B1434 – Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2018

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
B1434 – Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2018, CatusStarbright MP, TSR Liberal Democrats
Image

Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2018

A Bill to ensure it is a trained legal professional and not a layperson who is responsible for approving applications for assisted dying.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1: Amendments

(1) Section 2(1) of the Assisted Dying Act 2018 shall be amended to read:
1. After permission from a District Judge sitting in the Magistrates’ Court (Family Division), an adult who has a terminal illness may lawfully have assistance in ending their own life while under medical supervision.

2: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions
(1) This bill shall come into force upon Royal Assent.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2018.
(3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom.

Notes
Spoiler:
Show
A District Judge1 is a trained legal professional which sits in the Magistrates’ Court. Ordinarily, cases in the Magistrates’ Court are heard and decided by the Magistrates; a bench of three laypeople who have no legal training.
While often it is likely that the approval of applications for assisted dying would be merely a rubber-stamping exercise, it is nonetheless a concern that those who are not trained legal professionals have the power to decide who is entitled to lawful assisted dying and who is not. The court approval of such applications is intended as a safeguard, and so for it to be an effective safeguard it should be a legal professional who takes such decisions.

1 https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-j...judge-mags-ct/
0
ns_2
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Though my support for assisted dying as a concept is delicate, to say the least, this is crucially an improvement (however small) over the status quo. Legal safeguards must be in place to ensure that the system's integrity remains, come what may.
0
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
An improvement, however, I’m not in favour of assisted dying in the first place.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by JMR2018)
An improvement, however, I’m not in favour of assisted dying in the first place.
Given repeal isn't a realistic option the best we can do is make it less bad, although in reality this will do little to improve things.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by JMR2018)
An improvement, however, I’m not in favour of assisted dying in the first place.
If you see it as an improvement (which it is), then you should vote in favour when it reaches division. A repeal wouldn't be supported by the House as it stands.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
I don’t support this because I believe people should have a fundamental right to choose when and how they can die - by law of inverse if we have a right to life we have a right to a death.

This limits euthanasia by banning a layperson giving approval, therefore I shall be voting no.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Connor27)
I don’t support this because I believe people should have a fundamental right to choose when and how they can die - by law of inverse if we have a right to life we have a right to a death.

This limits euthanasia by banning a layperson giving approval, therefore I shall be voting no.
Actually we legally don't have a right to death - that has been tried and tested in the courts.

How does this 'limit' euthanasia? You understand that this merely means that approval of an application is made by someone legally qualified as opposed to someone who is not?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Actually we legally don't have a right to death - that has been tried and tested in the courts.

How does this 'limit' euthanasia? You understand that this merely means that approval of an application is made by someone legally qualified as opposed to someone who is not?
I’m not talking about legal rights, I’m talking about moral rights, the law is not always just.

There are more laymen then qualified professionals, therefore this limits the numbers of people who can approve an application which is limiting euthanasia.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
I’m not talking about legal rights, I’m talking about moral rights, the law is not always just.

There are more laymen then qualified professionals, therefore this limits the numbers of people who can approve an application which is limiting euthanasia.
Depends on your definition of justice.

Sure, but don't forget that magistrates sit as a panel of three whereas a District Judge sits alone. I also do not anticipate the courts having to deal with overwhelming floods of euthanasia requests.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Abstain.

It's an imrpovement but i am wary of legitimizing that horrid filth of an act.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Rakas21)
Abstain.

It's an imrpovement but i am wary of legitimizing that horrid filth of an act.
It already has been 'legitimised'. If you see it as an improvement on the status quo then you should vote in favour.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Hellllll to the nah.

As Rakas above said basicaly, it's a horrid act.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Hellllll to the nah.

As Rakas above said basicaly, it's a horrid act.
Voting against this because you object to euthanasia in the first place is not a good justification.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Voting against this because you object to euthanasia in the first place is not a good justification.
Don't put me in the wrong when you're trying to justify a repugnant act with this bill.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Don't put me in the wrong when you're trying to justify a repugnant act with this bill.
I'm trying to make it safer. I was not 'putting you in the wrong'.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#16
This bill is in cessation.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#17
Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (727)
33.85%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (920)
42.83%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (407)
18.95%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (94)
4.38%

Watched Threads

View All