This is not my primary reason for opposing Kim Leadbeater”s horrific bill. However, it is worth noting that there are relevant issues to consider in terms of how the bill is being brought forward..
First of all, there are human rights issues. These include that arbitrary distinctions are made between those suffering from terminal illness with a six month prognosis and those without. So, those who suffer from long term chronic illness, mental illness, the side affects of severe disability are excluded. It is also worth noting that there are many people who suffer in the palliative stages of end of life care who would not have had a terminal diagnosis at the time when a conversation was possible and there being time to work through the process. Take for example the person who suffers a severe fall or the person whose surgery does not go to plan.
There are also the rights of NHS and Ministry of Justice employees to consider and whether for example employment rights and freedom of expression and religion are sufficiently protected.
Secondly, I want to suggest that a private members’ bill is a woefully inappropriate mechanism for such a major constitutional change. If Kim Leadbeater had simply introduced legislation in effect to decriminalise assisted dying that may have been fair enough although it would have still created a lot of follow on issues.
However, this bill seeks to make significant changes to the role of the medical profession and the judiciary. It is surely incongruous to have a situation where the government is neutral because they are responsible for the impact of those areas and will be implementing changes. Questions may even be asked about whether it will be possible to serve as Secretary of State/ Cabinet minister for the affected departments after the Act comes into force.
To complicate matters further justice and health are devolved matters in Scotland. Therefore, whilst human rights aspects of assisted dying are UK wide matters, the responsibility for changing roles and responsibilities within the Scottish judiciary are not. This means that the bill only applies to England. However, a separate bill is going through parliament in Scotland. That bill differs in that there isn’t the six month limit for terminally ill patients. The problem is that this means we start to see distinctions in terms of human rights around the country. Whilst the role of the health service may be devolved, it should be clear that human rights should not. There is of course then the question about whether or not MPs from the devolved regions should have been contributing on Friday. And yet, because the decision in Westminister affects the culture of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it would also be wrong for their voices to be silenced.
This does raise a question about whether some form of judicial challenge may be possible. I suspect the chances are slim as primary legislation tends to be out of scope of Judicial Review. However, we have seen a greater willingness by the judiciary to challenge Parliament on constitutional issues such as Article 50 during Brexit and Human Rights matters such as with the offshoring of asylum.
So it is at least worth having a look at.
Faithroots 