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. 

[CurlsLikeTattie]

44 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

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. 

Absolutely. I try to think of this at a human level first of all, but the financial implications of 'man's' obsession with constantly prolonging life (for the benefit of the receiver or not) are huge and simply cannot be supported. Especially given, as you point out, the dropping fertility rate that will further contribute to a shift in age demographics with more pensioners to support. And as people live longer (either naturally through medical advances, or artificially through machines) there simply won't be enough in the pot to support social services - so we get to that survival based on wealth (which you could easily argue we already have - but that gap will just widen).

What's the answer when, through medical advances, we all live to 150 (compos mentis or not). Make us work to 120 to keep the pot topped up. Fuck that. I would rather be dead at 80 than work for 100 years.

Now, I am not suggesting we take a Logan's Run approach and vapourise people at a set age. But bodies have a natural shelf life. When that is reached, let it be, and let us slip away in comfort when there is no more quality of life. Keep the population balance at a more sustainable level, and allow people to fully enjoy the finite time we have on this planet whilst accepting it is not forever.

And when we are proper fucked got absolutely no life to look forward to, why is it that can we decide a dog or a cat will have no quality of life, therefore it is better for them if they are 'put out of their misery', but we can't do this for a person - instead we need to keep them going for our own selfish wants. It's just wrong. There is no humanity in that. "I'll make you suffer in pain or in a vegetative state because it would be really sad if you weren't around any more and I' not ready to say goodbye" (slightly over simplifying things, but you get the gist).

Our bodies, our choice. 

And I am genuinely sorry if I offend anyone with my belief that we should be allowed to die our own way. I have seen a lot of unnecessary suffering and can see no good in blocking assisted dying.