MPs reject 'right to die' law in the UK

[Iteru]

Assisted Dying Bill: MPs reject 'right to die' law - BBC News

I hate how they have rejected this despite the majority of the public being in favour (including myself).

 

[Beth Pavell]

I have been in favour of this, and remain in favour of it. I don't really want to get into all the whithertos and whyfores (Because I honestly don't have the time to do it properly and respond to comments on them), but I'm disappointed. But still. A free vote on the bill, on an issue that's had a lot of exposure and public debate - it could be worse

 

[Fig]

Hah, yeah, the conservatives are pulling similar sheananigans here.

Supreme Court: "The law banning assisted suicide is unconstitutioal. You have a year to make better laws."
Government (for six months or so): "..."
(Six months later) Government: "Here, have a panel of experts to advise us. It will be led by all the most anti-assisted suicide we can find."

 

[Soki]

Ugh I really don't understand why people are so against euthanasia. How is it your problem if other people want to die? If they're suffering terribly, either physically or mentally, why not give them a chance at peace without having to kill themselves in horrible ways? Loved ones would be more at peace too, as they can be present and say final goodbyes.

My partner's grandfather was diagnosed with terminal esophagus cancer last year. He only had months to live and had to lie in bed and eat through a tube for the rest of those months. I'm happy for him euthanasia is legal in my country, if it wasn't he would've just stopped eating, as he threatened every day because the procedure to get euthanasia was taking too long in his opinion (after asking for euthanasia, it takes at least two weeks until you actually get it).

You really rather want someone to stop eating instead of them dying peacefully and without pain?

 

[Lysson]

I've read heartbreaking story after heartbreaking story about people who starve themselves to death because euthanasia isn't an option, and what's worse? This is really unfair.

All it needs is regulation to stop people putting pressure on someone and the argument that it discriminates against disabled people is false. Not allowing it actually discriminates against them because they are unable to put themselves out of their misery and instead have to resort to starving themselves which is cruel.

Since it was meant to allow you to go 6 months before your death I really don't see the problem. The majority of people do agree with euthanasia and it should be a vote given to the people and not a politician. Anyone who has had to watch a loved one suffer would agree that it is cruel to keep them alive if they won't recover.

 

[dig]

Disappointing, but not surprising. I feel like the people that are against this don't see how assisted suicide can be the most compassionate option to people with horrible diseases and conditions. By not allowing it we really are just prolonging suffering.

 

[Jersey Jimmy]

If there's a bright side to this, the California legislature just approved the same law.

 

[The Infidel]

Hah, yeah, the conservatives are pulling similar sheananigans here.

Supreme Court: "The law banning assisted suicide is unconstitutioal. You have a year to make better laws."
Government (for six months or so): "..."
(Six months later) Government: "Here, have a panel of experts to advise us. It will be led by all the most anti-assisted suicide we can find."

Urgh, this is not a left and right issue. This was a free vote and people from both main parties voted for both sides.
I am a Conservative (in the UK sense, not so sure about the American one) and I support this bill and am disappointed. Not everything can be pigeon holed into left vs right

 

[Jolene]

A free vote means the MP's are not bound to vote with the party whip. Yes I agree that euthanasia should be legal. No, the evil conservatives aren't trying to destroy Britain. Quite a few Labour MP's were against it as well.

As Azuro said, stop trying to paint everything into Left vs Right and demonize the other side. It's immature.

 

[Fig]

Hah, yeah, the conservatives are pulling similar sheananigans here.

Supreme Court: "The law banning assisted suicide is unconstitutioal. You have a year to make better laws."
Government (for six months or so): "..."
(Six months later) Government: "Here, have a panel of experts to advise us. It will be led by all the most anti-assisted suicide we can find."

Urgh, this is not a left and right issue. This was a free vote and people from both main parties voted for both sides.
I am a Conservative (in the UK sense, not so sure about the American one) and I support this bill and am disappointed. Not everything can be pigeon holed into left vs right

The Conservatives here, I said.

What I described is exactly how the *Canadian* (as in: "here") conservatives (that is to say, the Conservative Party of Canada) did when the same debate came up here.

Amazingly enough, more countries than America have a supreme court, and more countries than the UK have a Conservative Party.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Hah, yeah, the conservatives are pulling similar sheananigans here.

Supreme Court: "The law banning assisted suicide is unconstitutioal. You have a year to make better laws."
Government (for six months or so): "..."
(Six months later) Government: "Here, have a panel of experts to advise us. It will be led by all the most anti-assisted suicide we can find."

Urgh, this is not a left and right issue. This was a free vote and people from both main parties voted for both sides.
I am a Conservative (in the UK sense, not so sure about the American one) and I support this bill and am disappointed. Not everything can be pigeon holed into left vs right

The Conservatives here you will note I said.

What I described is exactly how the *Canadian* (as in: "here") conservatives (that is to say, the Conservative Party of Canada) did when the same debate came up here.

Amazingly enough, more countries than America have a supreme court, and more countries than the UK have a Conservative Party.

Sarcastically attempting to call out someone's ignorance is not a good way to convince them that you're right. Perhaps I am but a lowly non-Canadian simpleton like Azuro, but the way you said "the conservatives here", without capitalization, also struck me as a generic diss at those evil right-wingers you seem to enjoy bashing so much, as if there's this clean-cut difference between "right" and "left" that people display at all times like the color of their eyes. The reality is that every time you throw out the word "conservative", you're just trying to belittle people and I'm sure you don't see yourself as an arrogant bully. You're better than that, right? Oops, sorry, I shouldn't have said "right", I don't want to give people the idea that you're one of those people.

I guess if I had to make a contribution to this thread's actual topic, I'd say that I'm all for the idea of assisted suicide, but at the same time I get the feeling that it's going to be a difficult case to make, from a legal stand-point. What I mean is, it seems to be like there will need to be a lot of meticulous revising and re-revising to any sort of rule regarding assisted suicide so that no false claims are made, like people claiming that "he said he wanted to die" as an excuse for an actual murder. I just hope the piece of legislation that ends up defining legal assisted suicide is put in the right hands.

 

[Fig]

I'm not trying to convince them I'm right, I'm giving their reaction the treatment it deserves. They completely ignored the "here" in my post ; they completely ignored that I described a specific political scenario (as in, I was talking a specific incident involving specific conservatives), and just jumped at the assumption that "conservative" HAD to mean them.

Not every use of the term "conservative" is about the general ideology. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the other people using the word. I'm not going to hold your hands and walk you through which specific use of the term I refer to every time I use it.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm not trying to convince them I'm right, I'm giving their reaction the treatment it deserves.

So what's the point of arguing? Of course, arguments usually don't change anyone's minds, but then, maybe that's because of people like you who can't fathom why somebody would ever disagree with them.

They completely ignored the "here" in my post ; they completely ignored that I described a specific political scenario (as in, I was talking a specific incident involving specific conservatives), and just jumped at the assumption that "conservative" HAD to mean them.

Not every use of the term "conservative" is about the general ideology. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the other people using the word. I'm not going to hold your hands and walk you through which specific use of the term I refer to every time I use it.

Actually, I think it's you who doesn't understand here. Clearly you specified that you were talking about conservatives in Canada, but if what you really meant was the Conservative Party of Canada or whatever it's called, then that's what you should have said. Your problem is that you don't understand why people are misconstruing what you meant. And I would contend that when you say "conservative", that means "conservative". Even if you're directing a remark at conservatives in Canada, you can't expect people to believe that Canadian conservatives are distinct from all the others, otherwise you wouldn't be using the same word. It's really remarkable how much preventable poop-slinging can come from nothing but semantics.

Looking back on my last post, I also noticed that in mocking your use of sarcasm, I myself resorted to sarcasm. It's funny how hypocritical people can be, hint, hint.

 

[Fig]

So what's the point of arguing? Of course, arguments usually don't change anyone's minds, but then, maybe that's because of people like you who can't fathom why somebody would ever disagree with them.

You seem to see debates where there aren't any.

. Clearly you specified that you were talking about conservatives in Canada, but if what you really meant was the Conservative Party of Canada or whatever it's called, then that's what you should have said.

Bull. Shit. Refering to a party or political organization by its common name (Republicans, Democrats, New Democrats, Liberals, Labor, whatever) is an incredibly common practice, and nobody owes it to you to make the distinction.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

. Clearly you specified that you were talking about conservatives in Canada, but if what you really meant was the Conservative Party of Canada or whatever it's called, then that's what you should have said.

Bull. Shit. Refering to a party by its common name (Republicans, Democrats, New Democrats, Liberals, Labor, whatever) is an incredibly common practice, and nobody owes it to you to make the distinction.

When you don't capitalize the C in Conservative, you are no longer referring to a specific Conservative Party. I realize how silly this argument is getting, but you're refusing to admit that you made a mistake which resulted in confusion and misunderstanding. You're not perfect, you fucked up, so own it. I'm done with you. Jesus Christ.

 

[Fig]

There was indeed a typo there. That said, I stand by the assertion that you kind of have to be LOOKING for offense not to understand the post from context alone.

 

[The Infidel]

@Evil Figment; You never specified Conservatives of Canada, you said conservatives (small c) here which could easily refer to here in this instance, the word here does not in any dictionary or any language translate to Canada. If I look at a story on say Hillary Clinton, and I say we can see she continues to slide in the polls here, I'm referring to the story at hand, I'm not referencing her popularity "here in Europe", so of course when you talk about conservatives here, on an article about britain, people are going to think you mean either conservatives in britian, or conservatives as a whole. You used the blanket term conservative.

And besides not every issue comes down to left and right, I'm sure there are even Canadian conservatives who just like British conservatives support the right to assisted dying. But instead even by your own admission, you were blanket referring to all conservatives (in Canada).

The right to die, is not like should taxes be put up, its not a left v right issue. It's a free moral issue. But it appeared as though you wanted to say it was conservatives who were uniformly doing this.

 

[Iteru]

Let's get back to the actual point of the thread now that Evil Figment cleared up what he meant.

I think its just sad that all the MPs who voted no are so out of touch with the public vote. 2 doctors and a judge were the safeguards in this bill. What do those who voted no want? 5 doctors and 3 judges? We have a hugely burdened NHS and we want to keep those suffering unnecessarily in it, who don't want to be in it?

 

[Sword Master]

I, to be brutally honest, is against this idea of assisted dying as it may have bad effects on the family, and the person may not be in a stable mind to make such a big decision, also I don't think it is right to burden doctors with killing someone.

I don't call it assisted dying I call it murder as the patient might not be in the best mind to make a decision as life changing as this. This is my personal view so take don't get angry or offended by this opinion.

 

[Iteru]

I, to be brutally honest, is against this idea of assisted dying as it may have bad effects on the family, and the person may not be in a stable mind to make such a big decision, also I don't think it is right to burden doctors with killing someone.

I've never personally bought the family argument as I don't think a family member would actively want to see the ill person suffer to the end. Those who do want to control when they die can let their family know and give them time to come to terms with it.

Most bills like this allow doctors to opt out, so they aren't forced to assist.

I don't call it assisted dying I call it murder as the patient might not be in the best mind to make a decision as life changing as this.

That is why 2 doctors and a judge was required for this bill. The patients would be analysed first to make sure its not something said or done on a whim. Maybe an improvement would be patients having to state they wish to die and then a month/two months later be asked if they still hold that view.