B1534 – Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
B1534 – Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2019, CatusStarbright MP

Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill 2019
A Bill to amend the Assisted Dying Act 2018.

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) Amend section 2(1) of the Assisted Dying Act 2018 from:
“1. After permission from the Magistrate Court (Family Division), an adult who has a terminal illness may lawfully have assistance in ending their own life while under medical supervision.”

To:

“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) Amend all iterations of “Magistrate Court” to “Magistrates’ Court”.

2: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions
(1) This bill shall come into force on the 1st April 2020.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Assisted Dying Act 2018 (Amendment) Act 2019.
(3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom.

Spoiler:
Show
Notes
The author of this bill was looking through the ‘Current Law’ section of Hansard and remembered their concern about the fact that the Magistrates' Court is mostly staffed by laypeople.
While in most cases the approval of a request for assisted dying (which is what this section of the original bill is about) would be a rubber-stamping exercise, the court is supposed to act as a safeguard in this regard. The author of this bill would be more comfortable if it were a requirement that this assisted dying is approved by a District Judge (a judge who sits in the Magistrates' Court in place of magistrates) rather than three people with no proper legal training.
That is the major substance of this bill, and the second amendment this makes is just to correct the fault whereby the Magistrates’ Court is incorrectly referred to as the Magistrate Court.
There is a delay between Royal Assent and this bill coming into force to allow for preparations to be made for the change of regime.
Link to the legislation: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=5533004 (Nb that this is not the Division thread because there were sections missing from the Division version which the Deputy Speaker of the time did not fix, thus the Division thread version is incomplete and not the full version of the Act in question).
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
The only good amendment is one that de facto repeals
1
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
Is legal training required to understand compassion and empathy?
1
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
The fact that it's at the courts discretion whether someone is allowed to end their own suffering is obscene in my eyes.
3
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
I'm opposed to the whole process of assisted suicide but see this amendment as a step forward, so due to the conflicting beliefs at play here will have to abstain.
1
Joleee
Badges: 18
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
i don't believe in rubber-stamp law tbh. i also believe in the assisted right to die even for those who do not have a terminal illness. but until we get there, i do not believe the right to die should be decided in a Magistrates' Court in any way shape or form. that right is just as important as the right to life and the right to be free from torture. putting that right in a Magistrates' Court is trivialising it.

for the above mentioned reasons would've preferred a different amendment, but i guess a sitting district judge is the best we can do atm.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by The Mogg)
The fact that it's at the courts discretion whether someone is allowed to end their own suffering is obscene in my eyes.
Agreed.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Is legal training required to understand compassion and empathy?
(Original post by The Mogg)
The fact that it's at the courts discretion whether someone is allowed to end their own suffering is obscene in my eyes.
(Original post by shadowdweller)
Agreed.
Th courts are used as a safeguarding mechanism, to ascertain that the choice to die has been a free one and that the application meets the legal requirements, that is all. They are not there to make moral judgements - this House has already done that by permitting assisted dying.

The role of the courts is merely to see if it is clear that the applicant:-
1. Clearly and knowingly wishes to end their own life;
2. Has a fully valid declaration form;
3. Is 18 years of age or over on the day of declaration;
4. Has the mental capacity to make the decision;
5. Has been a resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for at least one year.
(As per the original bill)
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Th courts are used as a safeguarding mechanism, to ascertain that the choice to die has been a free one and that the application meets the legal requirements, that is all. They are not there to make moral judgements - this House has already done that by permitting assisted dying.

The role of the courts is merely to see if it is clear that the applicant:-
1. Clearly and knowingly wishes to end their own life;
2. Has a fully valid declaration form;
3. Is 18 years of age or over on the day of declaration;
4. Has the mental capacity to make the decision;
5. Has been a resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for at least one year.
(As per the original bill)
I don't see any of these requiring legal training. I consider this safeguard as merely a third party to ensure the process is legit.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
I understand the idea behind this Bill, however I do not agree in assisted dying.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I don't see any of these requiring legal training. I consider this safeguard as merely a third party to ensure the process is legit.
DJs properly understand how the law works, how capacity is assessed etc. If we want a court to act as a legal safeguard then we may as well do it properly.
(Original post by barnetlad)
I understand the idea behind this Bill, however I do not agree in assisted dying.
That's fine, but obviously that has nothing to do with this bill.
1
Joleee
Badges: 18
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
DJs properly understand how the law works, how capacity is assessed etc. If we want a court to act as a legal safeguard then we may as well do it properly.
fully agree with you on this point.

specifically because there are still legal tests involved. not every who wants it gets assisted dying. you must have a terminal illness. you must have capacity to make that decision. these are often complex, legal questions that goes beyond the talent of magistrates (do you think Airedale NHS Trust v Bland could have been reasoned between magistrates??!).

'compassion' and 'empathy' are not legal tests. i could have all the compassion in the world, but if the applicant does not pass the legal test they will not (legally) qualify for assisted dying. if a magistrate, or a judge, decided these cases on compassion instead of law that would be a breach of the constitution.

(btw still believe wrong court/wrong judge, but for what MHoC law is right now at least this is headed in the right direction.)
2
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
Mr Speaker, i do not and will not ever support this bill nor any which condones the state sponsored deaths of its citizens. It is a source of enduing agony and despair that this great parliament in our greatest of nations voted for what i consider to be the most morally abject and repugnant act that has been put before this House. The first duty of the state should be to protect its citizens from harm and that despicable act is a ravaging violation of this principal!

Mr Speaker, while this act is not that act, to vote in favour of it is to give acceptance and credibility to that horrific act of parliamentary savagery. While the Rt. Hon. Catus has my enduring respect for her prior actions in assisting our greatest of governments this is not a bill which should be granted authority by our great House and i urge my colleagues to vote against this, to vote against the moral decay wrought on this great nation by it and to send a message to our people that we are listening, we feel their anger and that we will move to repeal the horrific 'murder act'.

(Crowds outside parliament cheer at the defense of moral values).
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i do not and will not ever support this bill nor any which condones the state sponsored deaths of its citizens. It is a source of enduing agony and despair that this great parliament in our greatest of nations voted for what i consider to be the most morally abject and repugnant act that has been put before this House. The first duty of the state should be to protect its citizens from harm and that despicable act is a ravaging violation of this principal!

Mr Speaker, while this act is not that act, to vote in favour of it is to give acceptance and credibility to that horrific act of parliamentary savagery. While the Rt. Hon. Catus has my enduring respect for her prior actions in assisting our greatest of governments this is not a bill which should be granted authority by our great House and i urge my colleagues to vote against this, to vote against the moral decay wrought on this great nation by it and to send a message to our people that we are listening, we feel their anger and that we will move to repeal the horrific 'murder act'.

(Crowds outside parliament cheer at the defense of moral values).
So instead of trying to make the regime a better one you'd rather just sit back and allow potentially unsafe/unlawful instances of euthanasia take place?

I understand your objections to the original Act, but the logic for opposition is not sound.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
So instead of trying to make the regime a better one you'd rather just sit back and allow potentially unsafe/unlawful instances of euthanasia take place?

I understand your objections to the original Act, but the logic for opposition is not sound.
Of course it is. If this bill is defeated then the fact that the original bill is allowing unsafe/unlawful practices is yet another thing which may sway anybody on the fence. That is of course before we consider the fact that i would be giving credibility to the original act.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
Of course it is. If this bill is defeated then the fact that the original bill is allowing unsafe/unlawful practices is yet another thing which may sway anybody on the fence. That is of course before we consider the fact that i would be giving credibility to the original act.
I don't think there's enough support in the House for a repeal I'm afraid. Most of us would support assisted suicide I am sure.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
This item has entered cessation.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#18
Divison, clear the lobby!
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

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (360)
45.17%
No (84)
10.54%
I'm not old enough (353)
44.29%

Watched Threads

View All