Some progress, finally.
Edit: for the benefit of the tinfoil hat wearers, assisted dying is not the same as euthanasia.
Wow, unexpected. Finally some boldness to be humane about end-of-life situations.
I just hope it comes with sensible checks and balances.
Except this is nothing like the procedure Canada has in place.
People seeking this out need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, it needs to be approved by two doctors and a judge, I believe it has to be brought up by the patient, etc.
It will be eventually, if we’re not careful. The capitalists are gradually trying to normalise it.
Canada has gone too far in terms of who is eligible for assisted suicide in many people’s opinions. For example people who are mentally ill are able to request assisted suicide from the state.
The proposed law is only available to people with a terminal illness judged to have 6 months or less to live, needs to be signed off on by two doctors and a judge, and the patient needs to take the drugs themselves. If anything it’s potentially too restrictive, but a step in the right direction.
Progress? It’ll progress until they use this as a way to shorten the NHS waiting list. “Would you like to suffer for three years or die instead”. Or better yet, “We can’t give you that, but we can euthanise you”
You are being downvoted for telling the truth. People who think the state will use this to “help” those in need have no idea how politics work
In Canada it turned into a cost cutting measure. There are several instances of people being euthanised as they had no other option. Like someone with EDS being refused treatment in America, or an ex-serviceman being refused a wheelchair ramp and offered euthanasia instead.
UK gov cuts food for children in school, cuts energy for elderly people, engage in war with a nuclear armed country. But when they start euthanasing the population its because they are concerned with the well being of people.
The issue isn’t assisted dying, the issue is capitalists trying to destroy our healthcare system.
My grandma got an euthanasia. She took ten years to express her will and when her backpain took all her quality of life, she ended it. It was a moment of grace and with the perspective I wouldn’t have wanted her to die any other way. She was 87, lived standing, stayed openminded and present until the end, died in dignity.
You look like an innocent person so i will explain the issue to you in good faith. Every bad thing that a gov has to do, they start by doing it in the name of the “good thing to do”. So first they ban homophobic books, they euthanise the ones in need, they censor people who talk offensive things, etc. But this opens the door to ban books, to euthanise people, to censor what you say. The first step is always “in the name of the good”. But politics is not a single moment, it keeps going on. Once the door is open, more or less anyone can go. Can you imagine when they start euthanising felons, for example? Do you think that if the prison wants to kill a felon, the felon will be able to argue that its actually a death sentence and they are not suffering & domt want to die? Just wait and you will see how this goes. And since its Kid Starver thars your PM now, i dont think this process will take long
This is an amazing change. I’ve seen way too many people suffering in a way that before my previous job, I couldn’t have even begun to imagine. People in agony begging to die but being forced to live.
People that would get a few hours of interrupted sleep a day, and then spend 20 hours of the day awake living in excruciating pain, begging us to covertly put them out of their misery.
Well, that’s one way to reduce, to quote Sir Starmer, “the benefits bill blighting our society”.
The restrictions are pretty reasonable. The obvious “risk” of abuse is that this is a slippery slope and both the rules get relaxed and the safeguards lose their funding and attention over time, but the chance of that happening increases over time, there’s no way in hell they’ll be making a dent in the benefits bill for the next few years.
So I don’t think your suggested link between this and the current governments goal of reducing benefits is the truth, or even particularly credible.
Maybe there will be problems in 20 years, it’s certainly a reasonable fear and I don’t blame anyone who argued against it to avoid that risk, but I can’t seriously believe that anyone thinks the government is going to use this to start killing off benefit claimants in job lots.
Tldr: your ”truth” is a pretty dumb take
If you think offering people with less than 6 months to live a way to die painlessly and with dignity is actually a conspiracy to mass-murder everybody on benefits, then you are a fucking lunatic.
You can take issue with the bill without spinning some conspiracy theory about Starmer wanting to bring about a second Holocaust.
