Snap General Election called

[morepork]

WT, there are dozens of experimental drugs for treating MN disease. I work on the disease for a living currently and whist I support a dignified exit, I'd like to see much more resource invested in people that are fighting it. I've seen maybe a dozen people pass away due to this condition, but they all fought. Any form of marketing for assisted suicide needs strict regulation.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Assisted Dying bill being discussed in Parliament currently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4ry0pge4kt

Tugenhadt is particularly despicable, spouting a load of lies, then says "we need more honesty in this debate", follows up with false dichotomies and then a few more lies

I've sent a few emails to my MP on the subject (particularly on the days before debates). He's voted for it so far but, according to his emails, is not guaranteed to do so today (he keeps an open mind - waiting to decide on the day, if you can believe that). We shall see . . . I just hope the majority of his inbox is in favour.

Yep, he voted for it, helping it narrowly over the line.

Interesting to see who voted which way. Obviously, most of the Tories were against and the Greens and LibDems for. Labour were pretty split (as were Reform!?) - with more support from the Labour right and nays from the left (perhaps because they don't trust the authorities not to kill off the vulnerable to save NHS cash?). Interestingly Wes Streeting is against, so will he hinder the NHS implementation of this . . . or even prevent it completely (on the NHS)?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng- ... dying-bill

[Which Tyler]

WT, there are dozens of experimental drugs for treating MN disease.

Erm... Yes.
MND is also not the only reason someone might want control over their death.

Why tagging me in?

[morepork]

Not intentionally tagging you in. The video tagged MND specifically. Sorry for the intrusion. There are clinical trials for that disease was my only point.

[Puja]

Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Not intentionally tagging you in. The video tagged MND specifically. Sorry for the intrusion. There are clinical trials for that disease was my only point.

Fair enough.
Worth noting that the documentary is 15 years old, the host is a fantasy author, not medic or researcher, and the point was assisted death, not some of the conditions that some sufferers of would consider AD

[morepork]

Not intentionally tagging you in. The video tagged MND specifically. Sorry for the intrusion. There are clinical trials for that disease was my only point.

Fair enough.
Worth noting that the documentary is 15 years old, the host is a fantasy author, not medic or researcher, and the point was assisted death, not some of the conditions that some sufferers of would consider AD

I fail to see how my comment is not germane to the point at hand. The patient in the video, that
you posted, had options even 15 years ago. How is this specific example of a condition not relevant? I’m all for going out in a blaze of morphine if the patient wishes it, but there are investigational drugs available, for that and other indications. It isn’t black and white.

[Which Tyler]

Well, mostly because I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.
It's been a while since I watched it; but I don't recall anyone saying "there are no treatment options for MND" or "This is a black and white issue".

It's a discussion about assisted dying, not MND.

Which, of course, doesn't mean that you can't discuss MND if you wish - it's just not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand.
For myself, I don't feel informed enough on MND to take part in that discussion.

[Sandydragon]

Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.


FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg


Puja

She puts that well and I agree. It’s easy to categorise the anti s as being by religious nuts, but there are many practical issues that just haven’t gone away. And this does feel rushed.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

It seems that most of the Labour left felt something like that. This is difficult. Concern for the vulnerable is very important and, yes, (without good enough safeguards ) there is a risk that the vulnerable could be persuaded to die early as a result. But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Ideally we would have brilliant palliative care in all locations in the country. But we don't and I don't have great confidence that this government (or any other) will ever prioritise it enough. This is the reality. We can't wait for a perfect society to provide the perfect free choice for those facing a terminal condition. We'll wait forever for that. The question is, is it better now for the choice to be available?

It seems to me that we might be in an unusual situation, with enough liberal types in parliament to be this done (and only just!). After 2029 when are we likely to see this again?

[Puja]

Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

It seems that most of the Labour left felt something like that. This is difficult. Concern for the vulnerable is very important and, yes, (without good enough safeguards ) there is a risk that the vulnerable could be persuaded to die early as a result. But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Ideally we would have brilliant palliative care in all locations in the country. But we don't and I don't have great confidence that this government (or any other) will ever prioritise it enough. This is the reality. We can't wait for a perfect society to provide the perfect free choice for those facing a terminal condition. We'll wait forever for that. The question is, is it better now for the choice to be available?

It seems to me that we might be in an unusual situation, with enough liberal types in parliament to be this done (and only just!). After 2029 when are we likely to see this again?

The concept of politicians saying, "We'll get the general concept ratified and we'll hammer out the exact details later" should terrify anyone who watched the Brexit negotiations. Quite apart from that, I don't know if this passes the "Would we trust any future BNP/Reform government with the power this law provides?" test, which any big shake-up should require. Without having the guardrails absolutely iron-clad and fixed solidly into the ground, I am worried about the possibility of the Overton window shifting further and ending up having doctors and next-of-kin being able to make decisions about "Whether he would want to be a burden on society".

This was a news story today that got me thinking on on a similar vein: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo. In an ideal world, this should be a great idea and a phenomenal opportunity to revolutionise the health of the country - I should be jumping for joy about the potential development of predictive and personalised healthcare.

However, I can't help but think that I don't trust any UK government with that sort of data right now. The Conservatives would privatise it at a cut-price deal to a mate "to leverage the efficiency of the free market", Labour would "work with business" to make sure that insurance and finance companies could use it to discriminate, and Reform would try to turn it into biometric IDs so that anyone not born in the country couldn't access services.

Puja

[Puja]

Me seeing a headline of, "Have-a-go mow warning as councillor cuts roundabout" and thinking, "I bet that's some Reform cunt getting upset about wildflowers."

Dan Price, the whip for the Reform UK group on the council

Of course it was.

"As a father myself, the safety of our children is paramount. Children and parents shouldn't be risking their lives on the school run due to uncut grass.

"Drivers shouldn't need to risk their lives or the possibility of damaging their vehicles whilst using Cotmanhay island."

Daniel, bestie, my brother in Christ, my anthropomorphic turnip friend, with kindness, with all the respect you deserve, without judgement... how in the name of fuck are you "using a roundabout" that risks your life or damaging your vehicle if the wildflowers in the middle are allowed to grow tall?

"I am a hands-on councillor. I want to do things differently."

I'm willing to bet that "doing things differently" also includes not turning up to any council meetings or making any effort to understand even the very basics of council governance. I've heard some absolute horror stories from people working for councils about some of the recent Reform electees.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

It seems that most of the Labour left felt something like that. This is difficult. Concern for the vulnerable is very important and, yes, (without good enough safeguards ) there is a risk that the vulnerable could be persuaded to die early as a result. But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Ideally we would have brilliant palliative care in all locations in the country. But we don't and I don't have great confidence that this government (or any other) will ever prioritise it enough. This is the reality. We can't wait for a perfect society to provide the perfect free choice for those facing a terminal condition. We'll wait forever for that. The question is, is it better now for the choice to be available?

It seems to me that we might be in an unusual situation, with enough liberal types in parliament to be this done (and only just!). After 2029 when are we likely to see this again?

The concept of politicians saying, "We'll get the general concept ratified and we'll hammer out the exact details later" should terrify anyone who watched the Brexit negotiations. Quite apart from that, I don't know if this passes the "Would we trust any future BNP/Reform government with the power this law provides?" test, which any big shake-up should require. Without having the guardrails absolutely iron-clad and fixed solidly into the ground, I am worried about the possibility of the Overton window shifting further and ending up having doctors and next-of-kin being able to make decisions about "Whether he would want to be a burden on society".

This was a news story today that got me thinking on on a similar vein: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo. In an ideal world, this should be a great idea and a phenomenal opportunity to revolutionise the health of the country - I should be jumping for joy about the potential development of predictive and personalised healthcare.

However, I can't help but think that I don't trust any UK government with that sort of data right now. The Conservatives would privatise it at a cut-price deal to a mate "to leverage the efficiency of the free market", Labour would "work with business" to make sure that insurance and finance companies could use it to discriminate, and Reform would try to turn it into biometric IDs so that anyone not born in the country couldn't access services.

Puja

With our lack of a constitution and the dictatorial powers of any UK government with a reasonable majority, we're in total peril at the hands of Reform, no matter what.

Agreed, I wouldn't trust any Labour, Tory or God help us, Reform government with our data.

What is your view on my point:

But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Me seeing a headline of, "Have-a-go mow warning as councillor cuts roundabout" and thinking, "I bet that's some Reform cunt getting upset about wildflowers."

Dan Price, the whip for the Reform UK group on the council

Of course it was.

"As a father myself, the safety of our children is paramount. Children and parents shouldn't be risking their lives on the school run due to uncut grass.

"Drivers shouldn't need to risk their lives or the possibility of damaging their vehicles whilst using Cotmanhay island."

Daniel, bestie, my brother in Christ, my anthropomorphic turnip friend, with kindness, with all the respect you deserve, without judgement... how in the name of fuck are you "using a roundabout" that risks your life or damaging your vehicle if the wildflowers in the middle are allowed to grow tall?

"I am a hands-on councillor. I want to do things differently."

I'm willing to bet that "doing things differently" also includes not turning up to any council meetings or making any effort to understand even the very basics of council governance. I've heard some absolute horror stories from people working for councils about some of the recent Reform electees.

Puja

Assuming he's not worried about people driving over it and getting stuck in the grass, I can only think the safety issue could be visibility - seeing what's coming round the roundabout.

[Puja]

.What is your view on my point:

But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

It's a good question is my view! I guess the answer is in an inflammatory and extreme word that a few disabled friends and some disabled influencers have been chucking about of late - eugenics. It's a big fucking word to use (mind, so was "fascist", not very long ago), and my initial reaction was scornful, but their argument is not about a deliberate, fascist, ideology of hatred, but a capitalist one of expendability.

The argument goes that, if you conflate a person's value with the economic utility they produce, then it leads to an inevitable conclusion that some people are more valuable than others to society and that, if you had a smaller percentage of the less valuable ones and a higher percentage of the more valuable ones, then society as a whole is 'better.'

You can see it in this government. Cuts to PIP (a benefit most often given to those in work, which usually provides the adaptations that are **needed** in order for them to work) are described as "encouraging people to come off benefits". The "most business-friendly government ever" wants to "cut down on red tape on employers" (which is often protections for accomodations and to prevent discrimination). There is discussion of the need to "reduce the cost to the Treasury of benefits" and "revolutionise social care to reduce the burden on taxpayers." Meanwhile Reform fulminate and propagandise about redrafting the Equality Act, the business opportunities from removing "political correctness gone mad", and peddle conspiracy theories about "Motability means people with Aspergers ¹ get given a free car!"

Remove jobs, remove money, remove care, remove support from disabled and vulnerable people and more of them will die - this is known fact. Either directly from the consequences of austerity, or through hopelessness and despair from being demonised by society and internalised shame at being "a burden" on friends and family. Every time cuts are needed and it's determined that disabled people need less, the message is drummed in that they are a luxury to be tolerated by a kind society when the economy is doing well but, in times of trouble, they are "a cost to the taxpayer" that needs to be reduced.

It is a known fact that these cuts cost lives. And yes, when savings need to be made, the choices are made - disabled lives are an acceptable sacrifice to improve the economy.

It feel inflammatory to call it eugenics. I'm not entirely sure it's wrong. And the corollary of using that word is that our society having "the most vulnerable being most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way" is not a bug, but a feature. The government providing a "solution" by making it easier to die does not fix the actual problem and in fact provides a disincentive to do so.

Puja



¹ I used the word Aspergers deliberately, because noted Nazi Hans Asperger invented it to separate autistic people into two categories - those who could be economically useful to the state and those who could not be. The ones who couldn't be, were of course sent to a 'special school', although history is deliberately vague about whether Asperger understood what that actually meant.

Value to the state based around ability to generate economic activity.

[Son of Mathonwy]

.What is your view on my point:

But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

It's a good question is my view! I guess the answer is in an inflammatory and extreme word that a few disabled friends and some disabled influencers have been chucking about of late - eugenics. It's a big fucking word to use (mind, so was "fascist", not very long ago), and my initial reaction was scornful, but their argument is not about a deliberate, fascist, ideology of hatred, but a capitalist one of expendability.

The argument goes that, if you conflate a person's value with the economic utility they produce, then it leads to an inevitable conclusion that some people are more valuable than others to society and that, if you had a smaller percentage of the less valuable ones and a higher percentage of the more valuable ones, then society as a whole is 'better.'

You can see it in this government. Cuts to PIP (a benefit most often given to those in work, which usually provides the adaptations that are **needed** in order for them to work) are described as "encouraging people to come off benefits". The "most business-friendly government ever" wants to "cut down on red tape on employers" (which is often protections for accomodations and to prevent discrimination). There is discussion of the need to "reduce the cost to the Treasury of benefits" and "revolutionise social care to reduce the burden on taxpayers." Meanwhile Reform fulminate and propagandise about redrafting the Equality Act, the business opportunities from removing "political correctness gone mad", and peddle conspiracy theories about "Motability means people with Aspergers ¹ get given a free car!"

Remove jobs, remove money, remove care, remove support from disabled and vulnerable people and more of them will die - this is known fact. Either directly from the consequences of austerity, or through hopelessness and despair from being demonised by society and internalised shame at being "a burden" on friends and family. Every time cuts are needed and it's determined that disabled people need less, the message is drummed in that they are a luxury to be tolerated by a kind society when the economy is doing well but, in times of trouble, they are "a cost to the taxpayer" that needs to be reduced.

It is a known fact that these cuts cost lives. And yes, when savings need to be made, the choices are made - disabled lives are an acceptable sacrifice to improve the economy.

It feel inflammatory to call it eugenics. I'm not entirely sure it's wrong. And the corollary of using that word is that our society having "the most vulnerable being most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way" is not a bug, but a feature. The government providing a "solution" by making it easier to die does not fix the actual problem and in fact provides a disincentive to do so.

Puja



¹ I used the word Aspergers deliberately, because noted Nazi Hans Asperger invented it to separate autistic people into two categories - those who could be economically useful to the state and those who could not be. The ones who couldn't be, were of course sent to a 'special school', although history is deliberately vague about whether Asperger understood what that actually meant.

Value to the state based around ability to generate economic activity.

You're right to be concerned about this. Although we are a very long way from eugenics IMO, such concerns cannot be taken lightly. However, re the law my feeling is that the 'six months to live' requirement should be an effective safeguard.

If we are to take Starmer and McSweeney's Labour at their word, all they ever talk about is helping working families (no mention of single people or those not in work). They would clearly rather not think about anyone else. Although there is plenty of humanity on the backbenches, little is allowed to show from the cabinet. There is no kindness in this government. In fact, the presentation is austere (funny that, as they continue with Cameron and Osbourne's austerity). It's very sad - kindness should be set as an example from the top - it's the antidote to what the far right have on offer.