A Duty To Die?

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Or as Baroness Warnock put it, a way to get rid of a burden on the state or as the police chief said a fast way to a legacy. I doubt anyone could fail to have sympathy with people who help a loved one on their way for the right reasons however I don't trust our politicians in the future not to water this proposed legislation down.

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------



Yes I was thinking the same myself yesterday.

don't see a problem here as the partner if mentally competent to make this decision can easily at the same time sign over all money and property to partner or to whom they wish to leave things to before hand with a solicitor to witness they did so freely and of their own will long before doing the deed

if they are not capable of this i would hazard to say they are not capable of making the decision

where it is sudden i can understand some would say this might be a problem but really its just another reason for setting out your will with instructions in case of a situation where you feel you wouldn't want to live ! just because some wont shouldn't be a reason to put lots of vulnerable people at risk from the abuse if this law was changed

[joglynne]

As far as I know property , or monies held in joint names automatically reverts to the surviving partner so I would assume that there would be no need to include them specifically in a will leaving them to that person.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Or as Baroness Warnock put it, a way to get rid of a burden on the state or as the police chief said a fast way to a legacy. I doubt anyone could fail to have sympathy with people who help a loved one on their way for the right reasons however I don't trust our politicians in the future not to water this proposed legislation down.

Until they do, and I very much doubt they will, this is an excellent outcome.
Baroness Warnock can think terminally ill people are a burden on the state as much as she likes, I'd rather see them as the human beings that they are with their own thoughts and levels of tollerance.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by joglynne

As far as I know property , or monies held in joint names automatically reverts to the surviving partner so I would assume that there would be no need to include them specifically in a will leaving them to that person.

only if they are married and the point is you can put it all in their name while a solicitor and Dr can certify you are of sound mind and un-coerced making your death in real terms non beneficial that way as they already would have the money and it could be done so they don't ever see the will so no one could say they were the ones pushing and that it was all your decision

as the clarification seems to be going to say its only where the partner or person helping is going to benefit that prosecution may be considered so if you take away the benifit after death it mostly will remove any chance of prosecution

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Until they do, and I very much doubt they will, this is an excellent outcome.

I wonder how many people believed that murderers would see out their days in prison when the death penalty was abolished like the public were promised, makes me dread to think what this bill may develop into in the next 40 years. Already in about a year we have had a Doctor wanting to run suicide classes in God's waiting room (aka Bournemouth) and a senior government advisor advocating licensing to put people down, what next?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I wonder how many people believed that murderers would see out their days in prison when the death penalty was abolished like the public were promised, makes me dread to think what this bill may develop into in the next 40 years. Already in about a year we have had a Doctor wanting to run suicide classes in God's waiting room (aka Bournemouth) and a senior government advisor advocating licensing to put people down, what next?

You equate releasing people on parole with allowing people to be pushed into suicide willy nilly?
Really?
Do you honestly believe that the government impliments every single thing that advisors suggest?
Are you really objecting to people being informed about the law and how to stay withing it?

While i am happier about the guidelines being released and people being able to die with dignity more easily (though still not as easily as i would prefer) i also share TheDaddy distrust of future governments on this matter. Like many aspects of todays life that have more then a four\five year lifespan i believe we should have systems that are outside political interference and exist solely to deal with the issue in hand. Fact that one labour moron has talked of a duty to die worrys me in the longterm and i can see more like her being around in the future.

[Xaccers]

When was the last time the government increased the time an abortion can be performed without medical reason such as risk to mother or child?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You equate releasing people on parole with allowing people to be pushed into suicide willy nilly?
Really?

Just an example of how legislation has been watered down in the past

Do you honestly believe that the government impliments every single thing that advisors suggest?

This woman is more than an advisor, her words carry real weight and even if they aren't considering her proposals (which I don't think they are) you can bet your life they took them on board and if the worse happens they'll be quoted in the future.

Are you really objecting to people being informed about the law and how to stay withing it?

No I am objecting to where this'll end up going, it's all to easy for our politicians to twist perfectly decent legislation and send it to places it were never intended.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We're on the slippery slope

Families who help terminally-ill loved ones kill themselves will not be prosecuted unless police can prove that they stood to gain from the death, landmark guidelines are expected to say next week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...icide-law.html

On the other hand, the law will not require people with terminal diseases (such as Cancer) to live out their lives in agony.

Swings and roundabouts..

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Just an example of how legislation has been watered down in the past

Actually as far as I can see it wasn't. I don't recall any legislation saying that instead of hanging life in prison would mean dying in prison.
There are plenty of examples of legislation being tightened up though and becoming more draconian.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

This woman is more than an advisor, her words carry real weight and even if they aren't considering her proposals (which I don't think they are) you can bet your life they took them on board and if the worse happens they'll be quoted in the future.

In nothing more than your opinion

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No I am objecting to where this'll end up going, it's all to easy for our politicians to twist perfectly decent legislation and send it to places it were never intended.

Have you been borrowing Freezin's crystal ball?

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

On the other hand, the law will not require people with terminal diseases (such as Cancer) to live out their lives in agony.

Swings and roundabouts..

it doesnt do that now suicide is not illegal in this country the "Suicide Act 1961" took away the offense

and i m sorry but if you have a sound mind it should be easy to arrange inside the current frame wok to take your life and not have a risk of prosecution its not hard

any one with a long term condition which meant couldn't do the act are really the only ones who could theoretically get their chosen helper into trouble but if they followed what i said in previous answer and went abroad i cant see there even then would be much if any chance of a prosecution taking place

what some are asking for is a pre decision now that i find really scary

just imagine the long suffering ( for they go through almost as much as the ill person ) getting a nice piece of paper saying they wont be prosecuted in the matter of any future death of their partner

they go to the other country but the partner decides they are not really ready but the helper has had enough and kills them what do you do now where would the protection be then

plus once in pace do you really want to see these headlines here

http://www.lifenews.com/bio589.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...cineandhealth1

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

it doesnt do that now suicide is not illegal in this country the "Suicide Act 1961" took away the offense

and i m sorry but if you have a sound mind it should be easy to arrange inside the current frame wok to take your life and not have a risk of prosecution its not hard

any one with a long term condition which meant couldn't do the act are really the only ones who could theoretically get their chosen helper into trouble but if they followed what i said in previous answer and went abroad i cant see there even then would be much if any chance of a prosecution taking place

what some are asking for is a pre decision now that i find really scary

just imagine the long suffering ( for they go through almost as much as the ill person ) getting a nice piece of paper saying they wont be prosecuted in the matter of any future death of their partner

they go to the other country but the partner decides they are not really ready but the helper has had enough and kills them what do you do now where would the protection be then

plus once in pace do you really want to see these headlines here

http://www.lifenews.com/bio589.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...cineandhealth1

What exactly is your impression of what happens at Dignitas?
They wheel you in, hand a syringe full of barbituates to your loved one and say "Ve vill just turn around und look zee ozer vay" ?
Or do you mean they're in the hotel room after getting back from Dignitas, and your loved one who took you there picks up the lamp and whacks you over the head with it until you're dead, then one would think that the local police would treat it as a murder. Your loved one saying "but he changed his mind so he beat himself to death with the lamp" really isn't going to wash is it?

As for your linked articles, while in some cases spina bifida has been treated surgically, the cases mentioned had serious spina bifida, and other non-treatable terminal conditions.
The guardian article is reporting on someone's opinion.
To allow someone who cannot make the decision for themselves die slowly in pain no matter if their loved ones say they should die quickly and painlessly is unethical to me.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Actually as far as I can see it wasn't. I don't recall any legislation saying that instead of hanging life in prison would mean dying in prison.
There are plenty of examples of legislation being tightened up though and becoming more draconian

When the act was passed outlawing the death penalty it was replaced with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and we were told at the time it would mean just that, rest of their life, steadily though it's gone down and down, rape a baby these days and be out in 5 years, murder some one and you'd be unlucky to get a 15 year sentence, it's not what was intended, very far from it.

In nothing more than your opinion

No not my opinion, she played a leading role at government committee level from everything from special needs education to embryology, if people didn't listen to her opinions there'd be something wrong.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

When the act was passed outlawing the death penalty it was replaced with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and we were told at the time it would mean just that, rest of their life, steadily though it's gone down and down, rape a baby these days and be out in 5 years, murder some one and you'd be unlucky to get a 15 year sentence, it's not what was intended, very far from it.

Can you list the act which stated that the Judicary must give life sentances and that life should mean death in prison and the amendments which removed the requirement?
Also can you explain your thinking behind linking such amendments which give someone their life back with the likelihood of amendments being made which would make it easier to take someone's life? To me they appear to be opposing directions.
How do the amendments to acts which tighten the law and bring in more draconian restrictions come into play with your theory that laws are watered down over time?

No not my opinion, she played a leading role at government committee level from everything from special needs education to embryology, if people didn't listen to her opinions there'd be something wrong.

Listening is one thing, but that's not the same as having a say in how things are done.
My nan used to write to Maggy Thatcher and tell her how to run the country, her opinions were listened to, but not acted on.
An advisor can say what they like, but it means nothing if ministers do not hold the same views and can see that it's a vote winner.
This is why there have been so many strange things published in the media suggesting that one party is going to do this or another is going to do that, simply because an advisor has suggested it, when it never happens because firstly it's not in line with ministers' own thinking, and secondly it would lose votes.