Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Can you give an other example from current society where the overwhelming majority (who would not be coerced into their decision) are forced by law to endure physical pain and mental stress to protect a minority the lawmakers deem too untermensch to make these kind of decisions?

[Barrister]

Can you give an other example from current society where the overwhelming majority (who would not be coerced into their decision) are forced by law to endure physical pain and mental stress to protect a minority the lawmakers deem too untermensch to make these kind of decisions?

Strawman much?

The fact MAiD might have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups isn't necessarily a reason not to allow it - but it is a reason to be very careful in how you design such a system.

[Tamas]

I mean the UK bill which is severely limited in its scope. Essentially it is for people who are already pronounced dead just waiting for the dying part to play out.

[Barrister]

I mean the UK bill which is severely limited in its scope. Essentially it is for people who are already pronounced dead just waiting for the dying part to play out.

It always starts out that way.

In Canada we're set to allow people suffering from mental illness - who in no way are otherwise dying - to commit medically assisted suicide.

[Sheilbh]

I mean the UK bill which is severely limited in its scope. Essentially it is for people who are already pronounced dead just waiting for the dying part to play out.

But this is why the minutiae matters because I just don't think that's right. The safeguards are not particularly effective (even putting aside the absolute exclusion of civil liability including for negligence which I find baffling). As pointed out the former President of the Family Division of the High Court has written about the judicial safeguards at length, concluding "only those who believe implicitly in judicial omniscience and infallibility – and I do not – can possibly have any confidence in the efficacy of what is proposed."

I think there would be almost immediate challenge on human rights grounds that the bill is discriminatory on the grounds you've proposed - why should it only apply to those given six months to live as opposed to anyone else in physical pain and mental stress. I think it an arguable case so it could require expansion under human rights law (that has been common in common law jurisdictions, less so in civil law jurisdictions). I've said before but the international experience is absolutely that it is a slippery slope that starts narrow and expands quite quickly far beyond what lawmakers intend - which is, again, why the drafting matters.

But this is the issue I have. The argument is that the bill is very restricted with great safeguards, and in any event just vote for it and we'll sort out the details later. I don't think both of those arguments sit together and I don't think it's good enough for this type of issue. Generally I think had they gone for a slower, more deliberative, more open process it'd have been passed (the assumption was this parliament would be pretty friendly to it in principle - but the draft and process have been poor).

[HVC]

Plus, again, how is that not a argument against abortion as well?

Oh it gets used about abortion all the time.

Absolutely.

I am not a strict pro-lifer.  Abortion has its place.  MAiD has its place.

What I am very much against is the complete normalization of either procedure - that it should be seen as no different than having a tooth pulled or something, instead of the end of a human life.

Again when it comes to MAiD - every once in a while we gets these stories about someone with a chronic illness who elects to commit medically-assisted suicide because of reasons that obviously have everything to do with poverty.

But even giving that fact of being poor, what does that change? It's not like they're not going to be poor tomorrow. As it stands now basically that's just saying you're too poor to die with dignity, go suffer away from sight.

[Barrister]

Plus, again, how is that not a argument against abortion as well?

Oh it gets used about abortion all the time.

Absolutely.

I am not a strict pro-lifer.  Abortion has its place.  MAiD has its place.

What I am very much against is the complete normalization of either procedure - that it should be seen as no different than having a tooth pulled or something, instead of the end of a human life.

Again when it comes to MAiD - every once in a while we gets these stories about someone with a chronic illness who elects to commit medically-assisted suicide because of reasons that obviously have everything to do with poverty.

But even giving that fact of being poor, what does that change? It's not like they're not going to be poor tomorrow. As it stands now basically that's just saying you're too poor to die with dignity, go suffer away from sight.

"Hey - I'm disabled and in a wheelchair.  I really could use some help, like maybe some homecare - or maybe help with a ramp to my front door".

"Sorry, no can do.  But we can kill you if you'd like!".

The point is these people aren't dying.  At least, they'd not dying any faster than you or I are.  But they do have an incurable medical condition.  As long as you say "thins medical condition is intolerable to me" you can get MAiD.

[HVC]

Our war on poverty is going as well as our war on drugs. "We could offer help, but we don't". In a perfect world those in need would get help and support. They don't. So the rich get treatment, the poor suffer and die. And in our benevolence we go one step further and we actually insure that they suffer at the end.

That's even ignoring the fact that the suffering poor might still want to end it, disregarding their economic situation.

[crazy canuck]

I did not read "minorities" as being about race or ethnic minorities.

Interesting, what is a minority in the UK?  It is an outdated term here.  But when it was used, it meant exactly that.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting, what is a minority in the UK?  It is an outdated term here.  But when it was used, it meant exactly that.

You can qualify it - racial, ethnic, religious, sexual minorities, people with disabilities, trans people. If it's not qualified then I could see any of the above being covered by minorities and it would depend on the context.

It's commonly used as a catch-all term. But in that context I read it as primarily being to do with education, disability, class etc because it's describing people who are vulnerable in the context of health and social care and contrasting with people used to exercising autonomy over their lives (more likely to be better educated, wealthier or middle class, non-disabled).

Ethnic minority was commonly used for a while, then it was replaced by BAME, now BAME is considered out of date and I see research organisations in that area moving back to ethnic minorities as a phrase (when looking for a catch-all - obviously if discussing a specific community, specify).

Having said that there was a huge racial discrepancy in covid deaths in the first wave (it was more equal in subsequent waves) and there are racial discrepancies in health outcomes in the NHS (especially childbirth) which are still present even after adjusting for wealth, education and location. Again I think that is something that should be considered in drafting legislation on something like assisted dying.

[Gups]

I mean the UK bill which is severely limited in its scope. Essentially it is for people who are already pronounced dead just waiting for the dying part to play out.

It always starts out that way.

In Canada we're set to allow people suffering from mental illness - who in no way are otherwise dying - to commit medically assisted suicide.

So you start with sayin

Plus, again, how is that not a argument against abortion as well?

Oh it gets used about abortion all the time.

Absolutely.

I am not a strict pro-lifer.  Abortion has its place.  MAiD has its place.

What I am very much against is the complete normalization of either procedure - that it should be seen as no different than having a tooth pulled or something, instead of the end of a human life.

Again when it comes to MAiD - every once in a while we gets these stories about someone with a chronic illness who elects to commit medically-assisted suicide because of reasons that obviously have everything to do with poverty.

But even giving that fact of being poor, what does that change? It's not like they're not going to be poor tomorrow. As it stands now basically that's just saying you're too poor to die with dignity, go suffer away from sight.

"Hey - I'm disabled and in a wheelchair.  I really could use some help, like maybe some homecare - or maybe help with a ramp to my front door".

"Sorry, no can do.  But we can kill you if you'd like!".

The point is these people aren't dying.  At least, they'd not dying any faster than you or I are.  But they do have an incurable medical condition.  As long as you say "thins medical condition is intolerable to me" you can get MAiD.

Hey - I'm suffering excruciating pain. I can barely sleep. My life is a living nightmare as bad as if I was in a torture camp. Please let me die.

Sorry, no way. I know its horrible for you but we have to allow your continued  torture in case allowing you to die leads to a slippery slope.

[Tamas]

It's such a BS argument. People die needlessly on the roads every day because reckless and incompetent drivers or faulty cars slip through the checks. Nobody (besides Josq ) raised the solution to this is to ban cars.

And there are countless other examples I am sure (not least abortion rights) where we accept the risk to people on the statistical fringes to benefit the huge mass of the rest of us.

[Josquius]

In theory, suicide should be an option for absolutely anyone even if perfectly healthy.
In practice of course that's abuse-city and this 'perfectly healthy' person clearly has some mental illness. So though correct in theory there's all sorts of reasons why that should not be the case.

On the other hand there are definitely cases where you're simply cold hearted or mentally ill yourself to deny them this right. Somebody who is going to be dead in a day, no relief, no cure, and is in excruciating pain the whole time.

As said I don't have the time or inclination to trawl through this current bill. But I do think its clear that at current we're a bit too far towards the second extreme and need to nudge ourselves towards the first.
Does this current bill go too far?
Or are the objections that any movement that way is bad?

[The Brain]

If they think poor people aren't able to make important decisions then what's next? Take away their vote?

[Josquius]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/18/wales-20mph-speed-limit-lives-money-policy

Imagine you're a politician running a country. In front of you there is a proposal that in just nine months would save your society more than £45m, prevent almost 500 people being killed or injured, make your residential areas more appealing places to live in and reduce car insurance premiums by an average of £50. Tempting, right?

Still not convinced? It is also backed by multiple scientific studies and examples of where it has been enacted in other parts of the world. Better yet, it was in your manifesto at the last election, when you became easily the largest party in your parliament. It also has the universal support of all emergency services in your nation. This is the dream.

Yet this is exactly what happened in Wales and it became the single most unpopular and controversial piece of lawmaking in the (admittedly short) history of our Senedd (parliament). I still can't quite get over the fact that a scheme designed to save the lives of children became the latest culture war battlefield.

In September 2023 the Welsh government introduced the default 20mph speed limit, changing every road in Cymru that had a 30mph limit to 20mph unless it was given an exemption by the local authority. Essentially, almost everywhere people lived in Wales now had slower speed limits. The evidence that this would save lives was unequivocal and overwhelming.

The response from some to the policy was unrestrained fury. A petition on the Senedd website opposing the new measures has reached nearly 470,000 signatures (in a nation of just over 3 million people).

Protests sprang up citing the cost of the policy (£32m, mostly on changing the road signs and markings). Some of them were somewhat counterintuitive – many of the 20mph signs were vandalised, meaning they had to be replaced at additional cost. And to show their displeasure at having to drive slower through communities, protesters also held a go-slow drive on the M4 and several other major Welsh roads.

A far from exhaustive list of other gripes included that it would apparently result in more emissions (it probably won't), it would "destroy" car engines, it would increase congestion, and road rage incidents would spike. As I reported on the policy, I couldn't believe my inbox. One taxi driver sent me furious messages claiming that accidents would "skyrocket" because people like him would be constantly "staring at the speedometer" rather than looking at the road. This seemed an odd admission for a professional driver to make.

However, a year on from the scheme's introduction we can see pretty strong evidence that the 20mph limit is very effective in saving lives and preventing injuries. We now have the road collision data for the first three quarters since the policy was introduced and the figures are pretty clear. Compared with the same period the year before, the number of people killed on the affected roads is down 35%, serious injuries are down 14.2% and slight injuries 31%.

Leaving aside all the children who won't be killed, the lives not ruined, there is also a massive financial benefit. The Department for Transport estimates that the total societal cost of someone being killed on the road is just over £2.4m. A serious injury is £271,000. Even a "slight" injury is nearly £21,000. If we apply these estimates to the first nine months in Wales we can see the savings that the 20mph change has made. On roads affected by the change there were 10 fewer deaths compared with the previous period, saving £24m. In just nine months there has been a total saving of £45.5m – not even counting the long-term savings to the NHS from people taking up cycling or walking instead of driving, or the savings for many Welsh drivers caused by the reduction in their insurance premiums. Makes that £32m on new road signs and markings look like a pretty smart investment, right?

So why all the outrage? Well, it turns out that much of it was manufactured. In January of this year I did a little digging through four of the main Facebook groups opposing the change to 20mph in Wales. I found that in each case one of the admins was a Tory councillor from Sunderland who has, and this is hilarious, campaigned to have 20mph limits in parts of his home town.

One of the other admins shares a name with a man who was a Tory candidate in Burnley in 2021, another had the same name as the election agent for Vale of Glamorgan Conservatives, while one was seemingly a partner of a Tory Senedd member. Since the policy came in, the Welsh Tory leader, Andrew RT Davies, has been very critical of it, calling it a "blanket" speed limit (which is odd as it isn't a blanket policy).

The most shameless part is that the Tories know the policy works. Back in 2018, Davies himself proudly posed with a poster saying "20's plenty where people live". In a debate in the Senedd in 2020 the party overwhelmingly supported the policy, with the then leader Paul Davies voting in favour (though Davies did not attend).

The Welsh government itself has been far from flawless in its implementation. It spent only £1.6m of the £32m total cost on explaining the policy, focusing on telling the public that it was coming in, but not why. And the government has since tried to distance itself from the policy, even as evidence of its effectiveness grows. Recent public pronouncements have emphasised that the government has "listened" and decided that some roads will revert to 30mph.

Ultimately, the 20mph change was an attempt to rebalance the communities in which we live, so they are no longer dominated by cars. The policy aims to make our neighbourhoods more livable (20mph is three decibels lower than 30mph). It has a positive impact on particulate pollution because cars have to brake less. And it clearly saves lives.

The experience in Wales is a lesson for the wider UK and beyond. Evidence-based policy does work, but you have to own it, explain it and stay the course. It costs political capital, and politicians need to be brave. In a world where facts and evidence matter less and less, it is all the more vital that we stand by that evidence to take our nation forward (at an appropriate speed).

I basically never go to Wales. But I've seen a lot about this 20mph speed limit outrage.
Intrigues me from both sides of shitheads playing political games and it seems from the evidence being a genuinely good policy.