You're right to be concerned about this. Although we are a very long way from eugenics IMO, such concerns cannot be taken lightly. However, re the law my feeling is that the 'six months to live' requirement should be an effective safeguard.Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 9:25 pmIt's a good question is my view! I guess the answer is in an inflammatory and extreme word that a few disabled friends and some disabled influencers have been chucking about of late - eugenics. It's a big fucking word to use (mind, so was "fascist", not very long ago), and my initial reaction was scornful, but their argument is not about a deliberate, fascist, ideology of hatred, but a capitalist one of expendability.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:22 pm.What is your view on my point:But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?
The argument goes that, if you conflate a person's value with the economic utility they produce, then it leads to an inevitable conclusion that some people are more valuable than others to society and that, if you had a smaller percentage of the less valuable ones and a higher percentage of the more valuable ones, then society as a whole is 'better.'
You can see it in this government. Cuts to PIP (a benefit most often given to those in work, which usually provides the adaptations that are **needed** in order for them to work) are described as "encouraging people to come off benefits". The "most business-friendly government ever" wants to "cut down on red tape on employers" (which is often protections for accomodations and to prevent discrimination). There is discussion of the need to "reduce the cost to the Treasury of benefits" and "revolutionise social care to reduce the burden on taxpayers." Meanwhile Reform fulminate and propagandise about redrafting the Equality Act, the business opportunities from removing "political correctness gone mad", and peddle conspiracy theories about "Motability means people with Aspergers 1 get given a free car!"
Remove jobs, remove money, remove care, remove support from disabled and vulnerable people and more of them will die - this is known fact. Either directly from the consequences of austerity, or through hopelessness and despair from being demonised by society and internalised shame at being "a burden" on friends and family. Every time cuts are needed and it's determined that disabled people need less, the message is drummed in that they are a luxury to be tolerated by a kind society when the economy is doing well but, in times of trouble, they are "a cost to the taxpayer" that needs to be reduced.
It is a known fact that these cuts cost lives. And yes, when savings need to be made, the choices are made - disabled lives are an acceptable sacrifice to improve the economy.
It feel inflammatory to call it eugenics. I'm not entirely sure it's wrong. And the corollary of using that word is that our society having "the most vulnerable being most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way" is not a bug, but a feature. The government providing a "solution" by making it easier to die does not fix the actual problem and in fact provides a disincentive to do so.
Puja
1 I used the word Aspergers deliberately, because noted Nazi Hans Asperger invented it to separate autistic people into two categories - those who could be economically useful to the state and those who could not be. The ones who couldn't be, were of course sent to a 'special school', although history is deliberately vague about whether Asperger understood what that actually meant.
Value to the state based around ability to generate economic activity.
If we are to take Starmer and McSweeney's Labour at their word, all they ever talk about is helping working families (no mention of single people or those not in work). They would clearly rather not think about anyone else. Although there is plenty of humanity on the backbenches, little is allowed to show from the cabinet. There is no kindness in this government. In fact, the presentation is austere (funny that, as they continue with Cameron and Osbourne's austerity). It's very sad - kindness should be set as an example from the top - it's the antidote to what the far right have on offer.
. The amendment which will stop it has 123 signatories so far (even if the amendment isn't selected by the speaker, at least these 123 will presumably rebel). Starmer may need Badenoch to get him over the line - God helps us - but that would demonstrate exactly where Labour is right now, politically and morally.
gawd help us. I'll leave Rayner to you 
So, basically, he's a modern politician