Assisted dying

johnny crossan said:
I make no apologies for dismissing the ridiculous idea that God's existence can be disproved (no issue with agnostics btw) but please address this topic and specifically why you appear to accept the inescapable coercive implications already documented in those countries where assisted dying/assisted suicide is legal.
Click to expand...

You think older people are not coerced today?

We are not talking about your son signing a declaration you should have your plug pulled here! We are talking about guardrails.

And, I believe in the ABSENCE of God, thus don’t have anything to prove or disprove. Conversely, you seem to believe in some ridiculous notion of some white guy with flowing hair and a bushy beard that has handed down his son and the rules by which we should all live…so YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT GUY ACTUALLY EXISTS!

Good luck with that!

johnny crossan said:
Report stage will be in April next year and if passed the bill could be on the statute book within two years. The NHS would have to start budgeting for that contingency now - that's not fake news.
Click to expand...

And, people will read & react to the report and legislation will be as watered down as possible.
 
oldius said:
My grandma died last year. She was 101 and lived independently with some help and a lot of support from my dad, her son. She fell and broke her hip. An operation resulted in pin placements and 6 months of rehabilitation. While still in hospital, an x-ray showed that the pins had fallen out. Faced with the prospect of a further op, she chose to die, and that's exactly what happened 7 days later. She was absolutely of sound mind and made her choice unequivocally clear. The right was absolutely hers.
Click to expand...
Same with my mother-in-law, at 99 she decided that was enough, stopped eating and closed down. Her last words were 'love you all' and breathed her last with a smile on her lips.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
You think older people are not coerced today? We are not talking about your son signing a declaration you should have your plug pulled here! We are talking about guardrails. Good luck with that!
And, people will read & react to the report and legislation will be as watered down as possible.
Click to expand...
Yes, folk are very sadly made to feel it would suit everybody if they just moved along - they even make adverts joking about it

ChicagoBlue said:
And, I believe in the ABSENCE of God, thus don’t have anything to prove or disprove. Conversely, you seem to believe in some ridiculous notion of some white guy with flowing hair and a bushy beard that has handed down his son and the rules by which we should all live…so YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT GUY ACTUALLY EXISTS!
Click to expand...
You believe in something you can never prove - a negative - profoundly unscientific but that's for elsewhere.
 
johnny crossan said:
You believe in something you can never prove - a negative - profoundly unscientific but that's for elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I believe in NOTHING.
You believe in SOMETHING.

Only one of us has to prove anything, and it’s not me!!

Oh wait…I just have to have faith, right?
How convenient!!
 
metalblue said:
The reality is parts of the NHS are over funded and other parts underfunded.

Regarding this bill there is a cohort of people that suffer from dementia that are going to not have access to this - and that’s probably the largest beneficiaries of such a law. That’s why I’d rather they spent time and done it properly. Heck why stop with this 6 months prognosis at all? I’d argue once you give a populace the right to die why should you then deny the majority of that populace access to that right? It’s not equitable.
Click to expand...
Which parts do you think are overfunded. ?
Personally I think the office staff/managers. In the “olden days” a hospital appointment would mean seeing the consultant who would send you for any test X Ray. blood tests. Even admit you if necessary on the same day one appointment.
Now it’s a triage system so if it’s urgent you will be seen first but you still won’t get all the tests we will send you an appointment for the X-ray then it’s see your doctor for a blood test form etc. you can be seen several times. Every time it’s making the numbers look good one patient but five appointments. Imagine the form filling same for operations.
Finally you go back for results your treated as a new patient on every visit so it looks like they are treating masses more patients the numbers are trebled.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Which parts do you think are overfunded. ?
Personally I think the office staff/managers. In the “olden days” a hospital appointment would mean seeing the consultant who would send you for any test X Ray. blood tests. Even admit you if necessary on the same day one appointment.
Now it’s a triage system so if it’s urgent you will be seen first but you still won’t get all the tests we will send you an appointment for the X-ray then it’s see your doctor for a blood test form etc. you can be seen several times. Every time it’s making the numbers look good one patient but five appointments. Imagine the form filling same for operations.
Finally you go back for results your treated as a new patient on every visit so it looks like they are treating masses more patients the numbers are trebled.
Click to expand...

metalblue said:
The reality is parts of the NHS are over funded and other parts underfunded.

Regarding this bill there is a cohort of people that suffer from dementia that are going to not have access to this - and that’s probably the largest beneficiaries of such a law. That’s why I’d rather they spent time and done it properly. Heck why stop with this 6 months prognosis at all? I’d argue once you give a populace the right to die why should you then deny the majority of that populace access to that right? It’s not equitable.
Click to expand...


The areas that are 'over funded' are those that are in the hands of private companies...where they do the work and make a huge profit (which is still counted by the Government as massive investment into the NHS )

The areas that are 'underfunded' are the expensive areas that private companies won't touch with a barge pole (cancer treatment etc)

See how it works yet?
 
Just another absurd decision by the select few with zero idea of real life for many in this country today.
Mind you it’s probably a more favourable death than freezing and or starvation which is the other option they are pushing people towards.
 
mosssideblue said:
Thought life insurance was paid immediately on a terminal diagnosis
Click to expand...

Not if they can wiggle out of it mate. My mate has a life limiting condition, he went to the doctors some years (I forget how many but 7 years rings a bell) with headaches and the insurance company said he should have known that was the start of his condition and declared when taking out his policy. Obviously the qualified doctor didn’t know but there you go.

Of course he appealed but that got rejected.

That’s why I found including suicide as a payable event so strange, you’ll pay on that but not on my mate? (Different companies etc but it’s baffling).
 
journolud said:
It might be misguided but isn’t necessarily evidence of coercion, that would imply pressure from family or others rather than making a decision bars on what it’s thought they might want
Click to expand...
Some don't even know what coercion means apparently. Anyhow it passed so let's see how it finally looks when it gets through the various readings etc before coming into law.

All the naysayers.will be free to not to use this law.

I'm sure plenty will still moan about it being available to others though.
 
johnny crossan said:
The key point is that state assisted suicide is a new pathway that will be inappropriately chosen by many vulnerable people and indeed exploited by others. There are no practical safeguards that can effectively prevent this outcome.
Click to expand...
Apart from doctors and judges of course, but obviously they are all in on it, why they are in on it hasn't been explained yet. But it's definitely a thing obviously.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Well around 75 MPs allowed the act to pass this stage but they were insistent that to go forward, the bill would have to improve protection of the vulnable and of the medical profession.
If so then I can live with this legislation.if not I can't.
Click to expand...
If you can't live with it I'm guessing you would need to use it? That's a bit of a catch 22:-)
 
metalblue said:
Not if they can wiggle out of it mate. My mate has a life limiting condition, he went to the doctors some years (I forget how many but 7 years rings a bell) with headaches and the insurance company said he should have known that was the start of his condition and declared when taking out his policy. Obviously the qualified doctor didn’t know but there you go.

Of course he appealed but that got rejected.

That’s why I found including suicide as a payable event so strange, you’ll pay on that but not on my mate? (Different companies etc but it’s baffling).
Click to expand...
For sure ICs will wriggle. It was certainly a clause in our Life Ins, but it maybe be the diagnosis required a time e.g. 12 months, I cannot remember
 
johnny crossan said:
I make no apologies for dismissing the ridiculous idea that God's existence can be disproved (no issue with agnostics btw) but please address this topic and specifically why you appear to accept the inescapable coercive implications already documented in those countries where assisted dying/assisted suicide is legal.

Report stage will be in April next year and if passed the bill could be on the statute book within two years. The NHS would have to start budgeting for that contingency now - that's not fake news.
Click to expand...

So one of your arguments is you would prefer people to suffer because of money? What a lovely way to think about it.

Maybe you could advise how much this would cost with the deduction of money saved through shortening someone's living hell death sentence.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
I believe in NOTHING.
You believe in SOMETHING.

Only one of us has to prove anything, and it’s not me!!

Oh wait…I just have to have faith, right?
How convenient!!
Click to expand...
I suppose the biggest proponent of assisted dying would be god himself:-)
Is this a JC we should be listening to this time? He seems our of kilter with his maker.
 
mosssideblue said:
For sure ICs will wriggle. It was certainly a clause in our Life Ins, but it maybe be the diagnosis required a time e.g. 12 months, I cannot remember
Click to expand...
Wriggle?
Life Insurance and investment Assurance is about helping those you leave behind.
Suicide rules out payments for new policies for a year and a quarter to two years and will likely increase the older a policy applicant is as a result of any legislation.
Similarly, payouts are not made for undisclosed medical conditions and the industry is bound to push for medical conditions resulting in a choice of suicide going on the death cert (much like other causes of death). If not then it is highly likely that assisted suicide will result in non payment whatever.
Insurance/Assurance companies are businesses that provide a service that is needed they are not a charity.
Skilled Actuaries will determine the effects on policy payouts of any legistration and insurance/Assurance companies will take measures to make sure there is no chance to the businesses bottom line. It is not "wriggling" in any way.
 
Last edited:
johnny crossan said:
I make no apologies for dismissing the ridiculous idea that God's existence can be disproved (no issue with agnostics btw) but please address this topic and specifically why you appear to accept the inescapable coercive implications already documented in those countries where assisted dying/assisted suicide is legal.

Report stage will be in April next year and if passed the bill could be on the statute book within two years. The NHS would have to start budgeting for that contingency now - that's not fake news.
Click to expand...
If there is a God he is not all powerful otherwise people wouldn’t die in agony and if he is all powerful then he is a cruel God for letting people die in agony, so which is it?
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Which parts do you think are overfunded. ?
Personally I think the office staff/managers. In the “olden days” a hospital appointment would mean seeing the consultant who would send you for any test X Ray. blood tests. Even admit you if necessary on the same day one appointment.
Now it’s a triage system so if it’s urgent you will be seen first but you still won’t get all the tests we will send you an appointment for the X-ray then it’s see your doctor for a blood test form etc. you can be seen several times. Every time it’s making the numbers look good one patient but five appointments. Imagine the form filling same for operations.
Finally you go back for results your treated as a new patient on every visit so it looks like they are treating masses more patients the numbers are trebled.
Click to expand...

Ifwecouldjust....... said:
The areas that are 'over funded' are those that are in the hands of private companies...where they do the work and make a huge profit (which is still counted by the Government as massive investment into the NHS )

The areas that are 'underfunded' are the expensive areas that private companies won't touch with a barge pole (cancer treatment etc)

See how it works yet?
Click to expand...

I know for a fact, and as an example, that breast cancer services at one of my local trusts was massively overfunded. They had so much money they didn’t know how to spend it. Hired too many staff (B7 nurses) for the job, would fill 4 or 5 different paperwork out with the same information all by hand just to keep vaguely busy or the appearance of being busy to be exact.

Walk down the corridor to the first ward and they’ll be underfunded.

Funding can best be accessed by staffing levels. So I’d say specialisms are likely well funded to overfunded and wards likely underfunded to chronically underfunded. Obviously this won’t be a universal truism and people will have examples where that isn’t the case and others will agree with me on this.

The government have opted to increase funding but they keep talking about reform - which is an acknowledgment that parts are overfunded but have archaic practices that could provide better value for money. The last government increased spending in real terms by 17% with only a 1% increase in outcomes - that tells us money isn't the problem but rather how and where it is spent. I’ll caveat that by saying salary’s should be higher and that will require additional funding. It’s a monolithic institution with multiple problems and few simple solutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top