Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Shaker on September 12, 2015, 07:07:56 PM
-
California has the balls to do what the UK blobbed yesterday and looks set to approve assisted suicide laws.
California Assembly approves right-to-die legislation
After nearly a quarter-century of efforts in California to afford terminally ill patients the right to end their lives with a doctor’s help, state lawmakers and the governor may be on the verge of granting the dying that authority.
The state Assembly on Wednesday passed a bill that would allow physicians to prescribe life-ending drugs to the terminally sick. The End of Life Option Act, which the Catholic Church and others oppose, awaits final approval by the Senate -- three months after that chamber passed a similar bill by a thin margin.
The fate of the legislation is likely to rest with Gov. Jerry Brown, a former Jesuit seminary student who has yet to articulate his position on the measure. Brown has expressed concern about it, based more on legislative procedure than his own beliefs.
Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) said the bill would allow a peaceful and dignified end to suffering. Alejo choked with emotion as he talked about his father, a Vietnam veteran who is in pain from terminal bone cancer and wants to make his own decisions about the end of his life.
“Respect his choices,” Alejo said.
... the proposal gained momentum after Californian Brittany Maynard, 29, moved to Oregon last year so she could end her life with drugs to avoid the debilitating effects of brain cancer. Her case was covered nationwide, and in a videotaped appeal before her death Maynard urged California lawmakers to pass the assisted-death legislation.
“I am heartbroken that I had to leave behind my home, my community and my friends in California, but I am dying and refuse to lose my dignity,” Maynard says in the video. “I refuse to subject myself and my family to purposeless prolonged pain and suffering at the hands of an incurable disease.”
The End of Life Option Act would require patients to submit two oral requests for a lethal prescription, a minimum of 15 days apart, as well as a written request. The attending physician would receive all three requests.
The written one would be signed in front of two witnesses who attest that the patient is of sound mind and not under duress.
Opponents of the bill, such as advocates for the disabled, argued that the legislation might lead those with disabilities to be coerced to end their lives prematurely.
During Wednesday’s debate, Maynard's husband and mother were present, joined by a dozen activists who watched from the Assembly gallery. There were cheers, tears and hugs when the vote was cast.
Dan Diaz, Maynard's husband, was emotional in his response.
“There is a sense of pride in the Legislature,” Diaz said. “Today it reaffirmed the reason Brittany spoke to begin with. The Legislature will no longer abandon the terminally ill where hospice and palliative care are no longer an option. They can have a gentle passing.”
http://goo.gl/cGBzCq
-
“There is a sense of pride in the Legislature,” Diaz said. “Today it reaffirmed the reason Brittany spoke to begin with. The Legislature will no longer abandon the terminally ill where hospice and palliative care are no longer an option. They can have a gentle passing.”
http://goo.gl/cGBzCq
[/quote]
You aren't making a good enough case for it Shaker.
Look at your attitude to opposition.
''California has the balls to do what the UK blobbed''
-
You aren't making a good enough case for it Shaker.
It shouldn't be necessary. The case should be self-evident to anybody functioning fully above the neckline.
Look at your attitude to opposition.
My attitude to the opposition couldn't even be expressed on this forum.
-
You aren't making a good enough case for it Shaker.
It shouldn't be necessary. The case should be self-evident to anybody functioning fully above the neckline.
There are clearly a lot of people, Shakes, who not only function fully above the neckline, but who may also have life damaging conditions, that disagree with you.
As has already been noted elsewhere, 80-odd% of the British population may be in favour of the principle, but currently only half that number agree with the various methodologies that have been put forward thus far. Rather than concentrating on the principles, which even a majority of the religious people in this country agree with, you need somehow to get the details right - something often far more difficult.
My attitude to the opposition couldn't even be expressed on this forum.
Clearly, because you don't like being in the minority.
By the way, why is what happens in California relevant to what happens here in the UK. After all, they do have a tendency to permit building of houses in known firestorm paths, they (along with Nevada) do have a habit of using huge quantities of water to maintain things like golf courses which have been built in what is often desert conditions.
-
“There is a sense of pride in the Legislature,” Diaz said. “Today it reaffirmed the reason Brittany spoke to begin with. The Legislature will no longer abandon the terminally ill where hospice and palliative care are no longer an option. They can have a gentle passing.”
http://goo.gl/cGBzCq
You aren't making a good enough case for it Shaker.
Look at your attitude to opposition.
''California has the balls to do what the UK blobbed''[/quote]
What case needs to be made? The argument against is 'some people might be under pressure to opt in', but the supporters of the status quo appear perfectly happy to compel people to suffer.
People are under pressure already, to force themselves and their loved ones to continue to suffer, to continue in hateful existences, burdens on those that should be cherishing their presence, their own lives removed from anything that they find joy or benefit from. How is that pressure somehow acceptable, but personal autonomy isn't?
Yes, there need to be safeguards, but those self-same safeguards are already in place, given that we already have a means by which some lucky people can access this facility.
O.
-
...
Yes, there need to be safeguards, but those self-same safeguards are already in place, given that we already have a means by which some lucky people can access this facility.
O.
What are those safeguards? Do you mean that some people can access Dignitas in Switzerland, which has it's own safeguards? Or that their relatives actions are reviewed by the police?
The Californian safeguards, as presented in Shaker's OP (I have not looked them up further), don't seem very secure. Also don't address the involvement of doctors, or cases where life is not intolerable but someone feels themselves, or is persuaded to feel, to be a burden, eg financial or work/time-wise, on their relatives.
-
What case needs to be made? The argument against is 'some people might be under pressure to opt in', but the supporters of the status quo appear perfectly happy to compel people to suffer.
Is 'some people might be under pressure to opt in' the argument being put forward by those who are in the position of suffering, yet do not what this legislation in the format that has been put forward thus far? I thought that they were arguing that suffering doesn't mean that one doesn't have a value to society - and Stephen Hawking is often quoted as an example.
-
[I thought that they were arguing that suffering doesn't mean that one doesn't have a value to society - and Stephen Hawking is often quoted as an example.
Isn't it rather selfish of society to subject people to torture simply because they still have value?
-
Isn't it rather selfish of society to subject people to torture simply because they still have value?
Isn't it rather selfish of individuals to choose to escape from suffering when they often have so much to give to society?
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but the particular argument you use has often been used in its reverse form by those who already suffer but want to be able to carry on serving society.
-
Isn't it rather selfish of society to subject people to torture simply because they still have value?
Isn't it rather selfish of individuals to choose to escape from suffering when they often have so much to give to society?
No.
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but the particular argument you use has often been used in its reverse form by those who already suffer but want to be able to carry on serving society.
But that is their choice, not yours.
-
Hope, I've rarely felt angrier when reading a post on here. There is nothing selfish about wanting to end suffering.
I used to oppose assisted dying until I was in pain so severe it triggered a breakdown. Up to that point I believed that the NHS made it its business to control pain; I learned that it doesn't. The only things that kept me going was the fact that my condition is manageable and the fact that I have children.
Suffice to say my perspective on assisted dying has now changed.
-
Hope, I've rarely felt angrier when reading a post on here. There is nothing selfish about wanting to end suffering.
Rhi, I have suffered from chronic lower back pain since I was 20 - that's nigh on 2/3rds of my life. There were times in the early days when I couldn't get out of bed without help - a problem when I was single and living on my own. Physio clearly helped as did advice from medics and non-medics alike, such that I learnt how to manage the pain, and do many things despite it.
Three years ago - whilst at the Christian music and arts festival, Greenbelt - a family from church who were attending as well found me completely incapacitated propping up a light standard. My back had gone into spasm (probably as a result of the lack of sleep and coldness associated with being a night steward) such that I simply couldn't move - to this day, I am unaware of how I reached that light standard to support myself. It took the husband and two other guys 15 minutes to walk me into the medical building that was no more than 50 yards from where I was propping up the pole. Fortunately, there was a fellow member of the nights team helping out at the time and he was able to liaise with the team leader to get me a gentle shift that night in the 24-hour 'control' room - it took me 3 hours to be able to move more than about 50 yards.
I don't need to be given lectures on 'suffering'.
-
Isn't it rather selfish of individuals to choose to escape from suffering when they often have so much to give to society?
What Jeremy said.
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but the particular argument you use has often been used in its reverse form by those who already suffer but want to be able to carry on serving society.
Who or what is stopping them doing so?
-
What Jeremy said.
So, you can't make your own argument, so try to use an argument that has been around for donkey's years and has been ably argued against for pretty well as long.
-
Hope, I'm sorry about your back problem, but I'm not lecturing you. I'm pointing out what my experience of suffering had taught me - that wanting and needing to die because of physical pain and suffering is absolutely not selfish.
I'm lucky I have mostly good days now. But one memory of that time I have is the impact that seeing me suffering had on my loved ones. Were I suffering in a condition that was only going to get worse over time with no hope of remission, that would have been torture for them as well. And that is just as unfair.
-
Hope, I'm sorry about your back problem, but I'm not lecturing you. I'm pointing out what my experience of suffering had taught me - that wanting and needing to die because of physical pain and suffering is absolutely not selfish.
Sorry, Rhi, I snapped at you unnecessarily possibly because I had just had a 5-minute long back spasm so was coming to the table feeling rather for myself
I think that my real problem wit the issue is the fact that - as far as I can see (and I've seen this in real life) - the nay-sayers who are going through the very issues that we are talking about are often shouted down by the aye-sayers, and treated as if they and their views are of no importance or regarded as not 'functioning fully above the neckline' (Shaker - September 12, 2015, 07:16:36 PM).
-
Isn't it rather selfish of society to subject people to torture simply because they still have value?
Isn't it rather selfish of individuals to choose to escape from suffering when they often have so much to give to society?
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but the particular argument you use has often been used in its reverse form by those who already suffer but want to be able to carry on serving society.
Why is it selfish if one is terminally ill with little time to live? Surely it is better to let the end come sooner rather than later if one so wishes?
When my father was in unrelieved terrible pain just before his death, we asked the doctor to increase the morphine dose so he would have no more pain. We knew this would kill him within hours, which it did. We were so relieved when the end came for his sake.
-
When my father was in unrelieved terrible pain just before his death, we asked the doctor to increase the morphine dose so he would have no more pain. We knew this would kill him within hours, which it did. We were so relieved when the end came for his sake.
Was your father included in the 'we' here, Floo? Your regular references to 'we' as opposed to 'him/he' makes this unclear.
-
http://www.broadreachtraining.com/advocacy/euth12rsns.htm
-
So, you can't make your own argument, so try to use an argument that has been around for donkey's years and has been ably argued against for pretty well as long.
Didn't need to - in response to the fatuous and asinine question "Isn't it selfish to want to avoid suffering?" Jeremy said "No." I also think it isn't (and it's contemptible even to say so) so posted what I did.
I can expand it to "No, it isn't" if that makes you happier.
-
You aren't making a good enough case for it Shaker.
It shouldn't be necessary. The case should be self-evident to anybody functioning fully above the neckline.
There are clearly a lot of people, Shakes, who not only function fully above the neckline, but who may also have life damaging conditions, that disagree with you.
As has already been noted elsewhere, 80-odd% of the British population may be in favour of the principle, but currently only half that number agree with the various methodologies that have been put forward thus far. Rather than concentrating on the principles, which even a majority of the religious people in this country agree with, you need somehow to get the details right - something often far more difficult.
My attitude to the opposition couldn't even be expressed on this forum.
Clearly, because you don't like being in the minority.
By the way, why is what happens in California relevant to what happens here in the UK. After all, they do have a tendency to permit building of houses in known firestorm paths, they (along with Nevada) do have a habit of using huge quantities of water to maintain things like golf courses which have been built in what is often desert conditions.
Bumped for Shakes' attention.
I'll add another item about Californian law that doesn't seem appropriate for the UK. Capital punishment in the state was originally imposed in 1778, and dropped in 1972. In 1978 it was reinstated following a voter-initiative process, the laws around which say that only another voter-approved ballot process can reverse that decision. in 2006 a District judge put capital punishment on hold on the grounds that the system of execution was flawed. That hold still applies having been restated and extended on, iirc, 2 occasions since. However, I understand that the Californian constitution still officially permits the death penalty to be handed down.
I'd suggest that, in a number or ways, the UK is more advanced than California.
-
By the way, why is what happens in California relevant to what happens here in the UK.
Bumped for Shakes' attention.
Because it shows that there are places in the world where the compassionate option - the one that allows people to exercise their own choices over the course of their own lives and deaths - is respected; where people are treated as owners of themselves, as they should be.
-
Because it shows that there are places in the world where the compassionate option - the one that allows people to exercise their own choices over the course of their own lives and deaths - is respected; where people are treated as owners of themselves, as they should be.
And California is so compassionate a place that it still allows for capital punishment even though that part of their constitution has had to be suspended by an external body. Yeah, right. You would seem to have a very jaundiced view of what is a 'compassionate option'.
-
Is 'some people might be under pressure to opt in' the argument being put forward by those who are in the position of suffering, yet do not what this legislation in the format that has been put forward thus far? I thought that they were arguing that suffering doesn't mean that one doesn't have a value to society - and Stephen Hawking is often quoted as an example.
That argument isn't being made that often, because I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that:
a) that's true; and
b) even though that's true, the value of someone's life to society at large doesn't trump the value of their life to them, otherwise we'd be directing people to whatever task we felt their talents benefited society the most rather than letting people direct their own lives.
O.
-
What are those safeguards? Do you mean that some people can access Dignitas in Switzerland, which has it's own safeguards? Or that their relatives actions are reviewed by the police?
The Californian safeguards, as presented in Shaker's OP (I have not looked them up further), don't seem very secure. Also don't address the involvement of doctors, or cases where life is not intolerable but someone feels themselves, or is persuaded to feel, to be a burden, eg financial or work/time-wise, on their relatives.
In the places where this is already legal, there has not been a swathe of prosecutions or even allegations that people have been pressured into signing up.
As with any mental health intervention - and that's what this is - it would need to be performed in consultation with a professional, who would have the opportunity to judge if someone's under undue influence.
No system is ever going to be perfect, but do you truly believe that there are more people out there wanting to kill off their ailing parents and siblings than there are people suffering who want to choose a time and a place of their own passing? My faith in humanity is a little higher than that, it seems.
O.
-
b) even though that's true, the value of someone's life to society at large doesn't trump the value of their life to them, otherwise we'd be directing people to whatever task we felt their talents benefited society the most rather than letting people direct their own lives.
O.
But in many ways, isn't that precisely what we ae doing - pushing them towards science-based subjects at school, requiring our young people to have certain grades in 3 core subjects - English, Maths and Science. Wasn't there a suggestion recently (by the boss of the CBI?) that all school students should take a science subject to the age of 18?
-
b) even though that's true, the value of someone's life to society at large doesn't trump the value of their life to them, otherwise we'd be directing people to whatever task we felt their talents benefited society the most rather than letting people direct their own lives.
O.
But in many ways, isn't that precisely what we ae doing - pushing them towards science-based subjects at school, requiring our young people to have certain grades in 3 core subjects - English, Maths and Science. Wasn't there a suggestion recently (by the boss of the CBI?) that all school students should take a science subject to the age of 18?
Politically, yes, certainly the current government sees itself as the Board of UK plc., but not everyone is on-board with that sentiment, as we can see from the glut of support for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election.
Whilst I think that those core skills of English, Arithmetic and Statistics (rather than the scope of Maths), basic Science and IT are necessary to give people options in life, I don't think education should be limited to them, and I don't think education should be charged for either.
I can see the value of ensuring people study science to 18, but I can see the value of ensuring that people get a broad education to 18 as happens in a number of other places.
Which still misses the point: giving children a thorough education in science is to afford them personal autonomy and choices in later life - it's about personal freedom.
Similarly, and assisted dying bill is about allowing competent people the freedom to choose when it is right for them to do something perfectly legal that they are struggling to be capable of.
We are happy to provide people to help them eat, shit, wash and whatever, because some of us want that for them, but we aren't prepared to help them do what they want even though it's perfectly legal for people who are still capable to do it for themselves.
That's wrong, it's discriminating against those who have lost capacity, and whilst I understand the position of the likes of Dame Grey-Thompson I find it ironic that a disabled person should be encouraging discrimination against the disabled: equality is not about treating everyone the same, it's about ensuring that everyone is treated as they want to be regardless of their condition.
O.
-
That's wrong, it's discriminating against those who have lost capacity, and whilst I understand the position of the likes of Dame Grey-Thompson I find it ironic that a disabled person should be encouraging discrimination against the disabled: equality is not about treating everyone the same, it's about ensuring that everyone is treated as they want to be regardless of their condition.
But it can equally be seen as a disabled person arguing for protection of other disabled people. Therein lies the problem; what is one person's discriminatory attitude is another person's protective attitude.
-
That's wrong, it's discriminating against those who have lost capacity, and whilst I understand the position of the likes of Dame Grey-Thompson I find it ironic that a disabled person should be encouraging discrimination against the disabled: equality is not about treating everyone the same, it's about ensuring that everyone is treated as they want to be regardless of their condition.
But it can equally be seen as a disabled person arguing for protection of other disabled people. Therein lies the problem; what is one person's discriminatory attitude is another person's protective attitude.
She's patronising them, though - they can't look out for themselves, so we have to ensure that they are looked after. That's exactly what the disability emancipation movement of the last three decades has been fighting against.
Yes, there are vulnerable people, yes those people need support and help. What we should be doing is treating everyone as an individual, finding out which specific people need that support and ensuring they get it, not presuming that because people are disabled they'll need that support and then deciding that support is to avoid assisted dying.
That's making decisions for people who do need the support, rather than supporting them to make their decision, and it's making the decision for people who are perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves.
And that's before we even get to the millions of people who aren't disabled whom this also affects.
O.
-
She's patronising them, though -
Is she? or is that simply an able-bodied person's view?
-
Politically, yes, certainly the current government sees itself as the Board of UK plc., but not everyone is on-board with that sentiment, as we can see from the glut of support for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election.
But this has been going on for years. It isn't just about this Government or even the last one. It was prevalent under Blair, under Brown, even Major, Thatcher and Callaghan to an degree.
-
Why are the self-appointed spokespersons for the disabled even commenting on a matter that doesn't inherently concern them, and if it does entirely tangentially?
This is a rhetorical question, I should add, because it seems obvious to me why.
-
She's patronising them, though -
Is she? or is that simply an able-bodied person's view?
Why presume I'm able-bodied? Why presume that the disabled are disabled in body? Why is it not patronising just because it doesn't affect me directly?
As it is, I am disabled, but not physically - this is exactly the sort of situation where I'm likely to be caught up. I'm capable, but the nature of people's view of mental conditions is such that there's automatically a presumption we need someone to do our difficult thinking for us. My children are also registered disabled for the same mental condition, and their capacity is vastly different to each other - one of them is capable of making these decisions for themself, the other manifestly isn't.
I do know what this is, and I do know that it's patronising for the law to presume that, even if we are under the influence of family, that on this single issue we all need to be protected. We are all under the influence of family all the time, and there are legal means to secure people against that undue influence, and to penalise people after the fact if they have taken advantage of it.
It's a valid concern, but it's a valid concern for an extremely small segment of the already small populace of disabled people, and it's patronising to institute a blanket ban on everyone in the country - disabled or otherwise - as a suitable protection against that concern.
O.
-
Politically, yes, certainly the current government sees itself as the Board of UK plc., but not everyone is on-board with that sentiment, as we can see from the glut of support for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election.
But this has been going on for years. It isn't just about this Government or even the last one. It was prevalent under Blair, under Brown, even Major, Thatcher and Callaghan to an degree.
It has been growing, I don't recall the Callaghan government or even the Thatcherite one that well. I remember John Major, but not much about his leadership beyond his liking for peas :)
It does seem to be the tendency, not just of the UK partliament of late, but particularly of the technocratic political class in ascendency in Europe, and of the current government more than previous - even in the US, economically right-wing of even us, there seems to be more of a social element to government beyond ensuring we have a work-capable populace.
O.
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
Indeed.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
So am I! He wasn't posting when I came back here - I'm delighted he is now. Was he always this good? :D
-
Why presume I'm able-bodied? Why presume that the disabled are disabled in body? Why is it not patronising just because it doesn't affect me directly?
Sorry, O, I wasn't trying to personalise the comment; its just that this is the argument I've heard from more able-bodied than disabled people.
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
I think that is the situation that the House of Commons found themselves in, Rhi. They felt that the mechanism before them failed to afford the level of protection that they felt was necessary. It would be interesting to see whether the same proportion of MPs believe the principle to be acceptable as the rest of the population - circa 80%.
I wonder whether that might be the way forward - a debate in principle followed by a debate in detail.
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.
Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.
Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.
Maybe that's a facet of the simple 'yes/no' vote that was made, but typically bills are passed back and forth with amendments, and despite the public interest in this bill that hasn't happened. I appreciate that this is a private member's bill rather than one pushed through by government, I'm not sufficiently au fait with the process to know if that limits the options for review.
O.
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.
Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.
It could be that the public are satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill. Our political system, remember, has a few hundred MPs supposedly representing tens of millions of people, potentially resulting in a situation where you can have a proposal that millions are happy with being voted down by a, by comparison, tiny minority.
-
I agree completely with O. It cannot be beyond the whit if intelligent human beings to put in place a robust mechanism to allow the ending of suffering whilst giving every protection to those who need it.
(So glad you are posting again btw, O)
Agree entirely ... but obviously no-one has come up with a system that the government is satisfied with.
Given that most of the population and MPs are generally in agreement with the principle, I would have expected people to be discussing different systems or protocols, or aspects of them, and modelling how they would work in practice in various cases. But really, am not seeing that.
It isn't the govt - it's MPs - free vote
-
It could be that the public are satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill. Our political system, remember, has a few hundred MPs supposedly representing tens of millions of people, potentially resulting in a situation where you can have a proposal that millions are happy with being voted down by a, by comparison, tiny minority.
And? Capital punishment was supported for years by a majority - at least using the same method of polling as for assisted suicide - are you suggesting moving to a delegate based approach or multiple referenda?
-
Maybe that's a facet of the simple 'yes/no' vote that was made, but typically bills are passed back and forth with amendments, and despite the public interest in this bill that hasn't happened. I appreciate that this is a private member's bill rather than one pushed through by government, I'm not sufficiently au fait with the process to know if that limits the options for review.
O.
In theory it doesn't, but in practice it does because of one crucial factor - time. If a Private Member's bill gets tacit govt support, it can be reviewed in the same process as any govt bill, but for obvious reasons this is unusual.
That said,I didn't see a lot of discussion from those opposed about what the safeguards could be.
-
Depends on what one is trying to safeguard against. Someone could go through the debate and pull out the key concerns. Assumes that MPs actually voice their true fears.