“Let’s be very very clear,” Kim Leadbeater told the House of Commons on November 29 last year. “The model that is being proposed here…is nothing like what happens in Canada.”
Here are fifteen important ways in which the Leadbeater bill resembles Canada’s disastrous model:
(Canadian details taken from this extraordinary @TheAtlantic story: )
“Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAID from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics.”
Here, too, nobody will say the buck stops with them:
Plott says this is part of “the hollow oversight of MAID”.
No appeals process in the UK either, once the panel approves—even if, say, a family or a GP has crucial information that could help the panel reconsider.
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.
A brief fact-check of Lord Falconer’s speech this morning, some of which was misleading or at least missing important context:
1. “The government’s own estimate is that...less than 1% of deaths would be assisted after ten years.”
That’s because the civil servants imported the 1% figure from Oregon, which, respectfully, was a very strange decision. (NB in Quebec it’s 7 per cent.)
2. Falconer opened with a story about “faecal vomit”.
Obviously can’t comment on the specific case. But experts in end-of-life care have repeatedly, forcefully complained about politicians presenting this as a typical death or an argument for law change:
On May 13, defending the assisted suicide bill he is sponsoring in the Lords, Lord Falconer told Newsnight:
“It is hard to imagine a more safeguarded process.”
20 safeguards rejected by Falconer’s allies:
1. Doctors to ask applicants why they want an assisted suicide.
Rejected by pro-bill MPs in committee, partly on the grounds that “it’s none of your business.”
2. Applicants to get a guaranteed meeting with a palliative care specialist.
Rejected by pro-bill MPs – including care minister Stephen Kinnock, who raised a “concern” that it “would increase demand for palliative care specialists”.
A month on from the Commons vote on assisted suicide, it’s clear that quite a few MPs were confused about the bill or influenced by misinformation.
Here are 10 examples:
1. Janet Daby MP says she was reassured because there would be “further psychiatric assessment” in the event of concerns about a patient’s “mental health”.
This is completely untrue—the lack of such assessment is one reason the Royal College of Psychiatrists oppose the bill.
2. Jim Dickson MP told the Commons:
“In the words of the Impact Assessment on the bill now, it says we have the strongest safeguards in this bill of any jurisdiction in the world.”
No phrase anything like this appears anywhere in the Impact Assessment.
The crisis in the care system creates some terrible incentives.
The Coalition for Frontline Care, representing leading health and social care organisations with a combined workforce of 3 million, calls the bill “unworkable...and naïve”.