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

[Two-lane]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I said that the biggest issue we are facing is over-population on a planet with limited resources.

My view of the world is limited to what I see on the Internet, particularly by what news items YouTube sends my way.

Any number of people, any number of graphs of various molecules vs temperature, is what I see from the media.

Not one sent my way pointed out the relevance of an ever-increasing population.

Politicians do not want to talk about population control.

[And there is also the problem that society, and businesses, are based on expansion. In the case of the IoM, Cannan sees the solution as a higher population and more visitors. But any system, including the world, that depends on expansion will fail - it is a pyramid scheme]

 

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

My view of the world is limited to what I see on the Internet, particularly by what news items YouTube sends my way.

Any number of people, any number of graphs of various molecules vs temperature, is what I see from the media.

Not one sent my way pointed out the relevance of an ever-increasing population.

Politicians do not want to talk about population control.

[And there is also the problem that society, and businesses, are based on expansion. In the case of the IoM, Cannan sees the solution as a higher population and more visitors. But any system, including the world, that depends on expansion will fail - it is a pyramid scheme]

 

No, politicians don't want to talk about population control, it is a taboo subject because it implies that certain sections of the population are 'expendable'.  But it is a grown up discussion that needs to be had along with sustainable energy, reduction of carbon, feeding everyone,  etc. 

It is a pyramid scheme, but not necessarily for dark motives, just the inate desire of every individual to survive. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Gladys
Predictive text.

[WTF]

soylent green anyone ?

[Barlow]

10 hours ago, Zarley said:

However it seems to me the protocols in this bill would stop things like this happening here. It will have to be carefully managed to keep it that way. 

When these fuckers can at least arrange for bastard promenade* to be built without making an utter cunt o'it, then they can start looking at more complex matter to try and get themselves in the fucking history books to satisfying their egos. 

Ditto the bastard Ferry Terminal. Etc.

Fuck off and sort the easy stuff out before imposing your pet projects on our society.

[Jarndyce]

24 minutes ago, Barlow said:

(When these) fuckers (can at least arrange for) bastard promenade* (to be built without making an) utter cunt (o'it, then they can start looking at more complex matter to try and get themselves in the) fucking history books (to satisfying their egos. Ditto the) bastard Ferry Terminal. (Etc.) Fuck off (and sort the easy stuff out before imposing your pet projects on our society.)

Seriously, Barlow:  tell us what you really think…

[Fred the shred]

I don’t think Dying with dignity is a pet project it is a very important issue to a lot of people .

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Barlow said:

When these fuckers can at least arrange for bastard promenade* to be built without making an utter cunt o'it, then they can start looking at more complex matter to try and get themselves in the fucking history books to satisfying their egos. 

Ditto the bastard Ferry Terminal. Etc.

Fuck off and sort the easy stuff out before imposing your pet projects on our society.

No problem.  We'll just tell everyone not to die till the Prom is finished.  That should sort it.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

17 hours ago, wrighty said:

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

Many of them do seem to be religious lunatics like that Peter Murcott thought. 

[Barlow]

11 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

I don’t think Dying with dignity is a pet project it is a very important issue to a lot of people .

It's a pet project, but you're right of course, it is an important issue to us all. Everyone.

Should such an important decision be made by someone from such an - at times - very inept group of people? Of course Dr Death is a real life fully fledged medical doctor but how many of his fellow doctors support him on this? I think we are starting to learn.

Allinson is too close to the subject to make an informed POLITICAL decision. His opinion on the floor of the House of Keys may well be relevant in such matters, of course it is, but for him to fully embrace this matter as some sort of crusade is just wrong. The Bill should be taken up by someone else. By all means express his opinion and then have the grace to leave the matter to run its course as any other political issue would.

Coming from a medical doctor, this just seems sick, irrespective of the arguments surrounding it.

 

[Stu Peters]

11 hours ago, Barlow said:

It's a pet project, but you're right of course, it is an important issue to us all. Everyone.

Should such an important decision be made by someone from such an - at times - very inept group of people? Of course Dr Death is a real life fully fledged medical doctor but how many of his fellow doctors support him on this? I think we are starting to learn.

Allinson is too close to the subject to make an informed POLITICAL decision. His opinion on the floor of the House of Keys may well be relevant in such matters, of course it is, but for him to fully embrace this matter as some sort of crusade is just wrong. The Bill should be taken up by someone else. By all means express his opinion and then have the grace to leave the matter to run its course as any other political issue would.

Coming from a medical doctor, this just seems sick, irrespective of the arguments surrounding it.

 

I prefer to think ‘compassionate for the sick’. What better person to bring this than someone who has cared for terminal patients?

[Barlow]

3 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

I prefer to think ‘compassionate for the sick’. What better person to bring this than someone who has cared for terminal patients?

(Well, so did Shipman - or was that too obvious).

The point being, the serious point - and it has obviously gone beyond you - is that this is not how politics works, or should work. Fair enough, the boy might have experience in dealing with terminal ill patients, but perhaps no more than a care worker who has spent 40 years in such a role full time, or indeed any of Allinson's professional colleagues, who many it seems, do not agree with him.

As I said, he has first hand experience - then he should give his views when required on the floor of the House of Keys, but for a medical doctor to grab this bull by the horns is a bit odd. I just hope that the rest of Tynwald aren't so starry eyed for Dr Allinson as you appear to be, and they are able to consider such a topic with a clear objective and independent mind.

What will happen is that most of your colleagues will be in a turmoil and vote along with Allinson because 'he is a doctor and must be right'.

It will be akin to your colleagues past and present who keep their traps shut and just take the easy option to vote 'aye' with the big boys. And take the pat on the back. And the easy money.

Different matter of course when it comes to talking about dog muck or wheelie bin collections. Every MHK suddenly has an opinion they want to voice on those such matters.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Barlow

[Stu Peters]

If appropriate I will be supporting Alex in Keys on this. Not because I expect any pats on the back, but because my father's last words to me in hospital were 'it's a shame Dr Shipman isn't still our GP'. Cancer had destroyed his body and left him a wasted shell, but still with a sharp mind which was possibly even more upsetting. I spent 12 hours a day at my mum's bedside 10 years later, she was so heavily sedated she was only lucid for a few minutes, once. The only other time she made a sound was to cry out when the nurses cleaned or turned her.

So Dr Allinson hasn't changed my mind - it was made up decades ago and reinforced on numerous occasions. Most of the people who have written to me agree. You're welcome to opt out and take your chances with palliative care when the time comes, but I'd rather have a legal option to turn the lights off myself.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Stu Peters

[code99]

On 10/24/2023 at 7:48 PM, Two-lane said:

Politicians do not want to talk about population control.

[And there is also the problem that society, and businesses, are based on expansion. In the case of the IoM, Cannan sees the solution as a higher population and more visitors. But any system, including the world, that depends on expansion will fail - it is a pyramid scheme]

On 10/24/2023 at 7:55 PM, Gladys said:

it is a taboo subject because it implies that certain sections of the population are 'expendable'.  But it is a grown up discussion that needs to be had along with sustainable energy, reduction of carbon, feeding everyone,  etc. 

My supposition is that politicians are reluctant to discuss “population control” because they are afraid, for good historical reasons, that such public deliberations (especially at a time of global turmoil when crazy dictators are threatening to nuke their neighbours, etc.) will open a can of toxic xenophobic and other abhorrent political worms. Similar to effectively dealing with climate change/ global warming, any practical solutions to population control will require global cooperation and coordination, something that right now is in very short supply. Just like the argument that the Isle of Man is too small (compared to countries like China) to make any difference in the fight against climate change, this logic applies equally to the issue of population control. If, hypothetically, the UK Government adopts some form of ‘Logan’s Run’ policy to, say, cull everyone over the age of 70, or anyone who suffers mental or any physical long-term illnesses, or anyone who is too poor to take care of themselves and is too reliant on the public benefits system, etc., the impact of any such ‘culls’ on the UK’s society, environment and economy would be profound, but the impact on the rest of the planet would be relatively insignificant (Saga Cruises will have to change their target markets to appeal to a younger demographic). Perhaps when Nigel Farage becomes the PM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (not as unlikely as some think) he will stand at the podium in the UN, and with the gusto worthy of Enoch Powell’s ghost, look into the eyes of the other delegates and tell them that there are too many people living in Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands and in order for the planet to become sustainable many of them must either perish or stop breeding. I am not sure if the poor developing countries will be prepared to sacrifice themselves so that rich developed countries can continue their lifestyles i.e., binging on the planet’s depleting resources.

As far as the IOM Assisted Dying Bill is concerned, I (just like many Island’s residents) support the Bill. In Scotland they are also exploring Assisted Dying legislation, but the UK Government is currently preoccupied with the next year’s GE and this (controversial) Bill is unlikely to be at the top of their priorities list. IMHO, unless the British Medical Association formally endorses it, the IOM’s chances of receiving the Royal Assent seem minimal. Even if it becomes a law here, depending on how many IOM doctors will opt out, the risk is that the whole scheme could disintegrate into an unwieldy administrative burden to a point of being potentially unworkable. Things that seem easy in theory rarely turn out to be anything other than complicated. IMHO, implementing this Bill will be even harder than getting is passed.

[WTF]

8 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

If appropriate I will be supporting Alex in Keys on this. Not because I expect any pats on the back, but because my father's last words to me in hospital were 'it's a shame Dr Shipman isn't still our GP'. Cancer had destroyed his body and left him a wasted shell, but still with a sharp mind which was possibly even more upsetting. I spent 12 hours a day at my mum's bedside 10 years later, she was so heavily sedated she was only lucid for a few minutes, once. The only other time she made a sound was to cry out when the nurses cleaned or turned her.

So Dr Allinson hasn't changed my mind - it was made up decades ago and reinforced on numerous occasions. Most of the people who have written to me agree. You're welcome to opt out and take your chances with palliative care when the time comes, but I'd rather have a legal option to turn the lights off myself.

fuck me,  i agree with stu peters.

[Fred the shred]

So do I absolutely.