| Assisted dying debate on 12:07 - Jan 26 with 999 views | bluelagos |
| Assisted dying debate on 11:37 - Jan 26 by BloomBlue |
Belgium does have assisted dying but I think there has been a couple of cases where that's made them reasses.
I know there was a case last year involving a 64 year old women who was euthanised with the explanation that she had been suffering from ‘untreatable depression’. It was in the news because her son took it to the European court of human rights as he was only informed she had been euthanised the day after it had happened.
There was another case of a 38 year old woman who was diagnosed with autism, euthanised because of her mental health issues. The question being asked shouldn't they be cared for rather than euthanised
The trouble with this topic is people will often say I agree with it when factoring in the individual being really old, less agreement when factoring in younger people. In Belgium the rule is based around 'untreatable condition'. Where does that start and caring for the individual stop? |
Quite a few ethical questions there.
The rights of a son to influence his mother's treatment.
The rights of someone with depression to die.
The right of someone with illness to die.
The right of people not facing imminent death to make a choice.
There are lots of ethical questions,dangers and practical difficulties. But that shouldn't be an excuse to "do nothing" because it's difficult imho.
We need to ask the question "should we allow some people the right to die?" and if we agree, then find a solution. There are 101 reasons to avoid it, but that lets down everyone who would benefit from the proposed changes in law. |  |
|  |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:35 - Jan 26 with 940 views | DJR |
| Assisted dying debate on 11:01 - Jan 26 by DJR |
I think the overturning of the Roe v Wade decision, and the suggestion of the Scottish government outlawing abortion, is a bit of a red herring because abortion is not a political issue in the UK, outside certain Tory MPs and the DUP.
Personally, I don't think Scotland going a different way on the certain things is really an issue. After all, with some things (eg. gay marriage), England acted first. And even when powers were centralised, different parts of the UK had different laws on things like homosexuality, which reflected the different views in different parts of the UK.
It must be borne in mind that Scotland has had different laws on different things for many centuries without it causing any problems. It's just that as part of the Tory culture wars such things are being highlighted and built up to be problems that they really aren't.
Finally, if you were to take abortion away from the Scottish Parliament, this would presumably prevent things like the proposed Abortion Services Safe Access Zones (Scotland) Bill.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2023 11:20]
|
Following on from my mention of marriage, Scotland has long had a lower age for marriage and no need for parental consent, leading to Gretna Green becoming famous in English folklore.
This has not caused any issues, but with the modern day culture wars, if the age were the same in each country, and Scotland proposed to reduce it, no doubt the same sort of furore would arise in England as has happened on another issue, with scare stories of young people being put at risk, or parents not having control. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 12:36]
|  | | |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:39 - Jan 26 with 936 views | Ryorry |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:07 - Jan 26 by bluelagos |
Quite a few ethical questions there.
The rights of a son to influence his mother's treatment.
The rights of someone with depression to die.
The right of someone with illness to die.
The right of people not facing imminent death to make a choice.
There are lots of ethical questions,dangers and practical difficulties. But that shouldn't be an excuse to "do nothing" because it's difficult imho.
We need to ask the question "should we allow some people the right to die?" and if we agree, then find a solution. There are 101 reasons to avoid it, but that lets down everyone who would benefit from the proposed changes in law. |
All your questions above are spot on, and highlight why looking at the whole issue in theory via debate is always going to be insufficient.
There will never be legislation that can cover all eventualities, every situation and all individuals are different - every single one would need to be assessed separately. People change, and may well change their minds when faced with a real rather than a theoretical situation. |  |
| |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:45 - Jan 26 with 933 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Assisted dying debate on 11:55 - Jan 26 by Darth_Koont |
That’s a hell of a straw man there. More of a wicker man if I’m being honest.
All the signs point to UK-wide legislation being the more repressive and outdated if we’re assessing risks to people’s rights. So your concerns justify an independent Scottish approach even more. |
It's not a straw man because we have seen exactly this happen in the States. |  |
| |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:53 - Jan 26 with 913 views | DJR |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:45 - Jan 26 by GlasgowBlue |
It's not a straw man because we have seen exactly this happen in the States. |
But we're talking about the UK, not the USA where abortion is very much an issue.
Abortion has been legal in England, Wales and Scotland since 1967, and there is no political clamour for change. In any event, with a socially-conservative Tory government, there is more chance of restrictions etc from them, than from the Scottish government. | | | |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:54 - Jan 26 with 910 views | Darth_Koont |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:45 - Jan 26 by GlasgowBlue |
It's not a straw man because we have seen exactly this happen in the States. |
Yes, only the other way around in the UK generally speaking.
The dangerous, reactionary people and their laws are in central government and Westminster. You have to go to Northern Ireland to even make that a two-way thing.
But glad you are also wary of anyone who is trying to make the U.K. a less liberal, democratic and forward-facing country. You’re always a decade or two late getting there but you get there in the end. |  |
| |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:58 - Jan 26 with 896 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:53 - Jan 26 by DJR |
But we're talking about the UK, not the USA where abortion is very much an issue.
Abortion has been legal in England, Wales and Scotland since 1967, and there is no political clamour for change. In any event, with a socially-conservative Tory government, there is more chance of restrictions etc from them, than from the Scottish government. |
The issue isn't abortion. The issue is devolved governments having the sort of power that affects life or death decisions. Abortion is used as an example where everyone was up in arms with the court devolving the the decision. It doesn't have to be abortion.
If you support devolved governments having the power to pass assisted dying legislation that is different from the rest of the UK then you are going to have top be in favour of devolved governments passing legislation in favour of issues you would find abhorrent.
That's the point I'm making. Scotland seems to be going down the route of governing as an independent nation in all but name. | |
| |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:04 - Jan 26 with 880 views | DJR |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:39 - Jan 26 by Ryorry |
All your questions above are spot on, and highlight why looking at the whole issue in theory via debate is always going to be insufficient.
There will never be legislation that can cover all eventualities, every situation and all individuals are different - every single one would need to be assessed separately. People change, and may well change their minds when faced with a real rather than a theoretical situation. |
Sadly, with the culture wars in England and the presence of Bishops in the Lords, I can't see a rational debate about this issue taking place in England, whatever its merits. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Assisted dying debate on 13:05 - Jan 26 with 877 views | Ryorry |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:04 - Jan 26 by DJR |
Sadly, with the culture wars in England and the presence of Bishops in the Lords, I can't see a rational debate about this issue taking place in England, whatever its merits. |
Good point. | |
| |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:19 - Jan 26 with 866 views | DJR |
| Assisted dying debate on 12:58 - Jan 26 by GlasgowBlue |
The issue isn't abortion. The issue is devolved governments having the sort of power that affects life or death decisions. Abortion is used as an example where everyone was up in arms with the court devolving the the decision. It doesn't have to be abortion.
If you support devolved governments having the power to pass assisted dying legislation that is different from the rest of the UK then you are going to have top be in favour of devolved governments passing legislation in favour of issues you would find abhorrent.
That's the point I'm making. Scotland seems to be going down the route of governing as an independent nation in all but name. |
It isn't governing as an independent nation, it's merely acting within the powers given to it. Indeed, the Scottish assisted dying bill is a member's bill which hasn't even been introduced, and probably has no chance of becoming law.
In any event, the Scottish government is much more progressive than the Tory government, so the risks you point to are much more likely to emerge from the Tories, as we are finding out to our cost with people like Suella Braverman about.
It is clear from history that the Tories have been reactionary on many social issues, with the exception of David Cameron, so believing that the risks come from the Scottish government seems a bit over the top.
Further, any Scottish legislation has to be compatible with the Human Rights Act, so they wouldn't be able to introduce legislation requiring, say, compulsory euthanasia, if that is the concern. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 13:20]
| | | |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:24 - Jan 26 with 856 views | DJR |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:05 - Jan 26 by Ryorry |
Good point. |
It looks like Scotland, to its credit, is trying to have this debate, although it is not clear to me the proposed legislation has any chance of success as it is only a private member's bill.
Indeed, were Scotland to have fully examined the issue, and come up with a completely sound policy, any legislation that had a chance of passing would be attacked from the right as part of the culture wars. | | | |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:31 - Jan 26 with 853 views | Churchman |
| Assisted dying debate on 13:19 - Jan 26 by DJR |
It isn't governing as an independent nation, it's merely acting within the powers given to it. Indeed, the Scottish assisted dying bill is a member's bill which hasn't even been introduced, and probably has no chance of becoming law.
In any event, the Scottish government is much more progressive than the Tory government, so the risks you point to are much more likely to emerge from the Tories, as we are finding out to our cost with people like Suella Braverman about.
It is clear from history that the Tories have been reactionary on many social issues, with the exception of David Cameron, so believing that the risks come from the Scottish government seems a bit over the top.
Further, any Scottish legislation has to be compatible with the Human Rights Act, so they wouldn't be able to introduce legislation requiring, say, compulsory euthanasia, if that is the concern. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 13:20]
|
I would trust the Scots to make better decisions than the incompetent, grasping charlatans in Westminster. The mere mention of the appalling Braverman sending a shiver down the spine. If that piece of work said night follows day, I’d check.
Scotland will soon be an independent nation. If they don’t have the powers now to make decisions on things like this, the tories and the unelected freeloaders in the HoL should grant them and stop wasting everybody’s time. |  | | |
| Assisted dying debate on 10:51 - Feb 17 with 463 views | Darth_Koont |
The exceptions don’t prove the rule. As you know.
The SNP and the wider independence movement is a broad church. There are views I disagree with like Joanna Cherry’s anti-trans position and this from Kate Forbes.
But certainly no different from the mainstream parties in Westminster who have had all manner of god-botherers and/or bigots leading the way.
Returning to the point, the SNP is more progressive than anything on offer from Westminster. After all, that’s why you hate them. 😀 | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
