Many of her remarks, in the tradition of the days when the House debated philosophy and not just feelings, pivoted on the fundamental question of human nature.
Abbott quoted Sir James Munby: “Only those who believe implicitly in judicial omniscience and infallibility can possibly have any confidence in the efficacy of what is proposed.”
In response, some of the Bill’s supporters went down the bizarre route of claiming that the change would actually prevent coercion.
Danny Kruger politely called this perplexing. Deranged and dishonest might be more accurate descriptions.
Read here
Archive
Read also: The Commons has voted for assisted dying – we are not the same country we were yesterday by Tim Stanley, Telegraph
(These and many other articles may be found by clicking on the title bar of our carousel box above)
Kim Leadbeater began with self-congratulation about how the standard of debate had “almost always” (read: by her side and not the other) been excellent.
She followed this with a sentimental listing of tragic cases; exactly the sort of emotive language which the assisted dying Bill’s supporters claim is the preserve of its opponents.
One of the most moving contributions came from Diane Abbott. The Mother of the House is visibly frailer these days, but she stood up and with shaking hands did her duty: not appealing to emotion but calmly demolishing the Bill’s central claim that nobody would be coerced into killing themselves.
“People do not generally write letters to relatives asking them to consider assisted suicide and then put them on file. Coercion can often be about not what you say, but what you don’t say.”
Many of her remarks, in the tradition of the days when the House debated philosophy and not just feelings, pivoted on the fundamental question of human nature.
Abbott quoted Sir James Munby: “Only those who believe implicitly in judicial omniscience and infallibility can possibly have any confidence in the efficacy of what is proposed.”
In response, some of the Bill’s supporters went down the bizarre route of claiming that the change would actually prevent coercion.
Danny Kruger politely called this perplexing. Deranged and dishonest might be more accurate descriptions.
Read here
Archive
Read also: The Commons has voted for assisted dying – we are not the same country we were yesterday by Tim Stanley, Telegraph
(These and many other articles may be found by clicking on the title bar of our carousel box above)