Assisted Dying
Discussion
No. Referendums are used where there are options on fundamental constitutional change such as that which impacts the structure of democracy and the legal aspects of governance. Whilst recognising the unique, emotional aspect at play, legally speaking Assisted Dying Bill is just that - a bill. It's a piece of legislation amongst many others and one that impacts far fewer people than the many other bills that also remain in debate. Allowing a referendum on Assisted Dying would set a precedent that would ultimately see us heading to the polling station every time a piece of legislation required amendment.
That said the emotive element here is sufficiently strong enough to think it could end up being appended to a general election in the same way the Proportional Representation debate was in the 00s.
That said the emotive element here is sufficiently strong enough to think it could end up being appended to a general election in the same way the Proportional Representation debate was in the 00s.
Ashfordian said:
This is exactly the sort of thing that should be decided by a referendum as with the past politicians have proven themselves to be way out of touch with the public.
And it would shut the overly noisy evangelists up when the vote return a majority for it
It's not that they are out of touch, it's that they think that they know better.And it would shut the overly noisy evangelists up when the vote return a majority for it
A tragic situation and an afront to democracy - it has essentially been defeated by the unelected House of Lords playing silly buggers earlier this year.
A better example of the need for a proper Parliamentary democracy and electoral reform in this country couldn't be made.
Meanwhile, those suffering unspeakably in the last stages of their lives may not "take back control" over their own lives.
Outrageous.
A better example of the need for a proper Parliamentary democracy and electoral reform in this country couldn't be made.
Meanwhile, those suffering unspeakably in the last stages of their lives may not "take back control" over their own lives.
Outrageous.
127Sport said:
A tragic situation and an afront to democracy - it has essentially been defeated by the unelected House of Lords playing silly buggers earlier this year.
A better example of the need for a proper Parliamentary democracy and electoral reform in this country couldn't be made.
Meanwhile, those suffering unspeakably in the last stages of their lives may not "take back control" over their own lives.
Outrageous.
Quite, religion needs to stay the fA better example of the need for a proper Parliamentary democracy and electoral reform in this country couldn't be made.
Meanwhile, those suffering unspeakably in the last stages of their lives may not "take back control" over their own lives.
Outrageous.
k out of this.Edited by unzippy on Friday 11th September 16:02
127Sport said:
A tragic situation and an afront to democracy - it has essentially been defeated by the unelected House of Lords playing silly buggers earlier this year.
A better example of the need for a proper Parliamentary democracy and electoral reform in this country couldn't be made.
Meanwhile, those suffering unspeakably in the last stages of their lives may not "take back control" over their own lives.
Outrageous.
The Commons could have passed it again today if they wanted to. Why is the Commons undemocratic? A better example of the need for a proper Parliamentary democracy and electoral reform in this country couldn't be made.
Meanwhile, those suffering unspeakably in the last stages of their lives may not "take back control" over their own lives.
Outrageous.
Two things that strike me:
Point 1:
What does it have to do with the people who are so opposed to this? It does not affect them, or if it does, not anywhere as the same degree as it does the person who wishes to die.
It's a prime example of people poking their noses into things that don't affect them because they want to control them.
Who are they to tell others what they can and cannot do? The state pokes it's collective nose into other people's business more than enough as it is already, and dictating to people that they cannot choose to end their own life is the ultimate control.
Point 2:
I wonder if this has been rejected becasue it's a very complicated subject, which will require an awful lot of careful thinking? i.e. it's just too difficult for the average MP's intellect. i.e. "This is too hard for me to think about, so I will vote against it, which saves me having to think about it further".
Point 1:
What does it have to do with the people who are so opposed to this? It does not affect them, or if it does, not anywhere as the same degree as it does the person who wishes to die.
It's a prime example of people poking their noses into things that don't affect them because they want to control them.
Who are they to tell others what they can and cannot do? The state pokes it's collective nose into other people's business more than enough as it is already, and dictating to people that they cannot choose to end their own life is the ultimate control.
Point 2:
I wonder if this has been rejected becasue it's a very complicated subject, which will require an awful lot of careful thinking? i.e. it's just too difficult for the average MP's intellect. i.e. "This is too hard for me to think about, so I will vote against it, which saves me having to think about it further".
snuffy said:
Two things that strike me:
Point 1:
What does it have to do with the people who are so opposed to this? It does not affect them, or if it does, not anywhere as the same degree as it does the person who wishes to die.
It's a prime example of people poking their noses into things that don't affect them because they want to control them.
Who are they to tell others what they can and cannot do? The state pokes it's collective nose into other people's business more than enough as it is already, and dictating to people that they cannot choose to end their own life is the ultimate control.
Point 2:
I wonder if this has been rejected becasue it's a very complicated subject, which will require an awful lot of careful thinking? i.e. it's just too difficult for the average MP's intellect. i.e. "This is too hard for me to think about, so I will vote against it, which saves me having to think about it further".
Re point two - why do they need to think about it? Copy and paste from any of the many countries that have successfully legalised it?Point 1:
What does it have to do with the people who are so opposed to this? It does not affect them, or if it does, not anywhere as the same degree as it does the person who wishes to die.
It's a prime example of people poking their noses into things that don't affect them because they want to control them.
Who are they to tell others what they can and cannot do? The state pokes it's collective nose into other people's business more than enough as it is already, and dictating to people that they cannot choose to end their own life is the ultimate control.
Point 2:
I wonder if this has been rejected becasue it's a very complicated subject, which will require an awful lot of careful thinking? i.e. it's just too difficult for the average MP's intellect. i.e. "This is too hard for me to think about, so I will vote against it, which saves me having to think about it further".
Good to see people have been paying close attention to the debate and the reasons this failed, and absolutely not going off half-cocked with an emotional response.
Half arsed thinking & planning is why this didn't pass, it became a rushed crusade run by idiots when a smarter approach could have got through. They fked themselves and their own plan despite starting with more than enough support.
Half arsed thinking & planning is why this didn't pass, it became a rushed crusade run by idiots when a smarter approach could have got through. They f
ked themselves and their own plan despite starting with more than enough support. Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff