| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 12:41 - Nov 29 with 2044 views | _clive_baker_ |
Such a sensitive issue isn't it, as you say some excellent points put across by both sides and really refreshing to see how dignified and respectful the discussion is. More of this in parliament please. |  | |  |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:08 - Nov 29 with 2006 views | BlueBadger |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 12:41 - Nov 29 by _clive_baker_ |
Such a sensitive issue isn't it, as you say some excellent points put across by both sides and really refreshing to see how dignified and respectful the discussion is. More of this in parliament please. |
Well, Honest Bob Jenrick has brought it down by making a wholly unnecessary, insensitive and irrelevant point about the ECHR. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 13:21]
|  |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:14 - Nov 29 with 1946 views | blueasfook |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:08 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
Well, Honest Bob Jenrick has brought it down by making a wholly unnecessary, insensitive and irrelevant point about the ECHR. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 13:21]
|
So the ECHR won't interfere in this law then (if passed)? |  |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:20 - Nov 29 with 1924 views | Churchman |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:08 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
Well, Honest Bob Jenrick has brought it down by making a wholly unnecessary, insensitive and irrelevant point about the ECHR. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 13:21]
|
He’s an irrelevant piece of gristle.
The only reason he ever got a job in government was because whoever wanted him needed somebody there they knew was even more stupid than they were. |  | | |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:24 - Nov 29 with 1903 views | Pinewoodblue |
While polls of the general public Show a massive majority in favour of assisted dying the BMA still holds a neutral stance on the subject.
Not surprising if you check a BMA poll of Doctors.
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/end-of-life/physician-assisted-
Be interested to see how big a majority the bill gets at this reading and to see how many MP abstain from voting, and avoid responsibility. |  |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:26 - Nov 29 with 1889 views | BlueBadger |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:14 - Nov 29 by blueasfook |
So the ECHR won't interfere in this law then (if passed)? |
Have they done so with Switzerland and Belgium? | |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:27 - Nov 29 with 1879 views | BlueBadger |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:24 - Nov 29 by Pinewoodblue |
While polls of the general public Show a massive majority in favour of assisted dying the BMA still holds a neutral stance on the subject.
Not surprising if you check a BMA poll of Doctors.
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/end-of-life/physician-assisted-
Be interested to see how big a majority the bill gets at this reading and to see how many MP abstain from voting, and avoid responsibility. |
As I said earlier, I'm cautiously in favour but we should absolutely not be implementing it until there is far, far, far better training, accessibility and funding for palliative and end of life care services. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:31 - Nov 29 with 1821 views | BlueBadger |
Those are all rulings on interpretation of law and not alterations. | |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:38 - Nov 29 with 1758 views | blueasfook |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:31 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
Those are all rulings on interpretation of law and not alterations. |
Did you even bother to read them? They are rulings on whether specific cases breached the Human Rights convention and in some cases finding they did, which potentially would lead to alterations of specific laws (assuming the country abides by the Human Rights convention).
Gross v. Switzerland
30 September 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment)
The case concerned the complaint of an elderly woman – who had wished to end her life
but had not been suffering from a clinical illness – that she had been unable to obtain
the Swiss authorities’ permission to be provided with a lethal dose of a drug in order to
commit suicide. The applicant complained that by denying her the right to decide by
what means and at what point her life would end the Swiss authorities had breached
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.
In its Chamber judgment in the case on 14 May 2013, the Court held, by a majority, that
there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the
Convention. It found in particular that Swiss law was not clear enough as to when
assisted suicide was permitted. The case was subsequently referred to the Grand
Chamber at the request of the Swiss Government. In January 2014 the Swiss
Government informed the Court that it had learned that the applicant had died in
November 2011. In its Grand Chamber judgment of 30 September 2014 the Court has,
by a majority, declared the application inadmissible. It came to the conclusion that the
applicant had intended to mislead the Court on a matter concerning the very core of her
complaint. In particular, she had taken special precautions to prevent information about
her death from being disclosed to her counsel, and thus to the Court, in order to prevent
the latter from discontinuing the proceedings in her case. The Court therefore found that
her conduct had constituted an abuse of the right of individual application (Article 35 §§
3 (a) and 4 of the Convention). As a result of this judgment, the findings of the Chamber
judgment of 14 May 2013, which had not become final, are no longer legally valid | |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:40 - Nov 29 with 1745 views | BlueBadger |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:38 - Nov 29 by blueasfook |
Did you even bother to read them? They are rulings on whether specific cases breached the Human Rights convention and in some cases finding they did, which potentially would lead to alterations of specific laws (assuming the country abides by the Human Rights convention).
Gross v. Switzerland
30 September 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment)
The case concerned the complaint of an elderly woman – who had wished to end her life
but had not been suffering from a clinical illness – that she had been unable to obtain
the Swiss authorities’ permission to be provided with a lethal dose of a drug in order to
commit suicide. The applicant complained that by denying her the right to decide by
what means and at what point her life would end the Swiss authorities had breached
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.
In its Chamber judgment in the case on 14 May 2013, the Court held, by a majority, that
there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the
Convention. It found in particular that Swiss law was not clear enough as to when
assisted suicide was permitted. The case was subsequently referred to the Grand
Chamber at the request of the Swiss Government. In January 2014 the Swiss
Government informed the Court that it had learned that the applicant had died in
November 2011. In its Grand Chamber judgment of 30 September 2014 the Court has,
by a majority, declared the application inadmissible. It came to the conclusion that the
applicant had intended to mislead the Court on a matter concerning the very core of her
complaint. In particular, she had taken special precautions to prevent information about
her death from being disclosed to her counsel, and thus to the Court, in order to prevent
the latter from discontinuing the proceedings in her case. The Court therefore found that
her conduct had constituted an abuse of the right of individual application (Article 35 §§
3 (a) and 4 of the Convention). As a result of this judgment, the findings of the Chamber
judgment of 14 May 2013, which had not become final, are no longer legally valid |
But, they're not actually 'interfering' with the law though are they? They're making rulings on them.
And frankly, if you are implementing a law like this, protections should be as maximal as possible. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 13:42]
| |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 14:08 - Nov 29 with 1669 views | Ryorry |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:27 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
As I said earlier, I'm cautiously in favour but we should absolutely not be implementing it until there is far, far, far better training, accessibility and funding for palliative and end of life care services. |
That’s an ideal which could take decades, if ever, though Badger, given resources and state of the NHS, sadly. Meanwhile …
Heard little of the debate, but very impressive speech from Andrew Mitchell (I think it was; Sutton Coldfield) - who amongst other things pointed out that if the Bill were to be passed, it would impose a far greater degree of regulation than currently exists.
As things are, people may resort to their own desperate and sometimes terrible methods of suicide, with their nearest and dearest having the shock of finding them; or being placed in invidious positions if they were asked to help. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 14:23]
|  |
| |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 15:23 - Nov 29 with 1544 views | Crawfordsboot |
| This really is Parliament at its absolute best isn't it? on 13:14 - Nov 29 by blueasfook |
So the ECHR won't interfere in this law then (if passed)? |
My understanding is that the ECHR has stated very clearly that assisted dying is a matter for individual parliaments to decide.
Individuals can always bring claims to the ECHR to argue various points about their individual rights under their own country’s laws but they can only do so in the context of the basic premise as above. |  | | |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 16:24 - Nov 29 with 1462 views | BlueBadger |
38 'no vote'.
[Post edited 29 Nov 2024 16:25]
| |
| |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 16:47 - Nov 29 with 1400 views | gtsb1966 |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 16:24 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
38 'no vote'.
[Post edited 29 Nov 2024 16:25]
|
And so it should pass. Happy with that. |  | | |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 16:58 - Nov 29 with 1388 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 16:24 - Nov 29 by BlueBadger |
38 'no vote'.
[Post edited 29 Nov 2024 16:25]
|
Some surprises in the voting. Didn’t expect Wes Streeting to vote against. | |
| |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 17:30 - Nov 29 with 1315 views | Ryorry |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 16:58 - Nov 29 by Pinewoodblue |
Some surprises in the voting. Didn’t expect Wes Streeting to vote against. |
He's always been against, at least since speaking out as Health Sec hasn't he? I suppose being in the position he's in, he has to err on the side of caution/the status quo on such a contentious matter. | |
| |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 17:40 - Nov 29 with 1287 views | gtsb1966 |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 17:30 - Nov 29 by Ryorry |
He's always been against, at least since speaking out as Health Sec hasn't he? I suppose being in the position he's in, he has to err on the side of caution/the status quo on such a contentious matter. |
Why someone would vote against it is beyond me. With the safeguards it shouldn't have been close. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 17:54 - Nov 29 with 1231 views | vapour_trail |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 17:40 - Nov 29 by gtsb1966 |
Why someone would vote against it is beyond me. With the safeguards it shouldn't have been close. |
Really did not expect this bill to progress.
Very good news for the dignity of unwell people, and more broadly removing the influence of religion from our laws. [Post edited 29 Nov 2024 18:02]
|  |
| |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 18:15 - Nov 29 with 1175 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 17:40 - Nov 29 by gtsb1966 |
Why someone would vote against it is beyond me. With the safeguards it shouldn't have been close. |
Religion. The root of much evil | | | |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 18:25 - Nov 29 with 1139 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Bill passed 330-275 (n/t) on 17:40 - Nov 29 by gtsb1966 |
Why someone would vote against it is beyond me. With the safeguards it shouldn't have been close. |
I can see the argument for why not. When those safeguards fail, which they will, the outcome is irreversible. But yes, this will also make a huge difference to some people who are trapped in a spiral of pain with no prospect of release. Both the for and against arguments raise valid points imo, so I’m quite surprised to see it pass so easily.
Such a sensitive issue. I can think of one case in my family where someone probably would have chosen this route, yet I don’t know how I feel about that. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
