Allinson ~ assisted dying won't be the "cause of death" to get life insurance payouts

[Stu Peters]

Attended an excellent presentation including former Archbishop of Canterbury George (Lord) Carey yesterday. He twice voted against assisted dying in the UK, but has since changed his mind and is now an advocate for it.
 

He also made the interesting point that there is nothing in the bible that would preclude this legislation on Christian faith grounds.

[woolley]

3 hours ago, wrighty said:

Do you think referring to them as loonies will help convince them?

There are strong arguments on each side, predominantly autonomy vs coercion.  Personally I'm on the side of autonomy - I'd prefer to be able to make my own choice if mentally able, and to have left clear instructions to deal with a situation if I'm not, regarding a time to die.  And if it's good enough for me, it should be available to all.  Having said that, one of my colleagues almost convinced me that an assisted dying bill is not a good idea.  

Interested to see which way it goes.  I suspect though that whatever Tynwald say, Westminster won't allow us to bring in assisted dying legislation.

Loonies might not be polite, but it would seem an appropriate description of anyone trying to thwart the freely expressed wish of a sound minded individual with a terminal illness. That is all that's being proposed here. It is nothing to do with them, so they should keep their nebs out.

As for Westminster, they just might. They do sometimes like to use the CDs as test beds for what might happen in the future in the UK.

Edited October 24, 2023 by woolley

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Attended an excellent presentation including former Archbishop of Canterbury George (Lord) Carey yesterday. He twice voted against assisted dying in the UK, but has since changed his mind and is now an advocate for it.
 

He also made the interesting point that there is nothing in the bible that would preclude this legislation on Christian faith grounds.

An excellent example of why democracy is so important in these fundamental issues.

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Attended an excellent presentation including former Archbishop of Canterbury George (Lord) Carey yesterday. He twice voted against assisted dying in the UK, but has since changed his mind and is now an advocate for it.
 

He also made the interesting point that there is nothing in the bible that would preclude this legislation on Christian faith grounds.

With due acknowledgement to Shania Twain, that don't impress me much. God botherers in general should be kept as far away from this as possible. If he's made peace with the concept, then good for him, but really, who cares whether it passes muster with his old book of rules or not? It's a matter strictly for the individual.

[Blade Runner]

I don't disagree with assisted dying laws  - BUT

I just don't see the island having the legal brains/ skills to draft a law that would work or you could trust.

THINK ABOUT IT

 

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, Blade Runner said:

I don't disagree with assisted dying laws  - BUT

I just don't see the island having the legal brains/ skills to draft a law that would work or you could trust.

THINK ABOUT IT

 

It's not rocket science, and if there's something the Island is not short of, it's lawyers.

[Blade Runner]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

It's not rocket science, and if there's something the Island is not short of, it's lawyers.

I agree

It is short of good ones though, big difference

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Attended an excellent presentation including former Archbishop of Canterbury George (Lord) Carey yesterday. He twice voted against assisted dying in the UK, but has since changed his mind and is now an advocate for it.
 

He also made the interesting point that there is nothing in the bible that would preclude this legislation on Christian faith grounds.

Which leaves the possibility that he may change his mind again. I do not think it is a subject one can flip-flop between opinions about. Opinions about Conservative or Labour - yes, views may change.

My views on the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia, have never changed - it seems inconceivable to me that people's views on these subjects could change.

Whatever is written in the bible or any other religious book should not be relevant to a discussion of this subject.

The by right representation of religious views should also not be part of government.

[Omobono]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Attended an excellent presentation including former Archbishop of Canterbury George (Lord) Carey yesterday. He twice voted against assisted dying in the UK, but has since changed his mind and is now an advocate for it.
 

He also made the interesting point that there is nothing in the bible that would preclude this legislation on Christian faith grounds.

I hope he said a little prayer for you regarding the future viability  of isle of Man post  it looks like you need all the help you can get 

[Kopek]

Allinson gave a good response to the Autistic Soc. fear for their members families. Children and disabled people are not eligible.

[GD4ELI]

31 minutes ago, Blade Runner said:

I don't disagree with assisted dying laws  - BUT

I just don't see the island having the legal brains/ skills to draft a law that would work or you could trust.

THINK ABOUT IT

 

Copy from another country, for example The Netherlands.

 

[Harry Lamb]

40 minutes ago, woolley said:

With due acknowledgement to Shania Twain, that don't impress me much. God botherers in general should be kept as far away from this as possible. If he's made peace with the concept, then good for him, but really, who cares whether it passes muster with his old book of rules or not? It's a matter strictly for the individual.

I think you're missing an important point. Many Christians may be convinced by the arguments for assisted dying but hold back from endorsing it because they think it is forbidden by scripture: Carey is reassuring them that it is not. 'Thou shalt not kill', for example, is a mis-translation of ' You shall not murder' which I'm sure he knows, while many churchgoers may not. 

[John Wright]

31 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Which leaves the possibility that he may change his mind again. I do not think it is a subject one can flip-flop between opinions about. Opinions about Conservative or Labour - yes, views may change.

My views on the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia, have never changed - it seems inconceivable to me that people's views on these subjects could change.

Whatever is written in the bible or any other religious book should not be relevant to a discussion of this subject.

The by right representation of religious views should also not be part of government.

I hope i never become so intellectually fixed that I can’t reconsider my views on social and moral issues. Although I’m with you about death penalty, for me it is an absolute.

Abortion and Euthanasia aren’t absolute. You have to define the terms, quite precisely.

In Eastern Europe, during communism, abortion was used as a form of contraception. I’m not in favour of that. It’s not long ago that publicising contraception was illegal. I’m not in favour of a total ban. I think the GB system and  time limits are about right, still.

It’s a continuum and facts about viability changes.

Same with Euthanasia and Assisted Dying. I’m all in favour of freedom of choice to decide when my life ends. But there’s a wider debate to be had about what the state, ie taxpayers should have to spend to keep alive those who can never survive independently or even stay alive without massive ongoing medical nursing and social care. Or what we do about those with no agency.

Lots of people have changed their minds and views and attitudes about Jews, LGBT, racism, class, votes for women, gender equality, etc over the last 100 years

[Harry Lamb]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

I hope i never become so intellectually fixed that I can’t reconsider my views on social and moral issues. Although I’m with you about death penalty, for me it is an absolute.

Abortion and Euthanasia aren’t absolute. You have to define the terms, quite precisely.

In Eastern Europe, during communism, abortion was used as a form of contraception. I’m not in favour of that. It’s not long ago that publicising contraception was illegal. I’m not in favour of a total ban. I think the GB system and  time limits are about right, still.

It’s a continuum and facts about viability changes.

Same with Euthanasia and Assisted Dying. I’m all in favour of freedom of choice to decide when my life ends. But there’s a wider debate to be had about what the state, ie taxpayers should have to spend to keep alive those who can never survive independently or even stay alive without massive ongoing medical nursing and social care.

Lots of people have changed their minds and views and attitudes about Jews, LGBT, racism, class, votes for women, gender equality, etc over the last 100 years

Quite right, John - and boasting that one's views on such issues are fixed is inadvertent advertisement of intellectual sclerosis. 

[Gladys]

Don't know if this is the right thread to put this on, there are so many that it would fit,  but John raises several interesting points.

I had a visit from the Jehova's Witnesses a couple of months ago.  They asked with all that is going on in the world - Ukraine, climate change, cost of living crisis etc - where would I go for the answer?  I said that the biggest issue we are facing is over-population on a planet with limited resources.  I was absolutely not talking about euthanasia, but recognition that the increasing population had only one outcome; that there will eventually be a time when the planet cannot sustain the population, and then what do we do? 

They said that was an interesting view and left pretty quickly. 

All of the ills we are facing at the moment are really due to too many of us - energy, food, wars, and almost any other threat you can think of.  In a way, our desire to ensure survival is a sure way to self-destruction.

Don't know what the answer is, or how we deal with it, but the continuing efforts to keep more and more people alive for longer and longer is not necessarily the best for the longer term outcome. 

BTW, this is not directly relevant to the assisted dying debate, but is a wider issue that we perhaps need to face up to.