Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yug wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 7:55 pm How does one conflate disability with being in the final stage of a terminal illness? Unless they're acting in very bad faith, or are a total moron.

I've read some bollocks in my time, but this really takes the biscuit.

The only answer - assuming that the article wasn’t written by Josef Mengele - is that the person who penned it doesn’t think that at all, but they would very much like you to believe that people who support assisted dying do.

We had an anti-abortionist lecture at my school (we had a decent variety of speakers overall) who pulled a rhetorical trick on us a bit like that. If you thought abortion was ok because of likely severe disability, you logically think disabled people are unworthy.

Polly Toynbee with an inspiring call to MPs to pass a legacy. It's true that issues like this get remembered in the way that votes on regular politics don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... government

Toynbee doesn't fuck about.

Meg Hillier, always an anti, wants doctors gagged from mentioning assisted dying, creating a legal minefield to deter doctors from offering help.

At political extremes, Diane Abbott and Edward Leigh write that “the only adequate safeguard is to keep the current law unchanged”. But where are the safeguards against extreme suffering in death?

Denying everyone’s right to escape a torturing death is not the “safe” option. The Inescapable Truth, a report written by palliative care clinicians, reports, “Some will retch at the stench of their own body rotting. Some will vomit their own faeces. Some will suffocate, slowly, inexorably, over several days.” On any day their figures show an average of 17 people are dying these bad deaths: it could be you or me.

I first heard of vomiting one's own faeces BTL on the Guardian the other day. Jesus Christ.

Toynbee is, was, and will always be one of the best of us. You don't need to be 100% on side with her in order to cheer her to the rafters.

Simon Opher, who is a doctor himself, has pointed out that it's the responsibility of doctors to inform patients about all the options they have.

Opponents claiming it's not fair that it's a private members bill rather than a government bill. There would be more discussion time as a government bill, but it isn't one. I'm going to take a wild stab and say that none of the opponents would have come up with an argument that hadn't been made before, ad nauseam. They're also complaining that only 2 amendments were called. On the plus side, the Meg Hillier nonsense wasn't called.

Majority of 49, so there's not been any significant move against, despite some suggestions that was happening.

That's quite encouraging. It’s now likely that the third reading of the bill will be in June.

If it then is agreed by the other place and royal assent goes ahead, people will have a real, compassionate and humane choice.

Encouraged that 605 MPs were there on a Friday to vote on a Private Member’s Bill. A refection of how important this business is.

Very disappointed that my own inadequate MP, Tahir Ali, voted against the bill again. If the opportunity to deselect the bugger were to come along (it won’t), I’d be strongly inclined to get shot of the useless tosser.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 7:15 pm Encouraged that 605 MPs were there on a Friday to support a Private Member’s Bill. A refection of how important this business is.

Very disappointed that my own inadequate MP, Tahir Ali, voted against the bill again. If the opportunity to deselect the bugger were to come along (it won’t), I’d be strongly inclined to get shot of the useless tosser.

Useless he may be, but I wouldn't criticise any MPs's sincerely-held belief on this matter.

davidjay wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 7:22 pm

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 7:15 pm Encouraged that 605 MPs were there on a Friday to support a Private Member’s Bill. A refection of how important this business is.

Very disappointed that my own inadequate MP, Tahir Ali, voted against the bill again. If the opportunity to deselect the bugger were to come along (it won’t), I’d be strongly inclined to get shot of the useless tosser.

Useless he may be, but I wouldn't criticise any MPs's sincerely-held belief on this matter.

Yeah, fair point, I suppose. It is an un-whipped Private Member’s Bill after all. But I don’t want my MP to decide on the basis of a sincerely held belief, particularly if that belief is based on religious dogma. I want consideration, rationality, logic, compassion, and humanity. I’m afraid that, having corresponded with Tahir on this, I’m not convinced that that’s what he has delivered.

My MP, Ellie Chowns, voted in favour, as did all Greens.

If this doesn't get passed, I think it could really hurt the Government. I know it's a Private Members Bill, but if you can't pass it with a majority of 170, you're going to look absolutely useless, on something that the public want passed. Only 15 Tories voting with the majority though- I'm not sure relying on the likes of Chris Philp to win the vote is that healthy.

127 Labour votes against is far too many.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:25 pm
If this doesn't get passed, I think it could really hurt the Government. I know it's a Private Members Bill, but if you can't pass it with a majority of 170, you're going to look absolutely useless, on something that the public want passed. Only 15 Tories voting with the majority though-

Are you suggesting that Starmer should whip the third reading ? That could be even more damaging.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:27 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:25 pm
If this doesn't get passed, I think it could really hurt the Government. I know it's a Private Members Bill, but if you can't pass it with a majority of 170, you're going to look absolutely useless, on something that the public want passed. Only 15 Tories voting with the majority though-

Are you suggesting that Starmer should whip the third reading ? That could be even more damaging.

No, I'm suggesting a chunk of those 127 MPs should think again, and not need anybody to tell them.

I don't think it'll just make Labour look useless if it fails. I think it'll make them look hopelessly out of date and conservative. I see that, to his credit, McDonnell in favour, but there's a big left contingent against. Doubtless they'd hate the implication they were a bunch of reactionaries, but I think that's how it comes across. Cedes the space to the Greens who'll (more than match them) on being left wing, and are actually humane too.

I think that for a lot of MPs, sincerely held beliefs mean "don't frighten the grannies".

As I've said, it's the abortion debate all over again. Same stupid arguments, same quick rebuttals, same banging on as if the questions will eventually erode the patience of the rational side. No moral foundation, just squick at talking about nasty things.

Does [Meg Hillier] agree with me that there are far too many people who do not have confidence in the face of authority, and if a doctor raises assisted suicide with them, however tactfully or professionally, they will feel that they are being steered in that direction? - Diane Abbot

Not if they're tactful and professional, no. And the alternative to this risk is "far too many people" suffering long term excruciating pain.

There are a lot of people who seem convinced that doctors are itching to kill their patients.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:30 pm

Does [Meg Hillier] agree with me that there are far too many people who do not have confidence in the face of authority, and if a doctor raises assisted suicide with them, however tactfully or professionally, they will feel that they are being steered in that direction? - Diane Abbot

Not if they're tactful and professional, no. And the alternative to this risk is "far too many people" suffering long term excruciating pain.

Plus, of course, what number does Abbott have in mind when she talks about "far too many people"? How many would not be "too many" ? Six? Nine? Four hundred and twenty-eight ?

As always, Diane doesn't engage her brain before she opens her gob.

Trust in some authority figures - MPs for example - may be low. Trust in medical professionals is, I suspect, rather higher.

Ipsos 2024

- What’s the diagnosis, doc?
- I’m afraid it’s not good news. You have a disease that’s going to leave you in agony for months and months
- Oh God. I can’t face that. Anything you can do about the pain?
- Um er did you watch the football last night?

What an absolute nonsense.

Or would “anything you can do about the pain?” make it ok?

Either way, what a position to put patient and doctor in.