And another thing…

Now… despite the result… THAT is funny….

Good.

Here’s what Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, who is disabled, wrote:

“They appear not to have noticed that the days of others knowing what is best for disabled and terminally ill people are past.

“We are now empowered and we know what we need to play a full part in society. We want help to live – not help to die.”

I was a bit disappointed really – in this case I support turkeys voting for christmas (well, on assisted dying – not quite on a cull of the Lords, I must admit).

In the end, not much of a surprise. The upper house is naturally small-c conservative, which is as it should be. If the upper house is meant to act as a buffer to irrational decrees from the lower house, it’s probably for the best that they will slow something too ill-thought out down. If it’s really wanted, then use the Parliament Act, and everything’s fine.

After all, you’ve got to take the work of the Houses of Parliament as a whole, not as individual parts. That’s like expecting that in a factory, each part of the assembly line makes a full car, then passes it onto the next stage in the assembly line: it would be pretty much pointless.

That’s why I support, in principle, an appointed upper chamber, subordinate but rebellious. You achieve popular scrutiny through the Commons (which could use some reform, in my view) and achieve technical scrutiny in the Lords (which could also use some reform, though elections would not really help it as far as I can see). Of course, each House should ideally try to scrutinise both aspects, but the Commons, being elected, should be more easily capable of ensuring laws are supported by the public while the Lords, having a substantial portion of experts, should be more capable to ensure they’re actually effective.

Re SC’s comment:

Just because Baroness Campbell of Surbiton is disabled it doesn’t follow that she speaks for all disabled people. They are individuals not members of an homogeneous group.

Her own argument, that no one should claim to know what’s best for disabled (or indeed able-bodied) people, seems to me to be a powerful one for allowing people to choose assisted dying happy in the knowledge that the people they love won’t be prosecuted for helping them.

If what Stewart quotes is correct, she immediately undermined her own position by claiming to speak for all when saying that “We want help to live – not help to die” – I think she must have meant “I”…

And so people will continue to have to suffer unneccesarily, unable to find a way of their predicament, they themselves could do nothing about. They just have to accept the agony of their lives until such a point as it all ends.

Are we talking about assisted suicide or waiting for a general election?

[...] From Tom Harris MP’s blog… Closer my God to thee [...]

Sorry for posting again so soon, but this one is more serious.

In reply to Brian Hughes, you are correct. The Baroness puts in a contradictory argument. She says “..the days of others knowing what is best for disabled and terminally ill people are past” and then takes the position that it should be for the state to decide whether you are allowed to choose assisted death. Or, to paraphrase “I should be able to decide for myself whether I want to live or die. That is why the state should take my decision for me.” She gives a pro-choice argument then supports the pro-life lobby. It makes no sense.

Very few actually WANT to die.

They choose to die only because the alternative is unbearable.

When that is quite obviously their choice, busybodies,sadists and religious primitives don’t seem willing to allow them to exercise it.

Extraordinary.

Tom

Chickens, not Turkeys