They Shoot Horses, don't they?

no it just means Keir Starmer is not declaring which side he is on as he doesnt want to influence the voting
I wish he'd followed that mantra when he leant on the Speaker
 
please could you explain why its a random figure

the purpose is to allow assisted dying only for those who are terminally ill............if you dont set a date then we are all terminally ill as we all will die one day
What difference is there in principle between somebody having two years to live and six months, or someone with a mental or physical disability that is life limiting? Who is tne government to tell someone when they can die?
 
End of life care following established medical pathways is not the same as applying for permission to commit suicide
No. Either you agree with assisted dying, extra large dose of morphine, or you don't.

At the stage the doctor uses the extra large dose, the patient is likely to have no choice at all. Before that they have all the choice they want
 
What difference is there in principle between somebody having two years to live and six months, or someone with a mental or physical disability that is life limiting? Who is tne government to tell someone when they can die?
When will the government tell someone that ?

Emotive, and wrong !
 
no not one something which is apolitical
Everything is political, but to suggest state control of death is not political, is preposterous
thats a lie
Lyndsay was leaned on and didn't have the courage to stand up to the implied threats from his political colleagues.
that is not true
Lets see.
try to avoid emotive language it adds nothing to the debate
Its an inherently emotive issue which has been slipped through by an opportunist in the Lords playing on peoples fears by offering a state solution.
 
No. Either you agree with assisted dying, extra large dose of morphine, or you don't.

At the stage the doctor uses the extra large dose, the patient is likely to have no choice at all. Before that they have all the choice they want
An over simplistic analysis typical of the pro death debate
 
Surely you can understand Blub's point? Why are you trying to twist it?
 
What difference is there in principle between somebody having two years to live and six months, or someone with a mental or physical disability that is life limiting? Who is tne government to tell someone when they can die?
He didn't say that.
Yes. He did.

The government is not involved in when somebody dies, by choice, or not
 
"Who is the government to tell someone when they can die?"
Yes. He did.

The government is not involved in when somebody dies, by choice, or not
That is exactly the legislation - the person applies for the right to assisted dying - the government tell you when you can die (with assistance).

sec 2b defines terminal illness as expected to die within 6 months.
I'm not twisting anything.

Trying to say the government will insist on assisted dying is twisting things
you see that the 1st is not the 2nd?
 
Last edited:
"Who is the government to tell someone when they can die?"

That is exactly the legislation - the person applies for the right to assisted dying - the government tell you when you can die (with assistance).
But ONLY if you choose it. It is not automatic, nor compulsory
sec 2b defines terminal illness as expected to die within 6 months.

you see that the 1st is not the 2nd?
No body is forced to take the government telling them when to die.

To suggest otherwise is twisting things
 
Back
Top