Knowledge Base
Community

The gaff - 11th September 2015

Started by: gordie10
On: 11/09/2015 | 20:23
Replies: 34
Reply

by: jtemplar
on: 15/09/2015 | 09:22

@ray2 wrote:

hi @jesi23

 

then isn,t it a disgrace that this bill was thought unworthy and not cost effective (it,s always about the money) because it would only help those who needed it by a few weeks

 

Hi Ray

 

I don't think it's true to say, and I'm sure @jesi23 did not mean to imply, that it was simply a matter of cost over numbers helped which caused the demise of the Bill but the need for a better piece of legislation which was required.

 

Were this Bill to have been passed then there would be limited room for any call for further legislation so soon after the passing of this and so valuable resources would be used to implement a law which is not fully dealing with the scale of the issue and ignoring many who feel they should be included within its framework.

 

As it is now those who drafted this Bill have the opportunity to work with all stakeholders to put together a more comprehensive document for debate which will better address all those affected and so stand a greater chance of being passed into law.

 

Of course there will still be the moral and religious questions to debate and I'm sure the Bishops in the Lords, and others, will have something to say on that subject.

Message 31 of 35
by: egglassa
on: 15/09/2015 | 09:39
Nice edition of the gaff
Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 32 of 35
by: jesi23
on: 17/09/2015 | 21:30 edited: 17/09/2015 | 21:51

ray2 wrote: [ @ray2  NOTE some clarification of points I made added]

jesi23 wrote:

@ray2

I have been reading up on the reasons given by Doctors and MPs for voting against the BILL.

 

there were too many clauses and exceptions introduced which rendered the bill as it stood as unfit for purpose and not really dealing with the issues for which it was being introduced while not dealing with spiritual and moral objections that some have expressed. 


I think that the consensus was that it was a lot of cost in implementing the bill as it was created, with the potential for unintended consequences - and that the only people who could benefit seemed to be those who had so little time left to live that it would only shorten their life by weeks . . . and it would not actually kick in until a couple of weeks after decision was made to give time for changing mind . . .

There were quite a few notable points in a recent Letters to the Editor in the Times or Telegraph concerning objections to the particular bill proposed.

The objections were not limited to 'cost' but included the time spent by nursing staff or others who supply the means to commit suicide . . . it still did not include helping those who literally CANNOT self-administer . . . and there were implications beyond what you suggest as well . . .

hi @jesi23

 

then isn,t it a disgrace that this bill was thought unworthy and not cost effective (it,s always about the money) because it would only help those who needed it by a few weeks,

 

we both know people are killing themselves everyday rather than live with the pain ,or put their families through another day of caring for them when they CHOSE they have had enough

 

<snip>

 

yet a person who choses he/she doesn,t want to suffer anymore and wants to die with dignity and of their own chosing cannot 1 by the cost and 2 because it might only help in the last few weeks

 

that sounds a good start to me,if we had that in place we could fight for more

 

@jtemplar has pointed out - it is not just about cost - but it is better not to try to implement a poor law not properly thought through - you just spend more without it being cost-effective - and it has the effect of kicking the entire issue back into the long grass -

 

I know what it is to suffer excruciating pain on occasion - I am 'physically challenged' myself and have good days and bad days . . . I am not totally convinced that suicide is necessarily 'dying with dignity' . . .

 

 

NOT passing the bill at this stage leaves an opening to re-think the issues.

 

 

Thank you @mitchell98 for raising the discussion.

 

 

Jes

Please don't forget to come back after your problem has been resolved and select a best answer.
Also consider a kudos [+★] for any member who helped.
Message 33 of 35
by: leshin
on: 17/09/2015 | 23:22
nice round up
Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 34 of 35
Highlighted
by: ray2
on: 18/09/2015 | 00:06

jesi23 wrote:

 

ray2 wrote: [ @ray2  NOTE some clarification of points I made added]

jesi23 wrote:

@ray2

I have been reading up on the reasons given by Doctors and MPs for voting against the BILL.

 

there were too many clauses and exceptions introduced which rendered the bill as it stood as unfit for purpose and not really dealing with the issues for which it was being introduced while not dealing with spiritual and moral objections that some have expressed. 


I think that the consensus was that it was a lot of cost in implementing the bill as it was created, with the potential for unintended consequences - and that the only people who could benefit seemed to be those who had so little time left to live that it would only shorten their life by weeks . . . and it would not actually kick in until a couple of weeks after decision was made to give time for changing mind . . .

There were quite a few notable points in a recent Letters to the Editor in the Times or Telegraph concerning objections to the particular bill proposed.

The objections were not limited to 'cost' but included the time spent by nursing staff or others who supply the means to commit suicide . . . it still did not include helping those who literally CANNOT self-administer . . . and there were implications beyond what you suggest as well . . .

hi @jesi23

 

then isn,t it a disgrace that this bill was thought unworthy and not cost effective (it,s always about the money) because it would only help those who needed it by a few weeks,

 

we both know people are killing themselves everyday rather than live with the pain ,or put their families through another day of caring for them when they CHOSE they have had enough

 

<snip>

 

yet a person who choses he/she doesn,t want to suffer anymore and wants to die with dignity and of their own chosing cannot 1 by the cost and 2 because it might only help in the last few weeks

 

that sounds a good start to me,if we had that in place we could fight for more

 

@jtemplar has pointed out - it is not just about cost - but it is better not to try to implement a poor law not properly thought through - you just spend more without it being cost-effective - and it has the effect of kicking the entire issue back into the long grass -

 

I know what it is to suffer excruciating pain on occasion - I am 'physically challenged' myself and have good days and bad days . . . I am not totally convinced that suicide is necessarily 'dying with dignity' . . .

 

 

NOT passing the bill at this stage leaves an opening to re-think the issues.

 

 

Thank you @mitchell98 for raising the discussion.

 

 

Jes

 

hi @jesi23

 

you have made some good points,but i do wander if all the escuses given were just a delay tactic to a decision no prime minister wants to make.

 

we shall have to see if it,s pushed back and forgotten about or they manage to get it right and vote it through???

Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 35 of 35