[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

You use derogatory terms for those who argue against ending life on compassionate grounds. This has the effect of negating your views somewhat.

Yup, guilty as charged, I have derogatory views on anyone who could possibly align themselves with the Spanish inquisition, the destruction of numerous cultures, nazi sympathising popes, covering up child molesting clergy, holy wars etc..etc.. and then claim that someone who wants the right to die with dignity is an affront to scripture.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I know there are supposed to be safeguards against the rules being corrupted, but do you trust those in authority not to be corrupted.

This isn’t even an argument….there is a LAW to safeguard the rules, break the law suffer the consequences..and believe me the Mental Capacity law is enforced far more stringently than the breaking and entering or burglary law.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I worked in women's health for many years and when I first started, termination of a pregnancy was not easy for a woman to access, but when I left the NHS, it was termination on demand.....yes, the supposed safeguards of Two Doctors etcetera was still in place, but this was no barr to women getting termination of pregnancy(and some women were seen more than once).

This is a separate argument but I’ll bite..would you rather that unwanted pregnancies were left to a back street auntie with a knitting needle and a pint of gin? And there are still safeguards (under LAW) in place regarding terminations

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have seen people dying, I have seen people given life limiting diagnoses, but still I am not sure that legislation to end life is the way forward.

As have I, the legislation in question is about options not enforcement, nobody is suggesting that anyone should be forced to end their life, it should be a option

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Shouldn't we be caring for the dying in a better way?
Shouldn't the government support the hospice movement in a better, more structured way?

Yes, but again it’s about options, those who choose ‘no’ should have the very best that a civilised society can give

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

i would not like the medical profession to be in the situation of euthanising people. It is a very short step to taking the old and infirm out of the population because they are no longer seen to be useful.

Already enshrined in law under the mental capacity act

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Where people have helped someone to die(none medical personnel that is), where there has been strong evidence that this was what the deceased wished, have any of those helpers been prosecuted, jailed or given some kind of criminal record?

Named and shamed in their local newspaper, questioned at the local police station, treated like a criminal, fingerprints, photographs and forensics at a time of deep personal grief

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Do you really want a Harold Shipman making decisions on who should be dispatched from life?

That’s a really silly question and so beneath you, the debate in question had very clear parameters i.e. terminally ill, six months to live and a high court ruling….Shipman was an aberration

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

This is a subject which polarises opinion because it is very emotive.

100% agree, even though we disagree on the actual argument

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

My stance is not one of inexperience either.....my father died of lung cancer, my mother was given the diagnosis of cancer so 13 years ago.....had she taken the road of assisted dying (fearing that she would be in constant pain)she would not be here now....but she is here, and although the diagnosis changed her life....it was not the end of her life.

And once again…’choice’……not yours…but your mum and dads