With some humility I offer -or re-offer- thoughts of my own to the thoughtful contributions which have preceded me today. I HOPE I can infer that the danger of floodgates opening through too elastic a definition of eligibility is to be avoided in the terms of the Bill when published. Whilst I can readily imagine that the judges introduced into this equation would be having to endure many a sleepless night agonising over such decisions but - pace, those whose positions I may innocently be misrepresented- I very much doubt that for them it would ever become a some kind of formality or rubber stamping. I admire Kim Leadbetter for taking up the issue once more, as I did Charlie Falconer.
As you point out we simply don’t know what involvement the High Court will have under the proposed law. But the Observer letter conflates two issues on this point: the practical problem of under-resourced courts and the conceptual appropriateness of judicial oversight. Judicial oversight has been proposed precisely to ensure that any decision to permit assisted dying is undertaken carefully and with proper scrutiny, and resource constraints should not be used as a reason to dismiss potentially effective safeguards. Instead, a solution could be found in allocating appropriate resources. These are two separate issues.
And what about pressure on doctors. The principal shift which the proposed statute would make is in legalising killing (currently only armed police and the armed forces have legal authority to decide whether another person lives or dies)
I refer you to the 50,000 excess UK deaths from January 2023 to December 2023 among people who didn't necessarily choose to have the covid so-called vaccine. This is verifiable via the ONS. Throughout covid inquiry is also making it clear that many thousands of people would have survived had they been giving the correct treatment ie not being given sedatives and not being put on a ventilator.
Doctors are and have been choosing daily to assist people to die whether or not they wanted to die...
That's not quite correct. Doctors and judges have the legal authority to decide who lives or dies, and do so every day when considering whether to resuscitate/withdrawal of treatment. However, you are right that this marks a difference in that the decision will now be whether to take positive action rather than an omission.
I think the difference is much bigger than Alisdair suggests.
Under an assisted dying law, there is no suggestion that doctors (or judges) will be called upon to DECIDE whether to take action. It will be the person themselves who decides. Doctors may well be asked to determine whether the person is mentally competent to make the decision and will be asked to provide the medication, but no doctor will be asked to, or permitted to, DECIDE who dies. Big difference.
Yes, good point. Mine was clumsily made. Doctors will probably need to decide whether the necessary medical threshold has been passed, but, again, it is a subtly different point.
Many of the leading names in Medical Law are not on that list (although some are). This is an issue that will be debated in the newspapers as it has in the medical law journals for numerous years. Both sides will come up with convincing reasons as to why the law should, or should not, do as it says. That's why it's a political issue, and a free vote at that.
I'm surprised to hear you say that we will hear from the judges about what they say, Joshua. I can't imagine that any active judge would be permitted to engage in such a political discourse, and it would seem very unwise for them to do so. Of course, some former judges, particularly those with peerages, will have the opportunity, but do you expect serving judges to break protocol and comment on live proceedings before Parliament?
I said we needed to hear from the judges. I did not say we would. Senior judges do comment from time to time on changes in the law that affect the judiciary.
OK, sorry, I missed that nuance. They do, but it tends to be on very narrow issues. I would be surprised if they consider this to be affecting the judiciary as it is not too many steps away from what puisne judges in the Family Division/Family Court do daily (I continue to believe that the 'on call' Family Division judges have the worst job in the judiciary). I suspect it's more likely we will hear from retired judges, but you may well be right, and usually are!
The arguments articulated by the (nearly) 50 lawyers are, no doubt, well-intentioned. But both arguments - "slippery slope" and coercion - suffer from the problem that both exist already. The question the arguments don't address is whether a change in the law would make matters worse (as the opponents of assisted dying assume) or improve the position.
Coincidentally, I wrote a Substack of my own yesterday addressing both of those points. I believe that Joshua does not mind his page being used for links to other writers, so I offer it here for anyone who wants to see the detail: https://simoncarne.substack.com/p/assisted-thinking-about-assisted-dying.
I do like a spot of judicial polemic - and that one is outstandingly good.
Sir James Munby's comments are surely fatal to the idea of a judicial safeguard? Can anyone see how it could survive?
With some humility I offer -or re-offer- thoughts of my own to the thoughtful contributions which have preceded me today. I HOPE I can infer that the danger of floodgates opening through too elastic a definition of eligibility is to be avoided in the terms of the Bill when published. Whilst I can readily imagine that the judges introduced into this equation would be having to endure many a sleepless night agonising over such decisions but - pace, those whose positions I may innocently be misrepresented- I very much doubt that for them it would ever become a some kind of formality or rubber stamping. I admire Kim Leadbetter for taking up the issue once more, as I did Charlie Falconer.
As you point out we simply don’t know what involvement the High Court will have under the proposed law. But the Observer letter conflates two issues on this point: the practical problem of under-resourced courts and the conceptual appropriateness of judicial oversight. Judicial oversight has been proposed precisely to ensure that any decision to permit assisted dying is undertaken carefully and with proper scrutiny, and resource constraints should not be used as a reason to dismiss potentially effective safeguards. Instead, a solution could be found in allocating appropriate resources. These are two separate issues.
And what about pressure on doctors. The principal shift which the proposed statute would make is in legalising killing (currently only armed police and the armed forces have legal authority to decide whether another person lives or dies)
I refer you to the 50,000 excess UK deaths from January 2023 to December 2023 among people who didn't necessarily choose to have the covid so-called vaccine. This is verifiable via the ONS. Throughout covid inquiry is also making it clear that many thousands of people would have survived had they been giving the correct treatment ie not being given sedatives and not being put on a ventilator.
Doctors are and have been choosing daily to assist people to die whether or not they wanted to die...
That's not quite correct. Doctors and judges have the legal authority to decide who lives or dies, and do so every day when considering whether to resuscitate/withdrawal of treatment. However, you are right that this marks a difference in that the decision will now be whether to take positive action rather than an omission.
I think the difference is much bigger than Alisdair suggests.
Under an assisted dying law, there is no suggestion that doctors (or judges) will be called upon to DECIDE whether to take action. It will be the person themselves who decides. Doctors may well be asked to determine whether the person is mentally competent to make the decision and will be asked to provide the medication, but no doctor will be asked to, or permitted to, DECIDE who dies. Big difference.
Some relatives may wish to be heard e.g. with concerns about inappropriate pressure.
They are already deciding. They don't need to be Harold Shipman!
Yes, good point. Mine was clumsily made. Doctors will probably need to decide whether the necessary medical threshold has been passed, but, again, it is a subtly different point.
Many of the leading names in Medical Law are not on that list (although some are). This is an issue that will be debated in the newspapers as it has in the medical law journals for numerous years. Both sides will come up with convincing reasons as to why the law should, or should not, do as it says. That's why it's a political issue, and a free vote at that.
I'm surprised to hear you say that we will hear from the judges about what they say, Joshua. I can't imagine that any active judge would be permitted to engage in such a political discourse, and it would seem very unwise for them to do so. Of course, some former judges, particularly those with peerages, will have the opportunity, but do you expect serving judges to break protocol and comment on live proceedings before Parliament?
I said we needed to hear from the judges. I did not say we would. Senior judges do comment from time to time on changes in the law that affect the judiciary.
OK, sorry, I missed that nuance. They do, but it tends to be on very narrow issues. I would be surprised if they consider this to be affecting the judiciary as it is not too many steps away from what puisne judges in the Family Division/Family Court do daily (I continue to believe that the 'on call' Family Division judges have the worst job in the judiciary). I suspect it's more likely we will hear from retired judges, but you may well be right, and usually are!
The arguments articulated by the (nearly) 50 lawyers are, no doubt, well-intentioned. But both arguments - "slippery slope" and coercion - suffer from the problem that both exist already. The question the arguments don't address is whether a change in the law would make matters worse (as the opponents of assisted dying assume) or improve the position.
Coincidentally, I wrote a Substack of my own yesterday addressing both of those points. I believe that Joshua does not mind his page being used for links to other writers, so I offer it here for anyone who wants to see the detail: https://simoncarne.substack.com/p/assisted-thinking-about-assisted-dying.
Always happy to encourage debate, especially on Substack.