MPs on Friday voted in principle to allow the terminally ill to get help ending their lives, with 330 MPs backing the move and 275 voting against in a historic decision.
An impact assessment will now be conducted by the Government, with two opponents – Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, and Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary – expected to play key roles.
The Telegraph understands that the knock-on effect on court backlogs, NHS waiting lists, the quality of palliative care and wider pressures on doctors will all be scrutinised.
It’s going to sail through that. Sail. Simply because killing people is cheap.
After all, the reason the Nazis started all that killing – at Pirna and the like – was because it was cheap.
Getting a bit over-emotional aren’t we Tim?
As far as I understand it, this is for people who have been determined to have 6 months or less left to live, which isn’t the same as herding three year old kids onto trains to Auschwitz is it?
I think Tim has it about right, Addolff and despite the name, your characterisation is wrong.
The comparison isn’t Auschwitz, it’s Aktion T4, which was doctors deliberately murdering the deformed, disabled and the hard of understanding to save the state money and to give parents the freedom to spend time growing their healthier youngsters rather than wasting it on those who would never lead the charge into battle.
For myself, every time “elective death” has been introduced, the grip on who would be eligible and why has rapidly loosened. Given the state financing of the NHS, I would expect the loosening of criteria to happen rapidly once people got used to the idea of doctors murdering folk in their care.
In the Canadian MAID scheme they are already past the point of pushing people into elective death for essentially financial reasons and MAID has only been running for about 8 years.
Are we any more moral than Canadians?
As for poor granny, some of them are sitting on very valuable housing assets, so if the bastard grandkids haven’t got the balls to do the midnight “pillow over the face” routine and potentially subjecting themselves to a murder investigation, how much easier and convenient to just brainwash granny into requesting her own elective death.
The reference to Pirna there. It’s before the Final S etc. This is how it started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenstein_Euthanasia_Centre
I expect us to go that far down that slope. Not to the trains, obviously, but this far. That the disabled, physically, mentally etc, will be offed. I also expect bed blocking to become an accepted, even justified, reason. Dead Weight Existences….
Bernard Levin called this the Fallacy of the Altered Standpoint. Because we now do this, here, which we previously didn’t, then the way we view that next step is different.
After all, the reason the Nazis started all that killing – at Pirna and the like – was because it was cheap.
You’re comparing batch production with job production there, Tim. The cost in administrative “oversight” and bureaucratic “supervision” for each individual topping will take hours and hours of compliance checking but little actual thought.
Addolff – who will do the “determining”, how accurate will it be and who would have the power to raise a challenge? Just as with the mental health of the mother for abortion, my fear is that this requirement will simply be nodded through.
As Tim Worstall takes great pains to point out, the highly efficient NHS always ensures that the last days of anyone with a terminal disease are pain free.
In this case, as in for the UK, Tim is actually right.
Because in the argumentation regarding allowing it or not, there are two very big Red Flags raised: NHS waiting lists, and Court Backlogs.
Which both should have no consideration in the matter at all…
If well implemented, there shouldn’t be any impact on court backlogs at all. Because the process in and of itself, with its intermediary checkpoints should be clear enough to reduce any juridical input to mere administrative logging, except for the cases where either doctor or family is trying to pull a fast one. Which cases would end up in Court anyway when found out.
But the biggest Red Flag is the “Waiting List” argument which shouldn’t be a consideration at all in the discussion. Lest immideate associations with past german and swedish(!) practices are made. And rightly so.
Afaik this has never been an argument pro in any of the countries that have instituted assisted life termination. because of the above.
Sure as hell has been used by opponents to try and twig the Feelz during the discussion, and after, and whenever the issue comes up. But not the pro camp.
And here the UK actually goes and takes it into consideration in their “assessment”….
So yes, @John Galt, the UK is worse than Canada. On par with 60’s/70’s Sweden, possibly slightly below. Which takes some doing, really…
…and this is just the legislative starting point in a country which hasn’t had state sanctioned murder (except for criminals), yet ended up with the “Liverpool Pathway” and the effective murder of 456 patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital between 1987 and 2001.
Gosport hospital drug deaths: Police identify 19 suspects
Next time we’re banging pots and pans for Our NHS, people will be afraid to stop.
Currently they use intravenous morphine. This Act will prescribe oral barbiturates.
25% of pregnancies end in abortion. When will the % of deaths by assistance surpass this?
Medicine is becoming ever more specialised. We should have a Royal College of Abortionists, a Royal College of Mercy Killers, etc.
philip – Order of the Seekers of Truth and Penitence.
As I understand it, any action will require the agreement of two doctors. We may then come back to the case of one person not understanding the words of the other because of their strong foreign accent. I’m surprised Month Python didn’t do a sketch about this.
a Royal College of Mercy Killers, etc.
Harold Shipman University.
Well they’ve passed some sort of legislation. As someone who’s in favour of the principal, can’t say I’m in favour of it, on what I’ve heard of it.
I am an absolutest on the subject, I just believe people should have a right to top themselves whenever they feel like & can organise assistance if they need it I don’t like the qualifications & I don’t like doctors being involved in it. It’s not a medical matter. The decision may be that. But that’s a totally unrelated thing.
But what happens when you get the State involved, of course.
The “safeguards” will last as long as it takes someone to go to the ECHR and claim their yooman rights are being infringed. Then we’re on the Canada road of death being the routine treatment for paper cuts and hay fever.
And can we have the death penalty back if we call it “assisted dying for criminals”?
If you’re intent on talking grannie into off herself, what’s better than a couple of
leachesdoctors to get their oar in.Currently they use intravenous morphine. This Act will prescribe oral barbiturates.
This is part of the problem. People who have terminal illnesses don’t tend to have the best of digestive systems and it can take some time for the barbiturates to take effect. I can’t vouch for it but one thread on X claimed 4+ hours is not unusual.
OT but on a similar theme….
Apparently the government’s plans to kill off football as a successful product by appointing a regulator will be coming out of committee soon and by all accounts its going even further that the idiotic Tories planned.
Apparently one of the considerations for doctors when appraising the toppee is the length of the waiting list for further (non-lethal) treatment so it’s delete ordinary for the principle of primum non nocere.
UK deaths will be more dignified than even Canada’s.
Steve: When they were banging pots and pans last time, I was too busy looking after my ailing mother because Their NHS couldn’t be arsed.
This Act will prescribe oral barbiturates.
This is actually one of the recommended ways to fail in a suicide attempt.
The wealthy already have access to end of life care which includes a great big blast of morphine when it’s time to go. This proposed change in the law extends the same benefit to the plebs and consequently needs condemning by people who will never be affected by it.
As always, in life what counts are large amounts!