MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885
https://www.cmfmag.ca/todays_brief/government-addresses-maid-revelations/
...And so it goes on. You're essentially claiming that all the veterans who've reported these incidents were lying? Or that by claiming that because technically the Veterans Affairs case workers couldn't actually provide them with access to MAID it somehow doesn't count as coercion?
Both are weak arguments, you'd do better to call them isolated and so beyond the pale that they sacked the worker responsible than trying to maintain a stance that the whole story is the work of people fundamentally opposed to assisted dying when it clearly isn't.
CG
That article is full of falsehoods from an avowed opponent of assisted dying.
Over 80% of the public support this. The vast majority of healthcare workers and a majority of doctors
They were NOT offered MAID. Its a simple fact. Ypu have described what actually happened. A veterns case worker with no ability to refer folk for MAID no authority to do so suggested it
Apologies if that post appeared intemperate
In the decades that multiple countries have had this measure in various forms the best example of coercion that those opposed to this measure can come up with to show coercion is this veterns case which when you look into it is no coercion at all because that person had no ability nor authority to offer MAID.
That case has been deliberately distorted out of all recognition by groups opposed to assisted dying in order to make their case.
@tj, it was just another opinion but from a medical professional. Tend to agree with him re Kim Leadbeater, who's pulling her strings beside the assisted dying folk? Someone is for sure, for a new MP to raise such a controversial issue and to go about in such a dishonest and deceitful way arouses my suspicions.
Where does the 80% figure come from?
Tend to agree with him re Kim Leadbeater, who's pulling her strings beside the assisted dying folk
Like who? Come on lets hear what batshit conspiracy theory is in play here.
This pdf details the links between the various opponants and their links to religious fundamentalists
Care not killing is the main anti group in the UK. Not dead yet is tbe supposed disability advocacy group set up by the same folk. Our duty of care is the supposed doctors group set up by the same folk
Nothing deceitful and dishonest in leadbetters bill. The deceit and dushonesty comes from the opponents who deliberately lie and distort to make their points.
The bill is flawed imo because of this absurd quasi judicial review. Something not done anywhere else in the world.
CG.
leadbetter was high on the ballot for private members bills and she was asked by starmer to use this to put an assisted dying bill forward.
Nothing shadowy or hidden
In the decades that multiple countries have had this measure in various forms the best example of coercion that those opposed to this measure can come up with to show coercion
Something I have never seen addressed by the religious fundamentalists, sorry concerned citizens, is what exactly stops coercion happening now?
A proper system giving people a choice gives us better chance of identifying any coercive arseholes vs pretending someone just overdosed.
I am baffled by NickC argument that giving people a choice is somehow the state getting involved in "killing people". Leaving aside the military and armed police question, should we abandon hospices and DNR and force treatment regardless?
@dissonance - no need for that, thank you. It's not making sense to me and wonder whether there was pressure from above to can it due to strategic reasons. From what I've read the way she specifically chose committee members who only agreed with her, there wasn't the usual mix that these committees consist of. She chopped and changed until the draft was very different to what was originally proposed. These were fundamental changes and not minor ones and that's why some committee members backed out. Even Lord Sumption was surprised that it got as far as it did and he called it a complete mess. Something's not right here, I don't believe we've heard the full story.
None of that is true CG
The committee has a mix if opponents and supporters. Bills are supposed to be modified in committee
Nickc. I think you will find that pdf link interesting. It clearly shows the links between these supoosedly independent organisations and how the religious are behind the vast majority of objection and their dishonesty
They were NOT offered MAID. Its a simple fact.
I agree, technically none of the 5 vulnerable people that were spoken to by this case worker who asked them all if they'd considered MAID were offered MAID, you're correct.
Do you think then they weren't being coerced?
OK, so I read your .pdf, the Canadian advocacy group who described MAID as an existential threat aren't mentioned, nor is the case of the 5 Canadian Army Vets who were spoken to by the case worker. Not everybody who doesn't support an assisted dying bill is supported by or paid for by religious groups.
I'll debate my thoughts with you, but if you're going to dismiss every opposing voice as just driven by shady religious propogandists, there's no point.
I am baffled by NickC argument that giving people a choice is somehow the state getting involved in "killing people"
As I said, I think philosophically the argument is undeniable, we should as far as it's possible let people decide the timing of their own deaths. I don't see how anyone can disagree. My problem is legislating for that. I just don't think the state should insert itself between life and death of its citizens in this area because any choice anyone makes is going to be tested by the state, they ultimately are making the decision. Is that where we really want?
Surely the only way that there can be anything but instant access is if the person involved has no capacity to decide? In that case we have plenty of experts who decide capacity, my wife is one, who are allowed to make lives miserable by inflicting care that they don't want on people. Of course the big things really is, why the hell are some people worried about other peoples lives? Mind your own business.
Ickc
The state already intervenes in this area ni questions of disputed competency or people in persistant vegitative states or minimally concious states
. There is zero need for the state to be involved in peoples decisions at the end of life. They dont anywhere in the world where they have this measure. Its the persona own decision if they meet the criteria
Would removing the quasi judicial review assuage your point? Its not used anywhere else in the wold
Of course the big things really is, why the hell are some people worried about other peoples lives? Mind your own business.
Perhaps to ensure that it really is a choice that they want to make? Compare a couple where one is ill & the other doesn't care for them properly, is demeaning to them & urges them to end it all vs loving couple where the healthy one cares lovingly & properly for their ill partner and cherishes every moment they have with them. Not forgetting mental illness, so yes there does need to be checks & balances, despite TJ's assertion that coercion doesn't exist.
Its the persona own decision if they meet the criteria
But the state still gets a say. if they think, for instance, you're not mentally well enough, they'll say no
Would removing the quasi judicial review assuage your point?
I don't know is the honest answer to that. I don't see how any govt or court can look at what's happening in the Netherlands and Canada and decide that they want to walk down the same path right now. In a perfect world we should let people decide, but we don't live in a perfect world and any test set by any govt is going to be challenged to the obvious end point.
and if you're tempted to offer up the "slippery slope" fallacy that's pretty much where both Canada and the Netherlands are headed despite both those countries best efforts to prevent and mitigate it. it's the reason the Canadian courts are pausing the addition of mental health qualifiers to MAiD because of the obvious dangers.
Last post from me, if we both agree that anyone killed because of a death penalty who's innocent is a tragedy, i don't see how you can't agree that same is true of assisted dying.
And we don't have a death penalty largely for that reason
Ian Birrell is a prominent atheist
Went to Ampleforth college, so a pretty catholic upbringing. May also be influenced by immediate family circumstances.
Would removing the quasi judicial review assuage your point?
and if you're tempted to offer up the "slippery slope" fallacy that's pretty much where both Canada and the Netherlands are headed despite both those countries best efforts to prevent and mitigate it. it's the reason the Canadian courts are pausing the addition of mental health qualifiers to MAiD because of the obvious dangers.
In canada its the courts that extended the scope to incude mental health and the parliament that has it on hold while it considers this. Something that could not happen in the UK because the courts cannit overrule parliamentary statute only interpret it or point out conflicts with other law.
What do you think is going wrong in the Netherlands? All accepted by both parliament and the vast majority of the public.
Dickyboy.
Thete has never been a case of coercion anywhere worldwide.
Checks and balances. Ever other country in tbe world including Scotland and the isle of man find two professionals sufficient.
I am quite happy with two independent professionals needing to sign off.
Find me one case of coercion anywhere not including the canadian veterans that has been soundly debunked
This concept of coercion is an invention of care not killing the American evangelical fundamentalist funded anti group. Its their latest attempt to invent secular reasons to oppose. A part of their fibbing for god
Previous attempts to find something have failed to gain traction including the slippery slope and disabity scare stories
Coercion is possible if you invent scenarios but not plausible given the number of professionals you would have to fool. The fact the patient is interviewed on their own and be cooling off period
I firmly believe that is sufficient checks and balances.
Is that where we really want?
Apparently so since currently the state is inserting itself and saying no you cant.
I am not quite sure why you are hung up on the state "making the decision" since clearly they arent. They just arent blocking someones decision.
If you arent wanting the state involved in the process, for reasons I dont quite understand, surely the right answer is to remove any restrictions and have no process?
Ian Birrell is a prominent atheist
Went to Ampleforth college, so a pretty catholic upbringing. May also be influenced by immediate family circumstances.
Not too sure what your point is, but I know several non-catholic parents who send their children to private catholic schools, so that doesn't make him a catholic. He's published several articles stating that he's an atheist. Do you and TJ really think that he's some undercover religious fanatic??
Thete has never been a case of coercion anywhere worldwide.
you can't know that, and the Veterans case that you dismiss on a technicality is clearly coercion to anyone neutral and was investigated by the Canadians as a case of coercion, Again stop dismissing everything as the work of regilous propaganda
And it's not the only case that's troubling. there are at least two others of a man who's brother was accepted for MIAD after being sectioned and a women who wrote to her family and confessed that she was going through MAID because she didn't have the support that otherwise would've changed her mind.
It's not failsafe. and the question still requires an answer, if we don't have the death penalty because it might go wrong, why is ok to allow assisted dying when that also might go wrong?
surely the right answer is to remove any restrictions and have no process?
TJ is coming from the POV that everyone should have the right to end their lives. the establishment is coming at it from the POV " let's organise it so we don't get sued when we make a mistake and allow someone we shouldn't have done, to end their life"
the two are basically incompatible
His online biography states he is a catholic athiest whatever that is
I did retract the criticism as i am unable to read the article i did ask what he was basing his opposition on but no one said. I suspect his disabled daughter but i do not know.
The whole idea that disabled are at risk from this is another lie from the antis. In no jurisdiction is disabilty a criteria for assisted dying. Most disabilty advocacy groups support this measure.
Care not killing created a supposed disability advocacy group which is in actual fact just another front for these American fundamentalist evangelicals and does not represent the broader disability advocacy. Its called Not dead yet
The three groups to watch out fir are
Care not killing. Not dead yet and duty of care. All 3 are fronts for American evangelical fundamentalists whose MO is fibbing for god
Incorrect nickc.
I believe that those at the end of their life should have the choice.
I believe the Scottish bill and colarado are the correct models pretty much tho i would also alliw those with dementia or with othet progressive neurological duseases to make advanced directives
Nor is that what the bills for. Its s gross misrepresentation.
The bills are aimed at empowering people and preventing needless suffering
Jeepers nickc. You are usually far more perceptive
you can't know that, and the Veterans case that you dismiss on a technicality is clearly coercion to anyone neutral and was investigated by the Canadians as a case of coercion,
I did not dismiss it on a technicality. . I explained the truth. They were NOT offered MAID. Its a simpke fact ans you are regurgitating the lies and distortion from tbese religious fundamentalists
If i said to you do you want to be king am i offering you the crown? No becaues i do not have that power nor are you eligable
Thete has never been a case if coercion anywhere world wide found.
And it's not the only case that's troubling. there are at least two others of a man who's brother was accepted for MIAD after being sectioned and a women who wrote to her family and confessed that she was going through MAID because she didn't have the support that otherwise would've changed her mind.
I dont know those. Care to give me more details so i can investigate . Ill bet my house tha actual truth is very different as it is in the veterans case
In canada the rates of MAID are highest amongst those with good access to healthcare and lowest amongst those with less access refuting the arguement that folk do this for lack of support.
In Canada you have to be of souns mind so being accepted after sectioning sounds extremly unlikely
TJ, I fully understand and support your intent but you are wide of the mark IMO on this line of argumentation and it's degrading the rest of you real, useful and lived experience.
There's no way you can say there has never been a case of coercion. A PROVEN case, maybe, but that's a very high benchmark and probably a fraction of the number overall.
Neither can you say that if the person doing the coercing hasn't the means to actually offer it then it isn't coercion. I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where people have been highly suggested, you've become a burden, etc., that results in a decision being made. You might prefer to call it persuasion to win the argument but where's the line - has no-one ever been 'persuaded' down that path, to then make the choice of their own volition?
Its a simpke fact ans you are regurgitating the lies and distortion from tbese religious fundamentalists
it's very convenient to be able to dismiss anything and everything as the work or religiously driven "antis" even though neither the investigations by the Canadian MOD into the coercive activities of the care worker nor the Disability advocacy group (that I've detailed who they are and where their funding comes from) have anything to do with religious groups.
You haven't engaged with any argument that opposes the right to die with anything other than a blanket "That's a fake argument raised by religious fundamentalists and propogandists, I'm not engaging with it or addressing it"
so there's really not much point in continuing.
His online biography states he is a catholic athiest whatever that is
His wikipedia page makes no mention of this and neitherdoes his website https://www.ianbirrell.com/about-me/ My google-fu may be failing me as I can't find any mention of him being a catholic
i am unable to read the article i did ask what he was basing his opposition on but no one said. I suspect his disabled daughter but i do not know.
I did provide a link, here it is again. Just because he has a disabled daughter doesn't mean that his opinion, or that of any other parent of a disabled child is any less valid.
https://www.ianbirrell.com/euthanasia-is-a-slippery-slope/
You haven't engaged with any argument that opposes the right to die with anything other than a blanket "That's a fake argument raised by religious fundamentalists and propogandists, I'm not engaging with it or addressing it"
i have addressed ir. pointed out the truth of the situation. described how the anti side have distorted the facts of what actually happened.
how can you address a lie otherwise?
in the canada veterans case they were NOT offered MAID. That is the actual truth
thanks for that natrix. I must have missed it. oll have a read and get back to you.
i cannot fi d that reference now either
I actually don't care if its a slippery slope, If people decide that for whatever reason they have had enough of life and want to end it then let them. Or do something about improving their lot physically, mentally or materially so it might seem worthwhile carrying on.
You don't have to take any part in their death, just don't go out of your way to make it as frightening, difficult and unpleasant as possible to coerce them into living.
natrix. rhat link is not working for me.
of course he is entitled to his opinion.
on disability
disability is not a qualifying criteria for an assisted death antwhere workd wide. in the UK many disability groups support it.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/79-disabled-people-support-change-law-assisted-dying/
jonv
its not just julie dying that shapes my views. its what i have seen in my professional life and other things in my personal life.
the issue is that the main opponants to this are willing to lie and distort the truth to oppose it. They as descibed in the pdf i posted are all run and funded by american and uk religious fundamentalists who believe that its acceptable to lie in doing gods work I have read their policy document where this is explicitly stated. they left this document on the publicly accesdible part of their website for a short time. they are being fundamentally dishonest
I have spoken to these folk directly. I have debated with them publicly. I have seen them doing this first hand.
the three anti groups most often quoted Care nor killing, not dead yet and duty of care are all a part of the same group of people.
they are the same folk that run SPUC
its very difficult to counter lies with the truth. when we have one voice saying the truth and 3 spreading the same lies in a coordinated manner
every single case i have seen rhat they use to support their arguement like the canadian veterans what you find is its either an outright lie or a tiny kernal of truth as in the canadian veterans but then distorted out of all recognition to make their case.
so how else can i counter their lies other than by stating the actual truth and pointing out where they lied?
on coercion
the only case the anti side have been able to come uo with is the canadian veterans one which as i have explained when you actually look at the facts is very far from what they claim. These veterans were not offered MAID.
i am happy to have safeguards built in but to say coercion is real is not backed by the facts
natrix
i got that link to open
he claims that in jurisdictions that have assisted dying it always increases the scope. this is not true. many jurisdictions have had the same laws for decades. look at colorado or some od the aystralian states. rhe idea that scope always increases is not boune out by the facts
some jurisdictions have increased scope. in the netherlands by parliamenent following public opinion
in canada the courts stated that mental illness shouls be a criteria following a case brought by a mental illness advocacy group. the law has not been changed yet
the canada case could not happwn here due to the supremacy of parliament over the courts
he states "finding 24 confirmed cases of people euthanised “simply because of the symptoms of having a learning disability or autism” with 15 other possibly related incidents. "
this case i have never heard of by my understanding that would not be legal under dutch law. i will look into this and get back with what i find
so yes he is entitled to his opinion as i am entitled to point out the flaws in his arguement
he also mentions this case
Then three years ago, Dutch courts said physicians could euthanise elderly people with severe dementia even if the patient no longer expressed desire for death, following a controversial case involving a distressed woman held down by her family as her life was ended.
this one looks very troubling on the surdace. My siater is an investigative journalist in the netherlands
she looked into this one and the woman involved had laid out a very strong advance directive when of sound mind and found the actual facts of the case were completly in line with dutch law.. she was not held down IIRC they held her hands still so the doc could insert the canula in accordance with her expressed wishes
I know you have plenty of other experience from your job, that's what I referred to.
How do you counter lies - very hard, I know in so many areas, but IMHO not by also sticking doggedly to a unlikely claim that no-one has ever been coerced into committing suicide.
It's either not true, or you'll then get trapped into saying that it's only coercion if the person doing the coercing actually then 'does the deed' and provides the means. Which might in your eyes be technically true but misses entirely my point that persuasion, convincing, all those other things that you might try and suggest aren't technically coercion by your definition are in many people's eyes the same thing.
apolgies for all the typos. i find typing on a phone very difficult and have managed to turn autocorrect off and cannot turn it back on
How do you counter lies - very hard, I know in so many areas, but IMHO not by also sticking doggedly to a unlikely claim that no-one has ever been coerced into committing suicide.
that is not what i said. people being coerced into suicide is real
in the case of assisted dying however i believe the checks and balances are sufficient to prevent this and there has never been a case of coercion come to light.
in the canadian case from memory at least one of the people involved is furious at the way their case has been distorted
Birrell again
I have spoken with a young woman seeking consent to die due to mental distress in next-door Belgium – the second country to sanction euthanasia and first to legalise it for children. “It is like physical pain,” she told me. ‘‘It feels like I am breaking apart.” Yet I have also read powerful evidence to the select committee from Ilora Finlay, a professor of palliative medicine in Cardiff who has worked in Holland. She detailed her experiences of looking after thousands of dying patients and having many conversations with people in despair, describing one patient who said he would kill himself in two weeks but was alive 11 years later. The cross bench peer insisted “that suicidal ideation disappears” if people get the right care and support.
Here he is conflating two very different scenarios.
The young woman involved had suffered from severe mental health difficulties for many years. She had been thru every type of treatment and support available. She just found her life intolerable
Its not the same as those with a terminal illness. No parralels can be drawn between two different types of situation.
A rational wish to die when you have a terminal illness and you find tbe future prospects unbearable is not. suicidal ideation
In my dutch extended family one member took advantage of the euthanasia law there. He had an agressive form of leukaemia. He didnt want to face the very unpleasant death that that would inevitably bring him so he took euthanasisa.
He did not have suicidal ideation. He had a rational desire to avoid an unpleasant death.
So yes sucididal ideation can be treated as it is an irrational symptom of mental illness. However a rational wish to not suffer at the end of your life is not suicidal ideation, cannot be treated and is why assisted dying and eithanasia laws are needed
So on this aspect Birrell is conflating two completely different things as the same.
Final thought for the now
The antis often state that good palliative care means there is no need for assisted dying. This is simpky nit so. Under current UK law we can only treat symptoms so you have to be in pain before you can have painkillers. You have to be in distress before you can have sedatives.
Some cases the pain is untreatable
In my dutch relatives case he would have had a failure of blood clotting and would die of bleeding in his body tissues and from every orifice. No palliative care can prevent that distressing death
Julie had the very best palliative care. She still had periods of pain fear and distress.
The antis try to make this a false choice. Assisted dying or palliative care. Infact you can be supportive of both as I am. Assisted dying should be an integral part of palliative care for thise who want it.
The Canadian experience is that a significant number if those who have completed the process for MAID never use it. Just knowing that they have the option teduces distress.
the Disability advocacy group (that I've detailed who they are and where their funding comes from) have anything to do with religious groups.
apologies. i missed that.
i have said all the opposition comes from religuosgrouos. just the vast majority often disguised as in the case of Not Dead Yet
disability groups are split with some in favour some against.
You haven't engaged with any argument that opposes the right to die with anything other than a blanket "That's a fake argument raised by religious fundamentalists and propogandists, I'm not engaging with it or addressing it"
i have, detailing falsehoods. explaining reality etc etc
on tbe canadian veterans its the use of the word offer i object strongly to. it makes it sound like they were handed the paperwork there and then.. on the actual facts of the case we are in agrement apart from on this point
if i say to you " do you want to be king?" have i offered you the job or is it just nonsense as i do not have tbe aurhority to do so and you are not eligable?
thats why the word is so critical. its deliberatly used to make it sound much more serious a case than it actually was tho it was serious enough
Natrix.
On the learning disability asd aspect. This is what my sister the dutch journalist said
"Er no... never come across that at all. It would not be possible under Dutch law because you have to give consent or have given consent. There have been a few cases of people with a variety of very serious mental issues - and attempted suicides. But just autism or a learning disbility, no."
Also this was found on pubmed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37218567/
To which my sister said the author has an obsession with this topic
Make of that what you will
I suspect a kernal of truth distorted out of all recognition
Sheila Hollins who Birrell quotes is a practicing devout Roman Catholic
In 2014 Pope Francis appointed her a member of the newly created Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and she became President of the Catholic Union of Great Britain in November 2023.
From wiki so she has a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't mean her point is wrong but its something to be weighed up when judging the quality of her evidence.
The roman catholic church are vehemently opposed to all assisted dying and have in the past been found doing this take a kernal of truth and twist it to suit your argument
Just info for you
In other news the isle of man has passed an assisted dying law. Cleared their parliament completly. Just awaiting royal assent
I wonder if there will be an attempt to block it. I doubt as Starmer is in favour
In the interests of correctness I found out that the multi disciplinary review panal is based on what they do in Spain. I thought it was just in the proposed English bill.
Apparantly it works well in Spain. I still think it unneeded but I was wrong about it never being used elsewhere
I doubt anyone is still interested but here is the words from the report.
VAC employee had inappropriately raised Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) with the Veteran during a phone conversation earlier that day. The Veteran indicated the employee also referred to having provided information on MAiD to another Veteran.
Not the same as offering MAID quite clearly
At 54 I will grow old with a lot less fear if I know I have a choice if the worst happens. That would have to include dementia though. I am more than happy to sign something to that affect now.
unfortunatly none of the uk bills will cover that sort of situation. Its a lot less clear cut and much more difficult to define criteria. it also probably requires someone to give the medication rather than self administration.
The netherlands you can make an advance directive and doctors administer the meds
whilst i am very sympathetic to the plight of people with dementia, to cover them in that way is expanding things a long way
its the same with progressive neurological diseases like MND
look at the resistance and push back over the very tightly drawn uk bills. now imagine trying to get a wider bill with less clear cut criteria thru
its an aspect I am simply not sure about. On the one hand it seems absurd thst people with dementia are unable to access assisted dying. On the other had to have doctor adminstered euthanasia on a 3rd parties judgement that the patients criteria laid down in an advance directive has been met makes me uneasy
not something I have an answer for
the author has an obsession with this topic
Pot calling the kettle black???? 😎
😜
Who me?
This is the mentality we are facing. This is why care not killing oppose this. Comment from facebook
The person was asked a out why she wants to see people suffer
"Yes because if one believes that suffering is preperation for eternal life and will make up for our wrongdoings . .everyone has done them .I have seen friends and family who have been granted that time to prepare and go back to God .....We dont know whats on the other side but personally I dontwant to take the risk because a few months is nothing compared to eternity ."
This is the mentality we are facing. This is why care not killing oppose this. Comment from facebook
The person was asked a out why she wants to see people suffer
"Yes because if one believes that suffering is preperation for eternal life and will make up for our wrongdoings . .everyone has done them .I have seen friends and family who have been granted that time to prepare and go back to God .....We dont know whats on the other side but personally I dontwant to take the risk because a few months is nothing compared to eternity ."
Jeez, that's an insane position to force on another human being.
Yup.
Mainstream catholic thinking
To make it clear that is not from care not killing but one of their supporters. However Care not killing and its sister organisations are all run and funded by religious fundamentalists .
I have met a woman dying in torment because she was a catholic and couldn't understand where she had sinned so badly to die of a nasty cancer and in a lot of pain
It haunts me to this day. I can see her face now
Hi TJ, thanks for message. No, not resolved yet, I started msg you but have 'reached my limit' so have emailed instead.
This article is worth a read. It might help settle a few uneasy feelings
Is that you in the photo tj?
No its not me🤣
The latest scare tactic from care not killing is to falsely claim thst people with anorexia will be able to get assisted dying.
They are really reaching with that one. The idea is that anorexics woll starve themselve to a point death is inevitable then ask fir assisted dying. There is a specific safeguard in leadbetters bill iirc and they would fail a competency test more than likely.
Care not killing are really pumping money and effort into their campaign and using their sister organisations not dead yet and duty of care in an astroturfing campaign
They know they have lost the battle for public opinions and are getting desperate .
I wonder what the next invention will be?
Many jurisdictions have had stable laws since starting. Canadas extention to mental heath conditions was court mandated. That cannot happen here.
The slippery slope thesis is another one of care not killings inventions. It is not bourne out by examination of internatioal practice and uk law
Edinbugh southern msp is having a public debate on this. Wed 7th May at 1830 Kings buildings. I think we have a few members in that constituency. maybe go along to show support. you need to book a place. it's on his Facebook page but no link available
contact Danial Johnson msp if you dont have Facebook
oh flip. just broke the formatting
The impact assessment are out. On the government website
Expect a lot of effort from the anti side to find flaws. Check sources of information and have your pinch of salt ready
As i expected the impact assessments give lie to the anti sides objections. 10 jurisdictions were found with similar laws to the proposed bill . None of them.have extended eligability.
Contrary to Streetings claim there will be a cost saving overall. Expect hysterical reaction from the antis saying there will be pressure on induviduals to take it to save money
Safeguards in the Uk bills are more extensive than in jurisdictions with similar laws. Coercion is not seen as an issue anywhere
Disabled people will have less ability to access this due to their reduced access to healthcare. There is nothing to suggest the bill is in anyway a threat to disabled people nor has any threat to vulnerable or disabled been found in other jurisdictions with similar laws
I assume we will see a lot of nonsense about this in the next few days and of course you all know my stance but this assessment basically shoots down all the religious lobbies bogus objections
Once again I beg you to make your views known to your mps and msps. It dies make a difference and there is no harm in repeating any contacts
It is also compliant with the ECHR
Wow. Big news in that the church of Scotland have moved to a neutral stance. They have always been relatively progressive and have had a group looking into assisted dying but I didn't expect that.
We won the vote in Holyrood. Its not law yet with further stages to go but its an important step. 70 to 56. Tighter than i would like.
Personal testimony has made a difference with at least one msp saying the testimony is what changed their mind
I'm glad it got through to the next stage. Looking at the list of how the MSPs voted it was slightly disappointing to see only one of my regional MSPs for of everyone that represents me. Also I see leaders of SNP, Labour and Conservatives voted against.
