Lol. What do you think suicide is?
They Shoot Horses, don't they?
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assisted dying bill
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,811
- Reaction score
- 5,353
- Country
Better make sure the bill amends the bible too.
Making it legal changes nothing for those who want to live and die according to the teachings of their good book.
Making it legal changes nothing for those who want to live and die according to the teachings of their good book.
It is different to assisted dying.
It's not, a key motivation for those pushing for the change in the law is to protect their loved ones from prosecution for assisting suicide.
Assisted dying is not a suicide: it's a state of mind.
Not if you're of unsound mind for example pressured or groomed into a decision by greedy relatives. Kim Ledbetter doesn't inspire confidence when she said review/approval by a panel is a better safeguard than a single judge, having previously said a single judge was the best safeguard.
Let's assume a panel of medical professionals can accurately asses whether or not a person is sound of mind - although i'm not convinced a single judge is better than a select body of expert opinion. The legislation should make provision for clear cut cases to proceed and the ability to weed out spurious claims before they take up too much time away from more worthy applicants.
Unsound mind doesn’t qualify you for assisted dying
I wonder what Kim Leadbeater actually said rather than your “I hate the Labour Party” bias interpretation
Its a safeguard, making exceptions for clear cut cases is avoiding the safeguard by assuming they are clear cut, which b3gs the question.
What is your question, Grasshopper?
Vulnerable individuals can clearly be pressurised into using the process. I have little faith in a bureaucratic panel challenging what others have concluded. Especially as this “service” will almost inevitably by self funding. A high court judge with the correct resources is probably better placed to review the case.
Politics, as Harold Wilson said, is tne art of the possible. She’s an MP on a mission. The whole process is too rushed.
Your assumption that clear cut cases are self identifying, and can be fast tracked. Now hoppit.
After examination from a board of experts who unanimously agree on their findings, i'd call that a clear cut case. It's the cases concerning mental health issues that'll be a problem for the court to decide, so i'd limit the scope of this legislation to exclude them altogether.
In the case of Gene Hackman and his wife maybe they should call it 'self-assisted dying', instead...no need to take the dog with 'em, though, i'd say.
And no need to make it legal
