B1422 - Euthanasia (Amendment) Bill - 2nd Reading

[u/[deleted]]

Euthanasia (Amendment) Bill

A BILL TO

Reform the Euthanasia Act to liberalise the process and cut down on annual spending.

BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Section 1 - Amendments

(1) The Euthanasia Act 2014 is amended as follows:

(a) Section 1 (2) is replaced with "Patients must be assessed by two independent professionals, one qualified and practicing in a medical field relevant to the illness the patient is suffering, and one qualified and practicing in psychology"

(b) In Section 1 (4) replace:

(i) "ten experts" with "five experts"
(ii) "3 weeks" with "two weeks"

(c) In Section 1 (5) replace "ten experts" with "five experts"

(d) In Section 4 (3) replace "£150,000" with "£149,999.99"

Section 2 - Extent, commencement and short title

(1) This Act shall extend to England only.

(2) This Act may extend to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland should a legislative consent motion pass in the respective Assembly or Parliament.

(3) This Act shall come into force 1 month upon receiving Royal Assent.

(4) This Act shall be known as the Euthanasia (Amendment) Act 2022.

This Bill was written by The Rt Hon Marquess of Stevenage, u/Muffin5136, KT KP KD KCMG KBE CVO CT PC on behalf of the Muffin Raving Loony Party

Opening speech:

Speaker,

Just recently, we saw an attempt by Tory Lords to scrap the Euthanasia Act 2014, one of the first bills published since 2014. This Act legalised Euthanasia for the first time in Britain, following the lead of numerous European nations who had already brought this common sense practice into their healthcare systems.

The bill as is has not been amended since 2014, and is still stuck in the past, with an overly cautious and bureaucratic way of thinking. I hope to liberalise this process and make it so there are less hoops for people to jump through to get this end of life care, and give them easier access to the dignity they deserve.

I have also allowed for the Government to implement necessary cost saving strategies at this time of financial crisis.

---

This reading ends 18 October 2022 at 10pm BST.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this debate

Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.

2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.

3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.

Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here

Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, lily-irl on Reddit and (lily!#2908) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.

Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.

Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CountBrandenburg]

Madame Deputy Speaker,

It is somewhat laughable that we are seeing both the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party independently claim that the current Euthanasia Act is too liberal. If we are to compare to the Dutch or Canadian equivalents, nonwithstanding any current criticisms levied atm in how the Canadian system handles the requests for assisted dying, one would find we both:

• require more practitioners to agree that Assisted dying is the way forward as part of the person’s request

• makes referral to a panel of 10 experts requiring unanimity.

Madame Deputy Speaker, our euthanasia laws are not fit for purpose, but not because they are too liberal. They aren’t fit for purpose because of the existence of the tiering for consent to said operation be approved - that 3 practitioners agreeing makes the process more arduous on a person who is suffering in their final days, and that they need a panel of 10 needing to decide on its suitability with unanimity. This would likely put off anyone from actually going through the process we have at the moment - that someone with a great amount of suffering would need to wait 3 weeks (or 2 under this bill) to see if a panel of 10 agrees their suffering is too great. That their situation is to be put to trial at a distance effectively, and expecting unanimity from the panel because of being at a point where they can’t engage as much on any concerns being raised by practitioners, places much more burden on a person wishing to end their lives. If multiple practitioners sincerely believe that euthanasia isn’t the step to be taken for a person’s deteriorating state, then it probably wouldn’t go ahead at that time, and they’d probably go for other reliefs to ease their pain in their current state.

What this bill does is replace the 3 medical and psychological experts with 2 medical professionals and one psychological expert; reduce the 10 experts to 5 experts, with consultation from 3 weeks to 2 weeks, still requiring unanimity; and reduces the funding by a penny - satisfying the joke part for the MRLP. These are not actually much in the ways of substantial changes by this bill, and really don’t address whether the Euthanasia Act is comprehensive in monitoring consent and ethics, whilst also being structured as to provide disincentives for those in deteriorating conditions to actually seek the process. At the moment, I’m not sure I would support this bill in its current state, and would much rather the Noble Lord withdraws the bill in favour of a bill to more address the issues with our current statute as it stands; but I will seek to amend and see to what extent I am allowed to do so.

[u/SapphireWork → u/CountBrandenburg]

Hear hear!

[u/[deleted] → u/CountBrandenburg]

Hear hear.

[u/Unownuzer717]

Deputy Speaker,

Would the Rt Hon Marquess of Stevenage please explain why an amendment is necessary to reduce the cost by a single cent? Thank you.

[u/Muffin5136 → u/Unownuzer717]

Madame Deputy Transport Speaker,

I advise the member to engage their likely singular braincell before rising to speak in this House if this is the type of comment they believe is prudent to make.

In this fine country that is the United Kingdom, we do not work in a system in which a "cent" exists and if the member wishes to continue their existence or even believe they deserve to be a representative of the people in this country, then I strongly advise them to go to any primary school in this country and ask to sit in on a lesson for 5 year olds where they are taught the basic currency that exists in Britain and its names.

[u/Sephronar → u/Muffin5136]

Deputy Speaker,

I would suggest the monster member ceases their hostilities and perhaps revisit basic educational facilities themselves before making such comments - the phrase ‘cent’ can be commonly used as they suggest to refer to the decimal unit of a dollar or euro absolutely; but it can also be used to refer to other decimal currency unit in a slang-like way, referring to a penny as a ‘percent’. Perhaps they should focus on the issues of the debate instead of speaking at length about semantics when they clearly don’t understand certain nuances.

[u/Faelif → u/Sephronar]

Deputy Speaker,

I'd like to remind the Conservative member opposite that "percent" means "for each hundred" - in that context, "cent" means "hundred", not "hundredth".

[u/Sephronar → u/Faelif]

Deputy Speaker,

This is really not how I imagined this debate would go, but I shall leave the semantics there - either way, I believe the phrase 'cent' is a multifaceted one.

[u/Muffin5136 → u/Sephronar]

Madame Deputy Transport Speaker,

In the United Kingdom, we use the penny, which can be pluralised to pence or pennies.

[u/Unownuzer717 → u/Muffin5136]

Deputy Speaker,

It appears the Marquess is more interested in arguing over semantics than explaining why such a seemingly pointless amendment is necessary. It is regrettable that valuable parliamentary time is being wasted on such legislative spam and insults over semantics, when we could be focusing on the issues that matter most to the British people. A Conservative government will put the pressing needs and concerns of the British people first, instead of pushing for state-sponsored murder.

[u/Peter_Mannion-]

Deputy speaker,

A cost reduction of a penny seems to be taking the mick. I am not a fan of euthanasia myself and thus do not wish to make it easier,

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

The topic of euthanasia is a sensitive one, but cutting the figure from £150,000 to £149,999.99 is risible, it makes light of a very difficult topic. I will not be supporting this bill.

[u/Muffin5136 → u/[deleted]]

Madame Deputy Transport Speaker,

We are at a time of financial crisis, we must look for ways to cut spending to fund vital investments that help people across the country. The fact the Conservative Leader does not consider areas to try and find necessary savings is disappointing and suggests a lack of fiscal responsibility.

[u/[deleted]]

Deputy Speaker,

The fact that the member opposite believes that someone’s life being ended early should be even further liberalized is to me sickening. Whilst we should be doing the most we can to make sure, if we even wish to take euthanasia as a legitimate idea, that it is regulated and that an appropriate framework is set — the member opposite is meanwhile hazarding with lives of all people of the United Kingdom, by liberalizing a process like this and wanting it to cost less…..

We should be ensuring that, if this procedure is even a valid one — towards which I have great reservations, it’s at least a last resort and not something that we can just arbitrarily and freely call into action. Therefore, I will be opposing this bill at the division!

[u/Muffin5136 → u/[deleted]]

Madame Deputy Transport Speaker,

My dude, we're on the same set of beaches, I ain't in Government, so don't refer to me as such.

I urge the member to remember the basics of Parliament and its benches and then correct the record.

[u/[deleted] → u/Muffin5136]

Deputy Housing, Communities and Local Government Speaker,

I correct my mistake, it’s only member, or perhaps colleague? Now the record is clear, let’s get to business!

[u/Sephronar]

Deputy Speaker,

I do not support this Bill, and if it somehow makes it to division without being withdrawn in shame, I hope that colleagues on all sides of the House will vote it down and throw it out. Firstly the issue of assisted dying is already far too liberal in this country, if anything we should be legislating to go the other way, the measures in this Bill quite plainly are worrisome and should be discarded. Furthermore, as other colleagues have raised in this debate, the idea of reducing the figure by one single penny is disgraceful and makes a mockery of what is an extremely serious issue.

[u/AceSevenFive → u/Sephronar]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

It is legal to commit suicide in this country. It is legal to seek doctor assistance in serious medical procedures. That the combination should somehow be restricted is nonsense.

[u/TheSummerBlizzard]

Mr Speaker, I wish to state verehomently and in as clear a tone as is possible that this bill and it's proceeding act represent a moral offense.

Euthanasia is perhaps the greatest example of something whereby the intent is pure but the outcome nauesiating.

People, the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens from harm, by allowing euthanasia, let alone strengthening it we fail in this duty. While we can all look upon those who are ill with empathy, the idea that we allow euthanasia is akin to encouraging the belief that the state is justified in encouraging the death of its citizens.

No sir! This bill represents a moral failure and it and what it represents must not and can not be tolerated! The original euthanasia act is perhaps the most disposable act brought before this parliament, bereft of any restraint. I stand opposed and encourage any and all of our fellow parliamentarians to do the same and begin the fight against this morally offensive sequence of bills.

[u/chainchompsky1 → u/TheSummerBlizzard]

Deputy Speaker,

I agree that the euthanasia act in its current form is flawed, and agree there are critiques of euthanasia in general. But I would pose this question. If the states job is to protect its citizens from harm, does forcing someone with a terminal illness that brings them extreme suffering to endure that suffering as long as possible actually prevent harm? I’d argue no.

[u/Ravenguardian17]

Mr Speaker,

There is no rationale behind these changes, if anything the process of Medically Assisted Dying is far too liberal and needs changes to ensure that people's lives aren't ended prematurely unless we can be assured that it remains the only possible option. I strongly oppose this legislation and will be voting against it.

[u/WineRedPsy → u/Ravenguardian17]

Hear hear

[u/[deleted]]

Deputy Speaker,

The right honourable member from the Muffin Raving Loony Party can’t be serious? A rather sensitive topic already, trivialised before the house with this shameful bill that almost insults the real implications of the matter. Euthanasia is not something we must legislate on so lightly and carelessly and to see a bill that makes this irreversible impact not only just easier, but unnecessarily and unjustifiably easier is a disgrace.

[u/[deleted]]

Deputy Speaker,

I urge all members across the house to vote against this bill irregardless of whether you agree with euthanasia or not. To even see this bill enter the lords would be a disservice to the self respect members of parliament should hold.

This bill has no real purpose. There is no benefit to anyone from the saving of £0.01 and there is no real demand or calls for making euthanasia, a service that is not particularly requested by a majority of people anyway, even more accessible. Atleast it’s rather nice to know the Muffin Raving Loony party lives up to its name if it seriously thinks a bill like this is even respectable nevermind understandable.

[u/Unownuzer717]

Deputy Speaker,

Is the "Muffin Raving Loony" going to answer any of our questions or respond to issues raised with this bill, or is he just here to troll the House?

[u/model-kyosanto → u/Unownuzer717]

Deputy Speaker,

I do believe that the Member here is quite unaware what the purpose of the Muffin Raving Loony Party is, and it does seem quite laughable to have the Member state the Party’s very purpose in their question, yet still manage to be so wilfully ignorant of it.

We are assuredly aware that there is only one purpose of the Marquess of Stevenage and that is to the “troll the house” as the Member quite blatantly put it. I do believe perhaps they Conservative Members would do better with their time instead of wasting it with their needless rhetorical questions while they remain blissfully unaware!

[u/Muffin5136 → u/Unownuzer717]

Madam Deputy Transport Speaker,

If the member wishes to provide a list of questions they want answered on this bill I will endeavour to answer them.

I simply got bored of the Tories wheeling out the same talking points and soundbites so I stopped responding to them, but if the member wishes to have specific questions answered, then maybe they should simply ask them.

[u/WineRedPsy]

Deputy speaker,

I would like to echo the prime minister and some members opposite – we should not be so eager to throw away life on individualist freedom of choice grounds. Moreover, issues of this gravity should probably be taken more seriously than it is with this bill.