This is absolutely not a fair representation of the evidence you were provided with last week, Kim. I spoke in sincere good faith, & as a palliative care doctor who is *not* opposed to assisted dying. As you know, I pushed back strongly against this claim from Chris Whitty. (1/n) - ThreadSky

doctoroxford.bsky.social • 23 days ago

This is absolutely not a fair representation of the evidence you were provided with last week, Kim.

I spoke in sincere good faith, & as a palliative care doctor who is *not* opposed to assisted dying.

As you know, I pushed back strongly against this claim from Chris Whitty. (1/n)

Reposted from Kim Leadbeater MBE MP

The Mental Capacity Act is the right place to start in terms of determining if a patient can make this decision. It's been tried and tested. It's used every day. Doctors are confident using it and it strikes the right balance - protecting both them and their patients. 4/7

Comments

backfour94.bsky.social•23 days ago

Presumably it is a fair representation of evidence provided by Witty.

seanfredk.bsky.social•23 days ago

To some extent the Mental Capacity Act helps a little but MCA has never been used in this context and does not ask if a person is being influenced only if they have the capacity to decide, a quite different question. I remain worried that we will merge the right to die with a duty to die.

nohandsup.bsky.social•22 days ago

In my experience I very much doubt that you would have identical answers about capacity.

doctoroxford.bsky.social•23 days ago

It's simply not the case that 6 or 7 doctors will easily draw the same conclusions about a patient’s capacity, particularly in palliative matters.

Capacity can be inordinately difficult to assess accurately.

I see doctors at every level of training & experience making basic mistakes. (2/n)

hannahfarrimond.bsky.social•23 days ago

I also have seen 'best interests' decisions being taken both in palliative care when the patient still had capacity (I refused to override them) and in hospital during a mental health episode. I'm not a medical doctor, just a member of the public. I also want assisted dying but share your concerns.

doctoroxford.bsky.social•23 days ago

I often have to intervene as a patient advocate in matters of capacity, for example, when doctors assume capacity is lacking without rigorously testing this, or fail to test which precise decision a patient may or may not have capacity to make, or assumes capacity does not shift with time. (3/n)

ianinspen.bsky.social•23 days ago

Kim doesn't handle complexity well. That's a personal observation from seeing her chair meetings, talk to crowds and also TV appearances. I like her and admire much of what she's achieved. However ... it's a hill I'll die on, with or without consent in triplicate.

doctoroxford.bsky.social•23 days ago

Why didn't you include my testimony in your thread, or that of other doctors with similar concerns?

If you truly, sincerely want this bill to be the safest possible - as I so desperately want to believe you do - why are you presenting the evidence in this partisan manner? It is heartbreaking. Ends/

jlyons1991.bsky.social•23 days ago

This kind of self-serving misrepresentation is exactly why people mistrust assisted dying in the UK. If people like Leadbetter lie now, why expect them to do any better later?

lila7.bsky.social•23 days ago

Why is @kimleadbeatermp.bsky.social allowed to carry on like this?

Choosing whom to interview, choosing how to interpret or wilfully misinterpret what they say?

1smudger.bsky.social•23 days ago

Things this complex and sensitive should not be presented or opened to debate on social media by MPs.

It's clearly not the right forum.

backfour94.bsky.social•23 days ago

Isn't she just providing an update on progress into an open forum so that as many people as possible can see the input from experts rather than keeping it all quiet until a final report? Feels genuine to me.

thoseos.bsky.social•23 days ago

Providing an update on how she's not actually paying attention to what experts have said?

1smudger.bsky.social•23 days ago

The original point of this thread is that certain clips have been provided that may skew perception of the debate. It would be better for something this sensitive to just point to the whole debate.

ianinspen.bsky.social•23 days ago

Agree. Much of this should have been discussed in depth well before the initial bill was even drafted. It is a matter of life or death, so needed much sharper, kinder handling.

backfour94.bsky.social•23 days ago

This level of focus from MPs and the calling of experts, would not have happened until the first reading of the bill. That is how the process works. First reading to confirm the priority, ctte set up to hear input, new paper for the second reading. Parliament at its best.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply