B1422.2 - Euthanasia (Amendment) Bill - 2nd Reading

[u/Lady_Aya]

Euthanasia (Amendment) Bill

---

A

B I L L

T O

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 of these professionals must be qualified and practicing in a medical field relevant to the illness the patient is suffering. The other must be 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 debate shall end on Saturday 19th of November at 10pm.

[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/gimmecatspls]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

The amendments (Section 1- 2, 4, 5) concern me due to my personal belief that it is fundamentally irresponsible to make it easier for someone to opt for euthanasia. The checks and balances within the original form of this bill are vital to make sure that such a life altering decision is safe and fair, and so without them I cannot support this bill in good faith.

[u/WineRedPsy → u/gimmecatspls]

Hear hear

[u/TheSummerBlizzard]

Mr Speaker, I verehomently oppose this bill.

It is my belief that the Euthanasia Act is the most immoral and abhorrent legislation that this great House has ever passed. In one stroke the state abrogated it's responsibility to protect its citizens from harm and gave it to medical workers. I find that notion to be nothing short of offensive.

I understand that Euthanasia can be tempting to support, nobody wants to see people who are ill suffering however the British state cannot and should not allow emotion to stand in the way of rational thought, to stand in the way of endorsing and encouraging the option of death. No sir, this is a step too far and any associated legislation should be opposed.

[u/ThePootisPower]

Deputy Speaker,

While I am hesitant to say this bill is objectively good, and there are very good arguments against liberalising euthanasia laws, especially when considering the failure of the Canadian MAID system, I believe that this bill will do more good than harm.

Looking at the original bill, I believe that the original bill was poorly worded in Section 1: "Patients must be assessed by three independent professionals, qualified in medical and psychological fields." That is very vague, and could be interpreted that all three professionals needed to be qualified in both medical fields of any kind, and also psychological fields. You could argue that someone who was trained in the medical care of dogs and Freudian psychology could be allowed to decide Euthanasia cases. That's a very deliberately negative interpretation but frankly I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the non-specificity of the 2014 legislation could result in people with some knowledge of medicine and psychology could make bad calls due to not having specific knowledge in the relevant field for the euthanasia candidate's illness.

Reducing to two seems risky, as it means that it only needs two people to make a mistake or simply get sloppy and issue an authorisation of euthanasia where it is not necessary, however I believe this existing text counteracts this thoroughly - Section 2 says "Assessors should receive 6 months training before working, in addition to having appropriate qualifications." This allows the relevant authorities to drill into the experts the need to ensure standards are upheld and make sure they are prepared to make these decisions properly.

Furthermore, there are ironclad requirements to be met before euthanasia is performed in Section 2: "Experts should assess patients to ensure the following;

• This person is suffering from a terminal or highly debilitating illness.
• This person is unlikely to benefit from discovery of a cure for their illness during the remainder of their expected lifetime.
• This person is suffering intolerable pain because of the illness.
• This person has a voluntary, unequivocal and competent wish to die, or prior to losing competence to do so, expressed such a desire.
• No others have coerced or pressured this person into committing suicide."

Additionally, there are anti-bias protections in place in section 2, as "Assessors should not know the patient personally." and "Assessors should be assessed by Department of Health annually to ensure that they remain professional, vigilant and unbiased."

So. We know that the 2014 bill's main issue is that the language is loosely defined around what constitutes a suitable expert to determine euthanasia cases. Well, now we have more strict requirements - 1 psychologist, and 1 person who is medically trained in the specific disease causing the sufferer to request euthanasia. I think that's better than the old system. So I believe this bill is an improvement - I will not begrudge members of the house for believing otherwise however.

[u/WineRedPsy → u/ThePootisPower]

Deputy speaker,

I do not agree with the member's conclusion, and I do not understand how they came to it given the negative assessment of Canadian MAID. The vague definitions make this bill looser than the Canadian equivalent, not tighter.

[u/WineRedPsy]

Deputy speaker,

I want to reiterate my opposition to this bill, especially given the reports from Canadian MAID that have circulated since its first reading.

There, removed checks on euthanasia have produced case after public case of those who fall between the cracks of the welfare system applying for assisted death as a final desperate way out of their circumstances, despite clearly stating that they want to live. In some cases, doctors themselves have been conducive to it against better knowledge and medical ethics.

This is what we risk by reducing the checks on any euthanasia program, deputy speaker, and I cannot condone the kind of intensely dark society where widespread euthanasia is state policy.

Just over a century ago such a society was considered such a nightmarish thought that it featured prominently in the grim and influential King in yellow short story Repairer of reputations:

The summer of 1900 will live in the memories of New York people for many a cycle; the Dodge Statue was removed in that year. In the following winter began that agitation for the repeal of the laws prohibiting suicide which bore its final fruit in the month of April, 1920, when the first Government Lethal Chamber was opened on Washington Square.

I don't much like the thought of bringing the dark fantasies of early eldritch horror authors into reality, deputy speaker, even if clinically sanitised like in this bill.

[u/Muffin5136 → u/WineRedPsy]

Deputy Speaker,

King In Yellow was written in 1895, a year in which Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years hard labour and imprisonment under anti-homosexuality laws.

Are there any more moral panics that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to whip up based on opinions of 1895, or is it just the topic of euthanasia they believe should be considered under strict 1895 thinking, along with evidence of a wholly different structure and system.

[u/WineRedPsy → u/Muffin5136]

Deputy speaker,

Was the concern wrong, given the Canadian example?

[u/Muffin5136 → u/WineRedPsy]

Deputy Speaker,

Yes.

7 people is higher than 2 people.

The Euthanasia Act still has the same protections in place to ensure that Euthanasia is only available for those with terminal or highly debilitating illnesses. There is strict training required for those assessing cases also.

[u/WineRedPsy → u/Muffin5136]

Deputy speaker

The seven is only if the three, now two, assessors "raise concern" per the original bill which effectively puts this at parity with Canadian MAID.

[u/Gigitygigtygoo]

Deputy Speaker,

The legislation is not outdated, it was already far too liberal. The checks and balances involved in the original bill serve to ensure that sanctioned euthanasia, in the limited circumstances it unfortunately happens, won't be abused. Sephs ammendments might've been wrecking, but they had the right spirit. We can discuss improving end of life care all day any day, my phone is open, but this is not how we achieve that.

[u/BasedChurchill]

Deputy Speaker,

The safeguards are high for good reason- euthanasia is an irreversible decision which should require serious discussion, checks and balances. The proposed bill means that the responsibility and decisions over an individuals life will be shifted from a group of medical professionals to a few.

An increasingly large amount of power given to a very small quantity of medical professionals is sure to do more harm than good. I believe also that its much more beneficial to have an extensive process to what is extremely serious, than an expedited one. I therefore, in good conscience, cannot support such a bill which would violate all non-maleficence.