IOM Referendums a suggestion

[Roger Ram]

18 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

Would income tax have been increased if we didn't build the £100m shed?

Yes

[Roger Ram]

15 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

15 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

 

Assisted dying isn’t a simple question and the answer isn’t a simple yes or no.

Do you think that you should have the option to call a halt to your own suffering as your health deteriorates?

Thats a simple yes or no.  Enough yes votes and they further examine the details and technicalities, enough no votes and they don’t bother and just scrap it.

I would like to think that most sane and rational people would be in favour.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Ram said:

Do you think that you should have the option to call a halt to your own suffering as your health deteriorates?

Thats a simple yes or no.  Enough yes votes and they further examine the details and technicalities, enough no votes and they don’t bother and just scrap it.

I would like to think that most sane and rational people would be in favour.

But you can make it a simple question.

Tynwald, our legislators, pass an Act which does not come into effect until 12 months after approval in a referendum, and is repealed if it has not been approved within 5 years ( a sunset clause ).

The question is

Should the Assisted Dying Act as passed by Tynwald come into effect YES or NO.

A couple of extra points.

1. It should be called the Choice of Time and Means of Death Act.  Assisted Dying, Suicide, or even Euthanasia are inappropriate.

2. even with such a mechanism I don’t approve of referendums. Nor do I approve of directly elected Chief Ministers, in or out of Tynwald. We need, desperately, political groupings, call them parties or platforms, which stand on an agreed platform of policies.

And, yes, I’m fully in favour of choosing my time and means of death, and, if my leukaemia comes back in untreatable form, won’t hesitate to do so.

 

[Gladys]

56 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But you can make it a simple question.

Tynwald, our legislators, pass an Act which does not come into effect until 12 months after approval in a referendum, and is repealed if it has not been approved within 5 years ( a sunset clause ).

The question is

Should the Assisted Dying Act as passed by Tynwald come into effect YES or NO.

A couple of extra points.

1. It should be called the Choice of Time and Means of Death Act.  Assisted Dying, Suicide, or even Euthanasia are inappropriate.

2. even with such a mechanism I don’t approve of referendums. Nor do I approve of directly elected Chief Ministers, in or out of Tynwald. We need, desperately, political groupings, call them parties or platforms, which stand on an agreed platform of policies.

And, yes, I’m fully in favour of choosing my time and means of death, and, if my leukaemia comes back in untreatable form, won’t hesitate to do so.

 

100% agreed, John, and also your comment on your own position.  

Today's Mannin Line had Murcott (sp?)  arguing that the bill was contrary to Tynwald's stated aim of eradicating suicide.  His view is informed from his religious position, but there is a lot of scope for a semantic argument on that, not least assisted dying is not suicide.  Also very heartfelt call from someone whose relative died a painful death and was desperate to end his suffering. 

The Murcott position is exactly why the recommendations of the 2019 report need to be enacted before any referendum. This topic is ripe for religious factions throwing huge amounts of money at a campaign based on their ideology, not simple humanity.

[Cinderella]

Glad to hear there are 12 sensible people in Tynwald who kicked Alf to the curb on this. A referendum was all about abstaining from their responsibilities and was cowardice. 

Edited Monday at 04:04 PM by Cinderella

[HeteroErectus]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

100% agreed, John, and also your comment on your own position.  

Today's Mannin Line had Murcott (sp?)  arguing that the bill was contrary to Tynwald's stated aim of eradicating suicide.  His view is informed from his religious position, but there is a lot of scope for a semantic argument on that, not least assisted dying is not suicide.  Also very heartfelt call from someone whose relative died a painful death and was desperate to end his suffering. 

The Murcott position is exactly why the recommendations of the 2019 report need to be enacted before any referendum. This topic is ripe for religious factions throwing huge amounts of money at a campaign based on their ideology, not simple humanity.

The lack of trust in the government is a bigger driver than religion, that is, for the people who are against.

Food for thought: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia-program

 

Edit: more food for thought, for those that maybe think the nazi reference is too dramatic: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/palliative-and-supportive-care/article/realities-of-medical-assistance-in-dying-in-canada/3105E6A45E04DFA8602D54DF91A2F568

Edited Monday at 04:19 PM by HeteroErectus

[TheTeapot]

Disappointing, never taken part in a referendum, could have ticked it off my bucket list.

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

But you can make it a simple question.

Tynwald, our legislators, pass an Act which does not come into effect until 12 months after approval in a referendum, and is repealed if it has not been approved within 5 years ( a sunset clause ).

The question is

Should the Assisted Dying Act as passed by Tynwald come into effect YES or NO.

Effectively that's what was done in New Zealand where the question was: Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force?   That way voters will know more of less exactly what they are voting for.

Arguably the other alternative is to have a referendum on the general principle and then leave the details to be sorted out by the legislative process if it passes. Typically Cannan seems to attempted to do neither and was flailing about on how he was going to manage to implement his idea.  I'm always struck by the vague contempt with which other MHKs treat him in debate, but this performance is a good example of why they might.

It's actually surprising that it actually managed to get even the 11 votes it did.  But I suppose we should never underestimate the zeal of Manx politicians when it comes to evading responsibility. 

[Gladys]

Do we know who voted for and against? 

[Fred the shred]

Do does anyone know who voted for Alf’s amendment and who voted against ?   It will be very useful in the future to have that knowledge.

[Fred the shred]

Sorry Gladys you pipped me at the post, yes I really want to know for future reference when voting.

[Will Halsall]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Do we know who voted for and against? 

Manx Radio:

 

The 11 MHKs who wanted to see a referendum were: Rob Callister, Alfred Cannan, Claire Christian, Ann Corlett, Julie Edge, Tim Glover, Kate Lord-Brennan, Jason Moorhouse, Andrew Smith, Chris Thomas and John Wannenburgh.

The 12 MHKs who voted against a referendum were: Alex Allinson, Clare Barber, Daphne Caine, Tim Crookall, Joney Faragher, Michelle Haywood, Lawrie Hooper, Tim Johnston, Sarah Maltby, Stu Peters, Jane Poole-Wilson and Juan Watterson. 

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, Will Halsall said:

Manx Radio:

 

The 11 MHKs who wanted to see a referendum were: Rob Callister, Alfred Cannan, Claire Christian, Ann Corlett, Julie Edge, Tim Glover, Kate Lord-Brennan, Jason Moorhouse, Andrew Smith, Chris Thomas and John Wannenburgh.

The 12 MHKs who voted against a referendum were: Alex Allinson, Clare Barber, Daphne Caine, Tim Crookall, Joney Faragher, Michelle Haywood, Lawrie Hooper, Tim Johnston, Sarah Maltby, Stu Peters, Jane Poole-Wilson and Juan Watterson. 

Thank you, I did Google but couldn't find that article. 

[Will Halsall]

Ashford wriggled out of voting and was elsewhere I gather; maybe he was at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM) - they have previous for employing people who are vindictive and self serving 🤔

 

[Roger Ram]

Didn’t they all declare what their thoughts on this issue were before the election?

 

Edited Monday at 07:40 PM by Roger Ram