Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

So there is only a risk of prison not a certainty of it, splendid.

In effectively executing people by mistake, the article I quoted mentions that not only you need two doctors and a judge and then a mandatory 14 days "might change your mind" waiting period, but the person must be able to administer the med themselves.

We have already established that the judge thing is too strict so I don't think you are warranted to return to the restrictions are too lax position.

[HVC]

For the do not resuscitate thing, sheilbh, isn't it basic triage?. It's the  necessary , but cold, mathematics of limited resources during Covid. You focus on those you can save so you end up saving more. Or am I misunderstanding?

[Sheilbh]

For the do not resuscitate thing, sheilbh, isn't it basic triage?. It's the  necessary , but cold, mathematics of limited resources during Covid. You focus on those you can save so you end up saving more. Or am I misunderstanding?

Yeah. But triage is also still an individual assessment so age and disability are factors.

What was happening in at least one NHS Trust was that they were the only factors. Disabled: DNR; over x age: DNR. As with race there were disproportionately high deaths among people with disabilities if they were hospitalised and this was flagged as something going terribly wrong during the first wave. Mencap, a charity for people with learning disabilities, at the time flagged anecdotal reports that people with learning disabiilties were being told on admission that they would not be resuscitated (regardless of their general health or other factors) - that hasn't been fully confirmed yet but it does look like it might have been happening in some NHS Trusts.

It's still coming out in the Inquiry but we know of at least one NHS Trust taking that approach. Other senior figures have now admitted that DNR orders were being wrongly applied to people.

In effectively executing people by mistake, the article I quoted mentions that not only you need two doctors and a judge and then a mandatory 14 days "might change your mind" waiting period, but the person must be able to administer the med themselves.

We have already established that the judge thing is too strict so I don't think you are warranted to return to the restrictions are too lax position.

My point is that these safeguards are not effective. The substance isn't there not that it's too lax or two strict.

The first doctor picks the second doctor, if the second doctor disagrees, the first one can pick another (and again there is no mention of what anyone is supposed to do if they don't just disagree but think there's something wrong). Also no limits on how many goes you have to find a first doctor willing to support an application.

There is no way the judges would be able to do anything other than to rubber-stamp applications. At no stage is anyone under a positive obligation to assess coercion.

They're Potemkin safeguards. It's a process heavy on formalities and very very light on substance. I think it is designed so people can say there's two doctors and a judge, not to give the level of protection people would expect from two doctors and a judge.

[Tamas]

I know we are in a bit of a loop here but I am struggling to understand what earnest risk is so, so incredibly high here  that this level of scrutiny is needed and so many people must be condemned to suffering and horror just to avoid this risk materialising. You have to have less than 6 months to live, at least one of those is bound to go with the "potemkin" paperwork, and THEN the supposedly coerced individual need to take the med/injection themselves.

Why not have an honest discussion: I have already admitted I want that slippery slope you, BB, and the religious right are afraid of. Why can't you admit you just don't want assisted dying at all?

[Sheilbh]

Because that's not what I think - I don't have a moral opposition to assisted dying as I do to the death penalty.

I don't want the slippery slope and I think that has happened a lot internationally, that's partly why I think the actual law really matters.

But I think, as Abbott and Leigh put it, without strong safeguards (and improved services/learning the lessons of all those scandals) there is a risk that this perhaps increases the individual autonomy and agency for people who are used to exercising it, at the expense of vulnerable, overlooked communities who aren't.

I'm not comfortable with the risk of people dying wrongly against their will - that's the incredibly high risk in my view. A risk that will be borne overwhelmingly by vulnerable people who can't advocate for themselves effectively, or don't have someone who can, who don't want to question or double-guess someone with a lot of letters after their name, and who may already be in a careless system but don't actually want to just die.

Especially when I think there is a risk of a wider social impact of whose life is worth living - see A.C. Grayling's (patron of Dignity in Dying) comments about ideally extending assisted dying to the "wheelchair bound", or Matthew Parris: "soon we will accept that useless lives should end".

That's why I think real, meaningful safeguards matter and the law should be narrow and well drafted. So it actually does only what its supporters say and is limited. If we reach the point, as a society, where people do want to think in Grayling or Parris' terms (which I do oppose morally) then it should be an issues that's debated and that MPs consider like this. It should be a mindful, conscious step and not the result of sloppy (or deliberately baggy) drafting and a slippery slope.

Edit: In a way - if I thought this bill would function as its supporters say it will, and not as we see from the practical experience of every other jurisdiction. I'd be relatively comfortable with it. If disability rights charities were saying they felt this bill did not pose a threat to them and in fact increased the autonomy of people with disabilities, I'd be even more comfortable. And the same if people in the care sector weren't expressing deep reservations. So if I thought it really was constrained and people in care and with disabilities were on board, I don't think I' have any opposition - on all of those points the opposite is true.

[Barrister]

So there is only a risk of prison not a certainty of it, splendid.

In effectively executing people by mistake, the article I quoted mentions that not only you need two doctors and a judge and then a mandatory 14 days "might change your mind" waiting period, but the person must be able to administer the med themselves.

We have already established that the judge thing is too strict so I don't think you are warranted to return to the restrictions are too lax position.

I feel like this discussion is a discussion between a lawyer and a computer programmer/scientist (sorry forget your exact title Tamas).

In law there's an acceptance of discretion.  There might be something against the law, but we trust the humans in the legal field to carry out the law fairly and reasonably.  I can tell you there are innumerable situations that might technically break the law that aren't prosecuted.  We do not, in fact, prosecute a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread - even if it is technically against the law.

But if something isn't specifically prohibited, then it's legal.

That's the "slippery slope" concern.  If its legal to commit MAID in some circumstances, then it becomes legal to commit it in many/most circumstances.  Because any wiggle words you put into the law will be pushed to the maximum.

Which is different from how computer code works.

[Sheilbh]

Flurry of MPs tonight saying they'll vote against the bill (mainly Labour) including people who say they support assisted dying in principle, or expected to support it when it was announced. In common from all their statements is criticism of the bill as deeply flawed.

Also striking that there's been a few coalitions of charities working with people with disabilities in specific areas, like Manchester, coming forward and saying that their constituent charities have different perspectives on assisted dying, but were unanimous that this bill at this time represents a risk to people with disabilities, so opposing it.

Totally separate but interesting divide among former judges. A number of former Supreme Court justices (including Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale) have broadly supported the law and don't think there's a risk of a slippery slope (through the courts). But a number of judges at the next level down (so former President of the Family Division, former senior family law judges and former Lord Chief Justice) have been very critical of the role of a judge in the bill.

[Tamas]

So there is only a risk of prison not a certainty of it, splendid.

In effectively executing people by mistake, the article I quoted mentions that not only you need two doctors and a judge and then a mandatory 14 days "might change your mind" waiting period, but the person must be able to administer the med themselves.

We have already established that the judge thing is too strict so I don't think you are warranted to return to the restrictions are too lax position.

I feel like this discussion is a discussion between a lawyer and a computer programmer/scientist (sorry forget your exact title Tamas).

In law there's an acceptance of discretion.  There might be something against the law, but we trust the humans in the legal field to carry out the law fairly and reasonably.  I can tell you there are innumerable situations that might technically break the law that aren't prosecuted.  We do not, in fact, prosecute a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread - even if it is technically against the law.

But if something isn't specifically prohibited, then it's legal.

That's the "slippery slope" concern.  If its legal to commit MAID in some circumstances, then it becomes legal to commit it in many/most circumstances.  Because any wiggle words you put into the law will be pushed to the maximum.

Which is different from how computer code works.

I am a project manager, I make a living out of translating real world to technical people and vice versa 

Thanks for the explanation though, I just can't see the wiggle room in this bill based on what I know of it. But again, in general on what you and Sheilbh see as slippery slope, I do hope this bill if passed (it won't) will be the first step in making our laws catch up with realities of today's world.

[crazy canuck]

Defining circumstances in which MAID can occur does not lead to all circumstances being permitted.  That makes no sense.

[Sheilbh]

Jeremy Corbyn also come out in opposition on the safeguards/procedural grounds. But it is really striking - as the bill goes for debate today - how impossible to predict on ideological grounds support or opposition to this bill is. Broadly more Labour MPs are supportive and more Tory MPs are opposed. But basically every gradation of opinion is split. For example I think Reform are split down the middle with two MPs who support it and two who oppose it, there's supporters and opponents from the hard left right up to and including Reform.

In part this is just inevitable of it being a non-partisan, free conscience vote but even so it's really striking to see it not just as a free vote in theory but literally MPs on all sides of parliament dividing in quite unpredictable ways.

I think MPs are taking it seriously, they are properly engaging with the legal text they have to vote on - they always get a lot of stick, but I feel like they are really just doing their job (on all sides with supporters and opponents - I think people are well motivated here).

Expectation is that it will be very, very close.

[Tamas]

So you are on the same platform as:

Rory Stewart, the religious right, and Jeremy Corbyn.

If that doesn't convince you you are wrong, I can only give up

[crazy canuck]

Jeremy Corbyn also come out in opposition on the safeguards/procedural grounds. But it is really striking - as the bill goes for debate today - how impossible to predict on ideological grounds support or opposition to this bill is. Broadly more Labour MPs are supportive and more Tory MPs are opposed. But basically every gradation of opinion is split. For example I think Reform are split down the middle with two MPs who support it and two who oppose it, there's supporters and opponents from the hard left right up to and including Reform.

In part this is just inevitable of it being a non-partisan, free conscience vote but even so it's really striking to see it not just as a free vote in theory but literally MPs on all sides of parliament dividing in quite unpredictable ways.

I think MPs are taking it seriously, they are properly engaging with the legal text they have to vote on - they always get a lot of stick, but I feel like they are really just doing their job (on all sides with supporters and opponents - I think people are well motivated here).

Expectation is that it will be very, very close.

I doubt their attention is on the text as you suggest.  Legislators are, ironically, not well known for reading let alone understanding the legislation they pass.  As a group they are thinking about the politics in their ridings.

[Sheilbh]

So you are on the same platform as:

Rory Stewart, the religious right, and Jeremy Corbyn.

If that doesn't convince you you are wrong, I can only give up

And some others I more often agree with. But I don't worry about looking around me to make sure I'm on the "right" side of an issue

But on that as Diane Abbott pointed out - not a single organisation representing people with disabilities supports that bill. And I think that's a huge issue. Again I think supporters were expecting (and perhaps hoping for) a culture war breakdown on this issue because they weren't listening to or didn't believe people's concerns.

And it may still pass. I think it's very, very close.

I doubt their attention is on the text as you suggest. 

On this specific issue it's a disgrace that there's only 5 hours of debate and over 100 MPs wanting to speak so we're now into the very quick contributions. But from what I saw during the opening speeches both sides took points of order on specific points in the bill and were referring to specific sections.

There is, I think, from what I've seen even within that truncated time for MPs an important debate about different types of coercion.

FWIW there's similar legislation going through the Scottish Parliament (again on a free vote). They're at the same legislative stage as this bill. There was first research done by Committee, it was then introduced early this year and there have been two consultations, all of the state bodies have done impact assessments. They have scheduled 8 weeks of committee hearings to hear evidence. I might still end up dissatisfied with the bill that results from that but I think it's a far better process than this bill in England (at the same legislative stage) which was only published two and a half weeks ago, will now get five hours of debate and then a vote.

Legislators are, ironically, not well known for reading let alone understanding the legislation they pass.  As a group they are thinking about the politics in their ridings.

I slightly disagree on this - one in a general way and the other specifically on this issue because it's not politicised here.

In general I think the largest group by professional background of MPs are lawyers. So if they don't understand legislation that's a fairly damning indictment of the profession. I don't think MPs necessarily need to be reading or understanding everything - that's sort of what political parties in government are for. But almost all MPs have one or two areas that they're really interested in - especially because the other very common professional background is "public policy" through think-tanks, party politics etc. In those areas they carry more weight in parliament but also are really all over the detail. As a lawyer my criticism would be that I think too many rely on generalised principles in legislation rather than more detailed operative drafting (but I think that may be a public policy v lawyer view). In my experience of dealing with legislators is they do tend to take their role seriously. The ones interested in my area are pretty impressive - dealing with ones who aren't interested in that area, they're not and they will just follow the legislators who are, or the party whip.

On this issue though as I say there is no ideological breakdown that's consistent from hard left to hard right there are opponents and supporters. It's not a party political issue, so there won't be a risk at a constituency level on this unless there are single issue independents. So I'm not really sure how the "politics" come into it given that it's not a political issue other parties will campaign on. I also can't really see a geographic split (this is a map of MPs who have stated their position so far - normally in letters to their constituents):


Interestingly one of the Reform MPs did basically run a local referendum which was strongly in favour of assisted dying and that's the way he'll vote. As a bit of a Burkean who thinks MPs are representatives, not delegates - especially on issues of conscience - I'm not convinced by that. But it's interesting.

[Tamas]

Why would it need disabled people's support?

[Sheilbh]

You're the one who wants the slippery slope - that's why.