“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.
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.