Assisted Dying ~ How you you vote?

It is a tough question; on 20th June 2025, I would most likely have voted FOR the drafr bill: 

 Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 

For reference here is how your MP voted.

There is merit to arguments on all sides.

Here are my basic principles:

• Life is precious -- make the most of it.
• We should do all we can to keep people alive, healthy, and able to enjoy their lives. This means a safety net of assurance for the basics of food, housing, and healthcare.
• We should do all we can to keep people from even considering suicide. This means people should have a reason to go on living without constant pain.
• People should be treated with respect and dignity.
• In their final days and weeks, if life is truly insufferable and death is imminent, people should have control over their final hours and be able to bring peace with dignity.

I would NOT want to extend help to assist suicide in the way that it has been done in some countries. 

I am alarmed that people kill themselves, and I think we should be preventing unnecessary death, not helping it.

Disability should not be a reason for suicide.

Mental anguish should not be a reason for suicide.

No one should be coerced into suicide.

That said:

At the end of their lives, some people spend their final days or weeks in terrible pain and distress, waiting for it to end. It can't be right. We don't allow our beloved pets to suffer in this way.

The legal change in the UK that I would support would limit assisted death to people facing certain death of natural causes within 6 months.

What of the actual bill before the House that was passed on Friday?

• It has its problems. 
• It will go through many more stages before becoming law. 
• I hope and believe it can be changed; it is a work in progress with more stages to go through before the final thing.

PROBLEMS ~ Safeguards

I hope the safeguards will be strengthened.

I am concerned about the role of medical doctors and other clinicians in all this -- it needs to be looked at carefully. 

RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS

I understand some people have objections on the grounds of their religious convictions. 

I do not think YOU should be free to hold your views and practice your religion, but you should not be able to dictate the law of the land that applies to ALL people based solely on religious faith.

No one should be forced into a suicide arrangement or assisted dying.

While most MPs voted in favour of the bill on Friday, as I would have also done, 

Adam Jogee Labour Party MP

for Newcastle-under-Lyme

voted against the bill.

In his NEWSLETTER to constituents, he explained the difficult dilemma, and the letters from constituents presented arguments for both sides of the case.

I can respect this POV, I understand it was a difficult decision, I may have voted the same way if I were actually in his shoes. However, if the Bill didn't go forward at this stage, it might be years before a bill makes it through Parliament. My hope is that this will be changed; it can be defeated at a later stage if necessary.

Would you ban the burqa?

 MPs should focus on making a meaningful difference to improve society. 

If I were an MP and someone asked me if we should ban the burqa in public places right now, I would have to say NO.

• How does a ban help anyone in society? It doesn't. 
• How are burqas causing trouble?
• Banning this item of clothing merely upsets a very tiny religious minority for no benefit.
• Banning this item RESTRICTS the freedom of a small number of women to dress how they wish and express their religious views.
• MPs should focus on solving the real problems that affect many people.

I am pleased we live in a FREE society where people can be free to express themselves and have religious freedom.

Banning the burqa in public is a slippery slope towards legally defining what people may and may not wear. I believe in freedom.

Perhaps as many as 1,000 women wear it in the UK, and it affects no one else if they choose to do so.

ME: 

* I prefer to see people's faces.

* Being able to lip-read and recognise facial expressions is an essential part of communication and being an integral part of society.

Still, if a small minority opt for something different, I think that is OK.

The BURQA SHOULD BE BANNED in certain situations:

• such as in many workplaces, where communication is relevant (such as school teachers), 
• but these do not require parliamentary time taken up discussing the far-reaching ban suggested last week:

Sarah Pochin( MP for Runcorn and Helsby) :  “Given the prime minister’s desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he in the interests of public safety follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burqa?”

HOW STRANGE!

The far-right were passionate about BREXIT.

They wanted us to leave the European Union.

Each country is unique; it faces different issues and can forge its own path.

There is no REASON for the UK to BLINDLY follow other countries.

NOTE: France actually bans face coverings -- All face coverings...

***

As with other issues, I think public policy and laws should be evidence-based.

So, how many people actually wear the Burqa in the UK and where and when?

What is the evidence that the Burqa causes a problem in the UK?

What is the evidence that a ban on the Burqa in all public places will make anything better?