General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
We can easily save money by contracting out assisted death to the private sector. Let G4S or Serco have a crack at it.
There are arguments for and against assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.
Cost – regardless of whether it's a bit cheaper or a bit more expensive – should not be one of them, Wes.
I dunno, you could say that cost is a factor, because the NHS can't do everything, so they have to prioritise based on the funds they have.
But on the other hand, given that assisted dying is only set to be offered to people who are thought to have 6 months left to live, I assume there won't be many people using the NHS in this way, so surely it would be a very small part of the NHS budget.
Maybe at the very least they should decriminalise the assisting of someone ending their life in certain cases, so that if somebody helps their relative go to Dignitas in Switzerland, they won't be breaking the law.
It's a strange argument because it's as if caring for a terminally ill person doesn't cost anything.
It doesn't really matter if this bill passes because it's going to make it so difficult to even be able to use what it offers with all the hoops people would have to jump through.
Its politics. A slow game.
Much of parliament has reason to fear such bills being used less honestly.
Both the obvious bullying in aid of quickening inheritance risk. But also doctors trying to hide errors etc. Or, with a bit of creativity, out right murder.
The only way such a bill will ever pass is by addressing those fears.
But, like all such things. Once the bill is in place. More rational versions that address them in less over the top ways. Can be argued based on both the actual defined right for folks in this law. And the historical data of people who actually try to do so.
It's never a warrantee. But reality is, politics is more often about strategies against fear than logical facts. After all, MPs are people with their own emotional and religiose flaws etc.