where am i? ::
Home > David's Blog
David's Blog
August 09 posts
Page 2 of 2
lgilmore | 
13 August 2009 at 12:07 | 241 views
Usually issues of great public concern are discussed in Parliament. But there are some major issues which Governments shy away from, even as public interest and concern rises.
One such issue is that of the law on Assisted Suicide.
In spite of rising public concern and interest, the Government has preferred so far to say nothing, and has hoped that changes in the application of the law would serve in place of any change in the law itself.
So, increasingly, a blind eye has been turned to those who assist suicide, where it is clear that the wishes of the person who has died are being respected. So, too, the practice of the law has been to allow those who are wealthy enough to do so to go to the clinic Dignitas, in Switzerland, to end their lives. There is fairly widespread public and political sympathy for such cases, but as yet there has been no serious debate about these matters.
I do not believe that a debate on such a serious issue can be much longer delayed. There is too much at stake, and too much hypocrisy and inconsistency in the existing state of affairs.
And two weeks ago the Law Lords ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions must now bring forward new legal guidelines to set out the circumstances under which a person should face prosecution when assisting a suicide.
While I believe that the Law Lords were right to insist on clarity – it is monstrous to leave such uncertainty hanging over the heads of good people, or to allow those suffering terminal illness to die alone – it cannot be right that such a serious matter can be left to the unelected Director of Public Prosecutions.
Neither the Government nor Parliament is entitled to contract out a decision of such importance to any unelected individual or committee. That would be neither right not fair.
Parliament itself must now consider this issue, and it must bring a greater clarity to the law.
Now there are many people who will welcome such a debate, and there will be many who will be horrified by the prospect of it.
Some individuals will, for powerful religious or moral reasons, think any form of suicide to be wrong. I respect this view. But the moral or religious views of any group cannot simply be imposed on every person in society, where these decisions are essentially private and do not require unanimity.
There are others who will rightly say that the end of life care of many sick people is today marvellous, and that there are a large number of people who live for many years with very difficult medical conditions. This is undoubtedly true. But it is also true that there are many people for whom the last weeks, months or even years of life are a painful and excruciating burden, and for whom the choice to end life is an important and potentially positive and liberating one.
In extreme circumstances I believe that this is a choice which I would wish to have, though none of us can know what decisions we would make and in what circumstances. What we do know is that there are people who regard bringing their lives to a close in their own way as both more dignified and less painful than allowing a dreadful disease to take its own slow course.
What is so difficult and so crucial is to think of the safeguards that would be necessary to protect the vulnerable from outside pressures or from rushed decisions that could so easily be reversed with time and with reflection.
It would be so easy to legislate in a hurry and to repent at leisure. It is these practical issues, and not the issue of principle, which I wrestle with most. And the practical issues are no mere details but are crucial to any change in the law.
What cannot continue is the hypocrisy of allowing this debate to be played out only in legal guidance or only by the rich in the clinics of far off countries. It is time for Parliament, and for our people, to discuss and to debate this sensitive and important issue.
Ever,
David.
lgilmore | 06 August 2009 at 12:18 | 261 views
Helicopters. Helicopters. Helicopters. Last week Yeovil’s most famous product was at the centre of the latest military and political row over the resourcing of our troops in Afghanistan.
The large number of recent deaths of servicemen in Helmand Province has once again raised questions about whether we have enough helicopters available to support the 9,000 men and women who we have “in theatre”.
The Government is claiming both that we already have enough helicopters, AND that more are on the way soon – a line of argument that should already raise doubts.
Ministers also claim that there are 60% more helicopters in Afghanistan than there were two years ago. I know of no one outside Government who actually believes this figure is accurate, and I raised these claims with the Foreign Secretary – David Miliband – in a House of Commons debate last week. The Government’s position is that it cannot reveal how many helicopters have been in Afghanistan for “security reasons” – an argument which mysteriously does not seem to apply to other military assets.
However, last Thursday – just before the debate on our policy in Afghanistan – the House of Commons cross party Defence Select Committee released their latest report on “Helicopter Capability.”
This was a damning indictment of the Government’s failure to secure sufficient helicopters, and a warning that the planned cut in the helicopter fleet will create greater risks in the future.
The Defence Select Committee also backed the argument that I and others have been making recently in relation to the wasteful plans to upgrade the existing Puma helicopters – the Committee concluded that it would be better to purchase new helicopters, which meet modern standards of crashworthiness.
In spite of this Report, and the questions over the “poor survivability of the Puma”, the Government announced last week that it is still intent on pressing ahead with the upgrade of Puma. This seems not only very wasteful, but to put the lives and safety of our troops at greater risk – presumably for reasons of money.
Meanwhile, we should be very proud that our own employees of AgustaWestland are doing everything they can to support the helicopter fleet and our operations in Afghanistan. It is not Westland’s fault that the Defence budget cannot deliver what is really needed.
Westland’s Apache ground attack helicopters have been one of the great successes of the military campaign, and Westland employees have worked incredibly hard to service the machines and get them back to the frontline.
Westland staff are also currently working on the upgrade of the Lynx Mark 9 helicopters for service in the “hot and high” conditions of Afghanistan, and on the new “Future Lynx” (“Wildcat”) helicopter which will also give the armed forces a big boost in capability.
Yeovil staff have also helped to adapt Merlin helicopters to fly in Afghanistan, and these aircraft should start to make a real difference in the early part of 2010.
But the real problem is that we still have too few medium and heavy lift helicopters out on the frontline, and capable of moving large numbers of troops around the battlefield.
That is why my Party and I are pressing for the order for the new “Future Medium Helicopter” to be brought forward – and for the Government to order more of AgustaWestland’s Merlin helicopters, instead of patching up the existing Sea King and Pumas.
Having a large fleet of Merlins would not only give our forces a hugely enhanced capability, but by reducing the number of helicopter types it helps with maintenance and serviceability.
With Westland’s Apaches, “Wildcat” and Merlins, we would have the helicopter fleet we really need to support our frontline troops. The final piece of the jigsaw would be the Chinook – the heavy lift helicopters. We do not produce anything with the lift capability of the Chinook (10 tonnes and up to 55 passengers!) in the UK, and the sensible answer would be to increase the size of the helicopter budget, and buy more Chinooks with some of this money.
We must now ensure that those who we are expected to put their lives on the line are getting the protection and support which they deserve.
David.