Some progress, finally.
Edit: for the benefit of the tinfoil hat wearers, assisted dying is not the same as euthanasia.
As an American, it is truly appalling to see MAGA Republicans on social media try to dig their nose into UK politics now. Many British were in favor of this bill, and MAGA Republicans are now calling the country satanic. I applaud the bill and hope it helps those who need it.
I couldn’t care less what they think of us to be honest.
Helping other people is a really difficult concept for the Make America Gilead Again cultists. I’m glad there’s still some of you with your heads on the right way.
Wow, unexpected. Finally some boldness to be humane about end-of-life situations.
I just hope it comes with sensible checks and balances.
The proposed law is only available to people with a terminal illness judged to have 6 months or less to live, needs to be signed off on by two doctors and a judge, and the patient needs to take the drugs themselves. If anything it’s potentially too restrictive, but a step in the right direction.
Wait, you can get assisted death after losing an emotional debate? Or can the winner also partake?
Good. Less brits.
Welcomed but let’s see how this progresses over the next two years before it becomes law.
Way too many people happy about the burguese state having power to kill people
burguese
LMFAO 😂😂😂
The muddle class.
Way too many people relieved that they might have the possibility to end their own life to avoid suffering.
Way too many people with illusions about a burguese state being preocupied with the well being of the masses
Explain how this law allows the state to initiate the process?
They can’t, they’re only here to troll. Ignore it.
This is giving the people more power over having the ability to gracefully end their own lives rather than the state saying people should continue to live in pain and suffering.
bourgeois, the spelling is bourgeois.
In english
I had to look that up, it’s the Spanish spelling? I didn’t realise. It’s commonly misspelled by native speakers.
Nothing new, they always had. This isn’t about that anyway
Well, that’s one way to reduce, to quote Sir Starmer, “the benefits bill blighting our society”.
Thats incredibly crass and you should be ashamed of yourself
The truth is often crass.
The restrictions are pretty reasonable. The obvious “risk” of abuse is that this is a slippery slope and both the rules get relaxed and the safeguards lose their funding and attention over time, but the chance of that happening increases over time, there’s no way in hell they’ll be making a dent in the benefits bill for the next few years.
So I don’t think your suggested link between this and the current governments goal of reducing benefits is the truth, or even particularly credible.
Maybe there will be problems in 20 years, it’s certainly a reasonable fear and I don’t blame anyone who argued against it to avoid that risk, but I can’t seriously believe that anyone thinks the government is going to use this to start killing off benefit claimants in job lots.
Tldr: your ”truth” is a pretty dumb take
Removed by mod
Average lemmy.world poster
