Assisted Dying Bill - weak safeguards

[Tristan]

So the Assisted Dying bill has finally been published. The much publicised strict safeguards seems anything but strict. A few points:

- There's nothing preventing doctors from being the ones to raise the prospect of AD. It doesn't have to be the patient that raises it first. That's the same as Canada btw.
- There's nothing in it that prevents the EHRC from expanding the scope of the law. Again, Canada's well oiled slippery slope has been in part due to legal challenges from people who wanted to expand the scope.
- Two doctors are needed, but the first doctor gets to choose who the 2nd "independent" doctor is. If the 2nd disagrees they get to try again. If they disagree the patient can just start the process again and reapply.
- If the High Court refuse a request it can be appealed. However, there's no ability for the decision to be appealed if the request is approved.
- No requirement for coroners to investigate deaths under this bill.
- Courts will effectively be rubber stamping these unless we get significantly more high court judges. I saw an estimate of around 7,500 cases a year (based on numbers elsewhere). With 18 HC judges in the family division that's over 400 cases each per year.

I really hope this gets voted down.

[monkey]

- There's nothing in it that prevents the EHRC from expanding the scope of the law. Again, Canada's well oiled slippery slope has been in part due to legal challenges from people who wanted to expand the scope.

Do you mean ECHR here? Pretty sure that wouldn't be EHRC's job, as they don't get to decide what the law is, only if it is being followed (or not).

The ECHR have consistently ruled that you don't have a right to an assisted death (even to travel to another country for it).The only way the law will be expanded is if parliament wants it to be.

[Tristan]

Sorry, yes, ECHR.

It wouldn’t take the ECHR to rule that someone has a right to Assisted Dying, as this legislation would already do that. But once the legislation has done that then it could become an issue of discrimination if it’s allowed in some cases but not others.

[Tristan]

Alex Keene KC is a barrister with experience in this area. He makes the point about discrimination law being used to broaden the scope.

IMG_0490.jpeg (171.3 KiB) Viewed 4572 times

IMG_0491.jpeg (263.21 KiB) Viewed 4572 times

IMG_0492.jpeg (66.1 KiB) Viewed 4572 times

[monkey]

Alex Keene KC is a barrister with experience in this area. He makes the point about discrimination law being used to broaden the scope.

<screenshots snip>

I wasn't arguing that no one would try (I suspect someone will), but that any attempt would fail. Taking a case to court is not the same as winning in court. Yer man there is not making an argument that a case would win.

After writing my post, I found out that Lord Falconer with me, if you want to play Lawyer Top Trumps* -clicky

Falconer says a lawyer could argue that this law is discriminatory, on the grounds that it discriminates between the terminally ill and other people.

But a legal case like this would have “no prospect of success”, because the courts in Europe have said repeatedly that assisted dying is not a right provided by the European court of human rights. He says the courts have always treated this as a matter for national parliaments.

So any legal challenge on ECHR grounds would be “doomed”, he says.

That post also has a link to this detailed argument about why a case like that would fail - clicky. The discrimination argument is covered, but it is in response to someone arguing that the law would have to be scrapped because it is discriminatory. IAMNAL, but I would guess that the arguments would be the same from someone arguing that the potential law should be expanded.



*The most boring of Top Trumps.

[Tristan]

The EHRC themselves don’t think there’s adequate protection for disabled people. https://x.com/rajivshah90/status/185974 ... 03112?s=46

[bob sterman]

The EHRC themselves don’t think there’s adequate protection for disabled people. https://x.com/rajivshah90/status/185974 ... 03112?s=46

An important point there is that there is not a clear line between terminal illness and disability. Many terminal illnesses cause years of disability before someone enters the final stages. Moreover, whether someone can be expected to die within 6 months depends on the care they receive.

[monkey]

The EHRC themselves don’t think there’s adequate protection for disabled people. https://x.com/rajivshah90/status/185974 ... 03112?s=46

That wouldn't be my interpretation. That's more like "it has the potential to be in breach, but we don't know because there's not enough detail", which is not the same, but a fair point, and where my reservations lie - we don't yet know what a lot of the detail will look like. Reservations also include ensuring that other options are adequate, (also pointed out in the document, which is found at the bottom of the thread, or here - clicky

[bjn]

David Allen Green’s (AKA Jack of Kent) opinion…

https://davidallengreen.com/2024/11/an- ... iscretion/

The CPS currently does not prosecute cases of assisting suicide at its discretion, which leaves things murky and creates an existing slippery slope. So his opinion is…

This is therefore the argument I put forward in favour for the bill.

In essence: not because assisted suicide is right, on which views differ, but because like many other matters of life and death it needs to be properly regulated by law, and not by mere official discretion.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Seems like a wise argument

[bob sterman]

Well here we go. If there's a country that can make a mess of this - and turn it into a cost saving exercise - it's the UK. With thousands choosing death because they cannot get proper care.

Some of the comments by campaigners in favour directly highlight the risks. I have heard a few say things like "If this option was available when my relative was dying we could have sat down and talked about it as a family"

[jimbob]

Well here we go. If there's a country that can make a mess of this - and turn it into a cost saving exercise - it's the UK. With thousands choosing death because they cannot get proper care.

Some of the comments by campaigners in favour directly highlight the risks. I have heard a few say things like "If this option was available when my relative was dying we could have sat down and talked about it as a family"

I'm in favour of it in principle (there are people who are in their right minds, with no chance of getting better, just increasing pain, in a terminal condition, and if they want to keep the dignity of being able to choose the time and manners of their passing, that seems right to me) but I am very worried about the implementation. It needs far stronger safeguards for the reasons you mentioned. Also there needs to be more consideration about what is and isn't acceptable at the end of life. I'm very uneasy about withdrawing feeding tubes, for example. Yes it's not actively euthanasia, but the effect is the same, only drawn out. A very wouldn't be allowed to do that to a sick dog.

[bob sterman]

Here we go - as expected the slope is getting greased up already - so people with dementia who may lack capacity can have a slide down it...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ps-to-hear

[hakwright]

Here we go - as expected the slope is getting greased up already - so people with dementia who may lack capacity can have a slide down it...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ps-to-hear

The current article has no mention of dementia. It looks like an earlier version had a misleading headline, as there's a comment at the bottom "This article was amended on 28 January 2025 to remove from the headline an erroneous reference to dementia".

The article focusses on progressive neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Parkinsons) and whether people suffering from these, with possible fates of being unable to swallow or breathe, could/should be included in the legislation.

[bob sterman]

Here we go - as expected the slope is getting greased up already - so people with dementia who may lack capacity can have a slide down it...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ps-to-hear

The current article has no mention of dementia. It looks like an earlier version had a misleading headline, as there's a comment at the bottom "This article was amended on 28 January 2025 to remove from the headline an erroneous reference to dementia".

The article focusses on progressive neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Parkinsons) and whether people suffering from these, with possible fates of being unable to swallow or breathe, could/should be included in the legislation.

Well that correction notice isn't accurate. It wasn't just an erroneous reference in the headline. The article itself, not just the headline, referred to dementia.

Originally - the article text - not the headline said...

"Assisted dying must be expanded to help those with dementia and Parkinson’s disease in England and Wales, a former high court judge will tell MPs this week."

This has been changed to...

"Assisted dying must be expanded to help those with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s in England and Wales, a former high court judge will tell MPs this week."

And previously Sir Nicholas Mostyn has said in other contexts that he's concerned about people with dementia due to Parkinson's not being able to opt for assisted dying. So I don't think this "erroneous reference" came out of nowhere.

[Tristan]

Here we go - as expected the slope is getting greased up already - so people with dementia who may lack capacity can have a slide down it...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ps-to-hear

The current article has no mention of dementia. It looks like an earlier version had a misleading headline, as there's a comment at the bottom "This article was amended on 28 January 2025 to remove from the headline an erroneous reference to dementia".

The article focusses on progressive neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Parkinsons) and whether people suffering from these, with possible fates of being unable to swallow or breathe, could/should be included in the legislation.

Well that correction notice isn't accurate. It wasn't just an erroneous reference in the headline. The article itself, not just the headline, referred to dementia.

Originally - the article text - not the headline said...

"Assisted dying must be expanded to help those with dementia and Parkinson’s disease in England and Wales, a former high court judge will tell MPs this week."

This has been changed to...

"Assisted dying must be expanded to help those with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s in England and Wales, a former high court judge will tell MPs this week."

And previously Sir Nicholas Mostyn has said in other contexts that he's concerned about people with dementia due to Parkinson's not being able to opt for assisted dying. So I don't think this "erroneous reference" came out of nowhere.

Worth bearing in mind that dementia can be neurodegenerative too. So "neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s" doesn't exclude dementia, even if it's not listed as an example.