Former LCJ Lord Thomas raises an important point about judicial role under assisted dying bill: 'the one really difficult question that hasn’t been addressed in this is how is the judge to proceed, as it cannot possibly be a rubber stamping exercise ... [but] no one has grappled with the detail' /1 - ThreadSky

profmarkelliott.bsky.social • 95 days ago

Former LCJ Lord Thomas raises an important point about judicial role under assisted dying bill: 'the one really difficult question that hasn’t been addressed in this is how is the judge to proceed, as it cannot possibly be a rubber stamping exercise ... [but] no one has grappled with the detail' /1

Comments

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•95 days ago

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the 'safeguards' in the bill. The importance of Lord Thomas's comments is that they underline that whether those safeguards are genuinely meaningful cannot be judged from the bill because we do not know how they would work. /2

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•95 days ago

This is one of several examples of the sense in which the assisted dying bill is, as Liberty has put it, 'principles first, details later'. A similar point applies to the Bill's delegated powers that effectively authorise the Health Secretary to establish a national assisted death service. /3

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•95 days ago

It seems to me that a great deal of the present debate conflates questions about (a) support for assisted dying in principle and (b) support for this particular Bill. There is no contradiction involved in supporting the principle while doubting that this Bill is the right vehicle its delivery. 4/4

birminghamkav.bsky.social•95 days ago

I support the principle but the Bill needs work. Who is going to present the evidence in our adversarial system for a person who may be being pressured? The Official Solicitor could be tasked with gathering evidence and then advocating if there's a hint of pressure. The system isn't set up for it.

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•95 days ago

Postscript: On distinguishing between the principle and the Bill, these FAQs from Liberty — which supports the principle but not the Bill — helpfully set out the safeguarding and others concerns that this particular legislation raises. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/assisted-dying-faqs/

neiljeffares.bsky.social•95 days ago

The difficulty is that it is far from clear how much room for manoeuvre there is at committee stage, either procedurally or within the spirit of the first reading. If eg we broaden the scope to include unbearable suffering then the strength of the safeguards falls away.../1

neiljeffares.bsky.social•95 days ago

But if we don't, and if we think the bill will override the current public interest safe-harbour for AD outside the act, we will be in a worse position than without the act.
We also need to have doctor-administration as the failure rate for taking lots of pills without anaesthesia is high 2/2

fascinatorfun.bsky.social•95 days ago

So what corrections to the bill would you make to it to make “the right vehicle” and fit for purpose, in your view @profmarkelliott.bsky.social ?

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•95 days ago

A bill that addresses the serious concerns raised by Liberty would be a good starting point. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/assisted-dying-faqs/

fascinatorfun.bsky.social•95 days ago

So making the Codes of Practise underpinning the Bill an annex to the bill itself with more Parliamentary debate time so they too can be scrutinised and amended?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply