Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ronnyd]

My dear old Mum lived to 101yrs. The last few weeks of her life just laying in a hospital bed in her bungalow, with a live in carer and others coming in three times a day, was a torture for her. Her mind was still very sharp and she told me that she wished that she could just go to sleep and not wake up again. I agree with the bill too.

My mum is like that now, Ron, she is 95. She hasn't been out of the house for fifteen years. She says she wouldn't care if she didn't wake up tomorrow, and that may be true. But giving her a lethal dose of medication for her to self administer would be a totally different thing, I think.

Quite agree Steve, i couldn't shove a pillow over anyone's face, let alone my Mums. The professionals is another matter.

The way I read it, Ron, is that the person has to administer the drug themselves, under  medical supervision.

Be a bit shit if you'd lost your arms through meningitis or something 
Sorry 

[Doctor Gollum]

I'm wondering how life insurance companies and the like would look at this. A lot of policies make it quite clear that they don't pay out for suicide.

But hey will pay out upon diagnosis of a few terminal illnesses.

If you're already diagnosed with a widespread untreatable cancer, for example, you're probably already paid out. At that point choosing to die isn't an insurance consideration.

[STEMO]

I'm wondering how life insurance companies and the like would look at this. A lot of policies make it quite clear that they don't pay out for suicide.

But hey will pay out upon diagnosis of a few terminal illnesses.

If you're already diagnosed with a widespread untreatable cancer, for example, you're probably already paid out. At that point choosing to die isn't an insurance consideration.

Not a word I've seen mentioned in insurance policies.

[Doctor Gollum]

I'm wondering how life insurance companies and the like would look at this. A lot of policies make it quite clear that they don't pay out for suicide.

But hey will pay out upon diagnosis of a few terminal illnesses.

If you're already diagnosed with a widespread untreatable cancer, for example, you're probably already paid out. At that point choosing to die isn't an insurance consideration.

Not a word I've seen mentioned in insurance policies.

Probably refers to the chances of being covered by a decent policy.

I know mine covers anything terminal as well as anything fatal.

Point being that if you had a decent policy in place at the time of diagnosis you're should be covered for the worst of it and that would pay out before you pulled the plug. Or you get diagnosed without cover. Either way, the insurers won't take issue with it because they have either already paid out or were never having to. Which makes the matter moot.

Obviously if the law allows for assisted dying as a cure for depression then that's not likely to be covered.

[Terbs]

Surely, something of this magnatude, which could affect everybody, should have been put to a referendum, not just 600 or so MP's to put their own personal feelings in a vote. It reminds me of an interview on TV years ago during the debate on the return of capital punishment. An MP was interviewed on that grass bit outside the Houses of Parliment, which way he would vote. He said he would follow the party line, against. It was pointed out to him a survey of his constuancy found that 85% of the constituents were in favour of restoration. His answer was, again..I will follow the party line.
I know this was a free vote....but that still does not stop an MP voting on their personal belief and not that of the people they represent.
I know you can't have a referendum on everything, but most of the stuff they go on about is crap anyway.

[biggriffin]

I'm wondering how life insurance companies and the like would look at this. A lot of policies make it quite clear that they don't pay out for suicide.

 Insurance companies will already be rewriting terms and conditions, possibly putting "assisted death" voids the the policy as it's not natural death.
 All about the money.
The removal of the HA will kill a few oldies, so technically Twoteir has already brought in "state sponsored death" Do 

Members of this parish best be careful 

[Rangie]

I'm wondering how life insurance companies and the like would look at this. A lot of policies make it quite clear that they don't pay out for suicide.

 Insurance companies will already be rewriting terms and conditions, possibly putting "assisted death" voids the the policy as it's not natural death.
 All about the money.
The removal of the HA will kill a few oldies, so technically Twoteir has already brought in "state sponsored death" Do 

Members of this parish best be careful 

.

We've outwitted the life insurance companies , neither Swmbo or myself have any, only time we had any was when we had a mortgage many years ago.👍

[Sir Tigger KC]

Surely, something of this magnatude, which could affect everybody, should have been put to a referendum, not just 600 or so MP's to put their own personal feelings in a vote. It reminds me of an interview on TV years ago during the debate on the return of capital punishment. An MP was interviewed on that grass bit outside the Houses of Parliment, which way he would vote. He said he would follow the party line, against. It was pointed out to him a survey of his constuancy found that 85% of the constituents were in favour of restoration. His answer was, again..I will follow the party line.
I know this was a free vote....but that still does not stop an MP voting on their personal belief and not that of the people they represent.
I know you can't have a referendum on everything, but most of the stuff they go on about is crap anyway.

I'm a fan of direct democracy and think we should have referenda on all sorts of things like the Swiss do. 

If we had regular referendums on the big issues of the day like immigration, Net Zero, capital punishment etc and the government was legally obliged to implement the decision made by the people, this country would look very different. 

[STEMO]

Surely, something of this magnatude, which could affect everybody, should have been put to a referendum, not just 600 or so MP's to put their own personal feelings in a vote. It reminds me of an interview on TV years ago during the debate on the return of capital punishment. An MP was interviewed on that grass bit outside the Houses of Parliment, which way he would vote. He said he would follow the party line, against. It was pointed out to him a survey of his constuancy found that 85% of the constituents were in favour of restoration. His answer was, again..I will follow the party line.
I know this was a free vote....but that still does not stop an MP voting on their personal belief and not that of the people they represent.
I know you can't have a referendum on everything, but most of the stuff they go on about is crap anyway.

I'm a fan of direct democracy and think we should have referenda on all sorts of things like the Swiss do. 

If we had regular referendums on the big issues of the day like immigration, Net Zero, capital punishment etc and the government was legally obliged to implement the decision made by the people, this country would look very different. 

If only.....