They Shoot Horses, don't they?

[denso13]

I am uncomfortable with the idea that the private sector will see this an opportunity to exploit the vulnerable.

Then the safeguards will need to be changed to stop that from happening. Not sure where the private sector come into it though.

 

[motorbiking]

Then the safeguards will need to be changed to stop that from happening. Not sure where the private sector come into it though.

The same way as it exists for two people who got married and no longer want to be married. If the government provided clear and easy to follow rules for divorce, the pots and pans legal sector would disappear over night. This bill has nearly 40 pages of "procedure".

The more you read the more you realise it's loopy. Sec 12 for example. That could easily run to £10k in costs. if judges opt to routinely hold detailed hearings, then there are advocacy costs on top not to mention one thing being missing and one objection and the judge must reject the application.

 

[blup]

Then the safeguards will need to be changed to stop that from happening. Not sure where the private sector come into it though.

The government wont be paying for it, so ripe for private sector involvement. The slickest companies with the smoothest sell will corner the market in the same way the ambulance chasers have

 

[blup]

The same way as it exists for two people who got married and no longer want to be married. If the government provided clear and easy to follow rules for divorce, the pots and pans legal sector would disappear over night. This bill has nearly 40 pages of "procedure".

The more you read the more you realise it's loopy. Sec 12 for example. That could easily run to £10k in costs. if judges opt to routinely hold detailed hearings, then there are advocacy costs on top not to mention one thing being missing and one objection and the judge must reject the application.

The bill says its up to the doctor to be satisfied the patient is freely consenting. How and why should they have to make that decision ?

 

[motorbiking]

Both doctors and the judge and all the forms must be filled out by the applicant unless they cannot see or write. LPA has no effect, even medical. A proxy can only complete in limited circumstances.

The application fails if any one of the three disagree, the time between assessment was not as soon as reasonably practical or anyone alleges the facts are not as stated.

Who in their right mind will want to go before a judge in person to apply for a death warrant.

 

[ellal]

How exactly is a judge going to question the evidence? Do you think there will be a hearing?

its not me who doesn't understand the proposed process. Did you read it?

Did you?

And are you suggesting that no judge has the ability or right to question any form of medical evidence in any case?

Or ask for further evidence if in there is any doubt?

They have at times overturned a medical request to remove life support.

Do you believe they are not qualified to do that?

 

[ellal]

Who in their right mind will want to go before a judge in person to apply for a death warrant.

Amazing how those who don't appear to believe fully in the right to choose start using emotive language...

It's the choice to have a dignified death, and in no way could it be described as a 'death warrant'!

Maybe you would describe the choice of governments not to fund the NHS properly resulting in premature deaths due to increased waiting lists as assigning people with their 'death warrants'?

 

[ellal]

It would be inhuman not to consider an appropriate way forward.

Indeed it would be, and this is the way forward.

It is immeasurably cruel to tell a suffering 17 year old that they cannot benefit from this law, on the basis - presumably - that they don't have an adults capacity to consent.

You have a point there...

But a 17 year old can legally f*ck or learn to fight for the country, but can't vote...

And a 10 year old is deemed to be criminally responsible (12 in Scotland)...

So that is worth looking at in all respects of when a person is deemed responsible or not.

 

[motorbiking]

Did you?

And are you suggesting that no judge has the ability or right to question any form of medical evidence in any case?

Or ask for further evidence if in there is any doubt?

They have at times overturned a medical request to remove life support.

Do you believe they are not qualified to do that?

yes I have read it in detail - its a mess. Suicide is legal, there is no oversight required to permit a person to take their own life. Start with the basis that a person has the right to commit suicide, then look at someone who has the wish but not the capacity to do it. Ask what is the problem. The problem is they cannot legally get help to carry out their intent without that person being guilty of an offence. Then write a bill that allows the person to genuinely assist.

The poor sod who is terminally ill will face more process than someone trying to get divorced with zero assets. The whole time the clock is ticking. Time they should be getting the most out their remaining life, not hiring two doctors to write an assessment and then joining them for a nice day out in the family court while a judge asks everyone questions to satisfy his approval of what everyone else has already approved.

After all that, if the person has no capacity to press the button, nobody can help him.

 

[blup]

Indeed it would be, and this is the way forward.


You have a point there...

But a 17 year old can legally f*ck or learn to fight for the country, but can't vote...

And a 10 year old is deemed to be criminally responsible (12 in Scotland)...

So that is worth looking at in all respects of when a person is deemed responsible or not.

I am not quite at the point where I could support assisted dying in principle. I wouldn't trust a government that said its open season on any form of government regulated suicide. There are exceptions now but that could change. There may be a way forward, but definitely not with the bill as drafted whether you are pro or against the issue in principle.

 

[motorbiking]

I suspect quite a few on this thread haven't bothered to read the bill.

 

[blup]

I tried reading it although its like trying to sprint in mud to me. I have read that a retired judge says he doesn't know what kind of evidence is required, by implication it might just be a rubber stamping exercise or could involve live evidence if there is doubt or challenge?

 

[motorbiking]

the bill gives the judge powers to use any appropriate court procedure. See section 12.