You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
tory leader voted for I think.
But Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative leader, and his deputy, Rachael Hamilton, supported it at stage one, as did the co-conveners of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater.
from the grauniad.
I thought we had persuaded Sturgeon but she voted no. A couple of others I thought we had got to change their minds and vote yes
for so many to go against their party leadership is good. Holywood has dealt with this extremely well. No one has been making inflammatory statements and it's had a good debate.
looking hopeful for Westminster as well. vote on Friday
No one has been making inflammatory statements and it's had a good debate.
I only watched small bits of the live feed on the BBC earlier in the day, and was sat there wondering why all parliamentary debate can't be as respectful as this.
Important first step.
Unfortunately this is a situation where I think separate parliaments just add issues.
What ever happens either side of the border it needs to be exactly the same outcome or there will be ‘death’ tourist to whichever country has the more lenient legislation
the Scottish Bill has a residency qualification to avoid that. 1 Yr iirc.
I would expect the Westminster bill to do the same.
imo the Scots bill is much better.
Ms Deadbetter MP will be rubbing her hands with glee at the Scottish result. Ghastly woman.
Errmmm
this vote was for the Scottish Bill.
editb: the site formatting means I missed you know that
Westminster bill on Friday and the signs are good for a yes vote.
70 to 56 probably represents the range of views I've heard personally, with a big percentage of that 56 having some reservations about detail/scope/control rather than being fundamentally opposed. If our MSPs can hammer out more of that then I expect the majority to be greater by the time the next stage completes.
Will be very interested to see what happens in England on Friday. I haven't changed my mind tj, still very concerned.
Looking at the names some of whom i have spoken to i would tend to agree. About half the no voters are fundamentally opposed on religious grounds. I know at least 2 that i have spoken to that i thought had gone from undecided to yes but voted no. Sturgeon went from a certain no to " maybe yes" but voted no.
I am sure the decision weighed heavy on some of them. It is a momentous step and to vote for the status quo is the easier option.
Its a bigger majority than I expected. Many folk held firm to vote yes
Its a fine example of Holyrood working well.
Why are you concerned CG?
Can I assuage your fears?
Ms Deadbetter MP will be rubbing her hands with glee at the Scottish result. Ghastly woman.
eh?, how is she ghastly?
What can I say. Thats simply untrue.
Disability is not a qualifying condition. Disabled folk would only qualify if the have a terminal illness as well as their disability and even then they have to ask for it. Disabled people are simply not at risk at all from an assisted dying bill. The vast majority of disabled people are in favour of assited dying being made law.
The imact assessment shows that due to disabled people having difficlty in accessing healthcare they would be less likely to access it
Thete is neither logic nor any evidence for her assertion She mentions folj with MND. many folk with MND want this widened because under the proposed bills they could not access it because of the tight definitions
The amendments she refers to were designed to wreck the bill not protect folk in the main and also coukd be seen as discriminatory in preventing sections of society from accessing it thus would fail an equalities challenge hence a wrecking amendment
She makes the bogus claim about folk with anorexia having access to assisted dying. That is again simply not true. Anorexia is not a terminal illness
Leadbetters bill in Westminster has protections far greater than in any othet jurisdiction
No other jurisdiction has seen any evidence to suggest disabled folk will be at risk.
She creates an imaginary scenario where dictors will push disabled folk into this or even sign them up for it against their will. A vile assertion
I do not know her motivations for her opposition but her arguements hold no validity
Note no evidence is given
This from the RCP has given me pause to think. Some points i consider false ie the same point about anorexia but some that will need a resolution
I just want to say a bit more about the amendment mentioed above where homeless and prisoners would be excluded from accessing assisted dying. This is a classic from the playbook from the anti side. At first glance it seems reasonable as tbese are vulnerable people. However its purpose was not to protect these people. Its purpose was either to wreck the bill if passed as it would not stand up to an equalities challenge. You cannot exclude folk from a state service as was seen with the prisoners challenge over voting rights or if rejected then tbe anti side are able to make the claim that there is no protection for vulnerable people and that protections were rejected.
Totally misleading and a deliberate action. This is how the anti side work. They know they have lost the arguement and public opinion so do stuff like this to sew doubt and confusion.
Vote won in Westminster. Now its off to the lords. The lords have previously voted for this but the antis are threatening using procedural rules to wreck it
2nd vote in Scotland is due soon IIRC
TJ - apologies, it's probably been covered above somewhere...Thinking about Streeting's cost comments,
Is assisted dying operating at the moment in any nations with healthcare free at the point of delivery?
Also - where are folk in the UK driving the for campaign envisaging it happening? Hospitals, Hospices, at home or new bespoke centres? Or all of the above?
I can totally see it being something someone who has had their healthcare through the NHS all their life (and is philosophically wedded to that being the right approach) being prepared to pay out for to have the best experience, more for their surviving relatives if not for themselves. But I'm acutely aware a 'two speed' experience would be highly problematic.
Is assisted dying operating at the moment in any nations with healthcare free at the point of delivery?
Yes - plenty of them. Canada and low countries come to mind
Also - where are folk in the UK driving the for campaign envisaging it happening? Hospitals, Hospices, at home or new bespoke centres? Or all of the above?
IMO it should just be an integral part of healthcare so all of the above as is the norm and not new separate service but a separate service is what is envisioned in England and Wales.
Yes - plenty of them. Canada and low countries come to mind
Canada, yes thats the best example for not having this on the books
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64004329
As Canada prepares to expand its euthanasia law to include those with mental illness, some Canadians - including many of the country's doctors - question whether the country's assisted death programme has already moved too far, too fast.
Canada, yes thats the best example for not having this on the books
Canada is the best example for having this on the books.
We've had the opportunity to watch their system and develop our safeguards modelled on other nations that do provide adequate safeguards
The question I was asked was which countries have universal free at the point of use healthcare. Canada is a good example as are the low countries of countries which do. Canada does have extremely strong safeguards
Do not mistake the anti propaganda that distorts what is happening in Canada and the reality which is its well accepted and not controversial there at all. The anti side lie, dissemble and distort cases in other countries to make their case. The actual reality is very different
As regards using mental health as a qualifying condition. There are two basic approaches to this issue. 1) use a tight definition of "terminal illness, adults of sound mind" Many jurisdictions use this and none of them have expanded scope. This is the definition used in the UK bills. Or 2) "Intolerable suffering" which is clearly much wider in scope. Canada uses this type of definition. Initially mental health was excluded but mental health advocacy groups made a court challenge and the supreme court ruled that mental health must be included in the qualifying criteria.
This could never happen in the UK for two reasons. We are using the tight definition of terminal illness and parliament is supreme not the courts.
Quite a few countries use mental health as a qualifying criteria and all use a form of words similar to "intolerable suffering over many years when all reasonable treatments have been tried and failed" Its expected Canada will do similar. Mental health is very rarely used as a qualifying condition anywhere as a result of using this very restrictive qualifying conditions.
anti campaigners claim that anyone who is a bit depressed can qualify for assisted death. this is simply untrue
Once again - please take the anti campaign with a huge pinch of salt. they routinely lie and grossly distort what is actually happening to make their case. their philosophy is called by them "fibbing for god"
That article includes some of these lies as if they were facts.
This from DavidAllenGreen Blog is apposite:
The principle is that of self-autonomy: that, as far as possible, it should be for the individual to make decisions about their own lives.
And so the preferences of someone facing an otherwise unavoidably agonising death should be accorded respect and, if possible, given effect.
There is the potential for misuse for others, but this is not itself a reason in and of itself to deny the preferences of someone facing an otherwise unavoidably agonising death to end their own life on their own terms.
It is instead an argument for preventing those abuses, and not for denying the choice to those who want to make that decision for themselves.
The practical point – which often seems missed in the discussion about the proposals – is the that the status quo is itself unsatisfactory, and based on the uncertain but generally widening discretion policy of prosectors on whether to prosecute. At the moment assisted dying to can and does escape prosecution but at the cost of unimaginable legal anxiety to those concerned.
Self autonomy protected by law such that I can call time on my own life with dignity and without leaving a mess for the emergency services to clear up is a very positive step.