Congrats UK #HouseOfLords for blocking #AssistedDying Bill. 👍
I strongly support the principle of right to die, but I oppose legalisation without strong protection against #coercion. #KimLeadbeater's botched bill was opposed by every disability group. It's a scandal that her liberal supporters allowed this disgrace to pass the #HouseOfCommons.
I am unpersuaded that any safeguards could ever be adequate. But a #PrivateMembersBill will always be under-prepared.
Er, seven members of the HoL scuppered it. In fact, we 'luvvies' (although I lived my first nineteen years on a rough Council estate) can easily go to Dignitas (although we prejudice any one who assists us. I already subscribe with my 80 euros p.a.). It will be the poor consigned to shitty 'care' homes monopolized by private equity who will suffer and those people with MND who wish to die but can't make Dignitas. As for palliative care, good luck with that as the NHS crashes - an impossible promise. The chance has gone for a dignified end of life for most.
The bill requires both independent assessing doctors receive specific training to recognise coercion during their patient assessment. Plus it made coercion in this context a criminal act. The multidisciplinary panel tasked with vetting the patient's application and doctors approval would also be looking for signs of coercion, before they allow it to proceed.
So a lot of thought and attention has been put into this.
Sigh. @linuxgnome I am open to the tgeoretucal5 posdibility that adequate safeguards may devised, tho I don't see how.
I note how your attempt at pejorative framing wholly omits any expression of concern for vulnerable people who object to the risk they face of being coerced into a premature death.
Not a squeak on it.
But if #Euthanasia is not legalised, people will still have the option to commit suicide, as they always have had. Victims of coercion have no alternative.
The option to commit suicide is not just a self-regarding action. It traumatises others - train drivers, car drivers, those who find the body unexpectedly. Some are not capable of committing suicide - the wheelchair-bound MND sufferer. Personally, I believe that sufficient safeguards were included in the bill and that extensive consultation had been achieved. What the small nexus in the Lords has produced is counter-productive - there is a backlash which could have been avoided.
@linuxgnome Of course suicide has downsides. That's why I would prefer that assisted dying should be available IF safeguards are adequate.
No assisted dying does not mean no alternatives.But inadequate safeguards DOES mean no alternative to dewth.
I note how you assert YOUR belief about safeguards. YOUR belief.
You still don't even dismiss the voices of he disabled people who need safeguards. You repeatedly ignore disabled voices. Your "belief" trumps their voices and their lives.
The HoC believed there were adequate safeguards as did many in the Lords. I have DD for Scope and Marie Curie and have collected over weeks for Marie Curie. My dad died over two long years of lung cancer. My family received no palliative care or visits. He could have died with dignity. I am now seriously considering removing support from both those organizations and increasing my DD for YMCAHousing for young people. Disabled voices include those with MND and other illnesses who wish to die - their voices are not represented by the organizations and the Lords, some of whom are just obstructive because they are simply opposed to the right to die.
@linuxgnome @mackaj Again, you continue to dismiss the voices of disabled people.
I am sure that your direct debit are very helpful, but a few quid a month doesn't seem to me to give a single penny's worth of right to ignore voices of marginalised people who experience coercion and fear for their lives.
As to Commons's votes, that's an assembly where ⅓ of votes got ⅔ of seats, and those ⅔ of seat-holders were filtered by Mandelson. The Commons is a corrupt anti-democracy.
No, I represent the voices of those people with physical and mental disabilities who wish to die. The organizations ignore them.
'A few quid a month' - bollocks - more than 10% of my income goes to various charities and I am a pensioner.
Oh, so the seven peers in the HoL are democracy?
@linuxgnome Yes, suicide is a difficult or impossible option for many people. That's one of the reasons why assisted dying is a desirable goal.
But the problem with the advocates of assisted dying it is that so many of them are, like you, so fixated on that goal 5hat the very realcincerns of disabled people are dismissed,. Your self-appointmrnt is really not a good look, not at all.
>>
@linuxgnome Having watched up close how coercion is exercised within families and medical systems, I am convinced that protecting against it would be very difficult snd hence very expensive. House prices and care costs are now so high that even modest families have hundreds of thousands at stake. The incentives for killing are now huge.
>>
@linuxgnome Effective safeguards would require the level of scrutiny applied to criminal trials, which could easily £1 billion per year. That sort of money is not on the table. The luvvies are trying to emotionally bully the disabled into a neoliberal killing machine which will kill on the cheap.
@linuxgnome No, of course the 7 peers are not democracy. But nor are the 400 Starmtroopers, which is Leadbeater's claim.
And your self-appointment is also not democracy.
Sorry I've been away from here for a short while so missed these posts.
When you talk of the disabled and vulnerable you seem to be missing the context that the AD Bill only applies to people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness and a doctor's assessment that estimates EOL within 6 months.
Without some unforeseen medical intervention, they're dying, and soon.
People in that situation should be entitled to choices. Including those who are disabled.
@mackaj You seem to assume that life expectancy is objectively measurable. Not so; it's an estimate, often with much uncertainty.
And like other supporters of the bill, you show zero interest in the unanimous opposition from disability orgs. Not a good look.
I already acknowledged it's an estimate, but it's an educated estimate. There is historical data doctors can access on the progress of a terminal illnesses in relation to actual time of death. The judgement they have to make is how far their patient is along that path.
I've seen a lot of opposition from disability spokespeople who think the AD Bill is a threat to people who aren't terminally ill. A complete contradiction of what the Bill actually says.
@mackaj So now you dismiss all disability spokespeople because one or two screwed up. Not a good look.
I see no effort from you to take disabled voices seriously.
I've had plenty of back and forth discussions ( not here ) with disabled spokespeople or advocates about this.
Those that know it's for terminal illness are usually scared it'll change later and cite MAID as an example. But they never look deeper to discover that MAID from the outset was very different to the UK AD Bill. It didn't lock Terminal Illness into its requirements. It's wording was more flexible and conflicted with Canada's constitutional law.
@mackaj Again, all your attention seems to be focused on dismissing disabled people as ignorant and wrong. Not a good look.
I hear no acknowledgement from you of the possibility of coercion, the economic interests which can drive coercion, or the very high level of resources needed to detect coercion.
This is a persistent feature of supporters of the bill. I see a repeated attempt to dismiss objections, rather than good faith efforts to ask what safeguards need to achieve.
"Not a good look"
I'm not interested in looking good. I want people facing an imminent end of life through terminal illness to be given agency, dignity and control over their last days.
So what safeguards would you suggest are needed that aren't already covered by the Bill?
I hope you don't respond to that by posting screenshots of rejected bad faith amendments.
@mackaj I dunno why you warn me against posting screenshots of rejected bad faith amendments. I don't do that, and have never done that.
The accusation is bizarre, and an act of bad faith by you.
It has as much merit as someone asking you to not assault disabled people. There is no evidence that you have ever done that or have any inclination to do that, so the warning would just be a smear.
@mackaj I too want people facing an imminent end of life through terminal illness to be given agency, dignity & control over their last days. I stated that clearly in my initial posts.
I also want safeguards which allocate a high level of expert skills & resources to detect coercion, which is often subtle, manipulative, shrouded in deceit and false accusation. This needs multi-disciplinary expertise, as is used in criminal cases. Nothing remotely resembling that was on offer in this bill.
Implementation specifics aren't given, but it does state:
+ Both independent doctors must be trained in investigating and detecting coercion.
+ The patient's GP must be updated at all times and receive copies of all documentation.
+ A court has to give permission to proceed further.
+ A multi disciplinary panel must review all evidence and unanimously approve.
+ Coercion is criminalised, punishable by jail time.
100% guarantees are impossible. But I'm satisfied that's enough.
@mackaj I am astonished that any person who claims to act in good faith could have expressed any hint of satisfaction at a process which carries no guarantee of resources, is based on no evidenced assessment of resources needed, and is rejected by all disability organisations.
That sort of claim of adequacy is so shoddy that its contemptible.
Do you actively hate disabled people?
Not in the slightest. I feel quite angry actually that so many of them have been used and lied to; had their fears stoked and weaponised by people who are ideologically opposed to this bill, and wouldn't accept it under any circumstances.
The bill treats both disabled and abled equally in terms of it's acceptance criteria and opportunity.
@mackaj The liars & users are people like you who demand the enactment of a set of safeguards which lacks any resource commitment, has zero evidence base, risibly promotes doctors as experts about coercion, has no mandatory police involvement ... and arrogantly proclaims themselves as better able to judge disabled interests than disabled people.
It's the same patriarchal override repeatedly used by colonists and misogynists, who pronounced themselves as best judges of other people's interests.
"mandatory police involvement"
You want terminally ill people who apply for AD to be subject to a police investigation to check for coercion. Bloody hell 😲
I checked. Not one country or jurisdiction where AD is offered does this. Not anywhere.
Switzerland does a retrospective police and a medical examiner check afterwards, because technically every AD death is reported as an "unnatural death". That's as close as it gets.
Those screenshots are a usual response when I get to this stage in these conversations, so I was anticipating it and I'm a bit touchy about it. It wasn't personal.
@mackaj No. It was personal, because it was aimed at me, without evidence that I use such techniques.
I don't see an apology 😞
Claire McNab
Wittgenstein's Poker 🇵🇸 ☮️
Mackaj