This very complex subject needs debate and discussion. What it doesn't need is a Prime Minister basing his opinion on law on that of a dying celebrity, whoever it is. And to feel the majority of the voters (not public) will admire him for respecting a celebrity and boasting about it. Yet another example of superficial Starmer going with populist opinion shaped by tabloid newspapers and slogans. YES - have a vote by MPs but only when they are all totally informed by people from all sides (including those dying).

I can see it being abused by family members, pressure their loved ones so they can get their ghastly inheritiance quicker.

Even if there is a well some people still contest it and go to court.

Not forgetting some organ harvesting.

It should be a public vote not by MPs. Starmer will no doubt give up the Falklands without a vote.

I think Assisted Dying should be allowed, and not just for the terminally ill, although obviously there will have to be safeguards in place.

As for the Falklands, they have it enshrined in their constitution that they will decide who rules them, and they have been given assurances, and guarantees. This is a non-story, just scare mongering from the Sun. Personally I wouldn't care if we gave up the Falklands. We are spending millions of pounds to look after an island full of sheep. There are less than 4000 people living there. This is about a 1/3rd of the population of Cranleigh. The only reason why people there want to be ruled by the UK, is because it was injected with British people.

Who would contest a well?

Absolutely. He promised Esther Rantzen there would be a vote, ffs. Name-checking any celebrity on such an issue is so unspeakably unstatesmanlike.

Al Gershwin wrote:
Who would contest a well?

I can see you have never dealt with selfish family members Barney.

Who even has a well, these days?

Green Man wrote:
I can see it being abused by family members, pressure their loved ones so they can get their ghastly inheritiance quicker.

Even if there is a well some people still contest it and go to court.

Not forgetting some organ harvesting.

It should be a public vote not by MPs. Starmer will no doubt give up the Falklands without a vote.
I think it may be rather like the death penalty. No system is perfect, so people will end up dying when they shouldn't, e.g. through family pressure, or simply because the person feels guilty for having their family witness their decline, through incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors or other medical staff.

Al Gershwin wrote:
Who even has a well, these days?

One neighbour a few doors down has one.

That's one example Barney.

Jo wrote:
Green Man wrote:
I can see it being abused by family members, pressure their loved ones so they can get their ghastly inheritiance quicker.

Even if there is a well some people still contest it and go to court.

Not forgetting some organ harvesting.

It should be a public vote not by MPs. Starmer will no doubt give up the Falklands without a vote.
I think it may be rather like the death penalty. No system is perfect, so people will end up dying when they shouldn't, e.g. through family pressure, or simply because the person feels guilty for having their family witness their decline, through incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors or other medical staff.

Do you mean the doctors who would rather take the cash for Convid jabs than look at cancerous lumps during lockdowns?