@@MrThecarebear There does seem to be a remarkable coordination of policies between the countries with WEF disciples in charge. "Ve have penetrated ze cabinets" said totally not a bond baddy Klaus Schwab.
Defo a good idea. Needs some good controls on it, as Jenrick says, to prevent abuses and rabid relatives or Harold Shipman from trying to get inheritences. But for sure it makes a lot of sense, so long as the individual wants that. People should not be forced to suffer. I know if i were unlucky enough to have something like Huntington's i would prefer this way out.
Having seen the horrific suffering someone went through with terminal cancer, I absolutely know palliative care can't take away the suffering at the end. If there is a short time left, why not give someone the right to choose? It's their life, if they want to die with dignity, who are we to decide for them.
If someone is seriously dissatisfied with their quality of life, and there is no prospect of improving it why should someone else be allowed decide that that quality of life is sufficient? Why should someone else's primitive superstitions be grounds for forcing another person to endure years of suffering and despair?
How is it rushed through? They have been discussing this for at least a decade in Parliament. Parroting politicians’ slogans and talking points indicates sheeplike behaviour.
It is a complex subject, on one hand people should have a right to choose if they are suffering but on another hand there is a risk of using that right by others not in interest of person.
NOT wrong. Absolutely right. My life; my choice to continue it. Or not. If we treated terminally sick animals in the way we treat terminally ill humans, we'd be thrown in jail for cruelty. Why should we force human animals to live when they do not want to live any longer in pain and fear, when we could allow them to end it with dignity?
How could anyone trust the BMA to oversee something like this, given the way they have reacted to the Cass report? They would end up stroking vulnerable people's hands whilst they walk off a cliffs under the pretence of kindness.
@@TrottersPad not when it comes to taking human life- the ten commandments- the rules of our life- - we are NOT one dimensional- empty creatures- there is a God folks-
No we shouldn't do such a horrible thing, we all love life and those that somehow feel they have had enough, should not influence the vast majority of us who are against it.
No we shouldn't. We seem incapable of learning the lessons of Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium.
We are also WEF controlled now ☠
@@s0ycapitan WEF, WEF, WEF and more bloody WEF. All I hear these days is non stop repetition about WEF.
@@MrThecarebear There does seem to be a remarkable coordination of policies between the countries with WEF disciples in charge.
"Ve have penetrated ze cabinets" said totally not a bond baddy Klaus Schwab.
I want thee right to choose no one else has the right to make that decision for me,it my choice
LOOK UP THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ITS USE!!!!
Also, look up the ADs for it, youll see ZERO diversity compared to regular ADs!!!
Right. I’m slowly dying from autoimmune disease . I live in constant pain! My insides are slowly stopping. I can’t really enjoy life.
Defo a good idea. Needs some good controls on it, as Jenrick says, to prevent abuses and rabid relatives or Harold Shipman from trying to get inheritences. But for sure it makes a lot of sense, so long as the individual wants that. People should not be forced to suffer. I know if i were unlucky enough to have something like Huntington's i would prefer this way out.
and keep religion out of it.
Having seen the horrific suffering someone went through with terminal cancer, I absolutely know palliative care can't take away the suffering at the end.
If there is a short time left, why not give someone the right to choose? It's their life, if they want to die with dignity, who are we to decide for them.
If someone is seriously dissatisfied with their quality of life, and there is no prospect of improving it why should someone else be allowed decide that that quality of life is sufficient? Why should someone else's primitive superstitions be grounds for forcing another person to endure years of suffering and despair?
Having both HIV and cancer
I could see the need for this.
I am also struggling, having spent 12 years living in one room unable to function with any quality of life. I hope this bill passes.
No it should not be legalised and put into law
The existing Law needs change - I was nearly entrapped by it.
No ! Up for miss use.
LOOK UP THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ITS USE!!!!
Also, look up the ADs for it, youll see ZERO diversity compared to regular ADs!!!
This is appalling. Without thorough and serious discussion. Not rushed through. Far too complex.
How is it rushed through? They have been discussing this for at least a decade in Parliament. Parroting politicians’ slogans and talking points indicates sheeplike behaviour.
It is a complex subject, on one hand people should have a right to choose if they are suffering but on another hand there is a risk of using that right by others not in interest of person.
NOT wrong. Absolutely right. My life; my choice to continue it. Or not.
If we treated terminally sick animals in the way we treat terminally ill humans, we'd be thrown in jail for cruelty. Why should we force human animals to live when they do not want to live any longer in pain and fear, when we could allow them to end it with dignity?
I would extend it to people who have no health issues
I always saw it the other way around, but that's just me.
only if terminally ill, with no chance of living, yes, The Person should be able to choose, kinda like my body my choice.
How could anyone trust the BMA to oversee something like this, given the way they have reacted to the Cass report? They would end up stroking vulnerable people's hands whilst they walk off a cliffs under the pretence of kindness.
Put faith in our medical profession, she says. Really?
What does this mean for the hippocratic oath?
In the UK, the oath to do no harm was scrapped decades ago..
Absolutely
It’s called legalising murder-
How is it anywhere near the same thing?
Nonsense, they are already dying. Its alleviating suffering
Is withholding treatment from a patient who doesn't want it also murder? Because that's currently legal
Forcing people with severe disability or illness to live against their will is legalising torture!
LOOK UP THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ITS USE!!!!
Also, look up the ADs for it, youll see ZERO diversity compared to regular ADs!!!
Right but only for people who are going to die regardless, or have to spend their life in constant pain or inability to do anything themselves
LOOK UP THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ITS USE!!!!
Also, look up the ADs for it, youll see ZERO diversity compared to regular ADs!!!
No law should never change
@@TrottersPad not when it comes to taking human life- the ten commandments- the rules of our life- - we are NOT one dimensional- empty creatures- there is a God folks-
I agree with it if the person is going to dye or doesn't want to live with a serious condition
Wrong. Next question.
No we should not.
The two thirds in favour are all under 50
Just looking at world events especially over last few yrs - I’m going to make quite a rational assessment and suggest we are truly on a dark path.
Truly on a dark path resonates with me Dawn 🙁
@@nikk3251 Look the beast straight in the eyes with no fear or hatred - Stay in the Light Nick, it’s how we will balance it out🙏
No,nobody should get an easy way out.
@@Carlin2810 terrible judgement
🎉
No we shouldn't do such a horrible thing, we all love life and those that somehow feel they have had enough, should not influence the vast majority of us who are against it.
There are many people who DO NOT love life and they are entitled to their beliefs. Please don't try and speak for them.
Why are we talking about this and not the crisis of living rhat is happening?
Avoidance, avoidance, and more avoidance.
Because news is varied.
As it turns out, more than one thing can be discussed at a time.
Definitely Tough decision .
Demons among us
Midazolam and Morphine used for covid just wasn't their choice
Yet Another Agenda Soylent Green springs to mind