Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Polly Toynbee criticises slippery slope fallacy while committing the mother of all argumentum ad populum.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/26/assisted-dying-labour-legacy-death-vote

[Outrider]

Polly Toynbee criticises slippery slope fallacy while committing the mother of all argumentum ad populum.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/26/assisted-dying-labour-legacy-death-vote

She's not making an argument for assisted dying, she's pointing out that the argument broadly across the populace has already been won. She's making the case that, in a democracy, something that has so clearly been the majority will of the people for such an extended period of time should be made law. Democracy is, in principle, an argumentum ad populum - no-one is claiming a truth on the basis of that, so it's not the logical fallacy you're making it out to be.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She's not making an argument for assisted dying, she's pointing out that the argument broadly across the populace has already been won. She's making the case that, in a democracy, something that has so clearly been the majority will of the people for such an extended period of time should be made law. Democracy is, in principle, an argumentum ad populum - no-one is claiming a truth on the basis of that, so it's not the logical fallacy you're making it out to be.

O.

I thought her message was "Don't listen to your opponents" which doesn't sound very democracy friendly to me.
What she wants is for this to be an all positive thing with no dark side. It can never be consequence free, a condition and attitude Toynbee has prospered on since the sixties.

Like the death penalty supporters are culpable whenever the wrong person is hanged.

[Outrider]

I thought her message was "Don't listen to your opponents" which doesn't sound very democracy friendly to me.

Who would have imagined you'd read what someone wrote and the form an opinion based on what you thought rather than what they wrote? That's never happened befo... oh, wait.

What she wants is for this to be an all positive thing with no dark side.

No, what she wants is the people in authority to realise that people have already looked at those issues and consistently and significantly found the arguments against assisted dying to be insufficient. She's not making the argument for assisted dying, she's making the argument that Labour, now they're in power, should reflect the clear will of the people on this.

It can never be consequence free, a condition and attitude Toynbee has prospered on since the sixties.

She's not suggesting that it is. She's suggesting people are already aware of the potential and have balanced that against the benefits. She's also aware that staying as we are is not consequence-free, either, and that balance has already been judged.

Like the death penalty supporters are culpable whenever the wrong person is hanged.

And opponents are on the hook when a released prisoner re-offends - if there were no down-sides to one side of the argument there wouldn't be an argument.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, what she wants is the people in authority to realise that people have already looked at those issues...

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/26/no-one-has-grappled-with-how-courts-should-deal-with-assisted-dying-requests-says-expert

[Outrider]

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/26/no-one-has-grappled-with-how-courts-should-deal-with-assisted-dying-requests-says-expert

And the man in the street who wants the law is supposed to what about this? The point is that the law should be written, and then once it is the guidance for the courts comes along, and grows as it sets precedents. That's how our legal system operates - we don't hold up other decisions because the legal profession has come to a unanimous decision on it, why should this be any different?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the man in the street who wants the law is supposed to what about this? The point is that the law should be written, and then once it is the guidance for the courts comes along, and grows as it sets precedents. That's how our legal system operates - we don't hold up other decisions because the legal profession has come to a unanimous decision on it, why should this be any different?

O.

It does seem a rather bizarre intervention to me.

Whenever a new law is passed the courts won't have experience of dealing with this specific law. But of course they will do over time.

But you also have to look at the elements of the new law that the courts might need to exercise their judgement over and whether these are areas where they won't have experience. And in this case it seems to me (and I do have significant experience in this area) that the courts are very well equipped to consider the key issues of patient competence, broader consent (including the possibility of coercion), medical decision making where the decision may result in, or bring forward, death and the medical evidence that is brought to bear for example on whether the patient is terminally ill and/or whether further treatment would be futile. The courts have huge amounts of experience in all of these areas, as a quick skim over all 2,384 densely written pages of Kennedy & Grubb (the go to professional book on medical law) will tell you.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Law-Ian-Kennedy/dp/0406903255

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does seem a rather bizarre intervention to me.

Whenever a new law is passed the courts won't have experience of dealing with this specific law. But of course they will do over time.

Oh yes, I suppose they can pick the tune up as they go along. What's a few bum notes among friends?...Have you ever had a job with real consequences?

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh yes, I suppose they can pick the tune up as they go along.

But they won't need to - as the elements they'd need to consider are currently regularly considered in court rulings on medical issues. So do the courts have extensive experience of:

1. Receiving complex medical diagnoses/prognoses, including those that relate to end of life decisions - tick, yup they do.
2. Assessing the competency of an individual to determine whether they are able to provide consent - tick, yup they do.
3. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives are sufficiently informed of the nature of the decision and its consequences - tick, yup they do.
4. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives might have been subjected to coercion or pressure from family, friends or medical professionals - tick, yup they do.
etc, etc

I'm struggling to see, from the standpoint of a court, why assisted dying decisions would be different in terms of the things they would need to assess compared to a terminally ill person deciding to refuse further life sustaining medical intervention. Or a competent adult refusing life saving blood transfusion. These kinds of decisions have been bread and butter in the courts in medical law terms for decades.

What's a few bum notes among friends?...Have you ever had a job with real consequences?

But the status quo isn't consequence free Vlad as for every day that assisted dying remains illegal there will be people suffering horrible, intolerable and deeply traumatic deaths with complete loss of control and dignity, who desperately did not want to die that way and whose manner of death could be avoided with a change in the law.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But they won't need to - as the elements they'd need to consider are currently regularly considered in court rulings on medical issues. So do the courts have extensive experience of:

1. Receiving complex medical diagnoses/prognoses, including those that relate to end of life decisions - tick, yup they do.
2. Assessing the competency of an individual to determine whether they are able to provide consent - tick, yup they do.
3. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives are sufficiently informed of the nature of the decision and its consequences - tick, yup they do.
4. Assessing whether individuals considering major medical decisions that could shorten or terminate their lives might have been subjected to coercion or pressure from family, friends or medical professionals - tick, yup they do.
etc, etc

I'm struggling to see, from the standpoint of a court, why assisted dying decisions would be different in terms of the things they would need to assess compared to a terminally ill person deciding to refuse further life sustaining medical intervention. Or a competent adult refusing life saving blood transfusion. These kinds of decisions have been bread and butter in the courts in medical law terms for decades.
But the status quo isn't consequence free Vlad as for every day that assisted dying remains illegal there will be people suffering horrible, intolerable and deeply traumatic deaths with complete loss of control and dignity, who desperately did not want to die that way and whose manner of death could be avoided with a change in the law.

You seem to be telling the personnel who will be associated with this to just shut up about any issues an "Get on with it"

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be telling the personnel who will be associated with this to just shut up about any issues an "Get on with it"

I'm not - all I am doing is explaining that our judges are very experienced in considering the key elements that they will need to consider in assisted dying cases through their very long-standing involvement in a whole range of medical law cases involving consent and end of life decisions.

But to an extent the courts will need to get on with it - as they always are when a new piece of legislation is brought in. Because that's their job.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently an advert on the London underground. Hmm...

  And the adverts have had some reaction


https://x.com/fleurmeston/status/1861130257606054213

[SqueakyVoice]

Well that is an opinion and not one that many people agree with. But the reality is that we, as people and societies, determine which choices are freely available to people and which aren't on the basis of what we decree to be lawful and unlawful.
But that is exactly what you are doing if you act to deny people the freedom to choose, for example by opposing changes in the law which would extend freedom to choose.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/viewers-praise-heartbreaking-interview-as-emotional-paul-blomfield-shares-story-of-fathers-suicide-following-terminal-diagnosis-3907408 (Warning contains  lots of adverts)
I respected PB a long time ago and even more after this.

Mr Blomfield said: “The current law prevents people from having choice at the end of their life and it drives people to take very desperate measures in cases, like my father did.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/viewers-praise-heartbreaking-interview-as-emotional-paul-blomfield-shares-story-of-fathers-suicide-following-terminal-diagnosis-3907408 (Warning contains  lots of adverts)
I respected PB a long time ago and even more after this.

Powerful and moving stuff.

And those like Vlad who seem to think that the current law has no consequences should take note.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Powerful and moving stuff.

And those like Vlad who seem to think that the current law has no consequences should take note.

No, we know the consequences of the status quo.
What we don't know, as I have pointed out are some of the consequences of going ahead.
It is you who is ignoring those.
You have overlooked those having to do the assistance part of this.
Where I start from is I I know I could probably assist in someway by procuring the pill but don't know if I could pop the pill in and I should imagine, neither do you. I think I would feel I could not ask anyone else to do it and I would expect to be tried in a court if I did do it. In any case I would be in extremis.
What of those you would be pressuring to do it as a job?

You may not make people do it but will you and those of your ilk
Expect people to do it and vilify them like you would if they had walked away from a car crash?

We need to know then exactly what your answer is to these questions and then society must decide if it wants to put attitudes like yours front and centre.

[Aruntraveller]

From the morning news, I understand that any medication used would have to be self-administered:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l7m6r55do

[ProfessorDavey]

From the morning news, I understand that any medication used would have to be self-administered:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l7m6r55do

Exactly - which makes Vlad's point about not being able to bring himself to administer it completely irrelevant - as anyone doing so would be committing an offence.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, we know the consequences of the status quo.

We do - and in many, many cases the consequences are harrowing, horrific and deeply, deeply inhumane.

What we don't know, as I have pointed out are some of the consequences of going ahead.

Well we have examples in other jurisdictions (e.g. Oregon) which will give a good clue.

But ultimately we need to look at the overall consequences and look at what we have currently, which fails many, many people and what would happen under the proposed law, which would be that those that do not want assisted dying can continue to die as they currently do, while some (but not all) of those that desperately do not want to die in the only way currently available will have an alternative if they choose.

It is you who is ignoring those.
You have overlooked those having to do the assistance part of this.
Where I start from is I I know I could probably assist in someway by procuring the pill but don't know if I could pop the pill in and I should imagine, neither do you. I think I would feel I could not ask anyone else to do it and I would expect to be tried in a court if I did do it. In any case I would be in extremis.
What of those you would be pressuring to do it as a job?

I'm not ignoring those people but Vlad you seem to completely misunderstand the proposed law. The law provides a conscience clause - in other words that no-one with an objection will be required to participate in providing assistance. This is effectively the same clause as operates (successfully) in the case of abortion and IVF and has done for decades.

Regarding the public - as the drugs must be administered by the person themselves, there will be no expectation or requirement that a family member or friend assists - indeed to do so will be against the law.

Vlad I suggest you actually find out what the Bill does, and does not, propose rather than make ill-informed, and frankly flat out wrong, assertions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see Kim Leadbetter also asking the legal profession to just muddle through.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see Kim Leadbetter also asking the legal profession to just muddle through.

Evidence please.

And as pointed out above the legal profession will not need to 'muddle through' as the key legal elements they will need to consider around capacity, consent, end of life decisions, coercion etc etc are all part of decisions they have been making for decades, so they are extremely experienced in these matters and there is a huge amount of legal precedent (noting that legal precedent is not necessarily directly about a particular piece of legislation).

I guess you spent the evening speed reading the 2000+ pages of Kennedy & Grubb so you will have acquainted yourself with the wealth of legal background relating to consent to end of life decisions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence please.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/nov/27/pmqs-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-assisted-dying-bill-liz-truss-labour-tories?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917#block-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence please.

And as pointed out above the legal profession will not need to 'muddle through' as the key legal elements they will need to consider around capacity, consent, end of life decisions, coercion etc etc are all part of decisions they have been making for decades, so they are extremely experienced in these matters and there is a huge amount of legal precedent (noting that legal precedent is not necessarily directly about a particular piece of legislation).

I guess you spent the evening speed reading the 2000+ pages of Kennedy & Grubb so you will have acquainted yourself with the wealth of legal background relating to consent to end of life decisions.

This sounds suspiciously like your are asking for the nature of this to be ignored and treated like another type of case in a kind of one size fits all. In fact Falconer has admitted short term problems.
Steamroller?

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/nov/27/pmqs-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-assisted-dying-bill-liz-truss-labour-tories?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917#block-6746e6d28f08133ba726d917

So your link completely refutes your claim that Leadbetter is asking the legal profession to 'muddle through'.

In fact her view is very similar to mine and completely the opposite to 'muddling through' - specifically that High Court Judges are really experienced at considering cases involving end-of-life decision making where the issue of consent is key. In fact many of the cases they would have been used to will be far more complex than anything that would need to be considered in assisted dying cases. This is because the assisted dying legislation is restricted to adults and has an absolute requirement for consent. Many of the challenging cases the High Court will have dealt with in the past involve children who may or may not have capacity to consent and also situations where a decision needs to be made, under best interests, even when the individual is unable to consent. Neither of these really challenging features (children, authorisation of medical interventions on the basis of best interests) will be relevant to assisted dying.

[Nearly Sane]

Kim Leadbetter been very good in proposing the bill

[Nearly Sane]

Sadly don't have time to listen to all the debate this morning. But will pick up later.