Assisted Dying Proposal

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

High Court Judge's apparently, almost undoubtedly Family Division. If there's lots of cases I wouldn't be surprised if the jurisdiction trickles down to court of protection or family court judges. 

How would that be remotely practical if the level of cases are anywhere close to comparable schemes in other countries? 

[egg]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How would that be remotely practical if the level of cases are anywhere close to comparable schemes in other countries? 

It depends how it's done. If it's essentially a paper sign off you'd imagine a Judge could get through quite a few in a sitting day. I'm not sure why it needs a High Court judge personally, and if there's volume, it's hard to see the High Court being able to absorb loads of applications which can't be delayed. 

[hypochondriac]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

It depends how it's done. If it's essentially a paper sign off you'd imagine a Judge could get through quite a few in a sitting day. I'm not sure why it needs a High Court judge personally, and if there's volume, it's hard to see the High Court being able to absorb loads of applications which can't be delayed. 

If that's the case then it's simply not going to receive the vital care and attention required for each case. If it works as you describe the it isn't a safeguard at all-it's a box ticking exercise. 

[hypochondriac]

Oh my god this interview is an absolute car crash. I say this as someone who doesn't want this to pass but you think they would have chosen someone to talk about this bill who wasn't a complete moron. 

https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1856475110300901604?t=lY0oCIIJpENHjhBfmlIrIQ&s=19

[Tamesaint]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

The implication being, and I'll admit I haven't seen any mention time limit imposed in this proposal, that she would have made that decision at some point following her initial diagnosis. In cases of dementia a slightly more challenging set of circumstances would be presented in that there would have to be an agreement from doctors that the point of zero QoL has been reached, with the patient having previously consented to AD whilst of sound mind.

I haven't read the proposed bill but from what I have read this is not how it would work. There is  no proposal for AD to take effect "at sometime in the future". The current proposal states that the person needs to have no more than 6 months to live. 

To achieve what you would have wanted for your grandmother the current AD proposal would need to be widened. The supposedly "strictest safeguards in the world" would need to be relaxed.... proving that they aren't very strict after all and the fears of vulnerable people would be strengthened . 

Edited November 13 by Tamesaint

[Weston Super Saint]

10 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

The implication being, and I'll admit I haven't seen any mention time limit imposed in this proposal, that she would have made that decision at some point following her initial diagnosis. In cases of dementia a slightly more challenging set of circumstances would be presented in that there would have to be an agreement from doctors that the point of zero QoL has been reached, with the patient having previously consented to AD whilst of sound mind.

Whilst a doctor has to prescribe the lethal dosage, the patient has to administer it themselves (whilst still of sound mind), so this would not have been an option for your Grandmother.  It would still be illegal for anyone else to administer the final injection (I'm assuming injection rather than pills?).  This would also rule out anyone who doesn't have use of their limbs.  

[hypochondriac]

Yet another reason not to do this. Will be a huge load of additional pressure on a system already unfit for purpose: