|
|
Post by jr on Nov 15, 2024 10:24:44 GMT
Britain is one of the most agnostic/atheist countries in the world. Exactly, that's why there is no separation between church and state. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Nov 15, 2024 10:48:36 GMT
It's naive and reductive to claim that being anti-euthanasia is based on God and religious belief. I'm sure that's a factor for some people, especially in America which has the religious right and fundamentalism. But Britain is one of the most agnostic/atheist countries in the world, and the anti-euthanasia movement in the UK is lead pretty much entirely by the disabled community. Non-disabled people with no lived experience really have no idea how much euthanasia is rooted within ableism and how much ableism is rooted within society, and how terrifying it is to grow up being told that your life has no value and that you're better of dead. Non-disabled people aren't aware of how many disabled people have been killed by government policies that fundamentally say that disabled people don't deserve to be alive. That's why so many disability rights campaigners are also anti-euthanasia campaigners (and why many British anti-euthanasia activists are atheists). I recommend watching the Liz Carr documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001z8wcThere are far too many stories of perfectly physically healthy young people dying of euthanasia. How can anyone see those stories and say fears aren't justified? I would not recommend that documentary. I love Liz, but that documentary set out with one purpose alone. It is in no way balanced. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 15, 2024 10:50:48 GMT
I don’t understand Wes Streeting’s position on this. He previously supported assisted dying but now he opposes it when more stringent safeguards are being proposed. Yes it is interesting. Maybe now he's actually seen inside the NHS and taken advice from inside the NHS he's changed his mind. It's a red flag and one that suggests the government should handle this in a less precipitate manner. Some of the safeguards don't seem all that stringent, in particular getting sign-off from two doctors will be no problem at all, though some doctors will refuse to do this under all circumstances there will be others who will specialise in it (this is the Canadian experience). |
|
1,135 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Nov 15, 2024 13:53:46 GMT
It's naive and reductive to claim that being anti-euthanasia is based on God and religious belief. I'm sure that's a factor for some people, especially in America which has the religious right and fundamentalism. But Britain is one of the most agnostic/atheist countries in the world, and the anti-euthanasia movement in the UK is lead pretty much entirely by the disabled community. Non-disabled people with no lived experience really have no idea how much euthanasia is rooted within ableism and how much ableism is rooted within society, and how terrifying it is to grow up being told that your life has no value and that you're better of dead. Non-disabled people aren't aware of how many disabled people have been killed by government policies that fundamentally say that disabled people don't deserve to be alive. That's why so many disability rights campaigners are also anti-euthanasia campaigners (and why many British anti-euthanasia activists are atheists). I recommend watching the Liz Carr documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001z8wcThere are far too many stories of perfectly physically healthy young people dying of euthanasia. How can anyone see those stories and say fears aren't justified? I would not recommend that documentary. I love Liz, but that documentary set out with one purpose alone. It is in no way balanced. I agree with that but I don't think the intention was to be balanced, or that all documentaries have to 'both sides' every issue. I think it's okay for people from marginalised groups to set out their own personal experiences and perspectives into a world where that perspective hasn't been heard. I do agree that someone who's terminal and in huge pain with days to live should have access to help making a decision to die on their own terms. But the fact perfectly physically healthy young autistic people are dying from euthanasia because systemic ableism against autistic people is making their life miserable, that's awful, because that's a failing of society that needs to be addressed. Creating a system where euthanasia is a valid way of dealing with autistic people removes responsibility on society to change society to accommodate and understand autism. The onus should be on society to not be so awful to autistic people that they feel euthanasia is the only choice. With understanding that society assigns value to people according to their capitalistic value, and disabled and autistic people often aren't considered full and valued human beings. In a practical sense we can put whatever safeguards in place (eg, excluding mental illnesses or neurodivergent conditions) but any laws passed will always be vulnerable to legal challenges. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Nov 15, 2024 14:16:15 GMT
I would not recommend that documentary. I love Liz, but that documentary set out with one purpose alone. It is in no way balanced. I agree with that but I don't think the intention was to be balanced, or that all documentaries have to 'both sides' every issue. I think it's okay for people from marginalised groups to set out their own personal experiences and perspectives into a world where that perspective hasn't been heard. I suppose you’re right, but I’ve seen much better one-sided documentaries. (E.g. Sophie Morgan’s Fight To Fly) |
|
5,716 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 15, 2024 16:06:07 GMT
I don’t understand Wes Streeting’s position on this. He previously supported assisted dying but now he opposes it when more stringent safeguards are being proposed. Yes it is interesting. Maybe now he's actually seen inside the NHS and taken advice from inside the NHS he's changed his mind. It's a red flag and one that suggests the government should handle this in a less precipitate manner. Some of the safeguards don't seem all that stringent, in particular getting sign-off from two doctors will be no problem at all, though some doctors will refuse to do this under all circumstances there will be others who will specialise in it (this is the Canadian experience). And talking of specialising, what about the industry that will emerge to help us deal with this? Somewhat tasteless to mention, I apologise but I can imagine the settings and accessories etc.. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Nov 15, 2024 16:42:48 GMT
What do we think of Dignitas in Switzerland, then? Has there been scandals, I only know of the place?
Can we not treat that as a case study ..
|
|
1,484 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Nov 16, 2024 11:47:16 GMT
I’m sitting with my Mum in her care home right now. If the state she is in is my future then I want to right to die rather than this. If I’m diagnosed with vascular dementia I’m not gonna leave it too late to take my own life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 16, 2024 13:27:35 GMT
Yes it is interesting. Maybe now he's actually seen inside the NHS and taken advice from inside the NHS he's changed his mind. It's a red flag and one that suggests the government should handle this in a less precipitate manner. Some of the safeguards don't seem all that stringent, in particular getting sign-off from two doctors will be no problem at all, though some doctors will refuse to do this under all circumstances there will be others who will specialise in it (this is the Canadian experience). And talking of specialising, what about the industry that will emerge to help us deal with this? Somewhat tasteless to mention, I apologise but I can imagine the settings and accessories etc.. Oh yes of course an industry will grow up around this as it has in Canada with lawyers and doctors who specialise in the area and dedicated facilities. One interesting aspect of the published bill it it appears to exempt everyone involved from civil liability including claims of negligence so if the drugs don’t work or the doctors’ assessment of illness is wrong there is no right for anyone to sue. That will be welcomed by practitioners in the field. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 16, 2024 13:33:29 GMT
I’m sitting with my Mum in her care home right now. If the state she is in is my future then I want to right to die rather than this. If I’m diagnosed with vascular dementia I’m not gonna leave it too late to take my own life. Of course the provisions of the published bill wouldn’t help you in those circumstances, or someone assessed to have 12 months to live rather than 6, so you might judge it discriminatory on that basis. There are plenty of lawyers who will assert exactly that and mount challenges, probably via ECHR, to expand the scope. |
|
5,169 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Nov 16, 2024 14:09:30 GMT
Just looking at the practicalities, I'm really not sure where extra time is going to be found for all the High Court judges to consider the applications. Only those sitting in the Family Division have the necessary expertise, and there are only a maximum of 19 of those, with a pretty busy caseload already. They also don't sit outside London anywhere near as much as High Court judges hearing criminal cases.
|
|
19,855 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 16, 2024 14:26:10 GMT
And since when does being an expert in the criminal justice system make someone an expert at deciding an individual can die? Even if these judges are willing to take on that role, and let’s face it it’s a role that could mess with your head in a big way, I’m not sure it’s right.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 16, 2024 16:49:48 GMT
And since when does being an expert in the criminal justice system make someone an expert at deciding an individual can die? Even if these judges are willing to take on that role, and let’s face it it’s a role that could mess with your head in a big way, I’m not sure it’s right. Judges work in all branches of the law. Criminal law is only one part of it. There is a whole dedicated arm of our system called the Court of Protection that deals with challenging issues about human life. Assisted dying would not be part of the Criminal justice system. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Nov 16, 2024 18:51:08 GMT
Without know much at all, I imagine an area of law that might crop up would be disputes between siblings - who may have had entirely contrasting relationships with the parent - and 'influence' through to manipulation and coercion. Power of attorney, etc. In other words, an almighty he-said-she-said, which we see often enough with contested wills.
Can't imagine the emotional intensity of these situations.
|
|
19,855 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 16, 2024 19:18:41 GMT
And since when does being an expert in the criminal justice system make someone an expert at deciding an individual can die? Even if these judges are willing to take on that role, and let’s face it it’s a role that could mess with your head in a big way, I’m not sure it’s right. There is a whole dedicated arm of our system called the Court of Protection that deals with challenging issues about human life. Thank you Simon. So things like coma patients and birth defects I assume? I hadn’t thought of that. A challenging job. |
|
|
|
Post by SilverFox on Nov 16, 2024 19:28:56 GMT
The 'patient' MUST have expressed the wish (in writing) to have their life terminated whilst they were compos mentis - so that would exclude some coma and all birth defect patients.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel1980 on Nov 16, 2024 19:45:22 GMT
Only those sitting in the Family Division have the necessary expertise, and there are only a maximum of 19 of those, with a pretty busy caseload already. They also don't sit outside London anywhere near as much as High Court judges hearing criminal cases. High Court Judges usually go on circuit around the country hearing cases outside of London. You also get senior practising barristers, and sometimes solicitors, sitting as part time Deputy High Court Judges to assist with the caseload and alleviate the backlog. Court of Protection mainly deals with cases involving people who lack mental capacity to make their own financial and welfare decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 16, 2024 20:12:43 GMT
Only those sitting in the Family Division have the necessary expertise, and there are only a maximum of 19 of those, with a pretty busy caseload already. They also don't sit outside London anywhere near as much as High Court judges hearing criminal cases. High Court Judges usually go on circuit around the country hearing cases outside of London. You also get senior practising barristers, and sometimes solicitors, sitting as part time Deputy High Court Judges to assist with the caseload and alleviate the backlog. Court of Protection mainly deals with cases involving people who lack mental capacity to make their own financial and welfare decisions. Indeed. But we do have judges who are specialists in this sort of law. I don't believe they have stated which division would handle such cases |
|
|
|
Post by samuel1980 on Nov 16, 2024 20:40:46 GMT
I imagine these cases would end up being heard in the Family Division of the High Court. I don't think the King's Bench Division or Chancery Division would be appropriate for these types of cases. I suspect we will get more details as the draft Bill progresses through the various stages (hopefully!).
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 16, 2024 23:28:34 GMT
This is why I wish this had been a government bill with a decent timetable.
This sort of technical detail needs to be properly factored in.
|
|
5,119 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 16, 2024 23:58:57 GMT
For which reason why this bill will fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 17, 2024 1:41:17 GMT
If Starmer had the gumption to take over the bill, give it the time and attention it needs then we might see this important change come about for those who wish to make use of it.
As I said before, this has been proposed many times in the past. I know not everyone agrees with it but the right to a death with minimum suffering should be one open to people.
Suicide is not a viable or reliable option. But an assisted death is.
I want that right. Just in case. I don't want to have to stockpile pills or research how to slice the right vein.
Dignity at the end of life is important.
|
|
5,030 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 17, 2024 8:34:49 GMT
There is a whole dedicated arm of our system called the Court of Protection that deals with challenging issues about human life. Thank you Simon. So things like coma patients and birth defects I assume? I hadn’t thought of that. A challenging job. Us social workers (children's, mental health and learning disabilities) are in the Court of Protection quite a bit. A lot of the time with the Mental Capacity Act although not exclusively. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 22, 2024 14:28:57 GMT
I see the ECHR has already flagged up several issues and potential breaches in the draft bill, that’s even before one side or the other actually challenge it (there are genuine grounds for both to do so). An absolutely shambolic bit of incompetence from Starmer who seems to have fast-tracked this only because Ester Ranzen asked him to. Best pull the bill, start again, and do the job properly.
|
|
233 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 23, 2024 16:31:10 GMT
And since when does being an expert in the criminal justice system make someone an expert at deciding an individual can die? Even if these judges are willing to take on that role, and let’s face it it’s a role that could mess with your head in a big way, I’m not sure it’s right. They wouldn't be deciding "an individual can die", exactly. They would be deciding whether the legal provisions as to patient consent, etc, had been properly satisfied. |
|
