Diabetic MP’s bid to ensure her condition is not included as cause for assisted death.

[CliffH]

Can I put my moderators hat on and thank members for taking a thread that looked as if it was heading for acrimonious argument and putting it back on the rails.

Taking my mods hat off... at the bottom of this (and many other debates) is how you balance the harm to a few against the greater good. When this bill is passed, it will be of little relevance to most, be welcomed by some but pose a danger to others. The problem is to fashion a law which allows those who will benefit from it to take the benefit, whilst minimising the harm to those who might be exploited. It is a tricky problem to solve because the lower the bar is set, the more cumbersome become the processes involved. It is asking too much for all risk to be eliminated, that would need processes that would be inordinately cumbersome and quite absurd for the vast majority of cases.

I am sure that within the parliamentary system all angles and aspects will be considered and a bill will be fashioned. I just hope that it will sensibly done with clear conditions which will allow somebody to assist another to end their life without that somebody being guilty of a crime. Above all, the bill needs clarity and if anything concerns me is that the bill will be a complete mess, open to varieties of interpretation and consume more legal time than is appropriate.

I think you've given a very clear and balanced summary! I don't share your optimism though, I'm afraid, that "all angles and aspects will be considered" - at least not sufficiently. Sir James Munby (who's given judgments in the past on several extremely complex and emotive Mental Capacity Act cases) certainly isn't convinced that sufficient safeguards have been proposed.

 

[CliffH]

It's absolutely a valid subject for debate but invoking eugenics and ethnic cleansing as potential outcomes is taking things way too far.

The article cited isn't evidence the bill has been pushed through though which Amity has tried to argue. It is simply an opinion piece by someone with some political bias. Yes, people of all political leanings - given the emotive nature of the matter - may agree with those opinions but it is not evidence that the bill was pushed through.

It was debated and MPs given a free vote. Yes, if Labour had whipped the vote then it could be deemed pushing through given their huge majority, but that wasn't the case.

I've seen loved ones suffer terribly in the final weeks and months of their lives. Unnecessary suffering that could do easily have been avoided. The care they were recieving was good by the standards of palliative care but it was still just dragging out the inevitable.

I too want the choice to end my life a handful of weeks early if I'm ever in that position and without my family facing potential legal consequences. I don't see any reason at all to deny me that choice.

Yes, any such legislation needs to be very carefully thought through and I think it is being. However, it is needed and with the correct processes in place I think it'll be a relief for so many people. Don't forget the majority of the public in favour of a change in the law is quite substantial.

Unfortunately I think that we do have to consider the possibility of "eugenics and ethnic cleansing" in any debate about assisted dying - not because I think that anyone proposing it in the UK nowadays has those things in mind but because of the history in the UK of eugenics leading in the past to people with intellectual disabilities being denied basic medical care - and mothers being told, "Just put this child in an institution and forget about them". I don't think it's alarmist to think that such attitudes could return.

I started my career working in a "mental handicap" hospital in 1984 and things that I saw there drove me to do whatever I could to fight for the rights of people with intellectual disabilities, given that those people usually aren't listened to.

In terms of "ethnic cleansing", we know that people of colour have much lower access in the UK to (as far as I know) all forms of healthcare than do white people - presumably including palliative care. So, accidental (or possibly even subconscious) "ethnic cleansing" could I think come to pass in years to come.

 

[CliffH]

Can I put my moderators hat on and thank members for taking a thread that looked as if it was heading for acrimonious argument and putting it back on the rails.

Taking my mods hat off... at the bottom of this (and many other debates) is how you balance the harm to a few against the greater good. When this bill is passed, it will be of little relevance to most, be welcomed by some but pose a danger to others. The problem is to fashion a law which allows those who will benefit from it to take the benefit, whilst minimising the harm to those who might be exploited. It is a tricky problem to solve because the lower the bar is set, the more cumbersome become the processes involved. It is asking too much for all risk to be eliminated, that would need processes that would be inordinately cumbersome and quite absurd for the vast majority of cases.

I am sure that within the parliamentary system all angles and aspects will be considered and a bill will be fashioned. I just hope that it will sensibly done with clear conditions which will allow somebody to assist another to end their life without that somebody being guilty of a crime. Above all, the bill needs clarity and if anything concerns me is that the bill will be a complete mess, open to varieties of interpretation and consume more legal time than is appropriate.

You've reminded me of something that I read recently along the lines of, "Giving one person extra 'freedom' means inevitably that someone else somehow ends up with less freedom".

 

[Amity Island]

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) reflects that 'capacity' isn't a simple matter. A key principle is proportionality: for example, a carer isn't expected to spend too long worrying about whether or not someone who (for example) has an intellectual disability or dementia has capacity to decide whether they'd prefer tea or coffee.

However, what about capacity to engage in a sexual relationship? That's one of the most common reasons that I've been asked to give an opinion on capacity, as a Clinical Psychologist specialising in working with people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum conditions.

Deciding whether or not someone has capacity to decide whether or not have an abortion is another issue that involves the courts in complex, often distressing cases - particularly when the individual in question is found to lack capacity to decide whether or not to have an abortion, in which case the court has to decide (with the help of people who know the individual well and usually with the assistance of expert witnesses) whether or not it's in the person's 'best interest' to have an abortion.

Similar heart-wrenching debates (to which there's often no obvious 'right or wrong' answer) will also have to take place if assisted dying is made legal: simply saying that 'only people with mental capacity' can opt for it is to ignore a raft of existing legislation that would intersect with any assisted dying legislation. For example, if assisted dying is deemed to be a good thing for someone who has capacity to opt for it, why should people who lack capacity to opt for it be denied it?

There's also the Mental Health Act (MHA) to consider - and in practice the MCA and the MHA often come into conflict as it is! So, if someone with a history of significant psychological ill-health says that they want to end their life, I imagine that the court will want an opinion on that person's current state of mind. That will probably also apply to older people, if there's any suggestion of dementia.

Food for thought. Some good points in there.

 

[nonethewiser]

I guess this issue really prompts the importance of finding cures and treatments, i'm sure that would be the prefered option to anyone.

The other point i'd make is that, given the state of our NHS, many will have ended up in situtations (late diagnosis for example) through no fault of their own. So in essence, led into an avoidable situation. The thought of a failed NHS leading to assisted dying is tragic in itself.

Absolutely cure/treatment for all illnesses would be ideal.

All so often people are misdiagnosed or diagnosed late, our NHS is struggling to cope like never before but thank goodness its there for us.