This is a tremendously thorough analysis of deficiencies in the drafting of this Bill. Just a couple of points on clause 12. The threshold to the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection is that someone lacks mental capacity to make a specific decision at a specific time. If so, the Court makes a best interests decision for that person. But an assisted dying declaration would only ever be made by someone with sufficient capacity to do so and make their own decision. So, as Sir James Munby recognised, in the face of some glaring ignorance displayed by lawyer MPs who should have known better, there is not an obvious jurisdiction or template for the role of the High Court envisaged in clause 12. As it stands, that clause falls between two stools: too cumbersome a process for cases where no doubt or question about capacity and free will arises, but too superficial for those where such questions do arise. The public bill committee needs to get to grips with this problem
Hey Barbara, many thanks! and many thanks for your helpful observation re COP - if you don't mind, I'm going to incorporate your observation into the article itself when I next get time to edit.
I have Parkinson's. I'm rather pissed off with Nicolas Mostyn. He used to be a High Court Judge and that may explain why he wants to decide when he should die -- he is a successful individual, used to having a high degree of control over his life, and he wants the same degree of control over his death. Parkinson's runs in my family. I wouldn't have wanted my father to feel he should kill himself to stop being a burden for other family members. I don't want to have to make that decision for myself either.
My concern since this Bill was first proposed has been that its very existence will influence vulnerable and ill people towards the belief that they should be killed as they're a burden to the poor NHS & their families. This influence will increase with time; as more people opt for assisted suicide, it will become normalised morally leading to exponential increase in numbers of people killed by the state.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, yet I can't help wondering if this isn't actually the plan. Is this Labour government seeking to deal with rising care costs by bumping off those in need of care?
You only have to look at what the words "clear", "settled" and "informed" have done in "gender affirming care" with the mutilation of children and same sex attracted young adults to realise that this bill is unworkable.
Thank you for providing such clear analysis. I believe those who champion assisted suicide believe they are ending suffering but are elected representatives have a responsibility to scrutinise and that this shoddy bill has passed first stage is a stain on all of them
This is a tremendously thorough analysis of deficiencies in the drafting of this Bill. Just a couple of points on clause 12. The threshold to the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection is that someone lacks mental capacity to make a specific decision at a specific time. If so, the Court makes a best interests decision for that person. But an assisted dying declaration would only ever be made by someone with sufficient capacity to do so and make their own decision. So, as Sir James Munby recognised, in the face of some glaring ignorance displayed by lawyer MPs who should have known better, there is not an obvious jurisdiction or template for the role of the High Court envisaged in clause 12. As it stands, that clause falls between two stools: too cumbersome a process for cases where no doubt or question about capacity and free will arises, but too superficial for those where such questions do arise. The public bill committee needs to get to grips with this problem
Hey Barbara, many thanks! and many thanks for your helpful observation re COP - if you don't mind, I'm going to incorporate your observation into the article itself when I next get time to edit.
Of course, Dennis, please do
I have Parkinson's. I'm rather pissed off with Nicolas Mostyn. He used to be a High Court Judge and that may explain why he wants to decide when he should die -- he is a successful individual, used to having a high degree of control over his life, and he wants the same degree of control over his death. Parkinson's runs in my family. I wouldn't have wanted my father to feel he should kill himself to stop being a burden for other family members. I don't want to have to make that decision for myself either.
"Why not sterilize yourself with the help of a doctor, kids?" --> "Why not unalive yourself with the help of a doctor, kids?"
The body as modifiable and now disposable commodity - these two phenomena are linked.
On that subject
https://x.com/Jebadoo2/status/1861933317664182572
My concern since this Bill was first proposed has been that its very existence will influence vulnerable and ill people towards the belief that they should be killed as they're a burden to the poor NHS & their families. This influence will increase with time; as more people opt for assisted suicide, it will become normalised morally leading to exponential increase in numbers of people killed by the state.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, yet I can't help wondering if this isn't actually the plan. Is this Labour government seeking to deal with rising care costs by bumping off those in need of care?
You only have to look at what the words "clear", "settled" and "informed" have done in "gender affirming care" with the mutilation of children and same sex attracted young adults to realise that this bill is unworkable.
Thank you for providing such clear analysis. I believe those who champion assisted suicide believe they are ending suffering but are elected representatives have a responsibility to scrutinise and that this shoddy bill has passed first stage is a stain on all of them