Moghrey Mie Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 minute ago, Two-lane said: Or having to put the sponsors name on the side of the coffin.... Yes One of the professional witnesses did suggest people might have a cheaper funeral and donate the money saved to the Assisted Dying Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 There is a documentary on assisted suicide (that is how is billed) tonight at 9 on BBC1. Will be worth a watch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 15 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: Yes One of the professional witnesses did suggest people might have a cheaper funeral and donate the money saved to the Assisted Dying Service. I will assume you are not being facetious - I am astounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 17 minutes ago, english zloty said: Neither the Island’s politicians, nor the officers who support them have the competence to be leading the way on something as complex and important as this. If ever there were a case for following another’s example, this is it Dont get me wrong, I’m all in favour of euthanasia tourism as a niche way of keeping the incinerator running, but “we” shouldn’t be devising the rules. 100%, but not re the incinerator, so 97%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeBrew Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 So, today’s “experts”. One of them is a Dr David Randall. Presumably this guy: David Randall is a consultant nephrologist (kidney doctor) in London. He is chair of the Christian Medical Fellowship's Medical Study Group Is are his views and his expertise valuable as he is as a medical expert, or are his views on the subject informed by his Christianity? This isn’t just someone who occasionally goes to church- he heads up a group of Christian medics. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham_N_Eggs Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 7 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said: So, today’s “experts”. One of them is a Dr David Randall. Presumably this guy: David Randall is a consultant nephrologist (kidney doctor) in London. He is chair of the Christian Medical Fellowship's Medical Study Group Is are his views and his expertise valuable as he is as a medical expert, or are his views on the subject informed by his Christianity? This isn’t just someone who occasionally goes to church- he heads up a group of Christian medics. From listening to it today it seems the latter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 I don’t know if anyone saw the 6 o clock news on BBC1 which featured this topic, interviewing many including Dr Death. At the end, which was a live broadcast, the reporter said the HoK voted for Manx Care to administer this scheme. I don’t think the idea of Manx Care administering and involvement is going to go down well especially as taxes have risen to provide additional funding to the healthcare service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holte End Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 The record for a serial killers in the UK with the most kills was Dr Palmer until Dr Shipman. Just a little fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeBrew Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 13 minutes ago, 2112 said: I don’t know if anyone saw the 6 o clock news on BBC1 which featured this topic, interviewing many including Dr Death. At the end, which was a live broadcast, the reporter said the HoK voted for Manx Care to administer this scheme. I don’t think the idea of Manx Care administering and involvement is going to go down well especially as taxes have risen to provide additional funding to the healthcare service. I’m not sure that’s been reported correctly- I’m not sure that there was a positive decision that Manx Care have to be involved. What was rejected was this proposed amendment from Kate L-B: The persons specified in subsection (5) must not be employed by or engaged to provide services to Manx Care or be otherwise engaged to provide services mentioned in the National Health Service Act 2001 at the time they exercise functions under this Act. No other person who is employed by or engaged to provide services to Manx Care or who is otherwise engaged to provide services mentioned in the National Health Service Act 2001 may provide administrative assistance or other support in relation to the performance of functions under this Act while they are so employed or engaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 I had thought that this subject had merit - dying with dignity, and without unnecessary pain. I had assumed that the rules would be set in stone, and the Government would provide the resources and money, absolutely without question. No means tests, and the like. No reducing the number of candidates because the gov. is spending too much money elsewhere. No waiting lists. Now I find that an MHK has suggested that it might be funded by charity, with all the problems that involves. Door-to-door begging (and in other forms) and the problems caused when (not if) the charity folds. Nine MHKs supported that view. Cannan, the Chief Minister, has said "it is a 'Fallacy' to think assisted dying legislation wouldn't change". I am not sure if he is implying that the rules could flip-flop between permitted and not permitted. I have a bad feeling about this. In my opinion the MHKs are just local politicians. I do not think they have the capability to debate or decide on an issue like this. Eventually a referendum will be held, but the format, the question asked, will be decided by MHKs. See the reference above to a document discussing the Referendum Act 1979. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 14 Author Share Posted May 14 53 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said: So, today’s “experts”. One of them is a Dr David Randall. Presumably this guy: David Randall is a consultant nephrologist (kidney doctor) in London. He is chair of the Christian Medical Fellowship's Medical Study Group Is are his views and his expertise valuable as he is as a medical expert, or are his views on the subject informed by his Christianity? This isn’t just someone who occasionally goes to church- he heads up a group of Christian medics. You're not an expert on anything if you have one opinion only and do not consider any other options. He shouldn't be allowed to be there as a doctor, he's obviously simply just yet another god botherer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeBrew Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 minute ago, Albert Tatlock said: You're not an expert on anything if you have one opinion only and do not consider any other options. Absolutely. And it strikes me that those in favour of introducing assisted dying are willing to listen to other voices and to accept there should be close scrutiny of the bill to ensure that all necessary safeguards are put in place. Those who are against it are simply against it - and any proposed amendments they are putting forward arent to improve the bill or to ensure the vulnerable are protected - their amendments are to try to scupper it all together. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeBrew Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 7 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: He shouldn't be allowed to be there as a doctor, he's obviously simply just yet another god botherer. I’m not religious myself but I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. And I have no problem with religious people letting their beliefs dictate how they live (although they are often pretty selective with that). I don’t, however, see why their beliefs should dictate how I live - or how I die. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 There are many Countries with this system in place, there will be many benefits and pitfalls researched by others than ourselves. If an Advocate can interview and decide a person is fit to sign a Power of Attorney, surely the two Doctors/Psychiatrists required to access the patients' free will to decide their 'fate' is suffice and those Doctors should be independent of any charity set up to handle this situation??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 There will be an informal referendum at the next election when people will make their feelings felt by voting for the candidates who hold the same convictions as they do. The members that vote against this bill will get the heave ho from the voters who are passionate about the right to chose a dignified death ,in certain circumstances, and they will be supported by voters who think this is wrong. So sitting on the fence won’t work, trying to please everyone never does you just end up pissing everyone off. This is not going to go away the grass is not that long. If I am still alive when the next election comes up and I hope that I am this will be the most important question I will be asking anyone standing for election. Cannon has shown once again what a weak, inept leader he is by his actions he is a disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.