DT Politics Thread

[Bukta Bertie]

34 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

One odd thing about the Lucy Letby case is that the babies names are being kept secret. That is very unusual.

 

Parents likely requested it. 

[TheDonbytheDee]

Reform have reported their concerns about family voting patterns at yesterday's by election, to the police.

Truly a cabal of c*nts.

[TheDonbytheDee]

MSPs vote against the Assisted Dying Bill

I personally believe things like this should be decided by a referendum and not by at shower of shyte in Parliament.

The result may have been the same or worse, but shouldn't be decided by politicians.

I know it's an emotive subject, but I do believe you shouldn't be allowed a vote on the matter if you believe death by suffering is Gods* will. 

I remember someone said that to me whilst I watched my mother dying. I am not a violent person, but I really wanted to kill that woman that day. 

*For the benefit of doubt, the god in question is the fake one who supposedly bides in the heavens above us and not the real one, who wore a number 6 AFC jersey with such aplomb.

 

[Mason89]

The religious have no place in parliament, as they answer to a higher authority than their constituents. 
This topic is a minefield. I think you should be able to choose your exit but you just now that some members of the Great British Public will kick the hole right out it. 

What I do know is that it’s a decision well beyond the capabilities of people like Paul Sweeney & Annie Wells etc 

[CurlsLikeTattie]

4 hours ago, Mason89 said:

The religious have no place in parliament, as they answer to a higher authority than their constituents. 
This topic is a minefield. I think you should be able to choose your exit but you just now that some members of the Great British Public will kick the hole right out it. 

What I do know is that it’s a decision well beyond the capabilities of people like Paul Sweeney & Annie Wells etc 

Just one of the many things that shits me about the anti assisted dying religious argument - when they say ending someone's life peacefully and with dignity is playing god, all whilst the patient is hooked up to machines, being artificially kept alive; all because someone decided we need to preserve life at all costs. It's the most valuable thing and not for us to decide when to end it!

My folks were (mum) and are (dad) of the mind that they would rather be allowed to pass peacefully with assistance at the point they become unaware and there is no realistic hope. I share that view - but I do understand the emotive nature of this and how people disagree. I see this from three key points:

• If I am going to have no quality of life, and going to be a burden who needs constant care, I don't want that. As soon as I lose my faculties I don't want to be a burden to others.
• There is a great cost to prolonged life when there is no hope (mostly emotional but to an great extent financial too). I don't want my family to have to suffer while I suffer. They still have lives to lead without worrying about my constant needs (my mum hung around for 2 weeks before she slipped away and we all agreed it was best for everyone as she had no hope of recovery. My dad could never have coped if she had gone home, and she wouldn't have wanted to be cared for 24/7. She was 'lucky' to go so quickly and peacefully)
• It puts a massive burden on our care services to keep people hanging on. 

I don't think we should be able to choose willy nilly when we go - but if we have made our wishes clear whilst compos mentis we should be allowed to go when we are in a position where we will have no quality of life and need support to be kept alive.

Even the god fearing USA has assisted suicide in certain states. 

I want that choice. My choice. Not some god fearing politician. And not only within 6 months of dying - I don't want to be shitting my pants in a home for 10 years. Let me decide what's best for me.

[RicoS321]

48 minutes ago, CurlsLikeTattie said:

Just one of the many things that shits me about the anti assisted dying religious argument - when they say ending someone's life peacefully and with dignity is playing god, all whilst the patient is hooked up to machines, being artificially kept alive; all because someone decided we need to preserve life at all costs. It's the most valuable thing and not for us to decide when to end it!

My folks were (mum) and are (dad) of the mind that they would rather be allowed to pass peacefully with assistance at the point they become unaware and there is no realistic hope. I share that view - but I do understand the emotive nature of this and how people disagree. I see this from three key points:

• If I am going to have no quality of life, and going to be a burden who needs constant care, I don't want that. As soon as I lose my faculties I don't want to be a burden to others.
• There is a great cost to prolonged life when there is no hope (mostly emotional but to an great extent financial too). I don't want my family to have to suffer while I suffer. They still have lives to lead without worrying about my constant needs (my mum hung around for 2 weeks before she slipped away and we all agreed it was best for everyone as she had no hope of recovery. My dad could never have coped if she had gone home, and she wouldn't have wanted to be cared for 24/7. She was 'lucky' to go so quickly and peacefully)
• It puts a massive burden on our care services to keep people hanging on. 

I don't think we should be able to choose willy nilly when we go - but if we have made our wishes clear whilst compos mentis we should be allowed to go when we are in a position where we will have no quality of life and need support to be kept alive.

Even the god fearing USA has assisted suicide in certain states. 

I want that choice. My choice. Not some god fearing politician. And not only within 6 months of dying - I don't want to be shitting my pants in a home for 10 years. Let me decide what's best for me.

One of the largest problems lies in your last bullet point though. It does indeed cost a lot for care services. The Scottish total fertility rate is 1.25. Without serious levels of immigration in the coming decades, the balance of age demographic is going to be unmanageable. Cost, or ability to pay, will be the difference between keeping the machines on or not. Almost certainly.