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

[wrighty]

7 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

 

 

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.

Are you elected as your constituents trust you to make sensible decisions, or are you elected to take an average view which determines your vote?

The former, I would say. This is a representative democracy, not a proxy referendum system. 

[Kopek]

In our five year gen election system, it cannot be expected that the candidates could have anticipated the flow of legislation that could have arisen.  It has to be allowed that a predetermined personal position would trump the actual manifesto ? How to do that?

With regard residency, it would be easy to provide evidence, Tel Com bills, even a tax return requirement.....

..... but would that 'prove' residency???

I'm not saying that these are reasons to block this bill nbut reasons to look at the clauses???

[Fred the shred]

I am glad you did Stu unlike Moorehouse who believed the 400 emails against were from concerned constituents and that only 15 people were in favour, gullible as they come.   He must think the Manx General Public are as thick as he is.

[Fred the shred]

Kopek people move over here to avoid paying death duties they must have to prove some kind of residency or do they ?   Surely if someone moves to the Island and the falls ill with a horrible disease they get treated by the NHS or Manx Care there shouldn’t be a hard and fast time limit I assume they would be eligible for Hospice care what is the difference ?   I think the idea that people are going to come on day trips to get this assistance is fanciful as it is aimed at residents, and I am also sure that if we get this legislation through England will follow very quickly after.   This act will not happen soon it may take a year or longer to process and get passed.   I just hope it goes before LegCo before we get a new Bishop influencing the state of play a person who should stick to praying and increasing his flock and keep his beak out of politics.

[Kopek]

Don't be silly, He's trying to represent   the view of the constituents that have contacted him? That their are others who have contacted him with an alternative view is something that He has to balance, including his own personal viewpoint.???

[Gladys]

39 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

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.

It has to be a vote of conscience, not a straw poll of the noisy constituents who feel strongly enough to contact you, on either side. 

Because we don't have a party system, there doesn't seem to be room for the free vote concept (ie no party whip).  

On a matter as important as this, MHKs do have to vote on their conscience, but let's see the cogent arguments on either side, not the God wouldn't like it argument.  That way, you would hope, a piece of legislation taking in all (non-fundamentalist religious) views that will be hammered out and result in a compassionate, well framed and adequately safeguarded framework. 

The biggest danger in this, as I see it, it so many issues will become conflated (vis the argument that is irreconcilable with the suicide strategy) that it could result in many steps backward.

Hold your nerve, debate and debate on every single word in each clause so that the underlying compassionate objective is delivered in an understandable, safe and unambiguous way. 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

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. 

Who conducted the survey and can we see the questions? 

[StrangeBrew]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It has to be a vote of conscience, not a straw poll of the noisy constituents who feel strongly enough to contact you, on either side. 

A vote of conscience perhaps, but hopefully not based on personal views - it is about giving people choice and empowering them to make their own decisions about their own lives. Ok that basis, it shouldn’t be a numbers game either - does it matter if 90% of people wouldn’t support it because they personally wouldn’t want to avail themselves if this option? Let’s make it possible for those who want the choice, even if it is a minority - and in fact hopefully only a tiny minority of people will ever need to exercise any right to access assisted suicide. 

It should be possible to think “I wouldn’t choose this route myself as it doesn’t fit with my belief system,  but I will stand in support of letting others make their own personal choices”. 

 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said:

A vote of conscience perhaps, but hopefully not based on personal views - it is about giving people choice and empowering them to make their own decisions about their own lives. Ok that basis, it shouldn’t be a numbers game either - does it matter if 90% of people wouldn’t support it because they personally wouldn’t want to avail themselves if this option? Let’s make it possible for those who want the choice, even if it is a minority - and in fact hopefully only a tiny minority of people will ever need to exercise any right to access assisted suicide. 

It should be possible to think “I wouldn’t choose this route myself as it doesn’t fit with my belief system,  but I will stand in support of letting others make their own personal choices”. 

 

100%.  I would add that the 'playing God' argument becomes unsustainable when you think about medical intervention to keep people alive and in pain, when there is only one outcome and all the intervention is doing is prolonging the suffering.  

[Kopek]

This debate wa not really on the horizon at the time of the last Gen Elect, it sort've give the the elected a free hand, some of whom are taking advantage to take a stance of agreeing with their 400 emails, their wider interpretation of their constituents and their own concience?

Let those who do, do. Let those who don't, not do!!!

There's a more important debate here than the next election?

[StrangeBrew]

18 minutes ago, Gladys said:

100%.  I would add that the 'playing God' argument becomes unsustainable when you think about medical intervention to keep people alive and in pain, when there is only one outcome and all the intervention is doing is prolonging the suffering.  

That’s so weird - I was just thinking exactly that about playing god!

[The Voice of Reason]

50 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

Kopek people move over here to avoid paying death duties

Well I didn’t. I came here to take up a job offer.

If I was living somewhere I loved, I don’t think I would move here to avoid “ death duties” (AKA “inheritance tax”). 
 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said:

That’s so weird - I was just thinking exactly that about playing god!

Quite, prolonging an insufferable life is not playing God, whereas assisting a dignified, painless, and desired end is. 

[The Voice of Reason]

6 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

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

Well speaking for myself even if I really wanted to ( and I don’t) I couldn’t work out your identity from what information you have given to date.

It wouldn’t be of any benefit to me 

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Quite, prolonging an insufferable life is not playing God, whereas assisting a dignified, painless, and desired end is. 

Ignore. My mistake