Give 'em the needle?

[Paddington Bear]

We will see some unspeakably evil things done if this is passed, no country has managed to put in place effective safeguards and we are uniquely vulnerable

Guess how many "unspeakably evil" things we have had since we introduced assisted dieing?

Think low, very very low... think even lower and you're getting close.

It's an emotive subject but how about we leave the choice to those in the firing line? It is not compulsory.

I confess to not knowing much about NZ’s regime (or indeed much about domestic policy there at all). In Canada though? There’s something horrific every month without fail.

And your point on it not being compulsory is exactly my point - people lacking capacity or who are coerced are going to be murdered by their relatives/next of kin for reasons I have set out above without some very very stringent safeguards, safeguards that are not present in the draft legislation laid down, and the need for them is treated with more than a degree of flippancy by a fair chunk of the bill’s supporters

[mat the expat]

My main worries with this are

1. A society has more elderly single people, with only a niece or cousin responsible for them, the likelihood of convenient euthanasia will become more common.

2. As tech bro mentality creeps further into government, with a creeping hyperutility approach, safeguards will be cut back and cut back. Musk doesn’t want old people he has to pay for

I have a friend who is a senior palliative care doctor, and she gets quite angry about the way the public debate in this area is framed.

The first two points are odd

Bolded, frankly, it's not up to them to be angry. Doctors are allowed to be involved in the debate but this is 100% a personal decision

They provide the advice, not the emotion

Under this bill doctors are *required* to offer assisted dying. As for a personal decision, clearly the major sticking point is around capacity and I’m sorry a large % of people absolutely cannot be trusted to care appropriately for the wishes of their elderly relatives, particularly in a society in which the elderly have wildly disproportionate housing based wealth, we see that time and again already.

Could we discuss it without being so emotive?

[mat the expat]

My main worries with this are

1. A society has more elderly single people, with only a niece or cousin responsible for them, the likelihood of convenient euthanasia will become more common.

2. As tech bro mentality creeps further into government, with a creeping hyperutility approach, safeguards will be cut back and cut back. Musk doesn’t want old people he has to pay for

I have a friend who is a senior palliative care doctor, and she gets quite angry about the way the public debate in this area is framed.

The first two points are odd

Bolded, frankly, it's not up to them to be angry. Doctors are allowed to be involved in the debate but this is 100% a personal decision

They provide the advice, not the emotion

Should the Doctors be required to offer it? Are they not allowed to have any personal agency?

And also, I clearly said she gets angry about the way the debate is framed. You appear to have gone off onto a different decision than the one I'm talking about.

And again, because no one replied to it, the state making it easier to access assistance to die rather than assistance to live, with a legal obligation to offer one but not the other, is just plain wrong.

Not really - angry about the way the debate is framed doesn't really explain why she is angry. It's just used in an emotive posting way without explanation

The point still remains that people have a right to request assistance in dying with dignity - if a doctor doesn't feel right about assisting, there will be others that will

Nobody is being forced

[Enzedder]

Not sure if this can be debated as people decide on emotions rather than facts (my opinion).

I am just so bloody glad we have it in case we need it.

[mat the expat]

Not sure if this can be debated as people decide on emotions rather than facts (my opinion).

I am just so bloody glad we have it in case we need it.

The stiff-upper lip of the English is long gone ....

[Biffer]

The first two points are odd

Bolded, frankly, it's not up to them to be angry. Doctors are allowed to be involved in the debate but this is 100% a personal decision

They provide the advice, not the emotion

Should the Doctors be required to offer it? Are they not allowed to have any personal agency?

And also, I clearly said she gets angry about the way the debate is framed. You appear to have gone off onto a different decision than the one I'm talking about.

And again, because no one replied to it, the state making it easier to access assistance to die rather than assistance to live, with a legal obligation to offer one but not the other, is just plain wrong.

Not really - angry about the way the debate is framed doesn't really explain why she is angry. It's just used in an emotive posting way without explanation

The point still remains that people have a right to request assistance in dying with dignity - if a doctor doesn't feel right about assisting, there will be others that will

Nobody is being forced

You've got the legislation the wrong way round. The doctor is obliged to raise it with the patient under thus legislation, not the other way round.

[Paddington Bear]

The first two points are odd

Bolded, frankly, it's not up to them to be angry. Doctors are allowed to be involved in the debate but this is 100% a personal decision

They provide the advice, not the emotion

Under this bill doctors are *required* to offer assisted dying. As for a personal decision, clearly the major sticking point is around capacity and I’m sorry a large % of people absolutely cannot be trusted to care appropriately for the wishes of their elderly relatives, particularly in a society in which the elderly have wildly disproportionate housing based wealth, we see that time and again already.

Could we discuss it without being so emotive?

Far easier to say my response is emotional than engage with the fact that:
1) you haven’t read the legislation, and
2) you have no answer to the points made about safeguards.

I’ve set out on this thread my reservations about this bill and why I have them repeatedly, posted links, answered points etc. There’s no need for me to do so again if you can’t be bothered to read or address them and instead just declare your position rational and opponents emotional.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There's not a 'right' answer in this.

Either you accept people suffering because you don't want feel bad about yourself so screw their suffering, or you accept some people may elect to top themselves who offered better support might choose to live. It is a bit odd many so opposed to people choosing to die have so little interest in supporting people in their living

[Paddington Bear]

There's not a 'right' answer in this.

Either you accept people suffering because you don't want feel bad about yourself so screw their suffering, or you accept some people may elect to top themselves who offered better support might choose to live. It is a bit odd many so opposed to people choosing to die have so little interest in supporting people in their living

If you read this thread, the small group of us opposed to this bill are not overly concerned as to those choosing to die on their own terms, we are concerned about those having the choice made for them. A point that no one in favour of the bill really seems keen to address, and it’s Parliamentary backers claim that giving GPs a training course on coercion would cover it nicely.

[dpedin]

Folk make the mistake this is all black and white - do we or dont we - and ignore that 'assisted dying' has been going on for as long as the medical/nursing profession has been around. Indeed it is claimed that King George V's death was hastened so that he didnt suffer any more and that it could be announced in the morning edition of the Times. It is naive to think that doctors/nurses even today don't help folk in their final hours/days to have a peaceful 'death'. Some of course have taken this to an extreme, Shipman for one, but the Liverpool Pathway in the 90's was also a recognition by the medical profession of the need to help ease patients final hours/days before death. It however was;nt perfect and was discontinued due to criticism of its application and results but variations of it still exist. How many of us have been spoken to by clinicians who ask us what do we do for loved ones, keep trying to continue life or 'make them comfortable and pain free' as they die? What do folk think 'making them comfortable' means or how are they made 'pain free'? The question is do we want to formalize this 'help' given to patients in their final hours/days or leave it as something not to be spoken about in public, dependent upon the doctor/nurse in charge or available to folk who can pay for a flight to Switzerland and Dignitas fees?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There's not a 'right' answer in this.

Either you accept people suffering because you don't want feel bad about yourself so screw their suffering, or you accept some people may elect to top themselves who offered better support might choose to live. It is a bit odd many so opposed to people choosing to die have so little interest in supporting people in their living

If you read this thread, the small group of us opposed to this bill are not overly concerned as to those choosing to die on their own terms, we are concerned about those having the choice made for them. A point that no one in favour of the bill really seems keen to address, and it’s Parliamentary backers claim that giving GPs a training course on coercion would cover it nicely.

I'm a liberal, I don't seek to deny people have some responsibility for their own decisions.

Fools and their money have been easily parted for quite some time now

[Sandstorm]

It is naive to think that doctors/nurses even today don't help folk in their final hours/days to have a peaceful 'death'.

No-one denies that this happens.

However you're missing the point of this bill. It's meant for those who don't want to spend months in agony, unable to swallow or breathe without assistance. Wasting away, knowing that every day will be worse than yesterday. They don't want to wait another 5 1/2 months before a doctor will quietly help them die in the hospice.

They want the power to end it on their timetable.

The question is do we want to formalize this 'help' given to patients in their final hours/days or leave it as something not to be spoken about in public, dependent upon the doctor/nurse in charge or available to folk who can pay for a flight to Switzerland and Dignitas fees?

A good point you make here. This bill will mean that everyone has access to a quicker end, not just rich folks. This is an example of what "levelling up" really means.

[Biffer]

A number of the people here are arguing in favour of the general principle and not this bill.

I'd suggest you look into the bill properly and address the concerns with a badly framed piece of legislation with very limited debate time rather than speaking about the vague principle.

[mat the expat]

Under this bill doctors are *required* to offer assisted dying. As for a personal decision, clearly the major sticking point is around capacity and I’m sorry a large % of people absolutely cannot be trusted to care appropriately for the wishes of their elderly relatives, particularly in a society in which the elderly have wildly disproportionate housing based wealth, we see that time and again already.

Could we discuss it without being so emotive?

Far easier to say my response is emotional than engage with the fact that:
1) you haven’t read the legislation, and
2) you have no answer to the points made about safeguards.

I’ve set out on this thread my reservations about this bill and why I have them repeatedly, posted links, answered points etc. There’s no need for me to do so again if you can’t be bothered to read or address them and instead just declare your position rational and opponents emotional.

Ok champ!

[mat the expat]

Should the Doctors be required to offer it? Are they not allowed to have any personal agency?

And also, I clearly said she gets angry about the way the debate is framed. You appear to have gone off onto a different decision than the one I'm talking about.

And again, because no one replied to it, the state making it easier to access assistance to die rather than assistance to live, with a legal obligation to offer one but not the other, is just plain wrong.

Not really - angry about the way the debate is framed doesn't really explain why she is angry. It's just used in an emotive posting way without explanation

The point still remains that people have a right to request assistance in dying with dignity - if a doctor doesn't feel right about assisting, there will be others that will

Nobody is being forced

You've got the legislation the wrong way round. The doctor is obliged to raise it with the patient under thus legislation, not the other way round.

And there will be plenty of time for the legislation to be amended - when does any legislation ever cross in it's original form?

[Biffer]

Not really - angry about the way the debate is framed doesn't really explain why she is angry. It's just used in an emotive posting way without explanation

The point still remains that people have a right to request assistance in dying with dignity - if a doctor doesn't feel right about assisting, there will be others that will

Nobody is being forced

You've got the legislation the wrong way round. The doctor is obliged to raise it with the patient under thus legislation, not the other way round.

And there will be plenty of time for the legislation to be amended - when does any legislation ever cross in it's original form?

No, it’s a private members bill. Maximum of five hours in the chamber.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

You've got the legislation the wrong way round. The doctor is obliged to raise it with the patient under thus legislation, not the other way round.

And there will be plenty of time for the legislation to be amended - when does any legislation ever cross in it's original form?

No, it’s a private members bill. Maximum of five hours in the chamber.

All the more reason not to worry about the bill but to pass with sunset clauses.

And I'll note again I think Parliament should as a norm be doing much more in terms of reviewing previously passed legislation, but this is an obvious situation in which revision should be taken up

[Rhubarb & Custard]

A number of the people here are arguing in favour of the general principle and not this bill.

I'd suggest you look into the bill properly and address the concerns with a badly framed piece of legislation with very limited debate time rather than speaking about the vague principle.

in this bill the devil is in the detail and for many in favour of the idea any actual bill will present with problems, at some point we just need to hold our noses and get on with it. and for those who have concerns they've had plenty of time to bring forwards a more detailed bill that they wouldn't like but which would have marked out stricter terms perhaps, instead they constantly try to run out the clock and may now pay for that with a bill they really don't like, on which point I lack sympathy, bollocks to 'em really

[Paddington Bear]

Could we discuss it without being so emotive?

Far easier to say my response is emotional than engage with the fact that:
1) you haven’t read the legislation, and
2) you have no answer to the points made about safeguards.

I’ve set out on this thread my reservations about this bill and why I have them repeatedly, posted links, answered points etc. There’s no need for me to do so again if you can’t be bothered to read or address them and instead just declare your position rational and opponents emotional.

Ok champ!

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Far easier to say my response is emotional than engage with the fact that:
1) you haven’t read the legislation, and
2) you have no answer to the points made about safeguards.

I’ve set out on this thread my reservations about this bill and why I have them repeatedly, posted links, answered points etc. There’s no need for me to do so again if you can’t be bothered to read or address them and instead just declare your position rational and opponents emotional.

Ok champ!

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

Equally those not wanting the bill need to accept they don't care about suffering. One can flip this either way, both are valid points, both aren't entirely fair

[Paddington Bear]

Ok champ!

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

Equally those not wanting the bill need to accept they don't care about suffering. One can flip this either way, both are valid points, both aren't entirely fair

Whilst true in some cases, this is a comment following on from a discussion where I’ve offered MTE the chance to address coercion and he just can’t be bothered, because I suspect we know what his answer is and that scuppers the moral argument we’re being lumbered with.

For me, I’ve already addressed the long term suffering that is the status quo, but to be clear I consider it to be a lesser evil than coercing people to a death they did not or cannot consent to. This bill wouldn’t have stopped people like my Great Aunt dying in some distress after years wasted to dementia in any event as dementia isn’t a 6 month terminal diagnosis and it was a sharp bout of pneumonia that finished her off.

So I consider myself a qualified opponent of assisted dying, if there is a system that provides adequate protections then I can see that it balances the two twin evils acceptably and we can go ahead.

This bill does not provide any such protection and will not do due to a lack of parliamentary time and the fact its proposers through parliament consider that a district judge and a training course for GPs can cover it off nicely.

[Biffer]

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

Equally those not wanting the bill need to accept they don't care about suffering. One can flip this either way, both are valid points, both aren't entirely fair

Whilst true in some cases, this is a comment following on from a discussion where I’ve offered MTE the chance to address coercion and he just can’t be bothered, because I suspect we know what his answer is and that scuppers the moral argument we’re being lumbered with.

For me, I’ve already addressed the long term suffering that is the status quo, but to be clear I consider it to be a lesser evil than coercing people to a death they did not or cannot consent to. This bill wouldn’t have stopped people like my Great Aunt dying in some distress after years wasted to dementia in any event as dementia isn’t a 6 month terminal diagnosis and it was a sharp bout of pneumonia that finished her off.

So I consider myself a qualified opponent of assisted dying, if there is a system that provides adequate protections then I can see that it balances the two twin evils acceptably and we can go ahead.

This bill does not provide any such protection and will not do due to a lack of parliamentary time and the fact its proposers through parliament consider that a district judge and a training course for GPs can cover it off nicely.

That's pretty much my view, expressed eloquently. I'm not against assisted dying per se, but this bill is not a good piece of legislation.

[petej]

Far easier to say my response is emotional than engage with the fact that:
1) you haven’t read the legislation, and
2) you have no answer to the points made about safeguards.

I’ve set out on this thread my reservations about this bill and why I have them repeatedly, posted links, answered points etc. There’s no need for me to do so again if you can’t be bothered to read or address them and instead just declare your position rational and opponents emotional.

Ok champ!

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

They will because these things are imperfect. Though people like that will usually find another way regardless to make life miserable and shorter. In your work you will be dealing with the shit end of the population and their poor behaviours.

[Biffer]

Ok champ!

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

They will because these things are imperfect. Though people like that will usually find another way regardless to make life miserable and shorter. In your work you will be dealing with the shit end of the population and their poor behaviours.

So do we just give the coercers another tool to do it with? That makes sense.

[Paddington Bear]

Ok champ!

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

They will because these things are imperfect. Though people like that will usually find another way regardless to make life miserable and shorter. In your work you will be dealing with the shit end of the population and their poor behaviours.

Whilst life is imperfect we can make a far far better hash at reducing the number of people coerced than this bill offers. I’m not suggesting we need a perfect solution - we need one that has some thought behind it rather than ‘it’ll probably be fine, have some compassion, vote yes then we’ll work it out’ which appears to be Leadbetter et al’s current stance.

[Guy Smiley]

While I'm not looking to disagree with the point being made around possible coercion, this is necessarily a hypothetical at present... just how much evidence is there that coercion could be a factor?

[mat the expat]

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

[mat the expat]

Just have the balls to come out and say ‘I do not care that some people will be coerced into this’

Equally those not wanting the bill need to accept they don't care about suffering. One can flip this either way, both are valid points, both aren't entirely fair

Whilst true in some cases, this is a comment following on from a discussion where I’ve offered MTE the chance to address coercion and he just can’t be bothered, because I suspect we know what his answer is and that scuppers the moral argument we’re being lumbered with.

For me, I’ve already addressed the long term suffering that is the status quo, but to be clear I consider it to be a lesser evil than coercing people to a death they did not or cannot consent to. This bill wouldn’t have stopped people like my Great Aunt dying in some distress after years wasted to dementia in any event as dementia isn’t a 6 month terminal diagnosis and it was a sharp bout of pneumonia that finished her off.

So I consider myself a qualified opponent of assisted dying, if there is a system that provides adequate protections then I can see that it balances the two twin evils acceptably and we can go ahead.

This bill does not provide any such protection and will not do due to a lack of parliamentary time and the fact its proposers through parliament consider that a district judge and a training course for GPs can cover it off nicely.

Could you be any more pompous?

You're not the only one to have had to experience these things in life.

[Paddington Bear]

Equally those not wanting the bill need to accept they don't care about suffering. One can flip this either way, both are valid points, both aren't entirely fair

Whilst true in some cases, this is a comment following on from a discussion where I’ve offered MTE the chance to address coercion and he just can’t be bothered, because I suspect we know what his answer is and that scuppers the moral argument we’re being lumbered with.

For me, I’ve already addressed the long term suffering that is the status quo, but to be clear I consider it to be a lesser evil than coercing people to a death they did not or cannot consent to. This bill wouldn’t have stopped people like my Great Aunt dying in some distress after years wasted to dementia in any event as dementia isn’t a 6 month terminal diagnosis and it was a sharp bout of pneumonia that finished her off.

So I consider myself a qualified opponent of assisted dying, if there is a system that provides adequate protections then I can see that it balances the two twin evils acceptably and we can go ahead.

This bill does not provide any such protection and will not do due to a lack of parliamentary time and the fact its proposers through parliament consider that a district judge and a training course for GPs can cover it off nicely.

Could you be any more pompous?

You're not the only one to have had to experience these things in life.

Oh fuck off, I’ve explained my point repeatedly and you just don’t want to engage because you don’t have good answers to the points.

Never suggested my experiences were unique, I’ve included them to address the point that I’m aware that this isn’t a zero sum game.

You’ve acted like a prick on a thread where other people have strongly held opinions but have not been a prick. Like the kid on the playground going ‘I’m not touching you’ whilst standing a couple of inches in front of your face.

[Biffer]

I'm with PB on this. He's made good points, solid arguments and MTE is only prepared to throw the same trope out about compassion.

Uncritical backing of poor legislation like this on the basis of a headline style of argument is a way to make this country even worse.

[Biffer]

Equally those not wanting the bill need to accept they don't care about suffering. One can flip this either way, both are valid points, both aren't entirely fair

Whilst true in some cases, this is a comment following on from a discussion where I’ve offered MTE the chance to address coercion and he just can’t be bothered, because I suspect we know what his answer is and that scuppers the moral argument we’re being lumbered with.

For me, I’ve already addressed the long term suffering that is the status quo, but to be clear I consider it to be a lesser evil than coercing people to a death they did not or cannot consent to. This bill wouldn’t have stopped people like my Great Aunt dying in some distress after years wasted to dementia in any event as dementia isn’t a 6 month terminal diagnosis and it was a sharp bout of pneumonia that finished her off.

So I consider myself a qualified opponent of assisted dying, if there is a system that provides adequate protections then I can see that it balances the two twin evils acceptably and we can go ahead.

This bill does not provide any such protection and will not do due to a lack of parliamentary time and the fact its proposers through parliament consider that a district judge and a training course for GPs can cover it off nicely.

Could you be any more pompous?

You're not the only one to have had to experience these things in life.

eHe's said that people being coerced into early deaths is a bigger injuatice for him than the awful suffering some people go through.

They're both terrible things. But you have to be prepared, when talking about this kind of legislation, to make that kind of statement. You don't seem to be able to do that.

[Enzedder]

No matter where I lived, I would be pissed if someone who has absolutely no right to do so, tells me what I can and can't do with my body, just in case someone else may get some negative affects. If I am facing a long and very painful end, why cannot I choose to end it quietly and peacefully with my family around me.

Why do you force me to play tag with a tree or a train and then force someone else (never you) to clean up the mess.

Get the hell out of my life and let me choose.

If you need to find a way to protect others then do so, but don't infringe on my right.

[Guy Smiley]

I spent 3 months nursing my mother through late stage terminal cancer, from an initial appointment with her oncologist where he informed us that what we thought would be an operation to remove had shifted to a palliative care situation due to the inoperable nature of the beast.

Melanoma had taken away her nose and spread into her jaw, slowly restricting her ability to talk and swallow. Her vision was pretty much gone, she could make out shapes but still follow The Chase every day and insisted on watching the NPC games, a strangely joyous occasion in the middle of a slow motion journey into foreboding.

I will always remember the despair and tears from her GP on one of her final house visits as we talked outside afterwards... Mum had asked for help to end this ghastly dance and regardless of whatever avenues we like to think are available, that wonderful warm hearted lady couldn't do anything. It dragged on until the day Mum couldn't swallow the morning pain relief pill and I had to use an eye dropper to help her work the damned thing past the tumour on her jaw. That day, the home nursing team from Silver Chain fitted her up with a pump and we went looking for a suitable hospice as home care with a pump wasn't an option.

The move was distressing as the nursing staff were necessarily busy and she lost the immediacy or intimacy of care she'd been getting. Simple thing like opening the blinds for daylight hurting her eyes and no-one listening until I got there and darkened her room for her...

she lasted a month. The pump administered an anxiety med along with pain relief and she basically flew out pretty high in the end but she and I along with my sisters were forced to go through that months long macabre dance that she didn't want to go through because Policy has A Plan for the end of your life and you don't get to have a fucking say in it.

I'm with Enz... get out of the fucking way and allow choice.

[Biffer]

Nobody is addressing the point about coercion.

Nobody is addressing the flaws in this legislation.

You're all making the general moral point, which I more or less agree with. That's not the problem here. The problem is this legislation, and none of you seem prepared to talk about it's flaws or weaknesses.

None of you are prepared to make the statement that the awful suffering some people go through is more important to you than preventing and protecting people from being coerced into early deaths.

[Sandstorm]

Nobody is addressing the point about coercion.

Nobody is addressing the flaws in this legislation.

You're all making the general moral point, which I more or less agree with. That's not the problem here. The problem is this legislation, and none of you seem prepared to talk about it's flaws or weaknesses.

None of you are prepared to make the statement that the awful suffering some people go through is more important to you than preventing and protecting people from being coerced into early deaths.

FFS we all talked about it on page 1: a judge and two medical professionals will make the final decision, not the greedy grandson!!

[Biffer]

Nobody is addressing the point about coercion.

Nobody is addressing the flaws in this legislation.

You're all making the general moral point, which I more or less agree with. That's not the problem here. The problem is this legislation, and none of you seem prepared to talk about it's flaws or weaknesses.

None of you are prepared to make the statement that the awful suffering some people go through is more important to you than preventing and protecting people from being coerced into early deaths.

FFS we all talked about it on page 1: a judge and two medical professionals will make the final decision, not the greedy grandson!!

The second medical professional is chosen by the first, and if they disagree, they can choose another one. And the patient / family can choose the first. And it doesn’t specify what sort of medical professional. Doctors aren’t trained to recognise what coercion looks like. And it can often only be seen over a longer course of behaviour, so a short period for the second consult won’t ever pick that up. And the family court system doesn’t have enough judges to accommodate the likely number given Canada and Oregon as comparators. All these points were also made but not responded to, just posts of incredibly sad stories instead.

[Guy Smiley]

Nobody is addressing the point about coercion.

Nobody is addressing the flaws in this legislation.

You're all making the general moral point, which I more or less agree with. That's not the problem here. The problem is this legislation, and none of you seem prepared to talk about it's flaws or weaknesses.

None of you are prepared to make the statement that the awful suffering some people go through is more important to you than preventing and protecting people from being coerced into early deaths.

I asked a direct question about coercion which was ignored. I asked what sort of evidence there was to support the idea that might happen.

[petej]

People have got quite agitated in opposing this despite it's limited applicability but our rotten food industry's taking decades of healthy life off people is just accepted. In shear volume of impact it is very slight.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

None of you are prepared to make the statement that the awful suffering some people go through is more important to you than preventing and protecting people from being coerced into early deaths.

I would happily make that statement, sing it from the rafters even.

[Enzedder]

Me too, if you want safeguards, design them and advise your MP. JFDI.