For perhaps the first time, I have encountered a topic on which I have been unable to form an opinion. I can see merit on both sides of the debate and I have respect for those who argue passionately for their own beliefs.
Whatever the merits of assisted dying may be, however, I hope that Sir James’s comments on the proposed safeguards will be given proper attention and consideration by our legislators. He has done a great service by raising critical issues that need to be resolved to avoid the risks he has identified.
Again scarcely my area of (any) expertise but for decades I have been troubled about any such legislation for reasons so often recited. We must always ,however, be receptive to argument and I have - in principle-changed my mind. Subject to the most rigorous and, if necessary, resource risk processes I support Kim Leadbeater’s brave initiative, although I am unsurprised to find that Sir James makes some telling points where I would hope that this is a case of back to the drawing board for detailed revisions tackling his concerns rather than an example of a worthy legislative journey being blown off course snd eventually scuppered, in part by those (no doubt in all sincerity) who would be indisposed to budge in their outright opposition, however sincere, earnest and erudite those supporting the endeavour may be. I recognise the pragmatic point that judges are too heavily committed already to be able to deal with direct involvement expeditiously.
Sir James made similar weighty points, backed up by his experience as former President of the Family Division, in relation to the proposed High Court oversight of assisted dying declarations in clause 12 of the Leadbeater Bill. She and other MPs promoting the Bill largely ignored them until they had secured the votes they sought for the Bill’s second reading. Will they take any notice now? I am pessimistic
For perhaps the first time, I have encountered a topic on which I have been unable to form an opinion. I can see merit on both sides of the debate and I have respect for those who argue passionately for their own beliefs.
Whatever the merits of assisted dying may be, however, I hope that Sir James’s comments on the proposed safeguards will be given proper attention and consideration by our legislators. He has done a great service by raising critical issues that need to be resolved to avoid the risks he has identified.
Again scarcely my area of (any) expertise but for decades I have been troubled about any such legislation for reasons so often recited. We must always ,however, be receptive to argument and I have - in principle-changed my mind. Subject to the most rigorous and, if necessary, resource risk processes I support Kim Leadbeater’s brave initiative, although I am unsurprised to find that Sir James makes some telling points where I would hope that this is a case of back to the drawing board for detailed revisions tackling his concerns rather than an example of a worthy legislative journey being blown off course snd eventually scuppered, in part by those (no doubt in all sincerity) who would be indisposed to budge in their outright opposition, however sincere, earnest and erudite those supporting the endeavour may be. I recognise the pragmatic point that judges are too heavily committed already to be able to deal with direct involvement expeditiously.
Sir James made similar weighty points, backed up by his experience as former President of the Family Division, in relation to the proposed High Court oversight of assisted dying declarations in clause 12 of the Leadbeater Bill. She and other MPs promoting the Bill largely ignored them until they had secured the votes they sought for the Bill’s second reading. Will they take any notice now? I am pessimistic