The bill contains “insufficient protection” for the “frail and vulnerable”, he says.
It would also “alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people”, and damage the identity of “the caring professions”.
3. The British Geriatrics Society—the association for professionals specialising in the healthcare of older people.
“The risk for safeguard failure is at least moderate in a modern, well-run AD service which we find to be unacceptable when considering the needs of older people.”
4. Disability Rights UK.
“In practice, it would be easier and quicker to access assisted dying in the UK than it would be to access social care support, palliative healthcare, and suitable housing.”
“The committee stage saw the weakening of already insufficient safeguards.”
5. Sir David Haslam, former president of the British Medical Association and chair of NICE.
“It is likely to have…a legion of unintended consequences… The elasticity with which assisted dying laws have been applied in other countries should serve as a warning.”
6. Liberty, Britain’s leading civil liberties organisation.
“We can only support legalising assisted dying if it works safely for everyone. This Bill doesn’t.”
7. Prof Sir Louis Appleby, who leads the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England.
“Once the principle behind suicide prevention has been set aside...we have lost something we may not get back… That is why I don’t support the Bill.”
8. Ashish Kumar, Chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Eating Disorders Faculty (as well as the Vice-Chair Agnes Ayton).
“We urge MPs to…vote against the bill—it fails the public safety test.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Falconer admits people will die under the bill because they are poor.
“Where the reason…is because in your mind you are influenced by your circumstances—for example, because you are poor—should you be barred from having an assisted death...? In my view [you should] not.”
2. Falconer admits people will die because of lack of access to care.
“Of course nobody wants the absence of palliative care to be the reason you apply...
“But we have to give everybody this choice on the basis of the way the world is for them.”
2. Lord Carlile. Top barrister and brilliant public speaker.
Here he probes the bill on the subject of psychological manipulation, drawing on his legal experience to suggest it is far more prevalent than people think.
2. Lord Falconer, 2018: the Salisbury Convention—which limits the Lords’ ability to reject a bill—doesn’t apply if a bill wasn’t part of the governing party’s manifesto.
Ten things we learnt from the first Lords debate on the assisted suicide bill:
1. The Lords is taking this seriously.
Thanks to the efforts of Baroness Berger and others, there will now be evidence sessions to fill in some of the gaps left by the haphazard Commons stage.
A sign that this may be a more grown-up process overall.
2. The House of Lords contains remarkable expertise.
When Baroness Hollins was making this speech, she was next to Baroness Finlay, a leading authority on palliative care, and Lord Stevens, former NHS CEO. All three gave powerful critiques of the bill.
Dignity in Dying have launched a campaign this week against the phrase “assisted suicide”—and by an amazing coincidence, the first three pro-bill speakers, including the two flanking Lord Falconer, objected to the term.
A few reasons why “assisted suicide” is good terminology:
1. Legislative precision. The bill amends the Suicide Act, changing the law on suicide:
The Royal College of Psychiatrists say their first concern about the bill is that terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide, and that the bill obviously has implications for that fact.