Assisted dying again

Lala

Lala

Well-known member

UK justice secretary attacks assisted dying bill as ‘state death service’ | Assisted dying | The Guardian

Shabana Mahmood has written to her constituents saying she is ‘profoundly concerned’ about Friday’s Commons vote
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

So the bill will soon be voted on, this Friday to be precise.

Now I know there are some contentious issues that need a lot of work, but the basics of what are being described in the bill seem to start covering off the unknowns.
Now in the article above the justice secretary is vehemently against the bill. She claims to have a few reasons, but religion is one of them.
I’m a little put out at that being a consideration because surely those of us without faith shouldn’t have their options restricted by those who do ?
It’s quite clear her constituents are of diverse religious backgrounds, and she herself is muslim, which obviously informs some of her decision. making

Should religion be allowed to block the bill ?
 
Lala said:

UK justice secretary attacks assisted dying bill as ‘state death service’ | Assisted dying | The Guardian

Shabana Mahmood has written to her constituents saying she is ‘profoundly concerned’ about Friday’s Commons vote
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

So the bill will soon be voted on, this Friday to be precise.

Now I know there are some contentious issues that need a lot of work, but the basics of what are being described in the bill seem to start covering off the unknowns.
Now in the article above the justice secretary is vehemently against the bill. She claims to have a few reasons, but religion is one of them.
I’m a little put out at that being a consideration because surely those of us without faith shouldn’t have their options restricted by those who do ?
It’s quite clear her constituents are of diverse religious backgrounds, and she herself is muslim, which obviously informs some of her decision. making

Should religion be allowed to block the bill ?
Click to expand...

No. It seems to be a very popular thing to bring in if polls are to be believed. Obviously it needs to be implemented very carefully if they are going to do it.
 
Lala said:

UK justice secretary attacks assisted dying bill as ‘state death service’ | Assisted dying | The Guardian

Shabana Mahmood has written to her constituents saying she is ‘profoundly concerned’ about Friday’s Commons vote
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

So the bill will soon be voted on, this Friday to be precise.

Now I know there are some contentious issues that need a lot of work, but the basics of what are being described in the bill seem to start covering off the unknowns.
Now in the article above the justice secretary is vehemently against the bill. She claims to have a few reasons, but religion is one of them.
I’m a little put out at that being a consideration because surely those of us without faith shouldn’t have their options restricted by those who do ?
It’s quite clear her constituents are of diverse religious backgrounds, and she herself is muslim, which obviously informs some of her decision. making

Should religion be allowed to block the bill ?
Click to expand...
Sounds like the bill will pass this stage, IMO that is correct. At th emoment assisted dying is another thing that is only available to those rich enough to go to Switzerland - total cost is about 15K I heard.
People do all sorts of things in the name of religion, I can't really take anybody too seriously who holds mainstream religious beliefs. Surely we have gone beyond these superstitions, science can inform us of so much more than any religion and it isn't so dogmatic as to never be able to be wrong.
 
Science doesn’t know everything.
Take those fools who are getting themselves cryogenically frozen. What do they think will happen half a century down they line when they want to be ‘restarted’ and brought back to life? Spirit will have long since cleared off.
 
I’m not qualified to make any sort of decision, I don’t know, and haven’t known anyone in that position. Personally, I wouldn’t want to linger on in pain, with all the anguish it would bring to my family, but there’s all the other issues to consider; would a family member, or members decide I’m too much trouble, or they want the money, or they can’t afford the care. Could there be a cure, or at least some breakthrough that would ease the pain and give me meaningful life. Glad I’m not making the decision, but it seems it’s going to get approved on Friday.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Science doesn’t know everything.
Take those fools who are getting themselves cryogenically frozen. What do they think will happen half a century down they line when they want to be ‘restarted’ and brought back to life? Spirit will have long since cleared off.
Click to expand...
Cryogenics isn't really scientific, it's something people do in hope rather than expectation. I am talking about proper science.
Not sure about the 'spirit' comment either, the 'spirit' must be centred in the physical reality of our bodies unless we believe in magic. Which I don't. Things in the universe follow the laws of physics, we rely on this reality every day.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Cryogenics isn't really scientific, it's something people do in hope rather than expectation. I am talking about proper science.
Not sure about the 'spirit' comment either, the 'spirit' must be centred in the physical reality of our bodies unless we believe in magic. Which I don't. Things in the universe follow the laws of physics, we rely on this reality every day.
Click to expand...
Our limited understanding of the laws of physics.
And why would the spirit need to be centred in the physical reality? It’s a form of energy though.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Science doesn’t know everything.
Take those fools who are getting themselves cryogenically frozen. What do they think will happen half a century down they line when they want to be ‘restarted’ and brought back to life? Spirit will have long since cleared off.
Click to expand...
It's the only chance they have os seeing BFC back in the PL (or even the Championship!) 🤣
 
tangerine_neil said:
Science doesn’t know everything.
Take those fools who are getting themselves cryogenically frozen. What do they think will happen half a century down they line when they want to be ‘restarted’ and brought back to life? Spirit will have long since cleared off.
Click to expand...
I don't think any reputable scientist would suggest cryogenically freezing any mature human being as a possible cure for anything being technically possible yet, although it seems it is feasibly possible, embryos are successfully frozen and reanimated. Science also doesn't claim it knows everything and never will. Also what is a spirit and where will it have cleared off to?
 
Having witnessed 2 family members and a friend have prolonged deaths which included extended vegetative states one with significant pain, assisted dying is a humanistic response to ending suffering. It has to be dealt with carefully, and I'm not convinced that a single leading politician has the capability to really think through this issue. Obviously religious groups will want to get involved in the debate, which is entirely inappropriate as they can't contribute anything to the debate based on religious doctrine or thinking.
 
Sooty59 said:
If it does go through, that's when the hard work starts. For the right reasons I'd vote in favour of it, but it's the wrong reasons that worry me.
Click to expand...
It should go through in my opinion, but in the society we have constructed there is always someone who is looking at it as a cost benefit issue, or there is someone looking at it as a business model to make a buck. How its legislated is very important, but the legislation itself has to be drafted within a very strong humanistic moral ethical framework, and generally legal minds don't do that very well, not that they aren't ethical or moral, but the methods of legislation (in my experience of working with legislators) is orientated and biased to processes and systems, as the whole legal system is.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Having witnessed 2 family members and a friend have prolonged deaths which included extended vegetative states one with significant pain, assisted dying is a humanistic response to ending suffering. It has to be dealt with carefully, and I'm not convinced that a single leading politician has the capability to really think through this issue. Obviously religious groups will want to get involved in the debate, which is entirely inappropriate as they can't contribute anything to the debate based on religious doctrine or thinking.
Click to expand...
Wow; people can't contribute to the debate because they have a faith - that's probably against the Equalities Act as well as being pretty fascist thinking.
 
Is anyone that naïve to think that once this Pandora's box is opened it won't simply have the margins pushed.

The definitions will be tinkered with to have a wider scope, age will be seen as terminal (which it is), the more people who do it the higher the expectation that everyone should, and on it goes.

We have judges already deciding against the wishes of parents of poorly children, effectively ending the life of the child by withholding treatment; we will very quickly have doctors who will sign off without a second glance in the same way we do with abortion - 200,000 in England & Wales, the vast majority under the category of protecting the potential mothers mental health - which is a statement made by the woman without any real questioning ( and I'm not anti-abortion and I get that we just allow it to happen) and assisted dying will end up in exactly the same place.

I've heard the conversations around withdrawal of treatment for people; DNAR's and so on. Future conversations will be, we can't cure you, we can't treat you any longer, how soon would you like to go in peace?

We will go from choice, to encouragement, to expectation, to compulsion/obligation within the lifetime of my children and a great deal of it will be financially motivated either by the state (NHS and social care would save a fortune), the family - I get my inheritance earlier and/or continue to work rather than care for my relative or the individual who feels they are a burden.

It is a terrible bill which will have huge unintended but obvious, consequences.
 
Last edited:
Costero Poderoso said:
It should go through in my opinion, but in the society we have constructed there is always someone who is looking at it as a cost benefit issue, or there is someone looking at it as a business model to make a buck. How its legislated is very important, but the legislation itself has to be drafted within a very strong humanistic moral ethical framework, and generally legal minds don't do that very well, not that they aren't ethical or moral, but the methods of legislation (in my experience of working with legislators) is orientated and biased to processes and systems, as the whole legal system is.
Click to expand...

Can already see the "Come die with me" adverts...........................
 
TSSeasider said:
Wow; people can't contribute to the debate because they have a faith - that's probably against the Equalities Act as well as being pretty fascist thinking.
Click to expand...
No I didn't say that - I said it is inappropriate for religious groups to debate based on religious doctrine. Basing something on a doctrine(s) that is / are patently and evidently made up is genuinely problematic. Those of a religious persuasion can debate all they want but the moment they bring their god, or their religious texts as evidence or a moral ethical dictate it should be ignored.

Its interesting that you regard opposing religious doctrine as fascistic thinking, almost of the authoritarian behaviours and dictates that we have currently in society are driven by religious dogma; anti gay or lgbt+ rights, anti womens rights; religious cultures have a greater tendency to excessively punitive capital punishment and human rights abuses. Even the current mania against immigrants has its basis in the so-called threat against British indigenous Christian culture (anti out-group religions, specifically muslims). Religious groups want the right to act prejudicially against groups, often getting exceptions from the equalities act.

A religious person could debate the issue as well as anyone IF, they are basing their arguments on humanistic well being. If they turn to religious texts or their god for justification they will be specifically arguing against humanistic well-being.
 
Tangerinenick said:
Yes religious and moral/ethical standpoints should be at the heart of the debate.
Such an extremely difficult issue.
Click to expand...
Disagree. The religious element is a personal element that you can use to decide if assisted dying is for you.
Not a tool to stop the non religious from even having an option.
Religion is actually a non thing to a lot of people, and that is their right.
 
TSSeasider said:
Is anyone that naïve to think that once this Pandora's box is opened it won't simply have the margins pushed.

The definitions will be tinkered with to have a wider scope, age will be seen as terminal (which it is), the more people who do it the higher the expectation that everyone should, and on it goes.

We have judges already deciding against the wishes of parents of poorly children, effectively ending the life of the child by withholding treatment; we will very quickly have doctors who will sign off without a second glance in the same way we do with abortion - 200,000 in England & Wales, the vast majority under the category of protecting the potential mothers mental health - which is a statement made by the woman without any real questioning ( and I'm not anti-abortion and I get that we just allow it to happen) and assisted dying will end up in exactly the same place.

I've heard the conversations around withdrawal of treatment for people; DNAR's and so on. Future conversations will be, we can't cure you, we can't treat you any longer, how soon would you like to go in peace?

We will go from choice, to encouragement, to expectation, to compulsion/obligation within the lifetime of my children and a great deal of it will be financially motivated either by the state (NHS and social care would save a fortune), the family - I get my inheritance earlier and/or continue to work, rather than care for my relative or the individual who feels they are a burden.

It is a terrible bill which will have huge unintended but obvious, consequences.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. You can see it happing.
Where would the line be drawn on suicide, etc?
I’d rather we gave everyone as much help as possible, instead of effectively getting rid of the problem. We need to be better than this.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Maybe the device hasn’t been invented yet to detect it. Would also need to detect the correct form of energy.
Click to expand...
If an energy exists in our reality and acts upon our reality, it would either be seen or the effects of that energy would be seen. The origins of consciousness is not really understood, but we have the means to test it.
 
Lala said:
Disagree. The religious element is a personal element that you can use to decide if assisted dying is for you.
Not a tool to stop the non religious from even having an option.
Religion is actually a non thing to a lot of people, and that is their right.
Click to expand...
For an individual, a religious belief might be a personal element to decide on the matter for them individually and that is their right, however for a religious group to weigh in on the argument based on the existence of a god, or religious texts, when their is no evidence that Gods exist or any religious texts have any credence of truth to them (which are at best, fabricated stories and legends from stone age societies who had no scientific understanding of the natural world), and set out laws based on that belief in God or Gods or religious texts that everyone has to follow is wrong. You can see how this plays out in the US at the moment with the abortion argument, or the way Jehovas Witnesses can restrict medical intervention on their children because of a single passage which most religious scholars insist the JW's misinterpret.

Religious groups are and have throughout history specifically stopped the non-religious (or alternative religious) from having an opinion or an alternative. My view might be extreme to many but a religious argument actually based on religious principles can never arrive at a humanistically moral or ethical conclusion (with the possible exception of Janism), because the text subjugate humans to the will of a God.
 
I can understand anyone who hasn’t seen or lived with death of a loved one are sceptical about this I really can but spare a thought for those on the other side of the fence.
I’ve already said on my original thread (lets call it assisted dying 1) which I posted a few weeks ago when possible change in the law was first talked about.
As a teenager I watched my mother die a terrible painful death at the very young age of just 45 due to terminal cancer almost 50 years ago we didn’t have the help and support like we do today no hospices nothing.
25 years later I watched my father die aged 65 also with terminal cancer but this time it was different I had to deal with it on my own.
The last few weeks of his life were agonising to put it mildly I moved in with him to look after him as 25 years ago help and support was just a day thing usually twice a day with the McMillan nurses who I must say were fantastic.
My wife was looking after our two very young children at this point I didn’t see either for about 3 weeks work were excellent in understanding why I wasn’t go to work.
My Dad needed 24 hour palliative care but he couldn’t get in the local hospice (Bispham) as they were no beds they told me he was next on the list but someone had to die first to make this happen.
The pain and the agony back then still haunts me to this day I felt so helpless in doing so little to help him I honestly thought at times we’ve been abandoned.
One particular night when the pain was so bad (no morpheme administrated at home back then unless by a Doctor) he begged me to put a pillow over his face and end the suffering there and then by God I was tempted I really was I even took hold of the pillow with Dad begging me.
Alas I held back God knows why as part of me really wanted to do it.
The following week my Dad went into to the Hospice where proper pain relief was administrated as and when you needed it and I finally got to see my wife and kids again.
About 10 days later my Dad passed away on Christmas Day morning of all days.
So to those who are against assisted dying please do consider the other side and the suffering it causes loved ones.
Christmas days have never been the same since but back on topic please spare a thought for those that would choose to end their own lives my Mum & Dad would have begged to have had that choice.
Finally after all I’ve been though I’ve got another fight on my hands now with the wife being diagnosed with cancer 12 months ago but things are progressing well at the moment as so much more treatment is out there compared to 10/20 years ago and so much more support.

Thank you for reading and understanding but sometimes we have to do what’s best for those that are suffering but I fully understand theirs always 2 sides to an argument.
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
Disagree. The religious element is a personal element that you can use to decide if assisted dying is for you.
Not a tool to stop the non religious from even having an option.
Religion is actually a non thing to a lot of people, and that is their right.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
For those of us with a faith you cannot just ignore it. Those who vote will have to decide. It isn’t a straight forward yay or nay…. an awful decision that I would personally find incredibly difficult to make.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Totally agree. You can see it happing.
Where would the line be drawn on suicide, etc?
I’d rather we gave everyone as much help as possible, instead of effectively getting rid of the problem. We need to be better than this.
Click to expand...
I get it, the risks of the sociopaths that run our society or are maximally advantaged by the systems and the people that run it twisting it to their advantage is huge. Those same people don't have a problem with collateral damage of war or even business in places like Palestine, or Iraq, or parts of Africa, or even in the UK as heating allowances are restricted to vulnerable people. Reducing suffering in general is beneficial for the human condition - extending human life for someone in unbearable physical distress is tantamount to torture if they want it to stop.

I'd agree we have to be better than what we are, but that has to mean that the option is on the table.

That "better than what we are" also has to extend further than just assisted dying; how we treat poor people, the old, people with non conventional sexuality or identity, immigrants, people who are sick in general, or suffering mental anguish and cannot work. You look at the people who are most against assisted dying and they are generally the ones demonising people who are disadvantaged or just different (I'm not including you TN because I don't know what your wider opinions are).
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I can understand anyone who hasn’t seen or lived with death of a loved one are sceptical about this I really can but spare a thought for those on the other side of the fence.
I’ve already said on my original thread (lets call it assisted dying 1) which I posted a few weeks ago when possible change in the law was first talked about.
As a teenager I watched my mother die a terrible painful death at the very young age of just 45 due to terminal cancer almost 50 years ago we didn’t have the help and support like we do today no hospices nothing.
25 years later I watched my father die aged 65 also with terminal cancer but this time it was different I had to deal with it on my own.
The last few weeks of his life were agonising to put it mildly I moved in with him to look after him as 25 years ago help and support was just a day thing usually twice a day with the McMillan nurses who I must say were fantastic.
My wife was looking after our two very young children at this point I didn’t see either for about 3 weeks work were excellent in understanding why I wasn’t go to work.
My Dad needed 24 hour palliative care but he couldn’t get in the local hospice (Bispham) as they were no beds they told me he was next on the list but someone had to die first to make this happen.
The pain and the agony back then still haunts me to this day I felt so helpless in doing so little to help him I honestly thought at times we’ve been abandoned.
One particular night when the pain was so bad (no morpheme administrated at home back then unless by a Doctor) he begged me to put a pillow over his face and end the suffering there and then by God I was tempted I really was I even took hold of the pillow with Dad begging me.
Alas I held back God knows why as part of me really wanted to do it.
The following week my Dad went into to the Hospice where proper pain relief was administrated as and when you needed it and I finally got to see my wife and kids again.
About 10 days later my Dad passed away on Christmas Day morning of all days.
So to those who are against assisted dying please do consider the other side and the suffering it causes loved ones.
Christmas days have never been the same since.

Thank you for reading.
Click to expand...
Had similar experiences, at 13 my mum died from cancer and was in tremendous pain for about 6 months, the last 6 weeks she was in and out of lucidity, didn't really recognise my brother or I. My dad died about 5 years ago, but three days or so before he died he said to me he just wanted it all over with, which broke me, and it still does to this day.

He'd known for six months he didn't have long but lived as complete a life as he could, but didn't tell me the whole picture, it was only when the hospital visits were happening every week and then every few days I thought there was more. My dad wanted to live as best as he could for as long as possible, but the psychological effects on him were enormous, of knowing time was limited but also that he was going to become helpless at some point. The thing that got me as I spent the last month with him was the burden he was living under, the last week he was just sleeping, hoping not to wake up again.

Its hard for loved ones but i honestly think the day to day trauma is incredibly difficult for the individual dying.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
For an individual, a religious belief might be a personal element to decide on the matter for them individually and that is their right, however for a religious group to weigh in on the argument based on the existence of a god, or religious texts, when their is no evidence that Gods exist or any religious texts have any credence of truth to them (which are at best, fabricated stories and legends from stone age societies who had no scientific understanding of the natural world), and set out laws based on that belief in God or Gods or religious texts that everyone has to follow is wrong. You can see how this plays out in the US at the moment with the abortion argument, or the way Jehovas Witnesses can restrict medical intervention on their children because of a single passage which most religious scholars insist the JW's misinterpret.

Religious groups are and have throughout history specifically stopped the non-religious (or alternative religious) from having an opinion or an alternative. My view might be extreme to many but a religious argument actually based on religious principles can never arrive at a humanistically moral or ethical conclusion (with the possible exception of Janism), because the text subjugate humans to the will of a God.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I can understand anyone who hasn’t seen or lived with death of a loved one are sceptical about this I really can but spare a thought for those on the other side of the fence.
I’ve already said on my original thread (lets call it assisted dying 1) which I posted a few weeks ago when possible change in the law was first talked about.
As a teenager I watched my mother die a terrible painful death at the very young age of just 45 due to terminal cancer almost 50 years ago we didn’t have the help and support like we do today no hospices nothing.
25 years later I watched my father die aged 65 also with terminal cancer but this time it was different I had to deal with it on my own.
The last few weeks of his life were agonising to put it mildly I moved in with him to look after him as 25 years ago help and support was just a day thing usually twice a day with the McMillan nurses who I must say were fantastic.
My wife was looking after our two very young children at this point I didn’t see either for about 3 weeks work were excellent in understanding why I wasn’t go to work.
My Dad needed 24 hour palliative care but he couldn’t get in the local hospice (Bispham) as they were no beds they told me he was next on the list but someone had to die first to make this happen.
The pain and the agony back then still haunts me to this day I felt so helpless in doing so little to help him I honestly thought at times we’ve been abandoned.
One particular night when the pain was so bad (no morpheme administrated at home back then unless by a Doctor) he begged me to put a pillow over his face and end the suffering there and then by God I was tempted I really was I even took hold of the pillow with Dad begging me.
Alas I held back God knows why as part of me really wanted to do it.
The following week my Dad went into to the Hospice where proper pain relief was administrated as and when you needed it and I finally got to see my wife and kids again.
About 10 days later my Dad passed away on Christmas Day morning of all days.
So to those who are against assisted dying please do consider the other side and the suffering it causes loved ones.
Christmas days have never been the same since.

Thank you for reading.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing Jaffa.
Reports also state that adequate palliative care isn’t available for everyone in this country, again a funding issue. Perish the thought.
 
Davepick said:
This thread has got me worried now.
I'm 89 y.o. and I think I've got a few more years in me (but who can tell?).
My wonderful wife (MrsDP) is 80 y.o. and reasonably healthy also.
We've got 2 Holidays booked for next year, and looking forward to them both.
Click to expand...
Best way to look at life Dave always plan ahead. 👍

Don’t forget my 90th birthday invite. 🎂 🙂
 
Costero Poderoso said:
No I didn't say that - I said it is inappropriate for religious groups to debate based on religious doctrine. Basing something on a doctrine(s) that is / are patently and evidently made up is genuinely problematic. Those of a religious persuasion can debate all they want but the moment they bring their god, or their religious texts as evidence or a moral ethical dictate it should be ignored.

Its interesting that you regard opposing religious doctrine as fascistic thinking, almost of the authoritarian behaviours and dictates that we have currently in society are driven by religious dogma; anti gay or lgbt+ rights, anti womens rights; religious cultures have a greater tendency to excessively punitive capital punishment and human rights abuses. Even the current mania against immigrants has its basis in the so-called threat against British indigenous Christian culture (anti out-group religions, specifically muslims). Religious groups want the right to act prejudicially against groups, often getting exceptions from the equalities act.

A religious person could debate the issue as well as anyone IF, they are basing their arguments on humanistic well being. If they turn to religious texts or their god for justification they will be specifically arguing against humanistic well-being.
Click to expand...
You can't decide what basis people decide to live their lives or make their decisions and assumptions and whether they are able to contribute to a national debate because you disagree with how they've come to their conclusions.
 
TSSeasider said:
You can't decide what basis people decide to live their lives or make their decisions and assumptions and whether they are able to contribute to a national debate because you disagree with how they've come to their conclusions.
Click to expand...
People can live their lives however they want. Everyone is free to make their own decisions and believe whatever nonsense they want, I would fight to protect that, no matter how wrong or even silly I might think it is, up to the point where it harms others.

Everyone can contribute to any debate, but if the basis for their conclusions are grounded in fairy tales, then they can be ignored as not pertinent to the discussion. If I was to say that assisted dying for everyone should be mandated for everyone because it is written so in the Epic of Gilgamesh then that could also be dismissed out of hand.

Its not just me disagreeing with how an individual has drawn their conclusions. If its based on; God says so (which has never happened), or a religious text says so because it is the dictate of that God, there has been no arrival at a conclusion, it is simply blindly following a dictate. Any religious person has the right to follow whatever textual dictates they want to, but why should they be permitted to apply those dictates to the rest of us. If a Christian was to think through the issue and arrive at the conclusion that assisted dying was ok, or permitted they would be breaking the dictates of their faith, because suicide is a sin, but problematically sin as a concept can only apply if you have religious belief. Its the same as Christians arriving at the conclusions that same sex marriage should be allowed, or woman have equal rights, or that slavery is unacceptable, or that people can wear mixed cloth or eat shellfish and pork, they have then thought through the issue and arrived at a non religiously dictated conclusion.

The common response would be that why should Christians follow non Christian moral and ethical codes, but I as a non Cristian am not doing that and no atheist is, every Christian can follow all of their (deeply flawed) Christian moral and ethical codes, but they no longer have the right, and should not have the right to enforce others to follow. I'm advocating for the right for every individual to choose for their own needs.
 
Danny Kruger (responding to the debate) is making a lot of reasonable points in his criticisms of assisted dying. However, as has just been suggested in the House, these points should be the focus of the Committee stage, so that they can be dealt with ahead of the Third reading. Stopping the progress of the Bill at this point does seem unnecessarily premature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top