Thank you for this informed view on the assisted dying billl. My personal view is completely opposed to this bill. As a Roman Catholic I found it incredibly hard to sign the hospital document requesting the relevant medical personnel to switch off the machines that were keeping my father in a permanent coma/vegetative state. This situation I see as being different as there was no possibility of my father ever regaining conscienceness but this bill seems to be seeking to terminate a viable life. There are alternative palliatives that could be used.
Kim Leadbeater has, I think, made a huge tactical error in aiming for a bill which, in her own words, provides "the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world".
Those who are morally opposed to assisted dying will never be satisfied (and they are entitled not to be, if their objections are grounded in a moral belief). But, by seeking to address the arguments that opponents have raised, the drafters have created more sticks with which to beat the bill.
The requirement for self-administration of the approved substance will devastate those whose illness has rendered them incapable of doing so (recall the case of Dianne Pretty, back in 2002, who suffered from motor neurone disease). The requirement for the person to be terminally ill will do nothing for those whose suffering is permanent and without any element which will cause death (recall the case of Tony Nicklinson, in 2014, who had “locked-in syndrome”).
Those restrictions in the bill will inevitably lead to calls for a widening, thereby fuelling the “slippery slope” arguments mounted by opponents. The restrictions may even result in withdrawal of support from those who want a better bill first time around in case there is no second chance in their lifetime.
Perhaps the drafter’s biggest mistake is the requirement for judicial involvement. The UK courts have been designed around an adversarial system and yet this bill introduces a process which has an applicant but no obvious opponent and is, therefore, an easy target for lawyers to pick holes in. Where there is no opponent to challenge the application, the process will inevitably attract criticism as being a rubber stamp and, where an opponent does exist, “How”, as Joshua says above, “is that person to know that the case is coming to court?”
If Parliament is against assisted dying, we must accept that until (if ever) Parliament changes its collective mind. But, if there is a majority in favour, Parliament needs a bill which unashamedly sets out a workable mechanism that it can vote into law.
Normally, reformers make concessions to get legislation passed. It's interesting to hear you argue that the bill needs to be more wide-ranging in order to have a better chance of success.
On a factual point, I believe that a person like Tony Nicklinson, who could communicate by moving his head and eyes, would be able to give instructions to a medical device that could enable him to self-administer a substance.
I am very pleased to see that I was mistaken with regard to my comment abut self-administration. Your reference to Tony Nicklinson being able to communicate does not, however, deal with my point that his illness was permanent but not terminal. I think your observation better addresses my other example, that of Dianne Pretty.
Your comment that "reformers normally make concessions" paints my approach as eccentric. Just to be clear, what I am saying is that reformers are introducing what they think are concessions, but are, in all likelihood, features which make the bill unworkable.
Thank you for this informed view on the assisted dying billl. My personal view is completely opposed to this bill. As a Roman Catholic I found it incredibly hard to sign the hospital document requesting the relevant medical personnel to switch off the machines that were keeping my father in a permanent coma/vegetative state. This situation I see as being different as there was no possibility of my father ever regaining conscienceness but this bill seems to be seeking to terminate a viable life. There are alternative palliatives that could be used.
Kim Leadbeater has, I think, made a huge tactical error in aiming for a bill which, in her own words, provides "the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world".
Those who are morally opposed to assisted dying will never be satisfied (and they are entitled not to be, if their objections are grounded in a moral belief). But, by seeking to address the arguments that opponents have raised, the drafters have created more sticks with which to beat the bill.
The requirement for self-administration of the approved substance will devastate those whose illness has rendered them incapable of doing so (recall the case of Dianne Pretty, back in 2002, who suffered from motor neurone disease). The requirement for the person to be terminally ill will do nothing for those whose suffering is permanent and without any element which will cause death (recall the case of Tony Nicklinson, in 2014, who had “locked-in syndrome”).
Those restrictions in the bill will inevitably lead to calls for a widening, thereby fuelling the “slippery slope” arguments mounted by opponents. The restrictions may even result in withdrawal of support from those who want a better bill first time around in case there is no second chance in their lifetime.
Perhaps the drafter’s biggest mistake is the requirement for judicial involvement. The UK courts have been designed around an adversarial system and yet this bill introduces a process which has an applicant but no obvious opponent and is, therefore, an easy target for lawyers to pick holes in. Where there is no opponent to challenge the application, the process will inevitably attract criticism as being a rubber stamp and, where an opponent does exist, “How”, as Joshua says above, “is that person to know that the case is coming to court?”
If Parliament is against assisted dying, we must accept that until (if ever) Parliament changes its collective mind. But, if there is a majority in favour, Parliament needs a bill which unashamedly sets out a workable mechanism that it can vote into law.
[Additional thoughts here: https://simoncarne.substack.com/p/assisted-thinking-about-assisted-dying]
Thank you. It's clear that supporters of the change have tried to increase the safeguards over the years. Judicial involvement was introduced in 2014 — https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/court-approval-added-to-assisted-dying-bill/5120553.article — and this bill has much stricter certification requirements.
Normally, reformers make concessions to get legislation passed. It's interesting to hear you argue that the bill needs to be more wide-ranging in order to have a better chance of success.
On a factual point, I believe that a person like Tony Nicklinson, who could communicate by moving his head and eyes, would be able to give instructions to a medical device that could enable him to self-administer a substance.
I am very pleased to see that I was mistaken with regard to my comment abut self-administration. Your reference to Tony Nicklinson being able to communicate does not, however, deal with my point that his illness was permanent but not terminal. I think your observation better addresses my other example, that of Dianne Pretty.
Your comment that "reformers normally make concessions" paints my approach as eccentric. Just to be clear, what I am saying is that reformers are introducing what they think are concessions, but are, in all likelihood, features which make the bill unworkable.
Thanks for clarifying and I'm sorry if my earlier comment appeared critical: I was trying to endorse the irony you had identified.
And you're right: Nicklinson would not have qualified.