A Longer, More Painful Death - What Are Laws For?
Barry JAMES
Visionary Changemaker | Inspirational Keynote | Board Advisor | Inventor Innovator and Multiple Patent Winner | Mentor
Someone once quipped that in a really totalitarian state everything that's not banned is compulsory.
To avoid encroachment towards this laws should be framed to leave the maximum distance between the two.
It's noticeable that this principle has been lost in much of our political thinking and debate. When it is government move towards controlling rather than liberating it's citizens.
Most often this is done in the name of that demigod 'The Markets'.
But the principle seems absent even at the culmination of the current debate and parliamentary vote on the assisted dying bill - in which MPs are being told they should 'Vote Their Conscience' (for once). They should not.
Laws are not to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. Nor to put people needleless in in distress of legal jeopardy - as is the state of the current law. Causing much additional distress as well as more suffering.
MPs should vote to allow citizens to choose, according to their own conscience. Proving only the appropriate guardrails - which it seems there is agreement that this bill is scrupulous about. In any case details of those guardrails is for a later parliamentary stage to debate and determine.
To 'vote their conscience' is to remove the agency, biggest life and death choice, from their citizens and electors, whose freedoms and agency they should guard and uphold!
To impose their personal feelings and view, worse still beliefs (religious or otherwise' is an intolerable imposition plainly contradictory to the very purpose of parliament and parliamentary laws.
We do NOT fortunately, live in a state (at least theoretically) where after having a debate everyone is bound to agree and comply. Just observe the law, and accept the consequences should conscience dictate it necessary to break it - as the suffragettes and XR's imprisoned fully understand.
Even the Bishops in the House of Lords are honour bound to this principle in our parliamentary democracy - or should be.
Laws are not to controls citizens, they're to protect them. They're not there to remove our choices and agency but to protect it.
Not there to push one view or another - or even to prolong our life, but to protect our freedoms. Including the freedom to choose the time of our passing should the need arise.
So I find myself, quite unexpectedly, agreeing with David Cameron today:
"This is not about ending life, it is about shortening death"
To be more precise it is about
With my thanks to Kim Leadbeater MP
Actuary | Non-Executive Director | Risk Manager
19 小时前Hi Barry, for me the key issues are that this bill does not have sufifcient safeguards. Don';t be fooled by those that say it does and that we will not be like Belgium, Th eNetherlands, Canada . Similar arguments were put forward in those cases and see whare they have ended up. MPs are there to protect the vulnerable more than those who can look after themselves which is why I hope that MPs' consciences will encourage them to defend the vulnerable in this case and vote against this bill.
Branch Secretary for Derbyshire UNISON
21 小时前Agreed. Also, Doctors shouldn't have to risk prosecution for doing what is best for their patients when it is also what the patient wants. We must change the law.