Emendamenti “crudeli” vengono utilizzati per contrastare la legge sulla morte assistita, afferma il deputato capo
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/12/cruel-amendments-are-being-used-to-thwart-assisted-dying-bill-says-lead-mp?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
di 457655676
10 commenti
Assisted dying should be an essential service in a developed country like this. We put sick animals down. There are plenty who struggle daily, but have to continue just for the sake of being a human. It would be beneficial for many reasons. One would be organ donation.
‘She highlighted three amendments she said were particularly cruel. These included one that would deny an assisted death to anyone who had travelled outside the country in the previous year, another that would screen family members for financial impropriety, and a third that would require assisted deaths to be recorded. She described the final proposal as “incredibly intrusive and heartless”.’
Sounds like it’s more ways of checking that the person is giving consent at the end. They aren’t going to be uploading clips to YouTube it’s to settle any inheritance challenges.
How about we have one amendment of making a legally binding irreversible living will so those who are morally or religiously opposed, or are worried about being coerced in future can have a permanent exemption from being eligible for assisted dying, and the rest of us can get on with having a humane death if the time comes to decide.
Meanwhile my MP abstained from the historic vote.
Shame on you, Lisa.
Wouldnt be the UK without cruelty to certain people
The current rate of discussion means it would take 20 years for the amendments to be discussed. Some Lords (I can’t remember who, I’ve just watched it live as my boss always puts it on the TV in the office) have openly said they don’t think it should be allowed to pass in any circumstances not because of any deficiencies in the bill, but because they personally don’t think it should pass as a private member’s bill vs a government bill. Who are they to decide that? It’s outrageous.
And, frankly, if you hear the debates, a lot of the discussion isn’t particularly useful. Just another reason for abolishing the Lords. Even unicameralism would be better than this, though I think there are other ways to get meaningful expert scrutiny rather than just a single house or a nepotism/patronage-based upper house which isn’t remotely based on expertise or neutrality.
People should have the right to bodily autonomy, full stop.
Im actually a bit of a defender of the House of Lords. I have criticisms but I appreciate the lack of an elected second chamber like the American Senate because of the significant complications that come with it; i.e Party A has the House and Party B has the Senate = nothing gets done.
However, this shit just undermines any positives of the HoL and pushes me further into the abolishment camp. Our democratically elected MPs have voted on a measure and the Lords are using sludge to block it based upon, in many cases, frankly antiquated religious views on morality.
The discourse around this debate is always so toxic and is reflective of how most political debates in this country are turning. Those on the other side are “cruel” and should be “ashamed”. There’s not even a hint of the possibility for some on either side to recognise that the majority of people on both sides of the debate want what’s best, even if you think they’re wrong or misguided. No, they’re just evil and cruel.
This is one law that will lead to alot of manipulation all for the sake of Inheritance