Here are a few things people won't know if they're not in the weeds of it:

The Bill sponsor's new clauses & schedules to introduce Assisted Dying Panels were published on 14th Feb.

Last Thursday, with the debate due the following Tuesday, she withdrew a major new clause- (1/12)

https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1900095250284052671

the one stating what a panel is/does. She tabled a new version, which at last stipulated that the panel must hear from the person seeking an assisted death. (N.B. the panel still does not have to question them, or the doctors).

There was no prior communication to the (2/12)

I really did mean to take a day off tweeting about the Assisted Dying Bill.

But then the detail on the new panels came out..

My summary:

1) Let's be clear: neither the new Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner nor the "legal chair" of the panel will be acting as a judge. (1/?) They might *also* be sitting- or retired- judges. But they will not be acting as a judge in the new roles. The panels are not courts- people won't give evidence on oath etc. That is very clear from the amendment text.

Continuing to suggest this has any judicial involvement (2/?)

As indicated in various tweets, I think the House of Commons should vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, & am going to do one thread to summarise why.

I'm a Labour member & councillor, & just did a year as an adviser, chiefly in Opposition, (1/18) so I'm speaking as a supporter.

I think this Bill & process are fundamentally flawed.

Since it's apparently necessary to say so, I'm an atheist. I'm also an instinctive liberal who supports the principle that people should have the right to die without needless suffering.(2/18)

It's encouraging to see many MPs saying they're taking the assisted dying debate seriously.

But I've come to the view it shouldn't have been a PMB. MPs instinctively go into campaign mode when they have a PMB (look at all these people who agree with me, ignoring criticisms etc). It's no secret that it's the govt who wanted this debate to happen- as I personally agree it should because I instinctively support the principle, but *only* if the safeguards work.

I think a panel or a (royal) commission with a call for evidence would be the right way to do it.

If anyone would find some broader context useful here (the Daily Mail evidently would not), the proposal to create new aggravated offences on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation & transgender identity come from the Law Commission. And crucially:>
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1… Their detailed and considered proposals also include introducing "explicit protection for “gender critical” views, criticism of foreign governments, and discussion of cultural practices, and immigration, asylum and citizenship policy" into the hate crime regime.

On pronouns:>

I've not said loads here about my experience of getting initially blocked as a Labour candidate for my mainstream & legally accurate view on sex as a protected characteristic. No point- we're returning to a sensible level of debate, & I have friends to do the therapy part!

But.. ..there's one point I do think is worth making, after an exchange this week. Some gentle advice & indeed a warning to well-intentioned people, including those who may have thought all along that what was happening to women like me was A Bit Rum, but who didn't get involved. (2/?)