A Duty To Die?

[RichardCoulter]

We live in a material world, so it's nigh on impossible to provide proof as we know it of something spiritual.

After our soul leaves the body we are spirit only, we are actually spirit now, but encased in a physical body. Those who have 'died' sometimes communicate with us in various ways.

I'm a very practical person and wouldn't believe this unless I had had personal proof that life continues after we leave here, so I can understand people being skeptical.

When your time comes, like I say, just bear it in mind as I think it will help. There's no need to be frightened, someone comes to collect you, so nobody ever 'dies' alone.

Nobody’s surprised you believe in life after death Richard. Plenty of people do. I do. The objections here are with the extremely specific descriptions you’re giving of how it occurs in the immediate moments after death. I don’t think you can offer such uncompromising descriptions of things the human race has struggled with and argued over for millennia without expecting some pushback. We need some context. Sentences like “I died on the operating table and before they brought me back, this is what happened… “ or “My friend had a near-death experience and this is what he saw …” would be helpful.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

whoops! missing a "not" there.

[TheDaddy]

The bills already being watered down, they're trying to remove the judicial oversight element in favour of a expert panel, the thing I've always worried about was once introduced it'd be watered down due to discrimination over time, I never envisaged it'd get watered down before it became law though

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The bills already being watered down, they're trying to remove the judicial oversight element in favour of a expert panel, the thing I've always worried about was once introduced it'd be watered down due to discrimination over time, I never envisaged it'd get watered down before it became law though

The committee was stacked with true believers. It was always going to be shredded back to its ideological bare bones at this stage. The only silver lining here is that sound oversight is the only reason some MPs voted for it at 2nd reading. Without that, they may not stick with it. It doesn’t need too many MPs to change their vote to fall.

[TheDaddy]

Big week ahead for the subject of assisted death, I think if Scotland enact it as law then it's only a matter of time before the rest of the UK does too, apparently the bill is bullet proof but the I suspect Belgium thought theirs was too and look where they're at now

The Scottish one is running into trouble because the promised safeguards for professionals affected by it (doctors, care home staff etc) can’t be legislated for by the Scottish parliament, as employment law is reserved. So the relevant clauses have been stripped out in committee stage leaving a draft bill which has no safeguards in it at all, and a vague promise that Westminster will deal with that part later. A lot of MSPs are now nervous about it and there’s a reasonable chance it will now fail.

Meanwhile down in Englandshire the House of Lords has spent weeks refusing to be steamrolled and seeing as the appointed upper chamber is not vulnerable to virtue signalling and fashionable progressive causes in the way the commons is, has been digging its heels in and refusing to wave through a lot of the badly worded guff that got through committee in the commons.

I think you’re right, there’s a symbiotic relationship between the parliaments on this issue and one very much needs the other to give it a push, however at the moment my prediction is on it failing narrowly, in Scotland, and then running out of time in Westminster because the Lords is quite rightly treating it as a badly written private members bill that didn’t feature in the Labour manifesto, without the usual expectation that they will make constructive comments and then bow to the will of the elected chamber.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2g...h-notification

MSPs vote against assisted dying bill

published at 22:12

22:12

BREAKING
MSPs vote against Scotland's assisted dying bill.

57 backed it, 69 voted against and there was one abstention.

[jem]

And the Scottish Parliament have voted down the bill - so it’s basically ‘dead on arrival’, no pun intended.

This is really a difficult and emotive subject, and does need to have the most safeguards in place. Now what said safeguards are, I’ll leave up too others.

Excellent. Should give our swithering, virtue signalling Commons the nudge it needs to drop it too.

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Originally Posted by jem

And the Scottish Parliament have voted down the bill - so it’s basically ‘dead on arrival’, no pun intended.

This is really a difficult and emotive subject, and does need to have the most safeguards in place. Now what said safeguards are, I’ll leave up too others.

There are no possible safeguards against the internalised sense of obligation that would inevitably cause some people to end their lives having decided they don’t want to be a burden. The argument has always been that people have rights to make choices, with far too little attention given to the consequences of people’s choices on other people and society at large.

[TheDaddy]

MPs vote against assisted dying bill 286- 270 safe guarding concerns proved decisive

Unbelievable that Lauren Edwards MP is complaining that her bill fell thanks to parliamentary procedure rather than any substantive issues, when she was trying to *use* parliamentary procedure to ram it through.

This was a very cynical attempt to get the unamended, original bill sponsored by Kim DeathEater last year, which fell due to lack of time, because the House of Lords did the job the Commons committee refused to do, i.e. scrutinise and amend it in good faith. Edwards wanted to get the bill through the commons and then use the parliament act to force the Lords to acquiesce - which you can only do if you present the same bill, identically drafted. Had she wanted an honest discussion about the actual issues, she *could* have drafted an entirely new bill, taking reasonable account of criticisms of the old one, and put that to the Commons. But that would have denied her the mechanism to bypass the Lords.

She’s been caught out in her own scheming and hypocrisy.