House of Commons

[ProfessorDavey]

But there is no Christian 'standpoint' or 'position' on assisted dying, PD.  Even the CofE's position is based primarily on what might be deemed secular reasoning.  As such there are no perceived 'enemies' of the religion on this issue; just very different attitudes to the protection of the vulnerable - both often held by members of the faith and both often argued for by said members.

Oh don't make me laugh.

Of course there is - there is a pretty well unshakable orthodoxy amongst (certainly western) religions that assisted dying/euthanasia etc etc are fundamentally morally wrong. This isn't based on pragmatism and concerns about safeguards etc (although it is sometimes disingenuously argued in that manner by some religious leaders) but dogmatic opposition. And also organised opposition - not sure about the CofE but the RCC was handing out pre-written opposition postcards/letters to send to MPs. No chance of allowing their members their own ability to decide on the matter, nor even to use their own words!!!

[Anchorman]

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.

-
Sorry: this is a matrer in which Westminster has no control in Scotland.
An assisted dying bill has been put through Holyrood three times since the parliament was reconvened in 1999.
Unfortunately, on each occasion, it was defeated.
The latest attempt was introduced by the redoubtable Margo MacDonald, but she died - from Parkinsons disease - before the bill could complete its' progress through parliament.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

-
Sorry: this is a matrer in which Westminster has no control in Scotland.
An assisted dying bill has been put through Holyrood three times since the parliament was reconvened in 1999.
Unfortunately, on each occasion, it was defeated.
The latest attempt was introduced by the redoubtable Margo MacDonald, but she died - from Parkinsons disease - before the bill could complete its' progress through parliament.

Have you not read my comment. I'll repeat:

'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.'

Were assisted dying to become legal in England it would, without doubt, have a major effect in Scotland. With the ability of people north of the border to travel to Carlisle to die the pressure on the Scottish government to follow suit would be overwhelming.

[Hope]

Arguably, yes, but those financial institutions haven't been making pronouncements on morality for the populace at the same time.

Agreed, but then the body that was doing so had divested form 'questionable investments' many years earlier.  Remember that - for many - what are now 'questionable investments' were perfectly legit ones in the 70s, 80s and 90s when the investments were often originally made.

Assuming that figure's correct (I've not seen anything to support it, but it's entirely plausible) 1 why isn't Parliament asking a body to review the methodology rather than having a blanket vote on kicking it into touch? 2 Why isn't Welby asking people to tighten the controls or rethink the qualification criteria? He's doing so because he's not a public representative, he's not there to represent the populace, he's there to represent the orthodoxy, just as he was 3 when he prevaricated over gay priests and 4 underwhelmed on support for female bishops.

To answer this piece by piece; 1) I don't believe that a Parliamentary Bill can be amended to become the establishment of a review.  A Bill can only result in legislation or nothing.  It is then for the Government, with the agreement of the House of Commons, to establish a review body. 2) Because the system doesn't allow him or anyone else to argue that within the context of a debate on a Bill.  3) I suspect that he believed that allowing clergy to have same sex relationships to be wrong, so why should he go against his own conscience here? 4) Not sure whether he was a member of General Synod at the time of the farcical vote on women bishops in 2012, but his reaction to it would suggest that your characterisation is pretty wide of the mark:

Welby favours Anglican consecration of women bishops. Following a rejection of female bishops by the General Synod in November 2012, Welby spoke of a "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters".

In July 2013 Justin Welby stated,

“ There's not two-thirds in each house, That's absolutely correct. [But] there's a strong desire to get it done. We aren't at the stage of saying: 'Should we ordain women as bishops?'; we're at the stage of saying: 'We're going to ordain women as bishops. How do we go about that? ”

In November 2013 Welby stated he aims to ordain women bishops while allowing space for those who disagree.

“ Today's overwhelming vote demonstrates the widespread desire of the Church of England to move ahead with ordaining women as bishops, and at the same time enabling those who disagree to flourish. There is some way to go, but we can be cautiously hopeful of good progress. ”

In February 2014 calls on Anglicans to avoid fear, prejudice and suspicion, to grasp "cultural change in the life of the church".

“ Let’s bring this down to some basics. We have agreed that we will ordain women as Bishops. At the same time we have agreed that while doing that we want all parts of the church to flourish. If we are to challenge fear we have to find a cultural change in the life of the church, in the way our groups and parties work, sufficient to build love and trust. That will mean different ways of working at every level of the church in practice in the way our meetings are structured, presented and lived out and in every form of appointment. It will, dare I say, mean a lot of careful training and development in our working methods, because the challenge for all institutions today, and us above all, is not merely the making of policy but how we then make things happen. ”

Welby would like discipline applied over appointments to prevent opponents of women bishops feeling alienated. Welby hopes to avoid a zero sum game where people feel gain for one side inevitably means loss for the other, he sees need for caution, co-operation and unity. 

(Wikipedia)

Technically, the issue of women bishops should not have been voted on again until this year (iirc ): the rules say that there has to be a gap of n years between a n unsuccessful vote and a new one (and I think that n=3).  It was down to Welby's determination that that was reduced to about 13 months.

[Anchorman]

Sorry, Prof, I disagree.
While I agree with Margo on assisted dying (against the SNP, btw), I don't agree that this is a UK matter.
The powers that allow us to formulate our own policy have been devolved.
There is already a well trodden path from Scotland to Switzerland, I'm afraid.  I fervently wish it were otherwise, and that those who could not stand the unendurable agony of a pain-filled existance could end their lives at their choosing, in a place of their choosing.
I fail to see what the decision of Westminster's parliiament would  mean, were they enlightend enough to have voted for the bill; other than a shortened journey for those determined to have the right to end their suffering at a time of their choosing.
Either destination, whether England or indeed Zurich, is wrong, in my opinion.
I remain committed to the individual's right to choose, after having undergone suitable medical assessment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Arguably, yes, but those financial institutions haven't been making pronouncements on morality for the populace at the same time.

Agreed, but then the body that was doing so had divested form 'questionable investments' many years earlier.  Remember that - for many - what are now 'questionable investments' were perfectly legit ones in the 70s, 80s and 90s when the investments were often originally made.

that isn't what we are talking about.

I think the problem was that Welby was railing against Wonga (not unreasonably) while the CofE was actually investing in the self same Wonga. That is just a bit of problem don't you think.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, Prof, I disagree.
While I agree with Margo on assisted dying (against the SNP, btw), I don't agree that this is a UK matter.
The powers that allow us to formulate our own policy have been devolved.
There is already a well trodden path from Scotland to Switzerland, I'm afraid.  I fervently wish it were otherwise, and that those who could not stand the unendurable agony of a pain-filled existance could end their lives at their choosing, in a place of their choosing.
I fail to see what the decision of Westminster's parliiament would  mean, were they enlightend enough to have voted for the bill; other than a shortened journey for those determined to have the right to end their suffering at a time of their choosing.
Either destination, whether England or indeed Zurich, is wrong, in my opinion.
I remain committed to the individual's right to choose, after having undergone suitable medical assessment.

But the point is that the ability to go to Switzerland is having an effect on the debate in both England and Scotland. But Switzerland is a fairly long way away. Were assisted dying to be legal on on side of the English/Scottish border it would massively affect the debate on the other side and I doubt that maintaining a ban would last more than a couple of years.

So the debate in England does affect Scotland. If you want assisted dying to be legal in Scotland you should be watching the debate very carefully in England and hoping that it was passed.

[Hope]

I think the problem was that Welby was railing against Wonga (not unreasonably) while the CofE was actually investing in the self same Wonga. That is just a bit of problem don't you think.

IIRC, this investment was not a direct investment by the Church Commissioners but an indirect one thanks to a pooled investment via a third party.  Whilst one could argue that the commissioners should have known exactly where every investment as being invested, such 3rd party investments can change on a daily basis (though usually not quite that quickly).  I don't happen to know how often the Church Commissioners meet to discuss and review such things.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the problem was that Welby was railing against Wonga (not unreasonably) while the CofE was actually investing in the self same Wonga. That is just a bit of problem don't you think.

IIRC, this investment was not a direct investment by the Church Commissioners but an indirect one thanks to a pooled investment via a third party.  Whilst one could argue that the commissioners should have known exactly where every investment as being invested, such 3rd party investments can change on a daily basis (though usually not quite that quickly).  I don't happen to know how often the Church Commissioners meet to discuss and review such things.

That doesn't make any difference.

If you are going to pontificate about the moral unacceptability of Wonga you'd better make sure you aren't investing in them - direct or indirect. As a major investor it is pretty easy to ensure your investment managers are clear about companies that you will and will not invest in.

It comes with the territory of trying to take a moral high ground.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

If you've got the wherewithal to punch someone in the face, You would also have the wherewithal to take your own life without needing ''assistance''.........Use your loaf, son.

[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.

If you've got the wherewithal to punch someone in the face, You would also have the wherewithal to take your own life without needing ''assistance''.........Use your loaf, son.

That's not necessarily the case and you know it.

In any case, the provisions of the Bill which was temporarily delayed this afternoon required the subject to have the "wherewithal" to take a lethal dose of barbiturates themselves (as per the Dignitas protocols) rather than have it administered by someone else.

[Hope]

If you are going to pontificate about the moral unacceptability of Wonga you'd better make sure you aren't investing in them - direct or indirect. As a major investor it is pretty easy to ensure your investment managers are clear about companies that you will and will not invest in.

It comes with the territory of trying to take a moral high ground.

I'm not totally au fait with the situation that existed, but I understand that one can instruct one's investment managers but that sometimes a block investment can be misdirected if there are several investors involved.  I don't know how long the CoE's element of the pooled investment had been in Wonga.

OK, my experience as an investor is somewhat different to an organisation such as the CofE but I do remember that I received a gift of a selection of shares for my 21st birthday from a great-aunt.  It wasn't until about 3 months later than I discovered exactly what was included within that selection, by which time I'd received a dividend payment.  I was, and still am adamantly against investing in arms and tobacco; so you can understand my disappointment that the two largest slices of the selection were BAT and Babcock.  I instructed our family's solicitor who was handling all this kind of thing to sell them asap, and to but additional shares in some of the other companies represented in the selection - probably Boots and Wiggins Teape, iirc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

If you've got the wherewithal to punch someone in the face, You would also have the wherewithal to take your own life without needing ''assistance''.........Use your loaf, son.

That's not necessarily the case and you know it.

In any case, the provisions of the Bill which was temporarily delayed this afternoon required the subject to have the "wherewithal" to take a lethal dose of barbiturates themselves (as per the Dignitas protocols) rather than have it administered by someone else.

I realise this has been a bad day for you.
It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.

[Shaker]

I realise this has been a bad day for you.

As one without a suffering, pain and misery fetish, yes, it's a bad day - although, as I've said more than once, this is a temporary setback. A disappointment to me (indeed, the majority of the population) is as nothing to the crushing defeat felt by people trapped in living nightmares from which they're desperate to escape. Assisted suicide is inevitable, because in the West all the trends towards individual liberty (decriminalisation of homosexuality; female reproductive control; equal marriage and so forth) run that way and have been running that way for decades. Today's result means that it has been delayed by some time, leading directly to further avoidable suffering, but it's inevitable.

It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.

It shoulders some of the blame and by far the lion's share.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I realise this has been a bad day for you.

As one without a suffering, pain and misery fetish, yes, it's a bad day - although, as I've said more than once, this is a temporary setback. A disappointment to me (indeed, the majority of the population) is as nothing to the curshing defeat felt by people trapped in living nightmares from which they're deperate to escape. Assisted suicide is inevitable, because in the West all the trends towards individual liberty (decriminalisation of homosexuality; female reproductive control; equal marriage and so forth) run that way and have been running that way for decades. Today's result means that it has been delayed by some time, leading directly to further avoidable suffering, but it's inevitable.

It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.

It shoulders some of the blame and by far the lion's share.

It cannot have been easy for anybody voting in this situation and one doesn't have to be a suffering fetishist to have voted against it.
We know though that the safeguards in the bill were poor and we know there are people who want to extend this further.

To subsume such a grave issue into being part of the onward libertarian march was thankfully a grave error which was spotted by MP's.

[Shaker]

Given that it was soundly defeated what makes you think the majority of the population agrees with you?

Practically every single survey and opinion poll on the subject going back decades. (I say practically as a token nod only; I can't think of a single exception).

It was defeated because our MPs (all six hundred-odd ... very representative ) are apt to forget that we live in a representative democracy and they are supposed to be our servants who do our bidding.

Isn't that just an unsubstantiated claim?

It would have been if I wasn't sitting on a fuck ton of evidence in its support which I'm ready to provide as soon as you ask for it

[Anchorman]

I agree with your sentiment in #63, Shaker.
I'm just going to pop to the hospital again tonight to see Isabel.
I know exactly what she'll say to me - because she's said the same thing on every occasion I've visited her over the last few months.
"I want to die."
I wish I could help her.
Some of my fellow Christians might throw a hairy fit at those words, but I don't apologise for saying them.
As I posted on another thread yesterday, the medics reckon that Isabel has another two onths - at least - to endure of hellish, unremitting pain which the morphine no longer soothes.
Her spine has been gradually crumbling away for the laast few months.
She's very intelligent, perfectly lucid, has no depression - just an overwhelming longing to go.
She's also Christian.
I got into a serious argument with a twit who, Bible in hand, said "Never mind - look at the joy you'll have in eternity!"
Numpties like that need help.
Isabel knows that - and she has no doubts whatsoever re; her eternity.
But the hell on earth could be ended if only the law allowed compassion where medicine fails.

[Hope]

Given that it was soundly defeated what makes you think the majority of the population agrees with you?

Practically every single survey and opinion poll on the subject going back decades.

It was defeated because our MPs (all six hundred-odd ... very representative ) are apt to forget that we live in a representative democracy and they are supposed to be our servants who do our bidding.

Isn't that just an unsubstantiated claim?

It would have been if I wasn't sitting on a fuck ton of evidence in its support which I'm ready to provide as soon as you ask for it

Shakes, you seem to forget the other evidence that I have already pointed out that the principle is supported by 80-odd% of the population, but when it comes to the practical details, that figure just about halves.  So, I'll admit that perhaps the vote should have reflected the fact that - when it comes to details (as this Bill did) - about 40% agree and the other 60% don't - Oh, sorry that seems to have been the split 118 - 330.  I don't know how many abstained.

[Shaker]

Shakes, you seem to forget the other evidence that I have already pointed out that the principle is supported by 80-odd% of the population, but when it comes to the practical details, that figure just about halves.

No, I haven't forgotten any such "evidence." I remember you asserting as much in #42 but I don't have any recollection of you providing any substantiation for this claim as asked for by Professor Davey in #43. I've just looked through the thread again (not difficult; it isn't lengthy) and I still can't see it. So, as usual, no "evidence" to forget.

But then I guess he doesn't know you as well as I do, and isn't quite as familiar as I am with just how useless it is to ask you to back up anything you baldly assert as fact.

It's the "good reasons" why "homosexuality has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" (notwithstanding the alleged two pages of notes on the subject mentioned by you a couple of weeks ago* which have also failed to materialise; Gordon and Rhiannon also expressed an interest in seeing you exhibit these "good reasons") and where I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you** all over again.

Stick to the choo-choos.

* "I curreewntly [sic] have 2 sides of A4 of notes from this exercise.  Don't worry, I won't cut and paste it all, I'll summarise and condense it to headings if necessary." - August 28th 2015, 4:30pm.

** "(just look how often he wheels out the negative proof fallacy - it's practically every day that passes. Indeed, he's just done so again)... - Almost as often as you do, Shaker." - August 23rd, 6:21pm.

[jakswan]

Were assisted dying to be legal on on side of the English/Scottish border it would massively affect the debate on the other side and I doubt that maintaining a ban would last more than a couple of years.

So the debate in England does affect Scotland. If you want assisted dying to be legal in Scotland you should be watching the debate very carefully in England and hoping that it was passed.

I think if Anchorman has the choice he'd move Scotland to Switzerland just to be further away from England. The fact is what happens in Holyboob affects Westminster and vice versa.   

In saying that I admire Anchorman's position on this issue clearly based on compassion for others.

[Hope]

No, I haven't forgotten any such "evidence." I remember you asserting as much in #42 but I don't have any recollection of you providing any substantiation for this claim as asked for by Professor Davey in #43. I've just looked through the thread again (not difficult; it isn't lengthy) and I still can't see it. So, as usual, no "evidence" to forget.

Having been out during the day, I hadn't actually seen PD's post referred to above until I read this post 5 minutes ago.  However, I had noticed Gonners post #49, which perhaps you haven't.  Since your post to which I was responding came some time after Goners' post, you are clearly no better than me at reading every post.

[Shaker]

Oh no, I saw Gonners's post; it merely repeats your assertion rather than provides evidence for it. I'm not interested in hearing the same claim made twice - we have that sort of cop-out daily here; I want to see what evidence it's supposedly based on.

So I'm still waiting, exactly as I expected to be.

[Hope]

Oh no, I saw Gonners's post; it merely repeats your assertion rather than provides evidence for it. I'm not interested in hearing the same claim made twice - we have that sort of cop-out daily here; I want to see what evidence it's supposedly based on.

So I'm still waiting, exactly as I expected to be.

No, it doesn't simply repeat my assertion, Shakes.  It states that very similar figures to the ones I gave were stated in the House of Commons debate yesterday.  I haven't yet had the chance to look through the Hansard record of the debate but bearing in mind that Gonners noted the reference in a post timed at 4:16 yesterday afternoon that means searching through some 4 hours of debate, something that I don't currently have time to do.

[Shaker]

No, it doesn't simply repeat my assertion, Shakes.  It states that very similar figures to the ones I gave were stated in the House of Commons debate yesterday.

That's right - simple repetition, no substantiation.

I haven't yet had the chance to look through the Hansard record of the debate but bearing in mind that Gonners noted the reference in a post timed at 4:16 yesterday afternoon that means searching through some 4 hours of debate, something that I don't currently have time to do.

Convenient. If it's anything like the evidence for your prior bald assertions we're going to be waiting a long, long time.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

No one in the house actually questioned those figures, in fact that seemed to be one of the big sticking points, the methodology of the process.

Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.

Gonnagle.