Allinson ~ assisted dying won't be the "cause of death" to get life insurance payouts

[Ringy Rose]

5 hours ago, Gladys said:

Yes, CC's vote surprised me too. 

I’ve since seen her post on Facebook and it seems a carefully considered position. I share many of the same reservations but I think it’s important to get the bill through then iron out any small creases, but I can respect those who see it the other way around.

[Two-lane]

6 minutes ago, jackwhite said:

the fact he's able to go to his gym 2 or 3 times a day makes me think the 'job' doesn't take up much of his time.

Where is this documented? (I tried the Internet search - but failed).

[jackwhite]

1 minute ago, Two-lane said:

Where is this documented? (I tried the Internet search - but failed).

First hand knowledge. 

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Steve_Christian said:

don’t agree - have the courage of your convictions and if you are uncomfortable saying something to someone’s face, or having your views attributed to you as a person, you shouldn’t be saying it - or you’re just a coward. The ability to hide one’s name shouldn’t give that person the right to say anything they choose.

I always work on the assumption that, if anyone really wanted to, they could work out my identity easily enough.

But I completely disagree with you on the above. Posting in one’s own name makes engagement on controversial topics a lot more difficult. Most employment contracts have clauses saying you can be sacked if you bring your employer into disrepute. Civil servants contracts are such that they aren’t really allowed to criticise the government.

There can be consequences for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion, no matter how politely you express that opinion. Look at, say, the arguments around rights for trans people, or around the Palestine conflict. Whatever you say one side is going to take umbrage. 

[Fred the shred]

Moorehouse must have the medal for most questions asked but I wonder what does he do about the answers he gets ?   It just stops there he never seems to follow anything up unless I have been missing some great success stories attributed to his name.    

[Two-lane]

I mentioned the BMA letter in the Manx Care thread, but it is worth mentioning it here.

Take the BMA letter in the context of the topic being discussed here. The question should not be if euthanasia should be made legal here, but if the gov. and Manx Care are competent to oversee an organisation authorised to do this.

In any situation it is sensible to analyse what could happen if things go wrong (things going right are never a problem).

When things go wrong, do the gov. and Manx Care have a history of being honest and forthright?

[ In case I wasn't explicit enough, how is the bullying going and how might it affect medical decisions ].

[[ And don't give that nonsense about - it will never happen ]]

[Major Rushen]

I know it has been covered but do we have the health infrastructure to support  those deciding to come here 12-18 months before an expected demise. Surely it should be residency of 2-4 years to qualify?

[Steve_Christian]

28 minutes ago, Major Rushen said:

I know it has been covered but do we have the health infrastructure to support  those deciding to come here 12-18 months before an expected demise. Surely it should be residency of 2-4 years to qualify?

One of the points raised several times in the debate in HOKs 

[genericUserName]

7 hours ago, WTF said:

why would people move here when they could just go to dignitas instead ?

EDIT;  on reflection once you're an IOM resident there is no death duty ( just probate )  so it could cost the UK a fortune in taxes/duty.

Almost certainly a red herring since, unless something has changed, the 'residency' of the deceased does not exclude their estate from being liable for UK inheritance taxes if they are deemed to be UK domiciled. Somebody who moves here and rents / buys a property does not automatically become IOM domiciled.

Edited November 1, 2023 by genericUserName

[genericUserName]

What's would be the point of having a parliament if it cannot make legislation without having to ask London for permission? What would be the point in wasting the time and money debating this important and forward looking legislation?

And why shouldn't it, over time, be allowed to work exactly like Switzerland?

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Major Rushen said:

I know it has been covered but do we have the health infrastructure to support  those deciding to come here 12-18 months before an expected demise. Surely it should be residency of 2-4 years to qualify?

Who would have thought foresight to know that in a couple of years they will be given a life expectancy of 6 months? 

[HiVibes]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Who would have thought foresight to know that in a couple of years they will be given a life expectancy of 6 months? 

Typically Motor Neurone disease has a prognosis of up to 3 years from diagnosis to death, and many more progressive illnesses have anything up to 6 years 'if you are lucky' from early diagnosis to death with a clear expectancy of a very pain ridden limited existance getting worse each day, so its not foresight just a reasonably early diagnosis, which is far more likely to happen if you live in the UK as opposed to here.  

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

Typically Motor Neurone disease has a prognosis of up to 3 years from diagnosis to death, and many more progressive illnesses have anything up to 6 years 'if you are lucky' from early diagnosis to death with a clear expectancy of a very pain ridden limited existance getting worse each day, so its not foresight just a reasonably early diagnosis, which is far more likely to happen if you live in the UK as opposed to here.  

Yes, there are conditions which have a single prognosis in the long term.  But, many more are somewhat shorter diagnoses.

Good point though, but if you have the residency requirement set at too long a period, there will be some terrible conditions excluded.

In principle, I am for having the option, but it is the detail that needs to be fully thought through.

Thanks for engaging, as it is, as you say, not straightforward. 

[Stu Peters]

The hard work on this bill will be the next (clauses) stage. The devil is in the detail. There are lessons from various jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, so we need to cherry pick rather than take (say) the Oregon model as is.

As to Jason’s 400 emails. I think (I haven’t counted) I got around half that. Interestingly, of all those that trickled in over the last couple of months, I think the majority were in favour. Then this weekend I was deluged with demands that I vote against. Anyone would think it was an orchestrated campaign…

I thought Michelle’s speech was informative and brave, in saying things we all know but don’t say out loud. There is no conflict - the truth is more important than an unpaid departmental duty. We disagree on many things, but not this.

On the topic of voting with your conscience, a number of my correspondents told me I shouldn’t do that (if it involved voting in favour) as I was supposed to vote on behalf of my constituents, the great majority (I was unreliable informed) wanted me to vote against. So I enjoyed pressing the Yes voting button, half expecting to be smitten by a vengeful dyslexic dog.

[wrighty]

I am in favour of legislation to allow assisted dying, provided there are appropriate safeguards. To me automomy is the key principle. Those that don't like it have no right to deny those that do. 
 

I respect my colleagues who are against it, based on the 'slippery slope' argument, but most of them, if pressed, would be in favour of it for themselves if they got MND. I also feel that the IOM doctors' survey was a bit biased in its questioning, and was almost designed to get a 'no' response. 
 

I really hope it gets through. Society needs to get over its religious affliction.