Mailwatch(ed) Forum

"I don't think I can face that, Doc..."

"Well..."

As opposed to what the doctor said to my mother in 1969, when things were in many ways similar and palliative care didn't exist:

"I'm prescribing a very strong painkiller. Be careful with the dosage, too much and he'll go to sleep and never wake up again..."

(I was at the chemists getting the prescription when the district nurse visited, called an ambulance and he had another two weeks of pointless pain and distress.|)

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 18, 2025 4:13 pm - 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.

It’s also on the assumption no one takes note of the news, those in this position are likely to have sort more information on this.

It's not a good faith intervention. If the doctor can't mention it, and eg the son does, these objectors will try and make out the son is hounding the parent to their death.

Further news of my mum. She's on end of life care, which could mean days, or weeks, or even longer. She's still eating, talking a bit today, but it's going to happen eventually and apart from my own uncertainty I'm now thinking what a waste of NHS resources it is.

The Guardian informs us 2 Lib Dem MPs have changed sides (from For to Against).

And a couple more Labour MPs may vote against it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... dying-bill

I see the two straight talking populists changed sides over a non-point. These are the men to take difficult decisions in government.

The Reform UK chief whip, Lee Anderson, and his former party colleague Rupert Lowe withdrew support publicly when the bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, removed the need for a high court judge to approve each procedure, instead giving this authority to an expert panel.

This MP is a new one on me. It's of course impossible to find doctors who support the bill.

1000 doctors is just under 1/28th of all active GPs in the UK. So even assuming it was only coming from that population, this isn’t exactly an overwhelming consensus.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... leadbeater

UK ‘behind curve’ on assisted dying among progressive nations, says Kim Leadbeater
Exclusive: On eve of Commons vote, MP says legislators may not get another chance to ‘do the right thing’ for 10 years

She's right.

Look who's made her usual distinguished contribution.

Badenoch urged Conservative MPs to vote against the bill, though it remains a free vote. “I’m somebody who has been previously supportive of assisted suicide,” she said. “This bill is a bad bill. It is not going to deliver. It has not been done properly.

“This is not how we should put through legislation like this. I don’t believe that the NHS and other services are ready to carry out assisted suicide, so I’ll be voting no, and I hope as many Conservative MPs as possible will be supporting me in that.”

"Not that assisted dying bill, not there". Quite the admission she left the NHS in the shit though. There's actually a 4 year implementation period, so no, nobody's saying the NHS is doing it next week. I suppose some of the Labour MPs saying palliative care isn't good enough are basically arguing that it's going to be bad in four years, which isn't exactly a good look.

I've noticed a few people saying this.

James Cleverly has urged MPs not to “sub-contract” scrutiny of the assisted dying bill to peers.

What's the story here? The Commons, hopefully, passes this. The Lords can then amend. Same as it ever was. Who exactly is unaware of this?

Oh look, how predictable.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... -and-wales

Two prominent archbishops in England have said that if the End of Life Bill set for a final vote in Parliament on Friday passes, Catholic hospices and care homes may have no choice but to shut down.

They pulled this stunt with same sex adoption too.

I love how all of these complaints completely ignore that nothing happens unless the person asks for it.

What they’re worried about is choice. Because if a resident m chooses to die on their own terms rather than be forced to string out life for as long as is technically possible, they could lose out on lots of lovely money from care home fees, donations to the church etc.

Fucking ghouls.

Dianne Abbot

I came to this house to be a voice for the voiceless. It hasn’t always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the house. Who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sickbed and believes they are dying?

Somebody who's in their sickbed dying in agony is equally voiceless.

Disagree or agree with the bill. Don't put yourself on a higher moral plain than people who disagree with you.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:47 am I love how all of these complaints completely ignore that nothing happens unless the person asks for it.

What they’re worried about is choice. Because if a resident m chooses to die on their own terms rather than be forced to string out life for as long as is technically possible, they could lose out on lots of lovely money from care home fees, donations to the church etc.

Fucking ghouls.

It's the anti-abortion argument. Unless there are rules in place and fear of punishment, people will descend into depravity.

Actually, that's the religion argument.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:47 am I love how all of these complaints completely ignore that nothing happens unless the person asks for it.

What they’re worried about is choice. Because if a resident m chooses to die on their own terms rather than be forced to string out life for as long as is technically possible, they could lose out on lots of lovely money from care home fees, donations to the church etc.

Fucking ghouls.

I think the Roman Catholic Church as much as anyone else does some excellent social work in lots of areas. I agree with the ghouls though- all sorts of people work with laws they don't agree with. They don't threaten to shut everything down. Actual grassroots Catholics work in Government agencies, non-religious charities and just get on with it. Shame the hierarchy can't.

France has a lot more Roman Catholics than the UK, but hasn't let them veto assisted dying. Same with Belgium, Switzerland Australia, Canada, even the Netherlands.

The US States were assisted dying all, I think, have more Catholics than the UK. I think this is a group we can happily take on.

This seems extremely pedantic by Naz Shah, who's pushed for an amendment to take anorexia out of the scope, which has been accepted.

This is not the anorexia loophole that has been closed – that was another amendment.
When people stop voluntarily eating and drinking, that is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. These are two categorically different issues.
So I must make it clear, absolutely clear, even though amendment 14 has passed today, this amendment does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Doctors and courts are going to say "sorry, anorexia is an illness, kill her!"?

Voluntarily there obviously distinguishes cases from those, like were terminally ill people quite literally can't eat and starve themselves painfully to death.

Oh, here's Mr Care Not Dying, Gordon McDonald.

As this is a private members’ bill, the MP in charge of the bill was able to choose who she wanted in the committee, choose who she wanted to give evidence and decide which amendments would be accepted and which wouldn’t, so I believe the whole process is completely flawed and I believe the Government needs to hold responsibility for this.
Keir Starmer should have taken responsibility for this.
We’re seeing more MPs who are voting against it which doesn’t surprise me as the more people think about this issue the more likely they are to support it.

Funny how we never hear which amendments and forensic opponents have been passed over. He just hates the whole principle. He's even opposed "most contraception" in the past. This is a fundy moaner, not someone weighing up the process and finding it wanting.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:15 pm This seems extremely pedantic by Naz Shah, who's pushed for an amendment to take anorexia out of the scope, which has been accepted.

This is not the anorexia loophole that has been closed – that was another amendment.
When people stop voluntarily eating and drinking, that is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. These are two categorically different issues.
So I must make it clear, absolutely clear, even though amendment 14 has passed today, this amendment does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Doctors and courts are going to say "sorry, anorexia is an illness, kill her!"?

Voluntarily there obviously distinguishes cases from those, like were terminally ill people quite literally can't eat and starve themselves painfully to death.

A lot of people on twitter genuinely think that Oregon goes around killing anorexics.

Ah, is that where this has come from?

MPs have voted to reject an amendment which would have prevented a person who is substantially motivated by feeling they are a burden, from qualifying for assisted dying.

Does the bill actually allow that? I'd be surprised if it did. That looks like a talking point amendment. Put something in, get voted down for good reasons, then it's "iinadequate safeguards!" or "the murderers want to kill people who just feel a burden".

A similar sort of thing happens with council budgets. At the last stage when everything is decided and funded, pipe up with "free bus travel for under 25s" or something. Then it's "the council voted against free bus travel for under 25s', not "they wouldn't put this unfunded thing in the budget at the last minute".