abortion in the case of severe disability after 24 weeks.

I mean, how will legalising AD cause more cases like this?

[Crabcakes]

What an absurd argument, and incredibly disappointing from a Labour MP. If anything, assisted dying would make it *less* likely, because it would be clear during the vetting process that appropriate care was not being given and safeguarding could take place.

This poor woman was let down by her mother, who appears to be the worst sort of quackery-loving idiot. Not the NHS, and certainly not the - not even established yet - process for assisted dying.

[Tubby Isaacs]

She's been particularly vocal about not being heard in the process. On this evidence, not hearing Jess Asato saves a lot of time.

[Tubby Isaacs]

You thought you'd heard the last of this stuff, but you were wrong, Old Bean.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dying-bill

it’s not just on procedure where the Lords could outdo the lower house. Throughout the bill’s Commons passage, MPs were (deliberately or not) misled. When the committee stripped out judicial oversight, MPs were told safeguards had been strengthened. They were repeatedly told that disabled people were excluded from the bill’s provisions, but anyone with a progressive condition and an unscrupulous doctor might qualify.

I think having 3 people rather than 1 approve is strengthening. There's nothing particularly special about a high court judge compared with a very senior lawyer of any description, Disagree with "strengthen" if you want, but everyone who voted for the bill knew what the oversight was. The idea they thought they were voting for a high court judge is nonsense.

Disabled people were excluded as disabled people. Like anyone else, they can have degenerative conditions, and then they get included. What are unscrupulous doctors exactly? They go through all that training, work experience and just think they'll kill disabled people for a laugh?

The tone of this is that she wants the bill modified but not chucked out by the Lords, which is the right of the Lords. But things like insisting on a high court judge seem to be intended merely to make the whole thing much less workable.

The Commons did dedicate several days to its second and third readings, but on both occasions many MPs who wanted to speak did not get the chance to do so. The new home secretary (then the justice secretary), Shabana Mahmood, was among those who said there had not been enough time for debate. Of course, MPs often don’t get to speak during a debate, but when a law fundamentally changes the nature of the state, limiting the voices that are heard cannot be a good thing. A shift this big should not be rushed.

Count me sceptical that these people who didn't get to speak would have come up with some devastating argument that nobody had heard before on this subject which has been argued extensively inside and outside Parliament.

[Tubby Isaacs]

What an absurd argument, and incredibly disappointing from a Labour MP. If anything, assisted dying would make it *less* likely, because it would be clear during the vetting process that appropriate care was not being given and safeguarding could take place.

This poor woman was let down by her mother, who appears to be the worst sort of quackery-loving idiot. Not the NHS, and certainly not the - not even established yet - process for assisted dying.

Absolutely dire, wasn't it? As you say, what has this got to do with the NHS and assisted dying?