“You can’t write in black & white a law that's safe, that won’t be progressively loosened & won’t be abused”
Conservative MP Danny Kruger fears that if MPs vote in favour of assisted dying this week, the frail & elderly will be obliged to think about
Either way, I am not sure that trusting our legislators to provide a sound act that is not liable to be misused, with the kind of loop holes that our tax and other systems have to permit avoidance and abuse is entirely justified. Certainly no way should the state be allowed anyway close to it.
I did not say that …You maybe interested in the fact that the lead lawyer in the Harold Shipman inquiry warns legalising assisted dying could create doctor ‘death clinics’
Dame Caroline Swift says the Bill is open to abuse by ruthless doctors and hospitals who want to free up beds
You said you didn't trust legislators to legislate. It's now clear to me why. You think a majority may decide to vote in a way that you don't approve of. So basically you don't like democracy.
It's a free vote! so obvs. mp's will be making decisions based on their own values/beliefs, which for some will be influenced by aspects of their faith, just as some will be influenced by aspects of their non-belief/atheism.
MPs should be voting in line with the publics view for change and put the safeguards in place. They seem to have forgotten a fundamental part of their job description- they REPRESENT us, they are not there for force their views on us
What this clown is really sayi8ng is, if you have religious beliefs you must vote against those values just in case it upsets him. The fact that morality is shared across all religions and its the state and dogma ( not much difference there) that differs, is ignored.
Just another racist really.
Some religious beliefs are against blood transfusions. Making assisted dying or abortion or anything - gender affirming care - inaccessible for EVERYONE because of PERSONAL beliefs… is BONKERS. Imagine if someone tried to ban blood transfusions “because of religious belief”? What’s the difference?!
It’s a free vote, so all shades of opinion will be considered. That’s how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work - a cross-section of the whole population.
Yes, difficult one. She is, of course, entitled to her view, as is Wes Streeting. But they should be wary of using their very prominent and influential positions to push them in somewhat inflammatory language.
I really don’t think she was imposing her religious beliefs, Charlie, just offering a firmly held principle. She is entitled to do so, just as you and Kim Leadbetter are!
I wonder if Falconer would have brought religion into this conversation if it wasn't for the fact that Mahmood is a Muslim? Plenty of other prominent people opposed this bill, but I don't recall any suggestion that they are 'imposing' their religious beliefs?
Religion (worshipping an imaginary sky daddy) should NEVER have any impact on the governance of a civilised country.
It's not relevant or rational.
Time to throw out the 26 bishops with seats in the House of Lords.
Both are about not imposing your belief or non belief on others. Nobody is forcing you to elect for an assisted death and no doctor is being forced to assist.
And I agree that permitting that choice is vital. It's why I support the free vote, based on whatever drives the individuals. Suggesting that religion shouldn't be part of it in any manner is ludicrous
So you agree that your religious objections should be imposed on others? Nobody is being forced to do anything and that's why religious people have no valid argument.
They certainly can. My point is that MP's are reluctant to openly say they will vote based on their religious beliefs as they would be imposing those on others. They only object to things that aren't actually proposed because they can't find any reason beyond religion to object to what is.
To be fair, allowing opt outs on religious grounds is very different from an MP using religion in her decision making and thus imposing those views on the lives of others. Also opting out is a well established principle eg with abortion
I suppose voting with constituents is democratic then again say they wanna bring back hanging you’d have to go with Own conscience ..anyway that’s an improbability I guess
It's because that's the only other reason. Those that opppose it can't quote religious belief because that would be seen as forcing them on non believers. They therefore object to things that aren't actually proposed.
Religion should have no place in a civilised, moral society. Assisted dying is real compassion for people suffering in agony, not religious mumbojumbo.
When people raise religious beliefs in politics, they should really get their 'God' to reveal himself/herself in person or accept that this "God" is nothing but a figment of their imagination. People have been hoodwinked by deluded religious freaks for far too long.
Imagine the outcry if the Secretary of State for Health supported the Health Service assisting dying? @waterslee.bsky.social would never understand. Those of us who have been with loved ones when they die will support it.
Not at all. He has a deep faith which I respect, but I think an article which only highlights the religious motivation of the Muslim woman and not the Christian man is problematic
I honestly abhor religion, it’s the cause of so much turmoil & trauma in the world. Along with “Filthy Lucre” It’s a personal choice of a person with capacity.
Although I favour assisted dying (after seeing my dad’s decline and fact for last 2-3 of his 94 years he existed rather than lived and wanted to die) it’s a complex, two-sided issue . Sadly too many MPs on ‘anti’ side are members of or funded by evangelical pressure groups
I’m not religious. I am a supporter of the right to die with dignity.
But she’s right. It is a slipper slope and once we go down it, there’s no turning back.
Before we agree to it, there needs to be an honest, open discussion, not one that has people screaming “she’s wrong” and “I’m right”.
"Mahmood said there was a risk of going down a “slippery slope towards death on demand”"
I don't know her, but this doesn't sound particularly religious, unless your religion is looking on data from countries that already legalised euthanasia.
It wouldn't persuade non Muslims in the same way if she just quoted religious reasons. Frankly they seem to be the only valid ones though but should not be forced on others. Every objection I see talks about things that aren't actually proposed.
It is important to look beyond what's been proposed, and to look at how it *has* actually become a slippery slope. I think too many people are jumping the bandwagon, because assisted dying is seen as the progressive opinion to have, without considering the implications for disabled folks.
Sorry but I just don't get that. You can only look at what is proposed. Yes in some cases it's progressed but in others it hasn't. The time to object is when things you oppose are suggested not when you are unable to find a reason to oppose what is. You are actually depriving others of choice.
I will nuance it a bit and say I'm generally pro palliative care (depending on the definitions), but honestly saying that a critique of state sanctioned euthanaisia must be religously motivated, seems like a cheap, superficial counter-critique.
It is in many instances, yes, but it doesn't that it's impossible for something to become a slippery slope. I've read enough disheartening cases coming out of the Netherlands and the US to ever feel that it's safe, in a context that disregard the lives of disabled people so blatantly.
Again, I don't know her, I'm not particularly knowledgable in UK politics, but it just seems out of the blue, "it must be because she's muslim!", when a plethora of non muslim people use the exact same reason, and unfortunately with good cause.
She explicitly linked her opposition to assisted dying to her religious beliefs last month saying “as a Muslim, I have an unshakeable belief in the sanctity and value of human life” in an interview with the Times
The more you know, thanks for the info :) Doesn't change that many areligious people still oppose, and that she can oppose it herself both on religious and scientific grounds.
Respect for a government that has allowed a free debate and vote on this. It’s a difficult subject but whether or not it passes this time - surely sooner or later?
Comments
Conservative MP Danny Kruger fears that if MPs vote in favour of assisted dying this week, the frail & elderly will be obliged to think about
Dame Caroline Swift says the Bill is open to abuse by ruthless doctors and hospitals who want to free up beds
Just another racist really.
It's not relevant or rational.
Time to throw out the 26 bishops with seats in the House of Lords.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/26/doctors-opt-out-assisted-dying-religious-reasons-law/
I'd suggest that the same opt out is essentially for the wellbeing of voting it into law
Then again I thought this vote was one of personal choice? Not sure
Vote with your constituents and strengthen election credentials.
Vote with your party and advance in your career.
Vote with yourself and salve your conscience.
All carry their own risks and rewards.
When people raise religious beliefs in politics, they should really get their 'God' to reveal himself/herself in person or accept that this "God" is nothing but a figment of their imagination. People have been hoodwinked by deluded religious freaks for far too long.
Although I favour assisted dying (after seeing my dad’s decline and fact for last 2-3 of his 94 years he existed rather than lived and wanted to die) it’s a complex, two-sided issue . Sadly too many MPs on ‘anti’ side are members of or funded by evangelical pressure groups
But she’s right. It is a slipper slope and once we go down it, there’s no turning back.
Before we agree to it, there needs to be an honest, open discussion, not one that has people screaming “she’s wrong” and “I’m right”.
No god and certainly no interpreter of a god tells anyone how to behave.
I don't know her, but this doesn't sound particularly religious, unless your religion is looking on data from countries that already legalised euthanasia.