[rexgrant]

Once again our so called Lords have decided for us,that if we are terminally ill and suffering, be it phisical or mental, we do not have the right to end our lives to save both ourselves and loved ones suffering.
The proposed British law was based on the legislation of the State of Oregon in the USA. The only State in the USA to have made it legal.
The vote in the House of Lords was 148 -100 against.I personally think this sort of vote should
be put to the people of the Country.
It was highlighted to the Lords that British people were travelling to Switzerland to express there wish to die.
Where do you stand on this.
Regards
Rex

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by rexgrant

Once again our so called Lords have decided for us,that if we are terminally ill and suffering, be it phisical or mental, we do not have the right to end our lives to save both ourselves and loved ones suffering.
It was highlighted to the Lords that British people were travelling to Switzerland to express there wish to die.
Where do you stand on this.
Regards
Rex

Man you are asking the opinion of the wrong country on this one.

[DublHelix]

Originally Posted by rexgrant

Once again our so called Lords have decided for us,that if we are terminally ill and suffering, be it phisical or mental, we do not have the right to end our lives to save both ourselves and loved ones suffering.
The proposed British law was based on the legislation of the State of Oregon in the USA. The only State in the USA to have made it legal.
The vote in the House of Lords was 148 -100 against. I personally think this sort of vote should be put to the people of the Country.
It was highlighted to the Lords that British people were travelling to Switzerland to express there wish to die.
Where do you stand on this.
Regards
Rex

There appear to be two arguments against, namely that human life is sacrosanct, presumably even one that is reduced to mere existence in a vegatative state; the other being that such a provision might in time be seen by the sick as an obligation, were they ever to suddenly feel that their continued existence was proving to burdensome on their relatives.

Again, the nanny state is dicatating what is best.

As regards a free vote / referedum, that is never going to happen, any more than a referendum on the European Constitution which Blair promised, or on the reintroduction of the death penalty, both of which would demonstrate further, how out of step our elected 'representatives' really are with the rest of society.

- Though if B'liar should ever need any 'assistance' I wuold be only too happy.

[rexgrant]

Originally Posted by DublHelix

There appear to be two arguments against, namely that human life is sacrosanct, presumably even one that is reduced to mere existence in a vegatative state;.

Hi DublHelix
This new law was not ment for people who had becombe a so called vegetable.It clealy stated that it was for people who had been told that they had less than six months to live.And to give them a legal way of takeing there own life,with drugs perscribed by a doctor.Surely how can any careing person say that they should be made to suffer.just because what it says in a bookor an oath a doctor swears.
And I am pretty sure you can not make someone take there own life if they do not want to.
Regards
Rex.

[DublHelix]

I believe it is a safeguard aganst avaricious relatives of elderly or other vulnerable people.

You might think people can be pushed in a particular direction, but there are more than a few circling vultures out there, eager to get their inheritance.

Indeed in my own family, one uncle was known to hire a van within a matter of days of each funeral.

[rexgrant]

Originally Posted by DublHelix

I believe it is a safeguard aganst avaricious relatives of elderly or other vulnerable people.

You might think people can be pushed in a particular direction, but there are more than a few circling vultures out there, eager to get their inheritance.

Indeed in my own family, one uncle was known to hire a van within a matter of days of each funeral.

Hi again
I am sure it did not get through the lords,was because the Archbishop of Canterbury brought a group of is fellow bishops to vote against it.And the Royal collage of Physicians said that 73% of doctors were against it.
The Archbishop contended that there would be little incentive to improve end-of-life care for all if there is a simpler and more cost-effective solution.
Regards.
Rex

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by rexgrant

Hi again
I am sure it did not get through the lords,was because the Archbishop of Canterbury brought a group of is fellow bishops to vote against it.And the Royal collage of Physicians said that 73% of doctors were against it.
The Archbishop contended that there would be little incentive to improve end-of-life care for all if there is a simpler and more cost-effective solution.
Regards.
Rex

I read a study online (which I don't have the link to) dealing with I believe it was Norway or whatever country it is that has the right to die law and the study found that it was subject to abuse, especially concerning newborns. This is all second hand, I admit, because I didn't save the link. If I can retrace my search I'll post it later.

So simply just ignore what I said and move on.