UK 0, California 1

[Hope]

b) even though that's true, the value of someone's life to society at large doesn't trump the value of their life to them, otherwise we'd be directing people to whatever task we felt their talents benefited society the most rather than letting people direct their own lives.

O.

But in many ways, isn't that precisely what we ae doing - pushing them towards science-based subjects at school, requiring our young people to have certain grades in 3 core subjects - English, Maths and Science.  Wasn't there a suggestion recently (by the boss of the CBI?) that all school students should take a science subject to the age of 18?

[Outrider]

b) even though that's true, the value of someone's life to society at large doesn't trump the value of their life to them, otherwise we'd be directing people to whatever task we felt their talents benefited society the most rather than letting people direct their own lives.

O.

But in many ways, isn't that precisely what we ae doing - pushing them towards science-based subjects at school, requiring our young people to have certain grades in 3 core subjects - English, Maths and Science.  Wasn't there a suggestion recently (by the boss of the CBI?) that all school students should take a science subject to the age of 18?

Politically, yes, certainly the current government sees itself as the Board of UK plc.,  but not everyone is on-board with that sentiment, as we can see from the glut of support for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election.

Whilst I think that those core skills of English, Arithmetic and Statistics (rather than the scope of Maths), basic Science and IT are necessary to give people options in life, I don't think education should be limited to them, and I don't think education should be charged for either.

I can see the value of ensuring people study science to 18, but I can see the value of ensuring that people get a broad education to 18 as happens in a number of other places.

Which still misses the point: giving children a thorough education in science is to afford them personal autonomy and choices in later life - it's about personal freedom.

Similarly, and assisted dying bill is about allowing competent people the freedom to choose when it is right for them to do something perfectly legal that they are struggling to be capable of.

We are happy to provide people to help them eat, shit, wash and whatever, because some of us want that for them, but we aren't prepared to help them do what they want even though it's perfectly legal for people who are still capable to do it for themselves.

That's wrong, it's discriminating against those who have lost capacity, and whilst I understand the position of the likes of Dame Grey-Thompson I find it ironic that a disabled person should be encouraging discrimination against the disabled: equality is not about treating everyone the same, it's about ensuring that everyone is treated as they want to be regardless of their condition.

O.

[Hope]

That's wrong, it's discriminating against those who have lost capacity, and whilst I understand the position of the likes of Dame Grey-Thompson I find it ironic that a disabled person should be encouraging discrimination against the disabled: equality is not about treating everyone the same, it's about ensuring that everyone is treated as they want to be regardless of their condition.

But it can equally be seen as a disabled person arguing for protection of other disabled people.  Therein lies the problem; what is one person's discriminatory attitude is another person's protective attitude.

[Outrider]

That's wrong, it's discriminating against those who have lost capacity, and whilst I understand the position of the likes of Dame Grey-Thompson I find it ironic that a disabled person should be encouraging discrimination against the disabled: equality is not about treating everyone the same, it's about ensuring that everyone is treated as they want to be regardless of their condition.

But it can equally be seen as a disabled person arguing for protection of other disabled people.  Therein lies the problem; what is one person's discriminatory attitude is another person's protective attitude.

She's patronising them, though - they can't look out for themselves, so we have to ensure that they are looked after. That's exactly what the disability emancipation movement of the last three decades has been fighting against.

Yes, there are vulnerable people, yes those people need support and help. What we should be doing is treating everyone as an individual, finding out which specific people need that support and ensuring they get it, not presuming that because people are disabled they'll need that support and then deciding that support is to avoid assisted dying.

That's making decisions for people who do need the support, rather than supporting them to make their decision, and it's making the decision for people who are perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves.

And that's before we even get to the millions of people who aren't disabled whom this also affects.

O.

[Hope]

She's patronising them, though -

Is she?  or is that simply an able-bodied person's view?

[Hope]

Politically, yes, certainly the current government sees itself as the Board of UK plc.,  but not everyone is on-board with that sentiment, as we can see from the glut of support for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election.

But this has been going on for years.  It isn't just about this Government or even the last one.  It was prevalent under Blair, under Brown, even Major, Thatcher and Callaghan to an degree.

[Shaker]

Why are the self-appointed spokespersons for the disabled even commenting on a matter that doesn't inherently concern them, and if it does entirely tangentially?

This is a rhetorical question, I should add, because it seems obvious to me why.

[Outrider]

She's patronising them, though -

Is she?  or is that simply an able-bodied person's view?

Why presume I'm able-bodied? Why presume that the disabled are disabled in body? Why is it not patronising just because it doesn't affect me directly?

As it is, I am disabled, but not physically - this is exactly the sort of situation where I'm likely to be caught up. I'm capable, but the nature of people's view of mental conditions is such that there's automatically a presumption we need someone to do our difficult thinking for us. My children are also registered disabled for the same mental condition, and their capacity is vastly different to each other - one of them is capable of making these decisions for themself, the other manifestly isn't.

I do know what this is, and I do know that it's patronising for the law to presume that, even if we are under the influence of family, that on this single issue we all need to be protected. We are all under the influence of family all the time, and there are legal means to secure people against that undue influence, and to penalise people after the fact if they have taken advantage of it.

It's a valid concern,  but it's a valid concern for an extremely small segment of the already small populace of disabled people, and it's patronising to institute a blanket ban on everyone in the country - disabled or otherwise - as a suitable protection against that concern.

O.

[Outrider]

Politically, yes, certainly the current government sees itself as the Board of UK plc.,  but not everyone is on-board with that sentiment, as we can see from the glut of support for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election.

But this has been going on for years.  It isn't just about this Government or even the last one.  It was prevalent under Blair, under Brown, even Major, Thatcher and Callaghan to an degree.

It has been growing, I don't recall the Callaghan government or even the Thatcherite one that well. I remember John Major, but not much about his leadership beyond his liking for peas

It does seem to be the tendency, not just of the UK partliament of late, but particularly of the technocratic political class in ascendency in Europe, and of the current government more than previous - even in the US, economically right-wing of even us, there seems to be more of a social element to government beyond ensuring we have a work-capable populace.

O.

[Rhiannon]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

[Shaker]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

Indeed.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

So am I! He wasn't posting when I came back here - I'm delighted he is now. Was he always this good? 

[Hope]

Why presume I'm able-bodied? Why presume that the disabled are disabled in body? Why is it not patronising just because it doesn't affect me directly?

Sorry, O, I wasn't trying to personalise the comment; its just that this is the argument I've heard from more able-bodied than disabled people.

[Hope]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

I think that is the situation that the House of Commons found themselves in, Rhi.  They felt that the mechanism before them failed to afford the level of protection that they felt was necessary.  It would be interesting to see whether the same proportion of MPs believe the principle to be acceptable as the rest of the population - circa 80%.

I wonder whether that might be the way forward - a debate in principle followed by a debate in detail.

[Udayana]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.

Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.

[Outrider]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.

Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.

Maybe that's a facet of the simple 'yes/no' vote that was made, but typically bills are passed back and forth with amendments, and despite the public interest in this bill that hasn't happened. I appreciate that this is a private member's bill rather than one pushed through by government, I'm not sufficiently au fait with the process to know if that limits the options for review.

O.

[Shaker]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.

Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.

It could be that the public are satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill. Our political system, remember, has a few hundred MPs supposedly representing tens of millions of people, potentially resulting in a situation where you can have a proposal that millions are happy with being voted down by a, by comparison, tiny minority.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.

(So glad you are posting again btw, O)

Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.

Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.

It isn't the govt - it's MPs - free vote

[Nearly Sane]

It could be that the public are satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill. Our political system, remember, has a few hundred MPs supposedly representing tens of millions of people, potentially resulting in a situation where you can have a proposal that millions are happy with being voted down by a, by comparison, tiny minority.

And? Capital punishment was supported for years by a majority - at least using the same method of polling as for assisted suicide - are you suggesting moving to a delegate based approach or multiple referenda?

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe that's a facet of the simple 'yes/no' vote that was made, but typically bills are passed back and forth with amendments, and despite the public interest in this bill that hasn't happened. I appreciate that this is a private member's bill rather than one pushed through by government, I'm not sufficiently au fait with the process to know if that limits the options for review.

O.

In theory it doesn't, but in practice it does because of one crucial factor - time. If a Private Member's bill gets tacit govt support, it can be reviewed in the same process as any govt bill, but for obvious reasons this is unusual.

That said,I didn't see a lot of discussion from those opposed about what the safeguards could be.

[Udayana]

Depends on what one is trying to safeguard against. Someone could go through the debate and pull out the key concerns. Assumes that MPs actually voice their true fears.