It’s an interesting take … but on the other hand, bodily autonomy? Avoiding pointless, agonising, medically-preventable suffering? Understanding that religious and authoritarian objections come wearing a disguise of “protecting” the vulnerable?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
To the extent that this feedback is coming from actual disabled people and disability rights groups I accept it. To the extent it is coming from religious groups who have always opposed assisted dying now seizing a convenient point and weaponising it…
… when we know full well they won’t actually improve disabled people’s lives one jot if they happen to “win” with this point… well I don’t.
The argument that “vulnerable people are being pushed into it, rather than being supported in better alternatives” is familiar from youth trans medicine.
In that case the ”alternatives” are being embraced as gender non-conforming lesbians, femboys etc. Folks who indeed *should* be embraced, as they are just as valid as medical transitioners.
But we know full well that the religious right (while making this point) don’t want them to exist either.
Hi. Member of the Greens (UK). Very low religious interest - lapsed CofE. I accept it’s a difficult issue. My concerns relate to the UK… i believe that controls were reduced during the various stages and “use cases” expanded. Not heard any debate about CA and NL experiences. Can’t trust government
I’ll have a closer look at the bill as it has emerged from committee stage.
My understanding was informed by the very strong “gatekeeping” of the original bill, and that two separate diagnoses of terminal illness would be required (also a court order, though I’m aware that aspect dropped).
So … the objection that disabled people who are not terminally ill would get “pressured into it” never made much sense to me; indeed very like the argument that gender non-conforming kids (who would not actually get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria) are being “pressured into” medical transition.
Its not the same issue as terf arguments, i used to believe it was myself, just fearmongering and paranoia, but the uk made itself clear on its views of disabled people on nany occasions, and it sees us as a burden, waste of money and "economically inactive"
There's a huge difference between those contexts: one is the awful reality of a funding-gutted NHS, the other is a fake narrative peddled by transphobes. Communities have to fundraise constantly to keep hospices open, and too few people have adequate access to palliative care.
I know it’s a fake narrative peddled by transphobes, but ultimately grounded in fear about “what’s happening with these queer kids” and where it was all leading. How the numbers of trans seemed to be swelling rapidly. How the strict gatekeeping was breaking down via GenderGP. Panic!!!! Ban !!!!
The thing is … a lot of the public bought into that narrative, not just the hard core terfs. They bought it even though the NHS gatekeeping remained extremely strict throughout (far too strict in fact). The perception that everything was now lax and out of control was what mattered.
I’m worried a similar panic is setting in over Leadbeater; the fear it will be too lax, out of control, lots who aren’t terminally ill will be talked into it etc. Canada seems to be functioning as the GenderGP equivalent.
I’ve been sent Telegraph links; when did we start trusting the Telegraph?
The problem is, uk government are not pro bodily autonmy, so giving them such power, and in such an economic crusus and moral panic against disabled people, is a very bad idea
As a disabled person I don’t want to be forced to take my own life because the State refuses to provide me with the support I need. Lots of people in Government believe the disabled are better off dead. It’s called economic nihilism. The lives of disabled people are not worth living.
Comments
To the extent that this feedback is coming from actual disabled people and disability rights groups I accept it. To the extent it is coming from religious groups who have always opposed assisted dying now seizing a convenient point and weaponising it…
The argument that “vulnerable people are being pushed into it, rather than being supported in better alternatives” is familiar from youth trans medicine.
But we know full well that the religious right (while making this point) don’t want them to exist either.
My understanding was informed by the very strong “gatekeeping” of the original bill, and that two separate diagnoses of terminal illness would be required (also a court order, though I’m aware that aspect dropped).
We arent people to uk government.
I’ve been sent Telegraph links; when did we start trusting the Telegraph?