"The EU would prefer" is perhaps a slightly ambitious reading. Important parts of the EU can see benefits in bringing the UK back into the fold, but actually doing so especially with the law changes that would be necessary to re-grant old "grandfathered" conditions will require all states to agree.
It's a period of change - we should expect the occasional coincidence of timings with so much going on😁
Apologies. I was still feeling sore about being falsely accused of misrepresentation of data; soothing that with sarcasm was however inappropriate.
AD is and is likely to remain a contended topic. We don't have to agree with each other on outcomes to agree the discussion should be afforded respect.
Not that it particularly matters; the point is that a large cohort of trained and qualified professionals with experience of End-of-Life patients, all dedicated to providing the most appropriate care, are split on this issue. They lack anything approaching the unanimity you suggest they should have.
Correct. Have a point for basic numeracy and linguistic comprehension skills. More doctors supported the idea of the BMA's position being in favour of a change in the law than opposed it (40% to 33%), but there was no absolute majority for any view, so the BMA officially chose to remain neutral.
No, you're quoting a different part of the survey. God knows why since anyone can read it.
In answer to "Do you personally support or oppose a change in the law on prescribing drugs for eligible patients to self-administer to end their own life?", 50% supported, 39% opposed, 11% were undecided.
BuDS Disability Service: "We stand with the whole of society and the medical profession who seek to prevent suicide."
Don't you lot have homes to go to?
www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-s...
Also, over 26% of doctors said they would be prepared to participate in assisted dying, which is higher than one might expect, post Shipman and with a younger cohort, though unofficial assisted dying is as old as the profession.
One would certainly hope so but I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of the disabled as one group, or that people disagreeing with me are ill-informed. If as a disability-focused organisation you were advocating on behalf of those who fear a slippery slope, fine, but "We are the voice of the people?"
And for the 50% of Physicians surveyed by the BMA who supported legalising assisted dying (39% opposed, 11% undecided), is it then your assertion that they were also uneducated? Do you consider the BMA's official stance of neutrality an indictment of their training and experience? For reference.
Since a comfortable majority of the UK population are supportive of assisted dying under appropriate circumstances and a recent BMA survey suggested that doctors' opinions on the same matter were divided with no majority for clear opposition, I am comfortable about not sharing your patch of ground.
Most certainly, and I would never deny the strength of feeling, or the legitimacy of opinions held by those organisations. I'm not part of any of them. Many disabled people I know are not part of and have never had contact by these organisations. You advocate on behalf of those you engage with.
Palliative care *should* be funded at a level where it can be provided to all appropriate patients who desire it. No-one should have to die in pain and stress. For some though, the agony of watching yourself lose your agency whilst the benevolent smile at you is real, and that's torture not care.
*Some* disabled people's human rights; with full respect for your reasons for taking the line you do, you do not speak for all of us with disabilities. Fight your fight, quote statistics if you've got them, but be clear that you're speaking on behalf of - however substantial it may be - a subset.
Excellent! Now all we have to do is find a similar tool that motivates the rest of the human race to try.
Apologies, but could I ask you to clarify which 'it' it is that you're referring to? Presumably not the article, case, judgment, EHRC guidance, or Equalities Act given the single pen stroke qualifier, so I'm personally unclear which mess is to be addressed or what remedies are to be recommended.
With all due respect, an article looking at the situation one year on is more or less obliged to acknowledge that there were two sides because if there hadn't been, there would never have been a matter for the Supreme Court to rule on. I don't believe any relative merits of positions are compared.
Prior to Amazon, I was very often tempted to hold a candle to my local quaint independent bookstores. Admittedly, I usually wanted something specific, but the excuses for why they couldn't get it/denials of its existance, and in one case reselling a book that I'd paid up front for wore me down.
I won't say 'scandal', but it's certainly a shame that we were denied an integrated NHS nearly 80 years ago. The ridiculous separation of primary care from the rest of the service has prevented the smoothing of the wider distribution of clinical service and knowledge, to benefit increasingly few GPs
Over 20% of deaths in the UK are officially classified as medically avoidable or treatable. Other harm and loss through inadequate practice is more widespread. Doctors are smart by many standards, but allowing them to believe that they have the entitlement of gods is not conducive to patient safety.
Why did Starmer do this? Because the BMA's response has been instructive. Despite repeated claims that the current action was about the structural issues of training as much as pay, the moment the pay element is threatened they are happy to risk patient safety and the promise of increased places.
The "next probable word" description was fair for early LLMs, but not to models of any scale for at least the last couple of years. Analysis of the actual activity in inference shows conceptual groupings, and pre-planning. Anthropic have some good papers on this, but there's plenty of others.
It's not as if the US military doesn't have form here though. During the Balkans conflict, they mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to out-of-date data in their systems.
"Creating a machine for government". When it was announced that Scrapheap Challenge was returning, I didn't realise that it would be this low budget.
"I stuffed their mouths with gold" was Nye Bevan's comment on what was necessary to overcome the BMA in their fight against his proposed NHS. In a world where so much else has changed over the last nearly 80 years, it's nice to see that doctors' motivation remains constant.
It's slightly academic now 😏 Don't underestimate the number of people in the GM area who would have been prepared to cast a Reform vote at this point "to show Starmer" though. There's a lot of discontent without real focus round here, which Farage feeds on. For now - hopefully, he's peaked.
Of course such a shock wave would also impact pension funds, cripple investment in other sectors, throw significant risk of defaults on to banks, and generally make life worse for the man on the street.
There's a further risk as well - if he is elected to parliament, forcing a new Mayoral election, the outcome of that could not be guaranteed. A Reform Mayor in Greater Manchester, elected not on the basis of real policy but low-level discontent, could be disastrous.
GPs? The first point of contact with the service for most people is a partner or employee of a private practice which undertakes NHS work under contract. Bevan wanted primary care nationalised, but the BMA stood their ground and forced the compromise.
Although the law was changed (by a 1970s Labour government) to allow charitable funding of specific hospital projects alongside public money, I'm not seeing where the current government is breaking the original commitments. Farage's proposal to move to a US-style system emphatically does.