House of Commons

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.

I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Forum,

Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.

I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.

Gonnagle.

Well I think our perception of the House of Commons and its debates is massively clouded by the yah boo of Prime Ministers Questions. Not all debates are like that.

The other relevant point here is that this is a private members bill and a free vote, so also protected from the tribal party politics often so evident in Parliament.

[Gonnagle]

Dearie Me,

The Speaker has just asked the House to be more brief when they speak, sorry but that deserves a "Fuck me" the debate is assisted dying!!

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

Dear Forum,

Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.

I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.

Someone suggested to me the other day that topics like this tend not to involve MPs talking about stuff they have any serious knowledge or experience of.  As such, they have to rely on other people's views and understandings.  Whilst they may have some strong religious or ethical views on the matter, they have to express these within the context of their research.

I also believe that this is a free vote, not a party political one, which also takes some of the heat out of it.

By the way, I notice that an equivalent bill was voted down by MSPs earlier this year.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Tribal party politics, sad, very sad.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

Dearie Me,

The Speaker has just asked the House to be more brief when they speak, sorry but that deserves a "Fuck me" the debate is assisted dying!!

Gonnagle.

Gonners, there may be a large number of MPs who wish to speak, so asking individuals to be succinct allows for as many as possible to do so.  I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but there may be those who would like time to run out on the Bill thus killing it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dearie Me,

The Speaker has just asked the House to be more brief when they speak, sorry but that deserves a "Fuck me" the debate is assisted dying!!

Gonnagle.

Gonners, there may be a large number of MPs who wish to speak, so asking individuals to be succinct allows for as many as possible to do so.  I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but there may be those who would like time to run out on the Bill thus killing it.

That's probably correct.

There will only be a set (and rather limited) amount of time allocated to this private members bill and I think that it is correct for the speaker to expect MPs to be as brief as is reasonable to allow more MPs to be able to have a say.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Tribal party politics, sad, very sad.

Gonnagle.

But true

[ProfessorDavey]

topics like this tend not to involve MPs talking about stuff they have any serious knowledge or experience of.  As such, they have to rely on other people's views and understandings.  Whilst they may have some strong religious or ethical views on the matter, they have to express these within the context of their research.

But isn't that also the case for many others who hold themselves up as some kind of expert on the topic and attract high levels of media attention for their views - notably religious leaders.

The people we really need to be listening to are those who are suffering at the end of their lives and their close family. Secondarily to the medical profession involved in their care, but even they don't really have such direct experience.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Politicians for me are a emotive subject, so forgive me if my responses are emotive, if they have to bring in sleeping bags and sandwiches so that all can be heard fully, then so be it.

Words like suicide, assisted dying, palliative care are being mentioned, it should be discussed fully.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

The people we really need to be listening to are those who are suffering at the end of their lives and their close family. Secondarily to the medical profession involved in their care, but even they don't really have such direct experience.

I actually feel that whilst the opinions of those who are suffering need to be heard - and I believe that they have been heard quite loudly over the last 5-10 years - their opinion can be seen to be highly individualized, something that we already know isn't the best evidence around, whilst this issue needs to be decided more unemotionally.

[ProfessorDavey]

The people we really need to be listening to are those who are suffering at the end of their lives and their close family. Secondarily to the medical profession involved in their care, but even they don't really have such direct experience.

I actually feel that whilst the opinions of those who are suffering need to be heard - and I believe that they have been heard quite loudly over the last 5-10 years - their opinion can be seen to be highly individualized, something that we already know isn't the best evidence around, whilst this issue needs to be decided more unemotionally.

FirstlyI don't think their views have been heard sufficiently.

But your point about individual experience being, well highly individualised, is the whole point. What this bill is about is giving people choice, to allow individuals to make their own choice, rather than have certain options banned, in a kind of one-size fits all approach.

Different people will want different things at the end of their life, and surely we should be in a position to provide those options and not forcing people into a situation which is what they desperately don't want as is the case at the moment.

[Shaker]

FirstlyI don't think their views have been heard sufficiently.

But your point about individual experience being, well highly individualised, is the whole point. What this bill is about is giving people choice, to allow individuals to make their own choice, rather than have certain options banned, in a kind of one-size fits all approach.

Different people will want different things at the end of their life, and surely we should be in a position to provide those options and not forcing people into a situation which is what they desperately don't want as is the case at the moment.

Bravo.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Well my main purpose for this thread was to highlight the conduct of the house but this is a emotive subject and many emotional stories are being told in the house.

Brilliant emotive orators has already been mentioned, emotion, love, compassion, empathy, is at the heart of this debate.

Gonnagle.

[Anchorman]

Dear Forum,

Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.

I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.

Gonnagle.

-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens  in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.

[Hope]

Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens  in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.

Doesn't it.  Scottish MPs will be voting one way or the other; whether this bill will supersede the Scottish Parliament's vote earlier this year, I don't fully know.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Forum,

Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.

I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.

Gonnagle.

-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens  in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.

What an appallingly small minded, narrowly parochial, petty nationalist you are. Shame on you.

And also totally wrong.

One of the major factors that is driving the current debate in westminster is the law in Switzerland. In your narrow mindedness what happens in Zurich has no effect on the UK - but it does, and the same would be the case if assisted dying were legalised in England.

Were that to happen then there would be a steady stream of Scots heading south of the border because of differences in the law. And that will massively affect the debate in Scotland and the drive to change the law north of the border.

Take the blinkers off and you might just see that there is a bigger world outside.

[Outrider]

I actually feel that whilst the opinions of those who are suffering need to be heard - and I believe that they have been heard quite loudly over the last 5-10 years - their opinion can be seen to be highly individualized, something that we already know isn't the best evidence around, whilst this issue needs to be decided more unemotionally.

Why? It's all about emotion. It's about how we feel about what's happening in our lives, about the possibility that we could be prompted to feel things if options were available against the feeling of being trapped, constrained and compelled if they aren't available.

How we feel is the point of this, the facts of death, injury, disease and suicide are all relatively well understood: the impacts of them on our emotional well-being less so.

O.

[floo]

I heard on the news this morning that whilst the present AofC is against this bill, the former AofC George Carey is for it!

[ProfessorDavey]

I heard on the news this morning that whilst the present AofC is against this bill, the former AofC George Carey is for it!

That's true.

Although interestingly George Carey is a recent convert, due to conversation he had with people affected and he was not in favour while he was ABoC.

And that leads to another point - I sometimes wonder whether certain religious leaders are really against certain things (e.g. contraception, homosexuality for the Pope) or assisted dying for an ABoC, or whether they feel that they have to be seen to be against due to their position. Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Queen Victoria,

Bloody hell!! Division in the house, who can shout loud enough.

Boy!! today has been an eye opener, does the house realise the telephone has been invented.

Only thing missing is Wigs and smoke from cigars.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

You need to check out the pink ribbon they get to hang their swords from in the cloakroom, Gonzo. And no, I am not joking.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Awright big man.

Every days a school day.

But I have to say my respect for politicians has risen, slightly, very very slightly.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:

Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.

[Hope]

One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:

Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.

Shakes, if what you, ippy and others here are so keen to tell us really is the case, I suspect that Welby's comments had little or no influence on the large majority who voted against the bill.