Are we safe? ATOS spreads dismay ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

they can shove it, tax the rich, tax land, tax google tax us all, but i prefer we pay for the care ... because that is a society worth living in

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ale::ela:

[amateur51]

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ale::ela:

Seconded!:winkeye::ela::ok:

[Beef Oven]

Seconded!:winkeye::ela::ok:

Thirded!! Eat the rich!

Slaptheback,backtheslap:laugh:

Love it! It's like being 17 all over again :laugh:

[Flosshilde]

Thirded!! Eat the rich!

I don't know - they'll probably disagree with me.

[Beef Oven]

I don't know - they'll probably disagree with me.

They wouldn't even hear you.

[aeolium]

What is a "clear wish" ?
I have had a "clear wish" in the past which I changed my mind about later
So I guess if you have lived a life where you NEVER ever change your mind about ANYTHING
then it's probably ok
but I doubt that there are many folks like that ........

Why in that case do we allow adults in full awareness of the danger to climb up mountains like Mont Blanc or Everest, or indeed ski off high peaks, or try to cross the channel in a barrel or jump 24 miles from space? We know all of these risk death, and some of them do die. They may all have had many chances to think about their decisions and change their minds, but at some point the decision is irrevocable. Surely one part of their freedom to do any of these things, and indeed to commit suicide (since the decriminalisation of suicide in 1961) is our recognition of their right as adults to determine their own destiny, however dangerous or reckless it may seem to us. To say that we know best or not to allow them to do any of these things because they might regret it and wish to change their minds is ultimately to treat them as dependent, not autonomous people - little better than children who have to be guided. Yet in the case of those physically unable to take autonomous action yet with functioning mental capacity we deny their independence. Do you think Debby Purdy or Tony Nicklinson would not have thought hundreds, perhaps thousands of times about the implications of the decisions they wished to take, but were unable to?

i am afraid that this thread is not about euthanasia ... like many things in life a multi faceted issue .... but about the state, representing us, saying we will not spend £££ to keep you alive with your dignity intact ... we willl not ensure your shelter nor your food and we will mistate the nature of your condition in order to avoid the cost of caring .... well for me they can shove it, tax the rich, tax land, tax google tax us all, but i prefer we pay for the care ... because that is a society worth living in

And I agree with this general sentiment about the state cutting back on care and the abominable ATOS. But however much the state spends on care, there will be some who do not wish to continue living - because of what they feel is a continuing insult to their dignity and because of an intolerable quality of life. That is, as you suggest, essentially a separate issue from the responsibility of the state to care for the sick.

[eighthobstruction]

i am afraid that this thread is not about euthanasia ... like many things in life a multi faceted issue .... but about the state, representing us, saying we will not spend £££ to keep you alive with your dignity intact ... we willl not ensure your shelter nor your food and we will mistate the nature of your condition in order to avoid the cost of caring .... well for me they can shove it, tax the rich, tax land, tax google tax us all, but i prefer we pay for the care ... because that is a society worth living in

WELL SAID oh dark one....excellent

....I agree with aeolium too....